[UKF/All] Emplacements

#1
1 year ago
SpinflightSpinflight Posts: 40
edited January 2018 in Balance Feedback

Is it just me or is every emplacement just an expensive xp pinata for whatever form of IDF the Axis choose now? Your mileage may vary depending upon the level you play at though I don't recall many of the better players using emplacements... Pretty much ever.

And that was before further nerfs.

They've all been nerfed so much as to be pointless in my view. Which given the cost of them plus the faction design means you're effectively playing with half a deck of cards.

There's been lots of changes to them over the course of the game updates though the recent patch nerfed the mortar pit so you can't even stand a chance of outgunning the opposition. Brace also took a bit hit both in terms of duration and repair ( what's the point of it if you can't repair?? It actually means you're going to lose more sappers which is doubly pointless). The Reme commander too nerfed stand fast so only one emplacement could be repaired. Also the sappers had a big hit to their repair speed. Heavy sappers even more.

Hence a quadruple nerf supposedly 'balanced' by a buff for the most useless emplacement of them all, the 17pdr.

Bear in mind that Lelic sell the UKF as a stand alone game, hence it should be playable. They also sell a commander who specialises in advanced emplacements, though this too has been nerfed into the ground in previous patches.

Admittedly the bofors can be a speedbump, and on some maps it's a crutch the UKF needs. There's still the odd map where a pit can recoup it's cost.

I would argue though that there is no meta or playstyle against anything other than really very bad opposition which allows the veterancy bonuses ( which is supposedly the games uniqueish feature) to play a part as whichever emplacement you choose and wherever you place it there is no way to keep it alive. Well, unless you stick one at a map corner and convince the hun that his IDF doesn't need any more xp.

Now don't get me wrong or start regaling me with spittle flecked tales of how some noob once beat you with nothing but luck and cancer... I don't want to see them buffed.

It's crap, always was and always will be. Terrible design, woeful implementation and the bastard unwanted step child of someone in Lelic's orrifices who once had his signed autograph of an Austrian gentleman of historical interest desecrated by a Brit.

Rather than pretending that the design works couldn't we just get a mobile mortar to replace the god awful pit? It wouldn't even have to be a good mortar, just.... Anything that isn't a sitting expensive target. Maybe even just a mortar upgrade for the otherwise rather pointless UC?

I mean is it actually fun building 3 mortars or leigs and sitting there for 25 minutes with no counter possible? Does anyone actually enjoy playing against the Brits?

Comments

  • #2
    1 year ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,724
    The problem with emplacments is that they gave bad players a chance and FORCED build orders just out of fear (you think ost likes opening with a bunch of mortars?) Any thing that can set and forget auto fire the enemy to hell is bad design. Making them more durable than tanks AND able to shrug off 75% of all incoming damage is bad design. Making it so a single extra building can buff your city was a bad design. Emplacments are bad design and are rightfully nerfed to hell making them useful in the right hands as a way to augment and fortify areas without COMPLETELY locking them down all by themselves amd with no bleed at all to boot.
  • #3
    1 year ago

    you think ost likes opening with a bunch of mortars?

    In my personal experience, 1 out of 3 matches.

    Any thing that can set and forget auto fire the enemy to hell is bad design. Making them more durable than tanks AND able to shrug off 75% of all incoming damage is bad design. Making it so a single extra building can buff your city was a bad design. Emplacments are bad design and are rightfully nerfed to hell making them useful in the right hands as a way to augment and fortify areas without COMPLETELY locking them down all by themselves amd with no bleed at all to boot.

    It is immobile, rarely hitting, enormous target which gets easily destroyed and costs serious "money". British emplacements are meant to be hard to kill since they take up a lot of pop-cap and they should be able to turtle some damage. And they don't bleed because if you go all out simcity you are left with almost no units at all. And the whole idea back in the day was not to allow Brits to encamp in the first place.
    And speaking of bad design. Bad design is enabling a non doctrinal superheavy tank with no repercussions(KT), it is providing a 'press X to save' ability to any vehicle(panzer tactician), it is making a super heavy AT that works better against infantry(ISU-152), it is making a vehicle snare a vet ability rather then an upgradable one(USF AT nade), it is a pick-up weapon that en masse evaporates enemy infantry(BAR). That is just from the top of my head.

  • #4
    1 year ago

    "The problem with emplacments is that they gave bad players a chance"

    Who says?

    I mean I do agree in most cases but... Lelic decided that COH2 was to be a tower defence game as well as a RTS so who is to say that an emplacement playstyle was poor? It was as designed for the faction, and as accentuated by certain commanders. Completely by design so it's a bit harsh to look down on players who merely used these tools to play the Brits as designed. Who indeed paid money for premium commanders to play them as designed.... Before being predictably nerfed once sales declined...

    If you swapped the Wehr mortar for the mortar pit and took away the 42 how well do you think they'd do?

  • #5
    1 year ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,724
    400mp was not alot for the dominance it provided. The pit negated the availability of cover and gave the brits further infantry domination ontop of changing the name of the game from "tactical cover based engagments" to "kill that fucking thing before it gets lucky and wipes a squad in a single hit"
    Ontop of being able to straight up tank a sturmtiger rocket (that was a 11 CP, 160fuel 680mp anti-fortification unit) a 400mp mortar pit could press brace reduce the damage by 75% (but it didn't NEED to because it could already survive the shell)

    Emplacments made sense when brits bled (back at release) and had to make up for low infantry presence, now however they have a target size of .8 (grens are .91) and bleed less than grens do..and can still increase their durability and firepower by 25% and still double arm and sappers are still FAR to effecient to boot so immobile death fortresses dont make sense at all (and have been nerfed accordingly)

    They late bad players have a chance because they require 0 micro while placing some on the enemy and dont bleed while bleeding the enemy all while affording you the ability to focus on your infantry or armour as the game plays itself and lobs shells that could wipe halfway across the map in pairs. The enemy HAD to try and knock them out because their offensive role was as powerful as their ability to withstand an assault. And unless the enemy 100% killed the emplacment you didnt have a drop of bleed and if they got even a single shot off odds are the enemy bled harder than you. Then throw in "well i pressed a button so now all my emplacments will heal themselves with quite literally no downside at all and for dirt cheap too" and you have a noob friendly EZ mode tower defense game
  • #6
    1 year ago
    MustiMusti Posts: 20

    Without building walls of text: yes, emplacements are garbage now, save for the 17pdr which i've found to be great since the patch. And while I tend to agree that emplacements themselves are a nasty piece of design (very frustrating to play against) I also dislike nerfing things out of existence.
    On the other hand I do like the change in UKF playstyle to a more aggressive and mobile one, with changes to infantry, UC, and grenade upgrade cost making it very powerful. Also, not building emplacements frees up a whole bunch of manpower which can be spent on all kinds of toys I didn't use before (not often at least), like the sniper.
    The only drawback is that my main source of IDF is trying to steal one from the axis (:D)

  • #7
    1 year ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,011
    Emplacements are mostly fine - if you use them for their correct purpose. If you're looking for a hole to dig in the ground and give you micro free arty dominance you're in for a violent shock.

    You spend that 400 MP to dictate where the fight happens, and to force the enemy to come to you OR to invest more in indirect than you did. You're supposed to set up ambushes and mines around your pit so whoever comes rushing in with a FHT or Luchs gets severely punished - or you're supposed to use the smoke barrage to get past the MGs so your infantry can assault the enemies mortar battery (because no single mortar wins that fight). Basically - people need to use the tool for what it is now designed to do instead of trying to make it do what it used to do.
  • #8
    1 year ago

    "You spend that 400 MP to dictate where the fight happens, and to force the enemy to come to you OR to invest more in indirect than you did. "

    That's hilarious.

    Maybe the other factions could do with a 400MP unit that dictates where the fight will be, aka a shitting target. Terrible advice too.

  • #10
    1 year ago
    BaálthazorBaálthazor The shoreline by the river Styx.Posts: 1,092
    edited January 2018
    @Lazarus
    It's @Spinflight, mate! He's a joke over at CoH2.org and now he's a joke here...
    Pay him no nevermind and maybe he will self-implode!(Fingers crossed!)
  • #11
    1 year ago
    oRi0noRi0n Posts: 63

    I mean, he did say that the emplacements are dumb all the way around and he wants to get a regular mortar INSTEAD of the emplacement. I can understand the sentiment. I would also point out that brits have at least a couple doctrines which provide mobile artillery, and they do have a LOT of offmaps. It's kind of tricky to argue either way. I mean, yes, against good players who responds quickly with leigs/mortars, the pit can be a bad investment. It's definitely situational, and it didn't fair well in SCC5. But it also, as pointed out, deals a LOT of damage if it's NOT countered quickly, and in turn does not bleed manpower when taking damage (cause the mortar crewmen are evidently invincible until the last straw of the emplacement collapses, at which point they and their mortars utterly vaporize...). It does in turn force your opponents into a strong and immediate reaction. I feel like that should be something you can take advantage of (especially if you're building it relatively early in the game, when they probably don't yet have anything to properly counter it WITH).

    You can bet that if they DON'T succeed with a rapid response, it WILL pay for itself. A single squad wipe comes pretty close, and I feel like i lose a squad to those things somewhere along the way in nearly every game against them (even though I do counter them quite intentionally). Saying I take it down with a pair of leigs (one usually doesn't do it in my experience), I've now invested 580 mp in the leigs PLUS the reinforcement costs of all the models I lost before the pit went down (a few gunners for the leigs at the very minimum). You also have to consider it does take a couple minutes to get those leigs up in response, the mortar pit basically projects map control, and typically wins you all but the most unfavorable infantry engagements within its range. Your opponents cannot keep damaged squads around in range of the mortar pit - anything with 3 men or less is highly likely to get wiped.

    Like I said, I do understand the frustration of not having a basic mobile indirect fire unit. But it CERTAINLY wouldn't be balanced to have BOTH. Maybe the mortar pit and a regular mortar could be mutually exclusive tech you research somewhere along the way (I'm not sure about putting one on the UC... that's maybe TOO mobile)? Or every commander has access to either the mortar pit or a regular mortar, so which one you get depends on the doctrine you select? At the same time, I tend to think that providing a mobile mortar would absolutely require some sort of nerf to the british infantry. Maybe a big nerf. They're good to begin with, and get REALLY good as soon as they get any sort of upgrades (weapons, vet, bolster...). Having mobile artillery and smoke launchers to augment that power from the early game would be too much. Heck, lots of people think they need a nerf already...

  • #12
    1 year ago
    oRi0noRi0n Posts: 63

    Another point is I think most players build their mortar pits WAY too far forward. It doesn't have to be so offensive. It doesn't have to project control over huge chunks of your opponent's side of the map. You can use it near your base to protect your cutoffs and nearby strategic points. IMO putting it anywhere that lets it fire much if any past the middle of the map (halfway between you and your opponent's base) is probably overly ambitious. You're not likely to control the middle of the map for an entire game unless you're completely dominating your opponents, at which point the efficacy of the mortar pit probably isn't a deciding factor. In most games there will be PLENTY of engagements the mortar pit can support without being anywhere near the front lines.

    Also, keep in mind you should REALLY be basing its location on its barrage range, not its autofire range. Maybe put it in place to barrage the middle victory point, but not in autofire range. IIRC the mortar pit, OKW leig and OST mortar barrage ranges are roughly equal (I certainly don't think the leig or mortar can barrage the pit without being in range for return fire). Putting its barrage range at the middle of the map means your opponent has to put their stuff in the middle of the map to fire back. The mortar pit is tanky enough that if you really let your opponent's artillery sit there long enough to take it down, you're probably losing anyway. If you really feel the need to project into the other half of the map, I would definitely do it with barrage range only. I don't think I would ever put the mortar pit's autofire range past the middle of the map.

  • #13
    1 year ago
    BaálthazorBaálthazor The shoreline by the river Styx.Posts: 1,092
    edited January 2018
    If you build it forward, you can potentially hit more targets, more often...
    If you build it further backwards, you will hit less targets, but it will be more secure;
    It's a trade-off even a newbie understands!

    What most people really don't realise is that while you may lose some models(maybe A LOT of them!) of your mortar/leig crews, once yuve actually dismantled the pit, you STILL have those crews... the pit is gone, but you still have the mortar/leig...

    That's quite an incentive to build them to counter the pit imho...
  • #14
    1 year ago
    oRi0noRi0n Posts: 63

    @Baálthazor said:
    If you build it forward, you can potentially hit more targets, more often...
    If you build it further backwards, you will hit less targets, but it will be more secure;
    It's a trade-off even a newbie understands!

    What most people really don't realise is that while you may lose some models(maybe A LOT of them!) of your mortar/leig crews, once yuve actually dismantled the pit, you STILL have those crews... the pit is gone, but you still have the mortar/leig...

    That's quite an incentive to build them to counter the pit imho...

    No disagreement whatsover. My point behind that huge wall of text is that the mortar pit isn't necessarily bad. It has valid use cases, but they're not the same as the other factions' mortars/leig. You get essentially 2 exceptionally durable mortars that can't bleed for 200 mp each. The downside is they are immobile, which means while they can be used defensively, they really can't be used aggressively against competent opponents; much like no competent OKW player is going to build the schwerer HQ anywhere near the middle of the map against competent opponents... it will get obliterated by artillery in no time.

    I really don't see the other British emplacements (and the associated doctrines that focus on them) as any different than the OKW Fortifications doctrine, which 90% of players only choose over Luftwaffe for the s-mines. Everything else is extremely situational. LEFH is decently good, but again situational (I'd say worthwhile in only a minority of games with Fortifications). Zeroing artillery is cool, but difficult to get 300 munitions worth of value from against good opponents. In like 1% of games you see somebody use the Pak43 to good effect (e.g. VonIvan recently pulled a super-pro move building one behind a hedge and immediately taking down an ISU). The volks bunkers can be good, but are again situational and rarely used by good players. I'd say in the vast majority of games I've seen where a top 100 player picked Fortifications, the ONLY thing they used that's not available with Luftwaffe is the s-mines.

  • #15
    1 year ago

    Emplacements are mostly fine right now, at least, as fine as they can ever be. I don't know what should be done to them to make them fun to play with and against.

    I think they're mostly fine now. Bofors still tears up infantry and kills light vehicles, up to and including a Luchs. Mortars don't bleed your manpower, but they still cause no small trouble to your enemies. Quarter-Pounder with Cheese, well.. I rarely see one, but when I do, it usually means I can't drive any vehicles there until it's been taken care of. So basically a more durable Pak43 that trades the increased endurance for having a munitions cost to their "shoot through terrain" ability. And lets not forget that Brits also patch up their lack of a mobile mortar with the recently buffed base artillery, which any Infantry section can target. It's super fucking powerful now and something that no other faction gets.

    Games are no longer slugfests where the presence of emplacements requires the Axis to invest 10-20 minutes of manpower and indirect fire to take out a simcity. Now, emplacements actually have to be supported properly to function, just like any other faction's units.

    What I think should still be changed is that garrisoned units inside an emplacement would be more difficult to damage. Right now, placing RE's inside a mortar pit or bofors is kinda useless, since the garrison will get killed much faster than the emplacement itself. Oh, and a small range nerf to the Bofor's indirect fire ability. It can still counter its own counters (mortars) which is seriously not cool.

  • #16
    1 year ago

    Lots of opinions that emplacements are fine but can anyone back this up with evidence? Replays from good players dictating the game with a pit? Lol

    Which top UKF players routinely use emplacements as part of their UKF build?

  • #17
    1 year ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,011

    @Spinflight said:
    Lots of opinions that emplacements are fine but can anyone back this up with evidence? Replays from good players dictating the game with a pit? Lol

    Which top UKF players routinely use emplacements as part of their UKF build?

    OP set the tone. You'll get the same amount of evidence you provided.

  • #18
    1 year ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,263

    @Spinflight said:
    Lots of opinions that emplacements are fine but can anyone back this up with evidence? Replays from good players dictating the game with a pit? Lol

    Should you be able to dictate an entire game with 400mp? What are you expecting to get from it.

    @Lazarus said:
    You spend that 400 MP to dictate where the fight happens, and to force the enemy to come to you OR to invest more in indirect than you did.

    This right here is everything. A WM or OKW player will not be able to destroy it without a pair of indirect fire weapons, and 2 Ost mortars probably wont cut it either. You can even force a WM player to pick a doctrine as they might feel pressured to go for mortar HTs which actually have a decent chance against a pit.

  • #19
    1 year ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,575

    @SkysTheLimit said:

    @Spinflight said:
    Lots of opinions that emplacements are fine but can anyone back this up with evidence? Replays from good players dictating the game with a pit? Lol

    Should you be able to dictate an entire game with 400mp? What are you expecting to get from it.

    >

    Why not?
    Ost can do the same for 360mp and OKW by placing tech truck forward.

    How much that'll make the skirmish orchestrated by the oppnent is just as much dependent on opponent using it as it is on YOU being able (or not) to build proper counters and apply them in a correct way.

    @Lazarus said:
    You spend that 400 MP to dictate where the fight happens, and to force the enemy to come to you OR to invest more in indirect than you did.

    This right here is everything. A WM or OKW player will not be able to destroy it without a pair of indirect fire weapons, and 2 Ost mortars probably wont cut it either. You can even force a WM player to pick a doctrine as they might feel pressured to go for mortar HTs which actually have a decent chance against a pit.

    2 ost mortars steamroll pit, especially now after the nerfs.
    Can you guess what happens after that?

    You have 2 mortars and you now dictate the game while your opponent is not capable of countering it himself anymore indirectly.

    If you struggle against pit as ost, you clearly lack the basic skill of mortar usage.

  • #20
    1 year ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,011
    > @Katitof said:
    >
    > Why not?
    > Ost can do the same for 360mp and OKW by placing tech truck forward.

    No - Ost cant (assuming you mean the sniper which by extension means Soviets and Brits can too), and as you so much love saying about OKW, risk vs reward. That truck dictates engagements because its their bloody tech structure and losing it is usually the death of the player. Nowhere near the same investment as a pit and you know it.
  • #21
    1 year ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,263
    @Katitof That's simply not true, mortar pits still outrange German mortars, especially on barrage and you still have brace.

    If German mortars easily clean up your pit then you placed it too aggressively and "clearly lack the basic skill" of placing a mortar pit. Do you even read yourself sometimes man? Geez you can be a dick
  • #22
    1 year ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,575

    @SkysTheLimit said:
    @Katitof That's simply not true, mortar pits still outrange German mortars, especially on barrage and you still have brace.

    Why wouldn't it outrange them?
    IT CAN NOT MOVE.

    It still loses badly to dual ost mortars.
    Don't even try to theorycraft that, dual ost mortars were reliably beating the pit pre patch and pit got only nerfs since then.

    And when you've forced it to brace, congrats, you've already defeated it and UKF is just delaying inevitable.

    If German mortars easily clean up your pit then you placed it too aggressively and "clearly lack the basic skill" of placing a mortar pit. Do you even read yourself sometimes man? Geez you can be a dick

    The thing about mortars is, they have 80 range and there is nothing that will stop them from barraging the pit in 2v2 or 1v1 but a full frontal infantry rush, which brits aren't exceptional at.

  • #23
    1 year ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,263
    edited January 2018
    @Katitof No one said it shouldn't outrange them. Thanks for pointing out a building can't move. But it does outrange them by 10 on auto, and by 35 on barrage. That is plenty of an advantage along with brace to counter it's immobility.

    By the way, you're doing just as much "theory-crafting" as anyone so long as you don't provide a replay.

    Do you even have a point here? I don't think pits are OP anymore, I'm only disputing the need for a buff. Are you saying they should be buffed?
  • #25
    1 year ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,011
    Brits arent good at infantry rushes? Someone should tell sappers that... not that you need them with the stat line I.Sections come with.
  • #26
    1 year ago
    BaálthazorBaálthazor The shoreline by the river Styx.Posts: 1,092
    @Spinflight
    If you're out to get evidence of your claim, do you mind providing some in return? (Spoiler alert,I know you won't provide any such evidence!)

    If all you wanna do is point fingers and poke fun, at least do it on site that doesn't know you as both a fraud and a fake on its doppelganger site!!

    Go home, you moron!!! I got a headache just listening to your garbage over at CoH2, now WE ALL gotta suffer through it [email protected][email protected][email protected]?
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.