[UKF]{ALL} Emplacement durability and power

13»

Comments

  • #62
    3 years ago

    Me and @MCMartel seem to be on the same page here. I cannot see an issue with the emplacements at all. I get one mortar hitting my bofors and a racketen and it's done. No longer can I just barrage the mortar and wipe it. More often than not the enemy player will move the mortar once barrage has started and just pound the bofors until it's near wiped. Don't forget, that's 280mp and 35 fuel in comparison to a mortar that is no fuel and can be used throughout the game/is mobile. And yes the 17pdr is ridiculous; I've tried it so many times and it's just useless - 2 or 3 shots from a KT that is out of range destroys it.

  • #63
    3 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,985
    If you dont support your Bofors at all, then yes, a Mortar or a Rakwerfer will be enough to destroy it. But why wouldnt you support it? And the Bofors countering Mortars via the Barrage was, Im preeeety sure, never intended and quite frankly a lot of Bullshit. Its 280 MP and 35 Fuel that utterly murders infantry and softcounters mediums. If its also able to counter Mortars or even AT guns all by itself, dont you think it would be kind of OP? And honestly... The Bofors is dirt cheap for what it does.

    A KT will never outrange a 17 Pounder, as the latter has a higher range than the former.
  • #64
    3 years ago
    whitesky00whitesky00 Posts: 407

    Emplacement brace already has a downside... it takes 25% damage, cannot move, cannot fire, cannot retreat, and the ability cannot be activated again without a cooldown. I don't know what other type of downside you want from it.

    And why does everyone make it sound like emplacements are so OP when I do not see UKF topping 1v1 charts. People are trying to give suggestions that don't make the unit so hands-free friendly NOT to nerf it. Nerfing it will just make the unfaction unplayable.

  • #65
    3 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,985
    edited August 2016
    First of all, brace is not what makes emplacements immobile. Thats a trait the Emplacements themselves have. And that is made up by them being very durable (even without brace), quite powerful, sporting longer range as similar weapons, being repairable for free and thus not bleeding MP due to reinforcment, being undecrewable and impossible to get stolen.

    Now, the only disadvantage of Brace is that the emplacement cant fire while its active. In return, it makes the Emplacement nigh indestructable. And a cooldown... come on, thats not a disadvantage. Thats a normal for all abilities to have.

    What I want? The weapons to be offline for some time longer than the damage reduction lasts, allowing for units who overwhelmed your defence to be rewarded for it. Or for Brace to actually cost munitions like almost every other ability in the game? Or for it to not mitigate all damage regardless if type? Something like that.
  • #66
    3 years ago
    whitesky00whitesky00 Posts: 407

    Yes, you want the complete and utter destruction of the faction. I get it. Make a so-so performing faction just abysmal. Your advice is like what they did to rear echelon suppression ability. Equivalent of "I'll never use that ability again" and this will be I'll never use emplacements again or probably the faction itself.

  • #67
    3 years ago

    @Hingie Ok do this for me next time you play: use mortar to entice the bofors into brace, count the seconds required to run up and throw a flame nade with your volks; it murders bofors. If you're worried that your squad will get murdered then it's about timing. You have to remember that the bofors is 280mp that isn't moving; you now have an extra squad of inf because the brit player went and got himself an emplacement so yes, you would support your bofors but with one less squad. Like @whitesky00 says, if brit emplacements are nerfed any more then they will become as obsolete as the 17pdr!

  • #68
    3 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855

    Look, the UKF isn't overperforming, you want to give them a massive nerf, that's all there is too it, it's ridiculous.

  • #69
    3 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,985
    edited August 2016
    @whitesky00 Ah. Allright. You caught me. The utter destruction of UKF was my goal all along. And I thought I hid my motives so well. Guess it was all the moustache-twirling that gave me away?

    @darkhawk100 Your hypothetical scenario has at least 2 flaws.

    1. By having built a Mortar to barrage the Bofors, Im also 240 MP short on frontline troops because I certainly wont charge with the mortar. It may support the attack, but unless you keep all your troops static all the time for the duration of the fight (which you will win once brace is over) I doubt it will have significant impact.

    And 2. If I was able to build a Mortar, Im playing Wehr and will not have Volks. And if I have Volks I wont have a Mortar. I might have an ISG or a Stuka. Either of them are expensive. Thus your 280 MP lead wont be the case either way. I might be ahed 1/2 oder 2/3 of a Squad, which wont do me diddly good.

    Not to mention that, if you built a Mortar Pit, this situation is unlikely to happen anyways, at least vs. Wehr because the pit hardcounters the regular Wehr Mortar
  • #70
    3 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495

    it all comes down to how they want to balance the emplacements.

    make mortar pits having reduced range or durbility makes sense in a 1v1 game due to smaller stages and less to hurt it, but it doesnt make sense in a 4v4 sense where mortar pits are easy to destroy given the amount of concentrated fire that can be produced.

    even though the game is balanced around 1v1, i do think the developers have tried to make the emplacements somewhat viable in all game modes, which is how they got to this result.

    i dont know, but i think, specially because brits were added with their heavy armor, to help allies in team games to tip the scale back to make things even. allied nations before the brits were.. out gunned on most times, specially in 4v4 games.

  • #71
    3 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,023

    This is exactly why I suggested making it cheaper and reducing damage output. Making the mortar pit something that wounds rather than kills outright will make it less viable to set and forget. You'd need to devote at least a single infantry squad to the fight to follow up on the damage it deals. Rather then a straight nerf it just gets a role change.

  • #72
    3 years ago
    eonfigureeonfigure Posts: 468

    I already gave a reasonable solution to brace awhile back.

    Since brace is practically invulnerability, it needs a balance.

    Allow brace to continue its damage reduction against artillery/indirect fire weapons. But it will no longer protect anything from ground attack units. THAT'S THAT PLAYERS JOB. Protect your emplacements, dont just be a lazy ass, hit invulnerability, and go back to doing whatever you were doing.

    Yeah go ahead mark me down, but you know I'm right.

  • #73
    3 years ago

    At worst I can see a 25 munitions cost to Brace but not much else. The Brits are designed entirely around their emplacements. Even though they would hypothetically be a decent nation if you were to replace the mortar emplacement with a mortar team and so on, there's still not much reason to nerf them to heck.

    The Brits heavily rely on the mortar emplacement and in bigger sized games it's one of the few ways Allies can actually close areas off and even then it still can get countered, and tbh emplacements in 1v1 most of the time end up becoming a setback because they're immobile, expensive and cost lots of pop.

    And lastly Wehrmacht has plenty of counters to the emplacements because of their huge weakness to fire which is very effective against emplacements even braced. Mortar's free incendiary shell, half-track with flamers, Pioneers with flamethrower, etc.

  • #74
    3 years ago

    @Hingie said:
    @whitesky00 Ah. Allright. You caught me. The utter destruction of UKF was my goal all along. And I thought I hid my motives so well. Guess it was all the moustache-twirling that gave me away?

    @darkhawk100 Your hypothetical scenario has at least 2 flaws.

    1. By having built a Mortar to barrage the Bofors, Im also 240 MP short on frontline troops because I certainly wont charge with the mortar. It may support the attack, but unless you keep all your troops static all the time for the duration of the fight (which you will win once brace is over) I doubt it will have significant impact.

    And 2. If I was able to build a Mortar, Im playing Wehr and will not have Volks. And if I have Volks I wont have a Mortar. I might have an ISG or a Stuka. Either of them are expensive. Thus your 280 MP lead wont be the case either way. I might be ahed 1/2 oder 2/3 of a Squad, which wont do me diddly good.

    Not to mention that, if you built a Mortar Pit, this situation is unlikely to happen anyways, at least vs. Wehr because the pit hardcounters the regular Wehr Mortar

    Right. Just get an ISG and protect with sturms. If Wehr then mortar, move and barrage - protect with grenadiers who will win vs IS when IS are out of cover. You say those units are expensive, so what? You are keeping them the ENTIRE game and may be vetted by then. The bofors on the other hand is wiped out, no vet, gone.

    Once you have destroyed the bofors/mortar pit, move in with your infantry and you're done. By the way if you use cheat mod and put a single ISG against a mortar pit, it wins easily and now even quicker thanks to the upgraded bulletin.

  • #75
    3 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,023

    Nobody in the world will lose an emplacement to a single mortar or a single LeiG, unless they specifically let it happen.

  • #76
    3 years ago
    ZeUberlizardZeUberliz… Posts: 35
    edited August 2016

    I for myself think that the mortar emplacements are better balanced in the smaller games, but it becomes redicolous in 3v3 and 4v4.

    One of the things that I see happening again and again is the pure amount of mortar emplacement spam. Lets say red ball express for example, since this was the most recent map that I had this issue with. If the enemy pushes you away from a position in the beginning of the game, he just brings in MGs and as OKW, there is just so much that you can do about it, since you don't have not too much room to flank, with 3 brits. After they made sure that you can't get to the fule on both sides, they plant down mortars in the back. I am not talking about 2 or 3 maybe, but things like 5-6 (against a team of 4 brits, well....).

    There is only so much that you can do. Sure, you can build mortars and LeiGs, but in the end, since they are all "soft" units, they are just getting hammered and destroyed by the crazy amount of barages, especially if they instakill a squad of vetted volks or pioneers. Sure, they take damage, but if you have skilled brit players, they use the brace in time in timed fashon and repair the damage before you can continue. And by the time you have the stuka, they roll out with tanks and you are ultimitly getting steamrolled by comet tanks.

    Edit:
    Well, after 3 more of these kind of matches, 2 of them on red ball again, here is the following picture:

    brits push us back with machine guns and hunker down. First mortar is set up, but due to heavy losses. both of the brits on our side get one mortar each. And before anyone asks, yes, me and my friend who played OKW did build LeiGs and hammered the thing but nothing. Even went up to Stukas and kept bombarding the hell out of these positions, but it did not really matter. To add salt to injury, I placed down an LeiFH 18 in the backfield and added tank traps around it to give it some more cover, but instead of being a help, before it could finish it's first barrage, the brit base arty recked it with counter fire. So yeah... pushing in is not possible due to MGs and Bofors, mortaring AT guns are not an option since they are getting hammered and bofors outranges the AT gun. Tanks come out to late, especially since the brits are sitting and overing the fuel points, and arty is just getting hammered and destroyed.

  • #77
    3 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,985
    edited August 2016
    >Nobody in the world will lose an emplacement to a single mortar or a single LeiG, unless they specifically let it happen.

    Well, neither do I think this is the case but some people never cease to amaze.

    Anyways, yes, a badly placed and supported Emplacement will have a relatively short life span. Same applies to just about everything else in this game. A properly built and used emplacement, however, is going to last for a very long time and cause far more damage and require far too much attention to remove than any other kind of unit with a comparable or even higher price tag. The relative power/durability of these emplacements is just too high. And due to Brace, even dedicated hardcounters often perform poorly or take far too long to produce decent results. Its the combination of micro/attention, time and ressources required and the ease of use and maintenance of the emplacements that makes them horrid in my eyes.
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.