[UKF] [ALL] British Emplacement Counterplay

189101113

Comments

  • #362
    2 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495

    i suppose one have to agree to disagree on the matter.

    some think they're fine others dont. i for one think the mortar pit is fine, but i dont think the BOFOS is fine.

  • #363
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,017

    @Beardedragon said:
    i suppose one have to agree to disagree on the matter.

    some think they're fine others dont. i for one think the mortar pit is fine, but i dont think the BOFOS is fine.

    Yes. But like the people who still believe the world is flat, just because some believe a thing doesn't make their position equally valid.

  • #364
    2 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495
    edited January 2017

    @Lazarus said:

    @Beardedragon said:
    i suppose one have to agree to disagree on the matter.

    some think they're fine others dont. i for one think the mortar pit is fine, but i dont think the BOFOS is fine.

    Yes. But like the people who still believe the world is flat, just because some believe a thing doesn't make their position equally valid.

    true but are you making the assumption i am wrong and you are right no matter what?

    if that is the case, that sounds pretty arrogant given this is a video game, and how we perceive balanced is different from one to another. if this wasnt the case, this entire balance section would be irrelevant.

    basically, this is a discussion on whether something is fair or not. thats not even remotely the same as those that states the earth is flat which is scientifically wrong and proven wrong too.

    having an opinion on fairness is more than debatable.

    i for one have no trouble dealing with mortar emplacements so in my optics its balanced.

    i can save my replays next time i deal with em if you guys want.

  • #365
    2 years ago
    GrittleGrittle Posts: 993

    @Lazarus said:

    @Beardedragon said:
    i suppose one have to agree to disagree on the matter.

    some think they're fine others dont. i for one think the mortar pit is fine, but i dont think the BOFOS is fine.

    Yes. But like the people who still believe the world is flat, just because some believe a thing doesn't make their position equally valid.

    I don't believe astro geography and weapon emplacement balance should be compared together my friend...

  • #366
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,017

    @Beardedragon said:

    @Lazarus said:

    @Beardedragon said:
    i suppose one have to agree to disagree on the matter.

    some think they're fine others dont. i for one think the mortar pit is fine, but i dont think the BOFOS is fine.

    Yes. But like the people who still believe the world is flat, just because some believe a thing doesn't make their position equally valid.

    true but are you making the assumption i am wrong and you are right no matter what?

    No. I am making the statement that I and the 9 or 10 other people who agree with my position are right and you and the 3 or 4 other people who agree with your position are wrong, based on the evidence presented.

    @Beardedragon said:
    i for one have no trouble dealing with mortar emplacements so in my optics its balanced.

    This isn't about it being unbeatable. This is about it being too forgiving. There is a difference.

  • #367
    2 years ago
    GrittleGrittle Posts: 993

    @Lazarus said:
    No. I am making the statement that I and the 9 or 10 other people who agree with my position are right and you and the 3 or 4 other people who agree with your position are wrong, based on the evidence presented.

    So? the majority of people called for the OKW to lose it's identity with evidence and now look at it: a former husk of itself.

    Sometimes the majority is right, sometimes their wrong. It's that simple.

    @Beardedragon said:
    i for one have no trouble dealing with mortar emplacements so in my optics its balanced.

    This isn't about it being unbeatable. This is about it being too forgiving. There is a difference.

    It is also funny that at launch, the majority of people were calling for an emplacement buff when the fire damage against emplacements was alot higher. even to the point where a single mortar HT could wipe out a braced bofors in 20 seconds tops with a single inced.

    Emplacements are hard to balance because they lack a key feature that company of heroes has: retreating

    How can you appropriately balance a unit that is unable to retreat?

    If you do nothing then you end up with the Pak 43 and arty pieces: giant manpower sinks that die to a single off-map barrage.

    Brace is a necessary evil for emplacements whether you like it or not. combined with the emplacements rather high cost and pop cap, it is balanced.

    Now in terms of forgiveness, unless the brit is going emplacement regiment, Emplacements are not really that forgiving aside from brace

  • #368
    2 years ago
    OptimismOptimism Posts: 43
    edited January 2017

    Thinking of emplacements... anyone seen a PAK43 or 17 Pounder AT gun emplacement built recently? And if so, anyone seen them built and made useful as anything except a deterrent?

    I'm just wondering if anyone would notice or mind if both were deleted from the game.

  • #369
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,017

    @Grittle said:
    It is also funny that at launch, the majority of people were calling for an emplacement buff when the fire damage against emplacements was alot higher. even to the point where a single mortar HT could wipe out a braced bofors in 20 seconds tops with a single inced.

    It's also funny how those emplacements were supporting Infantry Sections that were exorbitantly expensive to reinforce, and simply could not afford to lose models in combat. They were fighting an OKW who had a Volkschreck blob to support their Wehr allies.

    What was then is not now.

    @Grittle said:
    Brace is a necessary evil for emplacements whether you like it or not. combined with the emplacements rather high cost and pop cap, it is balanced.

    non-sequitur. Brace may be necessary but that doesn't make it balanced. I've already provided numerous alternative iterations for brace in this thread that would be significantly more balanced without severely hurting emplacement survivability.

  • #370
    2 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495

    @Grittle said:

    @Lazarus said:
    No. I am making the statement that I and the 9 or 10 other people who agree with my position are right and you and the 3 or 4 other people who agree with your position are wrong, based on the evidence presented.

    So? the majority of people called for the OKW to lose it's identity with evidence and now look at it: a former husk of itself.

    Sometimes the majority is right, sometimes their wrong. It's that simple.

    @Beardedragon said:
    i for one have no trouble dealing with mortar emplacements so in my optics its balanced.

    This isn't about it being unbeatable. This is about it being too forgiving. There is a difference.

    It is also funny that at launch, the majority of people were calling for an emplacement buff when the fire damage against emplacements was alot higher. even to the point where a single mortar HT could wipe out a braced bofors in 20 seconds tops with a single inced.

    Emplacements are hard to balance because they lack a key feature that company of heroes has: retreating

    How can you appropriately balance a unit that is unable to retreat?

    If you do nothing then you end up with the Pak 43 and arty pieces: giant manpower sinks that die to a single off-map barrage.

    Brace is a necessary evil for emplacements whether you like it or not. combined with the emplacements rather high cost and pop cap, it is balanced.

    Now in terms of forgiveness, unless the brit is going emplacement regiment, Emplacements are not really that forgiving aside from brace

    thank you!

  • #371
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647
    edited January 2017

    Emplacements aren't forgiving aside from brace? So setting aside the 30 seconds of invunerability that negates any pushes or outmaneuvering on an axis players behalf, they still have comparable survivability to a heavy with more then enough range and damage to push off a full assualt without much more than token support. That isn't forgiving?

    If my flametrack gets through your lines, reaches your mortar pit and lights it up, I shouldn't be rewarded in the same way as having a squad of shock troops or commandos smash into my support line?

    COH2 is based on counterplay, AT counters tank, AI counters infantry, Flame weapons counter building. But emplacements should have no actual counters outside tanks (which have at least a degree of survivability to survive the death laser that is the bofors) despite being available a good 8 minutes earlier?

    And before we have the repeated arguements of "at guns and mortars counter emplacments." They don't.... mortar pits counter static weapon teams with the exception of the leig, all a brit has to do is push off the spotters with his inf and hey ho the at gun is useless.

    And that's without even taking into account the precarious position you
    have to take up to attack the emplacements as the brits forces will be close by or surroundign them allowing him to easily push you off with their support.

  • #372
    2 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495
    edited January 2017

    once again, vehicles do counter the mortar pit to a degree. yet it doesnt counter in the way a tank destroyer counters a tank, because the emplacement is a mix of a building and a unit. its not a unit given that it cant move and its essentially a building, but it is a unit given that it has brace (its version of retreat) and it takes population cap.

    a unit that is so definitively different from anything in the game, how can that have a definitive counter? aside from flames that hardcounters emplacements, they dont have hard counters. that doesnt mean, however, it cant be dealt with.

    a mortar pit cant take on a pair of 222s, flamehalftracks, flak halftracks, Luchs or pumas. nor do they take on shreks. in fact, anything in its face is it unable to deal with.

    i cant tell you how to take them on, at best i can give advice because fighting emplacements is often different from one game to another, it depends on the UKF army composition and where his army is stationed.

    brace is needed, however, because these emplacements are stationed on the frontline, not behind it. they take damage almost at all times, unlike OKW bases that are placed behind the front lines.

    Brace is needed for it to survive. if we're purely talking about how forgiving brace or what should be, then sure reduce its % it protects from 75% to something like 60%. but for something stationed on the frontline? not a lot lower.

    if we talk about removing brace entirely whats even the point of the mortar emplacement. i could rush it, smash it and get out of there. the UKF player would never be able to venture away from the emplacement, thus he would lock himself in the zone that emplacement is, unable to get anything else.

  • #373
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,017
    edited January 2017

    @Beardedragon said:

    a unit that is so definitively different from anything in the game, how can that have a definitive counter? aside from flames that hardcounters emplacements, they dont have hard counters. that doesnt mean, however, it cant be dealt with.

    Indeed. If only there were precedent for fixed emplacements, like large AT Guns, AA pits or fixed artillery in the game before Brits.

    @Beardedragon said:
    a mortar pit cant take on a pair of 222s, flamehalftracks, flak halftracks, Luchs or pumas. nor do they take on shreks. in fact, anything in its face is it unable to deal with.

    30 seconds invincibility + however long it takes you to get through the remaining health. Nothing you've listed will last 30 seconds under any kind of fire. Especially once homing PIATs are introduced.

    @Beardedragon said:
    brace is needed,

    But not as a magical forcefield that is 30 seconds of invincibility for no cost to the Brit at all. Perhaps as a munitions ability, or something that drains MP, or a toggle that requires a soldier to be inside the emplacement. But no... these alternatives are hogwash. There can only be invincibility frames for free.

  • #374
    2 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495
    edited January 2017

    @Lazarus

    AA emplacements, AT gun emplacements and artillery pieces can be decrewed and are not an integral part of anyones army, they all arrive with doctrines. the emplacements are an integral part of the UKF army and was specially designed for them. also why the hell would an artillery piece that can fire as long as the regular 600 manpower artillery piece can, have brace? they're not stationed on the frontlines.

    if his emplacement is on brace, what stops you from moving up your army in a defensive position around the mortar emplacement?

    his 400 manpower emplacement is out of the comission for the duration, so why do you assume you HAVE to lose to the british army reinforcing?

    the only thing i see from you is: hurr durr he reinforces his emplacement so i cant win. his army is too strong!

    well. yes he reinforces his emplacement and he braces it. why dont you smash his army then? once again he has paid 400 manpower for an emplacement that is now braced and will not help him at all in defeating your army that you have moved up.

    ofc nothing will last 30 seconds to focus fire, but maybe, just MAYBE you could micro a little? if your 222s are attacking a mortar emplacement and he braces, and he reinforces with his army, then you aint being countered by the emplacement, but by his army. either drive back or bring your own army.

    if he brings his army, why the hell wouldnt you?

    also if his army is already reinforcing it to begin with, then take everything else around it. bait him out already. use micro. use your head thats how you deal with these things.

    its like you guys expect ONE specific unit to counter specific emplacements, like you need AT guns or tank destroyers to counter tanks. thats not how it goes because emplacements dont work with the hard counter idea (except fire), because they're not units. they're not buildings either. they're a mix. but again, theres still plenty of ways to damage emplacements. they have high hp, but they wont bounce anything so you can always damage it with what ever you have except for small arms fire. if you're getting desperate you can even faust it.

    and a munitions cost for using brace? really? why dont you charge infantry with the same to retreat.

    the only thing that seems fair to discuss is duration time of brace and how much % it needs to protect from. or hell maybe a reduction in manpower gain once you brace. but how does that even work, does that reduction stack if you brace two things at once?

    and dont call it 30 seconds invincibility. it still takes damage, albeit only 25%. and given the fire damage stacks, even 25% can start being quite a bit. and you have 222s, shreks and an AT gun shooting at it? even 25% reduction will make it take reasonable damage.

  • #375
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,017

    @Beardedragon said:
    @Lazarus

    AA emplacements, AT gun emplacements and artillery pieces can be decrewed and are not an integral part of anyones army, they all arrive with doctrines. the emplacements are an integral part of the UKF army and was specially designed for them. also why the hell would an artillery piece that can fire as long as the regular 600 manpower artillery piece can, have brace? they're not stationed on the frontlines.

    Mortar pits aren't stationed on the front lines - artillery is still artillery. They're closer, but still not front line units. Bofors are not integral parts of the UKF either, because you can explicitly lock yourself out of them. Wehrs bunkers were integral parts of their army, and are frontline emplacements. Why don't they have brace? After all - a single satchel will literally destroy them (because satchels get bonus damage vs Bunkers. Something about them being actual hardcounters. I know. Heresy.)

    Funny how OKWs tech structure needs to be defended, and when it dies the response is (rightfully) that's what you get for putting it in a dangerous position. T3 is an integral part of OKWs army. It costs way more than an emplacement. Where's the brace? Don't give me any horseshit about "but you're REALLY paying for" cuz I'm not having any of it.

    @Beardedragon said:
    if his emplacement is on brace, what stops you from moving up your army in a defensive position around the mortar emplacement?

    His blob which is now moseying on over to punish me for daring to fight British super structures. "Oh" you say. "Well then just go around that and cap the rest of the map." No. Because if I don't keep up pressure on the pit, the blob immediately is no longer under pressure to save the pit, allowing it freedom to return to stopping me from capping the map.

    @Beardedragon said:
    his 400 manpower emplacement is out of the comission for the duration, so why do you assume you HAVE to lose to the british army reinforcing?

    Lets assume best case scenario. I attack the completely undefended emplacement, pop brace and then manage to somehow evade the oncoming British horde (and he doesn't immediately turn about and smack me as I escape). I'll have lost at least one model. At least. The Brit has lost 0 models. That's called a bad engagement, because I have traded away more MP than my opponent has, on account of there being no actual punishment for using brace.

    @Beardedragon said:
    the only thing i see from you is: hurr durr he reinforces his emplacement so i cant win. his army is too strong!

    No wonder you're disagreeing with me then. Find your first grade teacher and ask them kindly if they'll go over what letters is so you learn to read. Then maybe you can actually understand what I'm saying, and arguing against that - instead of whatever garbage this is.

    @Beardedragon said:
    well. yes he reinforces his emplacement and he braces it. why dont you smash his army then? once again he has paid 400 manpower for an emplacement that is now braced and will not help him at all in defeating your army that you have moved up.

    Because even facing minimal resistance my army approaching said emplacement is now scratched up. I don't know if you realize this but British infantry is pretty fucking strong, and if they're engaged in anything remotely resembling a fair fight they'll win it hands down.

    @Beardedragon said:
    ofc nothing will last 30 seconds to focus fire

    Wrong again. Emplacements do.

    @Beardedragon said:
    and a munitions cost for using brace? really? why dont you charge infantry with the same to retreat.

    Because you can fucking kill retreating infantry.

    @Beardedragon said:
    the only thing that seems fair to discuss is duration time of brace and how much % it needs to protect from.

    Well, in MY optics, the only thing that seems fair to discuss is how much it costs the brit in resources.

    @Beardedragon said:
    and dont call it 30 seconds invincibility.

    Brace is 30 seconds of invincibility.

  • #376
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,789
    Brace with bleed is the way to go (or require gareisons, who can bleed) as if i can manage to force you to brace you DESERVE to feel some sort of negative aside from "i cant shoot for a moment" and Thats plenty reasonable. Even a flanked squad retreating runs the risk of a wipe, thats not a pain emplacments suffer, not by any means. The worst they suffer is " oh shit the enemy got an AT gun beside me and its already shot 4 times better do something!" Of "holy shit how did i not get AT to counter that flame halftrack, now i only have 3/4 of a minute to respond or ill lose it!" Maybe even "that ost player has 3 mortars trying to kill this thing, maybe i should quickly youtube what micro is so i can respond"
  • #377
    2 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495
    edited January 2017

    @Lazarus you are completely dense.

    its not 30 seconds of invincibility. get it through your thick skull it reduces damage by 75%, and if multiple sources like mortars, AT guns and what not are still attacking it, it still takes a bit of damage from that. you cant even have an opinion on this. its literally not invincible as invincible would indicate it doesnt take any damage at all.

    and you can kill retreating infantry? well GG mate you can kill an emplacement on brace too given it still takes 25% damage. it all depends on when you brace or retreat.

    the only reason an emplacement would last 30 seconds would be without brace. a flame halftrack shreds it in less than 20. a pair of shrek squads probably do the same, and concentrated mortar fire too. what ever damage you can get your hands on.

    this game is about micro management, if you lose your wehrmacht or OKW army all the time versus the british army? then maybe you should play better. you shouldnt insta lose versus the british army. and british blob? not everyone blobs.

    why dont you give brace to bunkers? because it cost 150 manpower and is a light defense at best. depending on how many lines you want to divide the battlefield on, id say the mortar pit remains a frontline emplacement, where artillery, that would be, actual artillery, and OKW medic trucks are placed. you dont have to drive to the ends of the stage to get your hands on that emplacement. mortars dont have such long range that you can completely avoid being near the front line or on it.

    the mortar pit is a heavy installation in a faction where things are already kind of expensive.

    Do you even think anyone ever, would buy emplacements if brace wasnt a thing? they would get destroyed so easily before their own army can even reinforce it. its crucial to its survival. and if they DIDNT have brace, that meant that the british army had to be constantly stationed near the emplacement, meaning their own emplacement is containing them, out of fear for losing it.

    it has brace so that the british infantry can actually move away from it and take other points without you insta gibbing it with some fast vehicle squad.

    @thedarkarmadillo i do actually find the idea of having a squad inside the braced structure before it can be braced, to be interesting. but im not sure a manpower bleed is the way forward given the last thing i wrote to lazarus. if you cant brace emplacements, the entire british army becomes contained near the emplacement, because otherwise they cant support it before its dead. it doesnt sound fair that they bleed, its not like UKF is already swimming in manpower.

    but the idea sounds interesting, minus the bleed part. if anything, it should be a question of brace time, or brace % or both. maybe mixed with the fact that one needs to have a soldier stationed.

  • #378
    2 years ago
    GrittleGrittle Posts: 993

    @Beardedragon said:
    @thedarkarmadillo i do actually find the idea of having a squad inside the braced structure before it can be braced, to be interesting. but im not sure a manpower bleed is the way forward given the last thing i wrote to lazarus. if you cant brace emplacements, the entire british army becomes contained near the emplacement, because otherwise they cant support it before its dead. it doesnt sound fair that they bleed, its not like UKF is already swimming in manpower.

    but the idea sounds interesting, minus the bleed part. if anything, it should be a question of brace time, or brace % or both. maybe mixed with the fact that one needs to have a soldier stationed.

    Make it part of the garrison bonus to do that kind of thing.

  • #379
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,982
    edited January 2017

    @Beardedragon said:
    @Lazarus you are completely dense.

    its not 30 seconds of invincibility. get it through your thick skull it reduces damage by 75%, and if multiple sources like mortars, AT guns and what not are still attacking it, it still takes a bit of damage from that.

    Actually the thick one may very well be you. Invincibility is not the same as invulnerability. Invincibility means it cannot lose or be beaten. And given the very high damage reduction it gets with brace, losing the emplacement (in the sense of it being destroyed) is very unlikely while brace is active. Nobody presumed they are invulnerable, which would mean it no longer recieves any damage at all.

    @thedarkarmadillo i do actually find the idea of having a squad inside the braced structure before it can be braced, to be interesting. but im not sure a manpower bleed is the way forward given the last thing i wrote to lazarus.
    but the idea sounds interesting, minus the bleed part.

    The bleed part is the important part of his argument. Emplacements and bunkers are the only units in the game which dont bleed. it the case of the bunked this is countered by the bunker being very easy to be destroyed. I fail to see how these structures should get special treatment in this regard in addition to all the other special exceptions they are already given.

  • #380
    2 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    edited January 2017

    @Hingie said:
    Emplacements and bunkers are the only units in the game which dont bleed.

    What happened to every tank ever? Bunkers are the only thing that causes no MP bleed of any kind, as they don't cost pop so your MP income isn't reduced.

    I don't see an issue with the Bofors other than a lack of risk in getting one. Not having the AEC isn't the worst thing the world, and the bofors is relatively cheap. Maybe increase its cost a bit, but it already requires a side-tech to get it.

    I'd be thrilled if Relic decided that Flak HQs and Bofors cannot be placed IN RANGE of victory points. Right now they're simply forbidden from being build in VP Territory but most VPs have minimal territory at best.

  • #381
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,982

    @SkysTheLimit said:

    @Hingie said:
    Emplacements and bunkers are the only units in the game which dont bleed.

    What happened to every tank ever? Bunkers are the only thing that causes no MP bleed of any kind, as they don't cost pop so your MP income isn't reduced.

    Tanks are not relevant for this discussion because tanks arrive later than Emplacements do. Most units afield or buildable when Emplacements hit the field are infantry, who bleed. Also, Tanks and vehicles cant reateat in the way infantry can. And since the argument at hand is that Brace is the equivalent to retreat for infantry, Emplacements are in this regard closer to infantry than Tanks.

    Pop is not bleed, but upkeep. Theres a difference.

  • #382
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,017
    edited January 2017

    @Beardedragon said:
    @Lazarus you are completely dense.

    its not 30 seconds of invincibility. get it through your thick skull it reduces damage by 75%, and if multiple sources like mortars, AT guns and what not are still attacking it, it still takes a bit of damage from that. you cant even have an opinion on this. its literally not invincible as invincible would indicate it doesnt take any damage at all.

    Hingie already corrected you on this one. Maybe learn the language before you correct people using it.

    @Beardedragon said:
    the only reason an emplacement would last 30 seconds would be without brace. a flame halftrack shreds it in less than 20. a pair of shrek squads probably do the same, and concentrated mortar fire too. what ever damage you can get your hands on.

    Which is probably why I'm not particularly worried about their base durability - and have been specifically harping on how effective and forgiving Brace is.

    @Beardedragon said:
    this game is about micro management

    Hell yeah it is. How much micro management is there in setting and forgetting a mortar pit, to occasionally come back and press brace? Or are we going the Martel route and setting up special rules for special factions.

    @Beardedragon said:
    Do you even think anyone ever, would buy emplacements if brace wasnt a thing?

    Dunno. Ask someone who wants to completely remove brace?

    You really need to go back and actually read what I've been writing because at this point you're arguing against a totally fictional character - yet you and Grittle, for whatever amount of resistance you've given me seem to be completely on board with MY idea of making it requiring garrisoned soldiers. Maybe if you'd paid attention pages ago when I first brought it up we might have been spared all this back and forth.

  • #383
    2 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    edited January 2017

    @Hingie said:
    Tanks are not relevant for this discussion because tanks arrive later than Emplacements do.
    Pop is not bleed, but upkeep. Theres a difference.

    I'm aware of that dude, I just used a different word to describe it. You said "emplacements and bunkers are the only units in the game that don't bleed". Not my fault you didn't make context for that claim.

    And I use vehicles to destroy bofors all the time so not sure what the point on timing is. It's not an early game unit or anything so there's not a huge amount of time before a p4 arrives.

  • #384
    2 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495
    edited January 2017

    @SkysTheLimit The

    well to be fair a BOFOS can be rushed rather fast, before vehicles gets out.

    @Hingie @Lazarus Invincible means incapable of being defeated as you stated. then afterwards you say its very unlikely to be beaten? those two statements dont work together. its either invincible or it isnt.

    given the fact emplacements take damage when they're braced albeit reduced, how can it be invincible? dont go making stuff up.

    its not invincible, ive killed emplacements with heavy damage through brace. does that make me the breaker of invincibility?

    its neither invulnerable nor invincible when braced.

    and how much micro in setting up an emplacement and leaving it? dunno. ask Relic they made the UKF faction. but the way they are right now and has been designed, Emplacements dont work with heavy nerfs to brace.

  • #385
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,017
    @Beardedragon the only person making shit up is you. I used the word correctly. No comment on the fact that youve actually agreed with me despite all this shit flinging?
  • #386
    2 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495
    edited January 2017

    @Lazarus said:
    @Beardedragon the only person making shit up is you. I used the word correctly. No comment on the fact that youve actually agreed with me despite all this shit flinging?

    you used the word correctly? you say its invincible when braced despite the fact it still takes damage and can be killed during brace?

    the only part i agree to is that if it needs a nerf, it isnt a heavy one, and having a soldier stationed would indeed make it a bit more micro heavy to use. an issue with this is that often in the early or mid game the UKF faction dont have a ton of soldiers to spare to do this.

    it could work or it might not.

    i dont agree with a manpower bleed.

    remind me that i need to record the next time i kill an emplacement thats braced to get your " its invincible when braced" comment outta here.

  • #387
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,017
    Brits have plenty of sdiers to spare. Their vet 3 may have been nerfed but Sappers are still excellent and dime a dozen
  • #388
    2 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495
    edited January 2017

    @Lazarus said:
    Brits have plenty of sdiers to spare. Their vet 3 may have been nerfed but Sappers are still excellent and dime a dozen

    true they can get cheap sappers, but unless you have several sappers, you cant really both brace and repair it.

    again, it could work and i would be willing to try it out.

    as you said and as i said, the game sure is about micro, yet the UKF dont have much micro on this emplacement part. it wouldnt hurt them on the micro department.

  • #389
    2 years ago
    SquishyMuffinSquishyMu… Posts: 434
    edited January 2017

    Emplacements are broken. They literally ruin every match they exist in. Wehr's only options is flame ht, and if that goes due to at gun, then good luck without okw. Get rid of them for good. UKF do not need them. Why is the bofors so cheap??

  • #390
    2 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855

    @SquishyMuffin That's ridiculous, they're a core part of the faction, they don't ruin anything, and the UKF would fall apart without them. The bofors is not cheap. Emplacements have both hard and soft counters, learn to use them, if you refuse to, stop complaining.

  • #391
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,982
    edited January 2017

    They ruin my, and apparetly many other people's, fun. They make the matches they are in dreary and static, especially team games suffer from sim cities. And they dont have hardcounters, thanks to Brace they can wither any attack. So eventually they need to be grind down and while you bleed, the emplacements dont.

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.