Bofors

I just beat Mr Cancer himself in a random 2's game.

•  
  

  0

  VS

  PaRaNoMiA dinner Box

  Bissonnette ~TAB~ Puppetmaster

  Beating Mr Cancer

  by: Puppetmaster map: Across the Rhine

  1

  -

ahhhh its a pleasure to see Mr. Cancer himself got rekt. Every god damn game, he's using only the cancer commander
During the beta, the bofors could get abandoned. Maybe they should bring it back

Lobbying relic to remove it from the game.

Then please also lobby to remove Flak from OKW's T3 structure as well.

Why is spending 700 manpower to hold a crucial part of the map considered a 'disadvantage' when every other faction spends their resources trying to hold territory?

Only difference is the other four factions can be pushed off or lured off to provide some kinda dynamic map control before minute 30.

What player doesn't commit resources to holding a position? How is there an argument in there? What other faction can commit 680 manpower and 30 fuel to a section of the map and not have to worry about an (in)effective counter for 10-20 minutes?

Why is spending 700 manpower to hold a crucial part of the map considered a 'disadvantage' when every other faction spends their resources trying to hold territory?

Only difference is the other four factions can be pushed off or lured off to provide some kinda dynamic map control before minute 30.

What player doesn't commit resources to holding a position? How is there an argument in there? What other faction can commit just 680 manpower and 30 fuel to a section of the map and not have to worry about an (in)effective counter for 10-20 minutes?

Every other faction can use that investment to move up and take the enemies territory. Emplacements can only sit there. That's the difference. Not really sure how you could miss the fact that emplacements can't move.

Every other faction can use that investment to move up and take the enemies territory. Emplacements can only sit there. That's the difference. Not really sure how you could miss the fact that emplacements can't move.

That depends on the map. well placed emplacements can cover a good 2/3 of a map.

Every other faction can use that investment to move up and take the enemies territory. Emplacements can only sit there. That's the difference. Not really sure how you could miss the fact that emplacements can't move.

How often do maps allow for effectively moving 'up'. Typically, at best, you move laterally to another side of the map to take or cut off resources. On many maps, just holding a forward position with those emplacements gives 400mpish of support across all those points moving 'up' and all around.

Mortar pits and bofors don't need to move to exert influence into enemy territory and support the limited army the Brits might have at that point, and even more so in team games with whole other armies.

Pushing into the opponents' base is usually a waste of resources until the point in the game that bofors and emplacements outlived their usefulness anyway.

That depends on the map. well placed emplacements can cover a good 2/3 of a map.

Mortar re positioned where needed can cover it whole.
(because you clearly do not talk about bofors right now)

Mortar re positioned where needed can cover it whole.

Heard of any of these before or too busy dwelling in your own insanity before next ban will be applied to you?

Your full of shit and that never happens unless you basically have driven your opponent all the way back to his base.

And why would you need to shot at his base when there are troops on field still again?
Your verbal diarrhea doesn't really go against anything I've said.

I think that the problem with emplacements begins with the faulty design of the mortar pit. If Brits had mobile mortars, we could redesign the Bofors/17-pounder without needing to involve brace. Ever.

Brace is a mechanism that allows somebody to leave their emplacements alone for a while, without having to worry about them being wiped out. An OST player could have emulated the same movement by relocating their mortars along with their army,
or retreating them to base.

If you take brace away, you will be promoting sim city, not deterring it
- This is because sim-city is an all or nothing thing. You either manage to keep everything alive, or it starts falling apart (and you end up losing your entire investment)
- Lack of brace means you need to keep your entire army (blob) together to guard the emplacements at all times.
- Since you are already immobile, why not invest in additional emplacements to help you protect your initial investment?
- "Let there be sim city!"

On the other hand, removing brace will immediately doom any play BUT sim-citying with the Brits (map dependant).
- This is because aggressive play sometimes requires you to have access to indirect fire (especially since the game forces Brits to use Tommies as the mainline infantry).
- Getting access to indirect fire is impossible without building mortar pits
- Mortar pits are expensive, and (without brace) you will be forced to guard them. Therefore:
- "Garden it. I will just go sim-city instead."

(if you make Mortar Pits cheaper, you just make them more spammable. Glory to the Sim City!)

Now. I don't have to go to lengths to explain why brace on Mortar Pits is ugly:
- Sure, mortar pits should win indirect fire engagements vs other indirect fire pieces
- However, if your mortar pit is overrun by infantry, you DESERVE to lose some resources
- Instead, the game punishes the infantry pusher with a silly gimmick, forcing the aggressor to either overcommit, or avoid sim-city. Both outcomes are extremely frustrating to the attacking player.

However, if Brits had access to mobile mortars instead, I would redesign Bofors/17-pounder as follows.

17-pounder could become, quite literally, a clone of Pak-43.
The only exceptions would be that its would have to have additional defense vs Stuka Bomb / Walking Stuka (since those two are extremely accurate and/or spammable). This is easy to implement.

Bofors could replicate the success of FlakHQ (which OKW gets for free).
Show Spoiler
The modifications I would do to Bofors are the following:
- Double up the amount of HP to match FlakHQ
- Remove brace (now it has enough HP to withstand indirect fire, and mortars that can aid if needed)
- Remove barrage (Now Brits have access to mortars to support the Bofors, when needed)
- Adjust damage/suppression
- Increase price (say, around 300MP/70FU, without counting unlock).
This should be the same price OKW should be paying for activating/replacing their T4 truck; Increased fuel price would also delay the time for its first appearance.
- Remove veterancy gain (this one doesn't make any sense at ALL on an area denial piece:
If the area denial works, nobody should be coming close to the Bofors.
If it doesn't, it means that Bofors is crappy)
- Retain/Adjust popcap cost (so that Brits don't spam Bofors everywhere).

Since the game already contains a Mortar Pit, I would repurpose the pit as a garrisonable pit.
- The pit should be expensive enough, not to be spammable (e.g., 120MP)
- It should give good defensive bonuses to garrisoned mortars (so that they win over fights with other indirect fire pieces)
- Since it will be expensive, it could also give certain offensive bonuses to mortars too.

Compared to the current mortar pit, a garrisoned mortar pit:
- Will cost significantly more than spamming emplacements
- Will have normal-mortar range (instead of the insane 115 range)
- Mortars can bleed
- The pit can also be destroyed if not repaired
- Garrisoned mortars don't benefit from auto-repair
- Mortars can be relocated to be used elsewhere

If you find the idea of having access to FlakHQ + Pak43 + indirect fire at the same time repulsive, why haven't we heard people rail against OKW Fortifications doctrine recently?

post #170 invisied due to flaming
Keep it clean bois

I'm fine with the Brits sim-city BS as I can usually deal with it at this point. I think the only problem is that none of these structures seem to be able to be decrewed. If the PaK43/FlaK 38 can be decrewed, then so should the British emplacements.

In this case, you're disagreeing with the developers. It was decrewable and now it is not.
December 3rd 2015 Release Notes:
EMPLACEMENTS
* Can no longer be abandoned
https://community.companyofheroes.com/discussion/241299/april-27th-balance-preview-mod-release-notes#latest

Which is why the vehicles now have to be repaired to 100% before they can move.

You are disregarding mortar half tracks (flame ability), 251 flamer, engineers, incendiary grenade, Stuka.

I know it used to be decrewable and im saying it should be decrewable again and yeah I know vehicles need to be repaired 100% before being recrewed, not sure why something like this cant be implemented with emplacements to a much lesser degree.

I am not sure how you didnt realize but I was referring to the OKW flame options not the Wehrmachts.

My recommended changes to emplacements:

• Emplacements can be abandoned once again when at a very low health. The abandonment would cause a main-gun destroyed crit to bofors and 17-pounders.
  
• Bofor can only shoot at a 90 degree angle unless manually refaced (similar to MG's in buildings).
  
• That long-needed pop cap reduction for 17 pounders: 20 pop cap to 15 pop cap.
  
• ALSO: Remove that damned bofor barrage.

Brit emplacements being decrewed would go against the faction design. German factions aren't focused around emplacements. You would need to give them support units equally as good as Ost then and we'd end up with more carbon copy factions.

What support weapon does what the Bofors does?

I like the locking idea, but flavor wise it doesn't fit. Will it only shoot planes in it's arc?

I would say reduce the rate of fire a bit or damage a bit. I don't like losing squads and vehicles just for walking into the Bofors range. Or reduce the aoe a bit to reduce the infantry killing efficiency at the very least.

Emplacement Changes

I like your ideas but they really needed to be implemented before UKF was released. The Bofors and 17 Pounder adjustments are probably reasonably easy to implement but the Mortar Pit idea (on which your post hinges) is not, as far as I know, possible without Relic adding animations.

My recommended changes to emplacements:

• Emplacements can be abandoned once again when at a very low health. The abandonment would cause a main-gun destroyed crit to bofors and 17-pounders.
  
• Bofor can only shoot at a 90 degree angle unless manually refaced (similar to MG's in buildings).
  
• That long-needed pop cap reduction for 17 pounders: 20 pop cap to 15 pop cap.
  
• ALSO: Remove that damned bofor barrage.

The problem with emplacements being abandoned was that they were quite buggy (they didn't fire if recrewed).

Restricting the Bofors to a 90-degree angle is unnecessary, given that it doesn't suppress. Removing the barrage and replacing it with an ability to face the Bofors (like an MG) that adds suppression would be good.

The Bofors really just needs a health and/or cost adjustment once its barrage is nerfed or removed.

My arguments:

The bofors is far too strong and is spoiling gameplay.

You cannot "flank" a bofors in the traditional sense of getting to its blindspot as it has 360 degree facing.

There is no cost-effective alternative.


Lastly, You need to play against it to understand. Throwing out opinions from an ivory tower is pointless. Try a few games and then come talk about flanking a bofors.

This isn't an argument, you're making absolute statements without actually having anything substantive, or even remotely "thesis-y" to which I can actually "learn to what extent [you are] right/wrong".

The only thing argumentative is your questioning of the experience that I base my statements on, something I have already defended. I don't wish to waste my time reiterating, so you may take it or continue to question it, but that's not the thrust of this argument. If you have any personal gripes, perhaps PM is a better forum for that.

So again, unless you have something further to add. I don't think we have anything more to discuss Bulgakov, our disagreement is stalwart.