AA emplacement are very good at killing retreating squads.
The weapon trucks fast, does lots of damage and has allot of range.
The problem becomes worse when someone is retreating behind the weapon, where the AA can kill squad will all members and that makes flanking movement very dangerous...
In the test I did retreating 10 5 men full health V.G. one at time the result are:
50% squad wipes, 86% entity kills
If these where 4 men squads typical of axis armies the squad wipe would be up to 90%
If these where 4 men with some damage the number would be close to 99% entity kills
Imo a full health squad should have decent chance of surviving a retreat not a 50% chance...
My suggestion would be to reduce damage vs retreating inf...
UKF AA emplacement and retreating squads
23 Dec 2015, 13:38 PM
#1
Posts: 677
23 Dec 2015, 13:52 PM
#2
Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1
I don't see why. Units like the OKW AA halftrack, T70 etc will also often kill full squads of they have to retreat around it.
23 Dec 2015, 14:07 PM
#3
Posts: 677
I don't see why. Units like the OKW AA halftrack, T70 etc will also often kill full squads of they have to retreat around it.
OKW AAHT has to be set up, T70 has to chase the retreating unit. Both unit are fragile and not durable as an AA emplacement...
Both units are not as good as AA at killing retreating infs...(AA.E. has around 3.5 times the DPS of AAHT)
23 Dec 2015, 14:07 PM
#4
Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1
About british emplacements, did I miss a change in some recent patch? Incendiary mortar HT rounds and about any flame weapon don't seem to work so good against them. In fact, even ballistic weapons seems to be less efficient. It's only my impression? Because I hear brits Up all around but in fact I met some guys who knew how to play them, not american style, not soviet style, but pure british style using emplacements (AA and mortars). And hell they were efficient.
BeefSurge wrote:
A lot of people have an image of how they want a faction to play, leading to problems. This is why you have people complaining about lack of Soviet bunkers, why T34/76 sucks, why Cons don't scale, Grens don't get normal grenades, Muricans don't get heavy tank, OKW laser weapons and Die Glock Death Bell, etc.
A lot of people have an image of how they want a faction to play, leading to problems. This is why you have people complaining about lack of Soviet bunkers, why T34/76 sucks, why Cons don't scale, Grens don't get normal grenades, Muricans don't get heavy tank, OKW laser weapons and Die Glock Death Bell, etc.
23 Dec 2015, 15:01 PM
#5
Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1
OKW AAHT has to be set up, T70 has to chase the retreating unit. Both unit are fragile and not durable as an AA emplacement...
Both units are not as good as AA at killing retreating infs...(AA.E. has around 3.5 times the DPS of AAHT)
Both units are also mobile while the AA emplacement can not move at all. If you get cut-down on retreat by an AA emplacement you have yourself and only yourself to blame.
23 Dec 2015, 15:03 PM
#6
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
What's next? S-mine field wiped my retreating squads?
23 Dec 2015, 15:04 PM
#7
Posts: 4314 | Subs: 7
Both units are also mobile while the AA emplacement can not move at all. If you get cut-down on retreat by an AA emplacement you have yourself and only yourself to blame.
23 Dec 2015, 15:04 PM
#8
Posts: 747 | Subs: 2
Getting retreating units killed by static (!) weapons is clearly a L2P issue. You just have to spend a second on the thought of the retreat path and the problem is solved.
 | Playercard of RedT3rror | |||||||||||||||
|
23 Dec 2015, 15:16 PM
#9
Posts: 677
As I explained AA emplacement shutting down retreat roots of flanking infantry adds nothing to the game while it reduced the effectiveness of flanking moves.
This is not a L2P issue read understand respond....
It simply makes the game static oriented having to rely on frontal assault or support weapons...
This is not a L2P issue read understand respond....
It simply makes the game static oriented having to rely on frontal assault or support weapons...
23 Dec 2015, 15:56 PM
#10
Posts: 455
As I explained AA emplacement shutting down retreat roots of flanking infantry adds nothing to the game while it reduced the effectiveness of flanking moves.Of course it is L2P, you should know that retreat paths have stupid logic behind it.
This is not a L2P issue read understand respond....
It simply makes the game static oriented having to rely on frontal assault or support weapons...
Did you any reason to go behind enemy lines?
Did you you recon the safest retreat path?
Did you actually think the British opponent would more likely use the Bofors over the AEC.
23 Dec 2015, 16:09 PM
#11
Posts: 955
It's not a problem with the emplacement, they should just fix the retreating system so units will be taking the safest route to the base instead of the shortest (something that should have been done on release)
"Nice. Very impressive. Now let´s see Paul Allen´s playercard."
23 Dec 2015, 16:13 PM
#12
Posts: 677
Of course it is L2P, you should know that retreat paths have stupid logic behind it.
Did you any reason to go behind enemy lines?
Did you you recon the safest retreat path?
Did you actually think the British opponent would more likely use the Bofors over the AEC.
Since this is not about a replay I uploaded or a game experience I described stop asking what I did or did not...
Flanking moves are supposed to be rewarded not penalized.
The AA emplacements have enough utility without the blocking or retreat paths at a significant area.
Choosing retreat path in certain map is not really an option.
And I still have not seen a singe argument why Bofors should be good at killing retreating infantries...
This can be easily fixed Reducing damage to units on retreat without having any other impact on the A.A.E.
23 Dec 2015, 16:22 PM
#13
Posts: 228
What's next? S-mine field wiped my retreating squads?
this +1000000000000 , you fking flaks do the same for a year and no nerfs for it.
23 Dec 2015, 16:26 PM
#14
Posts: 1890 | Subs: 1
And I still have not seen a singe argument why Bofors should be good at killing retreating infantries...
This can be easily fixed Reducing damage to units on retreat without having any other impact on the A.A.E.
Except retreating squads still get the same received accuracy buff while retreating against Bofors like they do against any other unit. Why should Bofors receive a special snowflake nerf? - Its good against infantry thats its whole schtick. You plop it down and it kills infantry. Unless you are arguing that Bofors is too good in general then the whole "retreating squads" distinction is pointless.
If you let a player place a Bofors on a retreat path then you should prioritize clearing it out and avoiding retreating squads that follow that path until then. Nerfing Bofors against retreating infantry should in no way factor into that. (You shouldn't be attacking an unBraced Bofors with Infantry anyway).
23 Dec 2015, 16:28 PM
#15
Posts: 449
You have the wrong expectation about what the retreat button is for. It's not meant to guarantee the survival of your squads in any way. It's just a tool to GTFO fast in any way possible. Other players are free to exploit the retreat paths in every way possible.
You can either accept that and move on, or you can make more silly threads for our entertainment.
You can either accept that and move on, or you can make more silly threads for our entertainment.
23 Dec 2015, 16:46 PM
#16
Posts: 1617
23 Dec 2015, 18:15 PM
#17
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
snip
Flanking moves are supposed to be a risk vs reward move. If you plan on doing it, you should know what retreat path your unit is gonna take if things go south.
You can always know the retreat path a unit is gonna take. There's a reason vault exist, for cases in which you are better soft retreating early to avoid a stupid long retreat path.
You have the wrong expectation about what the retreat button is for. It's not meant to guarantee the survival of your squads in any way. It's just a tool to GTFO fast in any way possible. Other players are free to exploit the retreat paths in every way possible.
You can either accept that and move on, or you can make more silly threads for our entertainment.
My controls weren't working
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
23 Dec 2015, 18:19 PM
#18
Posts: 2561
OKW Flak HQs have been doing this long before UKF Bofors existed.
There is no problem here. It's up to plyers to be aware of their retreat paths.
There is no problem here. It's up to plyers to be aware of their retreat paths.
23 Dec 2015, 18:34 PM
#19
Posts: 455
Forgive me for asking those questions since I believe it was based off of experience.
Since this is not about a replay I uploaded or a game experience I described stop asking what I did or did not...
Flanking moves are supposed to be rewarded not penalized.
The AA emplacements have enough utility without the blocking or retreat paths at a significant area.
Choosing retreat path in certain map is not really an option.
And I still have not seen a singe argument why Bofors should be good at killing retreating infantries...
This can be easily fixed Reducing damage to units on retreat without having any other impact on the A.A.E.
I know that the Bofors is good at what it does, but so does the tech building for the OKW. Last time I remembered, it had a reputation of protecting ISGs from flanking light vehicles and halting allied infantry in their tracks.
So in other words, I don't see why a allied static building with a quick rapid anti-aircraft gun should get criticized if the OKW tech building does the same.
23 Dec 2015, 18:48 PM
#20
Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1
Flanking moves are supposed to be rewarded not penalized.
Good flanking moves are rewarded. Bad flanking moves are not rewarded. Flanking moves are not automatically good just because you did not do a frontal assault. If your flank put you in a position where you had to retreat past a static AA position, it was a bad flank.
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
10 | ||
|
|
|
|
0 | ||
 |
|
|
185 | ||
|
|
|
|
24 | ||
 |
|
|
23 | ||
|
|
|
|
5 | ||
|
|
|
|
5 | ||
 |
|
|
4 | ||
|
|
|
|
4 | ||
|
|
|
|
3 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.600215.736+15
- 3.34957.860+14
- 4.1107614.643+8
- 5.305114.728+1
- 6.916405.693-2
- 7.273108.717+24
- 8.722440.621+4
- 9.1041674.607-2
- 10.17146.788+1
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1235
Board Info
810 users are online:
810 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
35 posts in the last month
8 posts in the last week
35 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49104
Welcome our newest member, zhcnwps
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, zhcnwps
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM