Royal engineer not op? ok so my name is bruce lee.

[Panzer-Lehr-Division]

Hey, everyone let's get it straight RE IS JUST OP!!, i used to teach my self a Little bit 1v1 as british, i am just an medium british Player.. and even worse in 1v1 but cut this shit out:D.Okay, so game started.. i did very good first, at middle i lost all i decided to see how op re actually is!!. so i didn't cared for all my Units eccept 1 royal engi sapper, i used to make like 9 Emplacement at the end of the game o.o i just used 2 95mm chruchill's and pfunder Emplacement that made me win the game, and later on 2 comet 1 comet 1 shotted a tiger, without any ap but that's fine, but please dev's check it out. even if it's a free cp unlock to give it more hp and build faster this is bs, also i just had 2 -3 Points and got like 40 fuel income and 53 ammo lol! me*re* wurf*blitz*

[JimQwilleran]

Re is a good couter vs blitz. If you played vs SE or Terror or Def, it would not be so easy.

[MarKr]

Tigers are weak vs 17 pounders (Comet has 17 pounder), when you put Panther vs Comet chances are in favor of Panther as long as Panther plays from distance. As for "I just spammed 17 pounder emplacements"...cool...shoot smoke on the emplacement, emplacement hits like 1 shot out of 5...Panthers can just ignore the emplacements and roll through and stop at your base.

And also one sort of important fact - BK is NOT made for 1v1 games because some doctrines are simply stronger against other doctrines. How much chances do you have in 1v1 as US Armor vs PE TH? If you lose in such game, will you complain here that Armor is weak and TH is OP?
So no, we are not making balance changes based on 1v1 games.

[Panzer-Lehr-Division]

Re is a good couter vs blitz. If you played vs SE or Terror or Def, it would not be so easy.

I know, it's the best Counter for blitz, but same would almost happen to Terror atleast i seen it often... Walking stuka doesn't do much against emp after the improved upgrade.. and firestorm perhaps only decrew..

[MarKr]

This is sort of the problem I saw in your game with Tiger... Breaking your balls to destroy/decrew one emplacement and then....retreat. Of course that when there is no follow up attack to exploit the whole in the defense which you just created, the opponent will fix the hole (recrew/rebuild).
So yeah..."only decrew" should be enough if you use the opportunity.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Regarding the RE doc emplacements, they combine 3 major advantages; very hard to kill, constructed and repaired very fast, and also too cheap... Not to mention the HE rounds, it's just ridiculous. I often see new players quitting the game entirely when they see such stupidity in the game! Even some of the very old players can't handle the stupidity of this, believe me.

I had a game yesterday, when I played vs both AB doc and RE doc... Guess what, the AB player spammed more than 10 Quad AA emplacements all over the map, and the RE doc player only spammed AT gun emplacements. I don't know what to say! Rushing with inf after killing the emplacement crew, isn't really a solution.. just good luck with that. You would lose your inf either to HE rounds by AT guns, or simply to nearby AA emplacements. The best scenario is that you would lose ur unit as they would try to capture the emplacement in order to delete it afterwards.. which is still a huge risk and possibly waste of manpower.

And good luck dropping smoke at 9 emplacements, if you successfully bypass one of them, the other will shoot u. The emplacements are just everywhere, there is no where to escape... And like Lehr said, even walking Stuka deals very low damage btw, and not just the Opel Maultier.

Same story with Bunkers, even though I must say that Bunkers are actually less annoying. Because empty bunkers are not a threat, and if you put any kind of inf inside bunkers, they can still die to arty or snipers.. and if you upgrade the bunker with MG nest, you could drop AB inf behind it then throw satchel charge. The bunker meanwhile won't be able to rotate itself and shoot you with HE rounds, u know what I mean? That's why dropping Luft inf behind an emplacement is a huge risk on the other hand, given the fact they are a lot more expensive, and the emplacements can also rotate and shoot them.. bunkers can't do that. Even the PantherTurm doesn't have HE rounds! Bunkers also take a lot of time to construct, and usually aren't cheap.

Nonetheless, this brings me back to another topic i created recently.. bunkers are still pretty tough against AB airstrikes, which is bullshit again. They should at least take some more damage...
And the RE doc emplacements should either take a lot of time to build and repair (like bunkers) or they should cost significantly more, or they should have lower HP. They just can't combine all the 3 things at the same time!

Bk Mod shouldn't be in a great favor of such stupid defensive tactics.

[JimQwilleran]

I had a game yesterday, when I played vs both AB doc and RE doc... Guess what, the AB player spammed more than 10 Quad AA emplacements all over the map, and the RE doc player only spammed AT gun emplacements.

How come you get such games so often, while I get 1 super campy game in 50... Maybe people do it just to piss you off ?

[Krieger Blitzer]

But I didn't say i get such games so often! However, such stupid games can surely still happen from time to another...

[kwok]

What baffles me more is how you allowed a player to make so many emplacements...

[Krieger Blitzer]

RE doc emplacements are not "made" though, they are not "built" either, as they just "spawn" or "plant" them using some magic spoon.

[sgtToni95]

RE doc emplacements are not "made" though, they are not "built" either, as they just "spawn" or "plant" them using some magic spoon.

I think here Relic just messed up the files, using the building mechanic seen in Dawn of War in RE doc, so you're right emplacements are just shot on the ground from an orbiting station and planted where requested. Devs should probably check this. [/irony]

@Tiger: i picked Wehr teamed with you the other day against lehr and wurf just to try mortar against emplacements while you could see it live. I just played to do that, i was not expecting to win anyhow.
I even pinged the map while doing my stuff, and, in case you did not notice, i bypassed a 17 pdr emplacement with a tank which took no hit thanks to smoke, then i went decrewing a mortar pit with HE shots (was not a winning move, but i showed you it works).

Little later on, the same mortar destroyed that exact 17 pdr simply using its normal explosive shells (quite hard to repair if your mortar keeps hitting), i followed with some infantry and i destroyed command truck which was right behind it with my shreck squad.

My opponent even tried to glide on my mortar and i managed to save it a couple of times, pulling it back when it was in danger (i could do it with a mortar squad, so i guess it's even easier with a mortar halftrack).

Moreover 2 mortar squads are always cheaper than 2 17p emplacements: isn't it an effordable investiment to counter such a camping strategy coming from your opponent?

I'll repeat myself, what i did didn't make us win that game, i'm not really used to wehr and i played bad overall (had 1000+ MP when i quit, just i couldn't decide which unit to get), tho you should really consider such simple already existing solutions to get over theese "unpassable" defences.

[Krieger Blitzer]

I think here Relic just messed up the files, using the building mechanic seen in Dawn of War in RE doc, so you're right emplacements are just shot on the ground from an orbiting station and planted where requested. Devs should probably check this. [/irony]

To be honest, even though i never liked Relic at all.. but there is nothing to blame Relic here... Only Bk is to be blamed.
With my statement, i was referring at the ridiculous speed of which RE Sappers are able to construct and repair such powerful emplacements in absolutely no time.. and such magic spoons were given to the RE Sappers by BK Mod, so it is BK Mod's fault allowing them to "spawn" emplacements like that rather than normally building them! How disappointing.

Regarding that other game, the fact you played bad or not.. does not change how the RE doc emplacements are currently just one of the most ridiculous strategies in the game, along side bunkers; which is also a big downside for Bk... But perhaps as I already illustrated above, the RE doc emplacements might be even more ridiculous than bunkers. Except how AB airstrikes deal only 10% damage to bunkers.. this is actually the only thing that might be even more ridiculous.

[sgtToni95]

Lol i even wrote "[/irony]" and you still responded to that one hahaha (btw was thinking about what you see at the very beginning of this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ak88oVu1H4 , i wasn't really blaming anyone for what, as i thought was already clear, i don't see as a problem)

And once again you basically ignore the meaningful points of my posts, answering only to what i'd think should just be ignored (my bad once again).

Little digression: I'm not an expert but I think before D-Day allied tried to weaken german bunkers on the coasts with planes and arty, tho when they arrived they were still there, since their main purpose was to resist such attacks. What destroyed/decrewed them was brave infantry with flamethrowers and demo charges after they managed to close the distance.
Why would you want a 200 (?) ammo airstrike to "deal more damage" against bunkers, while 2-3 50 ammo satchels (still talking about the "smoke way") are enough to do it?
I agree for its cost the damage is very low, but i simply don't see it as the right way to do it. In my opinion it's like saying Elefant isn't really the best against infantry for its price, while it's obviously not the best solution to counter infantry.

Meaningful part with meaningful content
Saying how much of a ridiculous strategy emplacements spam is, to respond me showing you how ridiculously cheap and simple countering it can be, sounds once again as trolling.

P.S.: I watched the replay: at min 33.50 wurf is outranging a 17p emplacement with his StuH, and 4 of its shots are anough to take down the whole emplacement. Combine StuH, which can protect himself from infantry ( and sometimes from tanks too), with some reliable AT and some infantry, and i don't really think advancing in this formation would be a problem against this dumb strategy.

[Krieger Blitzer]

And once again you basically ignore the meaningful points of my posts, answering only to what i'd think should just be ignored (my bad once again).

What are these meaningful points?? Are u talking about using the smoke shells? Well, you probably ignored my response:-

And good luck dropping smoke at 9 emplacements, if you successfully bypass one of them, the other will shoot u. The emplacements are just everywhere, there is no where to escape... And like Lehr said, even walking Stuka deals very low damage btw, and not just the Opel Maultier.

Little digression: I'm not an expert but I think before D-Day allied tried to weaken german bunkers on the coasts with planes and arty, tho when they arrived they were still there, since their main purpose was to resist such attacks. What destroyed/decrewed them was brave infantry with flamethrowers and demo charges after they managed to close the distance.
Why would you want a 200 (?) ammo airstrike to "deal more damage" against bunkers, while 2-3 50 ammo satchels (still talking about the "smoke way") are enough to do it?
I agree for its cost the damage is very low, but i simply don't see it as the right way to do it. In my opinion it's like saying Elefant isn't really the best against infantry for its price, while it's obviously not the best solution to counter infantry.

So, the satchel is more powerful than 250 kg bombs? Sounds legit... I don't know if you realize that, but your example with the Elephant is pretty irrelevant, and honestly it's not even worth an answer!

P.S.: I watched the replay: at min 33.50 wurf is outranging a 17p emplacement with his StuH, and 4 of its shots are anough to take down the whole emplacement. Combine StuH, which can protect himself from infantry ( and sometimes from tanks too), with some reliable AT and some infantry, and i don't really think advancing in this formation would be a problem against this dumb strategy.

Stuh dies with 2 shots by 95mm Churchill... And the emplacement can be repaired faster than the Stuh would reload, what happened in the game; proves that the Stuh was such a very bad idea.

[DolphinsAreGaySharks]

We have to make a list of players who abuse such pathetic strategies with emplacements etc as RE so that we wont play with or against them cause I don't expect any change in here by the moders..
For real this situation has turned the game unplayable with no fun at all

[sgtToni95]

And good luck dropping smoke at 9 emplacements, if you successfully bypass one of them, the other will shoot u. The emplacements are just everywhere, there is no where to escape... And like Lehr said, even walking Stuka deals very low damage btw, and not just the Opel Maultier.

So your opponent is building emplacements not along the frontline, but on a straight line from the base to the frontline? I don't really think more than 2 emplacements might be watching the same area at the same time, otherwise you probably chose the wrong path or your opponent has nothing else since so many emplacements, no matter how cheap, won't allow you to have much more.

95mm churchill does not aim at StuH, you can just move it a little after you see it's being bombed. I actually saw stuh being destroyed by achilles, that's why i suggested it being supported by AT and infantry.

I'd even like to point out how in the replay Leh'r says he has 50 fuel income with only 1 fuel sector, while he has 35 fuel income with 2 sectors, one of them small and one of them big and secured with upgraded resources, i don't think that's so insane.

About what you ignored is not only smoke, but the fact you can destroy emplacements with mortar squad if you play that safely: I did that in our game, you can have a look at it, so it's not impossible. Even here wurf only lost his mortar when he placed it where infantry was able to throw a satchel at it and he didn't move it back even if he had recon to see infantry coming.

[idliketoplaybetter]

And once again you basically ignore the meaningful points of my posts, answering only to what i'd think should just be ignored (my bad once again).

Still not tired yet..impressive


p.s To be more constructive in this post, i will say

No, Bruce, RE is not OP.

[Krieger Blitzer]

@sgtToni95

I don't really think more than 2 emplacements might be watching the same area at the same time, otherwise you probably chose the wrong path or your opponent has nothing else since so many emplacements

This game here, Lehr literally had 4 17pdr emplacements all looking at the same area.. and at the same time... Each covering one another, because why not? If they are very cheap to build, and fast to construct.. then why not?!

95mm churchill does not aim at StuH, you can just move it a little after you see it's being bombed. I actually saw stuh being destroyed by achilles, that's why i suggested it being supported by AT and infantry.

True, it was the fast mobile Achilles and Comets who killed the Stuh.. even Tigers actually. Nevertheless, the 95mm Churchill still scored some lethal hits against the Stuh, often soaking half of the Stuh health.. just with 1 shot.

I'd even like to point out how in the replay Leh'r says he has 50 fuel income with only 1 fuel sector, while he has 35 fuel income with 2 sectors, one of them small and one of them big and secured with upgraded resources, i don't think that's so insane.

I think that he mistakenly typed 50 fuel income, it was a typo due to fast typing maybe.. however, he actually had 53 ammo income and almost 40 fuel income at that point... Keeping in mind he didn't even have the "improved CW trucks" unlock, yet.

About what you ignored is not only smoke, but the fact you can destroy emplacements with mortar squad if you play that safely: I did that in our game, you can have a look at it, so it's not impossible. Even here wurf only lost his mortar when he placed it where infantry was able to throw a satchel at it and he didn't move it back even if he had recon to see infantry coming.

I am not saying that destroying emplacements is impossible, however.. what i am saying is; keeping up with destroying them is nearly impossible on the other hand, got what I mean?? You would hardly struggle to kill some emplacements.. but then? He would simply build them again and again.. in absolutely no time meanwhile u reinforce or repair ur units. This kind of gameplay is completely ridiculous... And you said it urself, you don't know much about playing as WH. The only thing you know pretty well, is playing CW. But I am telling you, it's very frustrating against RE. Perhaps the only thing you would usually want to do, is to quit and un-install the game afterwards. You shouldn't be defending such ridiculous tactics!
We could definitely have better game strategies than this shit.

[Panzerblitz1]

Better strategy means adapting yourself to any situation, accept than there is some other tactics and tools who work very well against emplacements as we are trying to tell you over and over again, but you don't seems to understand and stay extremely focused on what YOU want to see in BK, frustration lead to nothing if you can't learn or dare trying different tactics.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Ask me about frustration, it's only led by the stupidity of some existing gameplay tactics.. and specifically when the devs would consider it being fine and determine not to change it. Frustration hits so deep when you call-in an airstrike and only deals 10% damage to a bunker. Frustration hits even deeper when you sink with your troops into your opponent emplacements which are to be found everywhere... This is the only case of frustration.

[Panzerblitz1]

Well it means you're still not using the right tools, nothing more, we already told you how and why regarding bunkers etc... but no, you still using the same tactics and brake your teeths on it, its a problem for you but it seems some players can deal with it with efficiency, fair tactics and tools according to doctrines has been given, just use it, its not like the "devs" decided to just let that thing raw without any thoughts to it, we are constantly thinking about the strategy, the gameplay, the balance, so its not like we just give a shit and let things happend by itself, just show me in the coh1 world a team who is working on their mod as we do? So please don't think we let things like that without having a good purpose behind it.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Yes, you work a lot on this mod.. no one denies... But I honestly don't see any purpose behind how the AB airstrikes only deal 10% damage to bunkers for example. Please don't tell me it's because satchel charges are already effective against bunkers! Because 10% is still toooo low and almost unacceptable. If I throw a rock at the bunker with my hands, it would probably take more damage then!

Also, I don't see the purpose behind why the RE doc emplacements are sooo tough, while being constructed and repaired insanely fast too, and at the same time.. very cheap! The only purpose i see on this, is the fact that Bk Mod is highly favoring the defensive playstyle, which is definitely a downside from my own perspective.

Probably I have mentioned this in the past, but I guess I should repeat it again; I am here not trying to "tell" or "inspire" you of what you "should" do or what you "should not" do on the other hand, but clearly.. i am just putting it forward as a possibility of a constructive discussion, while just throwing my opinion... All hopefully in order to improve the gameplay, but at the end, I do firmly believe that you - as devs - are still aware of what you are doing for sure.. so after all, it's ur call... But I had to point out what I believe to be wrong.. just that.

[Panzerblitz1]

Some tweaks will be done, we are working on it, im pretty sure you will like it, but just don't be too obssessed by your point of view, try to step back a liitle and see the general picture of it.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Alright, looking forward to the new patch.. as always!

[MarKr]

When I read here that this camping is "stupid tactic" and that "there should be a list players who use it so that we can avoid playing with them" I am thinking about a single thing - people always use stuff that pays off and once they figure out it doesn't pay off, they stop doing it. This applies in real life but transfers to BK too. Right now some people feel that camping tactic is a good tactics for them because they see it works because you (except for Toni, for some reason) are unable to defeat this tactics and then their ego tells to people "I am a good player, so if I cannot defeat this tactics, the tactics is stupid and the game is broken". We keep telling you that there are ways to deal with emplacement spam but do you really use them? I was talking to Wurf yesterday, who was complaining about this emplacement spam (he played here vs Lehr), and he was like "I tried everything to get through but nothing worked" and I asked him if he tried smoke and he was like "You cannot use mortars later in game, opponent just throws arty on it" so I told him that smoke from mortars has range of 170 while 95mm Churchill has range of 120, so smoke can outrange churchill by "50 units" so how can he shoot arty at them? This only proves that he never even tried to use the smoke to deal with emplacements spam.
Anyway back to my orriginal point - people use what pays off. If you start using the smoke, you will see that decrewing/destroying the emplacements is not hard. But most importantly - your OPPONENT will see it, thus they will see that such tactics doesn't pay off (because every doctrine has smoke, so anyone can use it against them) and so they will see less point in using emplacement spam and then these people will flood the forum with topics such as "smoke is OP!!! my emplacements are useless!!!" . So it is only up to you. If you start using all the tools you have to deal with emplacements (and arty is NOT the only tool) you will force the opponent to stop using this campy tactics on your own.

EDIT: I just noticed this:

what i am saying is; keeping up with destroying them is nearly impossible on the other hand, got what I mean?? You would hardly struggle to kill some emplacements.. but then? He would simply build them again and again.. in absolutely no time meanwhile u reinforce or repair ur units. This kind of gameplay is completely ridiculous...

See?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??! This is exactly what I said - you destroy an emplacement and retreat (to repair/reinforce units) so...if you destroy/decrew an emplacement and then do NOTHING AT ALL - no follow up attack or anything. Give me one logical reason why the CW player would not fix/recrew/rebuild the emplacement? You give him time to do it. Even if there was no "faster emplacement building" unlock for RE, they would still have ton of time to fix the hole in the defense, because you don't use the opportunity which you created. This is just a matter of insuficient coordination with your team.

And you said it urself, you don't know much about playing as WH. The only thing you know pretty well, is playing CW. But I am telling you, it's very frustrating against RE. Perhaps the only thing you would usually want to do, is to quit and un-install the game afterwards. You shouldn't be defending such ridiculous tactics!

Examplary usage of argumentation fallacy ("poisoning the well") his point was that even when he has low experience with WM faction, he can destroy emplacements as WM without bigger problem and thus if he has less experience than you with this faction, why is he able to perform something that you are not able to perform? - this is his main point. The fact that he preffers playing CW is irrelevant in this case because it does not make it harder or easier for him to deal with emplacement spam.

So the question here is (and please, don't dodge or "forget" to answer this question): Why is it not a problem to deal with emplacements for someone who has less experience playing WM faction while for you, who has plenty experience with WM and BK doctrine in general, it is such a game-breaking tactics?
(Please, please, please, answer this question directly, no dodging, no diverging to other "issues", no answering with another question. once again the magical word: PLEASE)