My next patch wishes (fast, effective and easy to do):

[crimax]

1) Improve stats for Brit Commandos (a bit) OR give them a better weapon upgrade AND MAYBE VET 3 no-suppression-sprint.
Smoke, costs, reinforcement MP are OK (don't like to speak about what i always hated, the ninja-smoke and I agreed to its nerf).

2) Fix AA units effectiveness (mobile and fixed) but just a step behind, I mean without going back to 4.8.5 (it would be wrong).

3) Terror Pzgrens should cost a bit more. They are the new KCHs, great weaponry, Victory Target, Less-suppression upgrade, etc.
Players are starting to spam them like the classic infantry blobs around the map. +30/40MP OR more reinforcement costs maybe .... up to you.

4) Max 2 Hotchkiss for TH Doc ! Is it possible nobody still asked for it ?

4) To be continued ... (Something about VT anti-spam measures; Super Pershing removed from the mod cause more units buildable by US Armour OR a bit nerf to US tanks; Make RE Doc more effective; etc.)


Personal thoughts about next unbalancing problems (PROBABLY):
-When AA units will get the nerf, allies will get more vantage (RAF + AB),
-Cause the decreased fuel upkeep for US, we obviously, will see more american tanks on the field with the same effectiveness,
-The artillery is still very effective (as always, sigh!)
Then maybe axis would have some trouble especially in late game BUT I could be wrong (I hope so!)

[Warhawks97]

1) Improve stats for Brit Commandos (a bit) OR give them a better weapon upgrade AND MAYBE VET 3 no-suppression-sprint.
Smoke, costs, reinforcement MP are OK (don't like to speak about what i always hated, the ninja-smoke and I agreed to its nerf).

2) Fix AA units effectiveness (mobile and fixed) but just a step behind, I mean without going back to 4.8.5 (it would be wrong).

3) Terror Pzgrens should cost a bit more. They are the new KCHs, great weaponry, Victory Target, Less-suppression upgrade, etc.
Players are starting to spam them like the classic infantry blobs around the map. +30/40MP OR more reinforcement costs maybe .... up to you.

4) Max 2 Hotchkiss for TH Doc ! Is it possible nobody still asked for it ?

4) To be continued ... (Something about VT anti-spam measures; Super Pershing removed from the mod cause more units buildable by US Armour OR a bit nerf to US tanks; Make RE Doc more effective; etc.)


Personal thoughts about next unbalancing problems (PROBABLY):
-When AA units will get the nerf, allies will get more vantage (RAF + AB),
-Cause the decreased fuel upkeep for US, we obviously, will see more american tanks on the field with the same effectiveness,
-The artillery is still very effective (as always, sigh!)
Then maybe axis would have some trouble especially in late game BUT I could be wrong (I hope so!)

3.) You cant change only the terror grens. It would affect all. Currently they cost 400 and 35 in reinforcment. Thing is they are effective as the many elite units in early game. In def doc the defensive training makes them strong in assault combined with stgs. In BK doc stormtoopers are still prefered by me.
4.) Who builds more than 2 hotchkiss?

US armor tanks: Only hellcat upkeep got reduced (it was 5)... finally US armor doc fields a few more tanks as intended and then you want to nerf them? Which weapon cant penetrate them? Each tank is already weak and the shermans gain power when coming in numbers and that was the goal (and which seldomly happend). Axis have lots of effective oneshot AT stuff. Also this doc has no real arty so attacks can be only made by masses and even then its hard to get though prepared defenses. Also TH doc was pointless.... maybe use them now? This doc is made to deal with lots of enemie armor.. so. So we can say that PE TH doc makes sense now or more sense as before.

[crimax]

3.) You cant change only the terror grens. It would affect all. Currently they cost 400 and 35 in reinforcment.
4.) Who builds more than 2 hotchkiss?

US armor tanks: Only hellcat upkeep got reduced (it was 5)... finally US armor doc fields a few more tanks as intended and then you want to nerf them? Which weapon cant penetrate them? Each tank is already weak and the shermans gain power when coming in numbers and that was the goal. Axis have lots of effective oneshot AT stuff. Also this doc has no real arty so attacks can be only made by masses and even then its hard to get though prepared defenses. Also TH doc was pointless.... maybe use them now? This doc is made to deal with lots of enemie armor.. so.

3) Idk if codable or not. Anyway they got an atomic buff and something should be done.
4) Spammers man, spammers.
Block players to spam units (in general) will automatically force them to try other units and ways to play. Will improve their skill.
But I forget that you don't like limitation instead of me, when I consider them "smart limitations".

About US Armour, "forecasts can be wrong" .... we will see

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

I agree with only first.

[Warhawks97]

I agree with only first.

yes... commandos suck too long in a game. Esspecially stens..... 450/38.... needs buff.

[Wake]

I agree to all of this except changing US armor doc. They are fine now, and there have always been enough ways to easily destroy US tanks. TH doc still has the ability of being able to completely negate anything an armor player can do.

But yes, we still need to fix commandos, they are currently TERRIBLE for their price before getting the tech tree upgrades. The only time they are ever useful is immediately after they exit their glider, if they happen to come out right next to an enemy unit so their sten SMG's are effective. Otherwise, they will usually lose too many men before getting into close range with axis units.

On top of that, what happened to re-arranging the commando weapon loadouts? The Sten squad should have the option of thompsons like Wolf said, or they could get a health boost to define their role as assault infantry. The enfield commando squad needs to get the brens. The current loadouts don't make sense, as the sten squad is either moving and not shooting the brens, or staying still and shooting at far away targets where the stens don't do any damage.

And what about 101st getting garands?

[Krieger Blitzer]

Those 101st AB inf units are so deadly with Johnson LMGs man!! WTF??? They can just rape all Axis Elite inf.. idk but that's surely not the first time for me to notice this actually... However that I think Johnsons should cost more, why only 45 ammo???!!!

I also don't agree any of the points btw

[MarKr]

I already said here that equiping 101st with 6 Johnsons is weird and goes against the game principles. But people started to shout that "it's the only way to play AB doc". It is very effective, yeah, but does that mean we should enable 6 Brens for Tommies? I mean, it would be very effective, right?

[PiotrW]

About Brit Commandos... They can retreat to HQ or glider. Is it posible to swap glider for "officer position" when oficer is on battlefield ?

[MarKr]

@PiotrW: It is possible but it is a question whether it is really wanted. It is the case atm of AB - they can retreat to AHQ and when you field HQ squad AB retreats to them. However HQ squad usually follows AB infantry around to provide them with its command bonuses so when you retreat to them your forces usually retreat only few "meters" back. Wouldn't be that bad but it can be used to simply shrug off suppression and fight again which shouldn't be the case I think.

[Erich]

I already said here that equiping 101st with 6 Johnsons is weird and goes against the game principles. But people started to shout that "it's the only way to play AB doc". It is very effective, yeah, but does that mean we should enable 6 Brens for Tommies? I mean, it would be very effective, right?

i think 6 stgs or 6 fg42 are weird too.

[Ivelios]

1) Improve stats for Brit Commandos (a bit) OR give them a better weapon upgrade AND MAYBE VET 3 no-suppression-sprint.
Smoke, costs, reinforcement MP are OK (don't like to speak about what i always hated, the ninja-smoke and I agreed to its nerf).

3) Terror Pzgrens should cost a bit more. They are the new KCHs, great weaponry, Victory Target, Less-suppression upgrade, etc.
Players are starting to spam them like the classic infantry blobs around the map. +30/40MP OR more reinforcement costs maybe .... up to you.

I am only responding to the points that I see any sensible argument in. So, I disagree with any points not quoted above entirely. If you want, I can post why in greater detail.

Regarding point 1: Allowing them to either buy Thompsons or choose between an upgrade of Brens or Thompsons upon buying the doctrine weapons unlock would be ideal. Their firepower is great with the Brens but that doesn't make them any less annoying to use as assault infantry needing to stop all the time. Especially if they're trying to chase a unit to its death. I'd be all-for giving the Sten squads a few Thompsons late-game; however, giving them more than just a few would undermine the role of the SAS. I'd try giving them three Thompsons and see if it makes a difference (which I imagine it would).

[rant on]
Regarding point 3: What the hell did you all expect, removing the KCH and just making the Grenadiers replace them? Honestly? You all complained (not saying you in particular crimax, I'm addressing the forum right now ) to have an "unrealistic" "gamebreaking" unit removed... to just have another in-game unit become said offending unit. For those who aren't great with English: You whined, had the KCH removed and then had the Grenadiers turned into mock KCH... instead of just balancing the KCH! This was a testament to human stupidity, and of bloody course it was going to affect overall game balance! I saw the changelog (thanks to a friend - I hadn't checked in months for good reasons) and immediately (within seconds) realized the massive imbalance that was created. Defense hasn't received better units for a reason, that being their massive buffs which - used in the right hands - can have Pioneers slaughter any Allied infantry in the game!

Honestly, the biggest offending reason why I think all of the KCH-hating imbeciles are daft in the head is that the KCH added fun to the game. A limit of two squads in a doctrine where no other Assault infantry are accessible is startlingly easy to counter should you have the tools that (I guarantee - especially in 3v3's!) are available. I have fun using, killing, and even being killed by Knights Cross Holders. Scratch that, I had fun with KCH; past tense. But really, it just comes down to this: the lot of you just play to win, not for fun
[/rant off]
Just so you know, logically speaking (logic being the removal of all emotional involvement and speaking only of what is best in a true scenario for those who get it confused with opinions), removing the KCH and then having the Grenadiers replace them is... well, just take a gander at the above rant. TLDR: Fucking stupid. Instead, balancing the unit that already filled the role makes leaps and bounds more sense.


@ Wolf: Serious moment, now. Removing the STG44's from the Grenadiers unless Terror is chosen will likely do a lot for game balance. Blitzkrieg doctrine doesn't need more STG44's (Stormtroopers are better), and even though I love trolling with overpowered Defense infantry, removing the STG's from the Defense Grenadiers will likely improve game balance. Much as it irks me personally, I've accepted the fact that the KCH have been removed and the above steps should help balance the result of your prior decision. Unlike others I'm not going to ridiculously demand them, but I highly recommend them for a start.
You could also tie in a manpower upkeep debuff with the Terror Grenadiers doctrine upgrade to help mitigate the "KCH Kinder" blobs, since I can honestly see that being a problem (KCH were limited for a reason ). Anywho, cheers.


@ PiotrW: Allowing some sort of global toggle for Commando units between the Glider and the Officer would be really cool, I'd back that. Dunno how easy it would be to code though.


@ crimax in particular: It may appear as though my rant is aimed at you, but it is not. I did not actually read any of the threads regarding the changes I mentioned, as I only got a few posts in before the sheer, rampant stupidity gave me a literal headache. I have already mentioned above that I am not speaking about you, but I feel the need to mention again (away from the rant) that it has nothing to do with you in particular and I have no hard feelings


Regarding the content of this post: No person in specific has been insulted, and I feel no shame for calling out what I see as a group of foolish cyber-bullies in a public forum. If moderators still find a problem with this post, I welcome you to delete it in its entirety. I will not alter it (or stand having it altered, I would sooner delete it myself) in any way that reduces the hatred of stupidity I have expressed above. I believe that covers everything

[Wolf]

Regarding KCH, I could understand both sides, but I don't think that their removal was stupid, as it was the only unit with heroic critical (before its removal) and simply didn't behave by the same rules as other units. While that is certainly reason why it could be fun, it was frustrating to too many people then I'd accept. Similar argument like StuPa, of course it was fun to play as 100% accuracy fortress, but that doesn't mean its right to have it that way. In addition, KCHs were most hated unit because of their "realism".

Grenadiers were very underused in games, so when I decided to finally remove KCH, which, if I am not mistaken, was something Xalibur also wanted (which I assumed after reading one of his posts, just for those with Xalibur argument), grenadiers were kind of logical choice.
Why should we create additional unit, to act as KCHs, when we could use grenadiers and also increase their use in other doctrines. Yes, its true that I underestimated their power in defensive doctine, but with only 2 MP44s, I don't think they are that overly effective in BK doctrine - so it can stay. Def doctrine is too early to say, as there is certain difference between 2 and 3 weapons, and it certainly can be tuned down if needed. Same as Terror, we can make it that they will get 3 MP44s as the command tree upgrade and they won't be able to get these additional by upgrade. Or they will get 4 of them or whatever, possibilities are there. I don't think its fair to say, yeah, they will be overpovered, because this and that, we tuned SLIGHTLY values of jeep and you can already see the shitstorm. Some of you are still basing your experience with grens on 3x MP44 for 65 Ammo, don't forget that its currently 2x for 50 munni.

Anyways, grenadiers should be main terror infantry, I think they currently are. In BK you can pick between storms and grens, no problem here. Def doc will be tuned if needed, but AFTER we will see the results with current patch.

Really quick about the other things:

1) They will probably get weapons like I said in one of my previous posts
2) Base AAs will be most likely tuned down a bit or if we will be able to get them to fire only near the base... oh well.. just wait.
3) In addition to above, its likely they will get around 10-25 more MP
4) Thats not really needed, because nobody builds them much - thats more a problem, but we will see.

[Ivelios]

@ Wolf: You misread. I did not recommend that we add a unit to act as the KCH, I stated that that is what the Terror-doctrine Grenadiers became. And that's... an irrefutable fact. They have become near-identically the same unit, in the same role. Their stats differ every-so-slightly as to call them literally different.

You say you ultimately removed the KCH due to an overwhelming support for their removal, but the same overwhelming support existed for the removal of the Super Pershing before (when this forum actually had more than ten active members). Does that only matter now, in the present? Do the opinions of those remaining outweigh all of the overwhelming (and outnumbering) opinions that came before? Did we forget what the word "logic" means? For that last part, you can refer to my previous post; so long as you can read English.

Regarding the KCH being removed as a "point towards realism": here, you become outright irritating. Things that add to realism in some areas are ignored for the sake of game balance, but not everywhere; even when you could have both realism and game balance for the sake of laziness. But in this one case, we will ignore all of that and say realism takes the cake!

The worst part of our misunderstanding is that it would've been avoided entirely if you had just read the entirety of my post, which you clearly didn't (regarding the first paragraph of this post, and the information in your post that lead to it as a specific, factual example).

The only part of my previous post that was directed towards you was the part that started with "@Wolf", and I think that is a further misunderstanding on your part. The rant prior was directed to anyone who they felt it applied towards; not anyone in particular, but hey maybe everyone for all I know at this point.


Now I'll go ahead and call it a day, as I've nothing more to say on the topic. Have at 'er

/edit: With the response I got from the current team lead (when after a largely opinionated rant supported by logic and facts I only gave actual recommendations to him for the sake of balance...) I can only say that hey, the ship has long since sunk, but there's a CoH2 mod that just got released that's pretty snazzy. http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/f ... =399430811
Anywho, I'm done with this biz. Resume... whatever you call this silly place.

[Wolf]

It also wasn't entirely addressed to you, only now I am talking directly to you, I know that you did not recommend to add unit to act as the KCHs, "Why should we create additional unit, to act as KCHs, when we could use grenadiers and also increase their use in other doctrines." was purely rhetorical question and answer to some OTHER members, who wanted that, did I write somewhere that you wanted it ? I wrote my post to clarify the reasons why it was done, I don't see anything wrong with that, even if "it wasn't addressed to me", it was written in this topic and everybody is free to express his opinion and my opinion here kinda played the main role in KCH removal, so... I don't really see the problem or the reason why could I not write it.

IMO they did not become KCHs for multiple reasons
- they start (after upgrade) with 3 MP44s instead of 6, additional weapons can be bought
- they don't have KCH enhanced MP44s - they had different file, different stats, better stats
- they don't have that accuracy increasing ability
- they are cheaper, they are cheaper to reinforce
- they don't have heroic critical and even normal target type
- they are not limited
I think these make them pretty different unit. These are facts.

The difference between SP and KCH was that most of the people that wanted to remove SP wanted it ONLY because of realism, not because of balance-gameplay reason. That, atleast for me, is a significant difference.
What irritates me, is that it looks like you took the "realism" part as the most important, even that I wrote it as like "just by the way" and it was the least important factor of removing them. I just gave the reason why they were removed and then you write - "But in this one case, we will ignore all of that and say realism takes the cake!" ... I really have no idea what I should say to that, that you didn't read MY post? Did I said ANYWHERE, that realism was the main reason for KCH removal? Sorry, I expected more from you, of course I have read your whole post and like I said, my post was more like a response to something that was posted, rather than to have argument about it. Where did I misunderstood? I ofcourse have read your recommendation, but that means I can't read other parts of your post or like... not respond to them at all? I really don't understand why you so suddenly become so offensive. Yeah, you certainly have your way of writing your posts, you always had, but I feel like this couldn't even be your post. You practically write that removing KCH was stupid, I respond to it, not offensively, but just giving out the reasons, why grenadiers kind of are now like they are, to ALL readers of the forum and you call that misunderstanding on my part? As you like the logic and facts -

1) I removed KCHs, I supported it, I did it. - the fact
2) You wrote your rant, that it was stupid decision and that we should have done something else instead - fact
3) I have read your post, including your ideas of what to do with def grens - fact
4) I responded why I don't think KCH removal was stupid, to ALL forum readers, gave my reasons why it was done the way it is - seems logical to me
5) You tell me that I clearly did not read your post, offensively gave your statements and focused on least important things - logic? really?

Additionally, you think that everything that is on forum goes into the game, that the decision is made by users here, that we should not change anything because it was different before? I don't understand why "Does that only matter now, in the present? Do the opinions of those remaining outweigh all of the overwhelming (and outnumbering) opinions that came before?" the KCHs were problem long time ago, there were also others in the team who wanted the change, I wanted the change, there were many other changes which affected balance and it was just one of the decisions. I decided that we can remove KCHs from game safely, of course there were people who didn't like it and people who liked it... but you are saying, that because they were not removed in the past, that they should not be removed ever or seriously, what the hell did you want to tell us by that? There are people who want some changes all the time, but that doesn't mean I am doing it as everybody wants, especially when somebody sort of "demands" it, if I consider something a good suggestion, I think about it and eventually it might be changed (or not), I rejected many "make a poll" requests, many posts are pure bullshit, but that doesn't mean everything is. You would also know that the "realism factor" I many times called as not THAT important for a game, if you would follow the silly-place closely (and even the old forum).

Anyways, you alsmost seem to be obsessed with logic, but I hardly can find any in your last post.

/Edit to your edit: I just responded with reason why KCHs were removed and why I think its right, and you respond with stuff like this, call us all stupid (in your own way)/making stupid decisions and add kind of promotion to the end? That your rant is backed by logic and facts, so everyone elses opinion is what, plain nonsense? ... Again, I expected more, much much more from someone like you.

[crimax]

@Ivelios
Pro or VS, it is nice to listen you opinion too. About, smiles, tears, belly laughs, do not worry, absolutely no problem, without offend obviously, and this is not the case.
About KCHs there was a poll IIRC, I was against their removal, but community decided to remove them, and I simply accepted the result of the poll. In democracy the minority should respect the majority choice, no?
So the discussion about KCHs, about me is closed, sadly but closed. Forever.

---

Back in topic, I don't know if PZgrens costs could be increased for one doctrine only (def only, bk only, terr only), but Wolf can answer this .....
Currently Pzgrens in Terror Doc are not the same unit also present in BK/Def docs. LOL , no. Terror was/is the Expensive But Good Units Doctrine.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Very weird of how this Ivelios actually speak... Removing the KCH was something also never recommend by me as well however that currently I can find absolutely no problems with it, since it has been always even a common demand for several claimed reasons!

I do honestly stand on with Wolf side while I must say that he is very well knowing what he does really.. also I admit with appreciations that he usually listens carefully to all what the community are saying!!

Let's first see what balancing issues we could encounter with this good new patch as currently there seem to be none at all! Jeeps suppression is fine though but maybe the Schwim armor is now too weak unlike before although it's a car and not a bike btw! Also, I think AB units should be able to grab only 4 Johnsons as max...

[Wolf]

Yeah, schwimm will be tuned for sure, I'd even call it a bug.
About johnsons, they should actually have only 2, after we fix the weapon drops.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

Yeah, schwimm will be tuned for sure, I'd even call it a bug.
About johnsons, they should actually have only 2, after we fix the weapon drops.

So, currently 4 people in community plays airborne more or less often, after this fix number will change to 0 i guess, lol, who will use 450mp unit which will be killed by volks with mg34....very stupid, ill be probably done with bk than, AB is last doc which is fun to play for me so far, it requires extremly high micro managment skills and knowing of command tree, thats why actully nearly nobody plays it.

Just fuck it man, nobody have problems with 6 Fg42, 6 G43, 6 MP44, or stormgrenadiers with 2 G43 + 2 Mp44 + Mg42, or SS with 2 Mg 42, sniper, 2 G43 and 3 MP44, or stormtroopes with 4 Mp44 + Mg34 + schreck. AB is an only doc which can kick axis infanty (and Raf in veeeeeeeeeeeery late game), your change will just dig it to ground.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

I already said here that equiping 101st with 6 Johnsons is weird and goes against the game principles. But people started to shout that "it's the only way to play AB doc". It is very effective, yeah, but does that mean we should enable 6 Brens for Tommies? I mean, it would be very effective, right?

They can actually, drop 2 SAS, pick 4 of their Brens with commando enfields = TADAAAAM.

[MarKr]

They can actually, drop 2 SAS, pick 4 of their Brens with commando enfields = TADAAAAM.

I was talking about the option to buy the weapons in upgrades. Also you have to realize that the current possibility to buy 6 Johnsons is actually a bug. If you buy the weapon, wait until the upgrade is finished and buy another one you cannot buy third. You can put 6 of them to qeue but that's a bug. Once again, if 6x Johnson is the only way to play AB (which I doubt) then something is broken in the doctrine and it isn't the 101st. So we should look for ways to make the 6 Johnson crap not needed.

nobody have problems with 6 Fg42, 6 G43, 6 MP44,

G43 is a semi-automatic rifle and it provides Axis an alternative to their stock Kar98
MP44 is an assault rifle if you want a close combat fighting unit, Kar98 is not very suitable. MP44s are a counterpart to Thompsons (I mean in function). It is a stronger alternative but also more expensive.
Fg42 these are special, non-dropable so actually only bound to one kind of infantry so a player can have 12 of them in the field at a time which is not few but can get outnumbered.

or stormgrenadiers with 2 G43 + 2 Mp44 + Mg42

This is a mixed loadout ... what is the problem there?

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

Its possible to have 5 johnsons btw, not 6. If you buy only 3, than you can add 2 bars there, which is still means 5 mgs.

I meant that axis can fully equip their squads with deadly weapon, 101s are the only alternative for them, as they also can purchase 5-6 good weapons.

[Warhawks97]

The AB thing is weird and sadly but true their strenght is in having a nice bunch of these lmgs. But assuming we reduce the numbr of johnson down to 2,3 or 4 would they be still able to pick zooks or rl or BARs? Or would that be the total number of weapon upgrades?

Thing with 101st is that they are probably the worst inf in game at start or at least those with the crapiest cost-efficency ration together with sten commandos right when they got build. They can simply beat nothing. Idk what is planned now with changed weapon drop but if you decrease number of johnson upgrades to 2 or 3 then the squad should at least have Garands.


I am certainy not quite sure how to balance the AB. They are very hard to play and in early AB just struggles against every axis inf except pios (def pios with mp40 can kill them though). There i think what a mess cost 450 mp. In the late game with their ammount of lmgs and total units i do think the opposite sometimes (though they are not unbeatable. Early veted stormtooper can have a chance).


To KcH removal and Grens. Its good that they are gone coz this unit was really always hit and run.... no tactic or skillfull micro managment.... just click at a point of a map and let them go there and killing everything in its path untill facing a wall of HE shermans and then use VT and retreat... Due to crit heroic they survived even crazy direct mortar and arty shells even. The Grens here need a lot more micro and are dying faster. Their strenght now is that they can be more, that they return faster due to cheaper reinforce cost and the incendiary grenades. Even when they often dominate the early-mid stage of the game they do require more micro managment as the previous kch. Also when playing terror it makes more fun plaiyng with grens and they are better to combine with vehicles etc. Also they are more adjustable for long range fight or assault/close range fight. KcH had been pure assault and no chance to play them differently.

I am against a general cost increase of grens again. Just their role could be adjusted to the doctrines role. And which unit is actually supposed as "grenaider counterparts" if we can name it that way: Rifles or Rangers? If Rifles are supposed to act as counterweight to grens it might help to reduce their reinforce cost by a bit maybe.



@crimax: who says that terror is good but expensive doc? OO... That describes rather the entire german style. Terror can be done by cheap stuff as well.



About the commando retreat point(s): The AB retreats to AB HQ untill the 101st HQ is on the field. If the 101st HQ is fielded the other AB squads retreat to them and not to AB HQ anymore. Idk if it is intended but just saying that the commando captain could also replace the glider as retreat point. Question is of people want it that way.

[Wake]

Don't take away the 101st weapon abilities. No one would play airborne then. The honest truth is that, until airborne gets 6 LMG's and their 8 CP veterancy tech tree upgrade, they are really bad. Almost any axis unit can kill them, and like Warhawks said, they are a terrible investment for their cost. 450 MP for a unit that can easily die to 265 MP volks. Remember that the 101st still miss their Recoiless Rifle shots all the time, and if they want the 6 LMG's, they have to pay 270 munition for that.

You can already sort of see this issue with the fact that there are far less 82nd squads out there than 101st. This is because the 82nd just get thompsons. By the time they come out (4 CP), there are usually enough axis units roaming around that can wipe the 82nd off the map.

How else would you play Airborne doc? You would have extremely overpriced infantry that no one would ever use.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

One more time, f*ck Johnsons limit! (Btw, why all thinks that they have 6 mg? 5 max actually.
P.s. Jeep is such a funny trololo now, recently had vet. 4 with 30 kills, sadly it dided right at the moment when i was preparing to make a screenshot.