Bofors

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.

That was my initial thought too at first. However, I requested this in the modding tools forum and "Planet Smasher" has already put together a mod where you can really have garrisonable mortar pits (and it looks exactly like it should -- mortar pit showing exactly the same number of mortars garrisoned; different types of mortars, etc)

Currently we are working on finetuning the stats (so that mortar pits do not become death pits).

The only issue related to animations is that there are no animations for the mobile 3-inch mortar. Ccurrently, Planet Smasher is using the USF mortar as a placeholder).

Not my best game, but here a typical example how brace and emplacements are incredibly resistant.

By the time I get arty its too late, they also have tanks and the points are too low

Just have an agessive ally while the brits hold the 2/3 of the map and its over

2 arty , mortar and tanks cant kill it quickly enought

https://www.coh2.org/replay/52726/brit-cancer

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

What in the nonsense are you going on about? I think you're too used to being argumentative.

Anyways, I would have to say I am more inclined to agree with Mr Smith in that it would be preferable for the British to just have a real mobile mortar team.

I think every faction should have both an mg and a mortar option that's viable and accessible, like like mainline infantry are. The interesting and individual vehicle designs and developments of the factions of WW2 offer a great deal of diversity in their own right.

But the mortar pit (another topic altogether) is really what magnifies the power of the Bofors. When the Bofors isn't dominating, it's the perfect cover for the mortar pit to dominate with its range, (and actually being two mortars.)

Although in the end, I've always thought that the British faction (or an emplacement faction) should have super cheap emplacements that are built without crews, or only work when garrisoned, as well as be steal-able. That faction would require a cheap, RE type unit too though that could scuttle or booby trap the emplacements and retreat with their veterancy.

Never liked the idea of people being hit with heavy gunfire and artillery repeatedly and not dying because they crouched down some more in a hole.

What in the nonsense are you going on about? I think you're too used to being argumentative.

Anyways, I would have to say I am more inclined to agree with Mr Smith in that it would be preferable for the British to just have a real mobile mortar team.

I think every faction should have both an mg and a mortar option that's viable and accessible, like like mainline infantry are. The interesting and individual vehicle designs and developments of the factions of WW2 offer a great deal of diversity in their own right.

But the mortar pit (another topic altogether) is really what magnifies the power of the Bofors. When the Bofors isn't dominating, it's the perfect cover for the mortar pit to dominate with its range, (and actually being two mortars.)

Although in the end, I've always thought that the British faction (or an emplacement faction) should have super cheap emplacements that are built without crews, or only work when garrisoned, as well as be steal-able. That faction would require a cheap, RE type unit too though that could scuttle or booby trap the emplacements and retreat with their veterancy.

Never liked the idea of people being hit with heavy gunfire and artillery repeatedly and not dying because they crouched down some more in a hole.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Mortar emplacement is what holds the British back, and is no way superior to a German mortar team. I would gladly take mobile mortars any day, as that would be such a great buff to the British faction I would be winning games like non-stop.

The only strength of the mortar emplacement over German mortar is the fact that it fires two for 400mp, which is slightly less the cost of two German mortars. The advantages end there. The Cons of Mortar emplacements are the following :

1) In return for firing 2 rounds at a time it's very inaccurate.
2) Its hitbox is extremely large meaning enemy mortars never miss. Its health pool really isn't that large (when you consider the fact all your mortars hit the target), and bracing the emplacement makes it useless taking damage for free.
3) It can't move.
4) It can't be recrewed. Once it's gone it's 400mp down the drain.
5) It can't be reinforced.

So no, mortar emplacements isn't an issue, if you spent money on two mortars (which is around the same cost as a mortar emplacement) you will win every time, not to mention they hit the field literally in the first minute of the game.

I don't know why this topic is still going on. Every time I tell you guys Bofors and Mortars aren't overpowered and literally walk you through how to beat them it's completely ignored.

You realize people aren't disputing what it takes to beat them. It's not like that's a mystery. It's more about micro and the kind of field presence it creates, and for how long.

Honestly, my particular concern is that too much weight is put on commander choice when dealing with them, especially for Ostheer. Ever since the LeFH got buffed I've kept a commander with it in the lineup. Beats emplacements no sweat. But it isn't the most enjoyable experience playing the stalling game to 8 CPs.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Mortar emplacement is what holds the British back, and is no way superior to a German mortar team. I would gladly take mobile mortars any day, as that would be such a great buff to the British faction I would be winning games like non-stop.

The only strength of the mortar emplacement over German mortar is the fact that it fires two for 400mp, which is slightly less the cost of two German mortars. The advantages end there. The Cons of Mortar emplacements are the following :

1) In return for firing 2 rounds at a time it's very inaccurate.
2) Its hitbox is extremely large meaning enemy mortars never miss. Its health pool really isn't that large (when you consider the fact all your mortars hit the target), and bracing the emplacement makes it useless taking damage for free.
3) It can't move.
4) It can't be recrewed. Once it's gone it's 400mp down the drain.
5) It can't be reinforced.

So no, mortar emplacements isn't an issue, if you spent money on two mortars (which is around the same cost as a mortar emplacement) you will win every time, not to mention they hit the field literally in the first minute of the game.

I don't know why this topic is still going on. Every time I tell you guys Bofors and Mortars aren't overpowered and literally walk you through how to beat them it's completely ignored.

Someone has never played vs UKF before....

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Mortar emplacement is what holds the British back, and is no way superior to a German mortar team. I would gladly take mobile mortars any day, as that would be such a great buff to the British faction I would be winning games like non-stop.

The only strength of the mortar emplacement over German mortar is the fact that it fires two for 400mp, which is slightly less the cost of two German mortars. The advantages end there. The Cons of Mortar emplacements are the following :

1) In return for firing 2 rounds at a time it's very inaccurate. but can wipe out a 3 men squad in one shot
2) Its hitbox is extremely large meaning enemy mortars never miss. Its health pool really isn't that large (when you consider the fact all your mortars hit the target), and bracing the emplacement makes enemy mortar useless while taking repair for free.
3) It can't move but has a huge range
4) It can't be recrewed. Once it's gone it's 400mp down the drain, just like loosing a tank
5) It can be reinforced and left alone with a bofor and at gun.

So no, mortar emplacements isn't an issue, if you spent money on lots of mortars arty and tanks you will win every time

I really don't know why this topic is still going on. Every time I tell you guys Bofors and Mortars aren't overpowered and literally walk you through how to beat them in late game with over 1200MP , it's completely ignored.

Fixed

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Mortar emplacement is what holds the British back, and is no way superior to a German mortar team. I would gladly take mobile mortars any day, as that would be such a great buff to the British faction I would be winning games like non-stop.

The only strength of the mortar emplacement over German mortar is the fact that it fires two for 400mp, which is slightly less the cost of two German mortars. The advantages end there. The Cons of Mortar emplacements are the following :

1) In return for firing 2 rounds at a time it's very inaccurate.
2) Its hitbox is extremely large meaning enemy mortars never miss. Its health pool really isn't that large (when you consider the fact all your mortars hit the target), and bracing the emplacement makes it useless taking damage for free.
3) It can't move.
4) It can't be recrewed. Once it's gone it's 400mp down the drain.
5) It can't be reinforced.

So no, mortar emplacements isn't an issue, if you spent money on two mortars (which is around the same cost as a mortar emplacement) you will win every time, not to mention they hit the field literally in the first minute of the game.

I don't know why this topic is still going on. Every time I tell you guys Bofors and Mortars aren't overpowered and literally walk you through how to beat them it's completely ignored.

+ 100

You realize people aren't disputing what it takes to beat them. It's not like that's a mystery. It's more about micro and the kind of field presence it creates, and for how long.

Honestly, my particular concern is that too much weight is put on commander choice when dealing with them, especially for Ostheer. Ever since the LeFH got buffed I've kept a commander with it in the lineup. Beats emplacements no sweat. But it isn't the most enjoyable experience playing the stalling game to 8 CPs.

It seems like it is a mystery, because everyone keeps claiming how it is micro intensive to beat a Bofors + Mortar as if it takes so much micro for you to deal with it. You do NOT need a LeFH to deal with emplacements, you're doing it wrong if you're choosing your commander completely based upon if you're playing a against a British or not.

I have replied to you already on how to beat a Bofors a page or two back in this thread. You didn't reply to me back then either. So I will reiterate it for you.

The total cost in fuel in order to build a Bofors is 75. You need a platoon command post, research Bofors, and finally build the Bofors. The total cost in fuel in order to get the tech to build German mortars is 10. You can literally build your tech for it as soon as the game starts and have a mortar out in the first minute of the game. The British do not have access to mortars until T2, on top of it costing 400mp. It's obvious an Ostheer player against the British has a huge advantage in the early game, yes?

Despite Germans having an advantage in the early game, somehow the British manages to set up a Bofors and Mortar emplacement at a strategic position without any interference by the German player (you've already screwed up once at this point). A mortar team should be one of the first units you should buy after an MG, so when you do get pushed back, buy a second mortar team. Emplacements can't move, so once you know where the Bofors is placed you can bombard the same spot over and over again. Split your two mortars (don't stack them on top of each other like an idiot as I've seen people do), ground fire at where the emplacement is, and when the mortar emplacement shoots back you can either choose to move, or keep firing (since it takes quite a few shots to get it killed due to the lack of accuracy of the emplacement unless you're extremely unlucky). Regardless of if you choose to move or not, your other mortar team will still be firing.

This is glossing over the fact that a British player usually builds a Bofors first (building a mortar emplacement first leaves it open to shrecks and scout cars/half tracks destroying it), and building a Bofors first means that Bofors is open to free mortar fire until the British gets 400mp to build a mortar emplacement. That is more than enough time to kill the Bofors with two mortars before a mortar emplacement is set up.

If you STILL somehow manage not to break the emplacements until they build a sim city, you pretty much deserve the loss, but even then you have a chance to win. Flank around with your units to cut off the British supply chain, or in the case of team games, stack a different side of the map and help your team. Once you get to the late game, you have access to panzerwerfers, on top of heavy tanks, and the fact that 90% of Ostheer commanders have some sort of artillery/bombing ability.

In comparison, do you know what happens to the British when they lose a strategic point? They have to set up their emplacements at a disadvantageous position for the sole purpose of trying to break the enemy position, and end up being useless afterward even if they manage to even break the German position. The British has NO other form of artillery/mortar other than an infantry section flare (which they take an hour to call in) or a Sexton which is doctrinal.

British emplacements don't require micro? Don't kid yourself. Do you honestly think the British player sits there doing nothing while your mortars bombard their emplacements? No, they actively use ground fire on your mortars (despite what people think, counter-battery reacts too slowly to be of any use, it's the player). And what are you doing while the British hold their emplacements? Is it so micro-intensive to ground fire with your mortars and issue a right click once in a while?

1) In return for firing 2 rounds at a time it's very inaccurate. but can wipe out a 3 men squad in one shot

Wow that must be some luck, I've never had my emplacement ever wipe a mortar squad in one shot.

2) Its hitbox is extremely large meaning enemy mortars never miss. Its health pool really isn't that large (when you consider the fact all your mortars hit the target), and bracing the emplacement makes enemy mortar useless while taking repair for free.

Yeah and those engineers must be invincible while those mortars bombard the emplacement for free, right?

3) It can't move but has a huge range

It has the same range as an ISG, which is just slightly more or equal to a German mortar.

4) It can't be recrewed. Once it's gone it's 400mp down the drain, just like loosing a tank

Except it's not a tank, it's a mortar. German mortars can be recrewed. British mortars cannot. Where does a tank fit into this conversation?

5) It can be reinforced and left alone with a bofor and at gun.

It can't be "left alone" with two mortars firing at it, and no, it can't be reinforced. You know what I meant when I said reinforced. You can build a bunker and literally reinforce while getting shot at while the emplacement has to be repaired, which is impossible with two mortars firing at it.

It has the same range as an ISG, which is just slightly more or equal to a German mortar.

The Ostheer mortar has 80 range compared to the ISG and Mortar Pit's 115 range.

It seems like it is a mystery, because everyone keeps claiming how it is micro intensive to beat a Bofors + Mortar as if it takes so much micro for you to deal with it. You do NOT need a LeFH to deal with emplacements, you're doing it wrong if you're choosing your commander completely based upon if you're playing a against a British or not.

I have replied to you already on how to beat a Bofors a page or two back in this thread. You didn't reply to me back then either. So I will reiterate it for you.

The total cost in fuel in order to build a Bofors is 75. You need a platoon command post, research Bofors, and finally build the Bofors. The total cost in fuel in order to get the tech to build German mortars is 10. You can literally build your tech for it as soon as the game starts and have a mortar out in the first minute of the game. The British do not have access to mortars until T2, on top of it costing 400mp. It's obvious an Ostheer player against the British has a huge advantage in the early game, yes?

Despite Germans having an advantage in the early game, somehow the British manages to set up a Bofors and Mortar emplacement at a strategic position without any interference by the German player (you've already screwed up once at this point). A mortar team should be one of the first units you should buy after an MG, so when you do get pushed back, buy a second mortar team. Emplacements can't move, so once you know where the Bofors is placed you can bombard the same spot over and over again. Split your two mortars (don't stack them on top of each other like an idiot as I've seen people do), ground fire at where the emplacement is, and when the mortar emplacement shoots back you can either choose to move, or keep firing (since it takes quite a few shots to get it killed due to the lack of accuracy of the emplacement unless you're extremely unlucky). Regardless of if you choose to move or not, your other mortar team will still be firing.

I'm not disputing any of this? What are you trying to argue here? Mortar teams can indeed barrage mortar pits and bofors. Both the mortar pit and bofors can barrage back. "Extremely unlucky" is pretty much at heart of the issue here, not at all confusion on how, exactly, to micro a mortar team.

This is glossing over the fact that a British player usually builds a Bofors first (building a mortar emplacement first leaves it open to shrecks and scout cars/half tracks destroying it), and building a Bofors first means that Bofors is open to free mortar fire until the British gets 400mp to build a mortar emplacement. That is more than enough time to kill the Bofors with two mortars before a mortar emplacement is set up.

If you STILL somehow manage not to break the emplacements until they build a sim city, you pretty much deserve the loss, but even then you have a chance to win. Flank around with your units to cut off the British supply chain, or in the case of team games, stack a different side of the map and help your team. Once you get to the late game, you have access to panzerwerfers, on top of heavy tanks, and the fact that 90% of Ostheer commanders have some sort of artillery/bombing ability.

In comparison, do you know what happens to the British when they lose a strategic point? They have to set up their emplacements at a disadvantageous position for the sole purpose of trying to break the enemy position, and end up being useless afterward even if they manage to even break the German position. The British has NO other form of artillery/mortar other than an infantry section flare (which they take an hour to call in) or a Sexton which is doctrinal.

British emplacements don't require micro? Don't kid yourself. Do you honestly think the British player sits there doing nothing while your mortars bombard their emplacements? No, they actively use ground fire on your mortars (despite what people think, counter-battery reacts too slowly to be of any use, it's the player). And what are you doing while the British hold their emplacements? Is it so micro-intensive to ground fire with your mortars and issue a right click once in a while?

Your points are not inaccurate for 1v1s. But as far as what you say about team games, being forced into stacking onto one side of the map until until the late game is pretty much defaulting to having to defend your own territory, being denied the ability to harass or capture the opponents' resources. But nonetheless, like you even said, the answer is to hold out until the late game.

...And hey, having 3 or 4 players on one side of most 3v3/4v4 maps? Mortars don't have to be accurate in the least.

I'm not disputing any of this? What are you trying to argue here? Mortar teams can indeed barrage mortar pits and bofors. Both the mortar pit and bofors can barrage back. "Extremely unlucky" is pretty much at heart of the issue here, not at all confusion on how, exactly, to micro a mortar team.

How is "extremely unlucky" the heart of the issue? IF you're not disputing any of it why is Bofors an issue? I just explained to you how to beat it, you just admitted you agree, so then what is your complaint?

Your points are not inaccurate for 1v1s. But as far as what you say about team games, being forced into stacking onto one side of the map until until the late game is pretty much defaulting to having to defend your own territory, being denied the ability to harass or capture the opponents' resources. But nonetheless, like you even said, the answer is to hold out until the late game.

...And hey, having 3 or 4 players on one side of most 3v3/4v4 maps? Mortars don't have to be accurate in the least.

It's MORE accurate for 1v1s. Resource income is even less in 1v1s in the early stages of the game, making the Bofors fuel cost a huge disadvantage. Furthermore, flanking is especially effective in 1v1s, as there are no teammates to cover the British after the Brit just spent ridiculous amounts of resources on building emplacements.

Being forced to stack on a different side of the map applies for all factions when you've lost a strategic point. Unless you can hit a timing such as a flame track to destroy emplacements, it's a more wise decision to stack a different side of the map or flank than trying to waste more resources on retaking a position that is dug in. This applies to ALL factions, including the British.

...And hey, having 3 or 4 players on one side of most 3v3/4v4 maps? Mortars don't have to be accurate in the least.

What does that even mean?


So far none of your posts have had any real argumentative point backing up any claim that British emplacements are overpowered in any way.

How is "extremely unlucky" the heart of the issue? IF you're not disputing any of it why is Bofors an issue? I just explained to you how to beat it, you just admitted you agree, so then what is your complaint?



It's MORE accurate for 1v1s. Resource income is even less in 1v1s in the early stages of the game, making the Bofors fuel cost a huge disadvantage. Furthermore, flanking is especially effective in 1v1s, as there are no teammates to cover the British after the Brit just spent ridiculous amounts of resources on building emplacements.

Being forced to stack on a different side of the map applies for all factions when you've lost a strategic point. Unless you can hit a timing such as a flame track to destroy emplacements, it's a more wise decision to stack a different side of the map or flank than trying to waste more resources on retaking a position that is dug in. This applies to ALL factions, including the British.



What does that even mean?


So far none of your posts have had any real argumentative point backing up any claim that British emplacements are overpowered in any way.

Have you not read any of this thread? There are definitely issues with British emplacements.

The Bofors is way too effective at what it does, no other unit performs at the same level of efficiency as it does. If ANY light vehicles even come into it’s range, it’s dead.

The mortars bleed the opponent’s MP like crazy and don’t really bleed out any of their own and sitting behind a Bofors it can lock down a whole side of the map.

I don't know why your comparing german mortars to the mortar pit. I'd take the mortar pit everytime. They are more durable, they cost less, they don't lose models, greater range, they can't be decrewed so you don't have to worry about veterancy as much, they brace, repairing costs practically no MP and you can park it your base in some 1v1s to cover center VP.

It seems like it is a mystery, because everyone keeps claiming how it is micro intensive to beat a Bofors + Mortar as if it takes so much micro for you to deal with it. You do NOT need a LeFH to deal with emplacements, you're doing it wrong if you're choosing your commander completely based upon if you're playing a against a British or not.

I have replied to you already on how to beat a Bofors a page or two back in this thread. You didn't reply to me back then either. So I will reiterate it for you.

The total cost in fuel in order to build a Bofors is 75. You need a platoon command post, research Bofors, and finally build the Bofors. The total cost in fuel in order to get the tech to build German mortars is 10. You can literally build your tech for it as soon as the game starts and have a mortar out in the first minute of the game. The British do not have access to mortars until T2, on top of it costing 400mp. It's obvious an Ostheer player against the British has a huge advantage in the early game, yes?

Despite Germans having an advantage in the early game, somehow the British manages to set up a Bofors and Mortar emplacement at a strategic position without any interference by the German player (you've already screwed up once at this point). A mortar team should be one of the first units you should buy after an MG, so when you do get pushed back, buy a second mortar team. Emplacements can't move, so once you know where the Bofors is placed you can bombard the same spot over and over again. Split your two mortars (don't stack them on top of each other like an idiot as I've seen people do), ground fire at where the emplacement is, and when the mortar emplacement shoots back you can either choose to move, or keep firing (since it takes quite a few shots to get it killed due to the lack of accuracy of the emplacement unless you're extremely unlucky). Regardless of if you choose to move or not, your other mortar team will still be firing.

This is glossing over the fact that a British player usually builds a Bofors first (building a mortar emplacement first leaves it open to shrecks and scout cars/half tracks destroying it), and building a Bofors first means that Bofors is open to free mortar fire until the British gets 400mp to build a mortar emplacement. That is more than enough time to kill the Bofors with two mortars before a mortar emplacement is set up.

If you STILL somehow manage not to break the emplacements until they build a sim city, you pretty much deserve the loss, but even then you have a chance to win. Flank around with your units to cut off the British supply chain, or in the case of team games, stack a different side of the map and help your team. Once you get to the late game, you have access to panzerwerfers, on top of heavy tanks, and the fact that 90% of Ostheer commanders have some sort of artillery/bombing ability.

In comparison, do you know what happens to the British when they lose a strategic point? They have to set up their emplacements at a disadvantageous position for the sole purpose of trying to break the enemy position, and end up being useless afterward even if they manage to even break the German position. The British has NO other form of artillery/mortar other than an infantry section flare (which they take an hour to call in) or a Sexton which is doctrinal.

British emplacements don't require micro? Don't kid yourself. Do you honestly think the British player sits there doing nothing while your mortars bombard their emplacements? No, they actively use ground fire on your mortars (despite what people think, counter-battery reacts too slowly to be of any use, it's the player). And what are you doing while the British hold their emplacements? Is it so micro-intensive to ground fire with your mortars and issue a right click once in a while?

Your entire premise of balance is that the ostheer has some kind of massive advantage early game. while the ostheer do have an advantage because they have a sniper its not nearly enough that the brits cannot buy a mt pit with bofars.

Also why do you say mortars are a counter to emplacements? because they are not. you need mt-ht to really counter emplacements. anything that is crewed by a team is simply not durable enough to withstand mt-pit counter barrages.

Also i find it baffling the brits first need to buy a bofors to secure their mt pit? you dont have vickers covering or is watching the place?

Your entire argument is flawed i suggest you play a few okw and ostheer games against mt-pit bofors combo and see how it works out for you.

Your entire premise of balance is that the ostheer has some kind of massive advantage early game. while the ostheer do have an advantage because they have a sniper its not nearly enough that the brits cannot buy a mt pit with bofars.

I mean, it's just a 680MP advantage on the emplacement-heavy Brit. No big deal, right?

Also why do you say mortars are a counter to emplacements? because they are not. you need mt-ht to really counter emplacements. anything that is crewed by a team is simply not durable enough to withstand mt-pit counter barrages.

Mortars are a counter to emplacements. They are the counter to anything that stands still. The guy already addressed in his post that you should split up your mortars and move them during barrages, and I think you're ignoring the fact that the first step to beating Brit emplacements is to not let them be built, instead of waiting for them to be all dug in and then attacking.

Also i find it baffling the brits first need to buy a bofors to secure their mt pit? you dont have vickers covering or is watching the place?

What? Seriously? We're here talking about BOFORs and even a Vickers is giving you trouble? Build a mortar? Attack from multiple directions? A grenade or a flamethrower, maybe? You'll have all of those options available to you far before any Brit can get up a BOFORs or a mortar pit.

Your entire argument is flawed i suggest you play a few okw and ostheer games against mt-pit bofors combo and see how it works out for you.

You didn't even really respond to his argument. You cherry-picked a few nonexistent holes into his premises and kind of left the actual argument alone.

Just for my understanding guys, why do Brits have to rely on emplacements?
As far as I understood it (which might be to a lesser extent because I'm not a very good or experienced player) Brits got very potent infantry, a good light vehicle, sniper, very good AT gun, a lot of very good tanks, good weapon upgrades, one of the best MGs, a mobile vehicle based flamer, etc.
All they are missing is the mobile mortar. So why do they have to get Bofors? It sounds as if they stand no chance without it.

Coming from the low end of the ladder with lots to learn especially when it comes to micro, I find it a very unpleasant experience to play agains Emplacement Brits. I always feel I got like 5 minutes of game until a part of the map is a no go zone. If I don't oriented my complete build order and play style towards anti Emplacemt play the game is over.

In team games it feels even worse.

Just for my understanding guys, why do Brits have to rely on emplacements?
As far as I understood it (which might be to a lesser extent because I'm not a very good or experienced player) Brits got very potent infantry, a good light vehicle, sniper, very good AT gun, a lot of very good tanks, good weapon upgrades, one of the best MGs, a mobile vehicle based flamer, etc.
All they are missing is the mobile mortar. So why do they have to get Bofors? It sounds as if they stand no chance without it.

Coming from the low end of the ladder with lots to learn especially when it comes to micro, I find it a very unpleasant experience to play agains Emplacement Brits. I always feel I got like 5 minutes of game until a part of the map is a no go zone. If I don't oriented my complete build order and play style towards anti Emplacemt play the game is over.

In team games it feels even worse.

They don't rely on emplacements.
One of the playstyles do.
That is why you can go either for AEC or bofors.

Plus, we still have shreckblobs and 222 is severely underpriced for current survivability to the point where AEC is useless because of much cheaper pair of 222s, pyrotechnics upgrade is unreliable, brits don't have nearly as much field presence as other factions unless you spam REs and there is no effective stock indirect fire outside of mortar pit, so brits are kind of forced into the pit to keep map control and counter aggressive HMG placement.

Your points are not inaccurate for 1v1s. But as far as what you say about team games, being forced into stacking onto one side of the map until until the late game is pretty much defaulting to having to defend your own territory, being denied the ability to harass or capture the opponents' resources. But nonetheless, like you even said, the answer is to hold out until the late game.

...And hey, having 3 or 4 players on one side of most 3v3/4v4 maps? Mortars don't have to be accurate in the least.

Hey welcome to the life of people playing against OKW since release. Flak HQ blocking cutoffs so you can't harass or capture resources that are undefended with a 0 pop cap building. ISGs with sniper shots and equal range to mortar emplacement placed behind a Flak HQ. This issue is exacerbated in team games with very few early counters once setup... JUST... LIKE... UKF emplacements.

Personally, I think the only "buildings" on the fields should be bunkers that are not too difficult to displace. UKF and OKW are boring and static when they just use buildings

They don't rely on emplacements.
One of the playstyles do.
That is why you can go either for AEC or bofors.

Plus, we still have shreckblobs and 222 is severely underpriced for current survivability to the point where AEC is useless because of much cheaper pair of 222s, pyrotechnics upgrade is unreliable, brits don't have nearly as much field presence as other factions unless you spam REs and there is no effective stock indirect fire outside of mortar pit, so brits are kind of forced into the pit to keep map control and counter aggressive HMG placement.

Thanks for the explanation!
It's just so aweful to play against that I didn't consider the bigger picture. I still hope they change something so that we can get rid of that playstyle. I find it quite enjoyable to play against mobile Brits but especially in team games there's almost never a mobile one. It's usually a Brit locking down the fuel or two victory points and the rest of the team actually attacking. That is really annoying and hard to deal with from my experience. Mostly because defense swallows all resources so the Brit can go full Sim City.

I mean, it's just a 680MP advantage on the emplacement-heavy Brit. No big deal, right?

If it can lock down 2/3 of the maps its a bargain.

Mortars are a counter to emplacements. They are the counter to anything that stands still. The guy already addressed in his post that you should split up your mortars and move them during barrages, and I think you're ignoring the fact that the first step to beating Brit emplacements is to not let them be built, instead of waiting for them to be all dug in and then attacking.

should you in the unlikely case managed to do some damage he will simply brace and repair his emplacements to full health. also any barrage done by the bofors mortar pit can result in a k.o for your mortars.

Thats why i always use mt-ht against emplacement because the burn mortar actually does damage.

What? Seriously? We're here talking about BOFORs and even a Vickers is giving you trouble? Build a mortar? Attack from multiple directions? A grenade or a flamethrower, maybe? You'll have all of those options available to you far before any Brit can get up a BOFORs or a mortar pit.

Did i say vickers give me trouble? i said the emplacements are likely going to be defended.