British emplacements

Currently British emplacements are considerable investment in resources and once uses make UKF play revolve around them.

My suggestion would be to make them abit cheaper but increase their pop to prevent being spammed.

These are examples:

Mortar pit
current 400 8
Suggested 300-350 10-12

AA gun
current 280/30 10
Suggested 250/30 12-14

ATG
current 400/75 20
Suggested 350/60 22-24

In addition going anvil could lower pop (for instance could go down to 8 for pits, 10 for AA and 14-16 for 17p) and provide other benefits making the specialization revolve around emplacements more.

(corrected 17p)

A correction: the 17 pdr already costs 20 pop cap. It's also nigh on useless for that same reason.

What? You want to make 17 Pounder 22-24 pop cap?

What? You want to make 17 Pounder 22-24 pop cap?

if you ask me 17p should not be available to hammer specialization at all. Then it could be buffed to actually become more useful for anvil...

The point here is that there should be a limitation for use of emplacement and that should have more to do with pop and less with cost. This change would make fight revolve less around defending or destroying an emplacement.



In addition the hammer/anvil choice should have more to with using tanks or emplacements...

Another approach would be for emplacement to cost less fuel but have a fuel upkeep...

17 Pounder is already limited due to pop cap and crappiest. No need any more nerf.

If 17 would be lockd behind Anvil, then it will also need Pak's ability to shoot through everything and 20 pop like now.

Currently it's not worth. Maybe if it was 12 pop cap someone would use it in current state.

The reason emplacements make UKF revolve around them once built is that they are immobile, all-or-nothing investments. Thus, emplacements require brace to be viable, and brace gives everyone cancer.

A different way to fix this is:
- (brits get a mobile mortar) Turn mortar pit into a garrisonable pit that gives a buff to barrage, or whatever
- remove brace from bofors (it won't require brace with a mobile mortar pit)
- make 17-pdr a clone of pak43.

The 17 pdr is useless because it's the only AT gun that can be sniped by other AT guns or tanks from a distance; and also that popcap.

...
The 17 pdr is useless because it's the only AT gun that can be sniped by other AT guns or tanks from a distance; and also that popcap.

Sniped by tanks? it has a range of 80 and flare to spot...

Sniped by tanks? it has a range of 80 and flare to spot...

When you build an AT gun, you want to use it to ward tanks off you, and the rest of your army will have to worry about infantry. The 17-pounder represents a 10km jump backwards in that respect.

When (generalist) tanks face an AT gun in the distance, they either have to close in to kill the crew, or back off. Closing in is risky, since you might run into an ambush. That's because tanks tend to be inaccurate at a distance.

Instead, when you are fighting a 17-pounder, all you have to do is strafe from max range. You don't even have to worry about moving accuracy, since the target size (and target box) of the 17-pounder is massive (40 compared to the KT's 26).

To top the terribleness of this gun off, this is the only AT gun in the game that can be destroyed by dedicated tank-destroyers.

Now, put everything together, and also the facts that:
- The AT gun has 900 HPs
- It has to be built on an open ground to be even useful at all

and you have the answer why this unit is never-ever fielded.

...
Instead, when you are fighting a 17-pounder, all you have to do is strafe from max range. You don't even have to worry about moving accuracy, since the target size (and target box) of the 17-pounder is massive (40 compared to the KT's 26).

To top the terribleness of this gun off, this is the only AT gun in the game that can be destroyed by dedicated tank-destroyers.
...

I am a little confused. I do not claim that 17p is good but I am pretty sure it will beat stugs or JPs that attack it since it has more range and it can spot them...

About the tanks before you said that they would snipe it, now that they circle strafe. At what range? If it further away from 35 they cant see it, if it is weapon range (45 for most tanks) they will be inside the 17p range of 80 so they will be fired upon...

Anyway you are missing the point, the argument here is that emplacements should be less of commitment of resources, while they should be less spammable and their effectiveness should have more to do with hammer/anvil choice...

A very important side note is that Emplacements should not be able to be build inside base territory. On certain 1v1 maps, a UKF player can simply put their mortar pit inside their base sector and have it reach up to 80% of the map whilst being totally safe.

This is a no brainer when it comes to being unacceptable.

A very important side note is that Emplacements should not be able to be build inside base territory. On certain 1v1 maps, a UKF player can simply put their mortar pit inside their base sector and have it reach up to 80% of the map whilst being totally safe.

This is a no brainer when it comes to being unacceptable.

+1, outside of this, I don't think there are any issues with the emplacements being over powered.

The reason emplacements make UKF revolve around them once built is that they are immobile, all-or-nothing investments. Thus, emplacements require brace to be viable, and brace gives everyone cancer.

A different way to fix this is:
- (brits get a mobile mortar) Turn mortar pit into a garrisonable pit that gives a buff to barrage, or whatever
- remove brace from bofors (it won't require brace with a mobile mortar pit)
- make 17-pdr a clone of pak43.

The 17 pdr is useless because it's the only AT gun that can be sniped by other AT guns or tanks from a distance; and also that popcap.

Thanks for using my idea, I agree with everything here.

Give this man a mobile mortar team.

How about (I know it won't happen becasue it would require whole redesign but we all can dream ) making some unique trenches for UKF (a bigger when) in which you can put regular mortar or at gun.

Putting mortart or AT gun in the trenches would give it some buffs but taking it away would require like 5secs of "decrewing".

Such trenches would have also an option to upgrade for bofots or 17 pounder.

In other words, one unique trench which can be used to garrison mortar or at gun or can be upgraded to bofors/pounder but then it cannot be used by mortar anymore.

just decrease mortars range and all would be fixed. it is the main problem

just decrease mortars range and all would be fixed. it is the main problem

Mortar is fine in my opinion. It works like an artillery for UKF as the double mortar inside it is really good. BUT: If it's like an artillery piece for UKF it should require the player to put it in a sector, rather than his own base. So it can be destroyed a bit more easily and requires babysitting (especially if put next to a house).

Yes, its range is big (115) but what did you expect for 400 manpower? That's a big investment for an immobile stuff, so you expect it to work like a charm.

TLDR: Change emplacements, so they can't be built in base sectors, only in player controlled ones (that's in supply)

The reason emplacements make UKF revolve around them once built is that they are immobile, all-or-nothing investments. Thus, emplacements require brace to be viable, and brace gives everyone cancer.

A different way to fix this is:
- (brits get a mobile mortar) Turn mortar pit into a garrisonable pit that gives a buff to barrage, or whatever
- remove brace from bofors (it won't require brace with a mobile mortar pit)
- make 17-pdr a clone of pak43.

The 17 pdr is useless because it's the only AT gun that can be sniped by other AT guns or tanks from a distance; and also that popcap.

Don't worry bro, USF needs 2 year to get a mortar and its broken as fuck, we just need to wait till 2018 and then UKF will be patched.

I think a cunning fix to emplacements would be.... if anyone feels up to modding it, please read all before making a comment as it has 2 parts to it.....

Mortar - Make the cost similar to other mortars and its mobile pop cap similar to other mortars

17pdr - Make it cost more than other at guns, has a shallow fire arc (like a maxim compared to other mgs) and range equivelent to other at guns, slower to move, pop cap slighly higher than a normal atgun and still shot blocked.

Bofors - Make it cost about 500mp, half the fire rate tear down time to move, slower moving, pop cap slightly more than a aaht.

While mobile they cannot use any of the additional abilities barrage flare armour piercing etc, they can be decrewed like normal crewed weapons and stolen.

Now add in the ability either through an unlock or tier for engineers to either

Build a garrisonable emplacement at a fuel or munition cost which can only be garrisoned by UKF weapon teams and can be stolen if the other armies steal a UKF weapon to us in it. with the built garrison I would say it returns the weapons to their current form within the game.

Or

Hull down the weapons at a cost again possibly slightly faster to build than a full emplacment and when the weapon moves from the hull down as like the axis side it dissappears when the weapon vacates the emplacement. In the version I would say they return to current form lower hp from the defence but can be captured by other armies.

or add in both methods one for anvil and one for hammer and give different abilities to the weapons depending on which one you select.

IMO, Relic should never have done emplacements again, they should have made team weapons able to entrench themselves and allowed hulling-down of Fireflies. But that ain't happening anytime soon.

Switching up costs and popcap likely won't fix the problem, especially in team games where its more prevalent, it'll just lock the player into his city. To me, the mortar pit is the enabler, reducing the range of the auto-attack to 80 while retaining the barrage's range and fixing its second mortar would go a long way. The pit would be strong, but wouldn't AFK lockdown half a map anymore.

I think they are fine but Fortifying should cost some ammunitions.

Mortar is fine in my opinion. It works like an artillery for UKF as the double mortar inside it is really good. BUT: If it's like an artillery piece for UKF it should require the player to put it in a sector, rather than his own base. So it can be destroyed a bit more easily and requires babysitting (especially if put next to a house).

Yes, its range is big (115) but what did you expect for 400 manpower? That's a big investment for an immobile stuff, so you expect it to work like a charm.

TLDR: Change emplacements, so they can't be built in base sectors, only in player controlled ones (that's in supply)

Ever played on crossing in the woods against double mortar pits behind the hedges?