You barely see this units in team games right now and I don't think I've ever seen one in 1v1, they very niche and very easy to counter unless you lost the game beforehand and now that allied infantry can easily stand up and beat axis infatry you can trade mediums even more favorably for jt/ele. |
It's too fast, it either need a detonation time (which I don't understand why it doesn't have it) or just a longer throw animation like the molotov. |
Beside the straight up lie about it beating mediums, I agree that all call in should receive the t34/85, EZ8 treatment, crocs should be built in brits t3, stug-Es should be built in ost T3 etc... |
A negative cover means you have no cover
There's a difference between no cover and negative cover (it's the red debuff), obviously, logically speaking it is no cover, but knowing relic one might question if it works... |
Whats the point of this thread when cons already perform fine and are getting a neat surviability buff?
inb4 hurrdurr cons up, I don't think I've ever seen soviets struggling nor having major problems except when obers were retarded. |
Any type of cover provides 10 meters increased sight, %50 faster reload and %30 faster cooldown.
Even negative cover? |
The question is why 6pounder costs 270 mp, while pak costs 320mp, meanwhile it has same performance vs armor (if we dont talk about target weakpoint)
Because all of their other stuff is more expensive and they need the AT gun at the manpower price or they will get screwed.
In the case relic re-balances all manpower costs for the brits they will also increase the price of the AT gun. |
they should be weak to AT fire,flame damage and heavy art,BUT NOT PANZERSHREACKS
the last thing i want to see is more panzershreack blobs
Well why not? I get what you mean, but if let your mortar emplacement get ambushed by a blob of volks you deserve to lose it, it's really all about designating a counterplay alternative, meanwhile stuff like the bofors should be able to defend itself from such blob unless it's firing against a vehicle or something (but in that case it would be a micro mistake from the british player).
And also it's not like brits lack resources to counter them, so I think it would just be fair. |
I really don't like the way British emplacements are designed. In real life, the whole point of emplacements was that they were very resilient against artillery. A defensive emplacement that was weak to artillery wasn't an emplacement at all.
Emplacements SHOULD be weak to flame based weapons, but not in the way portrayed. I would like to see:
Emplacements gain more resilience to all artillery. It makes no sense for a mortar emplaement to lose to 2 leigs. The emplacement should win hands down due to its inability to move.
Emplacements can now be decrewed by flame based weapons. Flame based weapons have a chance of decrewing, but it will be a good chance. Grenades will also work for decrewing if you can get close enough (rnade probably wouldn't be able to).
All other weapons will stay just as effective, so a good strategy would be to decrew an emplacement, then use direct fire to destroy it when it can no longer be braced.
This way, the Brits force the enemies to come to them, rather than being forced to take the initiative and attack themselves (which is something Brits are terrible at, due to their cover requirements). It is simply bad design to fore the player that invested in a static build (also known as the British faction) to attack an enemy in order to make his army work in any way.
If you make Brits be the faction that people are forced to attack, and not the other way around, it will fix Brits in 1s and make emplacements a more dynamic and easily countered option.
+1 to this, I think Emplacements shouldn't be killed by arty (on or off map) but they should be vulnerable if unsupported against direct fire sources, such as tanks, panzershreks and flamethrowers (but not flame arty and other stuff like that). |
Reduce range so that mortarts can effectively counter fire on them, for the rest I think they perform fine. |