Defense > Offense?

[Krieger Blitzer]

I would like to begin this topic with the following quotation:

And remember kids, this mod favors defensive play

And I must say that unfortunately this statement seems to be absolutely true... At least to some extent.

As it seems that BK mod still has some tendency on favoring the defensive play style over the offensive one.. this can only be good for those who like to play against AI, but never a good thing in pvp games!

Please take a look at the following video.. this video is unlisted though, so please keep that in mind;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB0bA2u21Ho

- As you can obviously see, AB airstrikes deal almost no damage to bunkers... Wasting 215 ammo!
- Yet again, 150mm rockets fired by Maultier from Blitz doc.. hardly deals any damage to RE doc emplacements... Keeping in mind how extremely fast these emplacements could be built and repaired. Further more; I would just not like to bring back the discussion of how the Allied AT guns are somehow capable of shooting HE rounds too!

But why should the defensive play style be rewarded so much over the offensive play style?
Recently there was a talk about RE doc emplacements in particular.. and some people confidently said; "just use indirect fire weapons to destroy the emplacements" probably while being completely unaware of how ridiculously useless actually are the indirect fire units against such indestructible emplacements. Meaning that it would usually require a lot of skill to take out such cost-less defense which could be still constructed over and over again, in just no time.. while requiring no skills at all.

At the end of the video, there is a bonus scene as well... Regarding the CW AT Boys! And that was super hilarious to be honest

[sgtToni95]

When i saw that happening with those boys i knew for sure you would have said something about that LOL, that happening once is surely a great statistic sample, no doubts. So since my sappers got wiped by swimm and pios at the start of the game THIS TIME is a reliable statistic sample to say pios + swimm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sappers.

I think that would have made more sense if you made a video with all engagements with boys facing infantry and vehicles, and took some stats from those (would have been more objective for sure).

I had a 1v1 with kwok on that 3v3 map few days ago: I was brits and he was PE, and he simply killed all i had with scout cars, boys included, since boys were missing all shots. That was hilarious too, tho i didn't bring that here to say boys are hilariously inaccurate. That was just something that can happen.

About emplacements:

1) you take RE emplacements which have tech tree unlocks, requiring CPs, to make them this resistent, cheaper and faster to build.

2) I think you show here that maultier decrews 100% of the times (very little statistic sample again, but that's what fire basically does), so with the right combination you might just steal the emplacement and/or delete it.

3) bunkers have tech tree upgrade to make them more resistent too, and i guess during war they were built specifically to resist arty shells, tanks'/towed guns and airstrikes, since for normal bullets walls could have been enough. What they're not so resistent too are satchels and demo charges, same way as allied emplacements are vulnerable to nade bundles and volleys.
It happened to me and salvy a few times to find ourselves facing huge bunkers line: all i asked him is to use arty on anything but bunkers, and to build a couple of two inches to help me smoking the area to plant demo charges on them: that worked quite well.

I think BK might favour defense if you just expect to take them down complitely with simple click to kill abilities. I don't mind it requiring some more strategy since it's a RTS game.

To be honest tho, i wouldn't really mind (supposing a situation where not every doctrine had it's own "pocket"-arty) emplacements being limited in number to prevent a real "emplacement spam", leaving Fun Mod with no limits to have campy games against AI.

[MarKr]

@emplacements: [sarcasm]Yes, I noticed that too. Simply no way to get through an emplacement defensive wall! If only there was a way for every doctrine to deal with emplacements without hitting it with arty...something like...I don't know...a cover for your troops you could deploy anywhere relatively safely reach the emplacement and then netralize it with infantry...too bad that devs never implemented something like this.[/sarcasm]

@BOYS: Appart from the fact that Toni pointed out (one example does not prove anything in a RNG game). Don't forget that cover applies to individual soldiers, not the whole squad. Yes, you can see the cover symbol over the squad but that doesn't mean that if one dude is behind a sandbag, he provides green cover to the rest of the squad who have no cover at all. And I can see that this is problem in your video. BOYS squad just sits in green cover the whole time. Axis squad has constantly about 2 soldiers in green cover and the rest keeps moving around - out of cover and from there back to cover. A soldier without cover is easier to hit and takes more damage.

[Krieger Blitzer]

We must not forget that this video in the first place is not about CW AT Boys. We tested AB airstrikes against Bunkers, and we also tested Maultier against RE doc emplacements... But this scene regarding the AT Boys, was not a test.. but from a 3vs3 game replay.
Of course it can't be a solid example, however.. it's still an example of what "could" happen. And the fact that this "can" happen is already shocking! Because the AT Boys should not be able to counter infantry AT ALL.
I know that you might say; "But 37mm AT guns can counter inf with HE rounds and canister shot, so why should AT Boys be completely vulnerable against inf the other way around?"
It's because AT Boys already have enough advantages over AT guns. AT Boys can capture points, they can shoot 360 degrees... And also, they are able to embark vehicles and get inside trenches and houses. Paks can't do the same at any possible point!
==============================================
Nonetheless... Now let's jump to the primary point of this topic here:-

About emplacements:

1) you take RE emplacements which have tech tree unlocks, requiring CPs, to make them this resistent, cheaper and faster to build.

3) bunkers have tech tree upgrade to make them more resistent too, and i guess during war they were built specifically to resist arty shells, tanks'/towed guns and airstrikes, since for normal bullets walls could have been enough. What they're not so resistent too are satchels and demo charges.
It happened to me and salvy a few times to find ourselves facing huge bunkers line: all i asked him is to use arty on anything but bunkers, and to build a couple of two inches to help me smoking the area to plant demo charges on them: that worked quite well.

I probably forgot to mention on my first post that none of these Bunkers, and none of these emplacements in the video... NONE of them were upgraded with the "improved defense" unlocks. Yet, they were as incredibly resistant as you have seen!

2) I think you show here that maultier decrews 100% of the times (very little statistic sample again, but that's what fire basically does), so with the right combination you might just steal the emplacement and/or delete it.

Hmm, 170 ammo just to de-crew them? This does not sound like a fair deal...

I think BK might favour defense if you just expect to take them down complitely with simple click to kill abilities.

I am not saying RE doc emplacements should be completely destroyed with Maultier. Nor that Bunkers should be wiped out instantly with airstrikes... But definitely more damage should be dealt.. at least.
And btw, airstrikes and Maultier are not really click to kill abilities! Maultier is not an off-map ability. Airstrikes are off-map but can be still shut-down...

To be honest tho, i wouldn't really mind (supposing a situation where not every doctrine had it's own "pocket"-arty) emplacements being limited in number to prevent a real "emplacement spam", leaving Fun Mod with no limits to have campy games against AI.

Limiting emplacements won't be a solution, you can still use flamethrowers to de-crew them... Meanwhile you would build more emplacements and then you could re-crew the old emplacements again. This way you can bypass the limit!

I don't mind it requiring some more strategy since it's a RTS game.

That's what I am saying though... You need skills, tactics.. to attack with ur infantry and use combined forces just to take out 1 emplacement which can be still repaired in no time, and also very cheap to replace. If it requires "strategy" to take them out, then I wonder why such emplacements are so indestructible. At least they should take more damage like I already said...

@emplacements: [sarcasm]Yes, I noticed that too. Simply no way to get through an emplacement defensive wall! If only there was a way for every doctrine to deal with emplacements without hitting it with arty...something like...I don't know...a cover for your troops you could deploy anywhere relatively safely reach the emplacement and then netralize it with infantry...too bad that devs never implemented something like this.[/sarcasm]

Attacking with inf is not a good idea since AT guns have HE rounds. And 3 bundle grenades by the StormTroops already cost 150 ammo... And are still not enough to destroy 1 emplacement. Same with AB squads, satchel charges aren't cheap too.

But the situation as Blitz doc might be the worst...
You can't attack with tanks, ur arty is useless.. and attacking with inf is a huge risk!

>>> Bottom line is;
- I think airstrikes should deal more damage against Bunkers.
- Maultier should deal more damage against RE doc emplacements...
- AT Boys cap speed should be either removed or significantly reduced, from 1.0 to 0.8 doesn't seem to be enough!
I think it should be around 0.5 or so...

[MarKr]

Attacking with inf is not a good idea since AT guns have HE rounds. And 3 bundle grenades by the StormTroops already cost 150 ammo... And are still not enough to destroy 1 emplacement. Same with AB squads, satchel charges aren't cheap too.

The HE shot from 17pounder emplacement gets a fix in next patch and will be able to miss (just as all HE shots). The effectivity of nades vs emplacements will be improved too...I wonder for what reason will emplacements be indestructible after that...

- AT Boys cap speed should be either removed or significantly reduced, from 1.0 to 0.8 doesn't seem to be enough!
I think it should be around 0.5 or so...

Wow...you can see to the future? Or how else do you know that it doesn't seem to be enough if you haven't played a single game with them yet?

[Krieger Blitzer]

The HE shot from 17pounder emplacement gets a fix in next patch and will be able to miss (just as all HE shots). The effectivity of nades vs emplacements will be improved too...I wonder for what reason will emplacements be indestructible after that...

Better than nothing.

Though I believe there is no point to wonder how emplacements could be still indestructible...
I mean; let's be honest for a once. I think 150mm rockets are not supposed to be THAT weak, or am I wrong?!
And do you really think it's fine how the AB bombing run airstrike deals only 10% damage against Bunkers??!! Shouldn't it be at least around 50% damage or something??!!

Wow...you can see to the future? Or how else do you know that it doesn't seem to be enough if you haven't played a single game with them yet?

Sappers have 0.8 cap speed currently... And it's fast.
Given how much advantages AT Boys already have!

[sgtToni95]

But this scene regarding the AT Boys, was not a test.. but from a 3vs3 game replay.
Of course it can't be a solid example, however.. it's still an example of what "could" happen. And the fact that this "can" happen is already shocking! Because the AT Boys should not be able to counter infantry AT ALL.
I know that you might say; "But 37mm AT guns can counter inf with HE rounds and canister shot, so why should AT Boys be completely vulnerable against inf the other way around?"
It's because AT Boys already have enough advantages over AT guns. AT Boys can capture points, they can shoot 360 degrees... And also, they are able to embark vehicles and get inside trenches and houses. Paks can't do the same at any possible point!

I was in that game, i saw it live and i even thought (probably i wrote that too) that episode would have surely been higlighted by some "OP AT Boys" supporters. Being honest i was not shocked at all by the fact this CAN happen, (this is subjective) 37mm can oneshot an entire squad, boys are much slower, if you really lose an inf squad to boys you're really paying very low attention to that engagement.

Hmm, 170 ammo just to de-crew them? This does not sound like a fair deal...

Actually one salvo was enough both times, due to fire, so it's 85.

Limiting emplacements won't be a solution, you can still use flamethrowers to de-crew them... Meanwhile you would build more emplacements and then you could re-crew the old emplacements again. This way you can bypass the limit!

I've never seen you using flamethrower on enemy emplacements to decrew them, did you try it or does it work only on owned ones?

I really think you should consider what mark said here

@emplacements: [sarcasm]Yes, I noticed that too. Simply no way to get through an emplacement defensive wall! If only there was a way for every doctrine to deal with emplacements without hitting it with arty...something like...I don't know...a cover for your troops you could deploy anywhere relatively safely reach the emplacement and then netralize it with infantry...too bad that devs never implemented something like this.[/sarcasm]

You don't even need to destroy emplacements this way... you can just drive by them. And it seems like you don't even consider decrewing-capturin/eliminating, which is waay easier than destroying.

1 question- you're well know for your fixed meta:double volks, probably swimm/pak and then MORTAR. How many times (be honest please) did you use smoke barrage instead of using explosive shells on it?



I had a test today and (except for HE shells, which will be fixed) even volks could walk to an emplacement and take it down with nade (walk, no sprint) without taking any suppression and barely any damage. Stug drove by a 17 pdr emplacement taking only 1 hit (RNG allows it but all other shots missed), parked behind it and took down crew with its mg (was a test, gun wasn't turned, but stug attacked alone with no inf support and still was able to make it).

But the situation as Blitz doc might be the worst...
You can't attack with tanks, ur arty is useless.. and attacking with inf is a huge risk!

Those were Stug and volks from bk doctrine. Since it worked for the weakest inf and normal tank, we didn't make further tests with storms and tigers, tho i can bet the results would have been the same.


In that situation 17p emplacement took very low damage,I agree (and please don't do as your usual and now ignore all i've said and take only the part where i agree with you, this is really the least important part of what i wrote) i don't know if it's what happens every time, but maybe that could be tuned a bit. I still think tho that since fires decrew 99% of the times, even with one salvo, having some infantry nearby or any force to make an attack follow the strike could have a strategical sense, and you never did such a thing in that game where your hate towards RE emplacements started: you just decrewed emplacements, even with nade bundles, but then retreated your infantry and let your opponent recrew and repair.
So basically it seems like you expect maultier and rockets to be a click to kill ability so your tiger can roll out unharmed to your enemy's base. Same thing that doing nothing with terror untill you just use stuka on AT guns and roll out with your panthers.

[MarKr]

Though I believe there is no point to wonder how emplacements could be still indestructible...
I mean; let's be honest for a once. I think 150mm rockets are not supposed to be THAT weak, or am I wrong?!

You are wrong. The rockets (no matter if Nebel or Maultier) are there mainly to clear infantry blobs. The decrew rate is obviously good and arty is not the only way to deal with emplacements. It is the easiest, yes. But not the only.

And do you really think it's fine how the AB bombing run airstrike deals only 10% damage against Bunkers??!! Shouldn't it be at least around 50% damage or something??!!

No. Bunkers cost 550MP (which is a shitload of resources) and take long time to build and after you are done building, it still needs some soldiers inside...or some other investment in upgrades. They simply need to be able to withstand some fire. Killing the occupants isn't that hard, especially when we consider all sorts of flame weapons that are available to allies and once the soldiers are dead it doesn't do much again.

Sappers have 0.8 cap speed currently... And it's fast.
Given how much advantages AT Boys already have!

Sappers used to be the first capping unit for CW, now it is often BOYS. By making them come earlier, we unintentionally increased early cap speed for CW. And "advantages" compared to what? PaKs? Why do you keep comparing BOYS to PaKs? They are unique unit, they are meant to be different from PaKs, they have their advantages but disadvantages too. In this regard any complaint justified by "When compared to PaK, BOYS have the upper hand in..." is not really very solid.

[Krieger Blitzer]

I was in that game, i saw it live and i even thought (probably i wrote that too) that episode would have surely been higlighted by some "OP AT Boys" supporters.

I know that you were in this game, but i still pointed out that this scene concerning AT Boys was not even a test but a real situation from a 3v3 replay, just so everybody else reading.. would know.

Being honest i was not shocked at all by the fact this CAN happen, (this is subjective) 37mm can oneshot an entire squad, boys are much slower, if you really lose an inf squad to boys you're really paying very low attention to that engagement

And I already mentioned:-

it's still an example of what "could" happen. And the fact that this "can" happen is already shocking! Because the AT Boys should not be able to counter infantry AT ALL.
I know that you might say; "But 37mm AT guns can counter inf with HE rounds and canister shot, so why should AT Boys be completely vulnerable against inf the other way around?"
It's because AT Boys already have enough advantages over AT guns. AT Boys can capture points, they can shoot 360 degrees... And also, they are able to embark vehicles and get inside trenches and houses. Paks can't do the same at any possible point!

This should answer what u said about canister shot wiping out full squads, AT Boys have more advantages than AT guns already.
And one more advantage I never pointed out... AT Boys for example can't be "immobilized' like 37mm AT guns when 1 man is left.

Actually one salvo was enough both times, due to fire, so it's 85.

RE doc 17pdr emplacement without the "improved fortifications" unlock.. being not over repaired... Only lost 20% HP or so.
And when it was over-repaired, yet without the tech tree unlock... 2 150mm rocket launchers hardly dealt 25% HP damage!
So, basically.. regardless whether u pay 170 ammo or even 85 ammo, the result was still pretty much the same......

You are wrong. The rockets (no matter if Nebel or Maultier) are there mainly to clear infantry blobs. The decrew rate is obviously good and arty is not the only way to deal with emplacements. It is the easiest, yes. But not the only.

No one said Maultier should be effective in KILLING emplacements or DESTROYING them. But I am ONLY saying the current damage is simply unacceptable... It's just ridiculously low.. and when I pay 170 ammo, this emplacement should barely survive at all.

No. Bunkers cost 550MP (which is a shitload of resources) and take long time to build and after you are done building, it still needs some soldiers inside...or some other investment in upgrades. They simply need to be able to withstand some fire. Killing the occupants isn't that hard, especially when we consider all sorts of flame weapons that are available to allies and once the soldiers are dead it doesn't do much again.

Airstrikes also shouldn't DESTROY or KILL Bunkers entirely, but currently 10% damage is VERY low. That's all what I am saying...
If u get what I mean! More damage could be more acceptable. Not saying it should completely destroy the bunkers though!

Sappers used to be the first capping unit for CW, now it is often BOYS. By making them come earlier, we unintentionally increased early cap speed for CW. And "advantages" compared to what? PaKs? Why do you keep comparing BOYS to PaKs? They are unique unit, they are meant to be different from PaKs, they have their advantages but disadvantages too. In this regard any complaint justified by "When compared to PaK, BOYS have the upper hand in..." is not really very solid.

I am just saying that if u are going to lower their cap speed, let it have some more influence. Because lowering from 1.0 to 0.8 would make absolutely no difference... At least bring them somewhere close to the cap speed of Pioneers.
And btw, 1.75 cap speed for 101st and infiltration Ranger squads, is extremely high if I might say...
Specifically for 101st, 1.5 cap speed.. sounds really enough!

[MarKr]

I am just saying that if u are going to lower their cap speed, let it have some more influence. Because lowering from 1.0 to 0.8 would make absolutely no difference... At least bring them somewhere close to the cap speed of Pioneers.

Nope.

And btw, 1.75 cap speed for 101st and infiltration Ranger squads, is extremely high if I might say...

Yes, you may say that...we have the freedom of speech.

Specifically for 101st, 1.5 cap speed.. sounds really enough!

Interesting how the cap speed of these units is a problem now, out of sudden, but nobody ever mentioned it before the numbers were shown in the topic...I almost sense a correlation here...once stats (that have been this way for months or sometimes years) are made public, things become broken without even touching them!

[Krieger Blitzer]

Interesting how the cap speed of these units is a problem now, out of sudden, but nobody ever mentioned it before the numbers were shown in the topic...I almost sense a correlation here...once stats (that have been this way for months or sometimes years) are made public, things become broken without even touching them!

I am afraid you are wrong here... The topic u made "Caputure speeds of units" was only created in 26 June, 2017.
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=2090

Now, check the following post by me from the "General discussion on the recent balance" topic:
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2068#p19643
Where I said:-

Not to mention that US Riflemen squads, including all AB units.. can capture points insanely fast. And don't forget that Brits have Dingo which can capture points, as well as Bren Carrier... Of which is also able to capture points too.

That was in 20 June, 2017.

So, my friend... I mentioned about how fast 101st squads can cap points EVEN BEFORE you published ur topic! 6 DAYS BEFORE IT.

[MarKr]

Wow, whole 6 days? Sorry, I will have to correct my post...

Interesting how the cap speed of these units is a problem for you, and only you, because you are the only one who ever mentioned it...I almost sense a repeating pattern here...once someone says something with the usage of hyperbole, someone else takes the figure of speech literary and uses it to disprove the first person's point, even though the original point doesn't stand on the hyperbole at all.

...better?

[Krieger Blitzer]

I do understand that this was not intentional from ur side. But I just wanted to put everything on the straight line...
I was not trying to hunt you either!
Though I am not sure if I were the ONLY one who mentioned about the cap speed of 101st squads in the past, others might have done that too.. but numbers don't really matter that much; i just had to point a fact.

[drivebyhobo]

And do you really think it's fine how the AB bombing run airstrike deals only 10% damage against Bunkers??!! Shouldn't it be at least around 50% damage or something??!!

No. Bunkers cost 550MP (which is a shitload of resources) and take long time to build and after you are done building, it still needs some soldiers inside...or some other investment in upgrades. They simply need to be able to withstand some fire. Killing the occupants isn't that hard, especially when we consider all sorts of flame weapons that are available to allies and once the soldiers are dead it doesn't do much again.

They take much more than "some fire". It takes 10 minutes of continuous fire from a Sherman Crocodile to kill a bunker. Three failed demolition attempts by engineers before the fourth one succeeds. It's very gamey that even a dozen 1000 lb bombs won't bother it. If the US made 1000 lb bombs were not efficient at destroying battlefield targets. they would not have been mounted on a wide variety of US fighters including Hellcats, P-51s, P-47s, corsairs and later on post war jet aircraft like the F-86 Sabre.

It really should not take that much firepower to destroy a simple infantry pillbox. It's not a u-boat bunker with full service kitchens, bakery, restaurant and hospital.

[Panzerblitz1]

Gameplay guys, gameplay.
Something is bothering you in game? The bunker is too strong? Find something who's working and move on, some butt hurts if its not balance breaking isn't a big deal.

[sgtToni95]

I really think you should consider what mark said here

@emplacements: [sarcasm]Yes, I noticed that too. Simply no way to get through an emplacement defensive wall! If only there was a way for every doctrine to deal with emplacements without hitting it with arty...something like...I don't know...a cover for your troops you could deploy anywhere relatively safely reach the emplacement and then netralize it with infantry...too bad that devs never implemented something like this.[/sarcasm]

You don't even need to destroy emplacements this way... you can just drive by them. And it seems like you don't even consider decrewing-capturin/eliminating, which is waay easier than destroying.

1 question- you're well know for your fixed meta:double volks, probably swimm/pak and then MORTAR. How many times (be honest please) did you use smoke barrage instead of using explosive shells on it?

EDIT:

@Tiger1996:
You said that asking you when was the last time when you used smoke, is like asking you when was the last time you used riflemen.

And you even said that in more than 2800 hours in bk, thinking you never used smoke is ridiculous, that you used that mainly as allies, and not really with axis (Why?? Maybe because you expect to just click on emps with arty and see them disappear??).

I have 1700 hours on this mod: to be completely honest, i only saw me (and salvy for me) and kwok using smoke in a pvp game (i even saw Wake using it, but was a demonstration on a youtube video). I even remember i once used smoke against nami, and him saying "Kwok? is it you?" cause really nobody used it.

I started topics on forum to discuss about smoke effectiveness cause i was sceptic myself about it, tho it proved itself to work and still all those who read that didn't start using it. Now you come up saying you always used that, tho after 2800 hours of gameplay, if i tell you i tested it in the last patch and it worked as supposed, you still think i must have had "New patch files" given me by dev and you want the replay, cause you don't think smoke can work that way.

Most funny thing is you posted many videos and replays on both forum and youtube, and i didn't do it yet, but i can bet my ass i can watch all of them and find 0/NONE/NOTHING/ZERO/NAUGHT/NIX/NIL/NULLA/NIENTE examples of you using smoke, and the fact you didn't even try to use that on OP emplacements gives me the suspect you never really tried this as a solution. I even invite anyone who saw tiger using smoke in pvp (there must be someone who played against you in this forum) to say he can remember you did, so to make you an "emplacements demolition expert" and give you the right to start all theese balance topics, because i really can't.

Even in the last video you posted a mortar halftrack si enough to take down a 17 p emplacement, i don't really see the problem with them honestly.

I'm sorry if i sound trolling or rude, but you said many absurd things on both whatsapp and here that I feel you're just trying to fool me around, and i don't really like it.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Not really willing to get through our recent conversations from the Bk What'sApp group... Neither any kind of other arguments involving how I play or whether I frequently enough make some use of smoke shells, nor whatnot. So listen please, I fully understand how the great majority of ur games are actually as CW. As I believe that it's pretty obvious how you favor this particular faction by far over any of the rest... Though, I am not saying that I am absolutely objective on the other hand. Nonetheless, I believe that at least I am somewhat more objective than you might be. Given the fact that I am not sticking to a certain faction. Maybe I was in the past, but definitely not anymore. And since a long enough time, I have been playing all factions. So, I think this is decent enough to give me the rights to speak about whatever I wanted concerning the game balance. However; I never really claimed to be some sort of an "emplacements demolition expert" like you say, as I am actually curious where u get that from.

I clearly started this topic here, just to point out some facts, supplied by some actual in-game scenes. Nevertheless, I am not here to "consult" the devs or to even "inspire" them what they "should" do, unless somebody asks for my opinion. But I am here only to point at what I believe (also others) to be wrong... And here, I stated how Bunkers are taking too low damage from AB airstrikes.. also I've pointed out how the 17pdr emplacements are taking too low damage from 150mm rockets. Which is such a cheap way to reward the defensive play-style in my humble opinion. Keeping in mind that such emplacements are easily constructed and repaired, costing not much either. Therefore I believe that the damage has to be tuned/increased a bit... That's all.

[sgtToni95]

What i'm saying is that empowering arty and click to kill abilities is not solving the defense over offense, but instead rewarding "easy click to kill" over "strategy and skill" playstyle.

Do you really consider "epic" those games with lots and lots of rockets and arty, and not those where players use their micro and strategy skills to take over the opponent?

And i don't really know what the fact that i play brits more than other factions (i'm trying to play all of them) has to do with the use of smoke.

I'll repeat myself: many people showed you how a mortar (It's shown in Tiger1996 last video, you should watch it ), or mortar halftrack is enough to take out a 17p emplacement at a much lower cost than the 85 ammo required for a maultier salvo. If getting in range is too dangerous you can use smoke on the emplacement and just drive by it with your tank since it has insanely low chance to be hit through smoke.

I'll tell you a secret: I didn't really like this, but devs made smoke work, and unfortunately (probably by mistake) they made it work not only for CW, but for all factions the same way, so this is a very democratic solution to your "defense" problems. I mean, i asked devs so many times in private to make it so brits would receive less accuracy from smoke, while all the others still took all suppression and damage, and the only chance for other factions to deal with every emplacement would have been a 80+ arty salvo, tho they probably messed the files up

[Krieger Blitzer]

What i'm saying is that empowering arty and click to kill abilities is not solving the defense over offense, but instead rewarding "easy click to kill" over "strategy and skill" playstyle.

We already have powerful indirect fire abilities who are capable of dealing considerable amount of damage against more expensive targets, while being cheaper as well. Such as the 95mm Churchill for example... It could actually harm Bunkers more reliably than the AB airstrike would. Even though the 95mm salvo only costs 35 ammo! I know that there are other ways to deal with camping. But all what I am saying however; is that the currently dealt damage is actually too underwhelming. 10% damage vs bunker paying 215 ammo just sounds pretty odd! And 20% damage paying 170 ammo vs emplacement, doesn't sound right. I know it might be difficult to tweak, but still.. the damage dealt should be more satisfying. At least somewhere between 50% damage against the bunker using AB airstrike would be more acceptable. And about 70% damage against the emplacement, in case you shoot it with 2 Maultier for sure.

[JimQwilleran]

Even though the 95mm salvo only costs 35 ammo!

Isn't that 45 ammo though?

[Redgaarden]

I think Defence bunkers are too hard to take down. The only way I know of is smoke + satchel. I tried Demo charge but pathing and other weird reasons just make it too weird to carry out the order.
And I dont think 550 mp is such a big investment at all. People waste alot of resources for stupid reasons all the time, like for gliders, Sten commandoes, Riflemen, Tigers and kattenkrads, compared to those that die all the time without doing anything bunkers and tank traps fare so much better. I dont think manpower cost should justify it's insane healthpool and dmg resistance.

The effectivity of nades vs emplacements will be improved too...I wonder for what reason will emplacements be indestructible after that...

Looking forward to it. Just dont exaggerate.

[sgtToni95]

Quick question concerning HE rounds on guns:
will you tune 88s emplacements HE shells and HE on tank guns to get accuracy nerf through smoke as 17p emplacement will?
I'm not really sure about those on tanks, but maybe on 88s such a change would be quite useful not to be forced to necessarily use arty on them as it is now.

[Shanks]

Sturm tiger,Brumbaer,Grille, obus 105 mm, nebel 210 mm, 280 mm bombing , Stuka,Smoke curtain+ demolition load (Strategy),Junker Ju87 bombing,Hummel,Wepe,Sector artillery,+Ammunition for fuel,120 mm mortar,Mortar bunker 120 mm,(If the enemy is placed you can do it too),Hotchkiss light tank,long tomp,Artillery off map "150 ammunition", obus 105mm,"ALL"Caliope, obus 75 mm, Churchil AVRE, Churchil obus 90 mm, Churchill with flamethrowers + engineers "airplane", (all this is ideal for breaking fortified fronts),Mortar 4.2 plg,Priest (You can also use your incendiary bombs to avoid repairing a bunker for example, and you can use skills like artillery of observation).Air doctrines depend on their infantry infiltration to destroy sites or mortars. And there are many combinations with these weapons to destroy a defensive front,it's game you have to play it as a team, combining doctrines, it's what I think

[speeddemon02]

I have been destroyed a couple of times with the WH officer mortar ability