If your opponent has build a mortar pit behind a building then all you need to do is get a flamer pioneer squad in that building and you win.
Did you skip the part of the text about the vickers (or bofors) in front of the mortar pit because you think they would stop you pretty quick along with any other infantry in the area and even if you get into the building its gotta take a lot of time to burn it down with its brace. |
Thread: Bofors11 May 2016, 16:11 PM
In this case, you're disagreeing with the developers. It was decrewable and now it is not.
December 3rd 2015 Release Notes:
EMPLACEMENTS
* Can no longer be abandoned
https://community.companyofheroes.com/discussion/241299/april-27th-balance-preview-mod-release-notes#latest
Which is why the vehicles now have to be repaired to 100% before they can move.
You are disregarding mortar half tracks (flame ability), 251 flamer, engineers, incendiary grenade, Stuka.
I know it used to be decrewable and im saying it should be decrewable again and yeah I know vehicles need to be repaired 100% before being recrewed, not sure why something like this cant be implemented with emplacements to a much lesser degree.
I am not sure how you didnt realize but I was referring to the OKW flame options not the Wehrmachts.
|
Thread: Bofors11 May 2016, 14:07 PM
It is NOT an are denial tool. It's first and foremost, a tech building that can defend itself. You can use it offensively, but it is much more expensive, comes way later, has no barrage, has no brace, and losing it can lose the game more often than not. Only thing it has, is more HP, than a Bofors. The functions are fundamentally different for those two structures.
I know no one says it is fine, but THIS is THE equivalent to the Bofors. Bofors should be compared to this and nothing else.
And the emplacement can hardcounter many of its "counters" with barrage and comes much faster than anything that can reliably take it down. Sim city is a BO/playstyle. Bofors is just cancer.
+1 well said |
Thread: Bofors11 May 2016, 13:54 PM
They had abandon chance at low hp.
CoH2 emplacements had that too, but there was some odd behavior with it(for example when it occurred during brace) so it was removed and you can only destroy it now.
That still is a different type of abandonment then, say, PaK43.
I was just giving the closest equivalent examples 
Obviously it makes no sense for tech structure to get abandoned, but just like shwerer is not a gun platform with infantry, but a whole "unit", the deal is with emplacements, its a whole unit, not a crew on a support weapon.
Brace exist as a preservation mechanic from instant wipes, but you also have positive dmg modifier from explosives, ballistics and flames.
It may not be the best mechanic around and sure a lot of people hate it, but, loosely quoting Brad while he was still at Relic, "few loud people who do not like to play against certain playstyle or unit is not a reason for the playstyle to not be a valid choice and option".
If there was some odd behavior with the abandonment then I dont see why they couldnt just fix that instead of making them undecrewable because I would also think it would be dumb if they could be wiped during brace or by snipers but I still dont see why emplacements cant have a system where the emplacements is invulnerable to decrew at high health but as health lowers its chance to be decrewed increases.
The fact that the emplacements are units shouldnt make them undecrewable, if units wernt supposed to be abandoned and recaptured then why do vehicles get abandoned?
I know emplacements have damage modifiers but I dont have access to the stats so I dont know what they are in detail but I know they are supposed to be vulnerable to fire and explosives which would be really good if the Feuersturm doctrine wasnt complete trash(not that there arnt other options for explosives but for fire there really isnt any fire in the OKW outside the feuersturm doctrine other than the vet 4 stuka barrage). |
Thread: Bofors11 May 2016, 12:40 PM
Its a STATIC EMPLACEMENT.
You want people to micro it around the map?
What kind of skill you expect with managing a friggin fortification?
Using brace against right attacks is the skill part. If you press it the moment anything attacks you, you'll lose emplacement 40 seconds later.
Ok so its a static emplacement and it cant move so it needs brace to manage on the battlefield well then where is the brace for Ost bunkers USF fighting positions Pak 43s and 2cm flak emplacements (that is if anyone ever built 2cm flak emplacements) and why cant British emplacements be decrewed like other static units because honestly that alone could make them a lot more balanced. |
Thread: Bofors9 May 2016, 17:54 PM
Hello Smiling Tiger,
Have you read all the posts following yours? It's been tested that a Flak HQ is more effective than a bofors at killing medium tanks. It costs 0 population. It can be used offensively or defensively to prevent cutoff points that are difficult to displace. It is a part of tech cost and that's why it's considered free just like how a captain or LT or major is "free". Please take away my major and give me a Flak HQ instead and i'll be very grateful.
For all other players whining and crying from Counter battery of cancer regiment, please kindly refer to balance preview mod on April 27th. Counter battery is now 30 second ability costing munitions. This should shut down arguments with counter battery.
Hello Whitesky00, (why are we greeting each other now)
Yes I have read all the posts following mine, I just didnt find the need to reply to them because I didnt want it to turn into a dumb back and forth like it did for a full page before the moderator cleaned it up and yes the flak HQ does have better AT but because of its slow rate of fire you can easily back any tank up before it destroys it and the guy I was responding to in the post of mine you quoted me on was calling it an anti everything gun which is hyperbole and the reason it has no population is because it is a building and the British emplacements have population because they arnt building that give techs. It is true that you can place the flak HQ forward on the map to cover a vp but like sinthe and others have said its incredibly risky to do that because you can lose it often on the front and with it your access to medium armor. As for the major or LT or Captain being free they can all be replaced without losing a tech when lost so they are much less risky and I do know that counter battery is being changed. |
|
I think the flamhetzer needs more damage a cost decrease and maybe a lower cp requirement because right now it has the same fuel cost and cp requirment of another OKW doctrinal AI unit the Ostwind witch has more utility and survivability because it can blitz and it seems to block shots more (I dont have any of the stats but I swear ive never ever seen a flamhetzer bounce a shot despite its incredably sloped armor). |
Thread: Bofors6 May 2016, 16:06 PM
Flak HQ comes with teching - Soviets don't get a gigantic anti-everything gun when thy build tier 4, even though they pay about the same. So yeah, it's free. Saying it costs 120 fuel is like saying the captain costs the US player 50 fuel.
Ok so the gun is free (which I wouldnt even mind them changing if they made the building set up a little faster because it wouldnt have anything on it) but all my other points still apply and what the hell do you mean anti everything, show me a clip of a flak HQ taking on heavy tanks or more than one medium that isnt microed horribly or countering mortars and howitzers which are meant to take out static structures. Also with the captain if you lose the captain you dont also lose your tech you just lose the squad unlike with the flak gun which costs you a tier if you lose it and finally the soviet HQ is infinitely less vulnerable to being destroyed because it is in the base and not in the battlefield, so it doesnt need a gun to defend itself. |
Thread: Bofors6 May 2016, 01:50 AM
If you give me a flak HQ instead of bofors, i would thank the heavens! It has more HP and is more effective at killing mediums. It suppresses and costs 0 population and is just an additional upgrade in tier for OKW. It's like I'm getting a unit that locks down a point FOR FREE! Do you know how hard it is to counter a Flak HQ that's set up? I usually have to wait until late game too to take it out. With proper support, Flak HQ is the same in my opinion.
I'd rather remove all high HP buildings and return the game to a more dynamic, less static base building game of OKW and UKF
Ok the more hp doesnt matter much because of the brace ability that buys time for support to come in and throw off attacks too strong for the Bofors and I dont know how the flak HQ is better at countering mediums seeing as how it has a much slower rate of fire and a much smaller magazine. How the hell is the flak HQ free, did you miss the 200 manpower 120 fuel price ya know the price thats costs 4 times as much fuel as a bofors and if you build your flak too close to a statistic point it has a high chance of being destroyed quickly be indirect fire which the flak HQ cant counter barrage unlike the bofors which gets to counter its own counters and if you do lose your flak HQ, you've also lost a tech and your access to medium armor which will give your enemy a huge advantage. And you also cant buff your flak HQ with a forward assembly and you can only build one flak HQ at a time and there is no OKW commander that centers around buffing its trucks. Lastly you wont have to wait too long until late game once the flack HQ is set up because by the time the flak HQ is up you are much closer to late game than when the first Bofors goes up because the Bofors is much cheaper and therefore it has a much bigger impact, god I cant believe how many times all the advantages of the Bofors have to be pointed out to people who want to justify its opness by pointing at the flak HQ and saying its the same thing when it just god damned isnt. |
Honestly, I think the advanced emplacement regiment just needs to be reworked. Half his abilities are near useless and the other half are far too overpowered.
That being said, tell me what you would think if this idea was implemented (if the cancer doctrine wasn't a worry):
Bofors: Nerf the range of the Bofors "suppressive barrage" ability down from 60 to 50. Doing so would prevent it from countering indirect fire by itself (something it wasn't mean to do). Also, raise its cost from 280/30/10 to 350/60/12. This would help in three ways, it would make the bofors arrive later, match the Bofors more closely with its performance, and punish the UKF player on teching (especially if he built more than one).
Mortar Pit: Raise the population cost from 8 to 12 (to prevent spamming and contribute to population saturation making sim-city less viable by the late game).
17-pounder: lower the cost from 400/75/20 to 360/50/14. I am still iffy on this price because it still seems too high for me. The 17-pounder is a good anti-tank (its currently just far too expensive) but, unlike the (current) Bofors, it absolutely requires support and good placement. That being said, the UKF player would probably just build a Bofors with the 17-pounder which would clearly be a strong combination. The difference there being that they would be spending a lot of gas, manpower, and population to do it with no clear answer to indirect fire.
Just to be clear, I am not advocating this as a complete fix for emplacements, but I do believe it will go a long way helping making emplacements much more balanced.
I think all but one of these changes would be great and the one I have an exception with is the bofors price that you proposed, while I do agree that the bofors needs a range reduction on the barrage and a cost increase I think you went a bit overkill with the fuel cost, I think 45 or 50 would be more fair than 60 fuel but other than that I like the suggestions. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
