[UKF] [ALL] British Emplacement Counterplay

1679111214

Comments

  • #242
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,646

    @Hingie said:
    The power and durability of the Bofors is way above its pay grade. It costs as much as a light vehicle yet annihilates anything short of a tank while being as durable as a heavy. It locks down everythung around itself. No other unit in the game can do that and be so durable while being so cheap. The only saving grace is that most of the time it cant fire back at indirect fire.

    And is hardcountered by singular mortar/AT gun.
    It braces or barrages? Reposition->wait->resume hardcountering.

    You're not exactly supposed to engage it frontally with anything soft as its a 40mm AA gun which is meant to counter you, just like schwerer gun does for free and without any pop cost.

    Complaining about bofors ripping apart everything in range is like complaining that HMGs suppress infantry which charges frontally. You can't use it for offence, you'll have mostly immobile army and there are very clear and same counters for all emplacements.

  • #243
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,991
    A Bofors without Brace can take 12 direct hits from a mortar before being destroyed and that takes about 50 seconds on uninterrupted fire if ever shot is a hit. The difference between an MG and a Bofors is that an MG can be countered by flanking, Snipers, mortars, light vehicles, tanks, artillery, grenades. A Bofors can't be flanked. It can't be sniped. It destroys all light vehicles with ease. It softcounters tanks. TANKS. And it costs 280 MP and 35 fuel. You know what most other units in that price segment can take in terms of punishment while being substantially weaker offensively? About 2 AT gun shots. This unit has for its price and timing no reason to be as powerful as it is. It has no reason to rip everything short of a tank apart. The Schwere is quite weaker and costs 120 fuel.

    Tell me one reason why it absolutely needs to destroy everything short of a tank by itself. The durability, fine, whatever. But the damage potential? No. It reliably wipes Squads on retreat. It destroys light vehicles in seconds. It can counterbarrage mortars. It's even very effective against garrisons. All that for the cost of a half track.
  • #244
    2 years ago
    mrgame2mrgame2 Posts: 496
    12 direct hits? Im sure its much less than that. My bofor is easily countered by 2 mortar and an mg defending them.
  • #245
    2 years ago
    GrittleGrittle Posts: 993

    @mrgame2 said:
    12 direct hits? Im sure its much less than that. My bofor is easily countered by 2 mortar and an mg defending them.

    12 divided by 2 = 6

    so 6 hits per mortar, killing the bofors quicker

  • #246
    2 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855

    @Hingie said:
    A Bofors without Brace can take 12 direct hits from a mortar before being destroyed and that takes about 50 seconds on uninterrupted fire if ever shot is a hit. The difference between an MG and a Bofors is that an MG can be countered by flanking, Snipers, mortars, light vehicles, tanks, artillery, grenades. A Bofors can't be flanked. It can't be sniped. It destroys all light vehicles with ease. It softcounters tanks. TANKS. And it costs 280 MP and 35 fuel. You know what most other units in that price segment can take in terms of punishment while being substantially weaker offensively? About 2 AT gun shots. This unit has for its price and timing no reason to be as powerful as it is. It has no reason to rip everything short of a tank apart. The Schwere is quite weaker and costs 120 fuel.

    Tell me one reason why it absolutely needs to destroy everything short of a tank by itself. The durability, fine, whatever. But the damage potential? No. It reliably wipes Squads on retreat. It destroys light vehicles in seconds. It can counterbarrage mortars. It's even very effective against garrisons. All that for the cost of a half track.

    It doesn't soft counter tanks. If you think it does, then you're not using tanks right, like, at all. It can't move, that's a massive disadvantage, it is literally bolted in place and can be just walked around, unlike an MG which can be moved or any other unit. It also cuts off light vehicle play. So you're completely ignroing both opportuntiy cost and the fact that is it as gosh-darned emplacement, a building, that cannot move. Your inability to understand how tactically important that is is baffling.

  • #247
    2 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495

    @Hingie said:
    The power and durability of the Bofors is way above its pay grade. It costs as much as a light vehicle yet annihilates anything short of a tank while being as durable as a heavy. It locks down everythung around itself. No other unit in the game can do that and be so durable while being so cheap. The only saving grace is that most of the time it cant fire back at indirect fire.

    well.. a 222 can shatter an su76

  • #248
    2 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,271

    @Kurfürst said:
    Remind me why Bofors needs to have 45 range to start with, with self spotting at Vet 1 and more HP than the Churchill or KT at Vet 3. With an optional, free 4x HP multiplier.

    You have to be a special kind of terrible to let your opponent get a vet 3 Bofors. Getting to vet up just once is no small task.

  • #249
    2 years ago
    KurfürstKurfürst Posts: 289

    @SkysTheLimit said:

    @Kurfürst said:
    Remind me why Bofors needs to have 45 range to start with, with self spotting at Vet 1 and more HP than the Churchill or KT at Vet 3. With an optional, free 4x HP multiplier.

    You have to be a special kind of terrible to let your opponent get a vet 3 Bofors. Getting to vet up just once is no small task.

    L2P instead of clinging to OP units.

  • #250
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,646

    @Kurfürst said:

    @SkysTheLimit said:

    @Kurfürst said:
    Remind me why Bofors needs to have 45 range to start with, with self spotting at Vet 1 and more HP than the Churchill or KT at Vet 3. With an optional, free 4x HP multiplier.

    You have to be a special kind of terrible to let your opponent get a vet 3 Bofors. Getting to vet up just once is no small task.

    L2P instead of clinging to OP units.

    You can now apply that to yourself and use hardcounters presented and proved in this thread.

  • #251
    2 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495
    edited January 2017

    i have literally no problems dealing with emplacements playing as wehrmacht so i stand confused here at whats going on.

  • #252
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647
    edited January 2017

    Hardcounters explained and proven in this thread? What are you lot on about?

    Hardcounters take nearly two minutes to kill their intended target? I mean with the exception of the panther, the late game td's definitly don't take that long to kill a tank.... and snipers don't take that long to kill an infantry squad...
    and flame weapons don't take that long to clear a garrison....

    Isolating a unit and let something shoot at it for an extended period of time without doing anything about it is unheard of in coh 2, maybe in the lowest dreggs of elo-hell, but not in any realistic scenario.

    You've all literally taken the mortar pit/bofors and placed it in a vacuum, its easy to show how mortars can take out an emplacement when they are given an empty field with no other factors and unlimited time to do their work. Back in a real game you would start harrassing the mortar pit, it returns fire, you take some bleed, maybe lose a mortar, it braces, your mortars are now irrelevant for the next 30 seconds+ and the brit pushes you off. That would be the most common scenario as you have to invest between 480-660 mp depending on faction, so the brit will have better field presence than you as he has dictated your build order just by getting the damn mortar pit down and forcing you to respond with your own indirect as its likely behind a sight blocker some considerable distance behind the frontline.

    No-one is asking for the mortar pit to be nerfed to oblivion, nor the bofors being made into a glorified flak emplacement. Simply giving hardcounters, something truly effective against emplacements is just a way to remove the stagnant gameplay they introduce, allowing flame weapons at the very least do deal bonus damage when braced would be enough to give players a tool to actually threaten them.

    That would put an end to the constant company of mortars gameplay that the brits create, and that so much of the community hates. All that would change is that brit players would have to actively defend the emplacements instead of wacking them down and forgetting about them whilst he charges over the other side of the map and inflicts pressure, knowing that it takes little to no work to protect them and just reinforce when you try to counterpush his emplacement guarded points.

    Instead he thinks "oh he's got flame pios, shit I better focus them down/ push it away before they get to my mortar pit.", you know the same scenario as "oh shit, a jackson, i better focus that down/push it away before it hammers my p4 into the floor."

  • #253
    2 years ago
    mrgame2mrgame2 Posts: 496
    There are already hard counters to emplacement...

    Like I said, play more as brit, do the emplacement thingie, and see how your average wehr n okw deal with your sim city.

    After 10 brit sim city games, come back and tell us whether emplacement need any more nerf...
  • #254
    2 years ago
    GrittleGrittle Posts: 993

    @Farra13 said:
    Hardcounters explained and proven in this thread? What are you lot on about?

    Hardcounters take nearly two minutes to kill their intended target? I mean with the exception of the panther, the late game td's definitly don't take that long to kill a tank.... and snipers don't take that long to kill an infantry squad...
    and flame weapons don't take that long to clear a garrison....

    So when you have a tank you want a hard counter that instantly eliminates with with 800 damage and 4 second reload?

    No, most counters to tanks usually take up to 2 minutes to properly take down on some accounts due to reloading and micro....

  • #255
    2 years ago
    mrgame2mrgame2 Posts: 496
    Yep coh2 counters need a little more grease work.

    The game is not like say StarCraft of rock scissors paper counter units
  • #256
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    2 minutes to kill a tank with a td? What?

    Jackson and Firefly have about 7.5-8 second reload, 200 damage a shot. So techinically they will kill a p4 in about 30 seconds as they need 4 shots to land, maybe 40 seconds in the unlikelyhood that they miss a shot. That is without taking into account tulip rockets. The SU-85, 5.5 second reload, 160 damage, that takes about 25 seconds if all shots land, 35 at the most accounting for maybe a miss. That is a hard counter, even a well microed tank won't last longer than a minute.

    Flame pios, its four burst to kill an average garrison. Its 3 seconds between a burst, so 12 in total to wipe. That is another hardcounter.

    A higher investment of resources (480-660mp, depending on which faction) requiring two minutes to kill something is not a hardcounter.

    @mrgame2 No one has mentioned sim city at all? We are talking about emplacements when combined with a standing army during the opening 20 minutes of a game when counters like arty and tanks just aren't available, not just an array of mortars and bofors grouped together in one spot on the map.

    And yes the game is built around counterplay, how do you not see that?

  • #257
    2 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855

    Emplacements are more durable for cost because they cannot move, how is this a controversial point. Do people not understand the tactical tradeoff between a building and a unit? They have hardcounters in each faction, at least, and multiple softcounters, so this is frankly about people not understanding that mobility is a useful asset that is priced into units.

  • #258
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    Im confused, do they have higher healthpools than armour because they cant move? Or higher damage potental because they cant move (range/insta wipe potential) or do they have "nice well thought out flank/push but im going to oress this button and take no damage" because they cant move?

    Maybe we can take the tracks of my 3x the cost ostwind and itll be able to kill a model of infantry
  • #259
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,646
    edited January 2017

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    Im confused, do they have higher healthpools than armour because they cant move? Or higher damage potental because they cant move (range/insta wipe potential) or do they have "nice well thought out flank/push but im going to oress this button and take no damage" because they cant move?

    Maybe we can take the tracks of my 3x the cost ostwind and itll be able to kill a model of infantry

    Its not really that complicated and its a bit of everything-army was made with strats incorporating emplacements just as valid and viable as strats without them, so their cost and performance needs to warrant their limited use and high upkeep.

    Its not an optional gimmick, like OKW flak, which should be buffed anyway, but a fully viable part of the core army.

    You either remain mobile and put some pressure with armor, or hunker down on part of the map and make sure opponent is forced for hardcounters to deal with emplacements.

    Bottom line is, if you do not use hardcounters vs emplacements you will NOT have an easy time, but if you refuse to use hardcounters, you shouldn't be complaining that its hard to deal with them.

  • #260
    2 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855

    What @thedarkarmadillo do you not understand? That being able to move is a massive advantage? That being rooted to the ground is a massive disadvantage? Why is the idea that you can simply walk around a bofors emplacement not registering to you as the disadvantage it is.

  • #261
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,991
    edited January 2017

    @MCMartel said:
    Emplacements are more durable for cost because they cannot move, how is this a controversial point. Do people not understand the tactical tradeoff between a building and a unit? They have hardcounters in each faction, at least, and multiple softcounters, so this is frankly about people not understanding that mobility is a useful asset that is priced into units.

    I for one dont mind them being durable if they were not so powerful. Their attack power is very high for units that have respectively 700 and 1000 HP while also having the ability to get immune to damage for a while. There are 4 factors that are relevant here:

    Mobility, Durability, Firepower and cost. Mobility they have 0, so they indeed have to have something else to make up for that. I dare say they got the best of everything in return. Instead of having, say somewhat higher durability and firepower they have MASSIVE durability rivaling that of tanks while being very powerful when shooting things. And they are also not really that expensive. For 400 mp your get 2 mortars. All other factions have to pay at least 480 for that. And the Bofors... Well, that thing evaporates everything that does not retreat immediately while also utterly crushing light vehicles and actually being able to deal mediocre damage to tanks. Somethings gotta give. If you want to keep them as durable, their attack power needs to go down. Or they need to be more expensive. As it is, you get a lot of perks in exchange for being immobile.

  • #262
    2 years ago
    mrgame2mrgame2 Posts: 496
    But bofor arent massively durable? Reducin their hp will make them useless. Imagine emplacement getting shelled and destroy by a single mortar with 4 hits. It is damn easy.

    Most Brit players don't even build them in early game now...

    I know you are having trouble with them but you should try harder.

    When i play Brit, I'm annoyed that I can't have it easy with wehr support tactics mg + mortar or deal with long range leig

    Again i say play more as brit , build a few Bofors and see if you can sleep through the games.
  • #263
    2 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,271
    edited January 2017

    @Kurfürst said:
    L2P instead of clinging to OP units.

    Haha that gave me a chuckle. I've played a whopping 16 games as the Brits, I think I've built a bofors once.

    All I said was you have to be terrible to give someone a vet 3 bofors. That's a lot of infantry you sent running straight into the range of a giant flak cannon.

  • #264
    2 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495

    i wouldnt reduce the BOFOS hp at all. i would, however, reduce its damage so that it doesnt wipe infantry so damn well that happen to retreat its path.

    i have no issue at all with the mortar pit, heck, 2 regular mortars will deal with it when they shoot apart from one another.

    but the BOFOS could use a nerf, to its damage

  • #265
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,991

    @mrgame2 said:
    But bofor arent massively durable?

    The Bofors has 1000 HP and the ability to mitigate all incomming damage by 75% for 30 seconds. If that isnt massively durable I dont know what is. Just for you to compare: The Tiger I has 1040 HP. This thing has an HP pool like a heavy tank. For 280 MP and 35 fuel.

  • #266
    2 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855

    it can lower damage by turning off, meaning you can literally walk right by it, cause, oh yeah, it's a building and can't move. It definitely doesn't need a nerf.

  • #267
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    @mcmartel and the INSTANT it turns back in its almost guaranteed to wipe anything within range
  • #268
    2 years ago
    mrgame2mrgame2 Posts: 496
    Bofor can be easily countered by cheap mortars. Bofor are standing duck and not easily repaired once you hit it with mortars


    Bofor can not do much if you skip that area it is in.

    Again play more as a Brit. Maybe u will learn how to counter your own Brit self
  • #269
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,061

    "skip the area that it's in"

    It's okay mr UKF. Really. Have about 25% of the map because you paid for a light vehicle. I'll just come back in 10 to 15 minutes time with literally everything I have to have another bash. What? No, don't leave any troops to defend, just have your whole army available to fight me for the remaining section of map that you haven't locked down.

  • #270
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    ^^ That's the exact problem. It should be if he leaves the bofors alone, it should be quick and easy to take out as its unsupported, not two minutes of game time well you try to shell it with mortars or snipe it with pak guns while the brit player leisurely pulls back, breaks out a cuppa, checks the time and then wanders on over well your entire army is still firing at said braced bofors who's crew are currently sat on the ground holding their helmets and grinning.

  • #271
    2 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495
    edited January 2017

    dealing with mortar pits, as wehrmacht, seems easy enough. or rather, not easy, but doable.

    mortar pits + Bofos is another story. its not really about the mortar pit imo, just the out right damage of the bofos. i mean even if you drive a vehicle up (not tank, but vehicle, like halftracks) and your react time is spot on, odds are, you cant stop, and reverse gear fast enough back before you die.

    it should have its damage toned down, and it needs to smash vehicles less fast.

    emplacements are meant to be hardcountered by fire, so it doesnt really work that my flame halftrack wont last even a quarter second against a bofos emplacement. at least give that halftrack two seconds of reaction time to back pedal out of there so i can find another angle.

    @mrgame2 you cant really skip it when its sitting on top of the fuel point you need.

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.