An idea on emplacements.
Posts: 3053
In my opinion, the role of emplacements should be support, not the keystone of your army. Along these lines of thinking, I have two proposals.
For the bofors, make it less lethal to infantry, maybe on the level of the usf flaktrack's autocannon (without the mgs for obvious reasons) or whatever is balanced, with about that much suppression as well. This would also come with a slight manpower decrease and (here's the part that may not be feasible) the ability to pack up or be packed up (logically by engineers) and repositioned, retaining veterancy and current health. This would have to be initiated (for like 4-5 seconds) out of combat, and then have a process that takes another ten seconds or so to complete were it is as vulnerable to enemy fire as when it is being constructed. If this was put in place, brace should be removed or severely nerfed ( decreased duration, effectiveness, and/or addition of muni cost) and make it unavailable while packing up. This would make it more of a supporting element of a more defensively oriented army that could still fight off flanks and help counter light vehicles, but leaving most of the work to the rest of the army.
For the pit, I think brits should get a normal old copypasta'd GrW mortar, but also have access to an "artillery pit" for say, 100-1140ish manpower that would extend the mortar's range to the same as the live mortar pit (or whatever is balanced) and give the mortar crew heavy cover on all sides and an RoF buff of like 25-50% since you are paying 380-420 for the whole thing. This would make the mortar pit less stupidly lethal, while still providing the option, as well as making it less vulnerable to counterfire and breakthroughs. This wouldn't have brace either, and is cheap enough to be somewhat expendable so doesn't need the ability to move like I proposed with the bofors.
Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4
As for the mortar pit, this idea has been tossed around many times before of making a garrisonable "trench" for the now mobile UKF mortar team. 1st though, no GrW mortar, that mortar is the best for a reason and I don't think people would be happy to see it have mortar pit range, GrW accuracy, RoF buff and heavy cover on all sides. USF mortar, maybe even the soviet tin can mortar.
IMO I think there's are just some concepts that should be left out of the game. Emplacements is one of them as they're stale and don't provide good fun for either party. Similar to blizzards and cold tech. They tried it but it didn't pan out so it was scrapped.
Posts: 1124
-remove them entirely
Posts: 3053
An idea on emplacements
-remove them entirely
So what should brits get instead? Nondoc commandos? Because that's basically the only other option.
Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2
Bofors idea kinda sounds like a modified hull down with bofors. Also reminds me of command and conquer games where you could deploy and repack your MCV which is where your buildings were constructed. Not really sure about it. Sounds like there could be some real hidden cheese in there if you just sat a bofors on your opponets cutoff/fuel.
As for the mortar pit, this idea has been tossed around many times before of making a garrisonable "trench" for the now mobile UKF mortar team. 1st though, no GrW mortar, that mortar is the best for a reason and I don't think people would be happy to see it have mortar pit range, GrW accuracy, RoF buff and heavy cover on all sides. USF mortar, maybe even the soviet tin can mortar.
IMO I think there's are just some concepts that should be left out of the game. Emplacements is one of them as they're stale and don't provide good fun for either party. Similar to blizzards and cold tech. They tried it but it didn't pan out so it was scrapped.
Well like the OKW MG and USF mortar, if they add a Mobile mortar to the Brits people are gonna bitch about it not being unique, so this is one way to keep it unique and balanced.
Posts: 3053
Bofors idea kinda sounds like a modified hull down with bofors. Also reminds me of command and conquer games where you could deploy and repack your MCV which is where your buildings were constructed. Not really sure about it. Sounds like there could be some real hidden cheese in there if you just sat a bofors on your opponets cutoff/fuel.
As for the mortar pit, this idea has been tossed around many times before of making a garrisonable "trench" for the now mobile UKF mortar team. 1st though, no GrW mortar, that mortar is the best for a reason and I don't think people would be happy to see it have mortar pit range, GrW accuracy, RoF buff and heavy cover on all sides. USF mortar, maybe even the soviet tin can mortar.
IMO I think there's are just some concepts that should be left out of the game. Emplacements is one of them as they're stale and don't provide good fun for either party. Similar to blizzards and cold tech. They tried it but it didn't pan out so it was scrapped.
First off, I agree that emplacements are stupid, but lelic isn't just gonna up and remove them. I don't even use them btw.
For the bofors, it would need a setup time, at least ten seconds or so, and be a lot more vulnerable to indirect fire if left that close to the enemy base. Imagine putting a fighting position on a cutoff; it would last about a minute. No brace either (or a severely neutered one).
Yeah maybe soviet mortar would be a good idea. I mean, it still works.
Posts: 3053
Well like the OKW MG and USF mortar, if they add a Mobile mortar to the Brits people are gonna bitch about it not being unique, so this is one way to keep it unique and balanced.
But people all over the place are bitching about the pit in the live version, there's been like 3 separate threads in the last week about emplacements op and brits still don't have a counter to double isg, double mortar.
There will always be bitching.
I think I first saw the artillery pit idea on a thread by you btw.
Posts: 71
Posts: 289
Posts: 2243
it mean: they should cost (more) fuel. Compare the bofors with other units which cost 30fuel. What do u get for 30 fuel with other faction. One 222.
not a AA Halftrack aa OKW, or a half luchs.
for its performanche the bofors should cost 70-100 fuel. that would prevents to bring this Op units in under 4min. and controll this area for the next 20min.
i see often brits which build sim city and can now build up tanks and roll over u....to easy.
Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2
But people all over the place are bitching about the pit in the live version, there's been like 3 separate threads in the last week about emplacements op and brits still don't have a counter to double isg, double mortar.
There will always be bitching.
I think I first saw the artillery pit idea on a thread by you btw.
Yeah I've been vocal about it every since I saw the mod, thanks for supporting the idea.
Posts: 3053
Yeah I've been vocal about it every since I saw the mod, thanks for supporting the idea.
Yeah I think it's a solid one. Hopefully someone on the balance team sees it or something.
Posts: 3053
Emplacments should prevent the brits player to get out tanks early.
it mean: they should cost (more) fuel. Compare the bofors with other units which cost 30fuel. What do u get for 30 fuel with other faction. One 222.
not a AA Halftrack aa OKW, or a half luchs.
for its performanche the bofors should cost 70-100 fuel. that would prevents to bring this Op units in under 4min. and controll this area for the next 20min.
i see often brits which build sim city and can now build up tanks and roll over u....to easy.
That's true, the fuel is a bit too little for the bofors in its current state.
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
Heavily handicap autofire (same with other indirect options), by reducing the range to 80/90.
Then reduce the cooldown on barrage (keep the range) so it can be used frequently, which means, you won't no longer kill units on the move but deter static/defensive play. Reward/force micro.
Bofors:
Give it an arc and an AA mode. On AA mode it moves around automatically but against land targets, it will only shoot at what it is on it's arc.
Posts: 2742
So it seems like there's been a ton of hate on emplacements and simcities recently
Recently? The only lull there ever is on hating on emplacements is when people give up wasting their breath on being ignored.
Posts: 1124
The only skill needed is to press a button when to become invincible, press another to auto rep while invincible.
Can be extreamly OP on certain maps, and even with all the emplacements, the British are still the first or one of the first to bust out a tank
Posts: 851 | Subs: 1
Emplacments should prevent the brits player to get out tanks early.
it mean: they should cost (more) fuel. Compare the bofors with other units which cost 30fuel. What do u get for 30 fuel with other faction. One 222.
not a AA Halftrack aa OKW, or a half luchs.
for its performanche the bofors should cost 70-100 fuel. that would prevents to bring this Op units in under 4min. and controll this area for the next 20min.
i see often brits which build sim city and can now build up tanks and roll over u....to easy.
Hey, this is a great idea, however did you consider the teching requirement for fuel/222?
Recently? The only lull there ever is on hating on emplacements is when people give up wasting their breath on being ignored.
+1
Posts: 1072
For the most part I think they aren't too bad, just annoying to play against and OP on specific maps like crossing in the woods.
I'd prefer if to make them more counter able as opposed to less effective.
Posts: 3053
Hey, this is a great idea, however did you consider the teching requirement for fuel/222?
Yeah so it is technically like 50 fuel with the sidetech. Still could use like a 10 fuel increase to the emplacement cost.
Posts: 315
Livestreams
20 | |||||
6 | |||||
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.600215.736+15
- 3.34957.860+14
- 4.1107614.643+8
- 5.305114.728+1
- 6.916405.693-2
- 7.273108.717+24
- 8.722440.621+4
- 9.1041674.607-2
- 10.17146.788+1
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
8 posts in the last week
37 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, Modarov
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM