I have to admit I find the idea of the M2HB as a "fast" machine gun a bit funny. Not for gameplay reasons, but historical.
I know it's not a historically accurate game, but the M2HB was heavy. Very heavy. For example, the numbers I can get put the MG42 at 32 Kg, 20Kg of which was the tripod. The M2HB weighed 38 Kg for the gun alone. On the other hand, the M2HB had enough punch to be a threat to light armour. I'm by no means an expert on this, so if anyone knows more I'd like to hear their opinion.
Again I'm not saying the game has to be perfectly historically accurate, just that sometimes the design decisions seem a bit odd in a historical context.
the m2hb in the game is more of a stand in for the much lighter and common m1919a4.
if you just change the model and sound it actually wouldn't make much of a difference.
|
Great! Thank you! Exactly what i was referring to. I keep reading statements lile his and then begin to wonder whether i missed something about the IS cover interaction. So it actualy is only a 7 % dps difference, or rather was, now it must be even less. Meaning that IS realy dont have much to go for them making up for their highee cost, tech requirements for 5th man and no snare or other utility. Additionaly they now even vet worse than other similar squads
they still have good long range capability with 5 men and a dual bren gun set up. I've face them several times in the current patch and preview, and they are frightening to fight once the british have invested a high amount of resources.
emphasis on high resource investment. The benefit stack high but the base unit itself is kind of crap. I felt like the tommies kept getting nerf because they can get really powerful if you let them.
I dislike lmg spam and with british it's easy to lmg spam once you have the resource. Unless the bren gun is actually limited to one I think the british are always going to be balanced with the expectation that the player will get two of them per tommies. |
Vickers - high dps, strong garrison bonuses, medium suppression, slow pack up
Mg42 - high suppression, good damage, slow pack up
Mg34 - medium suppression, low damage, low cost, slow pack up
Maxim - high suppression, no aoe, small arc, fast pack up
50cal - high suppression, good damage, medium arc, fast pack up
Each machinegun plays differently. I find the Vickers more than suitable with dealing with okw, thanks to their high kill potential
the .50cal is actually worth its price of 280mp. It has good damage, good suppression, and a fast pack up.
the vicker has to trade suppression for damage with the exact same setup, yet it's still 20 mp more expensive. The vicker needs to cost 260 mp.
|
It's because prepatch infantry sections were somewhat unbeatable in a 1v1 scenario if they had green cover, and because they were innately tank it was very easy for them to cross open cover into green. They also had a tendency to become undislodgable in the first few engagements if they managed to secure a vital house. Pair that with 16 damage per hit and very high rate of fire, you have an extremely powerful squad in the right hands.
Now their base received accuracy is in line with other mainline infantry, and they get punished more often when players choose to keep them out of cover. Dont forget that you also benefit from a possible 5th man as well.
I will agree with their scaling potential and how ridiculous a horde of dual bren tommies can get.
Yet it feels like each patch since UKF release have focus on what's overpowered with the UK without paying any attention to buffing their weakness.
Interesting thing about Infantry Sections is that their (in)accuracy barely changes with range. All other infantry small arms increases rather considerably at close range. IS barely see an increase as distance closes, which in a sense, puts them in a long range role. (More accurately, they're just not good at close range.) However, this changes when they get into cover, where the bonus is applied in the same way across all ranges.
So in a convoluted sense: Out of cover Infantry sections have around the same accuracy at all ranges as other infantry do at max range. In cover, Infantry sections have around the same accuracy at all ranges as other infantry do at close range.
In short: cover makes and breaks the effectiveness of Infantry sections, offenseively as well as defensively. It's not just the cover bonuses that they have, the entire squad was designed around utilizing cover, and as such, don't behave in the same way as all other infantry.
your terminology is a bit mixed. Cover bonus doesn't affect their accuracy, it affects their rate of fire.
and the cover penalty on lee-enfield wasn't that big:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LOYMDi_XR7rILsk6HbAZqGihsk22t-45C_6NbQEP-m0/edit#gid=1496803838
I haven't updated the sheet, but the sheet show that the old cover penalty only have a 7% effect on the lee-enfield's dps.
the sad thing is that the cover penalty's biggest effect was on the bren lmg, and decreasing the cover penalty meant that a bren blob is more deadly. |
Probably the bullets hit the green cover and not providing it's suppression
that's not how suppression work.
the problem with vicker is that it can't suppress well. The vicker machine deal ~30% less suppression than the mg42.
the mg34 is what happen when a mg can't kill.
the vicker is what happen when a mg can't suppress. |
|
Tommies:
the problem with balancing tommies is how to handle their 4 men size in the early game and 5 men size later on. Either they are going to decent late game and under-powered early on, or decent early game and overpowered later.
the early game problem is compounded by the overpriced vickers HMG and weak bren carrier. If those two units units were better, it would better justified the weakness of their early tommies.
so with that in mind:
increase british starting manpower by 40 mp: they are deducted 280 mp in the beginning for the 4 men tommies, but the squad is worth 240mp in the beginning at most.
lower vicker mg cost to 260 mp: The vicker trade suppression for killing power in comparison to the mg42. It should not cost 20 mp more.
increase bren carrier hp to 280-320: it needs to be durable enough to survive until sapper. The act of getting the bren carrier itself also delay sapper due to fuel cost, so the bren carrier need to be durable. Despite a light vehicle trasnport, it lack sight bonus, reinforcement ability, or the ability to act as a fire platform. I needs to be durable.
the buff to the vickers and bren carrier basically mean the british need to rely on these two units to carry them before they get tech up. |
|
Tommies:
the problem with balancing tommies is how to handle their 4 men size in the early game and 5 men size later on. Either they are going to decent late game and under-powered early on, or decent early game and overpowered later.
the early game problem is compounded by the overpriced vickers HMG and weak bren carrier. If those two units units were better, it would better justified the weakness of their early tommies.
so with that in mind:
increase british starting manpower by 40 mp: they are deducted 280 mp in the beginning for the 4 men tommies, but the squad is worth 240mp in the beginning at most.
lower vicker mg cost to 260 mp: The vicker trade suppression for killing power in comparison to the mg42. It should not cost 20 mp more.
increase bren carrier hp to 280-320: it needs to be durable enough to survive until sapper. The act of getting the bren carrier itself also delay sapper due to fuel cost, so the bren carrier need to be durable. Despite a light vehicle trasnport, it lack sight bonus, reinforcement ability, or the ability to act as a fire platform. I needs to be durable.
the buff to the vickers and bren carrier basically mean the british need to rely on these two units to carry them before they get tech up.
|
Don't bring the IL2 strafe into this, its like 100x worse than all of the other strafes 
THe US strafe pins and does more damage, so it should be more expensive.
100 is still to much. The .50cal are only effective against infantry AFAIK.
the stuka mg strafe suppress but doesn't do damage, so it cost 60 mu
the p47 mg strafe does deal damage, so ~30mu or ~50% more expensive than the no damage stuka mg sounds fair.
the stuka AT strafe can and will kill tanks for 110. There's really no way the p47 mg can compare. |
I'm fine with it doing damage and costing more, but it is just too inconsistent for its price for my taste.
I launched 3 strafes across a game onto a pair of ostheer mortars. The first time it pinned them and killed 2 models on one squad. The second time it didn't do anything (maybe because they started packing up to retreat), and the third time it wiped one of them and killed two models on the other.
The stuka at strafe does about as consistent AI damage, as well as AT damage and is cheaper, so I cannot see why the p47 strafe can't go down to 100 mu to better reflect it's power.
the stuka at strike cost 110, so 100 is still too expensive for the p47 strafe.
90 munition would be better, around the cost of the il2 strafe |
i'd be much happier if bazooka and piat were buffed to the panzershreck's level so allies get level playing field handheld anti-tank weapons but knowing relic thats not gonna happen cuz they always favor the axis more
bazooka and PIAT blob for usf and UKF would be awful.
I am wary of the recent bazooka accuracy buff myself.
|
Firesparks
CPU - Easy
Firesparks
Relic Entertainment
