Heavy Assault Guns vs Fortifications

I miss the german cementbunker. Soviets should have something big and blocky too.

...Making them easier to kill with a Brummbar wouldn't wreck balance or anything but I do think it would hurt the diversity of the game slightly while not really improving game play.

Imo late game stock counter's to emplacements actually increase the diversity of the game. Why should someone have to chose commanders with FMHT or other doctrinal solutions to counter emplacements? Why not make units that see little action more appealing by increase utility, doesn't that increase diversity?

Because emplacements are the units here that don't see much action. Making them even easier to blow up won't make the game better.

Because emplacements are the units here that don't see much action. Making them even easier to blow up won't make the game better.

+1

Imo late game stock counter's to emplacements actually increase the diversity of the game. Why should someone have to chose commanders with FMHT or other doctrinal solutions to counter emplacements? Why not make units that see little action more appealing by increase utility, doesn't that increase diversity?

Because emplacements and static defenses by and large suck in this game. Unless you're in a 3v3/4v4 game or on a certain subset of 2v2 map like Camping in the Woods, they aren't used by most players with a modicum of skill because being immobile is an extremely bad thing in this game since it revolves a lot around mobility, and the prominence of powerful rocket artillery exacerbates the problem.

If you start buffing even more units to be good against emplacements, well you would have to buff emplacements in order to make them not utterly useless. But then you're in a rock paper scissors situation where units that are good against emplacements trounce them, and the rest are helpess. I don't want that, it wouldn't bring anything to the game. Static defenses have somewhat of a role to help shore up a defensive line, they shouldn't be more effective than that. I absolutely do not want the game to start revolving around defensive plays no matter how important they were in WW2.

Because emplacements and static defenses by and large suck in this game. Unless you're in a 3v3/4v4 game or on a certain subset of 2v2 map like Camping in the Woods, they aren't used by most players with a modicum of skill. ..

I think will have to agree to disagree:
1)If you read the guide for double UKF you will see it rallies in 2 mortars pits, so emplacements are used. Further more the are quite common in 3vs3 and 4vs4 game with engineer commander
2)Adding late game stock counters does not really make emplacements less attractive, it only makes units like Brumbar that see little action more appealing.
3)Having clear stock counters to specific units helps "combined arms"

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...

Unfortunately that is entirely irrelevant to the game, due to the fact that much more common units, despite technically being a bit lower DPS against emplacements, are not only much more commonly used, but therefore more successful.

My worst enemy when having my emplacements attacked? Mortars and AT guns. Cost less, comes earlier, moves and shoots faster, and the enemy can deploy more of them at a time.

With exception of Brumbar, the vehicles you list are all doctrinal, and many of them come in commanders that aren't versatile or common.

Personally I agree these vehicles should do a bit more damage against emplacements, all of them you listed are T4/ end game call-ins (and of course expensive), so it is not like you can just roll out a Sturmtiger the minute you see them build a Bofors.
But again, common units already fulfill that role almost to the point of redundancy.
And I agree with Lucas Troy: emplacements need to be tough to make up for the fact that they are artillery magnets and cannot move to save themselves. Every unit with long range weapons are technically suitable counters to emplacements.

Personally I agree these vehicles should do a bit more damage against emplacements, all of them you listed are T4/ end game call-ins (and of course expensive), so it is not like you can just roll out a Sturmtiger the minute you see them build a Bofors.
...

Glad to see that you agree that these units should do more damage to fortifications.
My point here is not that these unit should become the only way to counter fortifications, but that these unit should be able to take such a role in late game where are methods are harder to be used and offer a solution against fortification spamming.

Thing is, regular units already mentioned aren't having a much harder time dealing with emplacements at any stage of the game. it is not like emplacements gradually gain better sight range or increasingly more durable. AT Guns and Mortars will still threaten your flak HQ or Bofors, the real difference between early and mid/ late game is that instead of UCs transporting troops around, you have Centaurs and Comets.

My point is that even if the units you speak of become dramatically more powerful against emplacements, you have to wait pretty long into lategame to even have the option to use them.
By that time, you've either lost because you couldn't bring other units to bear, or you won because you just resorted to AT Guns and Mortars or plain old tank rush instead of spending the fuel for a niche unit that takes 13-15 CP and mad amounts of fuel and manpower to deploy.

And if you REALLY want to take out emplacements with heavy units, you don't use Sturmtiger or Jadgtiger, you use Tiger and King Tiger. KT is non-doc, Tiger is found in multiple docs, and both have turrets and respectable all-round firepower. Sturmtiger, Jadgtiger, Elefant, etc. are only marginally more useful, primarily because of range.

If there's a real problem with sim city, it's that factions like UKF are pretty much forced to utilize sim city to even play the game properly. You take out or nerf emplacements, you've got a lemon of a faction. it is not like Ostheer where you CAN camp VPs with bunkers and PaK43, you HAVE to use mortar pits because there are no other indirect fire assets besides running around with Infantry Sections upgraded to use the two howitzers at base.

...
And if you REALLY want to take out emplacements with heavy units, you don't use Sturmtiger or Jadgtiger, you use Tiger and King Tiger. KT is non-doc, Tiger is found in multiple docs, and both have turrets and respectable all-round firepower. Sturmtiger, Jadgtiger, Elefant, etc. are only marginally more useful, primarily because of range.
...

And that is exactly my point specialized units like heavy assault guns should be able to counter fortification easier than all-around "heavy tanks" like Tiger and KT

...the real difference between early and mid/ late game is that instead of UCs transporting troops around, you have Centaurs and Comets.

Other options do kick in like offmaps and rocket artillery...

By that time, you've either lost because you couldn't bring other units to bear, or you won because you just resorted to AT Guns and Mortars or plain old tank rush instead of spending the fuel for a niche unit that takes 13-15 CP and mad amounts of fuel and manpower to deploy.

That is if have chosen to attack a fortified position. If have chosen to fight elsewhere until you have better tools to deal with you can have plenty of time. Further more late game use of fortification should cause less time to counter them since the fuel cost to built them as an investment has less of an impact.

And that is exactly my point specialized units like heavy assault guns should be able to counter fortification easier than all-around "heavy tanks" like Tiger and KT.

One proble, with your OP is hat you only mention Sturmtiger in specific. I can't help but feel like you fired it onto a mortar pit, got dissatisfied with the results, and then come here complaining about it. That's not wrong per se, but it would mean your argument is far too general given the specific circumstances.
Assault Gun units in this game have superior range, that alone makes them effective. But like I said, AT Guns and Mortars have this specific advantage as well. The only thing a mortar pit, bofors or even 17 pounder can do to a Jagdtiger is keep it spotted as it fires at you or you keep plinking away at its front armour. And that's only if the enemy is foolish enough to bring it within firing range.
Question: how bad is the situation you are presenting, and exactly what solutions do you have in mind? As said, heavy vehicles have the benefit of range and, mostly, armour, so they already serve as suitable counters. You suggesting they have tremendous damage bonus against emplacements? As in one or two shots? Have you tried these units against various emplacements? A single UKF emplacement using brace isn't exactly a valid observation to apply changes across the board.

Other options do kick in like offmaps and rocket artillery...

Another reason to not bother using heavy vehicles, offmap require only munitions and sight, and artillery requires far less CP, MP and FU.

That is if have chosen to attack a fortified position. If have chosen to fight elsewhere until you have better tools to deal with you can have plenty of time. Further more late game use of fortification should cause less time to counter them since the fuel cost to built them as an investment has less of an impact.

In that case, I can still win the game without ever deploying heavy vehicles.

If heavy vehicles are so effective counters to emplacements, then UKF opponents only need to choose those specific commanders, or do nothing but blitz to T4.

Lastly, no one's going to accept the view that Sherman Dozer would perform just as well as ISU-152. Not all heavy assault vehicles should perform the same as eachother. At least AVRE and Sturmtiger have shorter range compared with ISU-152 or Jagdtiger.

I agree with other detractors: these units already perform their role suitably. The only argument you have to make them better is because Relic's text says they are. Never mind the fact that what Relic says often has little to do with practical results (Relic says this game is super awesome, is that true?), but you haven't offered any practical suggestions: are you suggesting a Sturmtiger should one-shot any emplacement, even if it has brace? Because no one, not even the most hardcore OKW fanboy, will think that's reasonable.

One proble, with your OP is hat you only mention Sturmtiger in specific...

Assault Gun units in this game have superior range, that alone makes them effective. But like I said, AT Guns and Mortars have this specific advantage as well. The only thing a mortar pit, bofors or even 17 pounder can do to a Jagdtiger is keep it spotted as it fires at you or you keep plinking away at its front armour...

Question: how bad is the situation you are presenting, and exactly what solutions do you have in mind?

Lastly, no one's going to accept the view that Sherman Dozer would perform just as well as ISU-152. Not all heavy assault vehicles should perform the same as eachother...

Actually I mention 6 units in OP...

Jagtiger is not assault gun it is heavy tank hunter...

Suggestion can be found on page 3 bottom post 59

No one suggested that Dozer and ISU-152 perform the same...

No one suggested that Sturmtiger should oneshoot braced emplacements...its damage though should not be negligible either as it currently is especially since it has a such a reload mechanism...

Since this thread has suffered enough toxicity lets all try to avoid any more and behave better when we post here...

No one suggested ...

That's kind of your problem, you've not really suggested anything as a solution. So far it's just "These units should perform a bit better against fortifications (the term only mentioned in text in the game, I presume you meant emplacements and garrisoned ambient structures?)". Maybe you should think about something a little more specific.

You mention in passing six units, but only go into specifics for one. Seeing as they are all different units warranting separate examinations, I think such an oversight is quite relevant.

That's kind of your problem, you've not really suggested anything as a solution. So far it's just "These units should perform a bit better against fortifications (the term only mentioned in text in the game, I presume you meant emplacements and garrisoned ambient structures?)". Maybe you should think about something a little more specific.

You mention in passing six units, but only go into specifics for one. Seeing as they are all different units warranting separate examinations, I think such an oversight is quite relevant.

I don't have a problem...I have explained what fortification are multiple times in the thread, Relic has explained what fortification are (ambient building are not fortification).

The units I have mention all fall under the the category of assault guns.

Since you have already posted that "Personally I agree these vehicles should do a bit more damage against emplacements,..." it seems that we agree...

I don't have a problem...

Actually your problem is becoming more apparent.

Actually your problem is becoming more apparent.

thanks for your helpful input so far, will respond to you again if and when you actually add something relevant to the subject of "Heavy assault guns vs Fortifications"...Have a nice day