Vehicles mg need to be looked at there are a complete mess having different profiles and damage level.
The approach of giving hull/coaxial similar DPS as hull/coaxial/pintle is also wrong for a number of reason like:
2 mg are superior in many cases since the focus fire more
Pintle have a cost making the vehicles with the upgrade cost more to get similar (if not inferior performance).
Pintle work 360 degree around as well as help against planes, they are worth their cost and tanks that have comparable coax+hull have generally much worse main guns as well. There is no problem with balance of these, there are ups and downs to both solutions and neither is just superior to other.
+1, especially in team games, brits can be so damn cancer with double bren IS, constant arty left and right, simcity emplacements (though i can understand the difficulty with with nerfing emplacements). UKF should come with buffs as well as nerfs.
You've missed the last 2 years, when it was constant nerfing to everything they had as well as removal of all of the cheese they relied on to survive?
Faction as a whole was crippled to the point where they had to give them AT nades, which they never needed before.
I still don't get why Brits get performance buffs and Ostheer just gets utility (cap speep, reinforcement cost).
The argument is "Ostheer would become too powerful in teamgames".
My observation however is that Brits is the faction that becomes incredibly cancerous to deal with in team games. Their units perform superb and become an utter menace to deal with. Indestructible Churchills and Bren blobs are pure cancer.
Its because brits were receiving constant performance nerfs and removal of all gimmicks, to the point where nothing but raw stat boosts can bring them back to competitive level, while ost, specifically infantry, was constantly receiving buff after buff and the issue with vehicles was not performance, but ease of getting(T4) or one always overshadowing other(222 vs 251).
The problem with Brits is that they were slow in 1 v 1. In Teamgames (2 v 2) and up they were fine because their weaknesses were covered up.
I predict super Brit cancer in teamgames. That being said I would prefer some Ostheer performance as it was supposed to be (Panther accuracy and Brumm range)
All factions have their weaknesses covered in team games, why one should be treated differently because of it?
Airborne, much like soviet lend lease, is an artifact of previous tech structure of the faction, you could supplement team weapons of tier you locked yourself out of earlier.
Now its not really an issue and doctrine serves more to give team weapons to team mates then yourself, but problem with that is, it doesn't have sufficient late game to warrant using it in team games.
Rather tough nut to crack and an identity crysis of the doctrine, not much to do with other doctrines.
And is it really worse to have 2? Target entities are chosen randomly, no? So if you have 2 scoped Garands in your team, there's a higher chance that either one of them will target the low-health entity.
If the squad is alone, its worse, if there is rifle squad next to them, its better to have 2.
Pathfinders are force multiplier unit, not elite infantry.
I'm just surprised that Airborne Pathfinders have 1 scoped rifle, while Recon Pathfinders have 2 despite the fact that they provide additional utility with Artillery Barrage. If anything, it should be the other way around - 2 for regular Pathfinders, 1 for I&R.
Cooldowns have very low impact on infantry DPS.
Its all about rate of fire, reload and accuracy.
Other factors, while still factors, are not contributing all that much.
You can google the dps formula or wait for an egghead to post it here.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
