Redesigning UKF

#1
3 years ago
VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
edited May 2016 in Wishlist

Although faction design is a great concept forcing one play style in faction is not as OKW have proven. Eventually UKF will have to be redesigned as OKW have. Here my suggestion as to how:

Give players a series of choice. This can be implemented by the current Hammer Anvil system but making have a bigger impact on the faction design.

A) There is a Hammer Anvil choice for each building.
Reason : Makes faction more flexible and allows more tools to balance units.

1) T0
IS start we no bonus or penalties their weapons work as normal about gren k98 level. They can not built trenches or sandbags.
Cost down to 260-270
Vickers get vet 1 ability timed that allow it to pack and unpack faster.
Ro.E. get also Enfield cost up 240. Mine sweepers and weapon upgrade are mutual exclusive.

Player can chose hammer on anvil for T0 for little or no cost (maybe subtract cost from other upgrade like grenades weapons and 5 man).

Choosing Hammer increase squad size to 5, infantries get armor 1.1. Ro.E. can now replace their weapon Enflieds with stens (unit upgrade).

Choosing Anvil no longer allows 5 men squads.
Reason: the defensive role of infantries and their LMG upgrades requires them to be more fragile.
Allows sandbags for both IS and Ro.E., all Enfields are replaced by scoped ones (assuming the drop rate issue is fixed) that work as current ones (worse on the move with benefits in cover), infantries get the bonuses in cover. Vecikers has the vet ability replaced by the current one.

2) T1
Mortars pits start with 1 mortar pop X1.5, do not have brace range 80 cost 300.

Choosing Hammer:
Unlocks weapon racks with Brens and Piats. Bren is no longer a LMG but closer to bar. IS can be upgraded with pyrotechnics that allows them to drops smoke From the 25p but no explosives and get increased sight by 5 cost reduced to 20. Healing not available to IS can upgrade to base Forward assembly.
Reasons: Being able to heal in the front line allow for aggressive/defensive play, this gives the reason to return to base.

Unlocks AEC. Mortar pit has range increase to 100 and barrage range 120-130, reduced fire rate, can now fire smoke. Can be garrisoned by HMGs.
Reason: The mortar pit is there to support attack not deal damage with autofire.

Choosing Anvil:
Unlocks weapons racks with Vickers K and Piats. Vicker use the LMG profile.
Emplacements have pop back to normal pop can now brace. Unlocks bofors. Bofors sight increased to 45, barrage range down to 60. Mortar Pits now work as current ones with range down to 100 upgrade cost 100.
IS can be upgraded with healing so they can stay and defend for longer. Forward assembly can call in HE artillery barrages up to range 100 barrage becomes more effective maybe add suppression.
Reason:
Forward assembly has its defensive role established.

3)T2
Cromwell has speed reduced to 5.5 and size increased to 22. Centaur has speed increase to 5 size increase to 22.

Choosing Hammer:
Unlocks commanders for Tanks increase speed of tanks and reduces size. Unlocks Firefly or Tulips for Firefly.
Reasons: Hammer tanks follow cruise doctrine less armor, more speed and agility.

Choosing Anvil:
Unlocks 17p which cost less fuel and has less pop (maybe mutual exclusive with firefly for sure no Tulips). No tank commanders available. Tanks get more armor maybe more HP. Tanks now provide an aura that gives infantry that removes cover penalties but make them move a bit slower (they do not get cover bonus but their weapon work as if in cover when close to tanks)
Reason:
Anvil tanks follow the infantry support doctrine. They support and are supported by the infantry.

4) T4
Choosing Hammer:
Unlocks Comet. Comet smoke range is reduced to 40.
Ro.E. armor to 1.5.

Choosing Anvil:
Unlocks Churchill. Churchill now can provide an aura giving light cover to infantries but moves slower.
Heavy sapper: Squad with sweeper repair faster and gain veterancy for repairing building. Ro.E. can now upgrade with 5 member.
No moving penalties.

Closing:
This are all direction and specifics might need some tweaking the point though is direction. The direction is creating to 2 different play styles and any mixture between them. One defensive with infantry good at defense, emplacements and slow moving tanks that support and are support by infantries. One offensive with infantries that can fight on the move, weaker emplacements and highly mobile tanks. But also allow player to chose the tools they think will help them achieve victory.

In addition more tool become available for better balancing units since emplacement for instance will be become tougher only with a trade off.

This change can be applied to other faction also. Instead of watering down the difference of the faction one can keep them but allow player to chose some of the strength and weakness.

For instance instead of having USF with strong infantry and non cost efficient support weapons one could give the player the choice to weaker infantry but better support weapons or stronger infantry but weaker support weapons.

Comments

  • #2
    3 years ago
    Mr_SmithMr_Smith Posts: 343
    edited May 2016

    Those are not bad ideas at all. Well done! I would love to try that out in a mod

    Regarding Hammer vs Anvil, are you thinking that a player could mix-match them? (e.g., pick Hammer for T0 and Anvil for T1?). For the rest of my response, I assume that the player can mix-match upgrades (to highlight unintended inconsistencies).

    Some clarification notes:
    1) You need to make sure that Enfields behave a bit differently to Kar98 (better in certain ranges, worse in others). Otherwise, relative positioning will not matter at all. That will probably depend on the relative performance of Bren/Vickers and LMG42.

    2) Make the scoped enfields for Anvil an opt-in upgrade (like Stens).

    3) Regarding sweeper upgrade and weapon upgrades. Does this include weapon slot upgrades as well as Hammer/Anvil upgrades (Stens/Scoped Enfields)?

    4) Giving Tanks even a 1% HP increase (as you intend to do with T4 Anvil) will make them way more durable (it only takes 4-5 shells to kill a tank. Even a minor increase means an effective 20% increase in durability).

    5) I am guessing you also want to reduce Comet WP range to something lower?

    6) Churchill aura role is only relevant if the player has picked both T0 Anvil (cover bonuses), and T1 Anvil (LMG racks). The T0 dependence is obvious. The T1 dependance has to do with the fact that Enfields don't really benefit/suffer much from cover bonuses at all, to begin with.

    I am a bit worried about the following:

    1) Cromwell speed decrease (along with size increase) is too much, and will become the worst medium tank in the game (worse than the current T-34, if you can believe that!). In fact it will be way slower than the P4, which is already better in all other stats. If the intent is to only have usable Cromwells with Hammer, perhaps you might lock that unit away behind that upgrade too.

    I would say leave the speed as it is, but touch a different stat:

    • Lower armour (to make it easier to take out with P4s). The fact that Cromwell makes P4 feel like trash is really what most people complain about, isn't it?
    • Lower penetration (so that it absolutely has to flank enemies to be useful). This will also help the P4 against the Cromwell.
    • Reduce the on-the-move accuracy, and make the Commander give some of that back (from 50% accuracy to 65% accuracy).

    2) The main issue with the Centaur is not really the slow speed, but its acceleration. It takes time to burst an enemy blob and also have time to relocate. With the accompanying target size nerf kiting might become even more difficult.

  • #3
    3 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited May 2016

    @Mr_Smith said:

    ...

    Regarding Hammer vs Anvil, are you thinking that a player could mix-match them?

    The suggestion is that player can mix them else he will need to make important decision early in the game.

    1) You need to make sure that Enfields behave a bit differently to Kar98..

    Bolt action rifles are mean to be used long range, relative positioning can become more relevant when upgrades like the "assault" bren or scoped Enfield/ lmg vickers become available. One could however make them a bit better at 25-30 and a bit worse at 35

    2) Make the scoped enfields for Anvil an opt-in upgrade (like Stens).

    The point of scoped enfield is to have the penalties so that IS are not good at move for anvil specialization. So imo it should be automatic.

    3) Regarding sweeper upgrade and weapon upgrades. Does this include weapon slot upgrades as well as Hammer/Anvil upgrades (Stens/Scoped Enfields)?

    Slot weapons only, the hammer anvil weapon upgrades are there to create a new role for the units. The mutal exclusives of mine sweepers is there to prevent Ro.E. replacing IS as mainline infantry and being able to vet and repair very fast.

    4) Giving Tanks even a 1% HP increase (as you intend to do with T4 Anvil) will make them way more durable (it only takes 4-5 shells to kill a tank. Even a minor increase means an effective 20% increase in durability).

    Yes but the point here is that these tanks are meant to be slow moving able to take hits and support and being supported by the infantry.

    5) I am guessing you also want to reduce Comet WP range to something lower?

    Yes a Tank should not have a counter that out ranges ATGs...UKF tank are very good at taking out ATG in their current implementation.

    6) Churchill aura role is only relevant if the player has picked both T0 Anvil (cover bonuses), and T1 Anvil (LMG racks). The T0 dependence is obvious. The T1 dependance has to do with the fact that Enfields don't really benefit/suffer much from cover bonuses at all, to begin with.

    Well if it provides light cover with the aura or some other form of benefit (cooldown) it could still be useful. I also feel that going down all Anvil or Hammer should also more rewarding since it limits ones option in either defensive or offensive play. Mixing is already rewarding because it leave more option open.

    1) Cromwell speed decrease (along with size increase) is too much, and will become the worst medium tank in the game (worse than the current T-34, if you can believe that!)....

    Anvil provides static defenses and having a high mobility tank and static defenses is bad design imo. Cromwell role in anvil would be to support infantry with he aura that removes the penalties. It is meant to operate with the "infantry support" doctrine that want tanks to support and be supported by infantry. In addition more HP and armor can counter weight the slower speed.

    Anvil tanks are not meant to operate without infantry support.

    2) The main issue with the Centaur is not really the slow speed, but its acceleration.

    It might also need some acceleration but one has to be rather careful because it has too much DPS and if it becomes good at kiting it might prove problematic.

    The point here is that all tanks should get similar bonuses by choosing anvil or hammer so the play would know what to expect.

    Anvil tanks are slower tougher tanks that the normal one and and hammer tanks are more faster smaller size tanks.

  • #4
    3 years ago
    Mr_SmithMr_Smith Posts: 343
    edited May 2016

    @Vipper said:

    2) Make the scoped enfields for Anvil an opt-in upgrade (like Stens).

    The point of scoped enfield is to have the penalties so that IS are not good at move for anvil specialization. So imo it should be automatic.

    I don't see why anybody would ever want to gimp ALL of their infantry squads by picking T0 anvil, then. This is a bit like having current Tommy sections without the 5-man upgrade. (along with the possibility of not having healing kits, etc).

    Yeah, green cover/trenches seem good on paper. but if you go out full-defensive, you should expect being shelled to death. Which means, all that effort setting up the cover won't really pay of much in the end.

    6) Churchill aura role is only relevant if the player has picked both T0 Anvil (cover bonuses), and T1 Anvil (LMG racks). The T0 dependence is obvious. The T1 dependance has to do with the fact that Enfields don't really benefit/suffer much from cover bonuses at all, to begin with.

    Well if it provides light cover with the aura or some other form of benefit (cooldown) it could still be useful. I also feel that going down all Anvil or Hammer should also more rewarding since it limits ones option in either defensive or offensive play. Mixing is already rewarding because it leave more option open.

    It's not a bad idea giving some aggression tools to the defensive specialization and vice-versa. A full-out defensive doctrine will either be annoying to play against (emplacement-spam, pak-walling), or it will be too abusable by an attacker to even consider.

    1) Cromwell speed decrease (along with size increase) is too much, and will become the worst medium tank in the game (worse than the current T-34, if you can believe that!)....

    Anvil provides static defenses and having a high mobility tank and static defenses is bad design imo. Cromwell role in anvil would be to support infantry with he aura that removes the penalties. It is meant to operate with the "infantry support" doctrine that want tanks to support and be supported by infantry. In addition more HP and armor can counter weight the slower speed.

    Even the KV-1 with it 800 HP, 270 armour has 5.1 speed. The KV-1 is universally considered one of the most crap-tastic, pointless tanks in the game, even despite the fact that:

    • it requires no tech
    • the stock army options of the Soviets are amongst the worst of the worst (thus, there's no competition really)

    I mean... think about it. Every single thing with tracks on the Axis arsenal will be able to outrun the Cromwell. What will be the point of ever building a Cromwell? What is it supposed to counter?

    • Infantry? I'd rather build a centaur.
    • AT guns? I'd rather build a centaur.
    • Medium Tanks? Not a chance.
    • Swarm Heavy Tanks? Even the Tiger can outrun the Churchill at this speed.
    • Flank artillery pieces? Gee, I wish I had teched to AEC for that, because there's nothing else in UKF stock that can help with that.

    If something is not useful, either delete it, replace it or fix it.

    Anvil tanks are not meant to operate without infantry support.

    2) The main issue with the Centaur is not really the slow speed, but its acceleration.

    It might also need some acceleration but one has to be rather careful because it has too much DPS and if it becomes good at kiting it might prove problematic.

    The point here is that all tanks should get similar bonuses by choosing anvil or hammer so the play would know what to expect.

    Anvil tanks are slower tougher tanks that the normal one and and hammer tanks are more faster smaller size tanks.

    The thing with Centaur/Ostwind is that each one of them has their niche. Ostwind has its insane manoeuverability and good AoE damage to drive around enemy AT guns. With the Centaur, you aim at max range and aim for the best. In order to consider Centaur useful for something, there are 3 options:

    • Leave it as it is currently: slow as molasses, relies on RNG (target size) to kite and survive
    • Increase its target size and improve its acceleration. Kiting gallore, again. This one relies more on user input, though.
    • Give it speed and reduce burst duration penalty. That way it has to keep moving to survive; any stop, and its horrid acceleration means it will never be able to move ever again

    Finally, another thing to consider is that certain paths limit the unit roster tremendously.

    Overall, T0 and T2 Anvil choices seem very subpar. if you pick Anvil for both tiers, the only vehicles you will be able to field as the UC, the Churchill and the Centaur.

    I understand that this is probably targeted so as to limit emplacement lol-play. However, this has to be the poorest unit roster in the game. What's worse is that call-in units will ruin these trade-offs by always giving the player access to Churchills/Mattresses, even though they never chose that option.

    Thus, T0 and T2 Hammer seem like no-brainers to me. Then, for an aggressive build any combos of T1 and T3 Anvil/hammer would work just fine, depending on the situation (urban vs open-field, infantry-based vs vehicle-based play).

  • #5
    3 years ago

    :D what a sad "i cant beat the brits, nerf them!" thread :D

  • #6
    3 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723

    @FearTheBeard said:
    :D what a sad "i cant beat the brits, nerf them!" thread :D

    Thanks for reading the thread. Now try to read again and understanding it.

    This thread is not about nerfing the UKF but actually buffing them. The reason why UKF can not be buffed in their current implementation is that they would be too good in everything. If UKF are faced with a choices of either playing defensively or offensively than they can be buffed in their particular role.

  • #7
    3 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited June 2016

    @Mr_Smith said:
    I don't see why anybody would ever want to gimp ALL of their infantry squads by picking T0 anvil, then. This is a bit like having current Tommy sections without the 5-man upgrade. (along with the possibility of not having healing kits, etc).

    Yep maybe the changes on weapon and abilities I describe in T1 should be moved to the T0 choice but be unlocked with after the T1 unlock. That makes more sense.

    Even the KV-1 with it 800 HP, 270 armour has 5.1 speed. The KV-1 is universally considered one of the most crap-tastic, pointless tanks in the game, even despite the fact that:

    • it requires no tech
    • the stock army options of the Soviets are amongst the worst of the worst (thus, there's no competition really)

    The number I give are not tested and are open for change but here are some points:
    KV-1 imo is not that bad and I have seen being used successfully. It would work allot better if it had better vet 1 ability and vet bonuses fitting for it's role. In addition KV-1 are not support by Piats and Vickers K neither they can be repaired extra fast.

    If Anvil tank are meant to support and be support from infantry having fast moving tanks does not really help allot since the infantry can not follow. Think of it as combined arms. The trade here is speed for armor and HP.

    In addition if one is facing a UKF opponent that turtle ups he should be ably to invest to artillery units like Stuka with out having to worry how he is going to counter fast moving tank like the Cromwell.

    Finally, another thing to consider is that certain paths limit the unit roster tremendously.

    It my opinion that there should be limitation for choosing strong useful emplacement. For instance the 17p is currently noway near efficient as the Pak44 and has to be or people will spam the hell out of it. If one has to give up strong tanks to have access to it one can make far more useful. Also the choice becomes more strategical since it depends on the map and how the game goes. One is doing very bad or very good goes mostly anvil to hold on to the territory he has, one is doing ok goes hammer to try and push.

    What's worse is that call-in units will ruin these trade-offs by always giving the player access to Churchills/Mattresses, even though they never chose that option.

    I would call it worse it will actually make regiment choice more about the units they provide and less about how power their off map are.

  • #8
    3 years ago
    Mr_SmithMr_Smith Posts: 343
    edited June 2016

    @Vipper said:

    I've been thinking that the optimal strategy with the new UKF would be:

    • Go all-hammer
    • 1 Tommy for smoke
    • Bren-Sappers all the way (preferably with Enfields, so that you can also hit targets from afar)
    • Wait for Comet spam; WP/Smoke-shells will be all the infantry support you are ever going to need

    Essentially, this is going to look a bit like USF Heavy Cavalry Regiment from hell:

    • Insane-survivability Sappers (all that stacking armour), with good short-range weapons
    • Smoke/WP spam to cover advances
    • Possibility for Fireflies/PIATs to counter inevitable Panther-spam-to-counter-Comet-Spam

    If USF late-game with Heavy Cavalry is considered powerful, then all-Anvil UKF will be broken as hell; and it won't be fun to play either as, or against (essentially, this is a 2-unit spam).

    Best doctrine choices will probably be Mobile Assault or (buffed) Artillery regiment, to cover the only possible blindside: lack of early indirect fire support.

    @Mr_Smith said:
    I don't see why anybody would ever want to gimp ALL of their infantry squads by picking T0 anvil, then. This is a bit like having current Tommy sections without the 5-man upgrade. (along with the possibility of not having healing kits, etc).

    Yep maybe the changes on weapon and abilities I describe in T1 should be moved to the T0 choice but be unlocked with after the T1 unlock. That makes more sense.

    One thing about Scoped Enfields, is that the bonus applies directly over the weapon. This doesn't get transfered over potential upgrades. A better idea would be to just give Tommies a flat +X% accuracy bonus at Vet0 if they upgrade Anvil. Otherwise, Hammer will always be the better choice:

    • Squad size scales with slot weapons
    • Armour scales with slot weapons
    • base-weapon DPS doesn't matter at all

    Ignoring that, now, the choice will be between:

    • Utility (medkits, trenches) and
    • Suvivability

    The problem is that without medkits/trenches, UKF infantry has absolutely zero utility:

    • No snares
    • Unsuitable grenades

    Some of that utility, OST will, in fact, be getting for free (pioneer sandbags, grenadier medkits, LMG upgrades). Thus, even if you pick Anvil, you will, in no way, be getting an edge over OST/OKW infantry. You will always be at a disadvantage.

    Thus, you will always, realistically, pick Hammer. You will probably never want to field Tommies (since they can offer absolutely nothing anymore; maybe one squad for the smoke barrage), and you will hedge your bets over Bren-Enfield-Sappers (because that's your only infantry that can only do something, anymore.

    The number I give are not tested and are open for change but here are some points:
    KV-1 imo is not that bad and I have seen being used successfully. It would work allot better if it had better vet 1 ability and vet bonuses fitting for it's role. In addition KV-1 are not support by Piats and Vickers K neither they can be repaired extra fast.

    The thing is, KV-1 is hardcountered by a (self-spotting) Puma. The Cromwell already has issues vs well-played Pumas. A slow Cromwell will have no chance against them. Moreover, nothing that the Brits can field can counter that Puma; not even the AEC:

    • AEC range is 40; that's not enough to kite any vehicle
    • AEC turret traverse is terrible. That's not enough to strafe any vehicle
    • (The first AEC) is more expensive -- you need to spam AECs to ammortise the cost. Since AEC is inferior, you are just wasting resources.
    • Even the current AEC will be better than the new Cromwell, though (for all purposes)

    If Anvil tank are meant to support and be support from infantry having fast moving tanks does not really help allot since the infantry can not follow. Think of it as combined arms. The trade here is speed for armor and HP.

    In addition if one is facing a UKF opponent that turtle ups he should be ably to invest to artillery units like Stuka with out having to worry how he is going to counter fast moving tank like the Cromwell.

    If you spam infantry, your enemy will, realistically, spam artillery. If you have nothing to counter said artillery, you will have no MP left for anything (since you will be bled). Thus, the infantry-based playstyle offers no counterplay to indirect-fire spam, which both OST and OKW can do just fine, even in the current patch.

    Now, yes. If you want to turtle, there should be a counterplay to turtling. However, ask yourself this: why would you ever turtle up if your stock options are so diminished? Brace-less emplacements sound a lot like "I want to be artied back to the stone age". With nothing to hit back, this seems like an one-sided game where the attacker spams indirect fire, and has nothing to worry about, while the defender throws good resources after bad resources.

    To me, it sounds that if you reach the point where turtling up is the only realistic option you have, "Surrender" will be a better option, unless you want to frustrate your opponents, out of spite.

    It my opinion that there should be limitation for choosing strong useful emplacement. For instance the 17p is currently noway near efficient as the Pak44 and has to be or people will spam the hell out of it. If one has to give up strong tanks to have access to it one can make far more useful. Also the choice becomes more strategical since it depends on the map and how the game goes. One is doing very bad or very good goes mostly anvil to hold on to the territory he has, one is doing ok goes hammer to try and push.

    What's worse is that call-in units will ruin these trade-offs by always giving the player access to Churchills/Mattresses, even though they never chose that option.

    I would call it worse it will actually make regiment choice more about the units they provide and less about how power their off map are.

    Ask yourself this. Other factions have doctrines which allow them to 'turtle up'. (anything with Pak43/LeFH in it). Yet, the stock options for these armies are diverse enough, so that they can cover every potential shortcoming, and more. Even if you factor UKF doctrines (units, callin arty), OST will always manage to stay ahead of UKF (e.g., Elefant doctrine, Lightning War, etc)

    However, I'm just curious. If you wanted to enumerate the strengths of UKF over the other 4 factions, what would they be? I don't see any advantages in the new UKF so far, even against their opponents.

    Compared to UKF, OST has:

    • More versatile, long-range infantry (now with even more utility that medkits/trenches are gone)
    • The best on-map indirect fire support in the game, which can nullify infantry play
    • The best off-map artillery in the game (even in the current patch; nothing comes close to JU-87 loiter or Stuka bomb)
    • (now) superior medium tanks
    • They only lag behind on the Comet, which can be hardcountered by Panthers

    Compared to UKF, OKW has:

    • The most complete unit roster in the game, without ever having to commit to any choice.
    • Stock turtling options.
    • (new patch) Snares, MGs, etc
    • For every unit UKF can field at any point, OKW can field a more cost-efficient mirror (AEC -> Puma, Cromwell -> P4, Comet -> Panther).

    Don't get me wrong. The design looks interesting. I like how you can customize how powerful your infantry/vehicles/fire-support you want to be.

    I'm just trying to point out which are the "never-pick" choices, and which combos seem to be way ahead of the curve.

  • #9
    3 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited June 2016

    @Mr_Smith said:
    However, I'm just curious. If you wanted to enumerate the strengths of UKF over the other 4 factions, what would they be? I don't see any advantages in the new UKF so far, even against their opponents.

    THE UKF always has some of the most powerful off maps.

    This suggestion is trying to the following:

    Create clear paths for UKF that have standard unit that perform ok that can become good at offense or defense according to Hammer or Anvil doctrines.

    Create more tools to balance UKF units since the trying to balance current UKF is rather difficult. For instance emplacement can not be too strong since UKF since will too much defensive and the fast mobile tanks. If one has 2 or 3 different type emplacement one can better balance them for the job.

    A hammer mortar need smoke and good long range barrage so that it can support attack (at the cost of autofire and survive-ability or else it will be OP)

    A Anvil mortar needs to be able to trade with indirect fire attack so it need better autofire and more survive-ability (at the cost of range and barrage).

    This are mostly direction and testing is needed to get the numbers right...
    But buff or nerf can target only the Hammer and anvil version of the units making balancing easier.

    The concept is:
    Hammer
    Infantries designed to fight mid to close and on the move.
    Weaker Emplacement designed for support roles.
    Fast tank that rely on speed and small size to survive suitable for flanking moves.

    Anvil Infantries closer to currently implementation better fighting far, statically and defensively.
    Robust Emplacement designed to defend areas of the map.
    Tanks designed to help infantry push relying on HP and Armour to survive and to infantry for additional firepower.

    Doctrinal units and abilities to supplement the weakness of each root.

  • #10
    3 years ago
    y03y03 Posts: 1,075
    Geez, do you realise how BAD increasing speed is? Sure they can't be hit, but with bad pathfinding, and terrible on the move accuracy, it makes this whole thing terrible.

    You would also need to revamp some doctrines as well possibly(like arty needs to be made better or something)

    Assuming the sten upgrade is free, i would guess its kinda okay??

    Also you would need to fix the manpower in this(upkeep and reinforcement) because freaking sappers become OP late game with vet 3 less cost for reinforcement and the armor(and maybe the obligatory fuck you vickers K and piats killling your shit).

    Churchill could instead give negation(or maybe all tanks) to suppression. To infantry standing behind it.

    Overall, considering how the balance patch is coming out soon, i guess we will wait and see how it goes.
  • #11
    3 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited June 2016

    @y03 said:
    Geez, do you realise how BAD increasing speed is? Sure they can't be hit, but with bad pathfinding, and terrible on the move accuracy, it makes this whole thing terrible.

    The number I give are similar to the current live ones that are nerfed with the patch preview. UKF tanks have some of the smaller on the move accuracy penalties by the way.

    Churchill could instead give negation(or maybe all tanks) to suppression. To infantry standing behind it.

    Light cover reduces suppression completely removing suppression would make them rather OP.

    Overall, considering how the balance patch is coming out soon, i guess we will wait and see how it goes.

    This is for future patch since imo UKF will eventually see a redesign.

    The best way I can thing of trying balance UKF keeping emplacement useful and their tank good is to balance them separately with the hammer and anvil options.

  • #12
    3 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723

    Another approach would be to would be to have 2 different tanks for T2 hammer and Anvil. Once the player unlocks T2 he has only access to to Centaur (maybe firefly). He then has to chose hammer for Cromwell and firefly or Anvil for Valentine and 17p.

    In reality Valentine was designed as an infantry support tank and was very slow. The Anvil Valentine would be slow with good armor and HP a rather average gun and would negate the infantry penalties with an aura.

    For the artillery commander one could either have a different version of the Valentine or even better could make the ability similar to the command vehicle us an upgrade and thus limited to 1.

  • #13
    3 years ago
    y03y03 Posts: 1,075
    Well in the game files there is this foward observation officer and recon section.
    Now if im not mistaken, these 2 units(or at least the officer) was supposed to come along with the Valentine(hence observation detachment in the ability).
    So you could sub the ability out for an officer(which basically was an airlanding officer except it was 5 man, had a bren, had officer charge, concentrated sexton barrage and vet 1 airburst) or with the recon section.
  • #14
    3 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited June 2016

    @y03 said:
    Well in the game files there is this foward observation officer and recon section.

    That is also an option.

    A bit off topic the valentine in is current implementation is not very good anyway.

    It balances between utility and stats. If the detection vehicles was limited to 1 (maybe with mechanism as the command vehicle, more utility but lower stats) that would open the road for better stat including lesser pop.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

  • © SEGA. SEGA, the SEGA logo, Relic Entertainment, the Relic Entertainment logo, Company of Heroes and the Company of Heroes logo are either trademarks or registered trademarks of SEGA Holdings Co., Ltd. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. SEGA is registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.