the cure for cancer (aka emplacement)

But the OST bunker is available at T0 and buildable by grens/engis. Cost is 150mp+60muni. Bofors is 280mp+30fuel. Mortar is 400. There's a pretty big cost difference comparing the two. One is a sidetech and the fuel cost delays vehicles. The other one is great for holding defensive positions while still teching normally.

Whoever made the comment about the bunkers dying to 3 AT guns and 5 mortar shots, how often do you see a mortar perfectly land 5 shells on your bunker? How often does an AT gun get vision to shoot at the bunkers? One costs pop and one does not. If you push those units early to destroy that bunker, what if you lose those units to their infantry? It's the same thing when you use a pak40, mortar to destroy a bofors and you end up losing your support weapon.

Whoever made the comment on removing vicker's becaue of bofors... bofors does not suppress unless you use it's ability (which requires HQ or a unit in it. How about I require MGs to activate their suppression with a 5-6 second delay. I'm sure many people would be unhappy with their renovated mgs.

Really ?
How much bias did you eat this morning bunkers is equal to emplacements ok give it 1000 hp 360 brace arty a doctrine dat make it op etc.

Compare how many units building bofors and pit unlocks compared to med truck and schwerer.

Last time I've checked, bofors couldn't shit out a cromwell.

just calculate Bofors and pit vs 3isg and a med you see the problem?

But the OST bunker is available at T0 and buildable by grens/engis. Cost is 150mp+60muni. Bofors is 280mp+30fuel. Mortar is 400. There's a pretty big cost difference comparing the two. One is a sidetech and the fuel cost delays vehicles. The other one is great for holding defensive positions while still teching normally.

Whoever made the comment about the bunkers dying to 3 AT guns and 5 mortar shots, how often do you see a mortar perfectly land 5 shells on your bunker? How often does an AT gun get vision to shoot at the bunkers? One costs pop and one does not. If you push those units early to destroy that bunker, what if you lose those units to their infantry? It's the same thing when you use a pak40, mortar to destroy a bofors and you end up losing your support weapon.

Whoever made the comment on removing vicker's becaue of bofors... bofors does not suppress unless you use it's ability (which requires HQ or a unit in it. How about I require MGs to activate their suppression with a 5-6 second delay. I'm sure many people would be unhappy with their renovated mgs.

But MGed bunkers are nothing more but an annoyance. You run into it once, get mad, come back a bit later and sweep it off the field. Hell you can even toss piat rounds at it from over a shotblocker/out of vision and kill it pretty fast. AEC rapes it, anything rapes it besides infantry running head on into it.

I see from your playercard you basically only play 4v4s, which I have no experience of, but in 1s and 2s bunkers are rarely an issue to deal with. 4v4 is an epic random shitfest anyway and I'd imagine there are bigger things to be worried about than bunkers, like 13 minute KTs...

Ah yes, this argument.
"Caliope/Maxim/emplacement commander are used every single time because the rest of the faction/commanders suck and certainly not for being OP".

We have dismissed that claim.

Royal Artillery is good? Royal Engineer is good? Tactical Support is good? Honestly, British Forces have only three decent commanders: Advanced Emplacement, Mobile Assault and Vanguard.

Anvil is terrible, thats why you only see Hammer nowadays. Bugs and overnerfs killed it.

They threw waaaay too many nerfs on Commandos, Churchills (and its variants) and on skills. Sexton and Valentine, two units in the same doctrine are the definition of worst unit in the game.

just calculate Bofors and pit vs 3isg and a med you see the problem?

OK.
[math]
400mp pit+100/15+280/30 bofors (18 popcap) vs 3x(no idea why you want 3 when 2 are enough, but whatever) 330mp and 200/40 as the first truck is basically free due to starting fuel and bonus menpower.

We have here 780mp and 45 fuel vs, 990mp(which again, I don't know why you insist so hard on 3 ISGs) and 200/40 med truck, but med truck is a tech building and NOT a side cost expansion, so I either need to subtract its cost completely from the comparison or add UKF T2 cost.

Lets ignore mandatory tech cost as neither med truck nor UKF T2 are optional and we'll see them every single game regardless of choices.

As shown by the supply drops, 50 fuel is worth pretty much 200 menpower so 45 will be 180mp.

This leaves us at 780/45 vs 990, which translates to 960 vs 990 mp and that 990 mp is pretty much guaranteed to hardcounter brit investment.

Now, I could recalculate everything with inclusion of tech structures AND UKF engineers(because you can't build emplacements without engies unless you go for one specific doctrine).

Either way, whether you like it or not, brits emplacements will be cleared and OKW will have considerable indirect fire force for the rest of the game. Investment in infantry force will be similar.
[/math]

Conclusion:
You've hardcountered emplacements without investing more then brit had invested in the emplacements.
The only arguable thing left is pop cap comparison, but you'll have 3 mobile light arty pieces and brit will have nothing after that.
Happy now?

Not saying emplacements are healthy or not or discussing their balance, just saying you're wrong.

OK.
[math]
400mp pit+100/15+280/30 bofors (18 popcap) vs 3x(no idea why you want 3 when 2 are enough, but whatever) 330mp and 200/40 as the first truck is basically free due to starting fuel and bonus menpower.

We have here 780mp and 45 fuel vs, 990mp(which again, I don't know why you insist so hard on 3 ISGs) and 200/40 med truck, but med truck is a tech building and NOT a side cost expansion, so I either need to subtract its cost completely from the comparison or add UKF T2 cost.

Lets ignore mandatory tech cost as neither med truck nor UKF T2 are optional and we'll see them every single game regardless of choices.

As shown by the supply drops, 50 fuel is worth pretty much 200 menpower so 45 will be 180mp.

This leaves us at 780/45 vs 990, which translates to 960 vs 990 mp and that 990 mp is pretty much guaranteed to hardcounter brit investment.

Now, I could recalculate everything with inclusion of tech structures AND UKF engineers(because you can't build emplacements without engies unless you go for one specific doctrine).

Either way, whether you like it or not, brits emplacements will be cleared and OKW will have considerable indirect fire force for the rest of the game. Investment in infantry force will be similar.
[/math]

Conclusion:
You've hardcountered emplacements without investing more then brit had invested in the emplacements.
The only arguable thing left is pop cap comparison, but you'll have 3 mobile light arty pieces and brit will have nothing after that.
Happy now?

Not saying emplacements are healthy or not or discussing their balance, just saying you're wrong.

Not what i meant is dat with the cancer commander the isg is not such a hard counter for the same cost
(Ty didn't know conversion fuel to mp)
And without flack HQ you can rush the isg

OK.
[math]
400mp pit+100/15+280/30 bofors (18 popcap) vs 3x(no idea why you want 3 when 2 are enough, but whatever) 330mp and 200/40 as the first truck is basically free due to starting fuel and bonus menpower.

We have here 780mp and 45 fuel vs, 990mp(which again, I don't know why you insist so hard on 3 ISGs) and 200/40 med truck, but med truck is a tech building and NOT a side cost expansion, so I either need to subtract its cost completely from the comparison or add UKF T2 cost.

Lets ignore mandatory tech cost as neither med truck nor UKF T2 are optional and we'll see them every single game regardless of choices.

As shown by the supply drops, 50 fuel is worth pretty much 200 menpower so 45 will be 180mp.

This leaves us at 780/45 vs 990, which translates to 960 vs 990 mp and that 990 mp is pretty much guaranteed to hardcounter brit investment.

Now, I could recalculate everything with inclusion of tech structures AND UKF engineers(because you can't build emplacements without engies unless you go for one specific doctrine).

Either way, whether you like it or not, brits emplacements will be cleared and OKW will have considerable indirect fire force for the rest of the game. Investment in infantry force will be similar.
[/math]

Conclusion:
You've hardcountered emplacements without investing more then brit had invested in the emplacements.
The only arguable thing left is pop cap comparison, but you'll have 3 mobile light arty pieces and brit will have nothing after that.
Happy now?

Not saying emplacements are healthy or not or discussing their balance, just saying you're wrong.

Only thing is it doesn't counter the emplacements on maps where counter battery is in range and will bleed the OKW like a pig to keep the ISGs manned.

Emplacements without an emplacement supportive commander are not strong (though a lone mortar pit has its uses) but advanced emplacements really changes things.

Royal Artillery is good? Royal Engineer is good? Tactical Support is good? Honestly, British Forces have only three decent commanders: Advanced Emplacement, Mobile Assault and Vanguard.

Anvil is terrible, thats why you only see Hammer nowadays. Bugs and overnerfs killed it.

They threw waaaay too many nerfs on Commandos, Churchills (and its variants) and on skills. Sexton and Valentine, two units in the same doctrine are the definition of worst unit in the game.

Dear Doggo,

You misunderstood the post i made (as per expectations).

Advanced emplacements and mobile assault being used all the time is because they are OP.
Other commanders are decent but are completly outshone by aformentioned commanders.

It's rifle company all over again.

And as for riflecompany, there is no reason to keep the commanders like that.

As for the rest of your post, about half of it doesn't apply to our little discussion whereas the rest of the things you listed as being "overnerfed" were overperfoming units.
They deserved what they got.

Whoever made the comment on removing vicker's becaue of bofors... bofors does not suppress unless you use it's ability (which requires HQ or a unit in it. How about I require MGs to activate their suppression with a 5-6 second delay. I'm sure many people would be unhappy with their renovated mgs.

Sarcasm. Learn it.

Dear Doggo,

You misunderstood the post i made (as per expectations).

Advanced emplacements and mobile assault being used all the time is because they are OP.
Other commanders are decent but are completly outshone by aformentioned commanders.

It's rifle company all over again.

And as for riflecompany, there is no reason to keep the commanders like that.

As for the rest of your post, about half of it doesn't apply to our little discussion whereas the rest of the things you listed as being "overnerfed" were overperfoming units.
They deserved what they got.

Then there is no such thing as a bad commander.

Then there is no such thing as a bad commander.

Irrelevant and not at all what my point was about.

But what else to expect from you? Certainly not a well thought-out and on subject post regarding something that should be nerfed on brtish side.

There is no cure for terminal cancer.

Only thing is it doesn't counter the emplacements on maps where counter battery is in range and will bleed the OKW like a pig to keep the ISGs manned.

Emplacements without an emplacement supportive commander are not strong (though a lone mortar pit has its uses) but advanced emplacements really changes things.

Isnt counter battery 8cp? Gives you a bit of time to dig them out. Also I agree the new commander is awful to play against and frankly no fun to play with- build defences, toggle counter battery, make sandwich

Never are the defensive commanders used by OST and OKW. Not fun to play against but you find lots of people digging in.

Isnt counter battery 8cp? Gives you a bit of time to dig them out. Also I agree the new commander is awful to play against and frankly no fun to play with- build defences, toggle counter battery, make sandwich

4cps lol. If it were 8 cps the strat wouldn't work!

OK.
[math]
400mp pit+100/15+280/30 bofors (18 popcap) vs 3x(no idea why you want 3 when 2 are enough, but whatever) 330mp and 200/40 as the first truck is basically free due to starting fuel and bonus menpower.

We have here 780mp and 45 fuel vs, 990mp(which again, I don't know why you insist so hard on 3 ISGs) and 200/40 med truck, but med truck is a tech building and NOT a side cost expansion, so I either need to subtract its cost completely from the comparison or add UKF T2 cost.

Lets ignore mandatory tech cost as neither med truck nor UKF T2 are optional and we'll see them every single game regardless of choices.

As shown by the supply drops, 50 fuel is worth pretty much 200 menpower so 45 will be 180mp.

This leaves us at 780/45 vs 990, which translates to 960 vs 990 mp and that 990 mp is pretty much guaranteed to hardcounter brit investment.

Now, I could recalculate everything with inclusion of tech structures AND UKF engineers(because you can't build emplacements without engies unless you go for one specific doctrine).

Either way, whether you like it or not, brits emplacements will be cleared and OKW will have considerable indirect fire force for the rest of the game. Investment in infantry force will be similar.
[/math]

Conclusion:
You've hardcountered emplacements without investing more then brit had invested in the emplacements.
The only arguable thing left is pop cap comparison, but you'll have 3 mobile light arty pieces and brit will have nothing after that.
Happy now?

Not saying emplacements are healthy or not or discussing their balance, just saying you're wrong.

3 isgs don't defend themselves against infantry and light vehicles though. Otherwise good math

Thing is Bofors is usually going to get taken out by indirect fire or by tanks. 2X LeIGs usually hardcounter it well (assuming no standfast which is more cancerous than advanced emplacement upgrade). As Ostheer, currently you'll need to split up mortar teams to avoid driven off completely by the suppressive fire, but if it's removed, then there is absolutely no counterplay by the UKF. Perhaps we should also consider the relatively cheap cost of the Bofors.

Also please keep in mind one very underused trick of Ost mortars: smoke. If the Bofors is unsupported, smoke, send in flame pios on flanks or flame HT and Bofors goes down fast. If supported the Bofors could attack ground through the smoke if other units sight for it, but that requires micro.

The thing with emplacements is that everyone expects one single unit to effortlessly hardcounter them. Sure mortar HT comes close with flame shell, but it usually takes some coordination to take them out. Once outplayed, the UKF investment is now 0 so there's a number of things to keep in mind. Remember non-doctrinal UKF indirect fire is non-existent outside of the Bofors and mortar pit.

4cps lol. If it were 8 cps the strat wouldn't work!

Oh wow! Maybe pushing them back alot would help, then you NEED an army to defend ypurself instead of your base buildings doing it for you

Thing is Bofors is usually going to get taken out by indirect fire or by tanks. 2X LeIGs usually hardcounter it well (assuming no standfast which is more cancerous than advanced emplacement upgrade). As Ostheer, currently you'll need to split up mortar teams to avoid driven off completely by the suppressive fire, but if it's removed, then there is absolutely no counterplay by the UKF. Perhaps we should also consider the relatively cheap cost of the Bofors.

you don't see the problem in forcing the ostheer to get two mortars? Artillery are suppose to be a hard counter to stationary defensive. bofor shouldn't be able to fight back. Both the flak truck and mg bunker completely lack the ability to fight back against artillery.

British lack mobile artillery, yes, that's why they need an actual mortar instead of mortar emplacement.

3 isgs don't defend themselves against infantry and light vehicles though. Otherwise good math

three isgs can actually defense themselves against infantry pretty well. the long range of the ISG's auto fire is pretty potent.

even without the suppression ability, isg + flak is a pretty formidable defense. The combo would be a lot weaker if isg's auto fire range get cut down to 80 meters, but that would probably require a cost decrease as well.

British lack mobile artillery, yes, that's why they need an actual mortar instead of mortar emplacement.

The problem with doing that; is it seriously cuts into the Defensive-theme of the faction. Unless it has something odd like double-rate of fire in Cover.

What would be better, is a mobile howitzer that ties into the Royal Artillery abilities since Royal Artillery is the worst doctrine in game. No replacing units or Emplacements.