Heavy Assault Guns vs Fortifications

OP, let's put it this way: it would only make sense to have assault guns in the game work like real life assault guns if the fortifications in the game worked like real life fortifications.

OP, let's put it this way: it would only make sense to have assault guns in the game work like real life assault guns if the fortifications in the game worked like real life fortifications.

I do not see any validity in that argument. Tanks in game do not work like tanks in real life, neither do the ATGs. Yet ATGs in game have the same role as ATGs in real life and the still work fine in game...

I do not see any validity in that argument. Tanks in game do not work like tanks in real life, neither do the ATGs. Yet ATGs in game have the same role as ATGs in real life and the still work fine in game...

Actually, they don't.

IRL AT Guns could also be used to an extend(based on position and circumstances) vs infantry, using both HE and canister rounds, which are not represented in game at all.

Hell, even soviet 45mm AT gun had AI specific munition. The gun was also extremely easy to conceal, which is impossible in coh2.

Obviously you don't see validity in his(or anyone else) argument, you're fixated on your own to the point where you don't see anything else, you're completely blind and deaf to the argument that basic AT gun or PTRS rifle is as much of a fortification destroyer as ISU-152, because they both kill bunkers effectively.

Are shrecks, piats and PTRS rifles assault guns?
Because most certainly they are designed to kill fortifications, emplacements and bunkers in coh2.

Dear Katitof

Before posting in this thread pls acknowledge the fact that you where mistaken in claiming that assault guns and fortification do not exist in COH2.
Before you do that, there is little or no reason in debating with you in a thread about things that according to you do not exist in the game...
Once you do that I will be happy to discuss other related issues with you.

IRL AT Guns could also be used to an extend(based on position and circumstances) vs infantry, using both HE and canister rounds, which are not represented in game at all.

Although irrelevant once more you have been proven to be wrong.
Zis has a barrage ability that use H.E. round instead of A.P thus claiming they "are not represented in game at all" is another mistake from you part (but who is counting).

You're definitely rank #1 at grasping at straws and utter denial you know

If this game had pillboxes and other stronger emplacements and realistic destruction physics, then yes, assault guns would be used against them to destroy/weaken them before attacking with infantry

But this game isn't designed like that, how hard is it to understand? This game isn't supposed to be a campfest behind emplacements, it's ment to be fun and have action

I do not see any validity in that argument. Tanks in game do not work like tanks in real life, neither do the ATGs. Yet ATGs in game have the same role as ATGs in real life and the still work fine in game...

AT guns work fundamentally different in the game from how they worked in real life ... pretty sure IRL you didn't have PAK-40s being raced around by as few as two people. In the game they have way more offensive use than would have been possible IRL. For them to have the same role they should all be able to dig in and camo, and it should be very hard to move them. I don't see you asking for all AT guns to have a static, dug in option, or insisting they have less mobility.

- edit -

You know? Fine - let's give assault guns a special role against fortifications, and then let's give fortifications the role they had in real life. Let's make them magnitudes harder to destroy, but make them take like 10 minutes in game to build. Then, when that wrecks balance, we'll re-balance everything else, but only in an historically authentic way, of course.

dear myself, i dont have the real numbers but it seems like arve, brumbar and sturmtiger, isu 152 can probly 2 shot anyting that you call fortication. and yet you feel it sould do a beter job at it, do you sugest it sould 1 shot a gun emplacement? and 2 shot any building in the game or atleast clear out any units that are in them with 1 blast?.

as far as i read you post you have come with noting concreat about what you think sould be done. im just reading tru this and with almost every replay you make to other ppl it feels you get more stupid and ignorant

my 2 cents

Although irrelevant once more you have been proven to be wrong.
Zis has a barrage ability that use H.E. round instead of A.P thus claiming they "are not represented in game at all" is another mistake from you part (but who is counting).

Truth is, that is a barrage ability only for that anti-tank gun. However, that simple ability with the Zis does not represent the five other anti-tank guns which are also capable of using HE shells, with the exception of the Raketenwerfer.

Other than the barrage ability, anti-tank guns in this game only use AP shells cause if they had HE shells as well, they would be more likely to kill a model rather than miss and hit the dirt almost all the time.

So Katitof has been able to make his point that this game does not throw in the stuff from real life, because if it did. You would definitely see a Panther break down in the middle of combat.

Besides, the only thing close to a fortification is a ditch in the ground with an MG called a bunker. The British on the other hand is basically a support weapon surrounded by sandbags. Now if you want a real legit fortification, Poznan Citadel would be that fortification. Everything else would deemed as a defensive position specializing in a certain anti-unit role.

My dear Katitof

When will you realize that insulting other does not actually promotes you arguments?

...
This game isn't supposed to be a campfest behind emplacements, it's ment to be fun and have action

Did I ever claim it should be? RELIC use the term fortifications and so do I. If the 3 first pages of this thread has not convince you that they exist in COH2 fine, your objection is noted.
But if that is the case pls stay out of this thread, this thread for the people who actually thing that they do exist.

AT guns work fundamentally different in the game from how they worked in real life ...

Glad that you agree with me. (Read my reply more carefully)

dear myself, i dont have the real numbers but it seems like arve, brumbar and sturmtiger, isu 152 can probly 2 shot anyting that you call fortication.

Dear griezell
A brumbar needs at least 5 shots (according to numbers) to kill mortar emplacement or 7 if that emplacement is vet 3 (probably by the time a Brum is out). That is hardly 2 shots... My suggestion would be allot easier to find if some people did not troll that much...they can be found though on page 3...

Truth is, that is a barrage ability only for that anti-tank gun.

And thus Katitof is wrong in writing "are not represented in game at all" as you have pointed out they are represented in at least one.

GUYS PLS stop trying to insult me and if in your opinion either assault guns of fortifications do not exist, note your objection and stay out of thread.

@any admin I am trying really hard to avoid responding to insults with insults and trolling with trolling.
I also feel that I should not have to spent most of time in semiotics in balance thread.

Can you pls advice some of the people in this thread that their approach is not constructive?

@any admin I am trying really hard to avoid responding to insults with insults and trolling with trolling.
I also feel that I should not to spent most time in semiotics in balance thread.

Can you pls advice some of the people in this thread that their approach is not constructive?

I am not insulting you at all. I am merely pointing out a flaw in your reasoning. An understandable trait to any human being. Yet, you accuse me of insulting you when I was trying to elaborate that real life facts can be hardly be useful in this game and that it would be difficult to implement for a competitive point of view.

I am not insulting you at all.

Do you see you name anywhere in that quote? is there any point in there where I claim that you Kamzil118 have insulted me?PLS read more carefully before responding.
If you read the other response you will find characterizations like:
"completely blind and deaf, utter denial, stupid and ignorant," when the debate is not about me but about a suggestion I have made.

Do you see you name anywhere in that quote? is there any point in there where I claim that you Kamzil118 have insulted me? This is second time you respond without comprehending first and that slowdown the progress allot so once more PLS read more carefully before responding.

I did, you mentioned me and three others. Then you started off with GUYS in the last paragraph, so that suggests that you were referring to me and the three others who you quoted and said that we were insulting you.

... so that suggests that you were referring to me...

My Apologies if you feel that I wrongly accused you of insulting me, you have not used any diminutive characterization toward me. Have to point out though that you have quoted a different reply... If we could only get back to topic...

My Apologies if you feel that I wrongly accused you of insulting me, you have not used any diminutive characterization toward me. Have to point out though that you have quoted a different reply... If we could only get back to topic...

It is fine. It's good to hear that you've addressed that issue.

Heavy assault guns like: SturmTiger, ISU-152, KV-2 indirect, Brumbar, Dozer AVRE, should be better at dealing with Fortification like UKF emplacements, 88s, bunkers, flaks, trucks...

All of these units work fine against emplacements, brumm and dozer are really in accurate tho, ST chips nice hp, AVRE one shots a Pak43

SturmTiger especially does very little damage even to a Bofors if it is braced (around like 20%), and due to long time before firing one has plenty of time to use brace.

That's a problem with brace, not assault guns

Lets see what Relic has to say about the subject:

In game AVRE description:
"Churchill AVRE this special designed and protected Churchill AVRE (Armored Vehicle Royal Engineers) is equipped with a massive 290 Petard mortar that fires 40 lb (Flying Dustbin) capable of levering fortification or smashing troop concentrations."

So according to Relic there are fortification in game...

In game description Brumbar
SturmPanzer Brummbar known by its nickname "brummbar", this heavy assault gun has a 15cm howitzer in an armored casemate. It brings its gun into close range and smashes the enemy with 40kg
shells.

So according to Relic heavy assault gun exist and Brumbar is one of them.

Can we move on to something more constructive now pls...

This is a "valid" argument

What does the avre text say?

"effective vs infantry and buildings"

What does AVRE do?

Wipe infantry and clears buildings.

But this isn't a valid argument? These are about the same thing, as you said "What Relic Says", and from unit description. But AVRE one shots Pak43, Bunkers, Flak Emplacements etc, so it does what it's supposed to, as you quoted

No logic

So let me here your opinion on the prerequisite of actually debating this issue:
1)Do fortifications exist in COH2?
2)Do Assault Guns exist in COH2?
3)Is the part of design intent of assault Guns to destroy buildings and fortifications?

1)Yes
2)Yes
3)Yes, and they do it fine, the only problem is Brace (this ability is not op)

Now that we cleared things up a bit, we can move to a more interesting part, which is how to buff A.G. against structures without upsetting balance.

One could add some damage modifier similar to Avre against structures.

One could also make it veterancy related:

for instance Brumbar vet 1 ability "Bunker Busting Barrage" could have damage bonus or even bypass some of the "brace" damage reduction. For instance instead of 75% damage reduction the reduction could be lower down to 50%.
A similar change could be made to the Sturm Tiger (S.T.) also by adding similar affect in vet 1 since the vet 1 S.T. is quiet useless.

Similar change could be made to other assault guns like the Dozer, Kv-2 indirect, ISU-152 giving some anti-structure barrage abilities (where not available) or some structure damage modifiers with veterancy.

Assault guns work great against structures right now, flats houses with a few shots (depending on the material and size of the house), bunkers and flak emplacements for example also get shredded, nothing wrong there.

The thing about making these kind of units be more powerful against structures would force them to be nerfed against infantry overall, so they wouldn't just shred all the emplacements and infantry in seconds, simple balance stuff.

Also need to add

The thing about making these kind of units be more powerful against structures would force them to be nerfed against infantry overall, so they wouldn't just shred all the emplacements and infantry in seconds, simple balance stuff.

Imo it is not "simple balance stuff"...Many of these units like KV-2, Brumbar, Dozer are hardly cost efficient and adding utility to them would not make them OP it would simply make more commonly used.

Most of these units also have a rather low ROF so they can not actually "shred" infantry. They are also rather bad against moving targets including moving infantries.

On the other hand allot of these units can be hard countered by tanks, so I see now reason why buffing their performance vs structures will upset balance in anyway...

Your opinion that fortification do not exist in COH2 is noted...no reason to go back to it again...