Emplacement have proven some of the most difficult units to get on a good spot going from OP to UP and vice versa. Although there are many solution of redesigned them it seems Relic is reluctant to test them. This proposal aims to allow easier balance with a minimum change.
First emplacements power level is reduced, stat like range, ROF, damage, accuracy and so on are reduced and cost/pop is also reduced.
The garrison mechanisms is overhauled, unit that garrison emplacements do not fire from them but greatly increase the stat of the emplacement.
Reasons:
Player invest less in building them but has to invest more (garrison) to get back for his investment
UKF player will take casualties and thus bleed when using emplacements to their full potential
Abilities like brace might require having a crew or get some cost
One can increase interaction with garrison like emplacements could get passive repair when garrisoned and out of combat, garrisoned troops could get some damage reduction bonuses and so on.
UKF Emplacements
9 Nov 2019, 13:43 PM
#1
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
9 Nov 2019, 14:22 PM
#2
Posts: 39
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?
9 Nov 2019, 18:40 PM
#3
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
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?
The range would back to normal or even longer when the emplacement would be garrison by a ninfatry squad
9 Nov 2019, 19:46 PM
#4
Posts: 39
The range would back to normal or even longer when the emplacement would be garrison by a ninfatry squad
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.
9 Nov 2019, 20:11 PM
#5
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
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.
Yes but one will not always keep the emplacement garrisoned. One would use his squad elsewhere and he would only garrison emplacements when he need to.
9 Nov 2019, 20:34 PM
#6
Posts: 1351
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.
(09.10.2019): "You really are a jewel to this forum" - feels proud, thank You
(24.03.2020): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9PiqCeLEmM
(25.06.2020): http://www.companyofheroes.com/leaderboards#profile/steam/76561198035553470/standings
9 Nov 2019, 22:24 PM
#7
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
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.
That would create another problem, creeping emplacements...
9 Nov 2019, 22:51 PM
#8
Posts: 1351
That would create another problem, creeping emplacements...
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.
(09.10.2019): "You really are a jewel to this forum" - feels proud, thank You
(24.03.2020): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9PiqCeLEmM
(25.06.2020): http://www.companyofheroes.com/leaderboards#profile/steam/76561198035553470/standings
9 Nov 2019, 23:00 PM
#9
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
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.
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.
10 Nov 2019, 01:37 AM
#10
Posts: 97
UKF emplacements get offensive abilities when garrisoned so, I'd like to see that logic applied to their defensive capabilities as well.
Replace "Brace" with a timed "Self-Repair While Garrisoned" ability.
Replace "Brace" with a timed "Self-Repair While Garrisoned" ability.
10 Nov 2019, 02:56 AM
#11
Posts: 65
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.
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.
10 Nov 2019, 07:41 AM
#12
Posts: 1351
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.
I agree - but static structures on high level play will never be good no mater what you do (either too much or meh). That is why if you could move them a bit (losing resources, since you wouldn't get back all you paid - I thought like 70%, for example).
(09.10.2019): "You really are a jewel to this forum" - feels proud, thank You
(24.03.2020): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9PiqCeLEmM
(25.06.2020): http://www.companyofheroes.com/leaderboards#profile/steam/76561198035553470/standings
10 Nov 2019, 08:36 AM
#13
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
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.
IS balance is rather irrelevant to emplacements.
10 Nov 2019, 10:11 AM
#14
Posts: 1096
IS balance is rather irrelevant to emplacements.
He is literally applying it to your garrison suggestion though....
10 Nov 2019, 10:26 AM
#15
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
He is literally applying it to your garrison suggestion though....
If one does nto want to use IS for garrison one can use Ro.E.
10 Nov 2019, 12:46 PM
#16
Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1
I like this idea. The problem with UKF emplacements is that they are too expensive to lose, so you have to baby sit them with your army (which will be smaller due to the high cost of the emplacement). Making them cheaper makes them more like Axis bunkers - cheap enough to lose and effective enough for defense against limited opposition. Having them then become more effective with garrison allows UKF emplacements to be effective on defence against bigger pushes, but only if you were prepared for them.
11 Nov 2019, 01:26 AM
#17
Posts: 65
IS balance is rather irrelevant to emplacements.
Grens are weak, need improvements!
But ostheer has the best teamweapons! Use them to support!
Why irrelevant? Balance should be of faction perspective. If you tone down emplacements, which is british style team weapons, you need to tweak their mainline.
11 Nov 2019, 06:47 AM
#18
Posts: 591 | Subs: 1
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.
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.
11 Nov 2019, 07:03 AM
#19
Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1
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.
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.
11 Nov 2019, 07:19 AM
#20
Posts: 591 | Subs: 1
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.
It would only work with an overhaul of UKF infantry to go with it. They already struggle with field control with expensive squads hogging pop cap. It's not like they can buy a combat engineer squad to man these things with
And even if they did roll out an anzac analogy to ostruppen, I'm not sold on anything that encourages building more emplacements, instead of zero.
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
20 | ||
 |
|
|
13 | ||
 |
|
|
170 | ||
 |
|
|
3 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.653231.739+13
- 2.839223.790+2
- 3.35057.860+15
- 4.599234.719+7
- 5.278108.720+29
- 6.306114.729+2
- 7.645.928+5
- 8.922406.694+1
- 9.1122623.643+3
- 10.265138.658+2
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
10
Download
1245