The only reason every Soviet player uses it is because there are no viable alternatives. Until the faction gets help in other areas this is the way it will be. And if someone is using PTRS' the squad will be a lot worse against infantry.
I have heard everyone say this, but they are not actually that useless with the PTRS upgrade. Keep in mind that they get +60% accuracy in their veterancy(which I don´t understand, because they are accurate enough when they come in), which pretty much compensates for the upgrade, considering that they vet up ridiculously quickly. And with Duschka support that instantly pins half your infantry, they are adequate, at least against Ostheer(of course, Obers will f*ck them up, but that should be automatic, right?). It basically turns them into Grens. Decent at long range and in cover, but very easily rushed by almost anything. |
British emplacements, particularly the Bofors, are so cancerous in large team games. They're somewhat manageable on their own or in smaller games, but as soon as you pick the doctrine(s) with the extra emplacement health and/or auto-repair, multiple well-supported emplacements become f'ing invincible until you get tanks. It turns areas of the map into free Allied territory until the Axis tank hordes start rolling out.
Stukas do nothing for some reason. Le.IGs and mortars are okay if they don't just keep auto-repairing it and repairing with anvil engies. I've had games where my teammate and I collectively had 5 light arty pieces and we still couldn't kill one Bofors among several because of the repair + brace (not every game is that bad, it depends on how actively they repair).
If Brits push you off a fuel point early game for about a minute and set up a Bofors and a pit, it's essentially a no-go zone for the rest of the game until tanks come out. Emplacements need some serious rework. It's such a braindead strategy that works way too well for how little effort it takes.
I remember a specific 2v2 (and they're nowhere near as bad in 2v2 as in 4v4) where I had a Stuka and a howitzer + off-maps bombarding 2 mortar pits, a Bofors, and a 17-pounder all lined up perfectly for Stukas every second they were off cooldown and I still couldn't kill them because of the cancerous emplacement doctrine. It took 30+ minutes into the game before even a single pit died. It was ridiculous. I even fired a stolen AVRE shot at the 17-pounder when it had ~1/3 health, and it braced, survived, then repaired to full health in less than a minute. We did win that match, but had that been a 4v4 where Brits could do that shit on 2 VPs, it would have been a different story.
Absolutely broken. Anybody defending this is just wrong. I don't want to hear people's theorycrafting about how I need to l2p. It feels broken even when I do this shit. I'm not saying I can never beat it. I'm not even saying it has literally zero counter-play. I'm saying it takes too little skill for such a high payoff, and that's a problem. A strategy doesn't need to be "literally invincible" in order to be too strong. About the only early game strategy I find really counters emplacement spam is the mortar halftrack w/ incendiary rounds.
FINALLY! Someone who understands what the thread is about. God bless you, sir. |
You´re right. The problem with emplacements isn´t they power. Even averange player can take them down.
The problem is that those emplacements take too much time to be taken down, which makes the game feel boring.
What most players here are traying to suggest, is to make emplacements weaker, this way or another, so they are taken down much faster.
Yes, this is halfway to go. But we cannot forget that we need to do another changes as well. If emplacements are only sinkhole for resouces and are always taken down, why would you build them ?
That´s why I think we need to make also some buffs to them, along with nerfs, to make them appealing and funny to play for both sides.
For example to make mortar pit funny to play and actually make it worth the resources is to make it only autofire on ambient buildings, that are in control of the enemy. If you want to use it elswhere, you´ll have to use normal barrage (barrage time should be lowered).
Also decrease brace duration to 10 seconds and brace cooldown to 40 second (10 seconds brace, 30 seconds opportunity time) so it offers some kidn of prostection against offmaps/ tank rush but it´s no longer so annoing to fight against. If you are able to fire at mortar pit for longer than 10 seconds, you´ll be awarded with dead mortar pit. And if you aren´t able to kill it withing 30 seconds, you opponent will get another brace, to maybe save the pit.
I think this change would make brace far more interesting, micro intesive and funnier for both sides.
Mortar pit cost should go to 250 mapower and mortar pit should only contain one mortar, with the option of buying second one for another 200 manpower. Popcap should be decreased a bit and then increased even more with second mortar pit.
It should be worth it to get 2 mortars into one pit for firepower but still it should cost more manpower and popcap than current morar pit.
What do you think ?
There are some good ideas(like the Brace nerf). The mortar pit redesign is kinda interesting, I am not sure about it though. How would the autofire work on maps with almost no buildings, or on any map in the late game, when all the buildings are down? I really doubt that would be effective. The rest is decent though. |
Funny thing is that I´ve never seen a good player/team losing against the emplacements ...
Sure, if you are DevM or HelpingHans, or Luvnest, or Jove, the emplacements can be dealt with. And even if you are average, you can still beat these c*nts. I mostly do. However, I think that the problems with the quality of the game experience itself shouldn´t be ignored either. Constantly coming up against emplacements while playing Axis vs Brits(in 1v1s, it is like 40-60% of the time, in team games more like 90%) is simply frustrating and really ruins the quality of the game, at least for me. It is part of the reason why I personally stopped playing team games completely. I think that overall, they reward you for having bad micro and wanting to camp(and if you look at the poll, I am definitely not alone), which really should not be a part of any good RTS in the first place IMO. I only want the best for this game, I love it. But what happens when there is something frustrating, that people don´t want to deal with over and over, only to meet it in the next match again? They leave the game and might never come back when CoH3 maybe comes out eventually, further reducing the player base. |
I was saying 1 team can just sit back and do nothing while the other team goes and scores on them eventually. So the other dude beat some noobs that barely understand the game like himself, big deal. I used to win by spamming sturmpioneers or conscripts with guards lol. That doesn't mean it's a viable strategy. Hell, you probably could have gotten away with four mortars seeing as he became had over 1200 manpower in a concentrated sim city. Emplacement spam really does not work well at any higher level of play though. They're just too vulnerable due to not being able to move.
Then you haven´t understood my point one bit. That is what we are dealing with. People with an entire team staying right inside their own goal and getting away with it, more often than they should. There are EASY counters to everyone of those cheesy strategies you named, which are roughly as easy as the build itself(like an Ostwind against infantry spam). The problem with emplacements is that it takes 50 minutes to win a game, while your skill has to be significantly higher, to constantly dodge the bombardment. The counters to emplacements are pretty hard to execute, while the enemy has to do nothing. Even HelpingHans admitted this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkVxsYNab0s&list=PLwkm_w8wXFhjEX14k1f3Z2EWgYuIFi-Cf&index=13 I mean, come on man. Notice how complex and difficult his counter-strategy is, as opposed to just building something. |
The tendency to get 2 shotted (2 guys get 1 shotted, the other two go and get 1 shotted) or 1 shotted if clumped (which can be avoided) by tanks is definitely a problem and should be addressed.
What I meant about the USF AT gun is that you were kinda making it sound like some sort of exceptional wunderwaffe, but it is pretty much just a normal old AT gun.
Exactly, what I didn´t agree with was calling it crappy. It is about average in the late game, and it is EXCELLENT in the early and mid game, because its wider arc and fast aim time are able to catch light vehicles better. And as for the Raketen veterancy, it is EXTREMELY rare to see a Raketen reach vet 3 or more. Usually, it gets wiped before that, even in high-level play. |
So like volks blobs? They're bad but they still make the game go longer? The point is, you shouldn't be calling for nerfs for the sake of "quality of life". Going off your football analogy, if the refs and rules allowed it, the other team could go stand in the back and just catch shit, but they'd still lose because it's stupid. Basketball players could all just stand in the key, but it's stupid and if they do they'll lose. You could make 4 mortars as ost and end up losing but still probably wipe a couple squads. Doesn't mean making four mortars needs to be changed. OP shit gets nerfed.
If neither team did anything, would it not technically be a draw? Unless I understood you wrong. The difference is that 4 Mortars can be easily pushed off the field. Double Mortar Pit supported by Bofors simply can´t be. Not until you get tanks and even then, all he needs is an AT gun, because bringing infantry support to a proximity of Bofors is suicide. I also haven´t said they lose all the time. Sure, I beat them, but they must have beaten somebody on the way, right? It´s not like it is a losing strategy automatically, only if they are noobs(which they usually are, but not always). If they actually know how to control their infantry and tanks, you are in deep trouble. The scale on which something is happening matters, not just the principle. People don´t build 4 mortars, because it is a stupid strategy and doesn´t work. However, people do build emplacements pretty often, because it actually works quite well. I mean, if he keeps building them, it must have worked out for him in the past hasn´t it? |
Wow a dedicated, crew serviced at gun can penetrate a panzer four 9 out of 10 times. I'm pretty sure it's got pretty much the same performance as all the other at guns. There's still that stupid bug where it goes crawlspeed in craters though. I find that the raketens only problem is the longass aim time. The other stuff performs pretty much fine now that it doesn't always shoot straight into the ground anymore. I mean, it gets camo and better penetration out of camo with vet, and insane attack speed with vet. It can retreat too.
It also gets one-shotted like 50% of the time by tanks. It is really weird unit. It´s gunshield gives no cover whatsoever, so the crew is completely exposed. It is pretty much safe from infantry because it can retreat, but tanks often act as a hard-counter to it, which is really ironic. I mean, if I am driving a Sherman or a T-34, I am not really afraid of a Raketen, because I know that I can wipe it from the front no problem. And like I said, the USF AT gun has a decent pen. Just because you have to press a button doesn´t mean it isn´t there. It´s arch, RoF, cost, Take Aim and accuracy make up for it quite nicely I think. |
Wait what? So you're admitting that it sucks, but because it doesn't mean you instantly win it needs to be nerfed?
Have you read the original post? I mean, why are you asking this? I have stated this like 10 times already. It is a quality of life issue. It is like allowing a football team to all just assemble in their own goal, doing nothing and catching any balls that come flying towards them. The result is a BORING GAME! The other team probably will score a goal eventually, but it will be a torture to watch, and torture to play. This is the exact same thing. |
Lol aparently you dont play much usf because the at gun is still pretty un reliable but much better using the money rounds than what it was before was worthless. You are also missing the point usf does not have the defensive tools to get by with out making armor and going straight to callie even just one, whats laughable is that intelligence thinks you can make two and rely only on zooks and the at gun.
USF is my most played faction. The AT gun is pretty good. It has a very wide arc, which makes it a nightmare to dodge it. It has high rate of fire and accuracy. If you activate the AP rounds, it has pretty decent pen as well. Even without it though, it will pen P4s like 90% of the time. It cost less. It has the Take Aim! ability, which increased its range. It is not remotely as bad as the Raketen, at least it works properly. In my experience, it usually works better than a Jackson. |
JAR JAR BINKS
Noob101
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
Heartless Jäger 
