Login

russian armor

FINALLY remove the MORTAR PIT!

9 Jun 2020, 09:23 AM
#21
avatar of Grim

Posts: 1096

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Jun 2020, 09:16 AMKhan


Let's give brace to the Pak 43 as well then!


Wouldn't have an issue with that. The 17pdr would actually be viable if it could shoot through buildings reliably.
9 Jun 2020, 09:24 AM
#22
avatar of Latch

Posts: 773

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Jun 2020, 09:16 AMKhan


Let's give brace to the Pak 43 as well then!




Sure thing, but you'll have to give shot blockers piercing away for it and increase its cost and pop by 50%.


Need I say more?
9 Jun 2020, 09:50 AM
#23
avatar of Aarotron

Posts: 563

Or just you know. Have normal mortar in hammer and pit in anvil.
9 Jun 2020, 09:52 AM
#24
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

Or just you know. Have normal mortar in hammer and pit in anvil.

What an amazing idea, so, do you unlock hammer/anvil at the similar cost and timing of T1 or you have actually sane and working idea to plug that obvious lack of indirect fire and need of another doctrinal ability you've just created?
9 Jun 2020, 10:11 AM
#25
avatar of Support Sapper

Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1

Or just you know. Have normal mortar in hammer and pit in anvil.


Mortar but at the timing of comet ?
9 Jun 2020, 10:17 AM
#26
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



Mortar but at the timing of comet ?

Anvil/hammer choice could/should be available for all tiers. It would make UKF allot easier to balance.
9 Jun 2020, 10:38 AM
#27
avatar of SuperHansFan

Posts: 833

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Jun 2020, 10:17 AMVipper

Anvil/hammer choice could/should be available for all tiers. It would make UKF allot easier to balance.


I disagree

It should give you two different play styles but should unlock earlier. You might pick one for early game advantage but that will also effect your late game playstyle.

This would give risk reward and allow axis to prepare for late game better
9 Jun 2020, 10:52 AM
#28
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



I disagree

I did not see that coming :).


It should give you two different play styles but should unlock earlier. You might pick one for early game advantage but that will also effect your late game playstyle.

This would give risk reward and allow axis to prepare for late game better

The reason Soviet/OKW faction was redesigned and USF had a revamp was because it was one had to choose early and stick with that choice making the faction too rigid. The same mistake should not be repeated.
9 Jun 2020, 22:37 PM
#29
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Jun 2020, 06:27 AMLatch


But they cant move and are the only MP option for inderect non doctrinal, if they didn't have brace they would be beyond useless. Brace has been through many changes and where it is at now is the best of both words. Trigger a brace, wait for it to end, attack like brace never existed.

Unless you want to add a retreat function to the mortar pit of course?

Brace should have inflicted mp bleed they would have been fine. The nature of being able to build something that doesn't take bleed ever but has a huge health pool and can reduce incoming damage immobile or not was shit by design. There just had to be more risk than "I can't shoot for a few seconds" while the Brit blunted the attack
9 Jun 2020, 23:36 PM
#30
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3



Mortar but at the timing of comet ?


The perfect excuse to make it OP.

“Why is Brit mortar so much better than Ost mortar??.”
“EZ you noob, it’s cuz your mortar is at T1 while Brit player has to spend mp and fuel to unlock a sidetech at the last Tier. GIT GUD, IT SHOULD BE BETTER FOR ITS COST”
9 Jun 2020, 23:57 PM
#31
avatar of Serrith

Posts: 783

If brace is an issue you could reduce the duration to say 10 seconds, slap a 100hp heal on it and give it a 40 munitions cost.

This will reduce the duration an emplacement can remain "invulnerable" and give it a munitions opportunity cost while simultaneously giving it a compensating utility buff(the heal) that let's it stay in the fight just that much longer even without repair squads.
10 Jun 2020, 09:43 AM
#32
avatar of ullumulu

Posts: 2243

the thing is:

- brace has to short reload time
- cost no resources
- can hold to much dmg (50kg stuka bomb/ sturmtiger rockets, heavy costly muni abilitys) there should no way in the game to avoid 250muni with one click with no cost for static buildings...else give this shit to all static buildings for all
10 Jun 2020, 10:22 AM
#33
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

Emplacement interaction need more option/interaction. Once could test replacing brace with "stand fast" the old engineer doctrinal ability that at least lead to bleed of mu.
10 Jun 2020, 11:08 AM
#34
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

the thing is:

- brace has to short reload time
- cost no resources

So does "retreat" on infantry.



- can hold to much dmg (50kg stuka bomb/ sturmtiger rockets, heavy costly muni abilitys) there should no way in the game to avoid 250muni with one click with no cost for static buildings...else give this shit to all static buildings for all

That's SPECIFICALLY why brace exists.
10 Jun 2020, 11:28 AM
#35
avatar of ullumulu

Posts: 2243

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Jun 2020, 11:08 AMKatitof

So does "retreat" on infantry.




That's SPECIFICALLY why brace exists.


but my squads bleed my manpower...this emplacments not.

than..where is the brace for all other statics building for other faction...#doublestandards
10 Jun 2020, 12:15 PM
#38
avatar of achpawel

Posts: 1351

Brace is just a bad idea from the beginning. Will somebody finally try at least to think what I wrote in many UKF treads? Make sapper deconstruct emplacements with say 50-60% resource refunded. This will make them: less static, will make UKF bleed if they decide to move them, add some more dynamisms to emplacement play making it more surprising as the enemy will (to some extend) not expect if the emplacement is still there. And most importantly, it will make it possible to get rid of brace altogether or just nerf it (muni paid, shorter duration, or the mixture of both).
10 Jun 2020, 12:43 PM
#39
avatar of Support Sapper

Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1

Brace is just a bad idea from the beginning. Will somebody finally try at least to think what I wrote in many UKF treads? Make sapper deconstruct emplacements with say 50-60% resource refunded. This will make them: less static, will make UKF bleed if they decide to move them, add some more dynamisms to emplacement play making it more surprising as the enemy will (to some extend) not expect if the emplacement is still there. And most importantly, it will make it possible to get rid of brace altogether or just nerf it (muni paid, shorter duration, or the mixture of both).


Actually sapper can already deconstruct emplacements for 100mp refund, but the whole system still suck.
10 Jun 2020, 13:33 PM
#40
avatar of achpawel

Posts: 1351



Actually sapper can already deconstruct emplacements for 100mp refund, but the whole system still suck.

That's why that would be very easy. Only the refund should be higher to make it more viable.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

unknown 3
unknown 1
Germany 1

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

708 users are online: 708 guests
0 post in the last 24h
12 posts in the last week
24 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49869
Welcome our newest member, Males
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM