Bofors

If you haven't been playing against this, then you lack understanding.

It's not like flanking an MG that has to unpack and set up. It spins around rapidly. Essentially its blindside exists for such a short period (the time it takes to destroy the first attacking unit) that it can't be considered a blindside in the usual sense (as in with MGs)

And even if you do get its health down low, they can hit brace.

You also have to factor in their other units supporting the bofors.


I don't understand why you can refute my claim so glibly with "smoke and flank" when you haven't been going up against this unit repeatedly and when so many other players are saying the same thing as me. Try it. Try a few games vs Brits with the emplacement commander. I'll be delighted to see a replay of you "flanking a bofors".

Bulgakov, does a geologist not understand stone whilst dwelling in a home constructed of timber?

I've played long enough, (I'm sure you recall that emplacements both used to be worse, as well as useless) parsed the arguments both over time, and in this thread, seen and supported enough attacks as well as buttressed countless defenses upon emplacements to have a very holistic understanding of the scenario.

Surely you can agree that in any defensive scenario, emplacement or not, it is always harder to repel an assault that is coming in from multiple directions. Think of it this way, barring playing on say... Kholodny/Minsk-- maps with very constrictive natural choke points. If you cannot assault a Bofors from multiple directions, odds are, it's constructed in a rear position that isn't a significant threat in the first place. Why would one ever decide to human wave a hard point like that, when you don't have to? I do like your addition of smoke to provide a shot blocker though; however, I'm not sure it would work given the barrage ability, and besides, if I have indirect fire, I would rather pepper the position itself, or try and snipe repairing squads...

It's clear our disagreement runs deeper than the issue at hand, perhaps a dialectic divide in tactical approach, or something else. Unless you have something more to add I'm concerned this will simply denigrate into personal attacks, speaking about my own behaviour. So, I will otherwise take my leave.

Well Thought out argument.

If my flak truck was my t1 building, only costed 50 feul and immediately ripped apart anything walking into it's sight, I would be willing to compare the two.

Arguing with people over the internet is like playing chess with a pigeon.
Even if you are a world champ, they will still just shit all over the board and strut around like they've won.

Dont waste your breath and health mate; find a more constructive thread.

Bulgakov, does a geologist not understand stone whilst dwelling in a home constructed of timber?

I've played long enough, (I'm sure you recall that emplacements both used to be worse, as well as useless) parsed the arguments both over time, and in this thread, seen and supported enough attacks as well as buttressed countless defenses upon emplacements to have a very holistic understanding of the scenario.

Surely you can agree that in any defensive scenario, emplacement or not, it is always harder to repel an assault that is coming in from multiple directions. Think of it this way, barring playing on say... Kholodny/Minsk-- maps with very constrictive natural choke points. If you cannot assault a Bofors from multiple directions, odds are, it's constructed in a rear position that isn't a significant threat in the first place. Why would one ever decide to human wave a hard point like that, when you don't have to? I do like your addition of smoke to provide a shot blocker though; however, I'm not sure it would work given the barrage ability, and besides, if I have indirect fire, I would rather pepper the position itself, or try and snipe repairing squads...

It's clear our disagreement runs deeper than the issue at hand, perhaps a dialectic divide in tactical approach, or something else. Unless you have something more to add I'm concerned this will simply denigrate into personal attacks, speaking about my own behaviour. So, I will otherwise take my leave.

Don't take your leave, I'm sure we can continue a reasonable conversation void of any ad hominems.

The powerlevel of the Bofors, and to a lesser extent, and AEC are higher than would be otherwise to repressent the either/or choice that has to be made in teching. Granted the sheer level of efficiency of the Bofors and the wehrmacht's overwhelming inability to deal with it prompts the question "why would you go AEC over Bofors?"

I made this post because the Bofors is either overpowered or my inability to deal with it is a L2P issue. I'm not a terrible player and I haven't seen a lot of solutions to this issue, so I'm assuming that this is a issue regarding the Bofors as being over powered.

The synergy between the mortar pit/Bofors is extremely hard to deal with. I have found a few solutions that sometimes make it easier to deal with, but the fact remaines that the Bofors efficiency is absolutely amazing, more so then any other unit in it's class for it's price. (Ie. Regarding denial of area, Bofors > 37 Flak/Axis mg nest/American Mg nest)

For example, as I have previously tested out, any axis light vehicle does not have the ability to survive trying to back out of the firing range once the first shot is fired. This is due to the range being a bit larger than the sight.

After some more testing I have found that, the Bofors has a minimium range (in the cheat mod, not necessarily in the real game). I haven't tried it out yet but popping a smoke in front of it would allow you to run troops (not vehicles) right up to it, survive and take it out safely. The Bofors is surprizingly fragile to small arms fire. The minimum range is about a CM and a half on the screen, so far any unit outside of the ring will get shot and not nessecarily the other units.

I have also found heavy artillery works wonders.

Don't take your leave, I'm sure we can continue a reasonable conversation void of any ad hominems.

The powerlevel of the Bofors, and to a lesser extent, and AEC are higher than would be otherwise to repressent the either/or choice that has to be made in teching. Granted the sheer level of efficiency of the Bofors and the wehrmacht's overwhelming inability to deal with it prompts the question "why would you go AEC over Bofors?"

I made this post because the Bofors is either overpowered or my inability to deal with it is a L2P issue. I'm not a terrible player and I haven't seen a lot of solutions to this issue, so I'm assuming that this is a issue regarding the Bofors as being over powered.

The synergy between the mortar pit/Bofors is extremely hard to deal with. I have found a few solutions that sometimes make it easier to deal with, but the fact remaines that the Bofors efficiency is absolutely amazing, more so then any other unit in it's class for it's price. (Ie. Regarding denial of area, Bofors > 37 Flak/Axis mg nest/American Mg nest)

For example, as I have previously tested out, any axis light vehicle does not have the ability to survive trying to back out of the firing range once the first shot is fired. This is due to the range being a bit larger than the sight.

After some more testing I have found that, the Bofors has a minimium range (in the cheat mod, not necessarily in the real game). I haven't tried it out yet but popping a smoke in front of it would allow you to run troops (not vehicles) right up to it, survive and take it out safely. The Bofors is surprizingly fragile to small arms fire. The minimum range is about a CM and a half on the screen, so far any unit outside of the ring will get shot and not nessecarily the other units.

I have also found heavy artillery works wonders.

One has to wonder what you're doing during this time period where your Brit opponent saves up roughly 700MP and 30FU and then plops it all down on one spot.

I learned a long time ago (back in my vCoH days) that a defensive, emplacement-based playstyle is inherently flawed due to the simple fact that emplacements don't move. If you can't move then you can't avoid artillery, and brace isn't enough to survive it because the enemy can just force you into a brace and then bring the real bombardment in once its on cooldown. There's also the fact that emplacements have terrible map control.

Even if you can't take out a Brit hardpoint (which isn't something I'm going into detail on here; already done in a prior post), you can just go around it. I do it all the time when I'm playing against OH or Brits and the first thing they do is rush a machine gun into a building near mid. It's fine if they want the building. I'll just go off and take the map while their MG sits around having a smoke all alone. Its the same principle with a heavily dug-in position.

So they have a BOFORs and a mortar pit side-by-side on some point? Can't push it off? Let them have their little dugout. Take your 700MP and go cap the rest of the map with your extra two/three units or build three fuel caches or something. Now you have map control or you have the VP or fuel or munitions advantage and next thing you know you've got a PzIV or two and the enemy is just now getting a fourth tommy because wtf he just dropped 700MP on a single point.

He somehow managed to hold both fuels with his BOFORs? No problem, munitions counters fuel. Mines everywhere, AT guns, weapon upgrades, panzershrecks, and he'll have a hard time pushing out anywhere when half of his pop cap is stuck at one spot. Drain his MP and bombard him from afar until you've got the resources to push him off his spot, or even just drive past it and blow up his base.

Personally, I go for the AEC every time as Brits. Because as nice as a BOFORs is it isn't going to save my tommies when a Luchs or a 222 is slaughtering them and their shit-tier PIATs on the other side of the map.

If I may, I don't think anyone can argue that smoking and flanking is not a more efficient manner in dealing with Bofors and emplacements in general. Nor can the nature of defending a position being more advantageous be denied.

What people can argue is that whether you smoke and flank or not, just having to assault a Bofors is usually a win for the Brits, regardless of engagement outcome.

But oh man, people really need to clarify both gamesize or at least specific maps when discussing balance issues. Otherwise there's just endless confusion and unnecessary arguments.

Now then, for someone like myself, who has only played 1v1 with personal friends since WFA, I can't really speak for current 1v1 meta. However, that said, I've never felt too troubled by British emplacements in a 1v1 environment though because they never have a teammate covering them.

But for team games, especially 3v3s and 4v4s where the timing and expenses are incredibly different, the British emplacements pose an extremely lopsided engagement for at least most of the game.

Faction shortcomings are heavily offset in large games. A British player building emplacements can lock down a VP and/or a fuel point to allow their teammates to focus the other side of the map. The Bofors/mortar pit is virtually autonomous in holding down a key section of a map until the Axis players can mount a sizeable offensive. Because when that 680mp/30f fortress goes down, it can easily hold off multiple opponents through multiple stages of the game. Until the Axis players direct at least an equal amount of manpower and often more fuel (considering MHTs) with units that are themselves, actually counter-able with anything the Allies would have available at the same time. Multiple MHTs and/or ISGs are as much of a drain on the Axis army as the emplacements they're attempting to eliminate.

The way almost ALL maps are designed, holding a fuel point and being able to attack the other fuel point is the definition of being in control of the game. If a player has to avoid a section of the map, that means they have to fight on their own territory and have their own resources threatened. This results in even more consolidation of forces, constraining the often cramped maps even further.

It's all well and nice to argue that the Allies have to fight a disadvantageous battle away from those British emplacements, but contesting your opponents resources without risk to your own is way more preferable a situation to be in.

@ZombieFrancis & @sinthe

The Bofors is T2 and requires 60 fuel in total to build (taking into account the platoon command post). Ostheers get mortars extremely quickly, with their first T1 structure built straight off the bat.

What are you doing for the time it takes for the British player to get 50 fuel? The problem here is that you guys are having trouble breaking a Bofors that are built near strategic points such a VP or Fuel points. You have access to two things that practically dominate the early game against the British : MGs and Mortars. The British will have a Vickers up ASAP, but you will have a mortar to bombard it. Their infantry sections can't do anything if you suppress them with your MG.

So how in the world, does the British player one up an Ostheer player in the early game, somehow manage to capture a strategic point, then build a Bofors without any interference at all? On top of this, you're saying a Bofors + Mortar emplacement is hard to deal with? You realize Bofors + Mortar emplacement costs 680MP in total right?

How to deal with British Bofors? Get a single mortar ASAP, keep pushing out the British in the early game when you are strong, because the British, without their Bofors, are extremely weak in the early game, and since you cannot move an emplacement, the British player will either opt to migrate to a different area of the map, or build at a disadvantageous position.

Dealing with 3 mortars (which costs less than a Bofors + mortar emplacement if you take into account fuel), is harder to deal with for the British player. The mortar emplacement is extremely inaccurate, while 3 mortars bombarding an emplacement will hit every single time (due to an emplacement's large hitbox), on top of being able to recrew.

@ZombieFrancis & @sinthe

The Bofors is T2 and requires 60 fuel in total to build (taking into account the platoon command post). Ostheers get mortars extremely quickly, with their first T1 structure built straight off the bat.

What are you doing for the time it takes for the British player to get 50 fuel? The problem here is that you guys are having trouble breaking a Bofors that are built near strategic points such a VP or Fuel points. You have access to two things that practically dominate the early game against the British : MGs and Mortars. The British will have a Vickers up ASAP, but you will have a mortar to bombard it. Their infantry sections can't do anything if you suppress them with your MG.

So how in the world, does the British player one up an Ostheer player in the early game, somehow manage to capture a strategic point, then build a Bofors without any interference at all? On top of this, you're saying a Bofors + Mortar emplacement is hard to deal with? You realize Bofors + Mortar emplacement costs 680MP in total right?

How to deal with British Bofors? Get a single mortar ASAP, keep pushing out the British in the early game when you are strong, because the British, without their Bofors, are extremely weak in the early game, and since you cannot move an emplacement, the British player will either opt to migrate to a different area of the map, or build at a disadvantageous position.

Dealing with 3 mortars (which costs less than a Bofors + mortar emplacement if you take into account fuel), is harder to deal with for the British player. The mortar emplacement is extremely inaccurate, while 3 mortars bombarding an emplacement will hit every single time (due to an emplacement's large hitbox), on top of being able to recrew.

which game mode?

which game mode?

All game modes. Whether it's 4v4 or 1v1 German mortars hit the field literally in the first minute of the game while Bofors comes much much later in comparison. In fact you can get Panzergrenadiers before a Bofors can be built.

Arguing with people over the internet is like playing chess with a pigeon.
Even if you are a world champ, they will still just shit all over the board and strut around like they've won.

Bwahaha! :'D

Regarding effectiveness, I've never seen a flak truck wipe out a squad as it walks into it's line of sight, I consistently lose my scout cars from just crossing into the Bofors line of fire. Seriously, it kills light vehicles before they can even reverse, sometimes squads before they can retreat and god forbid you ever have to retreat through a bofors line of fire. We all understand that wiping squads out is one of the fastest way to get ahead in the game and the efficency in which the bofors wipes squads/light vehicles is amazing (for lack of a better word).

If my flak truck was my t1 building, only costed 50 feul and immediately ripped apart anything walking into it's sight, I would be willing to compare the two.

That is the point. A Bofors behind a shotblock will wipe your squad 80% of the time because when you see it it is way too late. Every shot kills at least a model and retreating doesn't help.

You could call a Mortar + Bofors somehow a good mix of units but the Bofors is a mortar itself what is ridiculous. I know the range is not as far as the mortar's one but it is simply bullshit. A mortar pit with a bofors and a command point together with the emplacements commander is just dumb and requires 0 micro to build but an extreme amount of micro to fight it.

The emplacements are extremely durable and got even free repairs! How ridiculous is that?

You build three buildings with your pioneers and lock down a huge area of the map without ANY further micro effort. While the Germans have to move their mortars/LeIGs after each barrage and still are not able to kill anyhting.

Meanwhile the Brit can take the map and micro other units while also making a cup of tea. That is no joke. I once watched someone play Brits 2v2 on Bahnhof Ettelbrück and after about 10 minutes he went to the toilet. After about 2 minutes he came back and his mate still managed to cap the map even further and his Mortar Pit was getting Vet 2 near 3.

You could call a Mortar + Bofors somehow a good mix of units but the Bofors is a mortar itself what is ridiculous.

I remember people complaining about how OKW required minimum micro and such.
I guess using a Bofors or a mortar emplacement is so micro intensive. Hell, every mortar or AA in this game requires some micro but brits' ones. Besides, their sturdiness can be matched only by their effectiveness in killing. If you built this combo on one side of a map, protecting one amo and one fuel, you can actualy forget about that side for a good while and concentrate on giving the enemy a hard time over his. And before someone even says mortars and ISGs please remember Axis are nowhere near Allied related balistic weapons efficiency (wuhrframen doesn't count, it does literally shit against emplacements).

Bulgakov, does a geologist not understand stone whilst dwelling in a home constructed of timber?

Not if the stone has fundamentally changed several times while he's been resting.


The game is different to what you knew. Bofors are a problem, you'll see some high-ranking players agreeing with me (and a couple disagreeing).

In any case, just dismissing my argument without actually testing it is hubris. You're clearly too invested in your own opinion to learn to what extent I am right/wrong.

One has to wonder what you're doing during this time period where your Brit opponent saves up roughly 700MP and 30FU and then plops it all down on one spot.

I learned a long time ago (back in my vCoH days) that a defensive, emplacement-based playstyle is inherently flawed due to the simple fact that emplacements don't move. If you can't move then you can't avoid artillery, and brace isn't enough to survive it because the enemy can just force you into a brace and then bring the real bombardment in once its on cooldown. There's also the fact that emplacements have terrible map control.

Even if you can't take out a Brit hardpoint (which isn't something I'm going into detail on here; already done in a prior post), you can just go around it. I do it all the time when I'm playing against OH or Brits and the first thing they do is rush a machine gun into a building near mid. It's fine if they want the building. I'll just go off and take the map while their MG sits around having a smoke all alone. Its the same principle with a heavily dug-in position.

So they have a BOFORs and a mortar pit side-by-side on some point? Can't push it off? Let them have their little dugout. Take your 700MP and go cap the rest of the map with your extra two/three units or build three fuel caches or something. Now you have map control or you have the VP or fuel or munitions advantage and next thing you know you've got a PzIV or two and the enemy is just now getting a fourth tommy because wtf he just dropped 700MP on a single point.

He somehow managed to hold both fuels with his BOFORs? No problem, munitions counters fuel. Mines everywhere, AT guns, weapon upgrades, panzershrecks, and he'll have a hard time pushing out anywhere when half of his pop cap is stuck at one spot. Drain his MP and bombard him from afar until you've got the resources to push him off his spot, or even just drive past it and blow up his base.

Personally, I go for the AEC every time as Brits. Because as nice as a BOFORs is it isn't going to save my tommies when a Luchs or a 222 is slaughtering them and their shit-tier PIATs on the other side of the map.

Going around it gives the brits guaranteed income and make them impervious to cut offs and fuel harassment.

I have had games where I've had almost the entire map on 2v2 and an mg forces a retreat on the one side by the time I respond to it there is a bofors being built, then a mortar pit that usually stratles 2 vps making taking those vps a constaint MP bleed. then it just creeps from there. a few more mortar pits and a few more bofors with at guns lined up and a forward retreat point for enforcing the sappers.

My partner and I are very agressive. He is OH with Ass grens and I use 2 sturm pios agressively, while 2 kubels cap points.

My partner and I are very agressive. He is OH with Ass grens and I use 2 sturm pios agressively, while 2 kubels cap points.

Maybe that BO is the problem.

Maybe that BO is the problem.

Sturm, sturm, kubel, volks, volks, medic, ISG, ISG, ISG, racketen, Flak, panther. Most of the time. Sometimes I like to get 2 p4s and then a command panther.

i think bofor cost should be a bit increase.
bofor by itself easilly countered,but the problem is mortar pit beside it+ counter battery .as ost u can use stug or AT's ground attack in fog(if u have sight or recon would be better).
as okw shreck can help u but not enough, u need isg's and have to move them always to prevent hit by pit or battery.

Also, you can't just ignore it because if a mortar pit goes in behind it, it will just feed it's self all the way up to vet 3 and then it's a serious problem.

Sturm, sturm, kubel, volks, volks, medic, ISG, ISG, ISG, racketen, Flak, panther. Most of the time. Sometimes I like to get 2 p4s and then a command panther.

I assume you only have 2 Sturms and you are counting your starting one.
I prefer Kubel first cause then i can aggro my first encounter 2v1 and keep the bleed on 0 (making the Kubel eat damage and pushing people out of cover).
Fighting should be your first concern, as winning the first engagement means you can then cap easily behind.
I prefer a 2nd Sturm only if i know i'm not gonna go a commander with call in infantry early on.
You are playing passively when a more offensive playstyle could be good (mechanized). If you really need the med HQ, you can just go mech HQ + medic HQ and play with command PV as CP10 is practically the first PV with a flak HQ.

Not if the stone has fundamentally changed several times while he's been resting.


The game is different to what you knew. Bofors are a problem, you'll see some high-ranking players agreeing with me (and a couple disagreeing).

In any case, just dismissing my argument without actually testing it is hubris. You're clearly too invested in your own opinion to learn to what extent I am right/wrong.

Bulgakov, please reiterate your argument to me. Because as far as I can tell, the only thing you have said to me was you cannot flank a Bofors. Since then, I have been defending my position saying that if you haven't denied it strategically, a well executed flank is the only, if not desperate, tactic available, barring a stockpiling of indirect fire. The only one being dismissive is you, we can both agree it is desperate, but where is your alternative? And I apologize if in my defense I have missed it whilst standing on my soapbox.

Bulgakov, please reiterate your argument to me. Because as far as I can tell, the only thing you have said to me was you cannot flank a Bofors. Since then, I have been defending my position saying that if you haven't denied it strategically, a well executed flank is the only, if not desperate, tactic available, barring a stockpiling of indirect fire. The only one being dismissive is you, we can both agree it is desperate, but where is your alternative? And I apologize if in my defense I have missed it whilst standing on my soapbox.

What he's saying is that flanking a bofors doesn't help much because it rotates so quickly. Just like flanking an OKW flak base doesn't do much.