Possible solution to the mortar pit problem.

Remove auto repair abilities. Fixed.

All I want is a normal mortar. They can just throw the mortar pit away, it doesn't really matter to me anyway! I mean, like, you invest 400 mp for something that only score like 8-10 kills the entire match and it can't be move up to support. Right now I just use the Land Mattress because at least the bloody thing can move. (Perspective from an aggressive Brit player so if you don't agree, it's fine)

Actually, how about an upgrade for UC to have a mortar on it (doc or non-doc, I don't know), so the UC will act like a British mortar halftrack. That would be nice!

Where do you build your Mortar Pit? Behind your HQ?

In all of my games as Allies and even at high levels of play I've observed via casts and streams, Mortar Pits always have a massive impact if positioned well and protected efficiently. If Mortar Pits were only getting 8-10 kills a game, people wouldn't be constantly crying about them. The "problem" is they consistently get 20-30+ kills a game, are hard to kill, and can typically cover 2 VPs at once. Not to mention the x2 shots are prone to wiping 4-man Axis squads.

I really like the idea of Bofors OR Mortar Pit tech choice with AEC just being a normal light vehicle always available to Brits.I think that would go a long way to curbing Sim City and forcing lower ELO British players to play more like the other four factions and rely less on auto-fire / auto-kill static emplacements.

Where do you build your Mortar Pit? Behind your HQ?

In all of my games as Allies and even at high levels of play I've observed via casts and streams, Mortar Pits always have a massive impact if positioned well and protected efficiently. If Mortar Pits were only getting 8-10 kills a game, people wouldn't be constantly crying about them. The "problem" is they consistently get 20-30+ kills a game, are hard to kill, and can typically cover 2 VPs at once. Not to mention the x2 shots are prone to wiping 4-man Axis squads.

I really like the idea of Bofors OR Mortar Pit tech choice with AEC just being a normal light vehicle always available to Brits.I think that would go a long way to curbing Sim City and forcing lower ELO British players to play more like the other four factions and rely less on auto-fire / auto-kill static emplacements.

Dude, I was just being sarcastic. Of course the pit can be great if position correctly, but that would also make it quite easy to be destroyed. Again, i'm not the kind of player that sit behind the wall of Bofors and Mortar Pits, I constantly try to attack my enemies when I have a chance with everything I have. And when I mean everything, I mean all the troops: MG, IS, RE, etc. Therefore, the pit would sit behind, all alone, vulnerable to an unexpected flank (Insert bad teammate that just can't cover your flank).

I understand that the pit can be extremely devastating to Axis infantries, but the idea of a static indirect-fire weapon never seem to interest me. Just look at the ISG, it has good range and it can MOVE when being threatened or you want to have some extra support during your assault. The pit on the other hand would need to be fixed, defense with some extra units and sometimes just can't give me support which against my play style.

Actually even without the mobile mortar, just separating the mortar and the Bofors into mutually exclusive unlocks is an awesome idea.

Which brings me to the following point: why would the AEC be behind an unlock anyway? I would say that the role and the effectiveness of the AEC do not require it being an exclusive in order to be balanced. In the beta its extra tech unlock may have been justified but the game has moved on a lot since then. Increase AEC cost by 50/10 if you must for timing purposes but make it always unlocked. It would have literally zero effect on gameplay, except a player could now have both the Bofors and the AEC at the same time, which I just don't see as some game breaking synergy. Yes a player could lock down a part of the map with a Bofors while harassing the other part with an AEC but the combined fuel cost of both means by the time this would be possible Axis should already have a lot of viable options to chase the AEC away

Bofors or Mortar pit should be the 2 mutually exclusive upgrades. This will solve a lot of problems, as already outlined above - without the synergy of both, they will be more manageable. You want the awesomeness that is Bofors, you pay by giving up indirect fire, and vice versa.

But I wouldn't mind any of the solutions outlined in this thread.

I don't see how giving no indirect fire if you go Bofors would be viable. Base Howitzers would need to be able to kill something then.

I don't see how giving no indirect fire if you go Bofors would be viable. Base Howitzers would need to be able to kill something then.

You still have the bofors barrage too.

It's a trade off you make, like going LT tier for USF gives you no indirect fire.

How Brit players will feel if Mortars and Bofors get seperated
Show Spoiler

Actually even without the mobile mortar, just separating the mortar and the Bofors into mutually exclusive unlocks is an awesome idea.

Which brings me to the following point: why would the AEC be behind an unlock anyway? I would say that the role and the effectiveness of the AEC do not require it being an exclusive in order to be balanced. In the beta its extra tech unlock may have been justified but the game has moved on a lot since then. Increase AEC cost by 50/10 if you must for timing purposes but make it always unlocked. It would have literally zero effect on gameplay, except a player could now have both the Bofors and the AEC at the same time, which I just don't see as some game breaking synergy. Yes a player could lock down a part of the map with a Bofors while harassing the other part with an AEC but the combined fuel cost of both means by the time this would be possible Axis should already have a lot of viable options to chase the AEC away

Bofors or Mortar pit should be the 2 mutually exclusive upgrades. This will solve a lot of problems, as already outlined above - without the synergy of both, they will be more manageable. You want the awesomeness that is Bofors, you pay by giving up indirect fire, and vice versa.

But I wouldn't mind any of the solutions outlined in this thread.

The problem here is that you're losing the in-direct fire support capability, and making a player choose between that and a more effective 360 area of denial unit/emplacement is... well, I won't say it but you can guess the word, homo, so to speak, and a no-brainer in let's say competitive playing, you'll want that in-direct fire support, but I think bringing in a mobile mortar team would help the game, competitive play and the more aggressive and mobile British players a hell of a lot more than hurt it and them, than just making the player decide between a static in-direct fire support emplacement and an area of denial emplacement.

Edit: No, the Bofors suppressive fire ability cannot compensate in-direct fire capabilities of a/the mortar (team) pit. Seeing all of this crying it's bound to get nerfed, it has far less of a range than the mortar pit, is again, static and cannot be used as frequently as the mortar (pit)'s barrage ability or auto-fire ability, auto-fire being it's ground attack so just barrage ability then.

Separating the Bofors and mortar pits into side upgrades and giving the Brits a mobile 3-inch mortar team seems to me like the best solution to the problem, the reason being, firstly, it's mobile, and secondly, it's mobile, the bofors and 17 pounder both have mobile counter-parts already available to the Brits by default, the Centaur being the more mobile version of the Bofors but not as effective against light vehicles and armor, or at least armor, not sure, haven't used it in a long time, because of obvious reasons, and the firefly, being the 17 pounder's more mobile counter-part, not to mention the Comet, being the generalist equal to the Firefly and a bit better armored while maintaining the cromwell's speed.

In the end, I think that the British players deserve to have a choice, between being mobile and going for a more static gameplay, if he goes more mobile, then it's like playing against any other mobile army, if he so chooses to go static, then fine, but he'll need to invest a lot of fuel, time, man power and map control for that, especially more fuel and time if the suggested changes here take effect of delaying the tech and increasing the fuel cost for the bofors and mortar pit.

The problem here is that you're losing the in-direct fire support capability, and making a player choose between that and a more effective 360 area of denial unit/emplacement is... well, I won't say it but you can guess the word

A reasonable tradeoff?

I don't see how giving no indirect fire if you go Bofors would be viable.

So you don't really want just indirect fire (if that was the case you would just unlock the mortar pit). No, you want indirect fire AND the Bofors.

--

Why are people acting as if having indirect fire is some sort of a God-given right for every faction? Yes, other 4 factions all have 2 separate units capable of indirect fire, but then, those factions also do not get access to the hands-down best defensive position in the game.

The word of the day is tradeoff. People act as if Bofors is a thing you should definitely have access to in a faction. Well, no, there is nothing like the Bofors in the entire game, so I don't need to somehow justify the tech restrictions and tradeoffs I propose as counterbalance. You need to justify what you would give up to get the access to a Bofors. No other faction has anything that comes even near in 360 degree area denial for infantry, light vehicles, and aircraft alike (just compare it to the Luftwaffe emplacements, a commander ability, and weep).

Oh, the match dictates you need indirect fire? Well what the hell are you doing unlocking and building a static emplacement for short range defense for, then? If I go for triple Ostwinds when the enemy has nothing but tanks, should I get to the balance forums and complain about overpowered Allied factions? Your build choices should be dictated by the match and the circumstances, you don't get to build a Bofors and then expect the game is balanced around your sacrosanct right to have this ultra emplacement no matter what, and just let the enemy think about things like unit composition and react to your build choices.

And with my proposal you can get your AEC too. So, a player going for an AEC and mortar pit would be no worse off than any players currently researching the AEC unlock.

Or, you can opt for this incredibly sturdy defensive emplacement that the enemy will have to invest significant micro and resources to dislodge, but lose the option of indirect fire in the process. Suddenly a Bofors is not a no-brainer, but a choice.

It's not gonna eradicate sim cities, but you can either have a mortar-wiping machine with a long range and zero micro requirements, or a shorter range defensive position that will kill anything short of a tank, but can now be safely chipped away from a distance by LeIGs, mortars and AT guns without fear of nuclear mortar shells annihilating them.

Why are people acting as if having indirect fire is some sort of a God-given right for every faction?

Because it bloody is.

The UKF suffers from a lack of late game arty options as it is already.

Making Bofors and Mortar Pits mutually exclusive MIGHT work for 1v1s. However it doesn't change anything for 2v2 and up.

IMO, the main issues regarding emplacements are the following:

1. Emplacements can repair at normal rate while they are braced.

Suppose you are DPSing an unbraced emplacement while the enemy repairs it. If your DPS is high enough, health will start going down. If it is not, the health bar will remain stationary or will start topping up.

While an emplacement is braced it takes -75% damage. This means that you need to, somehow, muster 4x the DPS to continue DPSing the damn thing.

2. Auto-repair synergises with brace too much

Brace + repair is not necessarily a terrible thing. Theoretically, you can still DPS the enemy's engineers while they repair, inflicting MP damage and wipes.

However, this trade-off goes completely off when you factor in auto-repair abilities (Standfast, or Advanced Assembly). The defending player can pop brace and risk nothing as his emplacements start to top-up to top health.

This needs to stop.

3. Infantry is relegated to a secondary role

Unless you are OKW (with flames and Schrecks spam), your infantry can do nothing vs emplacements. Thus, flanking with infantry only puts you at a risk of getting wiped by Bofors. This is extremely frustrating to play against.

(I'm not sure how OKW will fare post-patch now that Schrecks and Flame nades are on different units).

Solution

Brace denies infantry play. Thus, it needs to go. Thus, we need to find the right tradeoffs to make brace-less emplacements work.

Bofors can be a copy-paste of the OKW FlakHQ. If people are OK with the OKW emplacement, people will also be fine with a Bofors that also takes up popcap to deploy.

However, a Bofors without indirect fire support is rubbish (OKW at least has leigs, panzerschrecks, IR HT etc). Thus, Brits need mobile mortars. These mortars have no need for brace, since they can retreat. If you abandon your Bofors, you deserve to lose it, similar to how OKW loses their T4. Bofors could lose its attack ground to make it easier to counter, but it could be given a rotate function (to aid in the AA role / punishing reckless flanks).

Since relic designed mortar pits, we need to do something with them, otherwise Relic will reject the idea. The best solution is to make them garrisonable structures. Make them give decent defense bonuses vs indirect fire and decent offensive bonuses to garrisoned mortars. I am sure we can find a price/bonus to make it work. Sim city will become unviable since it would take up too much popcap to maintain this.

Also, an artillery called down on your mortar farm needs you need to retreat all of them + cede territory.

At the same time, a successful infantry flank + grenade toss in the mortar pit will guarantee a wipe. Thus, infantry is no longer completely useless. You only have to beware of the Bofors.

Finally, for the 17 pounder, just make it a copy-paste of Pak43. An AT gun should be vulnerable to infantry rushes, and prolonged exposure to artillery, but relatively immune to tank pushes. The 17 pounder is completely the opposite of what it should be with respect to its counters.

Because it bloody is. The UKF suffers from a lack of late game arty options as it is already.

I agree with that 100%.

Of course, the same argument can be made that the other 4 factions also suffer from a lack of mid-to-late game area denial emplacements that can annihilate anything thinner than a Panzer.

Funny how some things are okay to be locked in a single faction but some must be universal.

Making Bofors and Mortar Pits mutually exclusive MIGHT work for 1v1s. However it doesn't change anything for 2v2 and up.

IMO, the main issues regarding emplacements are the following:

1. Emplacements can repair at normal rate while they are braced.

Suppose you are DPSing an unbraced emplacement while the enemy repairs it. If your DPS is high enough, health will start going down. If it is not, the health bar will remain stationary or will start topping up.

While an emplacement is braced it takes -75% damage. This means that you need to, somehow, muster 4x the DPS to continue DPSing the damn thing.

2. Auto-repair synergises with brace too much

Brace + repair is not necessarily a terrible thing. Theoretically, you can still DPS the enemy's engineers while they repair, inflicting MP damage and wipes.

However, this trade-off goes completely off when you factor in auto-repair abilities (Standfast, or Advanced Assembly). The defending player can pop brace and risk nothing as his emplacements start to top-up to top health.

This needs to stop.

3. Infantry is relegated to a secondary role

Unless you are OKW (with flames and Schrecks spam), your infantry can do nothing vs emplacements. Thus, flanking with infantry only puts you at a risk of getting wiped by Bofors. This is extremely frustrating to play against.

(I'm not sure how OKW will fare post-patch now that Schrecks and Flame nades are on different units).

Solution

Brace denies infantry play. Thus, it needs to go. Thus, we need to find the right tradeoffs to make brace-less emplacements work.

Bofors can be a copy-paste of the OKW FlakHQ. If people are OK with the OKW emplacement, people will also be fine with a Bofors that also takes up popcap to deploy.

However, a Bofors without indirect fire support is rubbish (OKW at least has leigs, panzerschrecks, IR HT etc). Thus, Brits need mobile mortars. These mortars have no need for brace, since they can retreat. If you abandon your Bofors, you deserve to lose it, similar to how OKW loses their T4. Bofors could lose its attack ground to make it easier to counter, but it could be given a rotate function (to aid in the AA role / punishing reckless flanks).

Since relic designed mortar pits, we need to do something with them, otherwise Relic will reject the idea. The best solution is to make them garrisonable structures. Make them give decent defense bonuses vs indirect fire and decent offensive bonuses to garrisoned mortars. I am sure we can find a price/bonus to make it work. Sim city will become unviable since it would take up too much popcap to maintain this.

Also, an artillery called down on your mortar farm needs you need to retreat all of them + cede territory.

At the same time, a successful infantry flank + grenade toss in the mortar pit will guarantee a wipe. Thus, infantry is no longer completely useless. You only have to beware of the Bofors.

Finally, for the 17 pounder, just make it a copy-paste of Pak43. An AT gun should be vulnerable to infantry rushes, and prolonged exposure to artillery, but relatively immune to tank pushes. The 17 pounder is completely the opposite of what it should be with respect to its counters.

I think you make a number of very important points about the balance with these emplacements right now. I am not 100% convinced of some of your solutions yet, but I do agree with your analysis and would be open to try them in the balance preview.

Certainly emplacements make the game less interesting for the attacking player. This lowers player enjoyment. I don't see any reason in a game to make a situation where player enjoyment decreases because of a common strategy adopted by an opponent.

I do agree that 17pdrs are crap. They have a high pop cost, high investment cost, do not have the range of the longest TD in the game, do not come with stock shooting through wall abilities (which is all that matters since after 1 or 2 shots who comes back to fight a 17pdr?), and take damage from everything (further worsened by its already huge footprint and late arrival when arty is prevalent). To even this out it gets a flare, which makes you wonder, why wouldn't you be scouting for your 17pdr in the first place?

Also can we please have the firing arc of the 17pdr finally printed on the ground so everyone knows where the thing is pointing and what it can hit (like literally every other AT gun)?

Emplacements hurt 4v4 randoms the most as there is not enough coordination to simply flank and encircle the zones that are under the reign of the emplacements. You can rarely get all of the players to coordinate with you, so there is no way to take advantage of the static positioning.

Emplacements hurt 4v4 randoms the most as there is not enough coordination to simply flank and encircle the zones that are under the reign of the emplacements. You can rarely get all of the players to coordinate with you, so there is no way to take advantage of the static positioning.

I think we can all agree on that but it's sadly a universal problem for all of us, you need at least 1 good and active friend in order to even slightly coordinated and have a chance at winning.