Put a Limit to emplacement pls. this a crap

[MEFISTO]

Guys pls do something to this shit campimg game stile.

[MarKr]

There is no sense in putting limits on emplacements because your opponent can always use grenades/flamethrowers to kill his own emplacement crews, build new emplacements and then just re-crew the "empty" ones - this bypassing of emplacement limits is something we cannot prevent.

[MEFISTO]

I am so tire of this crappy game stile, emplacement shoul cost a high mp upkeep so if you wanna camp it's fine but you wont be able spam units then.

[MEFISTO]

There is no sense in putting limits on emplacements because your opponent can always use grenades/flamethrowers to kill his own emplacement crews, build new emplacements and then just re-crew the "empty" ones - this bypassing of emplacement limits is something we cannot prevent.

increase mp upkeep then

[Warhawks97]

Well, emplacments have its strong sides on maps that are supporting them. But then again on different maps they arent that usefull.

Also certain factions and doctrines rely heavily on it. Take RE as example. High Upkeep here might make it difficult to use them along with tanks. So i would be carefull when judging emplacments. Its not like they are OP just because they are OP. Quite many docs have decent anti empplacment weapons i would say, others less so.

[MEFISTO]

Well, emplacments have its strong sides on maps that are supporting them. But then again on different maps they arent that usefull.

Also certain factions and doctrines rely heavily on it. Take RE as example. High Upkeep here might make it difficult to use them along with tanks. So i would be carefull when judging emplacments. Its not like they are OP just because they are OP. Quite many docs have decent anti empplacment weapons i would say, others less so.

then check the replay, it is so frustrating because you have to do the same, they camp and spam units wtf is that 10000 AA 500At emplacement, it's too much, I said increase upkeep it's fine to make 2 AA 3 At or 3 but more than 4 wtf.

[Krieger Blitzer]

it was me playing RE doc on that game MEFISTO posted above, i also got it recorded.. still not exactly sure if will upload it or not though

Actually, we were getting our a*s kicked until mid game.. even my emplacements were being wiped out quite easily, all until i got the "improvised emplacement" unlock, they became immortal, and started surviving more arty hits.. giving me chance to build more and more, Axis kept bleeding until we finally attacked, they had nothing left.

[MEFISTO]

it was me playing RE doc on that game MEFISTO posted above, i also got it recorded.. still not exactly sure if will upload it or not though

Actually, we were getting our a*s kicked until mid game.. even my emplacements were being wiped out quite easily, all until i got the "improvised emplacement" unlock, they became immortal, and started surviving more arty hits.. giving me chance to build more and more, Axis kept bleeding until we finally attacked, they had nothing left.

you were able to do that because the upkeep, if it cost more upkeep you were not able to spam other units.

[Warhawks97]

ok, wait.

This is a special case because one played RE doc. Its like demanding higher upkeep for shermans just because an armor doc player used lots of shermans.

RE is all about holding out and then attack. Increase upkeep and your emplacments will be RE´s own grave.


@Tiger: Pls upload:)

[MEFISTO]

ok, wait.

This is a special case because one played RE doc. Its like demanding higher upkeep for shermans just because an armor doc player used lots of shermans.

RE is all about holding out and then attack. Increase upkeep and your emplacments will be RE´s own grave.


@Tiger: Pls upload:)

so you are telling me that you can't push with churchils aquilles and comets rigth? and this doctrine is about to make 10000 At emplacement and airborne is about to make 1000AA too rigth? omg

[MEFISTO]

If no penalties for campers then remove MU upkeep and let's go back to the artllery party games and every body happy.

[MarKr]

I just watched the game.

You played BK doc, so I have just one question - where was your StuH/StuPa? Their "long range" ability has enough range to snipe enemy emplacements from a distance where the emplacements cannot shoot back and this map had enough space to use them. You had Panthers/Tigers to protect StuH/StuPa from Jackson/Comet attacks but instead you kept shooting arty at your opponent. StuH/StuPa/105 Sherman/Scott are now primarily emplacement killers, it's weird not to use them when oponent decides to camp like this.

[MEFISTO]

I just watched the game.

You played BK doc, so I have just one question - where was your StuH/StuPa? Their "long range" ability has enough range to snipe enemy emplacements from a distance where the emplacements cannot shoot back and this map had enough space to use them. You had Panthers/Tigers to protect StuH/StuPa from Jackson/Comet attacks but instead you kept shooting arty at your opponent. StuH/StuPa/105 Sherman/Scott are now primarily emplacement killers, it's weird not to use them when oponent decides to camp like this.

I did not make StuH 105 because in one of the updates if I am not wrong you reduced the shoot distance to avoid snipe emplacement, also I need more cp to unlock my demolition troops plus I can't make 75mm artillery if I don't have a field HQ.
I preffer to use StuH, it's sheaper but I think It was nerf, if not that was one of my mistakes but still there is an emplacement abuse here, like artillery abuse got penalty emplacement crapy style needs to get nerf, I don't know, make them weaker or put mp upkeep, but this is ridiculous to see how players abuse of emplacement especially after mu upkeep apply to artillery.

[kwok]

Ah Markr makes a good point. The stuh42 has an ability that lets you shoot from far away as long as you have vision. The range is much farther than emplacement, it is like a short arty barrage with high damage and 100% accuracy. If i remember right, it's free too.

There's also the stuka fighter bomber. That is pretty cheap too. That whole path is meant for anti emplacement with no cost to upkeep.

[Walderschmidt]

Ah Markr makes a good point. The stuh42 has an ability that lets you shoot from far away as long as you have vision. The range is much farther than emplacement, it is like a short arty barrage with high damage and 100% accuracy. If i remember right, it's free too.

There's also the stuka fighter bomber. That is pretty cheap too. That whole path is meant for anti emplacement with no cost to upkeep.

Yeah, the Stuka bomb is basically an instant destroyed or decrewed emplacement.

Wald

[MarKr]

I did not make StuH 105 because in one of the updates if I am not wrong you reduced the shoot distance to avoid snipe emplacement, also I need more cp to unlock my demolition troops plus I can't make 75mm artillery if I don't have a field HQ.
I preffer to use StuH, it's sheaper but I think It was nerf, if not that was one of my mistakes but still there is an emplacement abuse here, like artillery abuse got penalty emplacement crapy style needs to get nerf, I don't know, make them weaker or put mp upkeep, but this is ridiculous to see how players abuse of emplacement especially after mu upkeep apply to artillery.

StuPa has range of 80, which is the same as emplaced 17pounder. StuH has 85. At that situation the demo squad wouldn't help much because of the AA emplacements around so the StuH/StuPa would have been the best solution.

Arty got upkeep but the wekness of emplacements were meant to be these direct shooting howitzers. And your stuka planes didn't seem to have problem killing the emplacements either.

[Walderschmidt]

I was thinking that in the case of blitz, unless it’s a 2v2 or higher with another blitz or air doc, a Brit player has a window if time after a stuka bomb drop where he doesn’t need any AA, given the lack of German bomb drops from the air. And this in turn makes it more difficult for blitz doc to crack open emplacements.

What if the stuka cp unlock also unlocked a stuka smoke drop?

Separate timers. Small(er) muni cost that could drop smoke over a wider area than mortars.

Maybe even make it an officer call in if he had vet 2 or 3?

Wald

[Krieger Blitzer]

i honestly don't think Stupa/Stuh would have helped him at all vs my Tulip rockets.

Not to mention the 105mm howitzers & airstrikes...

Speaking of Tulip rockets though, i think their range is insane btw.. some players even use it to base bomb.

[MEFISTO]

this whole situation have a name and it is EMPLACEMENT ABUSE.

[MarKr]

And this in turn makes it more difficult for blitz doc to crack open emplacements.

What if the stuka cp unlock also unlocked a stuka smoke drop?

StuH/Stupa can shoot 3 times per ability activation which is enough to destroy any emplacement, Stuka can destroy another one + possible attacks from artillery if you really need it. Isn't that enough to make a hole in a defensive line? Do you need to destroy every single emplacement to defeat the oponent? In the replay that was posted above, it was enought to destroy 1 or 2 17 pounder emplacement(s) in the top part of the map and if the Panthers and Tigers had moved in through there, they would have gotten all the way to allies base sector and allies would be unable to stop them there and the emplacements would be useless for them at the point where they were standing.

i honestly don't think Stupa/Stuh would have helped him at all vs my Tulip rockets.

I think they would have because Tulips aren't all accurate at long range and if the Sherman came closer, the Panthers would have made a short work with it, arty is the same - not always everything hits the unit you want and even if the arty starts hitting around, you can move StuH/StuPa wait for the barrage to be over and start sniping the emplacement again (it costs nothing to use it, so it is cheaper than using arty or Stuka plane over and over. Airstrikes may be a problem but the new update should make your AA units a proper counter so it shouldn't be an "uncounterable" factor anymore.

this whole situation have a name and it is EMPLACEMENT ABUSE.

I think it would be a problem if there were no means to counter the camping strategy. The means are there, if you choose not to use them, it is not a balance problem.

[MEFISTO]

So abuse of emplacements is not a problem right? See how a player spam AA or At emplacements it’s fine? So each game a RE player need 3or 4 At emplacements and an airborne player needs 4or 5 AA and still be able to spam more units right? As artillery abuse get penalized it should be nerf some how, emplacements hp, mp upkeep or something, it is so annoying.

[MarKr]

RE and DEF are campy doctrines. As much as you don't like campy playstyle, some people like it. We will not completely remove the options for campy gameplay just because you don't like to play against it. Try to pull off this campy tactics with any other allied doctrine apart from RE - RAF doesn't even have emplaced 17 pounders, RA has them but they have no cost reduction nor durability unlocks. For US, Armor has just MG nests which is not an issue, AB has MG nests and quad.50 cals, neither is a problem for tanks and Infantry has emplaced 76mm gun which is also not a problem for axis heavy tanks. So it is just one doctrine on the side of allies and as I said, this doctrine is intended to have campy playstyle. Axis doctrines were given means to kill emplacements (on/offmap arty, StuH/StuPa/Sturmtiger/Walking Stuka/Hummel/Stuka planes/straffes (for decrewing)/Hotchkiss/Wespe...) but you cannot expect that emplacements of a doctrine that is intended to be played defensively and invests CP into them, will go down with a single hit from maultier.

Same goes for WM Def doc - they also have crapload of emplacements, some even more effective than the ones that RE has (88mm flak or PaK43), they can get an unlock that increases the sturdiness of those emplacements and as such they are simply more durable. Allies also got ways to deal with emplacement spam - 105mm Sherman, Calliope Sherman, Scott, airstrikes and various types of on/offmap arty).

If Tiger hadn't spammed emplacements and your teammate had taken Def doc instead of Terror and his AT emplacements quickly destroyed any Churchill, Comet, Jumbo, Pershing or any other tank coming from the allies side of the map - would you make a topic like this one, complaining about how effectively your team was able to camp?

[PanzarFather]

No fucking limits, if certain people want to camp, then let them do it. What is wonderful about this game is that each player can develop their own tactics. If someone is a camper, then you have to find ways to counter him. That is the point of the game.

[MEFISTO]

RE and DEF are campy doctrines. As much as you don't like campy playstyle, some people like it. We will not completely remove the options for campy gameplay just because you don't like to play against it. Try to pull off this campy tactics with any other allied doctrine apart from RE - RAF doesn't even have emplaced 17 pounders, RA has them but they have no cost reduction nor durability unlocks. For US, Armor has just MG nests which is not an issue, AB has MG nests and quad.50 cals, neither is a problem for tanks and Infantry has emplaced 76mm gun which is also not a problem for axis heavy tanks. So it is just one doctrine on the side of allies and as I said, this doctrine is intended to have campy playstyle. Axis doctrines were given means to kill emplacements (on/offmap arty, StuH/StuPa/Sturmtiger/Walking Stuka/Hummel/Stuka planes/straffes (for decrewing)/Hotchkiss/Wespe...) but you cannot expect that emplacements of a doctrine that is intended to be played defensively and invests CP into them, will go down with a single hit from maultier.

Same goes for WM Def doc - they also have crapload of emplacements, some even more effective than the ones that RE has (88mm flak or PaK43), they can get an unlock that increases the sturdiness of those emplacements and as such they are simply more durable. Allies also got ways to deal with emplacement spam - 105mm Sherman, Calliope Sherman, Scott, airstrikes and various types of on/offmap arty).

If Tiger hadn't spammed emplacements and your teammate had taken Def doc instead of Terror and his AT emplacements quickly destroyed any Churchill, Comet, Jumbo, Pershing or any other tank coming from the allies side of the map - would you make a topic like this one, complaining about how effectively your team was able to camp?

Is RE a defensive doctrine? only defensives doctrines should have the abilities to spam AT emplacemnt, it's like to give armor At emplacemnt, just spam them, sit behind and wait for heavy tanks or units spam, nice game stile. I wanna see what luftwaffe can do after AA get better.

[MEFISTO]

I just watched the game.

You played BK doc, so I have just one question - where was your StuH/StuPa? Their "long range" ability has enough range to snipe enemy emplacements from a distance where the emplacements cannot shoot back and this map had enough space to use them. You had Panthers/Tigers to protect StuH/StuPa from Jackson/Comet attacks but instead you kept shooting arty at your opponent. StuH/StuPa/105 Sherman/Scott are now primarily emplacement killers, it's weird not to use them when oponent decides to camp like this.

Well you are right, I have tested stuh and you made some changes, its fire mod vs emplacement shold help vs that At spam, I thought it range was reduced in one of the updates, I was wrong, I will use it nex time, but I still think emplacement can easly lock up some doctrines in the game, like luftwaffe.