CW playstyle

[JimQwilleran]

I will say what I repeat very often: everything depends on how you use your units. Generally people do not understand the concept of force "in being". They make inf they instantly send it to the front; they make a tiger - they send it to the front just to die in front of wall of paks and hidden TDs. But, think about it, sometimes you can score more when you don't actually attack enemy directly, only because the enemy can't attack you either.

Let me describe a situation I had. I was playing 3vs3 on La fiere as axis. Our team was slightly losing. I made a tiger tank and sent it a bit forward to let enemy know. Thanks to a sneaky spotter I saw how the enemy team instantly moved most of their AT guns/handheld/tanks to my side to counter my tiger. And you know what, I didn't attack them, retreated the tank and just bombed enemy with arty. Meanwhile my mates were advancing with their own stuff on their sides. If the enemy tried to push me, they had to face tiger, they would need to accumulate more forces to break through it, meanwhile I just kept bombing them or killing tanks with long shot ability.

My point is that unit's effectiveness should not be described purely as: "it advances easily and can kill this, and this, and this, and this without problem - it's a good unit". There are more complex tactics. For me, the camo ability is worth more than any other. That is why I mostly play Inf and Raf. One good trap of CBQ or any commando squad can vaporize even most "cool" SS squad/luft. This is the main reason why I love Bk, it rewards cleverness.

Sorry, but people just don't want to use their brains. They think that if they spam universally good units - they can win. And that is probably true, but there is no beauty and cunning in such tactic. There is no anticipating enemy moves, no traps, no thinking. Just brainless spamming... You have more units - you win. There is the same question with people who in every single game do the exactly same things. For example it's very common for PE - starting panzergrens -> at gun -> scout car -> 50mm at -> mortar ht... repeat until you have luft/wespe/TH. Just repeating the same pattern over and over. Where is the art I am asking? How come that after 2000 games those people are not bored to death yet? You know whom I am talking about ;D.

Again, recently I have played 3vs3 game where my teammates used another ridiculous tactic. They both focused on one side, in the first 20 min pushed enemy until the very base with inf and armor jumbos, and then started building AT emplacements and 107 mm just at axis base... It was so astonishing that I stopped playing, actually helped axis team to make a comeback to have any more fun from the game at all. My mates were enraged, even one of them left the game crying that everything is lost. It was a game with Design as axis, you can ask him.

Try to overcome you enemy not with the numbers or weaponry but in quality of management and commands. This is my philosophy of bk. Who cares about the score? Can't stand games where there is no fair fun for both sides, I hate camping and brainless spamming.

TL;DR Don't use SAS like falshmir, just like kwok said: it seems like you want every single of elite units to be universally good and spammable. And this is not how it works. Try to make your style fit the units, don't change the game to fit your style. I did so when 3rd bazooka was removed, and I very much appreciated that change eventually.

[kwok]

Haha I've prob never seen using them because I hardly play Brits. Just not my style.
In terms of the capabilities you mentioned, what sets them apart I think is grenades which help in urban which raf suck at (easy to counter raf in a city, go in buildings. Gammons do nothing to buildings. Best counter to urban Brits have is probably endless mortars and arty), demos plus smoke (essentially allows you to rush bases because of invincible health and evasion with bonuses. Maybe switching to satchels will be stronger but I also like demos because they make amazing mines), close range monsters without having to buy thompsons, free brens for rifle sections/sappers (which I highly recommend using in mix with your commandos), bazookas (a HUGE win cuz British mobile at is practically nothing. Cmon piats?).
Tldr sas really helps to cover a lot of shortfalls that Brits have. Just use things a bit more creatively, you'll find a LOT of options and I would rather have sas than not.

[Warhawks97]

My point is that unit's effectiveness should not be described purely as: "it advances easily and can kill this, and this, and this, and this without problem - it's a good unit". There are more complex tactics. For me, the camo ability is worth more than any other. That is why I mostly play Inf and Raf. One good trap of CBQ or any commando squad can vaporize even most "cool" SS squad/luft. This is the main reason why I love Bk, it rewards cleverness.

*cough cough*

Just like "lets take simply all terror doc and win this"? How many times i (or also mates) knew right from the start what we will face? Every game? And even when we knew our enemies exactly (their docs and build orders) we still had very hard times because some "universal tactics/strategies" are so damn effective in BK (due to the fact that the used units are hyper versatile and cost effective) that even the smartest use of "extraordinary, exotic" units with extrem high cleverness do struggle against the well known standard universal "super tactics".

I mean, how many times did i sit on TS and telling my teammates what units of our opponents are coming at what time and so on. Pretty much every game i did predict the future and told them to my mates. But still.....

And dude, how "clever" you can use such units do highly depend on their cost. Imagine you are the smartest general arround the world with lots of "cool ideas" how to use lets say SAS, churchills etc very smart together (everybody who uses this units with success is already a very smart player btw). All that cleverness doesnt help you if you have to wait hours to get them all together while your opponent is able to throw every 30 seconds one universal unit that has the capability to shred your 10000 billion MP unit when you are just one second uncarefully while your enemie is never carefully at all but still successfull.

Sorry, but people just don't want to use their brains. They think that if they spam universally good units - they can win. And that is probably true, but there is no beauty and cunning in such tactic. There is no anticipating enemy moves, no traps, no thinking. Just brainless spamming... You have more units - you win. There is the same question with people who in every single game do the exactly same things. For example it's very common for PE - starting panzergrens -> at gun -> scout car -> 50mm at -> mortar ht... repeat until you have luft/wespe/TH. Just repeating the same pattern over and over. Where is the art I am asking? How come that after 2000 games those people are not bored to death yet? You know whom I am talking about ;D.

Yeah, i just tried for many years to change the PE tactics and opening games but again. Too high build cost do literally kill every attempt of smart unit use or combo. And its sad enough that even when you and your opponent knows which of your unit comes next that exactly this well known build order remains as the most successfull one. Every attempt of "surprise build order" is still less successfull as the "standard" one. Barely a unusual build order has a deadly effect on opponents.


And when every the smartest players are sooner or later giving up trying to use a unit (like SAS) very effectively it is then a "evidence" that this unit has no real use and being not (cost)- effective at all.


And lets be honest, like 80% of the units in BK are just there. They are just there so that some players can have some fun with them and to look cool or something. And you can be the smartest fucking badass arround in BK... when your unit suck against much cheaper enemie units of the same type even when fighting from a (much) superior position then its just a bad unit. And the few times when this unit is "successfull" then its usually not because you (with you i do not refer to you illa in particular With you i mean basically everybody reading that) was smart, its mostly because your enemie was just a bad player.



And generally saying thats one of my largest critics on BK. Lots of cool ideas of unit combinations are being killed due to extremly high unit build cost (while similiar units with similiar performence are cheap as peasants). Same goes for much more dynamic build orders throughout the entire game. And the very unflexible tier up line. Build cost drops on some (or many units) - even in exchange with higher upkeep/reinforce cost- would or could greatly increase the possible of smart playing and unit combination and the use of "extraordinary" units. And more flexible tier ups would allow a lot more surprises.

[Devilfish]

Illa you've kinda ran off-topic with that essay, but the forum is dead anyway, so i guess we don't need to care that much.

In my opinion BK is quite opposite to what you've described. It's not that much about cleverness, but rather micro and knowledge/experience/quick thinking. You can be cunning, sneaky and tricky all you want, but you'll be still outplayed by player with excellent micro skills and experience with the game, using just these "boring" common tactics.

These common tactics are not used so much because most people are too stupid to be more cunning. They are used simply because they're tried and proven throughout a long period of BK existence, always just slightly adjusted according to patch changes.
I.e grens->pak->scout->pak->mortar, well there is a good reason for that. You don't get a pak, you will get reckt by jeeps/dingos, not even mentioning HE ability (OPOPOP) which is often capable of eradicating entire squads. Scout car is so f* effective if well microed, that you can hardly find a reason not to get it. 50mm pak, needed for reccee. Mortar HT, well PE can bring in it so quickly, that is bloody effective early on, why not get it I wonder? No it's not like people are totally brainless, for instance if you play 2v2 with no brit, you don't rush for 50mm, no reason. But yea, the core remains the same +-, because it's proven effective, simply as that.

Actually, there's nothing surprising about it, it's the same as IRL. People will eventually, throughout time and experience, figure out the most effective ways for doing things. Sure, in time with new technologies and stuff, process will improve and settle again. You might try reinventing a wheel, but scarcely with positive result.

Btw what you described with the Tiger tactics and camo, that is actually "camping" you dislike. I wouldn't call it that much of a cunning. It's simply always more difficult to attack than to defend, and mostly requires more resources and brings heavier losses. As a side note, "One good trap of CBQ or any commando squad can vaporize even most "cool" SS squad/luft", same can "cool" luft/SS camo and "vaporize" any of allied forces and on a top of that do the same with frontal attack.


Back to SAS topic,
You guys seem to misunderstand my (and sukin's) point. It's not like SAS and completely useless and on top of that super expensive. They simply bring too little on the table for their price. I read all the abilities you value about them, but I can always see better ways of achieving same thing more effectively.
Fine, brits sucks in urban maps, because they have no nades, but by the time SAS are able to hit the ground you have either suffered from it and are already pushed and without territory, or you've actually managed to deal with it otherwise anyway. In either case, two over-priced squads with nades won't make any difference.
By demos you mean like US engineer upgrade demos? Or dynamite or whatever other commandos have? In any case you can do the same with cheap commandos, so no point in SAS, again.
You can equip an entire commando squad with thompsons for like 30muni, now surely SAS has more HP but commandos are MUCH more cost effective and you would be better going for commandos upgrades which will leave you with vetted cheap commandos with thompsons rather than wasting MP with SAS without upgrades.
Here again, rather getting upgrades and getting double enfield commandos with double bren than wasting MP on SAS.

Now if you have all commandos upgrades and plane raids and 95 howie, and really can spare an MP, well you can get SAS for zooks and brens for sappers and sabotage points or whatever. But honestly if you do, you have probably won already. And it would still be better to just get an extra crusader or 17p or even a f* SAS jeep, seriously.

Again boyz, its not about SAS being utterly useless. It's about the price/cp that can be simply put in much better use imo.

[Yafa]

Illa you've kinda ran off-topic with that essay, but the forum is dead anyway, so i guess we don't need to care that much.

......????
why do you think so?
it's not dead at all. not even close.

sas are not cost effective because they provide so much weapons

[JimQwilleran]

These common tactics are not used so much because most people are too stupid to be more cunning. They are used simply because they're tried and proven throughout a long period of BK existence, always just slightly adjusted according to patch changes.
I.e grens->pak->scout->pak->mortar, well there is a good reason for that. You don't get a pak, you will get reckt by jeeps/dingos, not even mentioning HE ability (OPOPOP) which is often capable of eradicating entire squads. Scout car is so f* effective if well microed, that you can hardly find a reason not to get it. 50mm pak, needed for reccee. Mortar HT, well PE can bring in it so quickly, that is bloody effective early on, why not get it I wonder? No it's not like people are totally brainless, for instance if you play 2v2 with no brit, you don't rush for 50mm, no reason. But yea, the core remains the same +-, because it's proven effective, simply as that.

What I meant was not that other combinations are better, of course the most popular is the best, but I just wonder why do people feel so good with doing every time everything in the same way.

Btw what you described with the Tiger tactics and camo, that is actually "camping" you dislike. I wouldn't call it that much of a cunning. It's simply always more difficult to attack than to defend, and mostly requires more resources and brings heavier losses.

Camping is building defense while you can attack freely. What I described is "not rushing stronger enemy". You trying to tell me that rushing AT teams of 3 players was the better choice? Or you are just trying to pick holes here? Please don't tell me that everytime you are not attacking you are actually automatically camping.

same can "cool" luft/SS camo and "vaporize" any of allied forces and on a top of that do the same with frontal attack.

Sorry but this is nonsense. Inf combat is almost purely skill-based. If you can play, you can stop falshmir even with rifles. And your biggest allay is axis "superhumans-can-kill-anything-in-seconds" prejudice. They just run into traps without hesitation.


If you want to buff SAS soo much, here you are, go on! Let's see who is gonna play RE or RA. Most of the games are now air docs, as all of them got buffed. Let's just wait some time to hear bunch of voices crying that SAS is now unkillable.

[Devilfish]

What I meant was not that other combinations are better, of course the most popular is the best, but I just wonder why do people feel so good with doing every time everything in the same way.

Because people don't make choice what feels good and satisfying, it just does. Some get bored of it sooner, some later and some never. More of a question for scientists (or priest? .

Camping is building defense while you can attack freely. What I described is "not rushing stronger enemy". You trying to tell me that rushing AT teams of 3 players was the better choice? Or you are just trying to pick holes here? Please don't tell me that everytime you are not attacking you are actually automatically camping.

No, I'm not telling you to do stupid things, just saying attacking is always harder and brings more losses and resource drain, so if you don't think you can successfully launch an attack it's just common sense to hold ground rather than some outwitting of your opponent or cunning of any sort......i was just teasing you with the "so you camp" thing, seems it worked .

Sorry but this is nonsense. Inf combat is almost purely skill-based. If you can play, you can stop falshmir even with rifles. And your biggest allay is axis "superhumans-can-kill-anything-in-seconds" prejudice. They just run into traps without hesitation.

Sorry but what is nonsense? That "cool" axis rambos can lay ambushes and traps too? That's just a fact, I didn't make it up, only they usually attack directly because, well it's effective. Yea inf combat is skill based, but that doesn't mean the one using rambos doesn't have skill. And luft inf has definitely an edge over any ally inf, maybe with the exception of fully upgraded raf commandos which are closing in....it's nearly impossible to defeat luft inf with just inf, without heavy support of arty/planes/snipers/...

If you want to buff SAS soo much, here you are, go on! Let's see who is gonna play RE or RA. Most of the games are now air docs, as all of them got buffed. Let's just wait some time to hear bunch of voices crying that SAS is now unkillable.

I don't really care to be honest, was just joining the discussion. I don't feel like RAF is currently missing something, so even though i consider SAS waste of res mostly, I just don't get them and that's it.

[Jagdpanther]

My point is that unit's effectiveness should not be described purely as: "it advances easily and can kill this, and this, and this, and this without problem - it's a good unit". There are more complex tactics. For me, the camo ability is worth more than any other. That is why I mostly play Inf and Raf. One good trap of CBQ or any commando squad can vaporize even most "cool" SS squad/luft. This is the main reason why I love Bk, it rewards cleverness.

*cough cough*

Just like "lets take simply all terror doc and win this"? How many times i (or also mates) knew right from the start what we will face? Every game? And even when we knew our enemies exactly (their docs and build orders) we still had very hard times because some "universal tactics/strategies" are so damn effective in BK (due to the fact that the used units are hyper versatile and cost effective) that even the smartest use of "extraordinary, exotic" units with extrem high cleverness do struggle against the well known standard universal "super tactics".

I mean, how many times did i sit on TS and telling my teammates what units of our opponents are coming at what time and so on. Pretty much every game i did predict the future and told them to my mates. But still.....

And dude, how "clever" you can use such units do highly depend on their cost. Imagine you are the smartest general arround the world with lots of "cool ideas" how to use lets say SAS, churchills etc very smart together (everybody who uses this units with success is already a very smart player btw). All that cleverness doesnt help you if you have to wait hours to get them all together while your opponent is able to throw every 30 seconds one universal unit that has the capability to shred your 10000 billion MP unit when you are just one second uncarefully while your enemie is never carefully at all but still successfull.

Sorry, but people just don't want to use their brains. They think that if they spam universally good units - they can win. And that is probably true, but there is no beauty and cunning in such tactic. There is no anticipating enemy moves, no traps, no thinking. Just brainless spamming... You have more units - you win. There is the same question with people who in every single game do the exactly same things. For example it's very common for PE - starting panzergrens -> at gun -> scout car -> 50mm at -> mortar ht... repeat until you have luft/wespe/TH. Just repeating the same pattern over and over. Where is the art I am asking? How come that after 2000 games those people are not bored to death yet? You know whom I am talking about ;D.

Yeah, i just tried for many years to change the PE tactics and opening games but again. Too high build cost do literally kill every attempt of smart unit use or combo. And its sad enough that even when you and your opponent knows which of your unit comes next that exactly this well known build order remains as the most successfull one. Every attempt of "surprise build order" is still less successfull as the "standard" one. Barely a unusual build order has a deadly effect on opponents.


And when every the smartest players are sooner or later giving up trying to use a unit (like SAS) very effectively it is then a "evidence" that this unit has no real use and being not (cost)- effective at all.


And lets be honest, like 80% of the units in BK are just there. They are just there so that some players can have some fun with them and to look cool or something. And you can be the smartest fucking badass arround in BK... when your unit suck against much cheaper enemie units of the same type even when fighting from a (much) superior position then its just a bad unit. And the few times when this unit is "successfull" then its usually not because you (with you i do not refer to you illa in particular With you i mean basically everybody reading that) was smart, its mostly because your enemie was just a bad player.



And generally saying thats one of my largest critics on BK. Lots of cool ideas of unit combinations are being killed due to extremly high unit build cost (while similiar units with similiar performence are cheap as peasants). Same goes for much more dynamic build orders throughout the entire game. And the very unflexible tier up line. Build cost drops on some (or many units) - even in exchange with higher upkeep/reinforce cost- would or could greatly increase the possible of smart playing and unit combination and the use of "extraordinary" units. And more flexible tier ups would allow a lot more surprises.

While i agree with many of your ideas Warhawks97, i dont agree with this one. "80% of the units in BK are just there" is very untrue, take a better look at them, maybe this will refresh your memory viewtopic.php?f=16&t=104 (thanks Wake for your work). I say its the opposite around, ~80% are used and ~20% "are just there". I would be in favor to see even less exotic units, i would like to see a closer simulation to ww2, there should be a larger percentage of units that were produced in high numbers vs ones produced in low number, for example we should see very few pumas since only ~200 were produced and a lot of Sd.Kfz. 251 halftracks since ~15k were produced. A lot of of stug IIIs (10k built) unlike now when you rarely see one , no SP etc you get my point.

I posted in a thread i made back on the old forum the idea to replace the KCHs with Grenadiers since medium inf consisted in 90%+ of all infantry not elite/exotic, we all remember the volskgrenadiers -> KCHs tactic everyone used back there, the main inf for terror was a unit didnt even existed in the war. If you think that exotic units should be in a larger percentage then the games will end up in elite vs elite, exotic vs exotic when 90%+ of the units in the war were regular units like riflemans,mgs,mortars,halftracks,medium tanks etc and that will fuck up the realism WHICH i stress again for many people its an important factor, this game is based on ww2 a historical event so realism should be an important factor in the game, if you dont like realism then go play starcraft (talking to everybody here not specificaly to you Warhawks, dont take me wrong, just trying to say that realism is important even if you like it or not because its ww2 not ww5). Another one of the changes i consider i had a big impact on was to reduce the cost of Pz IVs, this was back in the time when Xalibur was still active, i made a thread suggesting a price reduction for the Pz IVs since the description of these tanks is the same as for grens " backbone of wehrmacht forces". Before this change they were as rare as stugs thanks to their high price.

Illa you've kinda ran off-topic with that essay, but the forum is dead anyway, so i guess we don't need to care that much.

The forum is not dead, for 700 members its pretty active in my eyes. There are few players thats another thing (Steam greenlight can help with this)

[sgtToni95]

So wouldn't a little cost reduction have sense?
I repeat, i'm not so experienced, but i've very rarely seen someone destroying points, even with SE saboteurs. It could be useful to cut off some territory, but after they see sas on the field axis doesn't need so many units to go and kill them. And once you've retreated them you need to use them as a front unit because they can't crawl cloacked as SE saboteurs, making their sabotage purpose "useful" just once.
So could one of theese purposes make sense?
1) leaving them as they are but decreasing a bit their building cost, maybe at 600 Mp, and decreasing a bit their reinforce cost, maybe a little bit higher than commandos.
2) Make it possible to have just 1 sas squad, leave their cost as it is, but giving them different weapons, maybe an additional bren, or johnson, or browning (AB weapons), or a sniper rifle.. to sum up something to make them more cost-effective against inf even as a front unit.

I'm still curious if someone could please explain me how their weapon slots work: i tried to give them 3 brens, this doesn't allow them to pick any other weapon (so they have 3 picked), if they pick 3 zooks they can have a bren (4). What makes theese 2 configurations different one to each other?

[MarKr]

about weapons:
It is not the way that one picked weapon = 1 slot item. Each squad has set a number of slot items (weapons) they can pick up. SAS have it set to 6. However one Bren consumes 2 item slots, while one bazooka consumes 1 item slot.
So 3x Bren = 3x2 = 6. So 3 Brens consume all available item slots. But 3x Zooka = 3x1 = 3 items slots consumed so SAS still have 3 item slots free so you can pick up one additional Bren and still have one slot free so you can pick up something that consumes one slot.

[kwok]

Jp,
have you ever tried men of war game? I'm not tryin to convince you to leave bk, just wanted to offer a chance to see how perspective "simulation/hyper realism" changes would impact the game. I'm not arguing against your arguments as I am cautioning "is it really what you want". Playing men of war which basically takes realism to the next level often shows people that they don't REALLY want realism. Sometimes they do and they end up staying in men of war because of the level of realism bk will never be able to reach, and that's fine it means they found the right game for them. Bk can get to a high place of "realism", but not as well as MoW and the mod itself isn't intended for realism in the first place. I'd give it a shot, at least try the free demo on steam. See if that's something you'd like to play.

Devilfish/Toni
I understand the point that you're saying, I didn't think that you thought sas were worthless (though sukin did say that blatantly). But I still the the price of the unit is fair (already been reduced before) because of the hole that it covers in Brit gameplay which I mentioned in a post above. I think gameplay wise it is good to have the hole-coverer be a high price otherwise Brits would just be too strong without holes at all.

Item weapons have sizes and each squad has an inventory space for weapon items. This just means that bazookas are smaller than brens, you can fit more. The exact numbers and sizes I can't tell you at this very moment unless I hop on Corsix when I can. But honestly prob won't.

[Jagdpanther]

Jp,
have you ever tried men of war game? I'm not tryin to convince you to leave bk, just wanted to offer a chance to see how perspective "simulation/hyper realism" changes would impact the game. I'm not arguing against your arguments as I am cautioning "is it really what you want". Playing men of war which basically takes realism to the next level often shows people that they don't REALLY want realism. Sometimes they do and they end up staying in men of war because of the level of realism bk will never be able to reach, and that's fine it means they found the right game for them. Bk can get to a high place of "realism", but not as well as MoW and the mod itself isn't intended for realism in the first place. I'd give it a shot, at least try the free demo on steam. See if that's something you'd like to play.

Im familiar with MoW, im not talking about limited ammo and realistic gun ranges type of realism. MoW has the some of the shittiest graphics and animations i've seen in a video game. Here's an older topic of mine explaining what kind of realism i like viewtopic.php?f=27&t=1089#p12213

[kwok]

What you described still sound like mow minus AI tbh.

Edit: ai and graphics. But in terms of game elements and mechanics sounds like mow. Which I still recommend trying to see if you really want certain realism founded balancing suggestions.

[Jagdpanther]

What you described still sound like mow minus AI tbh.

Edit: ai and graphics. But in terms of game elements and mechanics sounds like mow. Which I still recommend trying to see if you really want certain realism founded balancing suggestions.

I played the game man, i dont like it, its graphics and animations(in MoW the running animation makes the inf look like they're on crack or smth, thats how fast they move, not to talk about the explosions, they are even worse than coh 2, i cant find words to describe how bad they are, compare them with bk and see for yourself), dont know where you got AI from but yea even AI is better in coh. I would take any day better graphics and animations with some shitty retarded abilities like force retreat, tiger shock vs shitty graphics and animations but realistic useless details like limited ammo or big gun ranges. Read my post again, maybe you didnt understood me properly.

[kwok]

what it has:
-COH + BK it's like a "mini battlefield" but with realistic unit behaviors.
-realistic view system like in coh 2 where you cant see over obstacles, etc, you got my point.
-realistic gun turning speed
-realistic explosion when kaput

doesn't have:
-unrealistic/retarded things in bk like force retreat,
-tiger shock (i know inf were terrified of tiger tanks but that didnt made them crawl like worms, it actually made them better soldiers since adrenaline kicked in (see the movie Fury when a 76 Sherman faces a Tiger)
- hellcats camouflaging in the middle of the roads,
-instantly building 1 meter of sandbags (i think i even saw people building even half a meter) from nothing in a few seconds and use it to give green cover to 6 men, units teleporting to buildings, i get the science behind this, in ww2 soldiers managed to sneak up behind enemy lines and ambush or sabotage etc but IMO this ability is overused and annoying
-units like fallschirmjägers that after a few points of veterancy and the defensive upgrade become the beloved KCH's aka rambos aka immortals aka cockroaches


if you say the AI is okay, then the only thing that it doesn't have for you is graphics.
I guess if limited ammo is something that stops you from playing despite it having all those other features, then so be it. but when i play mow, i hardly ever have ammo problems tbh. ammo boxes are cheap and you can centralize them or throw them onto a truck for fast movement.

as for explosions, they look uglier but i think they behave a lot more realistic than bk and make huge environmental impacts as well. the enviro in general in mow is just a hell lot more realistic driving a whole other set of different mechanics from BK

[Jagdpanther]

Yea graphics and animations are the most important things in a game for me at the same level with gameplay (a good example of a game with great graphics but shitty gameplay is battlefront).

The limited ammo is a generic example of useless realistic features that first came in my mind, its not the thing that i hate the most.

Environmental impacts doesnt reduce the horror my eyes see when an explosion happens.

[kwok]

Okay fair enough. If this is the case maybe I can shamefully advertise my coh2 work. Before you rant about coh2 graphics, I did make some adjustments to make it less cartoonish and a bit more like coh1.

[Warhawks97]

Devilfish/Toni
I understand the point that you're saying, I didn't think that you thought sas were worthless (though sukin did say that blatantly). But I still the the price of the unit is fair (already been reduced before) because of the hole that it covers in Brit gameplay which I mentioned in a post above. I think gameplay wise it is good to have the hole-coverer be a high price otherwise Brits would just be too strong without holes at all.

ehm, its just that brits are the most costly faction already oO. 315 MP for sappers is already a huge disadvantage.

And brits have no "holes"? Hmm, where to begin... Most expensive basic inf which in offense isnt better than rifles or volks? Expensive tanks but not a single multirole tanks unlike US or axis have it? No medium AT in a normal base building (trucks in this case), long production time? No base repair station upgrade? costly sappers and often depending on US mates in order to repair something? No easy "schreck/zook" hit and run tactic (every tank IV becomes a pain if you dont have a well placed 17 pdr arround)?

I think its not that CW lacks "holes". In everything else i am staying fully with devilfish. His last post just nailed it, nothing to add.

[kwok]

Haha reasons idont play Brits is because of their play style, but I don't think they're worthless. Their holes are my areas of strength and fun while their strengths are not interesting to me. The only problem I ever had with Brits was their lack in recon, but the new dingo abilities change that a bit.

Yeah they have a lot of high cost units and don't have the common tools other factions have, but what do they have? They have durability, low micro-needed power, mobile base presence, a huge assortment of abilities, and buffs on buffs on buffs for units.
Basically Warhawks, they are not your play style either. And they're definitely not made for 1v1s. But you will probably see them with the highest score when played by a good Brit player.

[sgtToni95]

what do you mean by buffs for units?
There is tenent and captain but every faction has an officer, and since this is an expansive faction nobody really wants to spend res on rebuilding a tenent once he's dead. Apart from commandos buffs from tech tree and arty's different shots unlocks (if you want to consider theese "buffs"), and combat engeneers buff , i can't see all theese buffs to units.
All other factions have a buff to inf per doctrine i think, or to tank crews, or to equipment, but i can't really see "buffs on buffs on buffs" on brits faction.
Maybe SE for PE doesn't have tech tree buffs, but PE already has that building which gives buffs to units i think.
I'm not here to say they need to get theese buffs, but i just don't see them as you say, maybe i'm just blind or i don't know this game well enough.

[kwok]

You don't see players doing a lot of things because most players follow a meta rather than explore the units and options.
You can make multiple LT's as brits and the some of its vet bonuses stack. For example, I don't know the specifics but say a vetted LT (axis or allied) gives a damage increase by about 25% (which I think is the actual value?), 3 LT's will give a 75% damage increase (I think it's 25% off the base otherwise it'd be like... 92% increase which I don't believe lol).
On top of that, Captains give 50% reduced received suppression and 20% reduced damage at level 1 (don't feel like digging into corsix more).
All those numbers don't include other passive buffs that can just be added on without any micro that brits have PLUS any base value advantage brits have already because they are inherently better stat units. The reason why brits end up seeming "just as good and sometimes worse" than other axis units is because people only know how to build emplacements, rush with single units at a time, spam churchills, or never end arty as brits. They don't give the buffs on buffs that makes the units invincible and powerful. HAHA imagine the already "invicible" raf commandos with passives from tech tree PLUS a commando captain that no one ever uses. For balance reasons, commandos can't get LT and Cap buffs otherwise you'll get some REALLY ragey axis players as soon as allies figure it out.
My suggestion in playing brits, don't go cheap on leaders. They are unfortunately one of the very few recon units available for brits plus they really amplify your units for a relatively cheap price. Like between getting a 3rd inf unit and an LT I'd say get the LT.

Fun fact, did you know a cromwell command tank with veterancy can buff the range of a churchill to outrange a Tiger?

The PE upgraded buffs that you have to buy are just add squad member, reduce suppression, and increase vet rate i think... but i don't feel like digging through corsix to find out.

[sgtToni95]

What is this corsix you talk about? Can you see all theese "hidden" stats and buffs by using it?
Thank you for giving me theese informations about LT and Cap
This is what i was looking for, not a rebalance or general buff, just knowledge about the game to be more effective thank you so much

[kwok]

Corsix is basically a file packaging and editing tool for Coh and other relic games.
http://modstudio.corsix.org

If you want to learn more, I use to run a group called bknc (blitzkreig noob camp) with shadow and illa. We basically focused on teaching players new and old. We sort of gave up because we all got too busy and I started modding for coh2. But I'm trying to pitch for a more organized teaching space in the forums now for more conversations like this, free of balancing discussion. If you vocalize your support on this, I can bring more to the devs for that space.

[JimQwilleran]

Most expensive basic inf which in offense isnt better than rifles or volks?

I can't believe you said that . That is a joke right?

Thank you kwok for sharing cool knowledge with us .

[sgtToni95]

Yeah i joined that group some time ago but i didn't see much going on there (and i must admit i didn't checked it very frequently as well, so my fault, but i promise i'll do now )
I think that group is a great initiative though (the "playing paired with a pro" purpose to learn some tricks was excellent), but i posted twice on this forum looking fore some suggestions and people like you and others gave me what i was looking for,and i read other posts and watch replays finding them satisfying, so i didn't even think about bknc.
I see there are not so many active people here, but you and the others posting messages here have all a lot of experience on this game, so you can give a good support for people like me.
I even have 4 mates (real life ones) who usually play with/vs me and check this forum frequently, so i think if you wanna go on with bknc that would not be so useless.