[UKF] [ALL] British Emplacement Counterplay

189101214

Comments

  • #332
    2 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495

    @Lazarus

    or you could just simply use vehicles against the mortar pit.

    when you guys fight against UKF that uses emplacements do you lose the majority of your matches? if not, why are you complaining? if yes, sure come vent about it, in the mean time i find no problems with the mortar pit in 2v2 anyway.

    just go up close and it wont do much. if he has this and that defending it, that means he fortifies at that part of the map, not else where. contain him, flank him, take the rest of the map.

    or as i wrote earlier, rush him. if he has both AT guns and MGs defending it, i really dont think he has much else anywhere else.

    be creative. bait him out of his shell.

    i always assumed 4v4 was easier to destroy emplacements, but apparently 2v2 is because there are so few units actually defending it.

  • #333
    2 years ago
    GrittleGrittle Posts: 993

    @Hingie said:

    @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.

    I'm really angery right now snip

    You also have to consider the pop cost of these emplacements

    if a brit is bracing a bofors for impact, that means 12 population of 100 is doing nothing

    imagine more than 1/10 of your army standing still being a big useless rock for 30 seconds because a single 5? population mortar is throwing wet toilet paper at it.

  • #334
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,810
    @grittle for the time that its not braced (thanks to 1000 health) its wiping infantry and light vehicles faster a mr clean magic eraser. I have no problem with emplacment being worth their weight in gold but they are incredibly deadly as well as insanely durable and brace grants more forgiveness than panzer tactician on the old +30% armour panther.

    All that would even be ok, if emplacments could bleed, there is no god damned reason that a player can inflict enough dmaage to kill a tank, under fire, taking losses and STILL be out in the mp game. The emplacment dictate build order and that already an incredible amount of power
  • #335
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,018
    edited January 2017

    @Beardedragon said:
    @Lazarus

    or you could just simply use vehicles against the mortar pit.

    Sure. Let me just get my 5 minute PIV out of the factory. Oh. It's closed.

    @Beardedragon said:
    when you guys fight against UKF that uses emplacements do you lose the majority of your matches? if not, why are you complaining? if yes, sure come vent about it, in the mean time i find no problems with the mortar pit in 2v2 anyway.

    "If you can beat it, you can't complain". Clearly we need to bring back the +30% armor to the Panther. After all. It could be beaten. Also scout car snipers, and Volksgrens with Panzerschrecks.

    See what I'm driving at? Don't care if it's beatable. Care if it's balanced, and balanced it ain't. - because as a strategy it is infinitely too forgiving and easy to use.

    @Beardedragon said:
    just go up close and it wont do much. if he has this and that defending it, that means he fortifies at that part of the map, not else where. contain him, flank him, take the rest of the map.

    This is the entire bloody point. If that statement were true then YES! Emplacements would be fine. It's not though. Because if you do get up close (because not being close flat isn't an option vs mortars) then guess what, 30 second invincibility frames! Sorry chump you dealt 5 damage to the emplacement, and the army that was off winning the map elsewhere has now arrived and totally encircled you, because you had to push up. All your stuff is no either dead or retreating, and the Brit has suffered no bleed - or perhaps an insignificant amount if you switched targets when the army rolled over.

    Maybe you just need to play against better opponents in 2 v 2s, because if they can't redirect their power to crush you in the 30 seconds of invincibility that brace gives them then I don't know what to tell you. Find better Brits.

  • #336
    2 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495
    edited January 2017

    @Lazarus i said vehicle god damit and you mention a Panzer 4?

    so flame halftracks dont work versus mortar pits? power house 222s cant damage it? Luchs? Pumas?

    i Dont pick my opponents. you say find better brits.

    well maybe you should just outright play better yourself.

    has it ever occured to you that you just dont know how to deal with this problem?

    not knowing how to deal with something doesnt make it OP.

    either all my british enemies were weak players or you have a learn to play issue.

    the fact you mention panzer 4s as the only and earliest vehicle you can get makes me question whether it might not be L2P related.

  • #337
    2 years ago

    Everytime you brace +manpower should be slowed to 33% for the duration.

  • #338
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,018
    edited January 2017

    @Beardedragon said:

    the fact you mention panzer 4s as the only and earliest vehicle you can get makes me question whether it might not be L2P related.

    222 + FHT don't have the DPS AND survivability required to fight a pit. Especially in the WBP. This is indeed a L2P issue. It's time for Brit sim city to L2P.

    Remember, I never said I couldn't beat it. I said it wasn't balanced. Maybe stop projecting. This is the balance section, not the "rage about stuff you can't beat" section.

    No comment on bringing back the "beatable" Volksblobs?

  • #339
    2 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495
    edited January 2017

    @Lazarus said:

    @Beardedragon said:

    the fact you mention panzer 4s as the only and earliest vehicle you can get makes me question whether it might not be L2P related.

    222 + FHT don't have the DPS AND survivability required to fight a pit. Especially in the WBP. This is indeed a L2P issue. It's time for Brit sim city to L2P.

    Remember, I never said I couldn't beat it. I said it wasn't balanced. Maybe stop projecting. This is the balance section, not the "rage about stuff you can't beat" section.

    No comment on bringing back the "beatable" Volksblobs?

    what are you even talking about?

    how can 2x 222s not pose a serious threat up close to a mortar pit? together they deal more than enough damage to take out the mortar pit. unless you expect the 222s to drive up, kill mortar pit through enemy army fire and survive. thats not how it goes. you take out or at least, weaken the enemy army first if its there with YOUR army + 222s, then deal with mortar pit. or bait them out.

    sure in a vacuum (222 vs pit) they would totally win and all, but even gameplay scenarios they could too if you bring your army up. but this whole, "bring up your army" can go both ways, its up to micromanagement who wins.

    out the top of my head i see two scenarios with this:
    A: his pit isnt well defended and he braces once you start hammering with 222s. he reinforces with his army. hes now not protecting the remaining stage so its ripe for the taking. depending on how much he reinforces with, you could also fight it out, by taking defensive stances in buildings nearby.

    B: he defends his emplacement very well. you take the rest of the stage to bait him out, you beat his army out there and THEN go in for the emplacement kill. theres no need to slam your head against a rock. be smart about it.

    in a 2v2 stage these are rather common strategies against a UKF player. they can only defend areas very well around where their emplacements are. if he takes one fuel point, you take the other. if they're 2 brits and they take both, then do a joined effort against one UKF players side. you can aid your friend harder than the brit can, because he cant bring his emplacement with him.

    and btw the flame halftrack does have the necessary dps to deal with it. due to its flame damage, it kills a mortar emplacement faster than a Panzer 4, pretty much faster than any given vehicle in the Wehr rooster.

    you and i ARE on the same side on the sims city idea though. i dont dislike the idea of only one emplacement at a time of each kind to avoid 2 mortar pits and all that. but probably only at that point.

    I didnt play 2v2 when the volksblobs or higher armored Panthers were a thing, however, in 4v4, volks blobs were OP because they easily dealt with AI AND AT at the same time. And Panthers were moving castles that almost had no weakness at all. the majority of 4v4 victories went to Axis back then, and you only won with cheese or because your enemy was an idiot as allies. UKF players dont have to be idiots to lose, they just have to be outplayed, because they can be outplayed.

    mortar pits on have considerable weaknesses, such as they dont even move to begin with and they dont deal with AT or vehicles.

  • #340
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,018

    @Beardedragon said:
    and btw the flame halftrack does have the necessary dps to deal with it. due to its flame damage, it kills a mortar emplacement faster than a Panzer 4, pretty much faster than any given vehicle in the Wehr rooster.

    Had the and in all caps for a reason. FHTs are notoriously flimsy.

    @Beardedragon said:
    besides volks blobs were OP because they easily dealt with AI AND AT at the same time.

    mortar pits dont deal with AT.

    So what? You said I should be fine with mortar pits because I can beat them. I can beat the old Volksblob too, with a bit of luck. So that must have been fine. Or use one of the other examples - like Scout Car snipers. They don't deal AT damage, and they were technically beatable. So should we bring them back for being unfairly nerfed? Or do we accept that even beatable things are nerfed if they're far too forgiving to the user. Like the mortar pit.

  • #341
    2 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495
    edited January 2017

    @Lazarus said:

    @Beardedragon said:
    and btw the flame halftrack does have the necessary dps to deal with it. due to its flame damage, it kills a mortar emplacement faster than a Panzer 4, pretty much faster than any given vehicle in the Wehr rooster.

    Had the and in all caps for a reason. FHTs are notoriously flimsy.

    @Beardedragon said:
    besides volks blobs were OP because they easily dealt with AI AND AT at the same time.

    mortar pits dont deal with AT.

    So what? You said I should be fine with mortar pits because I can beat them. I can beat the old Volksblob too, with a bit of luck. So that must have been fine. Or use one of the other examples - like Scout Car snipers. They don't deal AT damage, and they were technically beatable. So should we bring them back for being unfairly nerfed? Or do we accept that even beatable things are nerfed if they're far too forgiving to the user. Like the mortar pit.

    and now you're saying the flame halftrack is flimsy? yes it is. but we were talking about damage a moment ago and you said the FHT + 222s didnt have the DPS + durbility to survive. that depends on how well you keep your units alive. It deals high damage and im giving you a way to counter mortar pits. if you cant micro it well enough, thats on you.

    "with a bit of luck". you dont need luck to deal with mortar pits, just good micro and skills.

    the sniper scout car could destroy units at range and constantly keep out of range.

    unless the mortar pits grew wheels since yesterday, i dont see them keeping out of range.

  • #342
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,018

    Answer the question. Do we unnerf them because they were beatable, or do you accept that beatable things are nerfed because they're too forgiving. Yes or no question.

  • #343
    2 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495
    edited January 2017

    @Lazarus said:
    Answer the question. Do we unnerf them because they were beatable, or do you accept that beatable things are nerfed because they're too forgiving. Yes or no question.

    its not a yes or no question its about certain units covering their own ass from their own weakness.

    Panthers had such high armor, regular tank destroyers could barely penetrate.

    Snipers couldnt get rushed by early vehicles because they were in the vehicle, thus gaining speed and unable to die before the vehicle did.

    Volksblobs dealt reasonable AI (+ had napalm nades) to push away would be AI infantry, and had AT to push away tanks too.

    these things were changed because they directly countered their own counter.

    The mortar pit does NOT counter its own counter. 222s, flame halftracks, OKW halftracks, Pumas, shrek infantry and AT guns up close all WORK versus the Mortar pit. the pit itself is NOT able to deal with these units.

    its the entire army of the UKF that comes in and defends the pit that counters your vehicle play, not the mortar pit.

    and no, lazarus they were not beatable by someone of the same skill. you had to be a ton better than your enemy, use cheese or your enemy had to be a moron.

    win rates were not steady back then, 4v4 was a 60-70% win rate for axis.
    THAT is not beatable, even though you occationally could beat it with the mentioned reasons above.

    Mortar emplacements ARE beatable, and they have things you can use to counter them. that UKF use combined arms to defend the mortar pit, doesnt make the pit itself OP since it doesnt counter its own counters. its like saying bunker MGs are OP because you can support it with an AT gun and a mortar squad.

    so its not a yes or no question because to begin with, the mortar pit isnt even in the same category as a volk blob.

    they were not nerfed because they're too forgiving. they were nerfed because they literally countered their own counters.

  • #344
    2 years ago
    MisterBastardMisterBas… Posts: 285
    edited January 2017

    "222s counters mortar pits"...really...I guess brace doesnt exist...

    @Beardedragon said:
    they were not nerfed because they're too forgiving. they were nerfed because they literally countered their own counters.

    Ironically, you just described both the Bofors and Mortar pit...and some other allied units which are out of the scope of this conversation...

  • #345
    2 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495
    edited January 2017

    @MisterBastard said:
    "222s counters mortar pits"...really...I guess brace doesnt exist...

    @Beardedragon said:
    they were not nerfed because they're too forgiving. they were nerfed because they literally countered their own counters.

    Ironically, you just described both the Bofors and Mortar pit...and some other allied units which are out of the scope of this conversation...

    i am not talking about the bofos now and i have agreed to it that it needs a nerf.

    the 222s can counter a mortar pit because the mortar pit cannot fire back and they can deal reasonable damage to it, when in pairs.

    Brace lasts 30 seconds. once its gone, you can fire on. hell you can keep on firing even when brace is on. given you're there, it wont be repaired during the time and if someone does repair it, by all means, kill the engineers with the 222s.

    if you havent already, i suggest you try out in your next game, to buy 2x 222s and throw em at the enemy mortar pit. you will be surprised as to how much damage they will do.

    before you yell out: hurr durr enemies shoot my 222s.

    yes they do. but the mortar pit isnt countering your 222s, the rest of the UKF army is.

    if you want to talk about other units by all means make a thread about it.

  • #346
    2 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855

    Neither of them counter's their counters, vehicles and ATG's easily counter mortar pits, ditto rocket infantry, and Bofors are countered by mortars/isg's.

  • #347
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    Thing is if you get a unit like a flame track through his lines, get it in firing range of the mortar pit, there is no reward. Brace negates all effort you made to outmaneuver him, as 30 seconds in game is plenty of time to respond. Those 30 seconds plus the other 30 you need to kill the pit means that the best hardcounter for the pit takes just under a minute to kill it.... hardly what I would consider a hardcounter.... especially one that requires it to be basically next to it and a unit so vunerable.

    And then if a bofors is comboed you have nothing, its simply spam mortars and pray the rng goes in your favour and you don't bleed overly heavy. Its an awful style of gameplay.

  • #348
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,810
    222 deals 20 damage per shot thats 35 shots to kill if they dont brace, the fore rate on the 222 isnt particularly great (certainly not a luchs) meaning you have loads of time to react, a pair of 222s on the other hand... Well you can just brace it for 30 seconds you will only be taking 5 whole points of damage... The 222 isnt immune to rifle fire either meaning your tommies with their cover bonus should have no problem pushing them back. Ubless you built the mortar pit outside of their base sector and retreated as soon as the 222s hit the field you will have more than enough time to mosey back on over to the pits aid. And as for the bofors you wouldnt even have the luxury of direct fire because the INSTANT it cones off brace you WILL lose at least a 222 (the INSTANT) if you are in range, if not both depending on the mercy of pathing. Same goes for any supporting infantry.
  • #349
    2 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855

    I said 222 counters mortar, not bofors. Read my posts before you try and respond, and ALL CAPS and (snide parentheticals IN ALL CAPS no less) don't make your point more valid. If they've sunk all their resources into both bofors and mortars then you can either go around them, or counter them with mortars.

  • #350
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,018
    edited January 2017

    @MCMartel said:
    I said 222 counters mortar, not bofors. Read my posts before you try and respond, and ALL CAPS and (snide parentheticals IN ALL CAPS no less) don't make your point more valid. If they've sunk all their resources into both bofors and mortars then you can either go around them, or counter them with mortars.

    Cute. Read HIS post before you try to respond. The entire top half of it is about the mortar, and the 222 not countering it. That's what "and as for the Bofors" means. Everything preceding that is not about the Bofors. Nothing new though. One standard for the mighty Martel, a different one for everyone else.

    Light vehicles were changed in the WBP because they dictated the build order and forced you to rush your own light vehicle.

    Pits and Bofors dictate the Axis build order just as much. They're too forgiving. They satisfy two logical and balance related schools of thought that necessitate a nerf. They satisfy no logical or balance related thought to maintain their performance AND brace. There is no argument for it, barring none.

  • #351
    2 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855

    I did, and I disagreed. Not a double standard, just your insistence that anyone who disagrees with your opinion is somehow magically wrong. They're not too forgiving, and you just insisting that there is "no argument" for it while ignoring everything I say doesn't make you smart, it just makes you smug.

  • #352
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    What about if brace was only available if a foward assembly was constructed next to them? Take out the foward assembly; emplacement can no longer brace. That forces brits to either invest properly in a heavily defended postion, or leave their emplacements exposed in exchange for more troops. The only consideration i could think of there would be a slight amount more health for said foward assembly as they are already quite weak.

  • #353
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,984
    @McMartel you repeating the very same things for 3 pages now regardless of what is said and what points are brought up doesn't make an argument, it just makes you whine. Sorry, but the last 4 responses of you were something along the lines of "Nu Uh! Your not listening to me! You are all biased and my arguments are total real! I'm super cereal!"

    It's hard not to seem smug when confronted with such outstanding feats of rhetorical genius.
  • #354
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,018

    @Farra13 said:
    What about if brace was only available if a foward assembly was constructed next to them? Take out the foward assembly; emplacement can no longer brace. That forces brits to either invest properly in a heavily defended postion, or leave their emplacements exposed in exchange for more troops. The only consideration i could think of there would be a slight amount more health for said foward assembly as they are already quite weak.

    I'd actually take it further and suggest that brace should require an actual garrisoned soldier - rather than a Forward Point. This would require you to actually dedicate something to the defense (of course they'd still be contributing with their weapons anyway) but more importantly vs artillery and fire weapons it would cause some god damned bleed

    Hell, you could make Brace a toggle ability at that point, because you would be risking having a squad wiped.

  • #355
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,810
    I was thinking about that as well, is it possible to dictate the difference between a garrison and the assembly? If we went that route it might be worth swapping somtheing out of anvil tactics to allow the assembly to allow brace then (once full tech is achieved).
  • #356
    2 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855

    @Hingie said:
    @McMartel you repeating the very same things for 3 pages now regardless of what is said and what points are brought up doesn't make an argument, it just makes you whine. Sorry, but the last 4 responses of you were something along the lines of "Nu Uh! Your not listening to me! You are all biased and my arguments are total real! I'm super cereal!"

    It's hard not to seem smug when confronted with such outstanding feats of rhetorical genius.

    So your "argument" against me is lobbing insults, real mature.

  • #357
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,984
    edited January 2017

    @MCMartel said:
    So your "argument" against me is lobbing insults, real mature.

    Says the guy who accuses everyone not agreeing with his oneliner posts to be biased.

    I like the idea of the garrison solution. Sounds fair.

  • #358
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,018

    @MCMartel said:

    @Hingie said:
    @McMartel you repeating the very same things for 3 pages now regardless of what is said and what points are brought up doesn't make an argument, it just makes you whine. Sorry, but the last 4 responses of you were something along the lines of "Nu Uh! Your not listening to me! You are all biased and my arguments are total real! I'm super cereal!"

    It's hard not to seem smug when confronted with such outstanding feats of rhetorical genius.

    So your "argument" against me is lobbing insults, real mature.

    Where was the insult? When he said you whine? Like you explicitly said everyone else who disagrees with you does? So you just called yourself immature.

  • #359
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    @Lazarus said:

    I'd actually take it further and suggest that brace should require an actual garrisoned soldier - rather than a Forward Point. This would require you to actually dedicate something to the defense (of course they'd still be contributing with their weapons anyway) but more importantly vs artillery and fire weapons it would cause some god damned bleed

    Hell, you could make Brace a toggle ability at that point, because you would be risking having a squad wiped.

    That is an excellent idea, and then when taking into account the advanced emplacements regiment you could replace the advanced assembly engineers with it providing brace to nearby emplacements instead. They would still have extra health and could work independently with brace not requiring garrisons, but take out the assembly and then the emplacements are vunerable by having a defined weakness.

  • #360
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,595

    Emplacements have defined weakness... being in denial about it doesn't make it any less viable...

  • #361
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,984
    edited January 2017

    @Katitof said:
    Emplacements have defined weakness... being in denial about it doesn't make it any less viable...

    Immobility is no excuse for the combination of firepower, durability, price and brace (in its current iteration) given to emplacements.

    Being in denial about this does not change that fact, either.

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.