Relic FYI, UKF's emplacements are useless due to ISG's

Maybe Emplacements should be considered unviable? Or purely defensive?

The thing about ISGs is, unlike mortar pits, they're not as survivable and can be reclaimed by opponent troops. Mortar pits on the other hand, have lots of protection and normally dies when decrewed.

Maybe Emplacements should be considered unviable? Or purely defensive?

The thing about ISGs is, unlike mortar pits, they're not as survivable and can be reclaimed by opponent troops. Mortar pits on the other hand, have lots of protection and normally dies when decrewed.

good luck grabbing a ISG/pack howitzer when it's in the enemy base. if they had lower range (like mortars) it would be doable.

good luck grabbing a ISG/pack howitzer when it's in the enemy base. if they had lower range (like mortars) it would be doable.

Then maybe not build mortars where you can get ISGed?

IMO Mortar pit is unviable in 1v1s, In 3v3/4v4, the maps are big enough so ISG/Pack Howi's aren't sitting in the enemy base unless if their forwards base is ambitiously forwards in which you can attack the forward base with vehicles and offmap instead.

Its not like ISG/Pack Howi have arty range and can do it from the base HQ.

Maybe Emplacements should be considered unviable? Or purely defensive?

The thing about ISGs is, unlike mortar pits, they're not as survivable and can be reclaimed by opponent troops. Mortar pits on the other hand, have lots of protection and normally dies when decrewed.

if you play against moderately good player it's almost impossible to steal one unless your opponent plays like a retard.

But actually, the thing is 100 % opposite of what you say that, unlike mortar pits ISGs are absolutely survival, and almost never die, cause they are usually sitting beside medic trucks being constantly healed and repaired of required and can move away easily when counter barraged, and often protected by the flak truck which makes it not flank-able in that stage of the game
because in order to harass that position you need to first kill the flak truck and if you try to kill the flak truck with your AT gun, it dies to a few shots of ISGs too quickly and you hand in your AT gun to your opponent as well

Honesly, it's way too broken at the moment

Then maybe not build mortars where you can get ISGed?

IMO Mortar pit is unviable in 1v1s, In 3v3/4v4, the maps are big enough so ISG/Pack Howi's aren't sitting in the enemy base unless if their forwards base is ambitiously forwards in which you can attack the forward base with vehicles and offmap instead.

Its not like ISG/Pack Howi have arty range and can do it from the base HQ.

1, no one has a mortar and a small howitzer unless the mortar is in a truck.

2, on small maps (1v1) you can put something with 100 or 115 range in your base and attack the enemy.

if you play against moderately good player it's almost impossible to steal one unless your opponent plays like a retard.

But actually, the thing is 100 % opposite of what you say that, unlike mortar pits ISGs are absolutely survival, and almost never die, cause they are usually sitting beside medic trucks being constantly healed and repaired of required and can move away easily when counter barraged, and often protected by the flak truck which makes it not flank-able in that stage of the game
because in order to harass that position you need to first kill the flak truck and if you try to kill the flak truck with your AT gun, it dies to a few shots of ISGs too quickly and you hand in your AT gun to your opponent as well

Honesly, it's way too broken at the moment

Or you make a good push with combined arms which kills ISGs.

Or use a unit that can drop near ISGs and potentially steal them (hello Commandos)

And no, units do not get passive heal when under attack.

If they have a flak truck up, they're also going to build tanks soon, mortar pits shouldn't be built at that stage. And ATGs arent the only way to counter flak trucks, tanks are far better for that.

Really silly idea maybe but what about if anvil and hammer was pickable from tier 1

Same items as when it is purchased normally gamon bombs Churchill comet etc

How ever.....

Hammer gives you access to AEC Armoured car and Mobile versions of the the statics but they are maybe slightly cheaper for some and less effective
Examples being:-

All:-
They do not get a crewed bonus ability
All bar the mortar have long setup/teardown times
They can obviously all be decrewed and swiped

Mortar:-
Single mortar
Same abilities as the mortar pit without the protection
Perhaps to add flavour at Vet 2 it gets a faster firing rate in green cover only

Bofors:-
Does not get a cover bonus
May also get a limited arc (180°)
Not as Accurate
Very Slow moving

17pdr
Gets cover bonus from the front
Slow to rotate
Less Range
Does not get piercing
Very slow moving


Anvil gives you access to Bofors emplacement and current emplacements with some cost changes.

All:-
Increase durability or reduce bracing
Increase the chance of decrew from flame weapons*
While decrewed reduce durability*

*This will allow a quicker decrew so that the emplacement isn't on a baw hair of health so that it gives the UKF a chance to recrew or OKW/OST to steal, how ever while not crewed reduce the durability allowing it to be destroyed by small arms reasonably quickly.

Mortar:-
Re-add different shells again with timed munition cost

Bofors:-
Seems fine at the moment maybe reduce the accuracy a tad more with vet bringing it up to what it is currently

17pdr:-
Allow Permanent Piercing at Vet 1 (it would still need to get to vet 1 for this so you can't just plonk it behind a building from thew start)
Decrease Fuel Cost
Decrease Pop


This would seperate it more into whether you want to be more mobile or defencive and gives a little more to the whole hammer and anvil choice

The other imbalance part of it is not only ISG kills the mortar pit (and other emplacements) too quickly at ease, but the ISG is often sitting beside the medic and keeps being constantly healed, which means it's absolutely impossible to counter barrage it. (not to mention if u try repairing the mortar pit, the sappers get instant wiped)

fun fact: sappers and IS are the only units who dont get the penalty while repairing or building. just imagine how op leig and axis (even more) become when they fix that. just quit ally and join ze glourios axis.

If Brits were unplayable realistically, they would not have won any games in OCF or have a higher win ratio than both Axis factions.

They have their problems but they are in no way unplayable. I would possibly even argue they are fine but are overshadowed by how well soviets/usf are doing at the moment.

Also considering the centaur plays vs really good opponents that worked in OCF and has worked with top players vs top players, the problem of surviving that long lies with you, not the brits.

I mean for sure they are not even close to as OP as most people make it out to be, but they are a good faction that can beat both OKW and OST. If you think they are unplayable, the problem lies with you not the faction. Stop posting in balance 24/7 and try posting in state office and try to get better.

I do not need advice with them it is pretty simple atm if you can make it through early game you will be alright, but you have to do it with out using emplacements and using the wasp that was heavily nerfed, a 6 pounder and centuar rush. Problem is the bleed of IS early game, later they pay off when vetted but you pretty much have to rush centuar every game to have a chance. There is no doubt some late game things will need balanced like tulips needing a cost increase or higher cd etc. comet I feel is in a good place stats wise very comparable to panther but may need teching adjusted a bit to match its field time.

For the vast majority it is incredibly hard to make it to the late game with out be over numbered and bleed to death especially because of ost snipers and Lieg that everyone knows it not alright atm. Then late game needs obviously adjustments first like toning down the centuar then balance the rest later.

So yeah I should probably of not said unplayable. atm its the fact that because they cant really use there emplacements it is extremely hard for them to reach the late game. it greatly narrows there options and takes away any indirect fire to counter the lieg, mgs, and there own static positions.

I'd disagree and say emplacements should be unviable in 1v1s esp since 1v1 in coh2 is all about fluid rather than static play.

A high level of play is what competitive players aim for and to improve their skills. I know I still have work to do in that regard.

If Brits are viable in OCF as Aimstrong has emphasised through his wins against top players consistently without using emplacements, then I don't see too much problem in the way UKF is UP in 1v1, you just can't play them like you would Soviets or USF

you pretty much have to rush centuar every game to have a chance.

No

For the vast majority it is incredibly hard to make it to the late game with out be over numbered and bleed to death

No, can be difficult yes but not incredibly hard


You have pretty much no games at all as axis and barely any as UKF either, go play and practice more. I mean honestly your problem here is lack of playing, just play the game. I don't want to be a dick but honestly complaining like this without barely playing the game is just stupid.

I do not need advice with them

You clearly do, if anything you should be asking for advice rather than playing a few games and instantly coming to the balance forums. Brits are performing pretty well but yeah have their problems, but your attitude of just blaming the game without fully learning the faction is just pointless.

Why do people even want emplacements balanced? Lets say they buff emplacements to soak up a lot of damage and are pretty strong.

What has the game gained? A unit that pretty much requires no micro and you can just afk and leave it there and it will be wiping all over the place. It's boring and just brain dead to use and boring to play against.

Look at Leigs and Howitzers, just generally not fun to play against and require little to no micro and people want more of stuff like this?

Look at Leigs and Howitzers, just generally not fun to play against and require little to no micro and people want more of stuff like this?

People will allways want something that grants them victories against better opponents. So if you can lock an area with no trubble at all, why not doing it? If there is an easy way to win, why not pick that way?

Why do people even want emplacements balanced?

Oh, I don't know?
Because they are part of the faction, they are a stock option and they should be valid as any other unit in game?

How stupid question is that in the first place?

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it should not be valid choice, if devs listened to players like you, gren LMG would be purely visual upgrade.

Very simple, Brits should also have combined arms like other faction. A part of combined arms is basic indirect fire, which brits don't have at the moment.

Oh, I don't know?
Because they are part of the faction, they are a stock option and they should be valid as any other unit in game?

How stupid question is that in the first place?

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it should not be valid choice, if devs listened to players like you, gren LMG would be purely visual upgrade.

Yeah because that question had no follow up in my post which without is pretty much taken out of context. It's a unit that AFK kills simple as, Leigs and Howitzers have caused enough problems. Saying hollow arguments like 'stock' and 'all units should be valid' while you have a point, still dosn't actually answer the real question of why people want an AFK unit that kills without micro a valid and strong part of the meta?

And lets be honest, if the devs listened to you, the game would consist of a button for allies that just auto wins. I mean you even defended Partisans when they got completely overbuffed, even trying to discuss anything with you turns into you just ignoring most valid points and just looking for something which you can come back to.

You cry constantly about USF and SU being weak, then now when they are in really good spots and both axis factions are doing poorly, instead of ever talking about Axis short comings its straight onto just wanting Brits to be pulled up. But sure, you already know you're Allied bias, fair enough, I will happily admit my favorite faction is USF but you go beyond being bias, you're just an idiot, argue like one and several times when pointed out in your stupidity and hypocrisy, you just never come back to that thread.

I know I am completely off topic now but you are just a complete asshole in pretty much every reply you make, it's not even the bias that annoys me but how you can't even reply without being a complete dick.

Yeah because that question had no follow up in my post which without is pretty much taken out of context. It's a unit that AFK kills simple as, Leigs and Howitzers have caused enough problems. Saying hollow arguments like 'stock' and 'all units should be valid' while you have a point, still dosn't actually answer the real question of why people want an AFK unit that kills without micro a valid and strong part of the meta?

And lets be honest, if the devs listened to you, the game would consist of a button for allies that just auto wins. I mean you even defended Partisans when they got completely overbuffed, even trying to discuss anything with you turns into you just ignoring most valid points and just looking for something which you can come back to.

You cry constantly about USF and SU being weak, then now when they are in really good spots and both axis factions are doing poorly, instead of ever talking about Axis short comings its straight onto just wanting Brits to be pulled up. But sure, you already know you're Allied bias, fair enough, I will happily admit my favorite faction is USF but you go beyond being bias, you're just an idiot, argue like one and several times when pointed out in your stupidity and hypocrisy, you just never come back to that thread.

I know I am completely off topic now but you are just a complete asshole in pretty much every reply you make, it's not even the bias that annoys me but how you can't even reply without being a complete dick.

katitof is one of the most objective forum member i know.
back to topic: they need buffs, big ones. brits have so weak early game they need to be able to secure a sector.

Because these are emplacements.

Do you expect them to move around the field?
They are defensive structures, they are meant to operate effectively in the given area and they should do that.

That goes for all emplacements, OKW one included.
In addition, if you're so objective yourself, why don't you cry about flak truck of OKW being one of these overpowered things that should be trashed mercilessly by single, cheap allies unit in a matter of 30 seconds? That should only be fair by your very own standards.

Again, just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it should be invalid choice.

You're out of arguments and are trying to pull bias card, which I find hilarious as you're dictionary example of bias in this thread.
You say I'm crying that USF and SU are weak, please, go ahead and PM me some quotes instead of going for this straw man argument.

If you think axis are doing bad atm, so GTFO from UKF underpowered units focused thread and make one about what you find in axis instead of going full retard apologist on OP axis stuff and using that as excuse to keep up allies stuff up.

Faction choice is not your fucking wife, so stop acting like some religious zealot terrified of the sole thought of cheating on your beloved one.

No, emplacements shouldn't be viable in 1v1s. No-one wants static play in 1v1s. No-one wants sim city being viable in 1v1. Otherwise, that would lead to static, boring gameplay.

I have no problem with them being viable in 3v3-4v4s. ISGs won't be sitting near places where you put mortar pits or emplacements.

Emplacements are fine as they are, there are many ways to deal with advanced ISGs/Advanced bases if thats a problem. ISG's are supposed to be the hard counter to emplacements anyway...

Why do people even want emplacements balanced? Lets say they buff emplacements to soak up a lot of damage and are pretty strong.

What has the game gained? A unit that pretty much requires no micro and you can just afk and leave it there and it will be wiping all over the place. It's boring and just brain dead to use and boring to play against.

Look at Leigs and Howitzers, just generally not fun to play against and require little to no micro and people want more of stuff like this?

No - actually I would rather remove the fixed emplacements (certainly in the case of the mortar team) and replace them with a standard squad that *can* be dig in through some mechanism, gaining durability at the expense of mobility - but (crucially) can be reversed so they can become mobile again.
The Bofors could work the same way (similar to an AT gun it has to be carried into place and then dug in) with only the 17-pounder being fixed.

Ideally you want something that retains the flavour of the faction and the defensive structures, but without the requirement to go for "sim cities". Having said that CoH2 is a lot better in this regard than CoH was. But if Brits don't have a way of getting indirect fire without building an emplacement, what do you expect?