Login

russian armor

Reduce Braces Effect/ Mortar Pits less accurate

PAGES (10)down
9 Apr 2016, 21:38 PM
#41
avatar of Grim

Posts: 1093

I'd happily trade all emplacements for mobile versions. Much rather pack up and move away from leig barrages or recrew when attacked ;)

9 Apr 2016, 23:25 PM
#42
avatar of DonnieChan

Posts: 2260 | Subs: 1

You could find many other things which ruin games in 2v2+.
Volks blob, FRPs, Rifle blob etc...



everything counterable, as it actually stands at the front


unlike the puddingpit
10 Apr 2016, 04:37 AM
#43
avatar of Nezmith

Posts: 16

I think the biggest problem with mortar pits is the fact they come with 2 mortar crews that cannot be decrewed (negligible manpower drain during shot exchanges). At their price (200 mp per mortar), they're the cheapest and most durable mortar team in the game. Back in CoH 1, mortars in general weren't a problem due to their low base damage and inaccuracy. The brit mortar pit in particular was limited to only one crew and cost 280 mp to place. I'd campaign for reducing brit emplacements to their original CoH counterparts- there simply isn't a reason not to and the system seemed to work much better than what we have now.

As to reducing the mortar pit in size: I think this is the biggest issue to be fixed. By reducing the size, you force the player to either stick with the one emplacement or have to worry about managing even more emplacements should they elect the sim city route. If they stick the emplacements together, they risk collateral damage and take up room that could be used for a bofors/17lber- that alone should deter the type of mortar spam that instagibs units so frequently in games (especially team games).

Secondly, all brit emplacements- not just the mortar pit- need a chance to be decrewed at low health. I've heard this brought up before but I have never gotten a satisfactory explanation for why Relic decided to make the crews unkillable. I think the last thing I heard is that capturing an emplacement would “imbalance the game against UKF”. You mean just like capturing a decrewed Jagdtiger imbalances the game against OKW? Brits have literally just about every type of vehicle, ability, and tool in the game at their disposal that an enemy-owned emplacement shouldn't be an issue. They now have rocket artillery with the latest doctrines and plenty of units that can call in prebuilt-artillery barrages with the click of a button. The same thing that works for Germans against emplacements works for Brits- make a Cromwell or a Churchill and you're half way there. If the Brit players don't have the resources to keep sim city occupied, they shouldn't have made a sim city in the first place. Instant repercussions. Seriously, why isn't this hotfixed yet?

I agree with Banana in that brace's effect should be reduced. By half may be too much and somewhat arbitrary, but nothing should escape artillery/sturmtiger shots virtually unscathed- immovable or not. The whole idea should be to make sim city play less viable. Emplacements should be used as a tool to support a larger infantry/tank force- not as a mainline fighting force that can be maintained for only 50 munitions (or 250 mp) at a time.

Accuracy and damage of the mortars is a whole different fight. If Brit mortar pits need to be nerfed (and they do), so too do every other faction's mortars/ISGs/pack howitzers. RNG plays way too much of an effect in this game.
10 Apr 2016, 07:14 AM
#44
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2




everything counterable, as it actually stands at the front


unlike the puddingpit


If we ara talking about 2v2+ all you need to do is to barrage emplacement with 2 stukas at once.
Even upgraded emplacement will die to 2 barrages.
10 Apr 2016, 10:42 AM
#45
avatar of Highfiveeeee

Posts: 1740

Brace itself isn't the problem. It's more about the auto healing buildings and the counter barrage.

British Sim City can be countered. With that one certain commander it is almost impossible on the other hand.
10 Apr 2016, 10:46 AM
#46
avatar of Butcher

Posts: 1217

Brace itself isn't the problem. It's more about the auto healing buildings and the counter barrage.

British Sim City can be countered. With that one certain commander it is almost impossible on the other hand.
I can´t agree here. The regular emplacement spam is easily countered by OKW with the LeIG. Ostheer however can´t do anything about it without the mortar HT. The regular Ostheer mortar gets stomped on by the mortar pit and any flamethrower attack gets shut down by a Bofors. Even here OKW has the advantage of having more anti building units in the form of Schrecks available.

OKW can handle the regular emplacements, Ostheer can´t.
Both factions get stomped by the cancer commander.
10 Apr 2016, 17:53 PM
#47
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

Brace reduces manpower income by a certain value for the duration. Now Brits feel attrition from being under constant fire and needing to be bracing.
10 Apr 2016, 18:37 PM
#48
avatar of Domine

Posts: 500

Even upgraded emplacement will die to 2 barrages.



Wtf no
10 Apr 2016, 18:46 PM
#49
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Apr 2016, 18:37 PMDomine



Wtf no


Yes.

All you need is practice to figure out how to fire stuka so more shells will hit.
10 Apr 2016, 19:05 PM
#50
avatar of Mindtraveller

Posts: 34

Permanently Banned
Emplacements are fine by themselves: ISG and Mortar Halftrack hard counter them.

Advanced Emplacements Regiment, which allows for the repair of emplacements while underfire without losing firefight presence/map control, is not fine and should be looked at.

Please Axis players, stop raging/following common anti-brit hype, and actually take a logical look at what the problem is before writing off an entire faction/unit.
10 Apr 2016, 19:08 PM
#51
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

Emplacements are fine by themselves: ISG and Mortar Halftrack hard counter them.

Advanced Emplacements Regiment, which allows for the repair of emplacements while underfire without losing firefight presence/map control, is not fine and should be looked at.

Please Axis players, stop raging/following common anti-brit hype, and actually take a logical look at what the problem is before writing off an entire faction/unit.


Actually it does affect map presence. You invest 450MP into Assembly and Engies which means 450MP less on the field.
10 Apr 2016, 19:13 PM
#52
avatar of Mindtraveller

Posts: 34

Permanently Banned


Actually it does affect map presence. You invest 450MP into Assembly and Engies which means 450MP less on the field.


Yes but such invested MP comes back much quicker than if it was put into units because it doesn't change your popcap and thus your MP income (I think?).
11 Apr 2016, 00:47 AM
#53
avatar of ThoseDeafMutes

Posts: 1026

Delete mortar pit is fine as long as you give the Brits as Universal Carrier mortar upgrade option. And that it's solid.
11 Apr 2016, 00:55 AM
#54
avatar of hubewa

Posts: 928

Delete mortar pit is fine as long as you give the Brits as Universal Carrier mortar upgrade option. And that it's solid.


Completely unhistorical as it would never fit, but I'd be happier with a UC Mortar than a mortar pit.
11 Apr 2016, 00:58 AM
#55
avatar of Gramses

Posts: 37

I don't understand the reason that each individual British mortar is so powerful. The blast radius in-game of each 3 inch shell falls somewhere between the 80mm and 120mm mortars when in fact 3 inches is only 76.2mm. Maybe bringing them in line with the actual math would help balance them a bit.

Edit: The soviet mortar wasn't 120m
11 Apr 2016, 01:04 AM
#56
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Apr 2016, 00:58 AMGramses
I don't understand the reason that each individual British mortar is so powerful. The blast radius in-game of each 3 inch shell falls somewhere between the 80mm and 120m mortars when in fact 3 inches is only 76.2mm. Maybe bringing them in line with the actual math would help balance them a bit.


the british "3" inch was actually 3.20 inch, aka 81.2mm
11 Apr 2016, 01:05 AM
#57
avatar of Gramses

Posts: 37



the british "3" inch was actually 3.20 inch, aka 81.2mm


Fair enough but my point still stands. It's much more powerful than the soviet 81mm.
11 Apr 2016, 01:08 AM
#58
avatar of ThoseDeafMutes

Posts: 1026

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Apr 2016, 00:55 AMhubewa


Completely unhistorical as it would never fit, but I'd be happier with a UC Mortar than a mortar pit.


British employed 2" Mortars in UCs, one per platoon according to my 30 second internet search. The Australians had a 3" mortar variant of the UC. 50mm mortar coming from Tier 0 sounds ok for a 60 mun upgrade that unlocks when you research the first base upgrade. Some indirect earlier than the mortar pit might be good, as long as it's not abysmal in performance terms, since the current mortar pit is one of the few things keeping Brits competitive early on in team games.

Edit: Apparently Canada had 3" also, unsure of UK directly.
11 Apr 2016, 01:10 AM
#59
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930

I made a post earlier:

https://www.coh2.org/topic/50622/the-cure-for-cancer-aka-emplacement

the british need good mobile alternative to the mortar emplacement. it doesn't need to be a mobile mortar, but their wasp and tommies 25 pounder are going to need buffs:

Tommies and sniper coordinated artillery range increased to 35 meters
coordinated artillery recharge time lowered to 90 seconds
coordinated artillery 25 pounder reload time lowered by one second
coordinated artillery and sexton 25 pounder aoe profile increased to 7/6/3/2
coordinated artillery 25 pdr scatter decreased

universal carrier hp increased to 320
universal carrier cost increased to 220 mp 15 fuel
wasp upgrade cost lowered to 60 muition

basically the wasp can handle early game, while the 25 pounder handle the late game.
11 Apr 2016, 01:14 AM
#60
avatar of ThoseDeafMutes

Posts: 1026

Ok more googling:

As the war progressed, Allied command found wider uses for the Universal Carrier. British motorized battalions—units comprising a British infantry brigade, in an armored division—used carriers in their Scout Platoons for reconnaissance missions from 1944 onward. After 1941 carriers began to tot 3” mortars, 66 rounds of high explosive and smoke shells. The mortar and its five-man crew would deploy the weapon outside the carrier.


3" mortar upgrade for UC in Tier 1/2 (or whatever we consider the tier when Mortar Pit usually unlocks) is possible within the realms of historical fudging, I think. Possibly even a 4.2" for late war!

In 1943, British infantry divisions were reconfigured to include a Brigade Support Group. Thirty Universal Carriers were assigned to each such unit to lend additional firepower to the division in the form of medium machine guns (Vickers), 4.2” mortar, and 20mm anti-aircraft cannon fire.


http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/wwii-vehicles-the-british-universal-or-bren-gun-carrier/

The problem - they dismounted from the UC to fire :D

I'm not sure if the 2" could fire from within the UC itself.
PAGES (10)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

unknown 28
Korea, Republic Of 0
Russian Federation 77
Germany 3

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

463 users are online: 463 guests
0 post in the last 24h
16 posts in the last week
133 posts in the last month
Registered members: 45019
Welcome our newest member, dsers
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM