In the latest patch the has been some changes to emplacement which have been proven very difficult to balance and have been from of to useless.
Imo in order to better balance emplacement they need a redesign.
1) They need effective counters. Unit designed to do extra damage to them even when braced. Units like the Brumbar, Sturm Tiger (already has some extra damage) added tools could become available like more satchel charges or demolition charges mostly to infiltration/paradropped units.
2) Add tech cost/upgrade to the them so that a player can decide how much his wants to invest in them.
Think that could come with cost could be:
Second mortar
Brace
extra damage or range
One could also experiment with crew that are need to operate these weapon making simple garrison if the crew is not present.
Redesigning Emplacement
12 Sep 2019, 15:33 PM
#1
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
12 Sep 2019, 15:38 PM
#2
Posts: 3260
Emplacements definitely need a redesign.
Personally, I think the model to follow for anti-infantry emplacements is that of the OKW Flak: cheap emplacements you can afford to lose.
Personally, I think the model to follow for anti-infantry emplacements is that of the OKW Flak: cheap emplacements you can afford to lose.
12 Sep 2019, 15:39 PM
#3
Posts: 3032 | Subs: 3
Can we just leave emplacements as they are?
Ever heard of AT guns? New incendiary barrage? Mortars? LeIgs? Howitzers? It's so easy to shut it down nowadays
1) They need effective counters. Unit designed to do extra damage to them even when braced. Units like the Brumbar, Sturm Tiger (already has some extra damage) added tools could become available like more satchel charges or demolition charges mostly to infiltration/paradropped units.
Ever heard of AT guns? New incendiary barrage? Mortars? LeIgs? Howitzers? It's so easy to shut it down nowadays
12 Sep 2019, 15:51 PM
#4
Posts: 3032 | Subs: 3
Emplacements definitely need a redesign.
Personally, I think the model to follow for anti-infantry emplacements is that of the OKW Flak: cheap emplacements you can afford to lose.
a bofors is 280/30, the okw flak is 220/20 IIRC. Losing a bofors is not like a crazy loss
12 Sep 2019, 15:57 PM
#5
Posts: 3260
a bofors is 280/30, the okw flak is 220/20 IIRC. Losing a bofors is not like a crazy loss
A Bofors also costs a 100/15 sidetech just to unlock and disables the AEC.
The flipside of cheap, disposable emplacements is you're meant to lose them. They should be fairly straightforward for a large push to clear out.
12 Sep 2019, 16:09 PM
#6
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Can we just leave emplacements as they are?
Ever heard of AT guns? New incendiary barrage? Mortars? LeIgs? Howitzers? It's so easy to shut it down nowadays
And you are completely missing the point. In live there are counters to emplacements but they not specialized counters, the point is that emplacement should be tough to kill with normal units but easy with specialized units.
One's opponent has invested in emplacements then one can invest is specialized units.
12 Sep 2019, 16:51 PM
#7
Posts: 783
And you are completely missing the point. In live there are counters to emplacements but they not specialized counters, the point is that emplacement should be tough to kill with normal units but easy with specialized units.
One's opponent has invested in emplacements then one can invest is specialized units.
That is true. There is no specialised or a direct counter.
The only way to counter just 1 Bofors is to combine at least 3 units, mortar, AT and something else to do the job efficiently.
Takes a lot of effort with around 800 manpower to efficiently counter Bofors that costs only 300mp with only around 30 fuel.
Bofors is very cost efficient since there is no specialized unit in order to counter it properly. Takes several units to counter it otherwise it is not possible.
Comparing a FHT that costs also 300 mp but 55 fuel. There is only 1 counter needed which is a light or simply an AT gun and boom, easy direct counter. That is why FHT is so useless. Just really shitty.
I enjoy Coh2. I want this game to be balanced as it can possibly be for
ukf
usf
okw
soviets
ostheer. Do not judge me, for my opinion is balanced. 
This is my playercard number if you are curious: https://www.coh2.org/ladders/playercard/steamid/76561198127033144
ukfusfokwsovietsostheer. Do not judge me, for my opinion is balanced. This is my playercard number if you are curious: https://www.coh2.org/ladders/playercard/steamid/76561198127033144
12 Sep 2019, 18:12 PM
#8
Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1
The best way is to move emplacements out of UKF's stock line up, into a Commander, then working with them as Commander unit/abilities.
12 Sep 2019, 18:37 PM
#9
Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1
I suggest the following changes to replace emplacement in ukf's lineup:
The easiest is mortar emplacement, replace it by USF's mortar in T2.
The other two is trickier:
For the bofor, i suggest replace it with a rework valentine. Make side tech in T2 choice between fast AT vehicle (AEC) or slow infantry support vehicle. AEC will be Puma clone, les effective vs infantry, while valentine will be AI oriented with more durability. To be more specific, Valentine will have 550-600 HP, speed reduce to 4.8, 80 dmg main gun, improve MG/AOE and smoke pot.
For the 17pdr, i suggest a slightly buff to firefly, mostly turret rotation. Tulips rocket move to hammer, while anvils provide hull down.
After all above, all emplacements can be put in Commanders and rework accordingly.
The easiest is mortar emplacement, replace it by USF's mortar in T2.
The other two is trickier:
For the bofor, i suggest replace it with a rework valentine. Make side tech in T2 choice between fast AT vehicle (AEC) or slow infantry support vehicle. AEC will be Puma clone, les effective vs infantry, while valentine will be AI oriented with more durability. To be more specific, Valentine will have 550-600 HP, speed reduce to 4.8, 80 dmg main gun, improve MG/AOE and smoke pot.
For the 17pdr, i suggest a slightly buff to firefly, mostly turret rotation. Tulips rocket move to hammer, while anvils provide hull down.
After all above, all emplacements can be put in Commanders and rework accordingly.
12 Sep 2019, 21:01 PM
#10
Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2
One quick idea:
What if the 17 ponder and the mortar pit (FOB is fine in my opinion) are locked behind a fuel side tech(maybe 10-20 fuel each), but given a slight buff (secondary buffs like utility, higher refund for tearing it down or cost decrease for the building itself etc) to compensate?
That way emplacements could be a viable strategy to play but would delay the medium tank even more, so the opponent has an advantage in the mid game.
Emplacements are decently easy to destroy at the moment, but on some maps stuff like the mortar pit can be placed behind shot blockers, which basically leaves counter mortars as the only option. That is bad design. Higher fuel cost would still allow for these strategies, but enforce competent defense in the mid game or even the need to tear them down before they get lost.
What if the 17 ponder and the mortar pit (FOB is fine in my opinion) are locked behind a fuel side tech(maybe 10-20 fuel each), but given a slight buff (secondary buffs like utility, higher refund for tearing it down or cost decrease for the building itself etc) to compensate?
That way emplacements could be a viable strategy to play but would delay the medium tank even more, so the opponent has an advantage in the mid game.
Emplacements are decently easy to destroy at the moment, but on some maps stuff like the mortar pit can be placed behind shot blockers, which basically leaves counter mortars as the only option. That is bad design. Higher fuel cost would still allow for these strategies, but enforce competent defense in the mid game or even the need to tear them down before they get lost.
12 Sep 2019, 21:18 PM
#11
Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2
I suggest the following changes to replace emplacement in ukf's lineup:
The easiest is mortar emplacement, replace it by USF's mortar in T2.
The other two is trickier:
For the bofor, i suggest replace it with a rework valentine. Make side tech in T2 choice between fast AT vehicle (AEC) or slow infantry support vehicle. AEC will be Puma clone, les effective vs infantry, while valentine will be AI oriented with more durability. To be more specific, Valentine will have 550-600 HP, speed reduce to 4.8, 80 dmg main gun, improve MG/AOE and smoke pot.
For the 17pdr, i suggest a slightly buff to firefly, mostly turret rotation. Tulips rocket move to hammer, while anvils provide hull down.
After all above, all emplacements can be put in Commanders and rework accordingly.
I agree that moving all of the emplacements to the Advanced Emplacements Regiment for example and just renaming it to simply Emplacements Regiment might be a good and feasible idea.
However you did not mention what to replace the Valentine with in the Royal Artillery Regiment commander.
Or better yet the AEC can just be unlocked from the get go but will probably need to be tweaked in it's balance stats. So there would be no need to choose anything, Valentine will stay as it is.
12 Sep 2019, 21:24 PM
#12
Posts: 4928
Emplacements being "vehicles" is kind of iffy as it is, it means they rely on a single rigid healthbar and do not have to worry about being decrewed even under heavy bombardment, only being destroyed if the bombardment is not dealt with in a timely manner.
Nobody is as concerned about the Pak 43 or Flak 38 as they are with the 17 Pounder or Bofors, and I think that's because the former are so easy to bleed and eventually destroy, while the latter you either destroy it, or it gets repaired and you achieve nothing.
If they're going to stay as "vehicles", then maybe they could be given criticals like crew shocked and abandon when attacked by anti-fortification weaponry like Artillery, Sturmpanzers, and Incendiary Bombings.
Nobody is as concerned about the Pak 43 or Flak 38 as they are with the 17 Pounder or Bofors, and I think that's because the former are so easy to bleed and eventually destroy, while the latter you either destroy it, or it gets repaired and you achieve nothing.
If they're going to stay as "vehicles", then maybe they could be given criticals like crew shocked and abandon when attacked by anti-fortification weaponry like Artillery, Sturmpanzers, and Incendiary Bombings.
all you filthy hotchkiss lovers need to l2p #TeamPanzerIII
> Kriegsbeute Doctrine|Partisan Rework|British Infantry Rework|Soviet Assault Squad <
12 Sep 2019, 22:13 PM
#13
Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2
Emplacements being "vehicles" is kind of iffy as it is, it means they rely on a single rigid healthbar and do not have to worry about being decrewed even under heavy bombardment, only being destroyed if the bombardment is not dealt with in a timely manner.
Nobody is as concerned about the Pak 43 or Flak 38 as they are with the 17 Pounder or Bofors, and I think that's because the former are so easy to bleed and eventually destroy, while the latter you either destroy it, or it gets repaired and you achieve nothing.
If they're going to stay as "vehicles", then maybe they could be given criticals like crew shocked and abandon when attacked by anti-fortification weaponry like Artillery, Sturmpanzers, and Incendiary Bombings.
I think they went with "emplacements" for 3 reasons.
First off, "nostalgia". CoH's Brits also heavily relied on emplacements.
Second is "uniqueness". The most retarded thing that destroys both balance and game design but hey, at least they're not similar, right?
Third I'm guessing is because they could be garrisoned only when done in such a way. You could even put MGs inside them before but it proved too buggy so they removed it.
To be honest I would be fine if they removed the British emplacements altogether altho it's nice to have an Allied Pak 43 once in a while on open terrain maps as well as the Bofors, however situational it may be.
I never bother with the mortar pit and so do other people from what I've noticed, especially after the new British Commander.
12 Sep 2019, 22:18 PM
#14
Posts: 1096
You say redesign but these all sound like nerfs to me?
At the moment I think emplacements are a poor investment and not much fun to play with or against.
At the moment I think emplacements are a poor investment and not much fun to play with or against.
12 Sep 2019, 23:52 PM
#15
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
You say redesign but these all sound like nerfs to me?
At the moment I think emplacements are a poor investment and not much fun to play with or against.
That is because you are probably missing the point.
The player using emplacements will have the option to invest less and not committee in defending his emplacement or investing more and committing in defending them.
13 Sep 2019, 00:35 AM
#16
Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1
I agree that moving all of the emplacements to the Advanced Emplacements Regiment for example and just renaming it to simply Emplacements Regiment might be a good and feasible idea.
However you did not mention what to replace the Valentine with in the Royal Artillery Regiment commander.
Or better yet the AEC can just be unlocked from the get go but will probably need to be tweaked in it's balance stats. So there would be no need to choose anything, Valentine will stay as it is.
We can have two versions of the valentine. Or, replace the valentine in royal arty by "designated arty command vehicle".
13 Sep 2019, 17:47 PM
#17
Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2
We can have two versions of the valentine. Or, replace the valentine in royal arty by "designated arty command vehicle".
Maybe then yeah.
13 Sep 2019, 17:53 PM
#18
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
We can have two versions of the valentine. Or, replace the valentine in royal arty by "designated arty command vehicle".
Making the the "command" Valentine an upgrade should be implemented anyway. They the limit to 1 can be removed and they unit can balanced accordingly. If there is a need to the upgrade could lower the combat efficiency of the vehicle.
But we are drifting off topic.
The idea here is that with current design emplacements will either be too strong and the whole UKF play will focus around them or useless.
By adjusting their power level via tech balancing them could become allot easier.
13 Sep 2019, 18:05 PM
#19
Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1
Making the the "command" Valentine an upgrade should be implemented anyway. They the limit to 1 can be removed and they unit can balanced accordingly. If there is a need to the upgrade could lower the combat efficiency of the vehicle.
But we are drifting off topic.
The idea here is that with current design emplacements will either be too strong and the whole UKF play will focus around them or useless.
By adjusting their power level via tech balancing them could become allot easier.
Yes, back on topic, i get your ideas.
For mortar pit, let said 250mp for the pit with 1 mortar operational, then another 100mp for the second mortar. I brought up this idea a while ago in the other forum.
But, for bofor and 17 pdr, i think it will be tricky. Brace should be removed if possible and may be replace with something else. May be an upgrade to unlock stand fast as toggle ability.
13 Sep 2019, 18:07 PM
#20
Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1
Also, add "scuttle" in each emplacements. I found "tear down" in royal engineer is hard to use, it is useful, but hard to use.
0 user is browsing this thread:
Livestreams
 |
|
|
43 | ||
|
|
|
|
31 | ||
|
|
|
|
26 | ||
|
|
|
|
7 | ||
|
|
|
|
6 | ||
 |
|
|
5 | ||
|
|
|
|
11 | ||
 |
|
|
9 | ||
|
|
|
|
5 | ||
 |
|
|
5 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.611220.735+5
- 3.34957.860+14
- 4.1110614.644+11
- 5.276108.719+27
- 6.306114.729+2
- 7.916405.693-2
- 8.262137.657+3
- 9.722440.621+4
- 10.1041674.607-2
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1236
Board Info
698 users are online:
698 guests
0 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
7 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49118
Welcome our newest member, Ava Sofia
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, Ava Sofia
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM