UKF Emplacements

Jump back to quoted post9 Nov 2019, 14:22 PMThe Spycrab

So reducing their stats is fine as long as they are still viable, for example if you reduce mortar's range how will it return fire?

Jump back to quoted post9 Nov 2019, 18:40 PMVipper

The range would back to normal or even longer when the emplacement would be garrison by a ninfatry squad

Jump back to quoted post9 Nov 2019, 19:46 PMThe Spycrab

So the new cost for the mortar would be what? because infantry sections are currently 270, RE are about 240ish (cant remember exactly) and mortar pit is around 450. So unless an overall MP decrease is coming i'd prefer the 1 off 450MP then having to have 200 for a half effective mortar then another 200 plus a squad that could be more useful else where.

Jump back to quoted post9 Nov 2019, 20:34 PMachpawel

I'd make them give back more resources if you dismantle them with sappers. Simple. It would solve the biggest problem with them. They can't retreat - imo this is what stops people from building them. One retreat and you lose 350mp for a mortar emplacement.

Jump back to quoted post9 Nov 2019, 22:24 PMVipper

That would create another problem, creeping emplacements...

Jump back to quoted post9 Nov 2019, 22:51 PMachpawel

I'd like to try it. It could give the diversity to UKF everybody wants and not make it a clone of some other allied armies. I like how simple the idea is. If you calculate the recouped resources right (neither too little bit too much) it could make those emplacements reasonably more mobile.

Jump back to quoted post9 Nov 2019, 23:00 PMVipper

If there are "mobile" they are no longer emplacements...There many solution in improving emplacement my suggestions aim at one with the least change and redesign in emplacement game play.

Jump back to quoted post10 Nov 2019, 02:56 AMrqd

You need to reduce IS popcap and their reinforce time as well, so brits can field more mobile infantry to be enplacement operators. 7 sec for 1 model reinforcement and 8 popcap for a bostered IS squad, it is a bit too much.

Reinforcement 7sec -> 6sec & pop to 7 with boster should be fine imo. For comparison, USF rifles are 5.6sec / 7 popcap. It is certain that sections are not better than rifles as mainlines.

Jump back to quoted post10 Nov 2019, 08:36 AMVipper

IS balance is rather irrelevant to emplacements.

Jump back to quoted post10 Nov 2019, 10:11 AMGrim

He is literally applying it to your garrison suggestion though....

Jump back to quoted post10 Nov 2019, 08:36 AMVipper

IS balance is rather irrelevant to emplacements.

Jump back to quoted post11 Nov 2019, 06:47 AMSeductiveCardbordBox

Emplacements should have never made it into the game to begin with

Units should have been given options to set up hard points if they needed UKF to have a defensive feel. But no. We got expensive, easily countered, immobile units taking up a quarter of the UKF stock roster.

How much better literally everything about the Brits would have been if they could just build a 3 inch mortar and garrison it in a trench or dig in somehow with sapper support.

No longer would we be saddled with an all-or-nothing unit that can't retreat to preserve its veterancy... you know. That core, fundamental aspect that the entire game is built around? With a unit that can move as needed to support a moving frontline?

But no. We got emplacements. And UKF is still awfully designed garbage.

The sooner we can all forget emplacements exist, the better.

Jump back to quoted post11 Nov 2019, 07:03 AMAerohank

I mean, the OPs suggestion would make them more like regular bunkers in power level and cost, but give UKF an unique mechanic where you can bolster the emplacement with an infantry unit. It could work.