Login

russian armor

An idea on emplacements.

8 Jun 2017, 22:57 PM
#41
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053



big problem is when our team is only okw, they lock fuel points with mortar pits, in this situation we cant attack with inf and also we cant get tanks (we dont have enough fuel), so we build 105mm howitzer and leig but they use BRACE ability + fast repair and then ...

do you know a good strategy ?

Well I'm assuming they're also using bofors.

If you can sort of bait a brace on the bofors, then a combined arms attack with multiple players and whatever they have aces to will usualy seal the deal against a sim city, especialy if there's 3 pits lol. Spamming flame nades and infiltration nades on the braced bofors will take it down, and bring some AT as well (schrecks or raks). Leig spam will also help during the attack, and make sure to spread infantry out before attacking in case they have a vickers too. If someone went t2, make sure to bring in vehicles too once the bofors is braced, as they do a lot of damage as well. IIRC you can also faust emplacements if you have a lot of muni to spend lol. Once the bofors and any supporting infantry is gone, you can literally just shoot the pits to death with volk stgs.

You just have to be really aggressive and make sure you don't blob for the pits and mgs.
9 Jun 2017, 00:38 AM
#42
avatar of PanzerGeneralForever

Posts: 1072

I think if the Bofors gets any nerf it should be to one of three things:
1) ROF ---> will allow you to overwhelm it with proper infantry upgrades

2) decrease it's penetration ---> won't reliably ward off medium tanks.

3) increase fuel cost
9 Jun 2017, 03:30 AM
#43
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053

I think if the Bofors gets any nerf it should be to one of three things:
1) ROF ---> will allow you to overwhelm it with proper infantry upgrades

2) decrease it's penetration ---> won't reliably ward off medium tanks.

3) increase fuel cost

I mean, if we are talking straight nerfs without any reworking, the second and third make sense, but the first seems a bit odd, since the bofors is designed to counter infantry right? I think on the whole, emplacements are poorly designed, but what would the point of the bofors be if it couldn't ward off infantry (even a lot of infantry)?
9 Jun 2017, 13:26 PM
#44
avatar of PanzerGeneralForever

Posts: 1072


I mean, if we are talking straight nerfs without any reworking, the second and third make sense, but the first seems a bit odd, since the bofors is designed to counter infantry right? I think on the whole, emplacements are poorly designed, but what would the point of the bofors be if it couldn't ward off infantry (even a lot of infantry)?

I did say IF the Bofors gets nerfed meaning I don't think it necessarily needs one.

Did you ever play coh1? The Bofors in that game didn't have as big a ROF and didn't have brace but still wasn't useless. Currently infantry get wiped in 2 seconds of being in range of the Bofors. Changing ROF means they can still get get in range to deal some damage before having to retreat.

Currently even if you attack a Bofors with 2x pgrens with Shreks and flamer pios from different angles the Bofors can still easily win due to forcing retreats on each unit in turn. Decreasing ROF would allow you to effectively swarm an unsupported Bofors with enough hard hitting munis invested infantry similar to the Bofors in coh1.

This adds a bit more counter play to a unit that already counters all infantry, LVs and even some tanks.
9 Jun 2017, 19:29 PM
#45
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053


I did say IF the Bofors gets nerfed meaning I don't think it necessarily needs one.

Did you ever play coh1? The Bofors in that game didn't have as big a ROF and didn't have brace but still wasn't useless. Currently infantry get wiped in 2 seconds of being in range of the Bofors. Changing ROF means they can still get get in range to deal some damage before having to retreat.

Currently even if you attack a Bofors with 2x pgrens with Shreks and flamer pios from different angles the Bofors can still easily win due to forcing retreats on each unit in turn. Decreasing ROF would allow you to effectively swarm an unsupported Bofors with enough hard hitting munis invested infantry similar to the Bofors in coh1.

This adds a bit more counter play to a unit that already counters all infantry, LVs and even some tanks.

I mean, that is a good point, but also worth noting that bofors in coh1 was a vastly different animal, as were brits in general. I think that emplacements should just be a less all-encompassing strategy, as I stated in the OP, and in the event that that is implemented, a bofors RoF decrease would definitely be in order.
10 Jun 2017, 00:18 AM
#46
avatar of August1996

Posts: 223

Remove Bofors and all FRPs from the game. Done.
10 Jun 2017, 00:22 AM
#47
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053

Remove Bofors and all FRPs from the game. Done.

I'd be fine with that. And give brits a real mortar ffs.
10 Jun 2017, 00:35 AM
#48
avatar of AceOfTitanium

Posts: 162


I'd be fine with that. And give brits a real mortar ffs.


And then what? You would have a souless faction and it would only lead to an homogenizacion of factions compositions which would lead to boring gameplay and pointless factions.

Emplacements have a place in the game as do blobs and as do so many things that give the game flavor, the problem is that these said things are broken but removing them isnt an option.

The only way I see to "fix" emplacements, as I said in previous posts, is to first reduce the rate of fire of the bofors (it must be broken, its super irrealistic) and give it the rate of fire of the schwerer then limit the player to only be able to build one emplacement of each type to force him to build an actual army to contest the rest of the map/vps. Allow the player to build more of the same emplacements if he chooses the advanced emplacement regiment commander. And at last give brits a similar option to the bofors or aec but instead the player would have to choose the mortar pit or a regular 3 inch mortar.

It is alright if emplacements are op but the problem is that they are spamable, you dont see wehr players spamming tiger ace's do you?
10 Jun 2017, 01:11 AM
#49
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053



And then what? You would have a souless faction and it would only lead to an homogenizacion of factions compositions which would lead to boring gameplay and pointless factions.

Emplacements have a place in the game as do blobs and as do so many things that give the game flavor, the problem is that these said things are broken but removing them isnt an option.

The only way I see to "fix" emplacements, as I said in previous posts, is to first reduce the rate of fire of the bofors (it must be broken, its super irrealistic) and give it the rate of fire of the schwerer then limit the player to only be able to build one emplacement of each type to force him to build an actual army to contest the rest of the map/vps. Allow the player to build more of the same emplacements if he chooses the advanced emplacement regiment commander. And at last give brits a similar option to the bofors or aec but instead the player would have to choose the mortar pit or a regular 3 inch mortar.

It is alright if emplacements are op but the problem is that they are spamable, you dont see wehr players spamming tiger ace's do you?

I don't build emplacements at all in my normal strategy. There's just much better alternatives. I really think there should be large scale rework of emplacements, not just nerfs or limits. Limiting each to one would be fine, but I don't really get why, as spamming emplacements is kinda dumb. Also, if you changed the bofors like that, you would probably have to give it the suppression of the schwerer as well if it doesn't already have the same amount (I haven't built one bofors in like a year and I don't engage them with infantry if they aren't braced, so idek). The thing is, people seem to complain so much about noobs making simcities that carry them for a while and high level players say emplacements are bad, so why not rework them to be a supporting element, not a core element (going back to op)?

But again, I wouldn't be that mad if they all just got totally removed.
10 Jun 2017, 06:50 AM
#50
avatar of AceOfTitanium

Posts: 162


I don't build emplacements at all in my normal strategy. There's just much better alternatives. I really think there should be large scale rework of emplacements, not just nerfs or limits. Limiting each to one would be fine, but I don't really get why, as spamming emplacements is kinda dumb. Also, if you changed the bofors like that, you would probably have to give it the suppression of the schwerer as well if it doesn't already have the same amount (I haven't built one bofors in like a year and I don't engage them with infantry if they aren't braced, so idek). The thing is, people seem to complain so much about noobs making simcities that carry them for a while and high level players say emplacements are bad, so why not rework them to be a supporting element, not a core element (going back to op)?

But again, I wouldn't be that mad if they all just got totally removed.


I think that relic intended that emplacements were to support your army and help to better defend your territory but they didnt think that people could lockdown certain maps with just two bofors or that they could dominate an oponent with just two mortar pits. Thats why I say that there should be a limit of one of each emplacement, this way you could build those emplacaments to defend an crucial part of the map or even defend one vp while at the same time you wouldnt be able to solely depend on those emplacements, you would need an actual army to contest the rest of the map. Alternatively if the player doest want to sacrifice mobility for OPness he can always choose to have a alternative to those emplacements like relic always intended.

Yes basically the bofors would work like the schwerer (which does a pretty good job defending cutoffs and other things).
10 Jun 2017, 23:29 PM
#51
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053



I think that relic intended that emplacements were to support your army and help to better defend your territory but they didnt think that people could lockdown certain maps with just two bofors or that they could dominate an oponent with just two mortar pits. Thats why I say that there should be a limit of one of each emplacement, this way you could build those emplacaments to defend an crucial part of the map or even defend one vp while at the same time you wouldnt be able to solely depend on those emplacements, you would need an actual army to contest the rest of the map. Alternatively if the player doest want to sacrifice mobility for OPness he can always choose to have a alternative to those emplacements like relic always intended.

Yes basically the bofors would work like the schwerer (which does a pretty good job defending cutoffs and other things).

I mean, if that's really what you believe the problem is (I'm not really gonna argue one way or another) then limiting to one makes sense. I feel like emplacements are really an all-in strategy (even when you stick to one of each IMO) when they really should be, like you say, a supporting element, but I think part of the fix is really just totally redesigning them. Like, when you go aec and sniper, you don't base your whole strategy around those two units, but if you go bofors and mortar pit, it feels like you do. That's just the way I see it.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

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

541 users are online: 541 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49113
Welcome our newest member, Dedek545
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM