UKF 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.

You want to debate balance post in any balance thread, this is lobby thread about a suggestion in the design of emplacements.

Personally i favor the idea of a trench with a single 3 inch mortar that can garrison to receive an increase RoF however has a long set up in the trench but in open a reasonable set up to prevent constant mortar wipes, its an alternative to a mortar emplacement while keeping a similar premise, something in the range of 250 to 300 at tops for the mortar with trenches being free/100mp (at most).

Something like the 17pdr in my opinion should be remove altogether as its too large and too easy to destroy, i can only think of buffing the firefly as a response unless a more viable suggestion is possible.

The obvious solution is to introduce the Tortoise as a replacement to the 17pdr

17pdr? Try 32pdr.


Honestly, if the 17pdr stays I just want it to go back to the PaK 43 style - decreed by flame weapons, only destroyed if the gun is wrecked. Emplacements used to work this way so I know it's absolutely possible.

First: motor emplacement doesn't cost 450mp.

2. why all cry that brits emplacements need brace?
Ask all other static emplacements why they dont get brace.
Pak43, LEFH, FLak emplacment, t4 schwerer, etc etc etc

3. what are emplacements ? units or building? if they are buildings (because no dmg in statistics...than why they eat popcap, can get vet and are similar to other similar units (pak43 for example), if they are units..why they dont shown in dmg statistics?

4. they are super cheap for this what the do...NONDOC. while UKD overall has nearly the same setup like OST...but mostly in better
versions

There are two types of emplacement that work well in this game.

» Time-buying emplacements: straightforward to counter and cheap enough that their destruction doesn't matter that much.

» Support emplacements: powerful emplacements worth their cost that don't contest territory, so the opponent doesn't have to kill them.

The first category contains bunkers and OKW flaks.

The second category contains howitzers, the giant static ATGs and Forward Assemblies.

Every other emplacement is directly at odds with the design philosophy of this game.

First: motor emplacement doesn't cost 450mp.

2. why all cry that brits emplacements need brace?
Ask all other static emplacements why they dont get brace.
Pak43, LEFH, FLak emplacment, t4 schwerer, etc etc etc

3. what are emplacements ? units or building? if they are buildings (because no dmg in statistics...than why they eat popcap, can get vet and are similar to other similar units (pak43 for example), if they are units..why they dont shown in dmg statistics?

4. they are super cheap for this what the do...NONDOC. while UKD overall has nearly the same setup like OST...but mostly in better
versions

Ah yea forgot about the teching so it’s closer to 500MP+

All those other emplacements are recrewable, allowing recrewing while UKF is dead and that’s it, no recrewing.

Let’s remove the pop caps then and still have the, have all their benefits of vet etc. Allowing the UKF to wield more annoying stuff.

Haha super cheap sure, the tiger is super cheap in comparison.

The UKF has better infantry with better anti-infantry but worse AT options, worse MG, worse early LV, equal engineers but UKF is locked behind T1, better UKF sniper now, a choice between an expensive area denial and a better 222, no late game infantry to speak of, a decent AA vehicle, a terrible medium, a mediocre at best TD with choice between a Churchill or comet with the Churchill taking 1/5 of british pop cap, or the comet which is an anti-infantry premium and mediocre AT and a,l their CQC infantry being locked behind doctrines. So yes UKF is better than OST because it has so many units that don’t do as well as OST almost as if certain sides performed better in certain areas just like how USF has the best infantry, OST have best support and OKW with its late game vehicles and infantry

Ah yea forgot about the teching so it’s closer to 500MP+

All those other emplacements are recrewable, allowing recrewing while UKF is dead and that’s it, no recrewing.

Let’s remove the pop caps then and still have the, have all their benefits of vet etc. Allowing the UKF to wield more annoying stuff.

Haha super cheap sure, the tiger is super cheap in comparison.

The UKF has better infantry with better anti-infantry but worse AT options, worse MG, worse early LV, equal engineers but UKF is locked behind T1, better UKF sniper now, a choice between an expensive area denial and a better 222, no late game infantry to speak of, a decent AA vehicle, a terrible medium, a mediocre at best TD with choice between a Churchill or comet with the Churchill taking 1/5 of british pop cap, or the comet which is an anti-infantry premium and mediocre AT and a,l their CQC infantry being locked behind doctrines. So yes UKF is better than OST because it has so many units that don’t do as well as OST almost as if certain sides performed better in certain areas just like how USF has the best infantry, OST have best support and OKW with its late game vehicles and infantry

Seems like you lack a tone of information from other factions.

1. you calc the tech cost to a motor emplcament? than lets calc all thtech cost to get your first ober out...it should be around 140 fuel and a tone of manpower.

2.worse at option than ost? what are u playing? UKF has handheld AT WITH AT nades combined on cheap squad; has UKF sniper with critical shot; has AEC with critical shot, has superior AT 6 pdr, has FF with high alpha dmg and stun and 60 range with turret, has really good mediums and KT HP like tanks, and little pershings,

3. UC is one of the best early LV ingame..use it

4.MG42 and vickers are on par---vickers is better in cover/ houses and make alot more dmg and MG42 supress faster..which end in less dmg since supressed unit get less dmg

Seems like you lack a tone of information from other factions.

1. you calc the tech cost to a motor emplcament? than lets calc all thtech cost to get your first ober out...it should be around 140 fuel and a tone of manpower.

2.worse at option than ost? what are u playing? UKF has handheld AT WITH AT nades combined on cheap squad; has UKF sniper with critical shot; has AEC with critical shot, has superior AT 6 pdr, has FF with high alpha dmg and stun and 60 range with turret, has really good mediums and KT HP like tanks, and little pershings,

3. UC is one of the best early LV ingame..use it

4.MG42 and vickers are on par---vickers is better in cover/ houses and make alot more dmg and MG42 supress faster..which end in less dmg since supressed unit get less dmg

1. 450MP is 2 squads of inf secs but is also immobile so it’s a straight downgrade from all other mortars
2. Panzershreks ignore all medium armor if allies while PIAT can bounce off OST p4 but sure have the PIAT is clearly better, find me a player who doesn’t have P4 or a pack out by the time you get an AEC out, 6pdr and pak40 are basically the same except for the sabot round increasing penetration it lacks against tigers, firefly is slow and immobile and has the longest reload of a TD and is out classed by even the SU-85 which can self spot, you clearly never used a Cromwell because they lose in a 1v1
3. Very situational unit
4. You got a CQC to combo with the MG42 suppression

Back on topic mortars are lacking in general for their job at such a hugh cost due to being unable to move and its counters

I am afraid you are drifting away from the topic. This is not balance thread. This is simply a suggestion for improving emplacements game play.

One could even increase the interaction between emplacement and garrisoned troops by removing XP gain for emplacement and using vet bonuses from the infatry similar to USF tanks.

In return the infatry could share small amount from XP gained from damage done from the emplacement.

Turn the Pak 43 and 17 pounder into 90 range static ATGs that are easily decrewed. Remove their ability to fire through shotblockers.

Turn the Bofors into a much cheaper, brace-less emplacement that a lone mortar can clear out given time (like the OKW Flak).

Turn the Mortar Pit into a 180 MP unit that has no Brace, the durability of an Ostheer bunker, and requires a garrisoned squad to autofire.

Turn the Pak 43 and 17 pounder into 90 range static ATGs that are easily decrewed. Remove their ability to fire through shotblockers.

Turn the Bofors into a much cheaper, brace-less emplacement that a lone mortar can clear out given time (like the OKW Flak).

Turn the Mortar Pit into a 180 MP unit that has no Brace, the durability of an Ostheer bunker, and requires a garrisoned squad to autofire.

Now this I can get behind.

Throwaway emplacements, literally perfection.

Turn the Pak 43 and 17 pounder into 90 range static ATGs that are easily decrewed. Remove their ability to fire through shotblockers.

Turn the Bofors into a much cheaper, brace-less emplacement that a lone mortar can clear out given time (like the OKW Flak).

Turn the Mortar Pit into a 180 MP unit that has no Brace, the durability of an Ostheer bunker, and requires a garrisoned squad to autofire.

1. 17pdr Pak 43 i can get behind, and is fairly balanced however the 17pdr would need a size reduction of some sort because its a tad large compared to the Pak 43 from memory

2. Eeeeeeh, Bofos is still larger than flak emplacement and that thing has some iffy damage hit taking because of the sandbags that make it mortar immune at times so bofos is fine where it is maybe at a decreased price if anything

3. I'd be fine with that if all other mortars didn't auto fire, which is why i like the mortar trench slit idea better, more suiting for CoH2 imo

.. the 17pdr would need a size reduction of some sort...

Actual hitbox and graphic on screen are 2 different things.

To garrison emplacements to make them ok-ish will not work out. Imagine you build a mortar emplacement and it gets countered by an enemy mortar:

Scenario A: Mortar is not garrisoned and has bad stats --> Loose

Scenario B: Mortar is garrisoned but since it can not move they enemy mortar will now hit the mortar and the garrisoned squad inside as well --> this is the jackpot for the enemy mortar

To garrison emplacements to make them ok-ish will not work out. Imagine you build a mortar emplacement and it gets countered by an enemy mortar:

Scenario A: Mortar is not garrisoned and has bad stats --> Loose

Scenario B: Mortar is garrisoned but since it can not move they enemy mortar will now hit the mortar and the garrisoned squad inside as well --> this is the jackpot for the enemy mortar

The damage to garrisoned troops can be adjusted...

Actual hitbox and graphic on screen are 2 different things.

I am talking mostly about hitbox because a graphical change wouldn't do much but i am not familiar with the code used to make CoH2 so its best i don't talk to much about it.

I am talking mostly about hitbox because a graphical change wouldn't do much but i am not familiar with the code used to make CoH2 so its best i don't talk to much about it.

If you download coh2 tools you can start world building and compare the hit boxes of the 2 entities

If you download coh2 tools you can start world building and compare the hit boxes of the 2 entities

The worldbuilder is part of the basegame:
\Steam\steamapps\common\Company of Heroes 2\WorldBuilder_CoH_2.exe

The tools are very useful nonetheless.

The worldbuilder is part of the basegame:
\Steam\steamapps\common\Company of Heroes 2\WorldBuilder_CoH_2.exe

The tools are very useful nonetheless.

thanks for clarifying. I always run it via the tools and though ti was part of it.