[UKF]{ALL} Emplacement durability and power

2

Comments

  • #32
    2 years ago
    whitesky00whitesky00 Posts: 407

    @Something445 said:
    snip

    No, comet does not beat panther 1v1. I believe there was a test made and panther 1v1 comet wins 9/10 times?

    @Kurfürst said:
    snip

    So only a bofors, mortar pit, and ATG bother you. So you don't expect 1000 MP and 45 fuel to hold down a position well? What were you doing while he had time to spend and build 1000 mp? I'm just curious....

  • #33
    2 years ago
    KurfürstKurfürst Posts: 289

    Hammering it sounds like an option, if we had it, but currently it just doesn't exist unless you catch the REngs while building it. Its impervious to small arms, cannot be decrewed, has a ridiiculus, insane amount of HP pool that can be extended infinitely by just pressing W.

    Fun fact, the Bofors shoots further (45) than Pios can see (42) if you had an idea of shooting it with a PaK.
    OKW? No options but spamming LeiG until you get tanks. Bofors just murder all light vehicles and infantry.

    So in brief, you just can't realistically hammer it in early game. You may try spamming mortars and LeiG, because one simply won't do, at which point your "counter" costs you more than the unit being countered. (and still have to deal with Barrage/Mortar pit anyway).

    The main problem is IMO that
    (i) they have far too large HP pool which makes them tedious to counter and are just far too survivable, since they will get repaired or get doctrinal repairs. Brace is there for a reason, as other faction's mortar crew can retreat, these cannot. Its basically the equivalent of retreating your mortar crew in trouble, but you CANT have the equivalent HP pool of 10 models (800 HP) with immunity to small arms on the top of that.

    Bofors would need the following tweaks IMO.

    Range 40 max, min range 5
    Penetration at 16 (from 25)
    Bofors HP to 700
    Decrewable
    Far accuracy to 0.25 (from 0.36)

    Mortar pit to HP 500 (6 man mortar team HP pool + 20, from 700).
    Bofors HP to 640 (=medium tank HP pool)

  • #34
    2 years ago
    KurfürstKurfürst Posts: 289

    @whitesky00 said:

    @Kurfürst said:
    snip

    So only a bofors, mortar pit, and ATG bother you. So you don't expect 1000 MP and 45 fuel to hold down a position well? What were you doing while he had time to spend and build 1000 mp? I'm just curious....

    Remind me of the tools OST/OKW can have for 1000 MP/45 fuel to remove them.

    Also, remind me of the reason why UKF fixed emplacements have roughly TWICE the health pool compared to any other faction's comparable item.

  • #35
    2 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495
    edited August 2016

    @Kurfürst you dont need vision to shoot your AT gun. just attack ground in to fog of war where it is. furthermore the 251 with flame projectors can often shoot through houses and walls when using attack ground once again. meaning it can often hit the bofos when it cant hit you.

    furthermore, you do realize they cant move the emplacements right? with concentrated fire they die. you just need 2 wehr mortars and any given mortar emplacement is in immediate danger, and so is the bofos. if you have someone near the bofos, you can hear when it starts shooting upwards to make that barrage it has the ability to make, just move your wehr mortar crew then.

    the 251, again, shreds the mortar pit and only really has trouble versus the bofos. but then again if he went bofos he didnt go AEC, meaning your 251 has full reign everywhere else than where the bofos is.

  • #36
    2 years ago
    whitesky00whitesky00 Posts: 407

    @Kurfürst said:

    @whitesky00 said:

    @Kurfürst said:
    snip

    So only a bofors, mortar pit, and ATG bother you. So you don't expect 1000 MP and 45 fuel to hold down a position well? What were you doing while he had time to spend and build 1000 mp? I'm just curious....

    Remind me of the tools OST/OKW can have for 1000 MP/45 fuel to remove them.

    Also, remind me of the reason why UKF fixed emplacements have roughly TWICE the health pool compared to any other faction's comparable item.

    Mobility. Is this bofors sitting in a completely open 360 degree field free from sightblockers? flamer 251 can just shoot through sightblockers.

    You only look at ways to displace it. What happens if you look at the opposite? For the same amount of MP, I can also have 2-3 mortars, bunker mg, and AT gun. How do you suggest UKF to displace that? My infantry will get suppressed and killed by mortar. My light vehicle will get killed by pak. My tank will get killed by pak. My base howitzers require muni and don't displace the enemy because it's so weak. how do i displace a heavily defended position? I have to build 1-2 mortar pits and barrage that area for a long time. That's 800 MP to counter that heavily held position along with anything else like engineers to build them and repair them, mgs to defend against infantry rushing them and AT guns for vehicles.... The point is: any defensive faction holds points very well and displacing them is a pain.

    Because emplacements bleed MP by taking up pop cap, are immobile and can't be readjusted, and require heavy investment. Losing a bofors is not like losing an mg and losing a mortar pit is not like losing an indirect weapon. Why? because i can simply pick it back up. Can you simply pick back up an emplacement? no, you cannot.

    As other people have posted, it is not something that is fun to play against which is why i had my suggestions for improvements. But it is not something that is OP. You can check coh2charts.org and check that OST win rate is roughly the same as UKF with 0.558 vs 0.559 for ranks 1-250. For 500+, 0.474 vs 0.436. You can also look at 2v2 top 250 and see that OST is 0.785 vs UKF at 0.745. Good players have no trouble handling these so-called OP emplacements.

  • #37
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,982

    @whitesky00 said:

    Mobility. Is this bofors sitting in a completely open 360 degree field free from sightblockers? flamer 251 can just shoot through sightblockers.

    They dont need mobility as they have very high range/firepower for their respektive roles and prices.

    You only look at ways to displace it. What happens if you look at the opposite? For the same amount of MP, I can also have 2-3 mortars, bunker mg, and AT gun. How do you suggest UKF to displace that? My infantry will get suppressed and killed by mortar. My light vehicle will get killed by pak. My tank will get killed by pak. My base howitzers require muni and don't displace the enemy because it's so weak. how do i displace a heavily defended position? I have to build 1-2 mortar pits and barrage that area for a long time. That's 800 MP to counter that heavily held position along with anything else like engineers to build them and repair them, mgs to defend against infantry rushing them and AT guns for vehicles.... The point is: any defensive faction holds points very well and displacing them is a pain.

    If you let a single Pak counter a tank, youre doing wrong. The bunker you can either attack with an AT gun yourself and destroy it in 3 hits or simply mortar-pit it to death in less than 30 seconds Sure, the AT gun crew might die then, but you can easily recrew them and without the Bunker, you can move your troops in to crush those mortars. Sinking MP into 3 Mortars is not feasiable or viable. They dont offer enough battlefield power and are too fragile vs. any kind of flanking or fire. Unlike the Mortar pit, which can not only eat a lot of fire itself and is immune vs. small arms but also has more HP than a Medium tank. As you said, instead of sinking 800 MP into counterin that position, you could also invest ~100 Mun and have your howitzers hammer the enemy position. They arent that great, but they are enough to at the very least soften up the enemy position to attack it.

    Because emplacements bleed MP by taking up pop cap, are immobile and can't be readjusted, and require heavy investment. Losing a bofors is not like losing an mg and losing a mortar pit is not like losing an indirect weapon. Why? because i can simply pick it back up. Can you simply pick back up an emplacement? no, you cannot.

    If thats the way it is, non-emplacement troops bleed double by taking up popcap and having casualties you need to reinforce. They dont require a heavy investment. 400 MP for 2 extremely durable and long-ranged Mortars is not a lot. 2 regular mortars are more expensive. And the Bofors.. Total expenses to aquire one of those amount to around 600 MP and 50 fuel, including the tech and the engineers required to build it. What other unit has so much battlefield presence and durability for that price? None. Face it, Emplacements are not expensive for what they do. If you lose one and dont lose the territory afterwards, you can simply build another, its not like they bleed you white.

  • #38
    2 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495

    maybe the UKF emplacements needs some tweaks, but they are not directly overpowered. they can be annoying to fight, but again, they aint overpowered.

  • #39
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,982
    edited August 2016

    @Beardedragon said:
    maybe the UKF emplacements needs some tweaks, but they are not directly overpowered. they can be annoying to fight, but again, they aint overpowered.

    Yes, they are. Amongst being affordable, being immune to small arms, having very high HP, being undrecrewable, high attack power, high range, no MP bleed and Brace to lengthen their stay on the battlefield they are OP.

  • #40
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,982
    edited August 2016

    Which is not to say they should be removed, but definetly reworked. Currently theres nothing that gets you that much bang for your buck.

  • #41
    2 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495
    edited August 2016

    @Hingie said:

    @Beardedragon said:
    maybe the UKF emplacements needs some tweaks, but they are not directly overpowered. they can be annoying to fight, but again, they aint overpowered.

    Yes, they are. Amongst being affordable, being immune to small arms, having very high HP, being undrecrewable, high attack power, high range, no MP bleed and Brace to lengthen their stay on the battlefield they are OP.

    look at the statistics before you make up crap about them being OP they aint even at the top of the food chain in 1v1 games. i wonder what it looks like if i went to 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4?

    in terms if win ratios in 1v1 THIS week:

    rank 1-250 - Second last
    rank 251-500 - Second
    Rank 500+ - Last place

    if we look at the over all chart from the 24th of july to present the chart is a bit different, yet not overwhleming either in terms of your statement "Brits are OP".

    in fact, the brits in 1v1 rank 1-250 is on decline. rank 251-500 its surprisingly on a rise as well as the rank 500+. except the rank 500+ is already way lower than anyone else so they wont catch up anytime soon in terms of win rates.

    the only ones in 1v1 that can seem to get the brits to work properly are the mid ranked guys, as the pros come in second last only marginally better than Wehrmacht, however, the noobs, those ranked 500+ (probably me included) cant figure the brits out at all in 1v1 games. they are way lower than anyone else in terms of victories.

    im not really gonna look at the charts for 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 as someone else can just go do that if they please but statistics dont lie. you can call op all you want, but the fact remains that Brits aint the top of the food chain in 1v1 among any ranks at all. second best in rank 251-500 hardly calls them an OP faction for having emplacements.

    if emplacements were so OP, maybe they wouldnt have such shitty ratings.

  • #42
    2 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495

    @Hingie said:
    Which is not to say they should be removed, but definetly reworked. Currently theres nothing that gets you that much bang for your buck.

    yet despite all that, their win rates aint better.

  • #43
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,017
    edited August 2016

    @whitesky00 said:You only look at ways to displace it. What happens if you look at the opposite? For the same amount of MP, I can also have 2-3 mortars, bunker mg, and AT gun.

    Pretty easily. Build a mortar pit. Hell at worst, walk around the MG bunker, or fire the necessary 3 AT shells at it to destroy it because it doesn't have the uber durability of more HP than a medium tank combined with literal invincibility frames. Also - even a failed assault on the position will bleed Ostheer of MP because you'll still drop models. Can't say the same of an assault on a Brit position.

  • #44
    2 years ago
    whitesky00whitesky00 Posts: 407
    edited August 2016

    you guys can keep whining and crying about emplacements but statistics is showing they're not the winners. Walk around the mg bunker for another bunker or an mg42. we can play a game with you as british trying to assault my OST position. It is not as easy as you make it sound out to be.

    Oh yeah, thanks for ignoring all the stats that don't agree with your POV. I could probably justify that OKW/OST have lower win rates because they're fighting maxim spam and USF mortar.

  • #45
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,789
    Its not that its too powerful. It can be beat. But its fucking boring to play against. I didnt wait in Que for 10 minutes to play against somebody that could walk away for a few moments and let the game play itself. Its too forgiving and goes against everything that coh is- positioning, unit preservation, calculated risk, resource management... All Emplacments are is hitting brace at thr right moment and building a few units to move around and sieze the advantage that was created while your Emplacments play the game for you. You dont bleed, you dont get wiped. Hell a sturmtiger can instakill any medium tank except a t34/85 but Emplacments will survive WITHOUT brace. You have a 400MP hole in the ground that can survive more than a 110fuel + a few hundred manpower. Obviously they cant move so they need a certain degree of durability but if I get a Sturm far enough behind your lines that your 115 range pit is in its sights....
  • #46
    2 years ago

    @thedarkarmadillo raises a good point regarding the sturmtiger. I think their durability is high, it could be lowered by a small amount because after all, it is immobile so needs to withstand some fire. Currently, the bofors locks down a position or resource point whilst you can trot around capturing points on the other side of the map. As the British faction is designed to compliment emplacements the only viable suggestion, without making them too vulnerable is to lower the amount of damage unless you click the unit. I find myself doing that already as the bofors sometimes does not fire automatically if the enemy unit is just int he range of the bofors. This would reduce squad wipes and allow the enemy to surprise attack the bofors without almost certain death.

  • #47
    2 years ago
    SvanhSvanh Posts: 159

    Unit durability isn't solely based on health, it also involves armour and target size/received accuracy. Let's have a look:

    • Mortar Pit: 700 health, 5 armour, 40 target size
    • Bofors: 1000 health, 5 armour, 40 target size
    • 17-Pounder: 900 health, 5 armour, 40 target size
    • Brace lasts 30 seconds, adds 5 armour and reduces damage by 75%

    The target size of emplacements means that they cannot be missed by any weapon that uses an accuracy roll (which includes tank/AT guns). Coupled with their armour (equal to the UC's rear armour), infantry (especially MGs) can do a significant amount of damage to them. Making matters worse for emplacement durability, their large hitboxes and target size mean that they, unlike weapon teams, are easy to hit with AT guns and mortar shells. 700 health (more than a Cromwell) sounds impressive until you realise that it is roughly 5 AT gun shots, 6 Panzerschreck shots , and/or 9 mortar shells. The only reason medium tanks are not made of paper is because they can move out of range and don't take damage from most infantry weapons. Emplacements are durable because of Brace.

    That said, I don't like emplacements as they are currently implemented. Adding a mobile mortar (a copy of the Soviet one, say) to UKF and making the Mortar Pit into a garrison that increases mortar barrage range is reasonably easy (search NMSC on the Workshop under my name if you would like to see how it works) and would improve UKF both for those playing it and playing against it. The Bofors could also use a price/durability rework and having an AT gun that is best countered by AT guns is ridiculous.

    @d4rkhawk100 said:
    @thedarkarmadillo raises a good point regarding the sturmtiger. I think their durability is high, it could be lowered by a small amount because after all, it is immobile so needs to withstand some fire. Currently, the bofors locks down a position or resource point whilst you can trot around capturing points on the other side of the map. As the British faction is designed to compliment emplacements the only viable suggestion, without making them too vulnerable is to lower the amount of damage unless you click the unit. I find myself doing that already as the bofors sometimes does not fire automatically if the enemy unit is just int he range of the bofors. This would reduce squad wipes and allow the enemy to surprise attack the bofors without almost certain death.

    The problem with requiring manual targeting is that it's not intuitive as no other unit works like that. If surprise Bofors squad wipes are a problem, it would be better to simply reduce the damage of the Bofors.

  • #48
    2 years ago
    solowingsolowing Posts: 50

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    positioning, unit preservation, calculated risk, resource management...

    But emplacements involve all of that. Positioning speaks for itself. Preservation of the emplacement is critical, not only for the Brit player's mid-game staying power but also because emps can gain vet just like any other unit, and get better with further investment via FOB. Calculated risk? Do you think it isn't risky to sink 400 manpower into a mortar pit? That's astronomically expensive, especially for how relatively early it becomes available to you and especially given how much attention it attracts! This is even moreso the case with the 17-pounder, which shouldn't even be in this conversation given how limited its tactical value is and how badly it impacts your late game economy.

    As for resource management... frankly, you can't be a successful Brit player if you don't know when and where to put your manpower and fuel during the mid-game. There are relatively few things delaying you from getting your first Cromwell out fuelwise, but putting down a Bofors is one of those things.

    For all the constant, constant, constant moaning about emplacements, they're still not a winning strategy. Reliance on them makes you complacent, and in turn easily overrun.

  • #49
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,982
    edited August 2016

    Calculated risk? Do you think it isn't risky to sink 400 manpower into a mortar pit? That's astronomically expensive, especially for how relatively early it becomes available to you and especially given how much attention it attracts! This is even moreso the case with the 17-pounder, which shouldn't even be in this conversation given how limited its tactical value is and how badly it impacts your late game economy.

    The Mortar pit provides you with 2 very durable, long ranged, undecrewable mortars. 2 Regular mortars of any other faction cost more to procure. Its not that great an investment if put into perspective. Especially since the Mortar pretty much negates the prolongued use of MGs, Paks, Mortars and any other Squad requiring to stand still in its range of fire, which si pretty large. Not to mention the Pit doesnt bleed MP.

    As for resource management... frankly, you can't be a successful Brit player if you don't know when and where to put your manpower and fuel during the mid-game. There are relatively few things delaying you from getting your first Cromwell out fuelwise, but putting down a Bofors is one of those things.

    A Bofors is not that expensive fuelwise. The building itself + Tech is about 50 Fuel. Thats less than 1 single AEC. MP wise its on par with 1 Squad of PGs

  • #50
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,982
    edited August 2016

    Disregard this post, I will refrain from writing on a phone next time.

  • #51
    2 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495

    the mortar pit is not a problem. only the bofos ever really cause any sort of nuisiance because its harder to remove directly, than a mortar pit.

    and yes, 400 manpower for a mortar pit is a fair price. why? because this bloody thing cant move or retreat. its very easy to misplace the mortar pit if done incorrectly, which will result in its death. a too early dead emplacement can be the difference between a lost mid game for a brit, or a victory. as mentioned by SoloWing, emplacement preservation is very important if you intend to go the emplacement way as brits, because if it dies instantly (and yes, ive had mine die almost after i got it down due to bad placement) then you just threw 400 manpower out the window.

    it is true that 2 mortars are more expensive (wehr ones) but it is also true that both of em can be actually retreated and moved.

    i only ever really find annoyance in the bofos, not mortar pit. one 251 with flame projectors is all you need for the mortar pit, brace or not, that thing is going to hell when the 251 hits the field.

    the bofos on the other hand is a bit more tricky to deal with.

  • #52
    2 years ago
    omar_empomar_emp United Arab EmiratesPosts: 526

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    I, personally would love if placements were buffed!....but limited to a single one of each. No Sim city, requires the brit to click more than just brace. I like the idea of them HATE the implementation.

    limits should be: 1. 17Pounder 1Bofor 1Mortar
    if you got the commander of fortifcations 2bofor 2mortar

    and dont forget they take lot of upkeep and population cap to all emplacements

  • #53
    2 years ago

    Do you really feel like nerfing the weakest faction in the game? :disappointed:

  • #54
    2 years ago
    ImperialDaneImperialD… Posts: 3,016 mod

    The issue with the emplacements is to a degree one of map design in many cases. for a lot of 1v1 maps. They are simply too small. Plonk down a mortar emplacement and you can easily end up covering at least 1/3rd of the map if not more. From within your base.

    Factor in the brace which means any attack will quickly be halted and almost nullified, even attacks that ought to be guaranteed to knock out the bastard. And problems do arise. Throw in their high lethality. Well something has to give.

    Either you cut down the DPS. Or you cut down the survivability. And cutting down the DPS would just render them into the OKW flak emplacement most likely. Just a lot more durable. Though you could do something else to offset it.

    Essentially you cut down the UKF mortars damage, but instead give it access to suppression. That way the higher RoF mortars won't wipe so much, but they can still control and halt assaults. Similar with the bofors, cut down direct fire damage, add suppression. Still holds and controls an area. But doesn't instamurder infantry.

    Though i'd still advice lowering the damage reduction of brace by a tad as well. Not a lot. but say.. 33% percent. That way Brace isn't some kind of force field that stops almost all damage. The emplacements don't just murder all but can still retain control of the areas.

  • #55
    2 years ago
    whitesky00whitesky00 Posts: 407

    @ImperialDane said:
    The issue with the emplacements is to a degree one of map design in many cases. for a lot of 1v1 maps. They are simply too small. Plonk down a mortar emplacement and you can easily end up covering at least 1/3rd of the map if not more. From within your base.

    Factor in the brace which means any attack will quickly be halted and almost nullified, even attacks that ought to be guaranteed to knock out the bastard. And problems do arise. Throw in their high lethality. Well something has to give.

    Either you cut down the DPS. Or you cut down the survivability. And cutting down the DPS would just render them into the OKW flak emplacement most likely. Just a lot more durable. Though you could do something else to offset it.

    Essentially you cut down the UKF mortars damage, but instead give it access to suppression. That way the higher RoF mortars won't wipe so much, but they can still control and halt assaults. Similar with the bofors, cut down direct fire damage, add suppression. Still holds and controls an area. But doesn't instamurder infantry.

    Though i'd still advice lowering the damage reduction of brace by a tad as well. Not a lot. but say.. 33% percent. That way Brace isn't some kind of force field that stops almost all damage. The emplacements don't just murder all but can still retain control of the areas.

    Giving it suppression sounds like.......... dun dun dun OP ISG and howitzer just 10 months ago.

    I still think my suggestion of making only barrage ability reach range 110 while autofire is the standard same as mobile gr34/81mm is a better solution.

    Nerfing damage and brace for a poorly performing faction based off of 1v1 coh2chart.org without buffing them in anyway... something has got to give.

  • #56
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,789
    Gotta disagree Dane, isg supression was a huge awful problem, mainly because of schwere
    Suppressing mortars would be cheaper, 2 guns and supported by an earlier schwere that can also barrage (and supress) and designate targets... Cant say I see any good coming from that...
  • #57
    2 years ago
    _Aqua__Aqua_ Posts: 1,951

    Yeah, long range suppression was broken as hell the first time, I don't see it working on the Mortar Pit

  • #58
    2 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495

    uff mortars with suppression was always so damn horrible when facing it.

    stares intensely at the LeiG

  • #59
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,017
    edited August 2016

    I'll mirror and say no to suppression but I think with some accuracy tweaking and a price of say 320 MP bringing the mortars down to 40 damage might help. They'll still kill if both shells land on target but it'll be more about injuring units to allow Tommies and Sappers to tip an engagement rather than flat out murdering units. This encourages you to actually have a unit follow up on the mortar attack rather than let the mortars just auto barrage the things you don't like

  • #60
    2 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855

    This is nonsense, the emplacements have been properly balanced now that bofors barrage was fixed, except 17pdr is too weak if anything.

  • #61
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,982
    Im not sure if giving the pit suppression will fix it. Suppression on fast-firing light artillery is a huge can of worms Id rather not see opened. I think durability and power are key factors here. If durability is to stay where it is they should be lees powerful, if power is to stay where it is they ought to be less durable. Lowering the HP or reducing the effect of Brace (or giving brace a negative side effect) would already go a long way making these structures less of problem.
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.