Login

russian armor

Improved Emplacements Commander

PAGES (11)down
26 Mar 2016, 15:01 PM
#101
avatar of Spinflight

Posts: 680

"The skill difference between a top 20 USF/Soviet player and a Brit player is INSANE. I have played top 10 brit players who are literally trash and rank 1000 with other factions. They are high with brit simply due to cancer doctrine. It's broken."

That's fine, and I believe you but the game isn't balanced for 2v2 and up. Emplacements are trash in 1v1. Maybe more of an eye should be cast to the multiplayer games but that isn't Relic's stated policy.

Are there any players in the Brit top 100 who touch them with a bargepole or who regularly use the emplacements commander?
26 Mar 2016, 15:16 PM
#102
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 236

Lets look at this from a different perspective. Lets say the commander itself "hypothetically" is balanced in all game modes. The point behind this is not that it's balanced, under powered or overpowered, but merely the type game the game itself turns into because of the type of units the commander focuses on.

Most players of all skill levels can agree we have always been having match ups that are fast paced high micro games. It's how everyone enjoyed playing the game and what entertained everyone whom watched the games.

I mean we could make brit emplacements the chance to be decrewed through sniping or up close and personal, not just when the emplacement is 5% health.
26 Mar 2016, 15:57 PM
#103
avatar of Waegukin

Posts: 609

Its waaaaay too potent to be a one-click wonder. I'd rather see it be dangerous on all maps, but require some sort of interaction outside of a single click. My thoughts would be a muni cost to have it counter-battery any chosen area of the map for a time, so if you preempt where the arty will fire from, you'll be rewarded for it.
26 Mar 2016, 16:04 PM
#104
avatar of Losttruppen

Posts: 63

I'm just really sick of team games these days against brits either ending as soon as we break their emplacement base, or we fail to do that and spend the rest of the game throwing units at it losing our resources while the brit player hoards his until comets/FF/churchills and let's his team do all the micro/ground work.

I really wish british emplacements/base howitzers operated the same way all other on map weapons did, requiring reinforcement, fresh crews, and being very susceptible to offmaps. (Soviets/Ostheer can't even build on map arty in their base sector but brits get it every single game without spending 600mp, waiting til 8cp, or taking any risks.) Unless you take these structures out early, they pay for themselves within minutes while the opponents suffer attrition trying to dislodge them from their increasingly fortified position.

Some maps this doctrine will get the british player no where fast and if they lose their bofors/mortars early enough will just leave which is the worst thing that can happen in a team game, while other maps they can put up their multiple buildings under support of their allies and just steamroll from there.
26 Mar 2016, 16:11 PM
#105
avatar of Theodosios
Admin Red  Badge

Posts: 1554 | Subs: 7

jump backJump back to quoted post25 Mar 2016, 17:51 PMpugzii
Since going to rank 4 in 2V2 as Axis I have played loads of different people.

The skill difference between a top 20 USF/Soviet player and a Brit player is INSANE. I have played top 10 brit players who are literally trash and rank 1000 with other factions. They are high with brit simply due to cancer doctrine. It's broken.


If you replaced "USF/Soviet player" with "Ostheer player", "a Brit player" with "an OKW player" and "top 10 brit players" with "top 10 OKW players" the specific statement would still be correct.

Advanced Emplacement Regiment might be broken in 2vs2 (and above of course) but double OKW is definitely either. We reached rank 1 without any effort (only fighting versus the discussed commander was challenging) and are already rank 2 because another double OKW team replaced us - how ironic!

Speaking of double OKW: I see you and your partner have also reached high ranks due to double OKW - how ironic.
26 Mar 2016, 16:51 PM
#106
avatar of Doggo

Posts: 148

Making Emplacements Decrewable won't work. That will make the faction fall apart, because the Emplacements are such an integral part of the faction's framework.

The only way British players will play other Commanders, is if those commanders are ACTUALLY PLAYABLE.

Most players of all skill levels can agree we have always been having match ups that are fast paced high micro games. It's how everyone enjoyed playing the game and what entertained everyone whom watched the games.


Why is this a problem exactly? Military strategy can be divided into two main functions: Offence and Defence. Before the British Empire forces were introduced; only the Offence aspect of war was present in CoH2. Now, we are able to have a Defensive play style too.

Some could argue that games have been too fast paced; far far too fast paced, usually the fault of gamebreaking OKW.

Back-and-Forth games show real skill. Theres still some balancing to do. But why would I pick Royal Artillery or Royal Engineers when Advanced Emplacement is there? Even if you outright remove the February commanders....Why would I pick any commander?

(Soviets/Ostheer can't even build on map arty in their base sector but brits get it every single game without spending 600mp, waiting til 8cp, or taking any risks.)


You can't compare them. The Base Howitzers are difficult to call in and are anti-synergistic with the Cover bonuses Tommies get. They can't kill anything, even squad members and they don't provide suppression.
26 Mar 2016, 17:30 PM
#107
avatar of SupremeStefan

Posts: 1220

i dont get it why brits have better mortars than axis this is bullshit in my opinion all alied factions needs indirect fire like USF because its hard to blob as OKW when brits use this cancer emplacments >:(
26 Mar 2016, 17:37 PM
#108
avatar of SahinK

Posts: 23

Stopped playing Axis just because of it...
26 Mar 2016, 17:44 PM
#109
avatar of G4bb4_G4nd4lf
Donator 33

Posts: 658

Whether it's OP or not is irrelevant IMHO.

If you win against it you had a BG, if you lose you had a BG.

Either way, that commander (and emplacements in general) provide nothing but cancerous, boring gameplay.
26 Mar 2016, 17:50 PM
#110
avatar of Doggo

Posts: 148

i dont get it why brits have better mortars than axis this is bullshit in my opinion all alied factions needs indirect fire like USF because its hard to blob as OKW when brits use this cancer emplacments >:(


What reason should Axis have better Mortars for?

Either way, that commander (and emplacements in general) provide nothing but cancerous, boring gameplay.


Doesn't reducing the game to only one playstyle provide boring gameplay? Symmetrical gameplay provides little tactical variety (and indirectly is a massive buff to OKW). This is why the X4 genre is much more tactical and strategical than the RTS genre.
26 Mar 2016, 18:23 PM
#111
avatar of Domine

Posts: 500

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Mar 2016, 16:51 PMDoggo
Why is this a problem exactly? Military strategy can be divided into two main functions: Offence and Defence. Before the British Empire forces were introduced; only the Offence aspect of war was present in CoH2. Now, we are able to have a Defensive play style too.

Some could argue that games have been too fast paced; far far too fast paced, usually the fault of gamebreaking OKW.



We have a faction called Ostheer that's supposed to be pure defensive. Yet they suck at both defense as well as offense. Look at their defenses and then the Brit ones LUL
They trump Ostheer in everything.


'Gamebreaking OKW'. That 'Gamebreaking OKW' had a really low winrate for most of it's life.



One of the biggest mistakes was to give UKF brace. It's simply illogical. It's like giving the Tiger a minesweeper upgrade and the ability to fire Falls/Ober smoke rounds at AT Guns(looking at you there Comet).

Another alternative is to make Bofors and Mortar pit exclusive from each other. Alone the Bofors or Mortar pit aren't really that dangerous, it's just that in combination with each other (and an AT gun) they counter absolutely everything.

And of course the cost. 400mp for a mortar pit that needs over 1k mp to even challenge, and that can withstand direct hits from Sturmtiger and Railway arty.


Compare the cost/effectiveness to OKW Flak HQ and OKW Flak Bunkers :snfPeter::snfPeter:
26 Mar 2016, 18:51 PM
#112
avatar of Spinflight

Posts: 680

"Compare the cost/effectiveness to OKW Flak HQ and OKW Flak Bunkers"

How much do you think this costs? OKW get so many counters to emplacements it is trite to list them yet again, the schwerer will solo a Cromwell where the equivalent PIV will solo the bofors. Firefly is the only unit the Brits have that can take them out reliably.

I can assure you that your 1 Schwerer per game massively outnumbers my bofors. Is having a 2000HP 50 sight range bofors for free really something to cry about?

Flaks are the best base guards in the game, and with the doctrinal flaks they can turtle just like the Brits. Does a single ISG cost 1000MP now?
26 Mar 2016, 19:04 PM
#113
avatar of Domine

Posts: 500

How much do you think this costs? OKW get so many counters to emplacements it is trite to list them yet again, the schwerer will solo a Cromwell where the equivalent PIV will solo the bofors. Firefly is the only unit the Brits have that can take them out reliably.

I can assure you that your 1 Schwerer per game massively outnumbers my bofors. Is having a 2000HP 50 sight range bofors for free really something to cry about?

Flaks are the best base guards in the game, and with the doctrinal flaks they can turtle just like the Brits. Does a single ISG cost 1000MP now?


I entirely disagree with you.

The schwerer costs 400% more than the Bofors. 400%. The Bofors has barrage and brace and will rip apart any mortar or AT gun attacking it. It cannot be smoked because it has attack ground, can attain VET(wish I was kidding here) and cannot be oneshot by any ability, whereas any britplayer will be overly happy to oneclick the schwerer if he has chosen the right doctrine, or he can just use an atgun.
Add to that that a Schwerer building up can be killed with small arms fire and woops! You can't build any armour! You are 120 fuel behind!

26 Mar 2016, 19:12 PM
#114
avatar of Spinflight

Posts: 680

Schwerer costs 200MP 120FU.

Company command post cost 280MP 115FU.

So the flak gun itself is 5 fuel maybe and 80 MP back? lol

Bofors also has half the HP.
26 Mar 2016, 19:20 PM
#115
avatar of Domine

Posts: 500

Schwerer costs 200MP 120FU.

Company command post cost 280MP 115FU.

So the flak gun itself is 5 fuel maybe and 80 MP back? lol

Bofors also has half the HP.


It costs 120 fuel. Not included in those 120 fuel are the 15 fuel you have to give for the truck before that, because the truck is not the Schwerer. And they also don't include the 15+55 or 15+20 or whatever it was fuel for the T1 or T2 before that. Because they don't contribute to the Schwerer.

If you think that the Flak HQ costs 5 fuel and 80mp, why don't you go in a game, and build it with only 5 fuel and 80mp?


The bofors has half hp (at vet 0 and without brace or commanders ) because it's not tech structure. The Flak HQ holds more importance than any other structure or unit on the field. That's also why it has the Flakgun on top. Lose it, and you're out of the game, which is also why KT can be called with the T4 destroyed. This is already a big penalty. Imagine if USF Lieutenant or Captain died and it would lock up their entire tech. Fair?

And it's also why it has the lowest HP compared to tech structures of other Factions. And also why it doesn't counter it's counters.LIKE THE BOFORS DOES
26 Mar 2016, 19:26 PM
#116
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

If flak gun costs 120F, please tell me how much 25 pounders cost becase so far I thought they are free.
26 Mar 2016, 19:31 PM
#117
avatar of Domine

Posts: 500

If flak gun costs 120F, please tell me how much 25 pounders cost becase so far I thought they are free.


Do you pay anything for them? Yes, or no? If not, then they obviously don't cost anything.


If they do cost anything, then yes. Because you pay something for them. In that case you pay for them as much as you pay for them.



Economics 101
26 Mar 2016, 19:33 PM
#118
avatar of Grim

Posts: 1096

If flak gun costs 120F, please tell me how much 25 pounders cost becase so far I thought they are free.


they should remove the 25pdrs and lower teching costs.
26 Mar 2016, 19:33 PM
#119
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Mar 2016, 19:31 PMDomine


Do you pay anything for them? Yes, or no? If not, then they obviously don't cost anything.


If they do cost anything, then yes. Because you pay something for them. In that case you pay for them as much as you pay for them.



Economics 101


You pay for them the same way you pay for schwerer.
You pay to unlock new units and as a bonus you get flak gun / 25 pounder.
Therefore 25 pounders are free, just like flak gun is free.
26 Mar 2016, 19:36 PM
#120
avatar of Domine

Posts: 500



You pay for them the same way you pay for schwerer.
You pay to unlock new units and as a bonus you get flak gun / 25 pounder.
Therefore 25 pounders are free, just like flak gun is free.



So I take from this that my tanks main gun is free and it's just a bonus or it's just included in the cost? Why is the KTs gun for free, it's so OP >(

If you would make molotovs for Soviets be unlocked with t1 or t2, and raise the price of t1 or t2 by 15 fuel, would that make molotovs free?
PAGES (11)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

1035 users are online: 1035 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
36 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49104
Welcome our newest member, zhcnwps
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM