[UKF] [ALL] British Emplacement Counterplay

1810121314

Comments

  • #272
    2 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855
    edited January 2017

    So a light vehicle liek a halftrack is supposed to counter a bofors which costs fuel, a side tech, can't retreat, and cuts off light vehicles? No way.
    If UKF win percentages had ever topped the allies, I'd consider this to be a problem, but no, they're always middle or bottom, this is a non-issue.

  • #273
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,806
    @MCMartel there is a HUGE difference between countering and having a moment to escape. Atm the ttk a light with the bofors hilariously fast, given that the minimum cost for a light is 30fuel (no side tech but teching itself is more expensive to get to these units so its fairly relative) even a flame halftrack wont counter a bofors in 2 seconds, giving it half a second to react is not a miss
  • #274
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,018

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    @MCMartel there is a HUGE difference between countering and having a moment to escape. Atm the ttk a light with the bofors hilariously fast, given that the minimum cost for a light is 30fuel (no side tech but teching itself is more expensive to get to these units so its fairly relative) even a flame halftrack wont counter a bofors in 2 seconds, giving it half a second to react is not a miss

    Hmmm. I've been thinking about what Recon mentioned several pages back. What would you think about removing attack ground from the Bofors? This would make smoke actually useful against the Bofors and would allow you to create an opening for a FHT to hit it (sorry OKW, you get to fuck yourselves until we deign you worthy of smoke), or better yet provide opportunities to move past one without having to outright kill it.

    Would necessitate T1 for the mortar and T2 for the HT, so can't rush one out early, and you can still counter by buying PIATs or an ATG, and hey - it brings the Bofors more in line with big bad scary OKW T3 - which also doesn't have attack ground.

  • #275
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,806
    @lazarus that would work i think, the barrage would be a good work around without being OP as well. Flame damage might need a smidge toned down tho i think if thats the case
  • #276
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,018

    Given OKW completely lacks smoke (unless you aggressively drive a puma up and use that as a smoke dispenser) I wouldn't be too worried about the OKW nades.

    Would be worth addressing in the future though, if OKW ever does get smoke.

  • #277
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,595

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    @MCMartel there is a HUGE difference between countering and having a moment to escape. Atm the ttk a light with the bofors hilariously fast, given that the minimum cost for a light is 30fuel (no side tech but teching itself is more expensive to get to these units so its fairly relative) even a flame halftrack wont counter a bofors in 2 seconds, giving it half a second to react is not a miss

    Unless you yolo rush and scout with said light, you should NEVER be in range of unbraced bofors with lights.
    The only light that have any buisness being near bofors is FHT flaming a bit during brace for extra damage.
    All others are ineffective or outrange it(puma).
    And bofors won't chase you down for obvious reason, so its damage needs to be threatening enough.

  • #278
    2 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495
    edited January 2017

    @MCMartel said:
    So a light vehicle liek a halftrack is supposed to counter a bofors which costs fuel, a side tech, can't retreat, and cuts off light vehicles? No way.
    If UKF win percentages had ever topped the allies, I'd consider this to be a problem, but no, they're always middle or bottom, this is a non-issue.

    i didnt say it had to counter it, i said it needs to be able to survive for a quarter moment so you can retreat it. like you can with a schwer.

    but other than that, yes fire does hard counter emplacements.

  • #279
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,984
    edited January 2017

    @MCMartel said:
    So a light vehicle liek a halftrack is supposed to counter a bofors which costs fuel, a side tech, can't retreat, and cuts off light vehicles? No way.

    Why, let me answer that with a question: Why should an emplacement that has as much HP as a Tiger and costs about the same as a light vehicle absolutely murder everything short of a tank within the blink of an eye? Not to mention that that Halftrack you mentioned also costs fuel. Or have you forgotten that? Every vehicle costs fuel*, same as the Bofors. Think about that next time before writing insipid nonsense.

    And that is cuts of light vehicles is not an argument that is valid in any way. Its the same bullshit excuse thats used for doctrinal units. Only because you chose something over something else does not mean its supposed to be better than stock. Doctrinal or units of choice are there to complement you army, not outshine any other thing in its category.

    *Above statement is valid for all vehicles in the game except for the Kübelwagen and the Universal Carrier. The amount of fuel a vehicle costs is not taken into consideration in the statement.

  • #280
    2 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855

    Hingie, if I can get through all the insults and curses you're lobbing, I'd like to point out that the bofors is not a vehicle, it is a building. It costs fuel despite the fact it cannot move, chase, reposition, retreat, or anything else a vehicle can do. So maybe actually look at what you're comparing before you declare something "insipid nonsense"

    Secondly, it's not the same as doctrine, because the UKF loses light vehicle play short of UC's if they choose bofors, you don't have to do that for any other faction, lock out a unit like that, so it's clearly not the same, that presents a greater opporunity cost and strategic limitation. If you lose a light vehicle to a bofors, that's on you, because it can't move, it means you were running it straight into the bofors, and that's on you. Cause the UKF loses it's other light vehicle counter the AEC if it takes the bofors.

  • #281
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,984
    edited January 2017

    @MCMartel said:
    Secondly, it's not the same as doctrine, because the UKF loses light vehicle play short of UC's if they choose bofors, you don't have to do that for any other faction, lock out a unit like that, so it's clearly not the same, that presents a greater opporunity cost and strategic limitation. If you lose a light vehicle to a bofors, that's on you, because it can't move, it means you were running it straight into the bofors, and that's on you. Cause the UKF loses it's other light vehicle counter the AEC if it takes the bofors.

    It is. If I chose Guards Motor I wont get Shocks. If I chose CAS I wont get a Tiger. If you chose the Bofors, you wont get an AEC. Its all choice. You make a choice to rather have an Emplacement than a light vehicle. That does not excuse that emplacement to spell doom upon everything that isnt a tank. Same as it does not excuse the Tiger to rape everything afield only because I cant get an Elefant in its stead.

    Oh, is that so? So if I drive about with a light vehicle into the sight range of a Bofors (which incidentally has the same sight as the very vehicle Im driving about with) and the Bofors per chance isnt looking into the other direction Im supposed to lose that vehicle because in the time between the vehicle halting, accelerating in reverse and leaving the Bofors 45 range its already destroyed. Allright. I guess its my fault for not having a reaction time. Its like saying its your fault you lost that sqaud vs. that grenade that had no indicator and exploded 0.05 seconds after landing. Shouldve anticipated it being thrown.

    Again. Give me one reason, one good reason outside of this opportunity cost nonsense, why the Bofors needs to not only have durability comparable to a heavy tank but also firepower that puts everything in its price segment to absolute shame? This thing wipes squads faster than an FHT... does it need that to be operational? I dare say not. Its not made of antimatter, it needs not annihilate anything it comes into contact with that is not protected with a layer of reingforced steel

  • #282
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,018

    @MCMartel said:
    Cause the UKF loses it's other light vehicle counter the AEC if it takes the bofors.

    "Other" light vehicle counter implies there is only the Bofors and AEC. There is also the sniper (crit shot), mines, ATGs and in the WBP homing PIATs.

  • #283
    2 years ago
    MisterBastardMisterBas… Posts: 285
    edited January 2017

    You know Bofors is "balanced" when even Hans needs 35 minutes to defeat a completely outplayed sim city builder, despite holding most of the map, and later both fuel points...

  • #284
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,595

    @MisterBastard said:
    You know Bofors is "balanced" when even Hans needs 35 minutes to defeat a completely outplayed sim city builder, despite holding most of the map, and later both fuel points...

    If you use a total of ZERO hardcounters, you won't counter it easily you know.

    That's like complaining you can't kill king tiger with single zook there.

  • #285
    2 years ago
    newshatterhandnewshatte… Posts: 278
    edited January 2017

    @MisterBastard said:
    You know Bofors is "balanced" when even Hans needs 35 minutes to defeat a completely outplayed sim city builder, despite holding most of the map, and later both fuel points...

    I don't think a video where the brit does not stand a chance and commits most of his forces to keep the bofors are alive while not recieving any significant resource income (due to not having any real map presence other than his bofors) is that good of an example of Bofors being OP (if I may be so free to translate "balanced" to OP). That the match takes 35 minutes is simply because how much ahead you are in terms of army and income does not matter for how fast VPs deplete. Could have also been a 15-20 min game if the brit player would not have been too dense/persistant to surrender. Sure without bofors hans could maybe take all 3vps and would have won slightly faster, but it was not like the bofors really increased the chances that the brit would win.

  • #286
    2 years ago
    mrgame2mrgame2 Posts: 496

    @MisterBastard said:
    You know Bofors is "balanced" when even Hans needs 35 minutes to defeat a completely outplayed sim city builder, despite holding most of the map, and later both fuel points...

    It just proves that Hans was taking it easy after knowing the skill level of the Brit.
    He could have built a Leig gun and bye bye Bofors.

    So i dont see how this shows Bofors need balance? If anything the Bofor cant do shit to the sniping and doesnt wreck the squads now.

  • #287
    2 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855

    So people are complaing that it takes while to destroy something while purposely not using it's counters, this irrational emplacement hate is ridiculous.

  • #288
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,018
    edited January 2017

    @MCMartel said:
    So people are complaing that it takes while to destroy something while purposely not using it's counters, this irrational emplacement hate is ridiculous.

    No. The Bofors is ridiculous. Not purposely using its counters? Wouldn't it be humiliating if someone went through this thread and quoted every time you said "anti-tank guns counter the Bofors" then asked you to explain to everyone what a Raketenwerfer is? Because I see two of them shooting that stupid thing. This irrational defence of emplacements is ridiculous.

    Edit: Just for posterities sake

    @MCMartel said:
    Heck, you can kil a bofors with a couple of raketnwerfers if you're lucky, so stop complaining, this really is a L2P issue.

  • #289
    2 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495

    well. the rakettenwerfer CAN kill a bofos but its not a hard counter.

    i could be wrong but as far as i recall only fire is the true hard counter? not sure if im correct but if i am, then OKW have a bit of a problem given they only have flame grenades.

    the OST flame halftrack however does a neat job versus mortar pits. a very good job actually.

    but the bofos.. oh my.

    the mortar pits are all fine in my book but a bofos emplacement deals waaaay too much damage in waaaay too short span of a time.

  • #290
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,018

    At this point my only problem with the pits is they fire a bit too fast with the garrison buff, and of course Brace makes them ungodly levels of durable vs assaults. I don't mind brace mitigating artillery damage because it's an artillery piece, but giving you an extra 30 seconds of sitting under flamethrower/schreck/rifle fire to a-move a blob over in assistance is just a tiny bit too forgiving. Honestly it's a shame the MHT has incendiary shells, otherwise you could completely remove the brace defence against fire because all other methods of projecting it are flimsy and require close range. Unfortunately that's not an option.

  • #291
    2 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855

    Do you get the difference between a soft and hard counter @Lazarus ? Cause it sounds like you don't. Brace isn't at all too forgiving, it is the only thing stopping emplacements from being completely unviable.

  • #292
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,018
    edited January 2017

    @MCMartel said:
    Do you get the difference between a soft and hard counter @Lazarus ? Cause it sounds like you don't. Brace isn't at all too forgiving, it is the only thing stopping emplacements from being completely unviable.

    @MCMartel said:
    Heck, you can kil a bofors with a couple of raketnwerfers if you're lucky, so stop complaining, this really is a L2P issue.

    Do you have the game installed Martel? Cause it sounds like you don't.

  • #293
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,984

    @MCMartel said:
    Brace isn't at all too forgiving

    Its 30 seconds making a structure basically immune to damage for no ressource cost. That I'd call very forgiving.

  • #294
    2 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495
    edited January 2017

    @Hingie said:

    @MCMartel said:
    Brace isn't at all too forgiving

    Its 30 seconds making a structure basically immune to damage for no ressource cost. That I'd call very forgiving.

    its not immune to damage. and it cant fire back. you can keep on shooting for all anyone cares.

    mortars are fine. bofos damage is not fine.

    brace is fine.

    the hp is by all accounts fine too.

    in my optics obviously, im not stating facts.

  • #295
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,984

    @Beardedragon said:

    @Hingie said:

    @MCMartel said:
    Brace isn't at all too forgiving

    Its 30 seconds making a structure basically immune to damage for no ressource cost. That I'd call very forgiving.

    its not immune to damage. and it cant fire back. you can keep on shooting for all anyone cares.

    mortars are fine. bofos damage is not fine.

    brace is fine.

    the hp is by all accounts fine too.

    in my optics obviously, im not stating facts.

    A 75% reduction in damage means a regular 160 hp AT gun shot does a wohle whooping 40 damage to the structure while braced. Now juxtapose this to the 1000 HP the Bofors has. Its not completely immune but for all intents and purposes it is immune to significant damage while brace is active. It cant fire back, true, but your own fire wont make any releveant damage meanwhile either. The fact it cant fire while being nigh indestructible is the bare minimum lest you want brace to cost 100+ mun for each use.

  • #296
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,018
    edited January 2017

    @Beardedragon said:

    @Hingie said:

    @MCMartel said:
    Brace isn't at all too forgiving

    Its 30 seconds making a structure basically immune to damage for no ressource cost. That I'd call very forgiving.

    its not immune to damage. and it cant fire back. you can keep on shooting for all anyone cares.

    That's sort of the problem. You can keep on shooting, with everything you've got and come back with a null result. This is 30 seconds of free time for a Brit to mobilize his army to come to the defence, at which point you can't stand there and keep shooting, because now you're being shot. This assume the Brit didn't start mobilizing his army earlier. Yeah, you can switch targets and start shooting back but then the brace runs out and you're under fire again - having left no significant scratches on the emplacement.

    What I mean (and I believe Hingie means) when we say brace is "too forgiving" is it creates a window of opportunity you could drive a truck through to defend the emplacement. If it required some kind of proper timing, had a longer cooldown, or needed you to have some kind of field presence or defence near by to activate that would be a whole other ballgame. As it is though, it's basically invincibility frames.

  • #297
    2 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495

    @Hingie said:

    @Beardedragon said:

    @Hingie said:

    @MCMartel said:
    Brace isn't at all too forgiving

    Its 30 seconds making a structure basically immune to damage for no ressource cost. That I'd call very forgiving.

    its not immune to damage. and it cant fire back. you can keep on shooting for all anyone cares.

    mortars are fine. bofos damage is not fine.

    brace is fine.

    the hp is by all accounts fine too.

    in my optics obviously, im not stating facts.

    A 75% reduction in damage means a regular 160 hp AT gun shot does a wohle whooping 40 damage to the structure while braced. Now juxtapose this to the 1000 HP the Bofors has. Its not completely immune but for all intents and purposes it is immune to significant damage while brace is active. It cant fire back, true, but your own fire wont make any releveant damage meanwhile either. The fact it cant fire while being nigh indestructible is the bare minimum lest you want brace to cost 100+ mun for each use.

    would you like to pay 100 munitions to retreat your soldiers? because brace is retreat for emplacements.

    it doesnt matter if it has 1000 when it has brace, because brace usually wont be activated untill the emplacement has around 30% hp left. otherwise, why would you activate it? unless you counter a sturm missile or heavy artillery, theres no reason why would put your own emplacement out of commission by bracing. whe it has 30% hp left, even those 75% reduced hits for the most part out does the repairs they receive or at least make up for them, so when it ends, its still at 30%.

    actually killing the emplacement if it had no brace at all, would be INSANELY easy even with 2 OST mortars standing apart.

  • #298
    2 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495
    edited January 2017

    @Lazarus said:

    @Beardedragon said:

    @Hingie said:

    @MCMartel said:
    Brace isn't at all too forgiving

    Its 30 seconds making a structure basically immune to damage for no ressource cost. That I'd call very forgiving.

    its not immune to damage. and it cant fire back. you can keep on shooting for all anyone cares.

    That's sort of the problem. You can keep on shooting, with everything you've got and come back with a null result. This is 30 seconds of free time for a Brit to mobilize his army to come to the defence, at which point you can't stand there and keep shooting, because now you're being shot. This assume the Brit didn't start mobilizing his army earlier. Yeah, you can switch targets and start shooting back but then the brace runs out and you're under fire again - having left no significant scratches on the emplacement.

    What Hingie and I mean when we say brace is "too forgiving" is it creates a window of opportunity you could drive a truck through to defend the emplacement. If it required some kind of proper timing, had a longer cooldown, or needed you to have some kind of field presence or defence near by to activate that would be a whole other ballgame. As it is though, it's basically invincibility frames.

    yes but lazarus, it is also a 30 second free time for YOU to run up where it ISNT supporting his army. his 400 manpower emplacement is not aiding him no more and you can run up and deal with the rest of his army.

    by no means should you necessarily be losing that fight. its like retreating your Obersoldaten squad because he got insta smashed by something. run up with the rest, because the heavy hitter cant hit back. when its out of comission, you basically have a bigger army than he does, because a big chunk of manpower is sitting in an emplacement that dont hit back.

  • #299
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    @mcmartel and @Beardedragon Are we playing the same game? There is no current hardcounter for emplacements.

    There are however a series of softcounters for example mortars and at guns, these are softcounters as its takes them over 2 mins of actual uninterupted fire to kill a single mortar pit/bofors due to their high health and brace. Many of us are asking for a hardcounter eg. flame damage to ignore brace and give players a tool to actually threaten emplacements in a similar manner to how a td threatens a tank.

    So if an axis player gets a flametrack right up next to your mortar pit and proceeds to melt it, it should in concept be wiped quickly as the brit player has been "outplayed" by allowing it to get into weapon range. Similar to how if a commando team wipes an LEFH.

    That means we should in theory see no more of the mortar/bofors combo locking down a series of crucial points whilst the brit happily trundels around the other side of the map without a worry in the world about them.

  • #300
    2 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495
    edited January 2017

    @Farra13 said:
    @mcmartel and @Beardedragon Are we playing the same game? There is no current hardcounter for emplacements.

    There are however a series of softcounters for example mortars and at guns, these are softcounters as its takes them over 2 mins of actual uninterupted fire to kill a single mortar pit/bofors due to their high health and brace. Many of us are asking for a hardcounter eg. flame damage to ignore brace and give players a tool to actually threaten emplacements in a similar manner to how a td threatens a tank.

    So if an axis player gets a flametrack right up next to your mortar pit and proceeds to melt it, it should in concept be wiped quickly as the brit player has been "outplayed" by allowing it to get into weapon range. Similar to how if a commando team wipes an LEFH.

    That means we should in theory see no more of the mortar/bofors combo locking down a series of crucial points whilst the brit happily trundels around the other side of the map without a worry in the world about them.

    i already wrote that OKW needed another flame source other than flame grenades as fire is a hard counter to emplacement.

    heck, a flame halftrack can wreck an emplacement in shorter than 20 seconds without brace. if it does brace, this time might increase to 50 seconds. also when you fire the area, no engineers can repair it, least they die. but OKW cant do that, and they lack a hard counter by stock.

    im just saying, when i play Wehrmacht, i never have issues with the mortar pit, because i have a flame halftrack i use literally everytime. brace is not an issue, hp of the mortar pit is not an issue. i actually started some 2v2 games not long ago, and sim city isnt difficult to deal with, unless a bofos was placed in to it too. because that stops me from moving up at all.

    the only issue i have, are the BOFOS emplacements, that are wrecking things too fast. like, way too fast.

  • #301
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,984
    edited January 2017

    @Beardedragon said:
    heck, a flame halftrack can wreck an emplacement in shorter than 20 seconds without brace. if it does brace, this time might increase to 50 seconds.

    Actually, there lies the problem. If a FHT would destroy an emplacement in 20 without brace, it would take it brace + 15 ish seconds. That means you have just easily doubled the amount of time you have to react. Even if you only half-heartedly support your emplacement it can still survive an attack because it just pops in the immunity button and is free of care. And dont give me that "brace is retreat for emplacements" shtick. Thats nonsense. To make up for their immobility British (and only british, mind you) emplacements have been give very high HP pools. 700 HP is more than 2 full mortar crews of other factions have HP, just in comparison. Also Emplacements dont bleed you. You dont have to pay a single bloody MP to reinforce them because they dont lose models. And dont start telling me they bleed because they cost pop. Thats not bleed, thats upkeep.

    Just to put it into contrast yet again: If Soviets, OKW, Wehr or the US dont support and defend an Emplacement, said Emplacement is gone very, very fast. A single infantry squad can swiftly destroy bunkers and fighting positions, can decrew Pak43s and artillery. Rule so far was that if you have a static structure somewhere you need to support it or it gets crushed swiftly. Only the bloody Brits are given special tratment in 3 ways. First, their Emplacements can take more damage than other factions. Second, they cant be decrewed (neither can the bunker, but everything else can), and third they get a button that negates any meaningful damage for half a goddamn minute.

    yes but lazarus, it is also a 30 second free time for YOU to run up where it ISNT supporting his army. his 400 manpower emplacement is not aiding him no more and you can run up and deal with the rest of his army.

    What? That makes no sense. So if I attack an Emplacement hoping to destroy it and it uses its FREE get out of jail card ability I am then supposed to abandon my attack and focus on forces present elsewhere? Right. Sure, whatever.

    You and McMartel surely seem to have a peculiar interest in keeping scummy Brit Emplacement abuse in power.

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.