Profile of Imagelessbean

So the first commander basically guarantees SimCities, by not only making them stronger, but by making their hard counters vulnerable to counter fire? Fun? Free repair (after tech) just means even less micro required, and even less importance applied to the loss of an engineer unit.

The second commander, seems ok in that it encourages more infantry play, but how are you supposed to kill vet 3 Brits in cover at that point? And do we really want Commandos appearing anywhere and wiping squads willy-nilly? Doesn't that commander basically just scream, if he builds support weapons you can steal them?

The early land mattress seems fine to me as long as the rockets are not too devastating. It provides a mid game (hopefully with useful vet) arty unit to help dislodge stubborn strong points to a faction that literally has no arty on the map to speak of.

I also find the issue here is that why would I build a 6-man script squad without suppression, for one that does have it (maxim)?

If we do buff cons and leave maxims as they are we end up with a situation where both strategies are viable, just that adding a con spam is now a flavor. I would prefer to see the maxim operate as a regular machine gun to eliminate: turning in a huge circle to move one arc over (issue with it being the bike from COH1 and not a regular MG), the stupid 6-man train, and limited ability to suppress blobs because of the higher micro requirement placed on the Soviet player. In this case I would want the maxim arc widened and the tear up/tear down increased. It would also be sweet to see squad size decreased.

Side note: The maxim, which is the literal vickers gun (only slight differences), was meant to be swept side to side and fired constantly. In COH2 it is the most limited arc, with limited sustained fire, completely contrary to this.

Death spiral should be considered a bug and removed on next patch.

You cant argue that in a team game the enemy pushing together vs your TD with only a Stuart to back it is so much an issue on the Jackson than poor play on your teams part. A Jackson behind an armful of t34s or a soviet mine field (or even a pair or REAL at guns is nasty, throw in a con army of at nades and you have a few dead panthers. HOWEVER the lack of durability on allied TDs is amplified by the SHIT pathing in this game and I agree that heavy crush would be a great buff that isnt really a performance change, more "relic proofing" the unit...

If we want balance at all levels we need to think about how the team games also play out, partially because many players are in each format.

Your comment has been partially dissected before so I won't labor over it, but the increased micro, the inability to chase, the high pop cost and MP investment, the inability to so much as scare an infantry unit, and the very likely outcome of at least one lost Jackson for nothing are all present.

I would also like to point out that while the 57mm does a decent job in smaller games as indirect fire grows in larger games it becomes completely useless. It gets wiped so fast it cannot keep vet, and it is a MP sink. Late game it struggles to penetrate and gain vet. No other AT gun suffers from this. [side note] Why is focus forward not passive as soon as you hit vet 1? Don't you always want it on? Therefore, the USF has to rely on doc AT tanks to maintain presence, and their options are simple, Jackson or nothing. The Jackson does not give them enough AT to provide critical map presence in the late game.

Another problem, against the super heavies it is no more than vet for those units, and this means that USF without Calliope can do nothing in a team game but rely upon its Allies to break through and then try to widen the gap. If there is no breakthrough its tanks sit completely impotent on the side line, and this leads to unsupported infantry, which leads to more map loss, etc.

The concept is a faction that takes a few territories early, holds out and then use late game heavies to win.

Brit players should be able to lock down a sector of map, hold one VP and make it to the late game at which point you let emplacements die so you can get heavy tanks.

Having said this placement is key. Too far forward and they get destroyed easily. Too far back and they fail to contest enough territory.

I actually hate, really hate, the Brit design. It leads to lazy arty games, and ultimately hinges on some large late game battle with minimal flanking because all the heavies are too slow. Often this is complemented by lame off-maps that deal massive damage to help even the sides. Would have preferred a very different Brit faction.

Playing aggressive as Brits is very hard to do in large team games, as you quickly run into a situation where you need indirect fire to come with you and you simply don't have it.

To be fair about bar pathfinders, they are very, very vulnerable to weapon drops.

I would add the numerous recon abilities in commander trees when recon comes standard in the Major. Technically different, but is it really different enough to justify the loss of a better commander ability?

Paradrop weapons seem less than useful and too expensive since USF has to tech up everything.