Login

russian armor

What makes Bofors unpleasant to fight?

PAGES (8)down
25 May 2016, 14:42 PM
#41
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17

It's not the Bofors. It's the Mortar Pit, stupid :)

You could make the Bofors more balanced by making it a copy-paste of the OKW T4. That means:
- Increase HP
- Remove brace
- Remove barrage
- Decrease damage
- Increase suppression
- Increase price (MP & Fuel)
- Take away attack ground

Theoretically, the earlier arrival of the Bofors (vs T4 lockdown) will balance itself since (Bofors) Brits have the most incomplete army composition in the game, and OKW has the most complete army composition in the game.

However, even if you do that, people will still come back in the forums and (rightfully) complain. That's because it all starts with the Mortar Pit.

No matter how hard you try to change the Mortar Pit, it will always remain an all-or-nothing investment. What makes things more complicated is that it is the only indirect fire option Brits have under the sun. This means that:
- (single) Mortar Pits should work (since it's Brits only indirect fire, and it can't move)
- Spamming Mortar Pits will remain as rewarding as ever (if 1 is good, 4 is better)
- Result: Emplacement spam

My personal gripes with emplacement play:
- Brace completely nullifies infantry play
- Thus, the only counter to mortar pits are tanks (too late) and indirect fire (lame, since it's mortar spam both ways)
- It's all-or-nothing. Thus, the defender will feel the need to constantly spam emplacements so that he never loses the indirect fire race.

Campy playstyle is all about who is the king of artillery. That's because it's the other guy that has to attack your artillery (and gets shredded). Currently, with Mortar-Pit Spam and doctrinal/DLC stuff (micro-free repairs, counter batter, land mattress), it's the Brits. (there is no point arguing who comes second. The game should simply not accommodate such huuuge gaps in artillery performance to avoid just that).
25 May 2016, 14:47 PM
#42
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

give the emplacement to ost see how the game get balanced and I play Brit more than ost try to kill the emplacement with 2 stug when there is at to support it brace make it inv


Will you also make grens and MG more expensive, reduce the combined arms possibilities, make it so you can have emplacement OR 222, make shrecks hit nothing at all, remove pwerfer and lock panther and brummbar in 2 exclusive techs?

Both, ost and okw can deal with emplacements, but you need to actually commit to it and build more then "standard no brainer BO" units to do it, don't expect yourself to not adapt to the situation and still come out on top regardless of what you face.

If you can't exploit brace cooldown, then maybe you should watch some streams?
I suggest HelpingHans as an example since he is great with ost and can counter emplacements just fine.

It shouldn't be easy to counter them, because otherwise they would lose the whole point of existence, they certainly won't be removed from the game or nerfed into oblivion given the conditions to put them down, so you might just as well stop scrubbing around and learn some plays from better players then yourself instead of spitting random retarded ideas.
25 May 2016, 15:00 PM
#43
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4474

jump backJump back to quoted post25 May 2016, 14:47 PMKatitof


Will you also make grens and MG more expensive, reduce the combined arms possibilities, make it so you can have emplacement OR 222, make shrecks hit nothing at all, remove pwerfer and lock panther and brummbar in 2 exclusive techs?

Both, ost and okw can deal with emplacements, but you need to actually commit to it and build more then "standard no brainer BO" units to do it, don't expect yourself to not adapt to the situation and still come out on top regardless of what you face.

If you can't exploit brace cooldown, then maybe you should watch some streams?
I suggest HelpingHans as an example since he is great with ost and can counter emplacements just fine.

It shouldn't be easy to counter them, because otherwise they would lose the whole point of existence, they certainly won't be removed from the game or nerfed into oblivion given the conditions to put them down, so you might just as well stop scrubbing around and learn some plays from better players then yourself instead of spitting random retarded ideas.
look if there was a non doc hard counter I would agree but at gun can't mortar can't tier 3 tank almost can only mortar half truk and is doctrinal pulse cost mun to use barrage the brace simply save you from any mistake
Still you gave no fucking opinion again and again and ag....
25 May 2016, 15:03 PM
#44
avatar of ferwiner
Donator 11

Posts: 2885

In fact there is nothing wrong with bofors performance. The problem is the cost. But how to increase realistic cost without making its arrival too late? Its simple and it already works great in case of 17-pdr - you just increase its pop value (also called maintance cost). That means player has to focus his strategy around the bofors if he chooses to build one and that he can't spam emplacements. Especially he cant build too big of an army hiding behind the emplacement wall. IMO increasing the pop is ultimate solution to emplacement problem - doesn't make them useless but you need to thing before building one. What do you think?
25 May 2016, 15:07 PM
#45
avatar of Intelligence209

Posts: 1124

Emplacements slows the game down, makes it a static artillery fest

Self repair while brace allows the unit heal faster then the damage it takes

It becomes a press of a button for one player, a micro intensive offensive for another usually resulting in loss of MP.

No units should have a forcefield, no ability should ever heal all units of its type with a press of a button. Please tell me how that is strategy?

25 May 2016, 15:13 PM
#46
avatar of UlyssesBellefonte

Posts: 40

it fires 40mm rounds at a rate of 120 per minute. Thoroughly unpleasant
25 May 2016, 15:14 PM
#47
avatar of Intelligence209

Posts: 1124

If any of you watch my stream, no matter the skill of me, or my opponent, the british player can suck terribly. But one an emplacement is built he is then able to rack up kills.

4/5 games played against British result in sim city, as well as advanced emplacements

It's legit a non strategy non micro needed game style to play. Motor pits being vet 3 with only 5 kills average as well. Lol wtf is relic thinking.
25 May 2016, 15:24 PM
#48
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4474

jump backJump back to quoted post25 May 2016, 14:16 PMKatitof
Thats still retarded and unfair.
btw supported emplacement would lose nothing with this change just dat if you use brace you will need to make sure there are no inf unit or put your inf inside the emplacement (suppressed inf can't enter it like weapon team) it would just make full simcity or lone emplacement couterable and would put some micro manage for emplacement
25 May 2016, 15:25 PM
#49
avatar of Tobis
Senior Strategist Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4

It synergizes too well with the mortar pit. Add a mortar pit tech to t2 so you choose between Mortar or Bofors. Make AEC techless but increase price a little. The problem now is they counter each others counter when used together for fairly cheap, and make them practically unstoppable until the late game when real counters like tanks or arty come out. By then they have already paid for themselves.

Would make fighting them less frustrating with clear counters, and increase strategic decision making on the Brits part. Will still be stronk and worth getting, but you will think about what you want more.
25 May 2016, 15:28 PM
#50
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4474

jump backJump back to quoted post25 May 2016, 15:25 PMTobis
It synergizes too well with the mortar pit. Add a mortar pit tech to t2 so you choose between Mortar or Bofors. Make AEC techless but increase price a little. The problem now is they counter each others counter when used together for fairly cheap, and make them practically unstoppable until the late game when real counters like tanks or arty come out. By then they have already paid for themselves.

Would make fighting them less frustrating with clear counters, and increase strategic decision making on the Brits part. Will still be stronk and worth getting, but you will think about what you want more.
and all Brit would cry for the lack of mortar because all want the Bofors
25 May 2016, 16:27 PM
#51
avatar of NEVEC

Posts: 708 | Subs: 1

I am for reworking all emplacements without brace.
25 May 2016, 16:38 PM
#52
avatar of Bulgakov

Posts: 987

jump backJump back to quoted post25 May 2016, 12:16 PMKatitof


Nobody also missed forward bases and forward retreat points, yet OKW have brought all of it back...

As for the bofors? Pretty much only thing about it its the barrage range.


So did US and later UKF.

Bofors reduces the game to static play. Surely even you can't defend that?
25 May 2016, 16:40 PM
#53
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2



So did US and later UKF.

Bofors reduces the game to static play. Surely even you can't defend that?


And what is wrong with static play?
I don't see anywhere that CoH2 is about 100% mobility.
25 May 2016, 16:41 PM
#54
avatar of vietnamabc

Posts: 1063

Forward retreat point is a problem since vCOH, blobbing is no fun and Lelic still want to stick with it. Nobody wants emplacements since UKF release either but currently emplacements is the most solid strat for UKF.
25 May 2016, 16:45 PM
#56
avatar of Bulgakov

Posts: 987



And what is wrong with static play?
I don't see anywhere that CoH2 is about 100% mobility.


Static play is boring. It's just angry birds with tanks.


What made the franchise so exciting was vanilla coh1 and vanilla coh2, which were all about clever flanking and movement. Not indirect fire vs indirect fire.

Do you enjoy static play?
25 May 2016, 16:47 PM
#57
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2



Static play is boring. It's just angry birds with tanks.


What made the franchise so exciting was vanilla coh1 and vanilla coh2, which were all about clever flanking and movement. Not indirect fire vs indirect fire.

Do you enjoy static play?


Of course I do.

Your argument is subjective. You don't like static gameplay - it's stupid, it needs to be removed.
But it's only your opinion.

On the other hand I enjoy static, defensive gameplay.

So why your opinion should be over mine? We prefer different styles and the games offers them.

Flanking and movement is out of the question since WFA and Schwerer.
25 May 2016, 17:08 PM
#58
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4474



And what is wrong with static play?
I don't see anywhere that CoH2 is about 100% mobility.
well give Bofors to other faction too so we can play defend the castle
25 May 2016, 17:11 PM
#59
avatar of ferwiner
Donator 11

Posts: 2885

well give Bofors to other faction too so we can play defend the castle


I don't think there is more than 20% of campers in this game :P Also, ostheer active defence is much more interesting than emplacements IMO.
25 May 2016, 17:21 PM
#60
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742



Of course I do.

Your argument is subjective. You don't like static gameplay - it's stupid, it needs to be removed.
But it's only your opinion.

On the other hand I enjoy static, defensive gameplay.

So why your opinion should be over mine? We prefer different styles and the games offers them.

Flanking and movement is out of the question since WFA and Schwerer.


There's plenty of static, defensive gameplay to be had with Wehrmacht v Soviets. :guyokay:

PAGES (8)down
0 user is browsing this thread:

Ladders Top 10

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

Replay highlight

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

Board Info

614 users are online: 614 guests
1 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49065
Welcome our newest member, Huhmpal01
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM