Login

russian armor

UKF Emplacement Rework

1 Jul 2018, 14:10 PM
#1
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

A comment Ferwiner made in the Bofors AA bug thread gave me an idea. He suggested fixing the Bofors' AA but only if it has a squad garrisoned in it.

And that made me think, what you went all the way with that?

  • UKF emplacements now do nothing if not garrisoned. They have a sight range of about ten metres, they can't attack at all and their barrage abilities are locked. They're effectively an expensive pre-DBP trench with Brace.
  • Reduce the price of the Mortar Pit, Bofors and 17 Pounder by roughly 210 manpower each. Reduce the fuel cost of the Bofors and 17 Pounder.
  • Garrison them with a squad (say, a 210 manpower Royal Engineer squad) and they return to their normal performance.

This makes emplacements no longer an all-in strategy: half the cost of an emplacement is now the squad used to man it. If your emplacement is overrun the squad can get out and retreat, meaning you only lose half the resources the emplacement costs. If the lines shift and your emplacement is no longer in a helpful position your squad can get out and go elsewhere: again you've only lost half the cost and you can man it again later if the lines shift back.

A secondary benefit is UKF emplacements are now more intuitive to counter: tools that drive squads out of garrisons can also be used to drive them out of emplacements. Brace might save your emplacement but it won't save the squad inside. And if the squad leaves, the emplacement stops shooting.

Thoughts?
1 Jul 2018, 14:20 PM
#2
avatar of ferwiner
Donator 11

Posts: 2885

The problem with your idea lies in veterancy. If you decrew the emplacement it will lose all of it's veterancy. And you can't simply give veterancy to the squad inside like in case of usf tanks, becouse that will make ukf infantry way too easy to vet.

To solve this problem, I would suggest building all the emplecements with a special, non combat squad inside (like old style emplacements) and just give them an option to leave like in case of usf vehicles. Only this squad should be able to man it, or other squads should do it with manpower loss. That way you can keep the emplacement vet on the infantry inside.
1 Jul 2018, 14:23 PM
#3
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

They're not decrewed. I'm suggesting taking the existing emplacement garrison mechanic and locking everything behind it rather than one ability.
1 Jul 2018, 15:47 PM
#4
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

This wouldn't add up on resource costs and population cap. When an emplacement is about to go down the squad could just evacuate and only the very reduced build cost would be lost. This would cancel the emplacement mechanic (high performance to cost ratio but vulnerable to counter play because it's static) and would probably just make them spamable. When the Brit player is popcapped he could just keep building empty emplacements as fall-back secondary defenses.
1 Jul 2018, 16:03 PM
#5
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

When an emplacement is about to go down the squad could just evacuate and only the very reduced build cost would be lost.


That's the point. You make the emplacement itself a lower investment but in turn nerf it by making it rely on a garrisoned squad to operate. Because it's reliant on the garrisoned squad inside to do anything it's also vulnerable to anything that flushes squads from buildings. They'd essentially be the old UKF password-protected trenches with guns on them.
1 Jul 2018, 16:40 PM
#6
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

So Brits can just spam cheap-ass emplacements, fill them with some cheap engineers and once the enemy finally succeeds in almost bringing it down after a big investment in counters the squad can just evacuate and all that is lost is like 70mp and 30fu for a Bofors emplacement. It would be way too cost-effective.
1 Jul 2018, 16:42 PM
#7
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

and once the enemy finally succeeds in almost bringing it down after a big investment


The same investment as clearing a building.
1 Jul 2018, 16:42 PM
#8
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Jul 2018, 16:42 PMLago


The same investment as clearing a building.


A garrison doesn't fire back with high squad-wiping potential and light vehicle damage.

It could work for mortars and 17 pounders (still has the same cost-efficiency problem though) but definitely not for the Bofors because of its self-defense potential.
1 Jul 2018, 16:46 PM
#9
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

The present 280 MP cost of a Bofors is hardly prohibitive. It'd be no easier to set up a Bofors in a difficult position for the opponent and easier than before to counter it. Just shell it, forcing out the garrisoned squad.
1 Jul 2018, 19:44 PM
#10
avatar of TheGentlemenTroll

Posts: 1044 | Subs: 1

I think its a good idea. It makes the "skeleton" structure cheaper but still makes the entire investment 210+210/280 the same. Similarly if someone spams emplacements then they will not have infantry to support and move around the map without deactivating the emplacements. This also means atleast some skill in micro is required to use them effectively.
1 Jul 2018, 20:55 PM
#11
avatar of DonnieChan

Posts: 2260 | Subs: 1

Paul AD surely would have one hell of a time spamming boforses all over the map one after another, and right b4 you kill one, he just switches to the next
1 Jul 2018, 23:57 PM
#12
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

He wouldn't have much fuel that way.
2 Jul 2018, 06:22 AM
#13
avatar of ullumulu

Posts: 2243

bofors is BS. it is mucgh stronger than a schwerer from OKW and can carrage, high wiping potencial and put a AT gun and indirect fire unit behind it and you can lean back and need no micro while the enemy need a army to destroy it
2 Jul 2018, 08:28 AM
#14
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17884 | Subs: 8

bofors is BS. it is mucgh stronger than a schwerer from OKW and can carrage, high wiping potencial and put a AT gun and indirect fire unit behind it and you can lean back and need no micro while the enemy need a army to destroy it


A tech exclusive unit that costs fuel, prevents you from getting good light vehicle and costs pop cap is better then a complete freebie on tech?

Who would have ever effin thought!
2 Jul 2018, 09:25 AM
#15
avatar of ullumulu

Posts: 2243



A tech exclusive unit that costs fuel, prevents you from getting good light vehicle and costs pop cap is better then a complete freebie on tech?

Who would have ever effin thought!


the tech is technicaly cheap and is only one-time buy.
after that you can build this super cheap unit all where you want and can now hold the area easily. when i say super cheap...yeah..i mean super duber cheap compared to its performanche. where can i get a 30 fuel unit wich wipe squad often in 1-2 sec is a light tank destroyer and can barrage/ pin unit wide away, has AA abilty, has brace, stand longer than a schwerer building from OKW and where the enemy need min a mid game army to destroy it when you arent a noob? mix it with aindirect fire unit and a AT gun or a td...any viola-.--your enemy need a endgame army or must spam arty

EDIT: to bad that we get NO statistic to this emplacment units! else we would see HOW EFFECTIV this unit is. it would have in most games the highest effency ! look what it cost and what it bring into your (team)game.

2 Jul 2018, 12:58 PM
#16
avatar of Highfiveeeee

Posts: 1740



the tech is technicaly cheap and is only one-time buy.
after that you can build this super cheap unit all where you want and can now hold the area easily. when i say super cheap...yeah..i mean super duber cheap compared to its performanche.


It simply is an area denial tool like MG Bunkers. You pay fuel but get a 360° arc. Right now you are trying to make the Bofors a no-brainer which counters everything but the heaviest tanks, which is not the case. A single mortar or even better leIG and the Bofors can't do shit because it cannot runaway. You need Sappers to repair it constantly (making them bleed like hell because of repairing damage penalties) unless you play fortification doctrine, which is shit.


where can i get a 30 fuel unit wich wipe squad often in 1-2 sec


It wipes fast but 1-2 seconds is an overstatement.


can barrage/ pin unit wide away


Unless you put a squad inside, it won't pin anything. Nobody uses the barrage anymore after the FRP nerf because Brit units are expensive as fuck and you won't waste 280MP only for some light barrage things that is mostly used to tear down houses.


has AA abilty,


It doesn't. It literally does NOT harm planes. This is a bug, but still.


has brace, stand longer than a schwerer building from OKW and where the enemy need min a mid game army to destroy it when you arent a noob?


Compared to what? OKW - Build 2 leIGs and the Bofors melts like butter. You don't lose any fuel while the enemy spent 30 for literally nothing and also is not able to get an AEC anymore. Ostheer: Build a mortar and a flame 251. Smoke + attack ground -> Bofors gone, 251 Vet 2.

ALSO, that 45(?) fuel for a single Bofors means a 3-4 minute longer time until a Cromwell arrives. AND you also lack the MP to build an AT Gun, which means that an incoming Panzer 4 will tear you apart.


mix it with aindirect fire unit and a AT gun or a td...any viola-.--your enemy need a endgame army or must spam arty


Indirect fire as in mortar pit which was nerfed into the ground? Also, about 900MP + 30 Fuel only to defend a small area of the map is a huge investment. That can be negated by Mortars/leIGs easily. And also the enemy has a way better army if you put all your MP into this immobile trash.

2 Jul 2018, 13:16 PM
#17
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3600 | Subs: 1

So Brits can just spam cheap-ass emplacements, fill them with some cheap engineers and once the enemy finally succeeds in almost bringing it down after a big investment in counters the squad can just evacuate and all that is lost is like 70mp and 30fu for a Bofors emplacement. It would be way too cost-effective.


not if you give ungarrisoned emplacements a durability malus.
2 Jul 2018, 13:23 PM
#18
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Jul 2018, 13:16 PMEsxile
not if you give ungarrisoned emplacements a durability malus.


You wouldn't even need that. A Bofors that can't shoot back is useless.
2 Jul 2018, 16:30 PM
#19
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053

I really like this idea. Just for further clarity, are you proposing that it be like the current garrisoning system in live where the whole squad sits in it as a separate entity (like they do in buildings) or something like ye olde Coh1 emplacements or the okw base flak cannons?



A garrison doesn't fire back with high squad-wiping potential and light vehicle damage.

It could work for mortars and 17 pounders (still has the same cost-efficiency problem though) but definitely not for the Bofors because of its self-defense potential.

If they are changed to work this way all it would take is smoke and a flamenade/bundled nade or just mortar barraging. It wouldn't be very hard. If you're running your infantry and light vehicles into a bofors it's frankly an l2p issue as there are many other ways to destroy it.
2 Jul 2018, 16:55 PM
#20
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

A flame or bundle grenade does not kill entire garrisons. In the time it takes to smoke up again and throw a second the Brit could easily replace the garrison with a fresh squad. Running into a Bofors can't always be avoided in the 3v3/4v4 corridor maps. Investing 540-560mp into indirect fire just to counter a single Bofors leaves you vulnerable to other Allied light vehicle rushes. IMO the amount of trouble one has to go through to destroy a Bofors already makes it very cost-efficient compared to vehicles.

So no thanks, I'd rather not see spamable Bofors all over the map in 3v3/4v4s.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

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

484 users are online: 484 guests
0 post in the last 24h
32 posts in the last week
142 posts in the last month
Registered members: 44954
Welcome our newest member, Mtbgbans
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM