Pak 43, Sorry, I had to.
In CoH1 it was actually a Flak 88 (well, technically it was called a flak 36); it was the AA version, and it could target both vehicles and tanks. The Pak 43 is the dedicated AT gun.
You've missed the part where that awesome arty can't even hit sector it targets and when it does, krauts need to double check for the shell not to confuse it with mosquito bites.
You know, there is a reason why no one sane is using arty regiment.
Just because it's bad doesn't excuse its poor design. The new arty rule (according to pretty much every recent change) is that arty doesn't go in base sectors - either in nor out. So now we have arty (which while bad) can ONLY be built in base sectors, is immune to counter-fire (unlike all other static arty... which can also be sniped, etc.), with a counter-battery ability.
Ignoring that it might be bad, how do you counter this? You can't drop 90% of off-map onto it, you can't snipe it, you can't rush it with infantry, you can't even de-crew it. Yes, we are lacking some key details; but my bet is that it's going to be terribly designed, and break some fundamental rules in CoH's design.
It's rather simple.....
You don't know shit about emplacements yet you claim otherwise.
Emplacements on vcoh were decrewable alot if you used flame weapons or small arms fire (something apparently you don't know).
Huh.
but with the added benefit of the crews being invincible (excluding getting them to very low HP)
Yes, they were soft-decrewable. You had to get them to a low-level of HP. Throwing a single nade into them wouldn't clear them out (as a nade into a Wehr bunker would), a short attack with a flamer wouldn't decrew them (any building it would), snipers did exactly nothing... The mechanic basically allowed for them to be decrewed (iirc, not even 100% of the time) only in very specific circumstances.
Also vcoh has never ever based around mobility,only USF was based around mobility not the game (just like the British are based around static emplacements and not the game itself).
Both USF and Wehr were focused around mobility; at least more than the brits ever were. The only static structures for Wehr were the bunkers and Flak 88; nothing else. I'd hardly count 1 core building and a single doctrine unit making the faction based on 'camping'.
And my entire point is that brits then and now are poorly designed. Yes, they are based around emplacements; which is horrible. It doesn't work well with the rest of the game, and its core game design.
The rules you brought forward aren't something to support your claim either because their just rules and each faction has a unique identity and exploit it based on their strength.
There's a difference between the core game design and faction design. I'm talking about the core game design; which is focused on mobility. That's why you can't win with only 20% of the map; that's why resource cutoffs are so crucial, that's why "L2P Smoke and Flank" is the reply to 90% of threads.
In vCoH you had a very mobile faction (US), a somewhat mobile faction (Wehr), then OF added a very mobile faction (PE) and... then the odd one out; brits. Based on camping (and slow infantry for some reason). It was a bad choice then, and it's a bad choice now.
Then you talk about OF as if you ever knew why the British were bad,it wasn't because of the emplacements but because of the stupid debuff and vet system that promotes blobing a moving (ignoring features like cover).
Both were bad problems in vCoH. But I was never even attempting to address blobbing; I was addressing emplacements, which were horrendous. Go look back at forum posts from back then: no one liked them (except the brit players who used them heavily).
But how would you know that you barely understand emplacements.....
Constructive.
And to end this replay in hopes of you learning I must remind you the arrival and the price of the emplacements (which also take pop) could not tolerate being one shotted by simple skills like the awesome good looking railway artillery and for that relic gave them brace.
So what you're saying, is that due to the design of emplacements (immobile support weapons), they need to be tanky to justify the price. This then brings in the perceived problem of camping.
What if I had a magical solution that removed the root of the problem?
Replace emplacements with normal, mobile, crewed weapons like every one else.
Emplacement counters are indirect firepower (mortars,heavy artillery) and flame weapons use those tools and not tanks or simple unupgraded infantry everytime you encounter something (cause it ain't gonna work),and since you mentioned mobility USE IT emplacements are static team weapons they can't hold the entire map.
I don't really have a reply to this. You've basically stated exactly the problem I've said, but simply said it's a solution.
Doomlord52
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
