Bofors are OP

Then just leave out "allied" from a simaler sentence next time. That helps not giving the idea that its one sided.
It just was strange to me when you mostly are about allied units being to strong or effecient and only sometimes about axis units. Thats why i responded.

I did not say the maxim is up. I said try get it buffed and watch the meltdown. So i wont start another thread just for mentioning it as an example to prove a point.

Did OP make a thread that an allied unit is OP? Yes
Did OP get snarky comments for it? Yes
Your claim that I said something one sides is simply false.

Now PLS move on, this thread is about bofors and not about Vipper. Ad hominen arguments are non constructive.

As for the bofors popcap. Its not to low. You still pay feul for a static unit. Also as well that mg bunkers cost no popcap and lock out an area just fine.

Yes it is too low.

Mg bunker cost munition which you left out and the only common thing between bunkers and bofors is that there are buildings so there is little comparison.

The fuel cost might be unattractive in small modes and in early game but in large modes it very easy to float fuel. Then one can easily use bofors in key location.

Can the bofors be countered? Yes it can but the amount of effort needed becomes increasingly more difficult in late game when ATG/Moratr/MHT/Leig can themselves be countered by artillery.

So yes the pop being lower the a HMG is too low.

Did OP make a thread that an allied unit is OP? Yes
Did OP get snarky comments for it? Yes
Your claim that I said something one sides is simply false.

Now PLS move on, this thread is about bofors and not about Vipper. Ad hominen arguments are non constructive.


Yes it is too low.

Mg bunker cost munition which you left out and the only common thing between bunkers and bofors is that there are buildings so there is little comparison.

The fuel cost might be unattractive in small modes and in early game but in large modes it very easy to float fuel. Then one can easily use bofors in key location.

Can the bofors be countered? Yes it can but the amount of effort needed becomes increasingly more difficult in late game when ATG/Moratr/MHT/Leig can themselves be countered by artillery.

So yes the pop being lower the a HMG is too low.

That's cap. You've got artillery at that point, bofors never survives the late game unless it's placed really far behind points of interest.

That's cap. You've got artillery at that point, bofors never survives the late game unless it's placed really far behind points of interest.

1) I did not say that it survives although it can a artillery barrage by using brace
2) An artillery barrage on cheap bofors mean one less barrage in more juicy targets
3) I have simply point out that pop for bofors is simply too low at 6

Jeezus, apparently bofors is overperforming now and needs a nerf

3) I have simply point out that pop for bofors is simply too low at 6

Great, I'm sure many players would be happy to raise the pop cap and then lower the fuel cost to compensate. Maybe then it will be ever so slightly more enticing to build in smaller game modes, since you won't be losing that many resources when the emplacement inevitably gets LEIG'd into oblivion.

My problem with the Bofors is not the actual unit but the build time, it seems like it builds faster than sandbags, and its incredibly cheesy when they take a point and you're coming back for a counter attack to find out that they already built a Bofors.

My problem with the Bofors is not the actual unit but the build time, it seems like it builds faster than sandbags, and its incredibly cheesy when they take a point and you're coming back for a counter attack to find out that they already built a Bofors.

then you destroy it immediately and go on with your day

I'm not saying you can't kill it. It's easy to kill once you've amassed the weapons to do so but takes some time to do. I'm arguing it gives map control for a very cheap cost.

I'm not saying you can't kill it. It's easy to kill once you've amassed the weapons to do so but takes some time to do. I'm arguing it gives map control for a very cheap cost.

My suggestion earlier will kill a bofors in 20-60s usually. 20s for brace and the next round of fire DoTs being the final nail in the charcoal coffin. You can just wait out the DoT. A third fire round if necessary. Nor can they repair it whilst the area's on fire.

I'm not saying you can't kill it. It's easy to kill once you've amassed the weapons to do so but takes some time to do. I'm arguing it gives map control for a very cheap cost.

There is one alternative, as long as the opponent doesn't know how to attack ground well enough.
Spam smoke with 1 mortar on the bofors and go around it. But make sure to continually spam the smoke ability.

I hate playing against Brits and even I think this entire premise is ridiculous. Just build an AT gun and attack ground.

It just was strange to me when you mostly are about allied units being to strong or effecient and only sometimes about axis units. Thats why i responded.

Vipper is a well known troll who care's not for balance just ignore him and he will eventually get himself banned again.

Jeezus, apparently bofors is overperforming now and needs a nerf

Just goes to show how bad alot of players are in COH 2.


On the topic of Bofors I don't understand why this emplacement can gain Veterancy yet you will almost never see a Vet 2/3 Bofors in game unless playing against BOTs who suicide infantry into it nonstop for 30 minutes straight.

Personally I would have liked to have seen both Bofors and the Mortar Pit moved to Hammer/Anvil and then balanced/adjusted accordingly to the factions needs.

Funny thing that took me by suprise last night is that the BOFORs gets some sort of high-altitude barrage ability when you put a squad in it.

Took the full barrage and only got +/- 20% HP dmg on my AT-gun.

This thing is by far not OP.

Funny thing that took me by suprise last night is that the BOFORs gets some sort of high-altitude barrage ability when you put a squad in it.

Took the full barrage and only got +/- 20% HP dmg on my AT-gun.

This thing is by far not OP.

The barrage is about suppressing not doing damage.

The bofors really suffers from UKF's general design.
It comes early, so counters are not as numerous, therefore it can't have enough range to really lock down an area and must stay vulnerable to the one PaK on the field.

At the same time, UKF has no real mortar unless you want to spam emplacements, forcing a defensive faction into the offensive if your Bofors gets barraged.

Similarly, there is no late game arty, so no chance defending it in the late game from ATGs.

Also, the veterancy is very odd. Vet3 gives you 50% more HP. This is huge, but you'll never get that far since the only way to vet is if your opponent is a huge idiot and feeds his men into it.

Maybe the Bofors should work more like a heavy ATG with a rotating gun that requires setup. Defenseless from the sides, but useful to the front.

Maybe the Bofors should work more like a heavy ATG with a rotating gun that requires setup. Defenseless from the sides, but useful to the front.

That would be an interesting idea. Give it higher range in this fire arc so that it can't be countered that easily by a single ATG. Then give it a setup time that is high enough to flank it easily with handheld AT or circle it with LVs/light tanks. In AA mode it shouldn't attack ground units but rotate freely and automatically shoot at incoming planes.

And the fire vulnarability is ridiculous. I always wondered why brit emplacements get so high burning damage even by OKW flame nades while molotovs don't really scratch the german light bunkers (don't speaking about the concrete ones which shouldn't get much damage by fire). Do brits soak their emplacements with fuel while germans don't?

That would be an interesting idea. Give it higher range in this fire arc so that it can't be countered that easily by a single ATG. Then give it a setup time that is high enough to flank it easily with handheld AT or circle it with LVs/light tanks. In AA mode it shouldn't attack ground units but rotate freely and automatically shoot at incoming planes.

And the fire vulnarability is ridiculous. I always wondered why brit emplacements get so high burning damage even by OKW flame nades while molotovs don't really scratch the german light bunkers (don't speaking about the concrete ones which shouldn't get much damage by fire). Do brits soak their emplacements with fuel while germans don't?

That is inaccurate.

Molotovs do around half HP damage to bunkers. Two of them should leave a bunker with little health, 3 should destroy it.

On top of that Soviet can one shoot them with satchels.

Bofors might cost fuel but mg bunker/fighting position have a MU cost.

That is inaccurate.

Molotovs do around half HP damage to bunkers. Two of them should leave a bunker with little health, 3 should destroy it.

You do now that "don't really scratch the german light bunkers" was an exaggeration to show that it usually not worth it to throw a molotov at a german bunker? So, maybe that wasn't clear to anybody so I clarify it now.

So my clarified statement is:

"UKF emplacements are pretty prone to fire. Even the simple OKW flame nades do high damage. On the other side german bunkers seem to be not prone in the same way to molotovs for example."

Simple comparison:

German bunker with 480HP dies to 3 molotovs
UKF mortar emplacement with 780 HP dies to 2 OKW flame nades
UKF Bofors emplacement with 1000 HP dies to 3 OKW flame nades

Something seems to be odd. Flame nades were meant to be a garrison/cover counter as they got introduced. For countering early mortar emplacements and Bofors later on OKW has a very early ATG, an AT handheld upgrade on starting squad (only partly usable vs Bofors) and ISG if going for Battlegroup HQ.

You do now that "don't really scratch the german light bunkers" was an exaggeration to show that it usually not worth it to throw a molotov at a german bunker? So, maybe that wasn't clear to anybody so I clarify it now.

Dealing almost half HP damage is much more than "scratch" at least in my books and it is worth throwing a molotov to a bunker.

So my clarified statement is:

"UKF emplacements are pretty prone to fire. Even the simple OKW flame nades do high damage. On the other side german bunkers seem to be not prone in the same way to molotovs for example."

UKF emplacements are not prone to fire, certain weapon including OKW flame grenades/molotovs are designed to do extra damage to building and UKF emplacements.

Simple comparison:

German bunker with 480HP dies to 3 molotovs
UKF mortar emplacement with 780 HP dies to 2 OKW flame nades
UKF Bofors emplacement with 1000 HP dies to 3 OKW flame nades

Comparison is rather misleading.

Bunker and emplacement are not really comparable, they have very little in common

Flame grenades are more expensive the molotovs.

Emplacements have brace and thus can avoid damage.

Something seems to be odd. Flame nades were meant to be a garrison/cover counter as they got introduced. For countering early mortar emplacements and Bofors later on OKW has a very early ATG, an AT handheld upgrade on starting squad (only partly usable vs Bofors) and ISG if going for Battlegroup HQ.

Flame grenades are meant to also counter structures and thus they come with bonus damage modifiers.

Any difference is damage probably has to do with difference in armor since bunkers are not meant to take damage from small arms fire and emplacements are.

Soviet have plenty of tools to counter bunker including Satchel and flamers.

Now I am not sure what it the point of this post.
That soviet have trouble dealing with bunkers?
That OKW can deal with emplacement too easily using grenades?
Or that allies got the sort end of the stick once more?