6th Airborne - Changing ingredients... while keeping the flavour.

[I WUB PUGS]

"It is time for some changes, you Frenchists."
​

There are other threads about fixing 6th Airborne. I don't think they're very good to be fair. The intention of this thread is to induce some brainstorming and get some fair changes to the Division without making it overpowered while still retaining its unique flavor.

I will update the OP as ideas come in and I will order suggested changes based on popularity/consensus.

To start with, I feel it is important to identify the flavor of the deck and then consider changes to enhance this.

I am merely trying to start the conversation with the following and I will amend the OP as the consensus changes. It is my hope that Eugen will use this thread as a serious thought piece from the community here.

Again all of the below is subject to change based on posts in the thread.

Identity:

• 6th Airborne Division is primarily a city brawler. This is the core identity and is special in that regard when compared to the other airborne divisions and even the other infantry divisions. It does not have the various toys of even the half-airborne Luftlande. It doesn't have the spammability of 101st or the ability to fight in hedgerows. It doesn't have all the cool and special toys that 3rd FSJ has. It is a straightforward, grab the towns and hold the line division.

Problems when considering this identity:

1. The division is susceptible to gap attacks in gaps of 500m or more and open flanks are largely undefendable.
2. The division is heavily reliant on the contentious off-map strikes of HMS Warspite, specifically in Phase A.
3. Organic support is limited, especially in terms of light artillery in all phases.
4. Veterancy seems to favor just the infantry core while making the few support assets poorer and worse at their jobs.

Suggested changes to recon:

• Add a 2x card of Daimler AC + LJ to Phase B

Suggested changes to infantry:

• Add a 2x card of 2-star Air Landing to Phase A
• Up Air Landing to 9 men.

Suggested changes to tanks:

• Cut CMD Tetrarch to a single card
• LJ Tetrarch up vet to 2-star + 200m range..... really???

Suggested changes to support:

• Price buff Tetrarch CS by 5 points

Suggested changes to anti-tank:

• Add a 2x card of 1-star 6pdrs with airborne wings to Phase A
• Add 2 pders? How many? When? Do we need more AT slots then?
• Leave 17 pders as is?
• More 6 pders?

Suggested changes to anti-air:

• None

Suggested changes to artillery:

• Remove Phase A, HMS Warspite off-map support.
• Move 2x card of 1-star Pack howitzers to Phase A
• Add a 3x card of 0-star 25 pders to Phase B
• Add a 5x card of 0-star 25 pders to Phase C
• Increase cost of Phase C, HMS Warspite off-map support to 200 per jeep.

Suggested changes to air:

• Combine Phase A Pathfinder Mosquitoes into one card of 2x, increase the price to 185 per plane.

Really, most of the changes I envision being necessary have to do with the loss of one of the off-map jeeps and the increase in expense of the other two. The goal should be to make the division play more horizontally where it can cover its own flanks and gaps between towns. Right now it plays a very narrow game and relies on the off-map support to destroy enemy artillery and to stop pushes because the other assets it has are either too few in number or too poorly vetted to actually stand up in a fight.

This is the best compilation I can come up with from the various ideas I've read, as well as adding a few of my own that I've not yet shared. Again, this is an open discussion and the first iteration of the above changes is just a starting point.

 

[mitchverr]

Well, a couple of things, mostly a case of adding 2 units to the deck already in other decks which are both a valid choice to do so.

Recon
Daimler AC + LJ to recon - They come from the Belgian brigade which was under 6 AB command

Artillery
25 pounder cards in B and C - They come from the Belgian brigade which was under 6 AB command

These are both backed by the use of the staghound in 6 AB right now, as from what I can gather the staghound was only used by the Beglians in the area and not 6 AB itself, showing that the Belgians have indeed arrived.


We could also see the commando units from the campaign join the team however this is ofcourse a very iffy 1 due to eugen not wanting to have sf even though they acted more conventionally again, basically under 6 AB.

Possible Phase a/b/c troops. Stars of 1-2 stars? More call in numbers for 6 AB to be able to carry on their fight a bit more? Or turn them into the low number high quality choice with the AB troops being a bit higher per card, akin to how the rangers are in 2ID?

Commando leader - Usual leader type, though instead of AT possibly a sniper for interestingness
Commando subsection - Simular to the airborne infantry, 10 man, with a bren gun OR a vickers K GO
Commando assault group - Thompsons and grenades/demo charges 3-6 men
Commando K GO section - Either a solo or bren group alternate using 2 vickers K GO. Its HE if the latter would be on par with 34/42, being the only british lmg which has this.

However, this would require eugen to actually make a K GO model, as the 1 used currently in the campaign is actually a .50cal from what I can tell and completely wrong.

edit : http://modernfirearms.net/userfiles/images/machine/uk/1319377389.jpg vickers K GO.

 

[I WUB PUGS]

I actually never looked at the Commandos in the campaign.

Are your units pulled from there or just guesses?

My 25pdr addition is pulled from posts you've made. I don't know if Eugen would do it. If not then I think there needs to be a lot more access to the Pack howitzers.

I'll put the Daimler AC + LJ into Phase B? Single card of 2?

 

[mitchverr]

I would go single card of 2 myself, given their reliance on very light gear.

Yeah the 25 pwnder thing, i thought you wrote pack (blurring eyes with tiredness and contacts in), but least people can see why though

As for commando, I "know" the assault unit and the "k go" are in there at least, its the germans first mission as enemy units but I aint really a fan of doing capaigns. But yeah, chances are it would need "new units" so to speak (more copy/past of others with a chance of colour works and a new mg model). But given the model is wrong, eugen should be making a new 1 for it anyway unless they still UGBEAR lol.

 

[Grosnours]

I agree fully with your sentiment, intentions (and most proposed changes), but isn't there another way that doesn't involve mostly adding stars everywhere ?
I'd much prefer to add availability, play with phase availability or even add new units rather than going through the gimmicky and way too effective shortcut of adding stars.
We should get rid of the crutches of this division (like you're intending), but not by replacing them by starry crutches.

 

[local-festival]

Here's my list, it's much shorter:
1. Give division cheap AT guns like 101st and 3FJ have. Don't overdo it with stupid stars, 101st is the best example. 1 card of one vetted and 2 cards of no vetted light guns. Do the same to the 3FJ while at it.
2. Do something with Airlanding, these guys are really bad. I don't know why they're a seven men squad but it doesn't work. Maybe make nine if you insist on a smaller squad. Imagine facing eleven fs-pioneers having Airlanding at your disposal, heh.
3. Do something with Tetrarch, it's so bad it hurts. Maybe increase turret rotation speed, +1 accuracy. One star for the Little John would be a good option.

And for Queen's sake, do something with Brens. They are so awful I would've traded it for another Sten any second, it's not like it does any damage.

 

[Vyllis]

Stars for this, stars for that, more stars...
Bland suggestions.

I hope veterancy get toned down in the future.
edit: local festival suggestions seems good.

 

[local-festival]

Also, I appologies for an excessive meticulousness but the support vehicle name is Tetrarch CS (Close Support) not C5. The fonts are really dodgy in SD.

 

[Grosnours]

Here's my list, it's much shorter:
1. Give division cheap AT guns like 101st and 3FJ have. Don't overdo it with stupid stars, 101st is the best example. 1 card of one vetted and 2 cards of no vetted light guns. Do the same to the 3FJ while at it.
2. Do something with Airlanding, these guys are really bad. I don't know why they're a seven men squad but it doesn't work. Maybe make nine if you insist on a smaller squad. Imagine facing eleven fs-pioneers having Airlanding at your disposal, heh.
3. Do something with Tetrarch, it's so bad it hurts. Maybe increase turret rotation speed, +1 accuracy. One star for the Little John would be a good option.

And for Queen's sake, do something with Brens. They are so awful I would've traded it for another Sten any second, it's not like it does any damage.

Sounds quite good.

 

[local-festival]

There's also a notion of giving the Little John 1000m range, allegedly its range should at least be equal to a regular gun, if not higher. But probably it was a balance decision on a Eugen part to give it a shorter range since muh 14 AP. But in reality these 14 AP never work.

 

[artemasward]

I think I probably hew closer to local-festival's additions, keeping it light and breezy.

Some additional light AT guns, with some mild vet. An improvement to airlanding (more men) or more vet. And maybe more mortars across all phases.

 

[brainfrog345]

Here's my list, it's much shorter:
1. Give division cheap AT guns like 101st and 3FJ have. Don't overdo it with stupid stars, 101st is the best example. 1 card of one vetted and 2 cards of no vetted light guns. Do the same to the 3FJ while at it.
2. Do something with Airlanding, these guys are really bad. I don't know why they're a seven men squad but it doesn't work. Maybe make nine if you insist on a smaller squad. Imagine facing eleven fs-pioneers having Airlanding at your disposal, heh.
3. Do something with Tetrarch, it's so bad it hurts. Maybe increase turret rotation speed, +1 accuracy. One star for the Little John would be a good option.

And for Queen's sake, do something with Brens. They are so awful I would've traded it for another Sten any second, it's not like it does any damage.

this. I wouldn't even mind Tetrarch LJs having two stars. What good are those 14 AP when they can't hit a barn door from 300 m ? Considering they get killed by anything with AP value on their weapon, they need to be able one-shoot stuff.

 

[I WUB PUGS]

I agree fully with your sentiment, intentions (and most proposed changes), but isn't there another way that doesn't involve mostly adding stars everywhere ?
I'd much prefer to add availability, play with phase availability or even add new units rather than going through the gimmicky and way too effective shortcut of adding stars.
We should get rid of the crutches of this division (like you're intending), but not by replacing them by starry crutches.

Well, I'd be wrong if I didn't admit it was a shortcut.

The reason I did so many stars is that the deck slot structure doesn't change (except +1 slot in artillery) and some of the ones like the Air Landing and the and the Pack Howitzers are already there, just in Phase B. Although the Air Landing team would get an additional star but it's only 2 units in that Phase A card. Basically just want an effective PIAT team with that one.

The thing with the AT is that it doesn't get many slots and I've not found the 17 pders to be that great. I think that's the primary 'stars' problem. The tanks honestly don't matter because there's 4 slots you burn one of those (or more) with shitty Tetrarchs. So a couple 1-star Cromwells coming in Phase B don't matter much I don't think.

I think that's my question for stuff like AT and Tanks. Do we want the division to retain its star-heavy infantry and just like double the supporting assets?

AT is certainly the biggest problem. What if they just got a bunch of 1-star 6 pounders? Even scrap the 17's since they can't hit shit anyway and cost too much. The deck would still be highly vulnerable to heavy armor.

Here's my list, it's much shorter:
1. Give division cheap AT guns like 101st and 3FJ have. Don't overdo it with stupid stars, 101st is the best example. 1 card of one vetted and 2 cards of no vetted light guns. Do the same to the 3FJ while at it.
2. Do something with Airlanding, these guys are really bad. I don't know why they're a seven men squad but it doesn't work. Maybe make nine if you insist on a smaller squad. Imagine facing eleven fs-pioneers having Airlanding at your disposal, heh.
3. Do something with Tetrarch, it's so bad it hurts. Maybe increase turret rotation speed, +1 accuracy. One star for the Little John would be a good option.

And for Queen's sake, do something with Brens. They are so awful I would've traded it for another Sten any second, it's not like it does any damage.

I updated the OP with some tweaks to it. The red highlighted areas need some clarification or agreements.

 

[Herrmaus3r]

Here's my list, it's much shorter:
1. Give division cheap AT guns like 101st and 3FJ have. Don't overdo it with stupid stars, 101st is the best example. 1 card of one vetted and 2 cards of no vetted light guns. Do the same to the 3FJ while at it.
2. Do something with Airlanding, these guys are really bad. I don't know why they're a seven men squad but it doesn't work. Maybe make nine if you insist on a smaller squad. Imagine facing eleven fs-pioneers having Airlanding at your disposal, heh.
3. Do something with Tetrarch, it's so bad it hurts. Maybe increase turret rotation speed, +1 accuracy. One star for the Little John would be a good option.

And for Queen's sake, do something with Brens. They are so awful I would've traded it for another Sten any second, it's not like it does any damage.

I much prefer these changes. The OPs changes are too much and are too drastic.

The deck does need help, but turning it into the FSJ for allies is NOT what it needs to be. We already have 2 ridiculously strong AB decks, and we see where that's led us in the meta.

We need decks to have both strengths AND weaknesses, and granting them a ton of stars everywhere and tons of artillery doesn't create any weaknesses.

 

[I WUB PUGS]

I much prefer these changes. The OPs changes are too much and are too drastic.

The deck does need help, but turning it into the FSJ for allies is NOT what it needs to be. We already have 2 ridiculously strong AB decks, and we see where that's led us in the meta.

We need decks to have both strengths AND weaknesses, and granting them a ton of stars everywhere and tons of artillery doesn't create any weaknesses.

By 'tons' you mean a couple 25 pounders in addition to a pair of 75mm's they already get?

The stars on most things I suggested wouldn't have mattered as 6th AB is grossly restricted in deck slots in the places that got 'general star buffs'. Still I changed it because of the pushback because I'm not trying to be some petty dictator.

Countering Half-Track and light armor is the biggest problem the deck needs to address so I think vetted 6 pders is still a core objective for buffing this deck. I even cut a star in the OP from the Phase A 6's but I personally think a double-star 2x card in Phase A is what is necessary. But I also never considered the serious buffs to the LJ that others are.

 

[Herrmaus3r]

By 'tons' you mean a couple 25 pounders in addition to a pair of 75mm's they already get?

The stars on most things I suggested wouldn't have mattered as 6th AB is grossly restricted in deck slots in the places that got 'general star buffs'. Still I changed it because of the pushback because I'm not trying to be some petty dictator.

Countering Half-Track and light armor is the biggest problem the deck needs to address so I think vetted 6 pders is still a core objective for buffing this deck. I even cut a star in the OP from the Phase A 6's but I personally think a double-star 2x card in Phase A is what is necessary. But I also never considered the serious buffs to the LJ that others are.

A 'couple' would suggest two. You're suggesting it get 3x 25pdrs in B and 5x in C. That's quite a lot for an airborne deck. A vet 1 card of 6pdr + tetrarch buff will be more that enough in phase A to deal with halftracks/light armor in A.

The weakness of an airborne deck is its tanks and artillery tabs. Granting them tons of onmap artillery completely negates that weakness as an airborne deck and turns them into a "jack of all trades" deck; something we need less of, not more.

 

[Yung Rommel]

"It is time for some changes, you Frenchists."
​

There are other threads about fixing 6th Airborne. I don't think they're very good to be fair. The intention of this thread is to induce some brainstorming and get some fair changes to the Division without making it overpowered while still retaining its unique flavor.

I will update the OP as ideas come in and I will order suggested changes based on popularity/consensus.

To start with, I feel it is important to identify the flavor of the deck and then consider changes to enhance this.

I am merely trying to start the conversation with the following and I will amend the OP as the consensus changes. It is my hope that Eugen will use this thread as a serious thought piece from the community here.

Again all of the below is subject to change based on posts in the thread.

Identity:

• 6th Airborne Division is primarily a city brawler. This is the core identity and is special in that regard when compared to the other airborne divisions and even the other infantry divisions. It does not have the various toys of even the half-airborne Luftlande. It doesn't have the spammability of 101st or the ability to fight in hedgerows. It doesn't have all the cool and special toys that 3rd FSJ has. It is a straightforward, grab the towns and hold the line division.

Problems when considering this identity:

1. The division is susceptible to gap attacks in gaps of 500m or more and open flanks are largely undefendable.
2. The division is heavily reliant on the contentious off-map strikes of HMS Warspite, specifically in Phase A.
3. Organic support is limited, especially in terms of light artillery in all phases.
4. Veterancy seems to favor just the infantry core while making the few support assets poorer and worse at their jobs.

Suggested changes to recon:

• Add a 2x card of Daimler AC + LJ to Phase B

Suggested changes to infantry:

• Add a 2x card of 2-star Air Landing to Phase A

Suggested changes to tanks:

• Cut CMD Tetrarch to a single card, and up vet to 2-star
• Cut LJ Tetrarch to a 2x card and up vet to 1-star
• Cut Tetrarch to one card of 4x and up vet to 1-star
• Add single-star vet to all Phase B and C tank cards to represent the vanguard of 'the Cavalry'

Suggested changes to support:

• Price buff Tetrarch C5 by 5 points

Suggested changes to anti-tank:

• Add a 2x card of 2-star 6pdrs with airborne wings to Phase A
• Add single-star vet to all zero-star AT guns in Phases B and C

Suggested changes to anti-air:

• Add 2-star veterancy to Phase A Polstens

Suggested changes to artillery:

• Remove Phase A, HMS Warspite off-map support.
• Add another artillery slot
• Add a 2x card of 2-star Pack howitzers to Phase A
• Add a 3x card of 1-star 25 pders to Phase B
• Add a 5x card of 0-star 25 pders to Phase C
• Increase cost of Phase C, HMS Warspite off-map support to 200 per jeep.

Suggested changes to air:

• Combine Phase A Pathfinder Mosquitoes into one card of 2x, increase the price to 185 per plane.

Really, most of the changes I envision being necessary have to do with the loss of one of the off-map jeeps and the increase in expense of the other two. The goal should be to make the division play more horizontally where it can cover its own flanks and gaps between towns. Right now it plays a very narrow game and relies on the off-map support to destroy enemy artillery and to stop pushes because the other assets it has are either too few in number or too poorly vetted to actually stand up in a fight.

This is the best compilation I can come up with from the various ideas I've read, as well as adding a few of my own that I've not yet shared. Again, this is an open discussion and the first iteration of the above changes is just a starting point.

Your conception of the division identity is flawed imo. Compare to other AB divisions ingame:

101st is aggressive infantry play with air support, with poor mid game but great early and late. Flexible, and meant to bend but not break. Generalist unit and quantity focus.

Luftwaffle is an ultra spam deck that is great at taking and holding territory, but not actually killing units. Specialized unit and quantity.

3rd FJ is super elite infantry and heavy weapon/AT units backed by okay heavy support in stugs for example, with a slow economy: so the deck is good at slowly overpowering into B and then forming a defensive wall. Generalist unit and quality.

6th AB is elite commandos with lots of light tanks in A, falling into a supporting role for pretty heavy support into the lategame. Everything is pretty surgical and the decks built around finesse but it needs help at being able to fight Armored decks on equal terms and use its commandos properly.

CHANGES
AB PIAT team to 4 men as analogue to Fusilier Marins.
Airlanding to 10 men and double vet.
Tetrarch to 45 points, LJ to 55.
AB Bren group HE buff: should be the most potent long range squad in A.
Naval artillery cost nerf.
Access to a rocket plane in A.
Give AB Para smoke grenade. This would allow them to pressure vehicles and fall back easier.
Give AB scouts PIAT.
Give an additional tank slot.
Give captured Pak 40 double stars but have it remain only phase A AT gun.
An additional card of Pathfinders.
Give AB leader 2 stars.

 

[I WUB PUGS]

CHANGES
AB PIAT team to 4 men as analogue to Fusilier Marins.
Airlanding to 10 men and double vet.
Tetrarch to 45 points, LJ to 55.
AB Bren group HE buff: should be the most potent long range squad in A.
Naval artillery cost nerf.
Access to a rocket plane in A.
Give AB Para smoke grenade. This would allow them to pressure vehicles and fall back easier.
Give AB scouts PIAT.
Give an additional tank slot.
Give captured Pak 40 double stars but have it remain only phase A AT gun.
An additional card of Pathfinders.
Give AB leader 2 stars.

You'd be adding even more stars than I would have with units that actually get used. You really think the entire Infantry tab should be 2-star?

I can't get down with the Pak 40 veterancy. Makes no sense logically and a lot of people have been arguing for 6 pders in Phase A because they get other stuff from gliders in A. The Pak 40 has HE so it is still useful, but giving it 2 stars means that 6th AB would have the most potent AT gun of any deck in the game in Phase A. (sans Pak 43 for 21st Pz???)

I'll wait for other comments concerning your suggestions before I update the OP again.

A 'couple' would suggest two. You're suggesting it get 3x 25pdrs in B and 5x in C. That's quite a lot for an airborne deck. A vet 1 card of 6pdr + tetrarch buff will be more that enough in phase A to deal with halftracks/light armor in A.

The weakness of an airborne deck is its tanks and artillery tabs. Granting them tons of onmap artillery completely negates that weakness as an airborne deck and turns them into a "jack of all trades" deck; something we need less of, not more.

You get 4 slots of artillery.

One slot goes to mortars almost always in Phase A. Then giving them their Pack Howitzers in Phase A which they already get access to, just not a double-card is another slot. I'd cut those single cards btw if they got the double card. Then in the 3rd slot the'd probably take the 25pders in Phase B.

That's one slot left to decide between HMS Warspite or the Phase C 25 pders. Possible combinations would be:
8 total 25 pders across B and C (NO WARSPITE! YAY!)
3 x 25 pders (B) + HMS Warspite (C)
5 x 25 pders + HMS Warspite in Phase C

That isn't a lot of artillery, it just gives more choice in the artillery tab for a division that presently has none because they have near zero availability of even the Pack howitzers and mortars. Which is exactly why HMS Warspite is a given when building the deck.

The artillery tab is probably in need of the most work in terms of availability of light artillery. No one is asking for something like the American 105mm or 120mm mortars. The deck has shit artillery now and probably always will considering the best anyone can suggest with historical support is a handful of garbage 25's.

 

[Herrmaus3r]

You'd be adding even more stars than I would have with units that actually get used. You really think the entire Infantry tab should be 2-star?

I can't get down with the Pak 40 veterancy. Makes no sense logically and a lot of people have been arguing for 6 pders in Phase A because they get other stuff from gliders in A. The Pak 40 has HE so it is still useful, but giving it 2 stars means that 6th AB would have the most potent AT gun of any deck in the game in Phase A. (sans Pak 43 for 21st Pz???)

I'll wait for other comments concerning your suggestions before I update the OP again.






You get 4 slots of artillery.

One slot goes to mortars almost always in Phase A. Then giving them their Pack Howitzers in Phase A which they already get access too, just not a double-card is another slot. I'd cut those single cards btw if they got the double card. Then in the 3rd slot the'd probably take the 25pders in Phase B.

That's one slot left to decide between HMS Warspite or the Phase C 25 pders. Possible combinations would be:
8 total 25 pders across B and C (NO WARSPITE! YAY!)
3 x 25 pders (B) + HMS Warspite (C)
5 x 25 pders + HMS Warspite in Phase C

That isn't a lot of artillery, it just gives more choice in the artillery tab for a division that presently has none because they have near zero availability of even the Pack howitzers and mortars. Which is exactly why HMS Warspite is a given when building the deck.

The artillery tab is probably in need of the most work in terms of availability of light artillery. No one is asking for something like the American 105mm or 120mm mortars. The deck has shit artillery now and probably always will considering the best anyone can suggest with historical support is a handful of garbage 25's.

If you think 3-8 25PDRs is not very much for an airborne deck, I don't know what to tell you. I mean, you're literally asking to have 1 howitzer less than 2nd ID can get in total, and more howitzers than Scots can field overall.

I don't think airborne decks should have very much access to artillery in general. That's the trade off for getting access to so much aircraft. If you want more artillery, you take a dedicated artillery deck like Scots, or 2nd ID etc etc. Offmap is another matter entirely, but if you look at 3rd FSJ and 101st, they don't have access to multitudes of artillery that's on map either, That's supposed to be their weakness. If you grant 3 or 5 25PDRs or hell, 8, you're eliminating a core weakness that the deck is SUPPOSED to have, and offering a buff to diminish what it is to be an airborne deck.

Why not have 6th AB buffed in more productive ways like some of the other suggestions you've made to buff the core of the deck itself, rather that eliminate a weakness designed to be there for an airborne deck?

 

[I WUB PUGS]

If you take 8 x 25 pders, you do not get either mortars, or your Pack 75's or HMS warspite.

How are you not taking deck slots into account?

If you don't take Warspite and you take the mortars, the Packs and all the 25's that is a grand total of 12 light artillery pieces for the entire match. Your number only goes down if you take Warspite.

This is not a lot of artillery. It just looks that way when looking at the x5 card.



101st gets 105mm and 75mm on top of good mortars and off-map. Artillery is not its weakness. I don't play 3rd FSJ often at all so I don't remember what it has, but I'm sure it has some nice mortars and multiple off map options since that shit has rained on me incessantly.











Edit: Really, so your suggestion is to cut Warspite from A, and just call their artillery options 'fair'.

Great, I can tell you've never played this deck. They get a pair of 81mm mortars in Phase A and can take single cards of Pack 75's. It is the leanest artillery selection of any deck in the game by far and adding the woeful 25 pder is not going to change that position.

FYI, the reason the 25pders are even up there is because Mitchverr has strongly suggested it because of the Belgian contingent.