[ALL Modes] [UKF] Advanced Emplacement Regiment Fix

24

Comments

  • #32
    3 years ago
    KurfürstKurfürst Posts: 289

    The mortar pits range is fine - it cannot move and relocate like other mortars, and can't engage so many targets. I'd rather touch its firing sequence, so that the shells from the two mortars would not land in such quick succession, increasing reaction time and reducing the chance of wiping whole squads in the first or second salvo.

  • #33
    3 years ago

    @Mr_Smith said:

    @d4rkhawk100 said:

    The commander has already been nerfed. In my opinion this would take it way too far. Emplacements are part of the faction and that's the way it is. I think people should stop complaining about brits defensive base building play style as it's built into the way they were designed. Yes the mortar range is high well then get a stuka, make it brace and throw a flame grenade. I have played brits extensively and I know when I play against a good axis player as they either:

    1. Deny the building of bofors/mortar in the first place
    2. Constantly hammer the emplacements with leIG or two separated mortars

    If you don't like the base building then try something new.

    Let's be honest here. None of the nerfs that Relic instituted or plans to implement on the commander really address any of the issues surrounding the use of the doctrine.

    Instead, the real issues with the commander are:

    • Counterbarrage, which requires no micro to use
    • Passive healing micro-free, MP-free (you don't risk losing sappers), which synergises with brace

    By replacing counterbarrage with coordinated fire and buffing 25-pounders:

    • You indirectly buff ALL other Brit doctrines (since non-doc brits get access to howitzers that are useful at SOMETHING)
    • You fix Royal Artillery commander

    Another idea would be to reduce incoming (auto)healing while the emplacement is braced. Currently, there is an unholy synergy between brace and the autorepair commanders (Royal Engineer, Advanced Emplacements):

    • You (the emplacement) take significantly less damage while braced
    • You keep receiving full repair-speed benefits
    • Thus, you can top up your health WHILE being barraged, even under heavy fire

    For all I care, Relic can revert ALL previous nerfs to the commander and implement just the ones I outlined in my original post. This is because the current nerfs are mistargeted and will be ineffective.

    *Note that something can nerfed and still be overpowered after the first nerf. Recent cases in point:
    - Land Mattress (it has already received a nerf once a)
    - Artillery Cover (it took a heavy nerf BEFORE people discovered how OP it was)
    - All plane loiters got nerfed when they lost their sight, but JU-87 loiter is still OP as fuck (with the deflection criticals)

    I agree with most of what you propose here. Yes you get sappers respawn MP-free however they are killed with artillery fire, I mean one stuka shot and they're done for a few minutes until they respawn (enough to bait the emplacement to brace and fire another stuka).

    As a whole you are right. The Brit faction has been receiving nerf after nerf but still misses the fundamental issues with the faction. E.g. land mattress is fine where it was.

  • #34
    3 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855
    1. The land mattress wasnt fine, the nerf makes sense.
    2. The emplacements are fine as is, except the 17pdr which is UP and the bofors special ability, which could stand to be changed. The mortar pit is fine, and the advanced emplacement general has been tripe nerfed.
  • #35
    3 years ago

    @MCMartel said:
    1. The land mattress wasnt fine, the nerf makes sense.
    2. The emplacements are fine as is, except the 17pdr which is UP and the bofors special ability, which could stand to be changed. The mortar pit is fine, and the advanced emplacement general has been tripe nerfed.

    Nerf concerning the AOE yes but I still think the CP should remain at 5

  • #36
    3 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855

    I disagree, I'd almost say the opposite d4rkhawk, AOE wasn't bad but it came far too early.

  • #37
    3 years ago

    @MCMartel said:
    I disagree, I'd almost say the opposite d4rkhawk, AOE wasn't bad but it came far too early.

    Fair point Martel. I just found that it was a trade off. Getting a land mattress made your tanks come out that 2-3 mins later than you normally would but it all depends on the situation.

  • #38
    3 years ago
    StormlessUKStormless… United KingdomPosts: 38

    @Lazarus said:
    Lets make this interesting. I prove to you I'm top 200 1 v 1 with Brits, you HAVE to concede to me on every point regarding brits from now on. Deal?

    This comment haha. Top 200 brits is easy >

    https://www.coh2.org/ladders/playercard/steamid/76561198033828058

    It's no skill compared to any of the other factions, but that isn't the point. Emplacements is fundamentally flawed on design and broken in implementation. The balance preview mod has not fixed this

  • #39
    3 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855

    Stormless, you're clearly wrong. It does take skill to play brits. And all I see from you is the same whining that somehow allies shouldn't get to play defense too.

  • #40
    3 years ago
    ofieldofield Posts: 630

    @Kurfürst schrieb:
    The mortar pits range is fine - it cannot move and relocate like other mortars, and can't engage so many targets. I'd rather touch its firing sequence, so that the shells from the two mortars would not land in such quick succession, increasing reaction time and reducing the chance of wiping whole squads in the first or second salvo.

    This

    Tbh i think that brits are fine for the most part, even their emplacements. The only thing that bothers me are some of their OP commander abilities.

  • #41
    3 years ago
    Xutryn_X7Xutryn_X7 Posts: 204

    @d4rkhawk100 said:

    @Mr_Smith said:
    There's a lot of dissatisfaction going around UKF heavy-emplacement play, and the Advanced Emplacement Regiment commander is one bridge too far.

    30 munitions for a no-micro ability (Counterbarrage) is still a no-brainer. What I propose as a fix to the commander

    Basically, do everything that Firesparks already proposed here:
    https://community.companyofheroes.com/discussion/comment/247722

    Counterbarrage:
    - Substitute Counterbarrage with UKF Artillery Regiment Concentration fire (requires aiming + munitions per pop)
    - Actually fix 25pdr so that they deal AoE damage (like the Sexton)

    Rationale: It takes some effort to aim Concentration Fire, and the counterplay is obvious (move out of the way). This should also fix 25pdrs, which have been dragging down non-doc Brits and the Royal Artillery Regiment since release.

    Mortar Pit:
    - Autofire range should be reduced to 80 instead of 115)
    - Fix barrage weapon damage (Mortar-Two deals reduced damage when in barrage mode)

    (This should also apply to OKW LeIG)

    Rationale: Again, Mortar Pit should require some input to use. It will still be able to fight back vs enemy artillery due to its superior barrage range. In order to be useful vs infantry, the Mortar Pit will have to be targeted manually (barrage). Thus Pit-spam will not scale well (due to micro requirements)

    Bofors:
    - Reduce barrage range (so it can't hit back at mortars)
    - Vastly decrease its performance vs retreating squads
    - Reduce damage output vs mediums

    (This should also apply to OKW T4)

    Rationale: The Brit player is paying for a unit to deny a specific area. What the Brit player is getting is a unit that also denies ALL areas behind the Bofors (any retreating squad will be evaporated by this unit)

    Finally, also consider that the only faction with infantry capable of taking down emplacements (OKW), is losing exactly that. (No; don't reinstate Volks blobs, but pull down emplacements a bit).

    The commander has already been nerfed. In my opinion this would take it way too far. Emplacements are part of the faction and that's the way it is. I think people should stop complaining about brits defensive base building play style as it's built into the way they were designed. Yes the mortar range is high well then get a stuka, make it brace and throw a flame grenade. I have played brits extensively and I know when I play against a good axis player as they either:

    1. Deny the building of bofors/mortar in the first place
    2. Constantly hammer the emplacements with leIG or two separated mortars

    If you don't like the base building then try something new.

    in 2vs2+ modes,you can't do that.vickers to bofors rush it's gg

  • #42
    3 years ago

    @Xutryn_X7 said:

    @d4rkhawk100 said:

    @Mr_Smith said:
    There's a lot of dissatisfaction going around UKF heavy-emplacement play, and the Advanced Emplacement Regiment commander is one bridge too far.

    30 munitions for a no-micro ability (Counterbarrage) is still a no-brainer. What I propose as a fix to the commander

    Basically, do everything that Firesparks already proposed here:
    https://community.companyofheroes.com/discussion/comment/247722

    Counterbarrage:
    - Substitute Counterbarrage with UKF Artillery Regiment Concentration fire (requires aiming + munitions per pop)
    - Actually fix 25pdr so that they deal AoE damage (like the Sexton)

    Rationale: It takes some effort to aim Concentration Fire, and the counterplay is obvious (move out of the way). This should also fix 25pdrs, which have been dragging down non-doc Brits and the Royal Artillery Regiment since release.

    Mortar Pit:
    - Autofire range should be reduced to 80 instead of 115)
    - Fix barrage weapon damage (Mortar-Two deals reduced damage when in barrage mode)

    (This should also apply to OKW LeIG)

    Rationale: Again, Mortar Pit should require some input to use. It will still be able to fight back vs enemy artillery due to its superior barrage range. In order to be useful vs infantry, the Mortar Pit will have to be targeted manually (barrage). Thus Pit-spam will not scale well (due to micro requirements)

    Bofors:
    - Reduce barrage range (so it can't hit back at mortars)
    - Vastly decrease its performance vs retreating squads
    - Reduce damage output vs mediums

    (This should also apply to OKW T4)

    Rationale: The Brit player is paying for a unit to deny a specific area. What the Brit player is getting is a unit that also denies ALL areas behind the Bofors (any retreating squad will be evaporated by this unit)

    Finally, also consider that the only faction with infantry capable of taking down emplacements (OKW), is losing exactly that. (No; don't reinstate Volks blobs, but pull down emplacements a bit).

    The commander has already been nerfed. In my opinion this would take it way too far. Emplacements are part of the faction and that's the way it is. I think people should stop complaining about brits defensive base building play style as it's built into the way they were designed. Yes the mortar range is high well then get a stuka, make it brace and throw a flame grenade. I have played brits extensively and I know when I play against a good axis player as they either:

    1. Deny the building of bofors/mortar in the first place
    2. Constantly hammer the emplacements with leIG or two separated mortars

    If you don't like the base building then try something new.

    in 2vs2+ modes,you can't do that.vickers to bofors rush it's gg

    100% you can. If you can't deny the bofors emplacement then attack with two mortars or leig.

    It's a huge pain keeping on bracing and repairing whilst getting hit with arty consistently

  • #43
    3 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855

    It's comically easy to take out mortar pits and bofors with even 2 leig's, I really can't imagine how people could not be able to do it.

  • #44
    3 years ago
    Xutryn_X7Xutryn_X7 Posts: 204

    @MCMartel said:
    It's comically easy to take out mortar pits and bofors with even 2 leig's, I really can't imagine how people could not be able to do it.

    Like they don't have 3-4 IS squads charging your Isg and volks

  • #45
    3 years ago
    le12role12ro Posts: 2,311 mod
    edited June 2016

    Theoretically, if the opponent has got several mortar pits, bofors, and 3-4 IS squads, the opposing players either did something wrong with their resource and unit management, or has been completely outplayed.

    In addition, IS squads are not that great for charging either, unless the commander ability is used to support such radical attacks.

  • #46
    3 years ago
    StormlessUKStormless… United KingdomPosts: 38

    I've got to disagree here. 2 LEIG's is a HUGE investment for OKW who rely on having a large infantry force just to be able to cope with Infantry sections or at least go mechanized regiment for a luchs/stuka.

    Bear in mind that the forward assembly allows you to use the barrage ability whilst not garrisoned so leig's are easily dealt with. If that's not enough why not flick on automatic base artillery fire at 4cp.

    I'm not saying this in any kind of offensive way, but what kind of rank/skill level are we talking about here and also game modes? Because top200 1v1 & 2v2 is a dead zone vs emplacements in current state and preview mod

  • #47
    3 years ago
    StormlessUKStormless… United KingdomPosts: 38

    @MCMartel said:
    Stormless, you're clearly wrong. It does take skill to play brits. And all I see from you is the same whining that somehow allies shouldn't get to play defense too.

    I'm afraid your opinion that someone else is 'clearly wrong' is nothing more than opinion. I am very aware that I am not alone in these views and i'm very aware that a lot of the games top and regular players are not coming back until this is sorted out. So let's make that happen rather than making unprovable and unnecessary opinionated statements

  • #48
    3 years ago
    le12role12ro Posts: 2,311 mod

    I suppose it is [all modes], which was missing from the title. We usually do not discuss skill brackets/playercards in forums, which is a can of worm not to be opened.

  • #49
    3 years ago
    StormlessUKStormless… United KingdomPosts: 38

    @le12ro said:
    I suppose it is [all modes], which was missing from the title. We usually do not discuss skill brackets/playercards in forums, which is a can of worm not to be opened.

    I agree it shouldn't be used as any kind of 'one up'. But I am aware that different skill levels drastically affects this doctrine. Someone who doesn't know how to exploit this as OP will lose emplacements to just about anything. But those people who know how to play it to perfection enjoy pretty much invulnerability and that is specifically the area that's having problems and needs to be sorted.

  • #50
    3 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723

    Imo UKF need and will eventually get an overhaul...

    (some suggestions can be found here:
    https://community.companyofheroes.com/discussion/241794/redesigning-ukf#latest)

    Forcing player to specific game styles simply does not work...

  • #51
    3 years ago
    le12role12ro Posts: 2,311 mod
    edited June 2016

    @StormlessUK said:

    @le12ro said:
    I suppose it is [all modes], which was missing from the title. We usually do not discuss skill brackets/playercards in forums, which is a can of worm not to be opened.

    I agree it shouldn't be used as any kind of 'one up'. But I am aware that different skill levels drastically affects this doctrine. Someone who doesn't know how to exploit this as OP will lose emplacements to just about anything. But those people who know how to play it to perfection enjoy pretty much invulnerability and that is specifically the area that's having problems and needs to be sorted.

    Emplacements are weird to balance though. They are currently clearly not in the middle sweet spot of balancing.

    I agree with you though. Some people say emplacements are easy to kill, which they can be, given the right play, but in good hands, emplacements are monsters that dominate the field. They do deserve a change, but in a way that they're still strong and valid in the eyes of a higher ranked player, whilst still being attractive enough for lower ranked players.

  • #52
    3 years ago
    Mr_SmithMr_Smith Posts: 343

    @StormlessUK said:

    @le12ro said:
    I suppose it is [all modes], which was missing from the title. We usually do not discuss skill brackets/playercards in forums, which is a can of worm not to be opened.

    I agree it shouldn't be used as any kind of 'one up'. But I am aware that different skill levels drastically affects this doctrine. Someone who doesn't know how to exploit this as OP will lose emplacements to just about anything. But those people who know how to play it to perfection enjoy pretty much invulnerability and that is specifically the area that's having problems and needs to be sorted.

    I would argue that the major n1 issue regarding emplacements is not balance; it's enjoyability.

    Emplacement-play is so powerful, currently that it completely dictates the pacing of the game:

    • Each Axis faction has exactly 1-2 valid options of how to deal vs emplacements.
    • The counter system vs emplacements (especially the mortar pit) makes infantry-play almost completely irrelevant.
    • This completely nullifies one of the major appeals of the franchise for a good portion of time.
    • Any attempt to prematurely assault a "sim-city" will end in complete failure to the attacking player.
    • All and-all, this makes the first ~20-ish(?) minutes of the game almost entirely predictable (and unfun).

    The prospect of risking "wasting" the first 20 minutes of a map repeating the same procedure over and over again reduces game replayability.
    (I have almost completely stopped playing Axis, because of the proliferation of emplacements).

    I guess that for people more obsessed with "balance" the added "bonus" that mortar pit autofire is so powerful (thus requires no micro) is added salt to the wound.

    @le12ro said:

    Emplacements are weird to balance though. They are currently clearly not in the middle sweet spot of balancing.

    I agree with you though. Some people say emplacements are easy to kill, which they can be, given the right play, but in good hands, emplacements are monsters that dominate the field. They do deserve a change, but in a way that they're still strong and valid in the eyes of a higher ranked player, whilst still being attractive enough for lower ranked players.

    With respect to balance, I think it will be impossible to balance emplacements in a way such that:

    • Building only 1 emplacement (mortar pit) to support combined will be viable.
    • Massing emplacements (sim-city) opens up avenues of attack against the defending player.

    The reasons are:

    • In order to reduce emplacement spamability, emplacements have to be reasonably expensive.
    • Emplacements are all-or-nothing investments
    • They are static (thus, if you get overwhelmed, they're gone).
    • Thus, it is more economical to protect your investment by building more emplacements than mixing emplacements with a mobile force.

    A more long-term solution would be to revamp the Mortar Pit in such a way that:

    • UKF gets access to a mobile mortar
    • The Pit is actually a garrisonable trench that confers bonuses to mortars inside it (e.g., increased barrage range -- not autofire range)
    • Every other emplacement gets balanced/mirrored around the OKW equivalent (Bofors -> T4 Schewer, 17pdr -> pak43)
    • No need for brace anymore
    • Thus, UKF can really choose between offensive play and defensive play.
    • OST/OKW can counter it in exactly the same way their own defensive play can be countered by the other factions.
    • Svanh (another player) and I have already been implementing exactly that in a mod, but it's not ready yet (garrisonable pit works, but we have to properly adjust the other emplacements).

    Given that it is almost time to release the June patch I feel that a more pragmatic approach would be to incorporate some of the changes proposed by Firesparks (linked to an earlier post in the thread)

  • #53
    3 years ago

    @le12ro said:

    @StormlessUK said:

    @le12ro said:
    I suppose it is [all modes], which was missing from the title. We usually do not discuss skill brackets/playercards in forums, which is a can of worm not to be opened.

    I agree it shouldn't be used as any kind of 'one up'. But I am aware that different skill levels drastically affects this doctrine. Someone who doesn't know how to exploit this as OP will lose emplacements to just about anything. But those people who know how to play it to perfection enjoy pretty much invulnerability and that is specifically the area that's having problems and needs to be sorted.

    Emplacements are weird to balance though. They are currently clearly not in the middle sweet spot of balancing.

    I agree with you though. Some people say emplacements are easy to kill, which they can be, given the right play, but in good hands, emplacements are monsters that dominate the field. They do deserve a change, but in a way that they're still strong and valid in the eyes of a higher ranked player, whilst still being attractive enough for lower ranked players.

    I think that is what's needed an overall balance. But isn't that the aim of everything, to get it so it's all so balanced? I think it will never happen with emplacements as they are so new and different to the COH2 culture and people aren't going to be happy until theyre nerfed into the ground or gone altogether unfortunately.

  • #54
    3 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855

    The UKF have hugely expensive units many of which have gotten massive nerfs, while they languish at the second bottom of rankings above soviets. Emplacements are easily countered by armor or lieg's (and until the balance mod finally goes, massively OP shrekblobs), but I guess it doesn't matter how many massive overnerfs the UKF gets, it'll always be brits op! Just because. I'm really just getting sick of the massive anti-UKF bias of a lot of people here.

  • #55
    3 years ago
    LucianoLuciano Posts: 26

    I agree with Stormless, playing brits with emplacements is boring/0 skill required

  • #56
    3 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,034

    @MCMartel said:
    The UKF have hugely expensive units many of which have gotten massive nerfs, while they languish at the second bottom of rankings above soviets. Emplacements are easily countered by armor or lieg's (and until the balance mod finally goes, massively OP shrekblobs), but I guess it doesn't matter how many massive overnerfs the UKF gets, it'll always be brits op! Just because. I'm really just getting sick of the massive anti-UKF bias of a lot of people here.

    There is no anti-UKF conspiracy. Do you think that maybe it's possible - and just entertain the thought for a second, you might have a pro-UKF bias? Also 280 MP? Not that expensive a unit for its combat effectiveness. That goes for Vickers and I.Sections, not to mention their engineers are the most cost effective in the game before you even take in to account weapon racks. They've got more dps than regular pioneers for a measly 10 extra MP, are much cheaper to reinforce, can be upgraded with a 5th man, destroy cover, can run double lmgs or triple if you go hammer (and those lmgs carry only 1/1.5 less dps than a lmg42) and are one of only 2 units in the game who can be equipped with armor - a defensive statistic that completely forgives terrible positioning play by still counting even when standing on negative cover.

    Emplacements are not "easily" countered by LeiGs. Getting two is 680 MP. If you think 280 MP is hugely expensive where on Earth is anyone going to pull 680 from? How easy it would be to overwhelmingly assault those LeiGs with... lets see, minus the 400 MP from a pit, a 280 MP lead. You get (in your own words, not mine) a hugely expensive MP lead over your enemy by forcing them to go LeiGs. Having to rely on armor to assault an early game (or in the case of the Bofors a barely mid game) position is absolute absurdity.

  • #57
    3 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855
    1. No, I am not biased, I just don't have a knee-jerk hate of the UKF.
    2. A bofors is, again, easilycountered by a single lieg, as it's barrage can't reach it and the leig's barrage can easily brace it for shrek blobs to overwhelm.
    3. I'm sorry that countering the entire UKF mid-game with two units and basic infantry isn't good enough for you, maybe we should just remove everything useful from the UKF, we've already go people saying we need to nerfthe only useful endgame unit they have (the comet) after the other one was made useless, and now people want to nerf their mid game ito the ground by wrecking their emplacements. Face it, people on hear just have an anti-ukf bias. That's why there' two threads devoted to complaining about a commander that was hit with a massive triple nerf already.
  • #58
    3 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,034
    Please respond to what I actually wrote instead of talking about the comet
  • #59
    3 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822

    i think that the economy is different in your game than...everyone else here martel..
    in your economy 280mp is alot, unless thats the difference between 2 leig and a mortar pit
    in your economy all you can afford is a bofors but the enemy has at least 1 leig, has teched up and is rocking at least 3 volks all armed with a 90mu upgrade to defend as they mercilessly assault your poor lone AA gun
    i think you may be running a mod...

  • #60
    3 years ago
    Xutryn_X7Xutryn_X7 Posts: 204
    edited June 2016

    @MCMartel said:
    The UKF have hugely expensive units many of which have gotten massive nerfs, while they languish at the second bottom of rankings above soviets. Emplacements are easily countered by armor or lieg's (and until the balance mod finally goes, massively OP shrekblobs), but I guess it doesn't matter how many massive overnerfs the UKF gets, it'll always be brits op! Just because. I'm really just getting sick of the massive anti-UKF bias of a lot of people here.

    build bofors,build mortar pit behind,you can easy do that in 5 minutes if you rush vickers and your opponents it's okw,choose comander with stand fast,eat,drink,go walk the dog and you will win,only by activating the stand fast ability,no royals engineers required to repair.Emplacements hp should be halved and when they have brace,damage should be reduced by 50% and when brace hp should be current non braced emplacements hp,bofors,should have rof lowered and penetration,beside mortar auto fire accuracy and range should be toned down

  • #61
    3 years ago
    KopiGKopiG Posts: 72
    edited June 2016

    Lazarus your response MCMartel is absolutely on spot. I loved it, thumbs up. I just have one thing to add MCMartel:

    @MCMartel said:
    2. A bofors is, again, easily countered by a single lieg, as it's barrage can't reach it and the leig's barrage can easily brace it for shrek blobs to overwhelm.

    In my experience I was never be able to counter a Bofor emplacement with a single LEIG. I always needed a second.
    Also if it is braced then you cannot really deal dmg with your so called schrek blobs to it.. and while you are sitting next to a braced Bofors the enemy has plenty of time to react and start chewing your infantry... by the time the brace is off the Bofors + other support units will tear you apart... if that already hadnt happened with just the supporting units.
    So mind you, Im not really seeing this Bofor counter with schrek blobs... and this even will be a moot point because there wont be any schrek blobs in the upcoming patch anyway.
    Can you guys counter a Bofor with a single LEIG? What do you guys think what are your experiences?
    Note: Getting 2 LEIG is hella expensive as has been mentioned before by Lazarus.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

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

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