USF emplacement

Why can sturmpios and falls kill this just by standing behind it and attacking it with small arms. Seems a bit rediculous I am pretty sure assualt engineers or any allied infantry does 0 dmg to bunkers (with out at weapons or nades). Also 1 volk incendiary nade can detroy it by itself or close to it especially if it has even a little dmg to it before hand.

Small arms should never be able to destory it and incendiary nades do way too much dmg to it. All for them making okws flak emplacement more usefull as well, this is just something annoying I never thought was right with the usf emplacement. Also could use a little better pin late game okw infantry can still just run up on the cap with out a doubt decap the point or even cap it under fire the whole time before being red pinned. Just at least no dmg from small arms.

no...

I think the nade damage to it is fine, but it is silly that usfs bunker-esque building can be destroyed by small arms fire when other bunkersarw immune to it. I don't really build them though, I'd rather use the manpower and muni on my riflemen or vehicles. If you're talking about the 20mm emplacement okw can build, that thing is horrible. Super easy to decrew and steal and it costs like 20 fuel which is a lot for not that great a weapon.

... You do realize how long it takes to shoot down a fighting position with small arms right? Shit, if you let your opponent just sit next to it all day plinking away with rifle fire you deserve to lose it.

USF is a mobile attacking faction - you should be glad they can build MG positions period (Soviets say hello).

@Rocket Wait....are you saying you want emplacements to get an overall buff? All that is going to do is cause static game play all day.

@LoopDloop USF fighting position is not very vulnerable to small arms fire. If you garrison one RE squad you can push off any infantry squad easily (except maybe double shreked PGs). Or if you upgrade it the attacking squad won't even be able to approach. The fighting position absolutely does not need to be immune to small arms fire.

It's fine ever since it doesn't die to a single OKW lava grenade.

I think is fair because it gives free rifle nade and if i m not wrong is faster to build too

@Rocket Wait....are you saying you want emplacements to get an overall buff? All that is going to do is cause static game play all day.

@LoopDloop USF fighting position is not very vulnerable to small arms fire. If you garrison one RE squad you can push off any infantry squad easily (except maybe double shreked PGs). Or if you upgrade it the attacking squad won't even be able to approach. The fighting position absolutely does not need to be immune to small arms fire.

Thats not true at all i use them all the time sturms and falls easily beat the RE inside it and then can destroy the fighting position realitively quickly wich has actually fucked me over a few times as i could not get rifle support in time and it dosent matter anyway small arms shouldnt dmg the fighting pit at all imo if im going to spend mp and munitions to build one it shouldnt be countered that easily with them not investing and doing nothing. Or say maybe they just garrison a building next to a fighting position. Sometimes ues the RE will throw rifle nades but there not brain dead they just jump out and back in. Same with them throwing them at units outside the position... They simply move away from the rifle grenade. There is no reason why small arms should do dmg to fighting position at all.

Small arms dont do shit to axis bunkers.. Btw how much dmg does conscript molotov to do them last i remembered it was very litte if at all (incendiary nades almost kill positon with just one)

No not encouraging static gameplay really but okws flak emplacement should be more usefull and so should USF pit more on par with ost bunker. The .50 cal is ok but it cannot really stop big blobs because of it comming late and fighting infantry already vetted. I use usf emplacement almost every game its a huge deterrent to stop fuel harrassment or muntions then you just got to be ready to have a counter for 222 or luchs when it comes to destroy it. Late game it can be great at helping to win those matches that come down to close vp points.

Im not sure why a fighting pit is really deemed static gameplay i guess because it cant move and has no pop cost? But what do you call axis mgs that can actually pin entire blobs in a couple burst and camp on their fuel or vp?? Hell the fighting pit is way more easily countered than both 42 and mg because they can move and it cant im not talking about the bofors here.

Im not sure why a fighting pit is really deemed static gameplay i guess because it cant move and has no pop cost?

you guessed that right, its called static gameplay because it is static

But what do you call axis mgs that can actually pin entire blobs in a couple burst and camp on their fuel or vp??

not static

Hell the fighting pit is way more easily countered than both 42 and mg because they can move and it cant im not talking about the bofors here.

this is not a question of OP or UP, its just that static emplacements make boring gameplay, while mobile mgs offer more room for diverse and interesting gameplay

... You do realize how long it takes to shoot down a fighting position with small arms right? Shit, if you let your opponent just sit next to it all day plinking away with rifle fire you deserve to lose it.

USF is a mobile attacking faction - you should be glad they can build MG positions period (Soviets say hello).

If ithe fighting put is at full health and its just one squad yeah it takes a bit, but just one sturm or falls behind it at close range can kill it realitively quick especially if you consider maybe it took dmg from an incediary nade or regular nades(it takes way more dmg from reg nades then axis bunkers) or mortar fire or liegs or what have you. Then they can kill it in almost no time. Regardless it dosent matter how many small arms units i get behind a bunker with little hp left it wont make a difference, and i dont really have a problem with that, its dumb tho it can happen to the fighting pit. Yeah RE can throw rifle nades really not that effective tho bunkers have there own perks like being able to be turned into reiforcement and healing.

If the fighting position was on par with bunkers, which is not going to happen, USF would auto-win every match. Attack with rifles build pit, defeat counterattack. Move up. Repeat. Upgrade to MGs to stop capping at minute 3.

Bunkers do almost nothing (they provide some cover) before they are upgraded. FP give out free nades. If a player is jumping in and out of a house the nades will still damage the house and the FP will still provide cover for the RE's.

While it is true that a unit can move under the RE's nades, they still take fire from the RE's and they are penalized with moving accuracy.

FP are in a good place, and they should not receive any buffs, especially in a faction as powerful as USF right now.

USF wasn't really made to be a static fighting force so weak emplacements make sense.

This "emplacement" is actually really good, especially on maps like semoisky. You just put one in central point and opponent has no access to most good buildings. Mind that it is aimed as agressive early game support weapon, not maginot line. It does it's job really well and there is nothing wrong about it.

If ithe fighting put is at full health and its just one squad yeah it takes a bit, but just one sturm or falls behind it at close range can kill it realitively quick especially if you consider maybe it took dmg from an incediary nade or regular nades(it takes way more dmg from reg nades then axis bunkers) or mortar fire or liegs or what have you. Then they can kill it in almost no time. Regardless it dosent matter how many small arms units i get behind a bunker with little hp left it wont make a difference, and i dont really have a problem with that, its dumb tho it can happen to the fighting pit. Yeah RE can throw rifle nades really not that effective tho bunkers have there own perks like being able to be turned into reiforcement and healing.

The point isn't about "faireness" of Bunkers = Fighting Positions in terms of durability. Ostheer is a more defensive faction therefore their static defenses are better and also cost more. There isn't any really any balance reason why Fighting Positions need to be immune to small arms fire.

You know I agree a bit that small arms shouldn't destroy the emplacement, or at least not quickly.

But I do think fire, grenades, and such should destroy them rather quickly. It is worth noting that units in the pit already are food for fire and grenades though.

USF : Fighting position
- 125 MP
- riflenade with RE inside

German : Bunker
- MG upgrade came with self spotter
- Harder to destroyed by small arm even Soviet molotov