Thanks for your useful opinion.
lmao |
This is from skturger on the Coh2 Discord. I do not claim any of his words as mine but it is still pretty much spot on.
"If I pay fuel for an upgrade to mainline infantry they shouldn't still suck
They do not suck. Use the wisdom of cover combat.
You have the grens being in comparison
Good out of cover
This is the most ridicilous part. Tommies out of cover are STILL better than grens. This is just a grass is greener on the other side issue. They still rape grens when in cover and still better at long while being slightly worse in close. Also it is actually grens and cons that are terrible when out of cover.
So they can flank the slow to setup vickers
The slightly quicker mg42 is not going to be effectively flankable by a unit that treats grey cover like red
Vickers has better rotation if I am not wrong. MG42 has better suppression but when in buildings Vickers is much better IMO due to better DPS.
Ostheer has easy access to a snare which the Brits do not
Yet OST can not put their handheld AT on their snare unit.
the AEC is great but so are tellers and Paks. And the vision on the 222 is incredible. Brits are forced into the AEC to counter a cheap 222
Vision on the Pyrotechnics IS are also incredible did you know ? You just gotta quit spamming heals on every single Tommy. (But I agree Brits must have a different healing way)
And Brits sniper is still worse since aim time(iirc)
Yet he can call arty strikes and he comes with a potent turret lock.
Everything is uphill until Churchill imo"
Bruh... |
KT, IS2, KV2 have a significantly more potent gun and don't have to go through the 50% gamble if they can even pen vetted PIV. Basically every medium tank in the game has better AI than churchill. Was churchill's AI so good, it wouldn't have to get on top of an AT gun to throw a nade at it.
Well no other heavy tank has the premium of 420 blazing flamethrower. |
Lol brits are better than which faction exactly? They have exactly one nondoctrinal mediocre infantry squad that sucks out of cover and has to get sidetechs to scale, they have the slowest sniper, puma but shittier at literally everything in literally every way (slower, less range, worse vet, horrible acceleration, bad on the move acc, worse smoke for some reason), an mg with terrible suppression, no mobile indirect, no nondoctrinal rocket arty (and the doctrinal one is easily also the worst), worst medium, and ostwind but meh. The only things they have that are legitimately good and not just worse versions of other stuff are commandos, churchill, firefly, and maybe comet.
I smell a little salt here tho. |
Yeah, it is meh. So add lacking tools in to UKF's line up is needed and reasonable, right ?
Well yeah it is reasonable but the Soviet Union cries in the corner too. And from my experience UKF is underwhelming in 1v1s but complete lung cancer in team games. |
|
The only 2 things that UKF currently lack is :
1: Non-doc assault infantry
2: Reliable indirect platform
There is a doctrine that gives them both and makes them as complete as OST but mehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. |
In your scenario, if the croc run toward you, 2 panther and a pak can handle it event from the front since panther have enough pen, put your pak far behind and the croc will have a hell of a ride to touch it since it have to face 2 panther fist. Meanwhile, try to close in with infantry from the side, since croc's flame gun can only fire to the front, by doing this, you can get pgren to shoot in the croc's side, or force the croc to expose it side to panther/pak if it want to use flame again your inf, add a faust and the croc will not going any where. Those above are what i can recommend in your scenario but it not necessary the principal of any engagement.
Also, if your enemy support his croc with plenty of AT an infantry then i think he is doing combine arm pretty well, so "no brainer" is not a suitable description.
2 ATGs + Croc vs 2 Panthers + ATG + My Infantry trying to get past croc to force of ATGs. Well my level of needed combined arms seems even higher ? |
If you are using pak and pgren to counter croc then you do it seriously wrong, man. I dont use PIAT sapper to counter hettez for the same reason.
Well that is the point. You need more firepower to melt that HP down. It is simply unfair if it will take me 2 panthers to take down a tank. (Which also can be easily countered by brit at guns).
So in a realistic scenario you have a croc + 2 at guns and plenty of tommies and i got 2 panthers 1 pak 2 pgrens and some grens. You run onto me with your croc, rape my infantry or atg. Then i try to hunt you with panthers. Now i have to dive a 1000+ HP tank with 2 panthers which will be slammed by atgs.
I am not asking for an overnerf for a unit. Just make it less no brainer and punishing when you give your rear to enemy (Spoiler alert : Just like any other heavy tank) |
As said, all other heavy have significant better gun and front armor, sure they are more expensive and some are doctrinal but they have their own strong to justify the cost an position (stock or doc), so does the chill.
It is literally unbreakable. Normal churchills hp is well justified with a non-potent gun that opens the way of PaKs and PGrens. For croc. good luck with your PGrens and PaKs. |
1) It doesn't "change" to main gun, main gun and flamethrower are 2 completely different weapons, flamer is on hull, gun is separate.
2) It has less durability then tiger, same health, less frontal armor.
3) It costs as much as tiger and it needs to live up to that cost, it obviously doesn't have fast reloading 45 range, 200+ pen main gun nor does it have good mobility, so yes, there is a point to that much hp and armor on a flamethrowing tank.
So a "counter all" but don't be countered unit is well justified then ? |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
