Hello and welcome to a commentary on an ongoing disscussion about the "need to restrict OP quad AA emplacements". Today live commentary is brought to you by Budlight and the commentator is noone else than your favourite MarKr! Let's get into it post-by-post!
(For the waaay too long version see the spoiler part)
1)Volksgrenadiers started the topic by saying that the emplacement is OP because it is easy to build and hard to destroy.
2)Leonida [525] asked about HP as he wondered how hard it was to destroy it (big surprise) by arty (mentioning Stuka and Hotchkiss rockets)
3)Pblitz advizes to use mortars
4)seha claims that mortars get easily destroyed by RA arty or RAF/AB airstrikes; also brings up that the emplacement is easy accesible and compares availability of AA emplacements to other factions/doctrines.
5)Pblitz is suspicious
6)kwok adds his oppinion that in his experience nobody builds the quad emplacement so early
7)Pblitz agrees to kwok (point 6)
8)seha wonders over point 5); reacts to kwok's point n.6) saying that kwok hasn't seen it but others have
9)idliketoplaybetter points out that in the provided game nobody tried to destroy the emplacement and Axis waited for arty, giving time Allies; also points that in decent team based games this doesn't happen
10)seha agrees but points again at quad emplacement availability over other AA emplacements in the game
11)idliketoplaybetter points out that the initial argument was "OP because it is easy to build and hard to destroy" and says that in his experience this is not true if you use mortars
12)TheOneWhowEveryoneLoves provides arguments: building it early has trade-offs (secure area but use up resources); using smoke on it makes it easily killable for infantry. Also points out that in the video Axis players obviously had a spotter so they knew what the positioning of units was and they STILL were unable to break through; also with other options available they only used arty as a solution
13)kwok makes a comeback! Says that in provided video no quad AA was built sooner than other doctrines would have been able to build theirs AA emplacements. Also counters seha's point n.4) claiming that airstrikes and RA arty is available way later than basic mortar teams; puts emphasis on his observation that only he and 3 other players use smoke as general part of their tactics. Also boasts his heoric achievements of repeatedly being able to destroy base defenses (2 AA) with only infantry and smoke from mortars.
14)Paso95 acknowledges that quad AA is not as indestructible as is being claimed but raises a question why is it available for US sooner than fot other factions. (so basically comming back to question that seha brought at point n.10))
- note that even at this point the original topic of "OP when its its eazy tobuild it but hard to destroy it" is more or less abandoned and defenders of restricting the emplacement move to the argument "WHY is it available sooner than for other doctrines"
15)kwok explains why it is available sooner (backs up his claims with tier up systems of each faction)
16)kwok hasn't learned to use the "edit" button and says that he doesn't use this tactic (early AA) because he preffers other playstyle
17)sgtToni95 enters the discussion and agrees with resticting the emplacement only to AB engineers but in one breath adds that it will hinder AB because then the emplacement will be delayed because one will need 2CP unlock for 101st, then resources for AB HQ and then resources for AB engineers that are not much useful anyway - so it would actually make the emplacement come later than Luft (good point)
18)kwok makes a dramatic entrance and states that he can see no balance issue with the emplacement and points out that the argument the defenders of restriction have is "Why is it available earlier" (question already answerd by him in post n.15)
19)seha reacts and asks again why is it available only for US and noone else so early (again, answered at point n.15); also says that not everything should be the same but this is unfair because "aa quad is killer and hard to destroy" (already countered in point n.11 and also n.12 and n.13); furhter reacts to the point n.17, suggests to drop the price of AB engineers and nerf HP of emplacement
20)Warhawks97 gives his 2 cents, siding with kwok's statements; claiming that building an early quad AA is sort of risk for player that might work but doesn't have to. Also points that if one side uses teamplay and the other doesn't, then obviously teamplay wins.
21)kwok reacts to seha's point n.19) repeating same argument as in point n.15) only in different words; again repeats that destroying quad AA is not that hard if players use something other than arty,highlighting advantages of other units; proposes to give back satchels to demo and sabo squads.
21)kwok still having not learned to use the "edit" button povides a replay where he takes out aa emplacement without using arty
22)New cowboy enters this wildwest-like shootout of arguments and it is noone else than JimQwilleran and in his opening statement sides against restrictions, claiming that it is just en amplecement and any decent player can take it out.
23)Tiger's jail time ended and makes his comeback in a typical WoT way. Stands up for a friend and disconfirming point n.5) Fighting for his believes he reacts to point n.12) asking WHY ONLY AB CAN DO THIS (wow, we haven't heard this question before...definately not in points 10,14,19...); reacts to point n.17) pointing out that AB engineers are also available in AB HQ made in neutral building; also reacting to point n.3 saying that he doesn't mind if AA emplacement stays as it is.
24)sgtToni95 returns and opens with a little joke in a friendly manner; further reacts to point n.23) (about AB HQ in neutral buildings) pointing out that it is more expensive than what Luft needs to invest in order to field flak. Also pints out that all factions can do similar thing nut only with MG nests (less effective but still possible)
25)Tiger reacts to previous post, making calculations of what is cheaper (getting AB engineers via CP unlock and build AB HQ or without CP from garrisoned building AB HQ) and comes to arguable conclusion ("arguable" was the word he uses); agrees on high price of AB engineers, supports price drop; agrees on MG nests and highlights US...for some reason
- note that at this point the question of WHY is put aside and main argument turned into...what exactly? How much it costs and how quickly you can theoretically field it...?
26)Warhawks97 cannot watch idely by and speaks up for the second time! Reacting to point n.25) pointing at unpleasant fate of players who start their game by turning a building into AB HQ.
27)Tiger strikes back! Instead of providing counter argument to "pointlesness of getting AB HQ from neutral building as early as possible" he decides to change the focus of argument by bringing up a question comparing the situation to Luft doc (which makes little sense if you ask me because the situations are quite different). Also bringing up a question about Def doc and CW which "hasn't been answered yet" (though I am not sure what question is at question here...)
28)Paso95 makes a return, reacting on Toni's point n.24) - specifically MG nests, pointing out that that PE needs Sturmpios to build MG nests
29)Another user with a number enters the discussion, this time it is XAHTEP39 and he makes a comment on the Sturmpios building MG nests while bunkers can be build by basic units (something he mentioned several times already in other topic)
- note that several people react to the MG nest point which is not connected to the main topic here at all
30)Warhawks97 explains that camping was never really meant for PE
31)kwok sets the topic back on track by explaining (for the third time I think) why it is available to US and not others
32)Tiger revives the topic with a video...using a video as a supporting evidence for restricting quad AA emplacements. So hold your hats, ladies and gentlemen because in this 1v1 video on a small map we are going to witness...no OPness, not hard to killness, not too much HPness but the ability of being early available-ness! Even though we keep repeating that BK is not balanced for 1v1, we keep repeating that playing on bigger maps is better for balance and also actually seeing the opponent building AA emplacement sooner than AB doc theirs and Luft player not even trying to take out the emplacement by the fundemantal tool wich everyone keeps mentioning - the motar. But keep watching nonetheless because...well...I don't know.
However Tiger brings a new argument - in new version mortars are delayed!
(Mortar HTs are delayed, mortar teams are untouched and that is why the devs say not to play 1v1 but teams - editor's note)
33)sgtToni95 comes with number of arguments why he thinks the video doesn't prove anything; attacking the argument of durability of the emplacement by example of a watched game where kwok took out the emplcement easily with a mortar and 37mm gun with HE shots
34)Devilfish makes a short appearance also providing arguments why he thinks the video doesn't prove anything
35)Tiger defends his point of view of why the video is valid by refering to other games he played in the past; saying that kwoks tactics of destroying the emplacement with mortar and 37mm AT is not a good example because "there were noobs in the teams".
Further mentioning that the video was suppoesed to show how "easily affordable it is"; defending skill of the opponent by sugesting to Devilfish to go 1v1 against him (BK is not balanced for 1v1, thus arguments based on such games are not valid - editor's note)
- note, we have got to a 4th reason why it needs restriction while none of the previous reasons are a problem anymore
36)idliketoplaybetter points at the fact that the originally stated "problem" with the emplacement was something totally different and gives his points of view why the video isn't valid.
37)Tiger defends validity of his video
38)idloketoplaybetter keeps defending his point of view
39)sgtToni95 also expresses his concerns about the video and the whole topic in general
40)Tiger admits the video is not the bet example; points out he never claimed the emplacement to be indestructible;provedes further comment on the video and ends the post with a statement that quads should be restricted
41)JimQwilleran makes an irritated comment, asking devs to step in
42)Tiger feels offended
43)idliketoplaybetter questions the reasons of the thread's existence
44)seha steps in. Asking how PE can couter emplacements with delayed mortars;2nd question: "why airborne can build aa fortifications for cheapest cost but others can't?" (I don't get it...the point is that US has cheapest AA emplacment and others are more expensive? so we moved to prices now?); provides quotes of points 1 and 2 and 14 as a proof that more players than just Tiger have a problem with quad AA emplacement (while point 14 isn't against it, only asking for reasons of early availability - which has been answered 3x already)
45)Tiger adds an example of another person who thinks the emplacement is annoying
46)idliketoplay agrees on emplacement being annoying but still not a problem as every player has something that annoys him
47)kwok gives up
48)sgtToni95 comments on point 44) saying that thosethings have been answered
49)Tiger makes final post of this thread sofar saying repeating that the problem is now they are "too easy to afford" and ends with a question "Mate, do u really think it is a big problem if the AA Quads are restricted?"
...to which I would reply that they are not a big problem as they are now.
Guys, I am sorry for the sometimes mocking tone of the commentaries, but it is 4:30 a.m. here and last hour I spent reading through this topic and finding the arguments that were given.
I must say that the reasons for restricting the emplacements are not consistent, they change throughout the topic several times and honestly people gave here enough ways and strategies to how to deal with the early emplacement, also mentioning the negatives that such early emplacement brings with it.
I can only repeat myself - 1v1 is not a viable source of arguments in mod that is made at least for 2v2 (team play), play on bigger maps (one quad AA won't cover that big part of the map and you can just ditch it and go around it - then it is useless), early emplacements costs time and resources that can be better invested elsewhere (tiering/units in the field) and you are giving it up for a static defense that can be easily destroyed (look up the many examples people gave in the topic and remember that "arty everything to stoneage" is NOT the only option you have).
Tiger, you created this topic, mentioned this "problem" in several PMs which you sent to me and other devs and you mentioned this also in the Beta II topic. You should know that mentioning this thing all over and over and over everywhere will not make your case stronger. We are done with the "they are persistent, so let's do what they want" approach...we did this when we added Hellcat to AB (we didn't want that but people cried hard for it) we did it with 95mm Cromwell (same as Hellcat) and now it shows that it was not needed at all so as I said - we are done with this approach.
Yes, the early emplacement might be annoying but everyone has something they find annoying in the mod. I am against restricting it because I am not convinced it is needed, Panzerblitz told me he thinks the same. As always it is up to Wolf in the end but I think he will not support this either.
Oh well; I prefer not to push any further. 
