Profile of Neo88

Jump back to quoted post13 May 2016, 15:28 PMImagelessbean

In 1v1's emplacements represent a serious risk. A player simply cannot set them up and guard them early. In all other game modes emplacements represent significantly less risk because another player can easily provide cover. Once set up they completely deny areas of the map.

Brit mortars fire quickly, are fairly accurate on auto-fire and easily out range Ost mortars. Once the Boffors goes up, good luck. The bofors will shut down light vehicles and likely mediums, as long as an ally as any form of AT, while barraging mortars that get too close. This leads to a terrible situation where the German team has to immediately counter attack. If they lose, and the Allied team should anticipate them, the Allied team holds a significant advantage from then until likely the mid to late game. If they do manage to destroy the emplacements they need to do with for cheaper than the emplacements cost, very difficult.

Emplacements are currently stupid. They function as an all or nothing device because of their cost, and they are completely ridiculous in that they easily shut down support weapon play. Two mortar shells landing simultaneously almost guarantee that every MG on the field has to be on the move constantly.

I am all for the Brits being potent in team games, but emplacements need careful consideration as they appear to be functioning very differently outside of 1v1.

Jump back to quoted post14 May 2016, 09:18 AMKatitof

I'm not sure why you think its an issue.

Perhaps you forgot what tigers used to be?

Let me remind you:

Overpowered and overshadowing piece of armor, which made every single other armor irrelevant to the point where for well over one whole year we've had NOTHING but tiger spam meta.

Right not its just another tank with clear counters, like any other armor and you think its wrong somehow?

Wunderwaffe Zeiten have ended.