Profile of mediev

I thought the same thing for a long time, but then someone pointed out that even if it is cheesy, it makes sense for a blob to take out a single unsupported mg. Think about it: 4+ squads (so over 1000 manpower) probably with at least 60 muni worth of upgrades on each, vs. one 260-280 manpower mg on its own. It just doesn't make sense. It's like saying "7 a-moving su85s can kill one elefant this is a problem because elefant is supposed to counter su85, elefant UP" BTW, when squads don't all get suppressed at the same time hey usually bunch up really hard once they do, so grenades and barrages totally wreck them if they don't retreat immediately (said hitch they usually do).

I still think that nerfing RA will not fix anything for anyone, but just make tanks in lategame super op and make random infantry wipes as normal as model drops. There are other ways to stress cover in the lategame (like some of my proposals in the post you quoted).

Yeah let's just stop talking about emplacements on this thread, no reason for it.

¨

How do you buff cover any more? Infantry in heavy cover are already almost invincible. At least remove the vet modifiers for received accuracy though. Vet3 Riflemen are problem even in 1v1, never mind blobbing. Replace them with either more accuracy, or some abilities(sprint, stun grenade, smoke grenade, self-healing, suppressing fire and so on), so it is actually skill based, rather than "I will just stand in the open because I can" type of mentality.

I have never seen a half competent usf player make more than one mortar. I usually don't even make one. The difference between frps and the emplacement issue (which, don't get me wrong, is still a total shitshow) is that emplacements are a joke if you know what you are doing. Frps are not. They actually work and can also give a little too much easy power to even the competent players (the kind that don't just blob everything up and throw it around). Emplacements, on the other hand, are very easily countered and making a simcity is basically shooting yourself in the foot even if they are mindless and cheesy. When I see a player on my team making emplacements, I always groan and wish they hadn't. It's like watching a teammates' army get flanked and wiped. What I never do is see a player setting up their battlegroup hq or major+ambulance and go "oh you fucking idiot why are you using frps?" (unless they put it literally right on the front lines, like in-range-of-mgs on the front lines). One works and one doesn't.

Edit: I do mostly agree with your last point though. I don't think mgs need that much buffing, and it's not just riflemen who get really great RA bonuses (they are the prime offender though), but cover really should be worth more. It feels like cover is pretty much inconsequential after the first like 15-20 minutes of a game, and flanking cover doesn't really matter. It really should change engagements more than it does now.

Emplacements can be very strong for a good player. It is just that most players who make them are bad, so they lose just by the sheer skill differential. If you can micro the rest of your army however(which large portion of these cancer abusers are unable to do, thank God), you can just lock down a VP and fight over the others, repair your team mates tanks and so on. I would by no means call the counter for them "easy". If the offender knows what he is doing, you have to be very careful, so your counter just doesn´t blow up mysteriously.

Like I said, either give it to everyone, or give everyone a HT and be done with it. Maybe not exactly buff the MGs, but buff the suppression itself, so the suppressed squads do less damage than now. I believe that now, it lowers your DPS to 25%. That means that if you meet a 4-squad blob, which you often do, you have one full squad firing at you, regardless of suppression. But then again, the RA nerfs will help with that, too. Having more received accuracy means that you take more bullets from the MG, so more suppression, therefore you get pinned quicker.

Just NERF RECEIVED ACCURACY ACROSS THE BOARD. That is the cure to most infantry-based problems in this game for me.

The Major arty is not suited for fighting mobile troops (or killing units in general). It also requires to get up close which is kinda hard against a FRP. The Pack Howitzer is 11 pop cap, fires 3 (!) shots and gets decrewed easily. When you have range on the HQ with your mortar pit, the ISGs will have range on your pit too and an ISG that can reinforce wins against a mortar pit.

You know, I expected something like this. Who said that artillery should be great at killing mobile troops(especially since you asked about killing FRP)? Pack Howitzer is good enough, maybe a little range increase on the auto-fire would be nice. Mostly, USF just go double mortars anyway. The Brits have no problem whatsoever with the "trench warfare" in CoH2. They are better suited to it than any Allied faction. And just so you know, when you see more OKW than Ost in the enemy team, MAYBE it would be suitable to go for a doctrine with artillery, like Infantry or Tactical Support, or any other with call-in artillery(Mechanized, Recon Support, Armor). There is more than enough artillery options for the Allies in this game.

Forced back by a single TD? Ha, that's funny. It's just not true. Snaring a heavy should also never happen either, as heavies on both sides have decently long range and infantry can't usually make it that close. Allied infantry slightly outclasses axis infantry, but take a lot more resources to maintain and upgrade, and are called upon at a much higher level due to having to be very aggressive and usually have less support options. Axis tanks are also much better than most allied tanks, t34/85 and to some degree the comet being the only exceptions, so allied infantry should be better anyway. Your problem with rifle smoke is easily solvable by having another squad around to rush in while they are still suppressed. If a rifle squad gets suppressed in the first place, then they already fucked up hard because you can literally beat them with pios early game, and any other squad later on, since suppressed squads really can't fight. Or you could just relocate the mg while they're crawling around suppressed. I do agree with you about ostheer being the most balanced faction on the whole though. Running over mgs with brute force after about 10 minutes is definitely still a thing for pretty much every faction if they are alone though.

Haven´t you watched any high-end games recently? I hardly remember a time when there was more than SU-85/Firefly needed to handle a Tiger/KT. You can just kite it pretty easily if you have the micro. Mostly, when players call in a Tiger/KT, they just keep it back, because they are scared it will get sniped.

As for the Axis tanks being better, what exactly do you have in mind? Sherman/Cromwell/PanzerIV are roughly the same, only the P4 costs more and has worse moving accuracy. Centaur is clearly superior to the Ostwind, especially after vet 1. The ONLY really good(when you consider what you get for your money) Ostheer armor is the StuG III G. The whole tier 4 for the Ostheer is a waste of time, unless you play a big team game.

As for OKW, their tanks are better, but come a lot later usually. By the time you can get a Panzer IV out with OKW, the enemy likely has a counter already, so you usually have to get a Panther anyway. I think that this whole "Axis has better tanks" bullsh*t is a relic from the times when the Soviet armor was useless and the WFA weren´t introduced yet. I think it is high time to stop saying it IMO. Basic Allied armor is VERY GOOD, it is just that nobody bothered to use it since they introduced commanders like Heavy Cavalry.

"Should never happen"?????!!!! Yeah, but this is reality(of a game of course), not a driving manual. It just happens because the heavies are desperate to catch out the kiting TDs and they get trapped. All Allied TDs in general have received significant buffs over the years, while the heavies have stayed the same(especially the Tiger). They can now reliably and cost-effectively take on even the heaviest Axis armor.

As for infantry, the Allies clearly outclass the Axis, especially Ostheer gets raped hard. The reinforcement costs are higher for the Axis. The durability is much higher for the Allies, especially Riflemen, with their "light cover in the open" RA vet bonuses. The Tommies with upgrades are RIDICULOUS! Even Penals are very good. They can manage much longer with no upgrades, so it is OK that the upgrades cost more in the end.

So it seems like there's been a ton of hate on emplacements and simcities recently, and the problem with a lot of suggestions is that they are mostly just straight nerfs, without any reciprocating buffs/reworks. I want to offer an idea that I thought of that is 100% theoretical, may not even be balanced, and some parts of which may not even be doable. Having said that, my idea:

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.

Do you know why people only post straight nerfs to emplacements? Because they don´t want them in the game! They RUIN the game. Period. They have no place or reason to exist. Brits are perfectly capable of holding territory without them. If you just gave them a mortar, they would be fine, but "NOOOO, WE NEED MORE MONEEEEEEEEY! WE NEED TO MAKE THE BRITS NO-BRAINER AND OP, SO THE NOOBS GIVE US THEIR MONEEEEEEEY!" Like seriously, f*ck this game sometimes. It is a great game, but boy does it have some cheesy sh*t!! Just replace the Mortar Pit with a regular Mortar. PROBLEM SOLVED! You will be able to build Bofors and AT guns, but you will still be able to counter-barrage with your own mortar, in case they get attacked. And if you are careless with your mortar positioning, you will get raped, as you should. The mortar pit has no place in the game. Remove it, or nerf to the point of uselessness(and if this results in players ditching emplacements altogether, well, then we´ll all just celebrate and move on), there is nothing more to say about it.