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

[Panzerblitz1]

Nuff said.

[sgtToni95]

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.

Once again you point out how i'm always in CW favour, tho you could see that as "oooh, he's not good as WH but he can still deal with emplacements, how is that possible????" instead of "he's mainly CW player, whatever he says to defend CW is only subjective and not worth listening".

I know aout frustrating tactics: maybe you remember i had my "personal war" against cheap 210mm nebels. Seing people relying only on 1 unit for both attack and defense, against any kind of target, was for me very frustrating even when not used directly against me. So i know about frustrating tactics.

You're taking as example here a game with Lehr in it: i don't want to be offensive, but he's the biggest abuser of anything abusable i've ever seen in bk. Mortar halftracks? Done. Gliders? Done. Even in that game i keep mentioning, where i used mortar to destroy 17p emplacement, i had a great start, almost killing his sappers and boys, and locking him down very soon and what happened? He instantly tried to destroy my mg driving over it with HQ truck (abuse once again).And whatever you might find abusable in bk he's done that for sure, as he did with 17p emplacements (this is why sometimes avoiding certain players wouldn't be so bad or, at least, you should know what to expect from them and be mentally and tactically ready)

You clearly see they're made just because he can't do anything else In that game and what wurf does is spending 900 mp on elite inf squads without really using them, instead of maybe getting a mortar halftrack or 1 more mortar squad (being careful to gliders) to counter this emplacement spam (this could have been done before 95mm churchills came out).

The only problem i see so far with 17p emplacements is their accuracy on HE shots, currently making it almost impossible for infantry squads to get close even with smoke cover, but that will be fixed.

[kwok]

I might as well throw my opinion in so it doesn't seem like Toni is the only one who thinks emplacements isn't a problem.

Emplacements aren't a problem. Please see my countless of replays I posted where I took bases (2 AA emplacements minimum, sometimes multiple buildings with 360 mg42s mounted on top) without a tank or arty. Also see plenty of replays where I bunker busted heavily defended artillery batteries using a mix of my own units and teammates.

LASTLY, please see my post on large maps.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Not really willing to go further with this discussion, as I believe I have already expressed my viewpoints. However, I am just going to respond to a few points, as well as to the questions that were thrown at me...

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.

You are not going to attack with damaged units, are you?! Otherwise you risk to lose everything. Problem is that he builds those emplacements in a blink of an eye... I was even attacking with my Pz.IV once, and the RE Sappers just started building the 17pdr emplacement in front of me while I was already firing at them! Had no ammo for HE rounds though, so they successfully built that thing faster than my Pz.IV would be able to shoot them at all.. and when I tried to drive backward, the 17pdr rapidly aimed and fired at me quickly, and of course there was not enough time to get out of range.

About smoke, i already responded saying that you can't keep up with smoking dozens of emplacements that are located everywhere on the map.. furthermore; no one is going to risk moving up in front of these emplacements with his expensive Axis tanks hoping that the 17pdr would not hit him! So please enough with this smoke talk...

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)

So, according to what you say.. he was trying to convince me that it doesn't even require a lot of experience to destroy the emplacements. Right? Well, but I never said that destroying emplacements is entirely impossible anyway...

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...

As I am aware that there are "other ways" to deal with emplacements, including smoke.. nonetheless; this does still not justify how 150mm rockets would deal almost no damage to emplacements or that 250 kg bombs hardly scratches a bunker.
Because, like I said.. if I throw rocks/stones with my hands... It would probably deal more damage then! Seriously. Therefore there is just noway to justify it, and you don't have to justify it either.. but rather find a way to fix it, though I totally understand that it might be very difficult to tweak.

So, to shortly answer your question; he doesn't have to persuade me about something that I am already convinced with.. as I already believe that destroying the emplacements is not completely impossible.
However, they are obviously tougher than they are supposed to be...

[Panzer-Lehr-Division]

Hey markr, toni's statement about smoke don't work with pe,pe smoke doesn't work? idk... So I don't even try use smoke as pe anymore. * i tryed mortar ht smoke against 5 emplacement's still somehow they worked as like no smoke, i had a game vs toni he used smoke and few other's used smoke too ok, unless pe smoke it lower accuracy but, not the HE shot it still work 100 percent recently alot people tryed it yet failed with smoke, i can counter this tactic even in 1v1 i did. Even today.. but that's not my point here. I mean re is op because look at it, i never said it's not counterable, but having so much emplacement, like 6 in 1 minute.. is just unreal and complete bullshit.. Edit: Toni managed to lower accuracy still that emplacement lived, 4 more came 1 95 mm and game was won..

[MarKr]

You are not going to attack with damaged units, are you?! Otherwise you risk to lose everything. Problem is that he builds those emplacements in a blink of an eye... I was even attacking with my Pz.IV once, and the RE Sappers just started building the 17pdr emplacement in front of me while I was already firing at them! Had no ammo for HE rounds though, so they successfully built that thing faster than my Pz.IV would be able to shoot them at all.. and when I tried to drive backward, the 17pdr rapidly aimed and fired at me quickly, and of course there was not enough time to get out of range.

Not really what I said...if there is a defensive line with 17 pounder and an MG and/or AA emplacement around. Then throw smoke between AT emplacement and the way that leads to it, this creates a smoke cover for your troops. As long as they are in the smoke, they are harder to hit by 75% and harder to suppress by 75% so you don't need to throw smoke at each emplacement, you just create "safe path" for your infantry. Send in infantry (who is covered by smoke and thus unsuppressed by MGs/AAs), use grenades/flamethrowers/whatever they have to decrew/destroy the emplacement. Now either keep the infantry there if they are healthy enough or retreat them. But at this point (when the AT gun no longer threatens your tanks) you should have your tanks ready and waiting. Once the emplacement gets decrewed/destroyed, no matter what the infantry does, you roll in with tanks (that is the FOLLOW UP ATTACK I was talking about) because what are the MGs and AAs going to do to them? Nothing. Opponent builds new 17pounder? HE shot - engineers dead.

About smoke, i already responded saying that you can't keep up with smoking dozens of emplacements that are located everywhere on the map.. furthermore; no one is going to risk moving up in front of these emplacements with his expensive Axis tanks hoping that the 17pdr would not hit him! So please enough with this smoke talk...

Who says you need to keep smoking dozens of emplacements everywhere? Do you need to destroy the ENTIRE defensive line across the entire map before you can roll to opponent's base? If you make ONE hole to the defensive line and use it to get past the defenses, how do the emplacements endanger you? Are they going to pack up and chase your units around the map? Make one hole, that is all you need. And I am not going to stop talking about the smoke just because you refuse to admit that it is a viable option just because you never really tried it.

I asked:

(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)

- no diverging to other "issues":

nonetheless; this does still not justify how 150mm rockets would deal almost no damage to emplacements or that 250 kg bombs hardly scratches a bunker.

good job on on not diverging to other "issues"
- no answering with another question:

So, according to what you say.. he was trying to convince me that it doesn't even require a lot of experience to destroy the emplacements. Right?

Question mark at the end...so good job not not answering with a question.
- Please, please, please, answer this question directly:

So, to shortly answer your question; he doesn't have to persuade me about something that I am already convinced with.. as I already believe that destroying the emplacements is not completely impossible.

It took two short paragraphs but there it is! A direct answer! Thanks. Were the two paragraphs really necessary?

Anyway as you ask:

So, according to what you say.. he was trying to convince me that it doesn't even require a lot of experience to destroy the emplacements. Right?
Well, but I never said that destroying emplacements is entirely impossible anyway...

I can say "yes" to both sentences, if I read them separately but as you wrote it...I must say that Toni says that dealing with emplacements is EASY. You say that dealing with emplacements is NOT IMPOSSIBLE. But that implies that you think it is not impossible but quite HARD. Right? Or if you think that dealing with emplacements is easy, why don't you say so directly and make such a fuss about it? And if you think it is HARD then how is it possible that with all your experience you consider it hard while someone with less experience considers it easy? This is illogical to me and so I don't get it. So can you explain it to me?

Then:

this does still not justify how 150mm rockets would deal almost no damage to emplacements or that 250 kg bombs hardly scratches a bunker.

In gameplay 150mm rockets are there to deal with infantry blobs, not destroying fortifications. So it is justified. 250kg bombs can easily kill infantry formations, tanks, buildings, even emplacements, but they need to seriously mess up bunkers too? Why? because it is "expensive"? The analogy that Toni used with Elephant is actually fitting here. You say "plane with 250kg bombs is expensive so it should be good vs everything" (yes, I know you did not say it EXACTLY like this but that is what you imply) and so when Elephant is expensive, it should be good vs everything too? No. These things are set this way for gameplay reasons. Gameplay reasons are above realism. End of story.

Not really willing to go further with this discussion

If you don't wish to answer my question, then fine. But it is sooo typical for you. As long as you feel you are right and you feel you have enough arguments to maneuver around counter-arguments, you keep debating. Once you feel you feel you might need to admit you were wrong, or you might even still think you were right but have no logical counter-arguments which does not give you room for "maneuvering", you just come up with some reason why you don't want to talk about it anymore, such as "because I said everything I wanted already". But as I said, if you dan't want answer my question, or maybe rather explain to me the situation I said I don't understand, then fine, whatever.

@Lehr:I don't know if you read what Toni wrote before:

The only problem i see so far with 17p emplacements is their accuracy on HE shots, currently making it almost impossible for infantry squads to get close even with smoke cover, but that will be fixed.

We know that the HE is bugged and hits every time even through smoke, we have a fix for that.

[Medic Truck]

Good discussions all around. Lot to learn.

[Panzerblitz1]

If it continue like that i will give a medal of merit and patience to Markr

[Panzer-Lehr-Division]

@Lehr:I don't know if you read what Toni wrote before:

The only problem i see so far with 17p emplacements is their accuracy on HE shots, currently making it almost impossible for infantry squads to get close even with smoke cover, but that will be fixed.

We know that the HE is bugged and hits every time even through smoke, we have a fix for that.

Markr please read what i just wrote and answer to this..

EDITED by MarKr; Reason: no need to fill the page with a full quote of my previous post.

[MarKr]

Well I did:

We know that the HE is bugged and hits every time even through smoke, we have a fix for that.

Or what else is there to react to? You said that smoke doesn't work for PE because HE still hits through it...or at least that is what I understood from it

[Krieger Blitzer]

Talking and debating is so easy, you see.. but when you ACTUALLY play against RE doctrine... You would find out that most of what you say is in fact completely off the table. You literally are dreaming. And I assure you that the people here who keep saying that countering the emplacements is easy, in actuality - themselves - can't do shit against it, and they had their ass kicked multiple times against RE doc.

I mean, seriously when I see statements like; "throwing smoke cover and then advance with your troops" and "Now either keep the infantry there if they are healthy enough or retreat them." as well as "you should have your tanks ready and waiting." I just don't know. But this only implies how you have absolutely no idea on what you are talking about... The game rapidly fades much quicker than this slow scenario. Units die with 1 shot, there is no room to risk even running at smoke. And that's exactly how this stupid tactic works.. they spam and spam more emplacements, then you are forced to park with your tanks "waiting" until they strike you with never-ending airplanes and arty.


Drilling a hole into the defensive line won't always break it, as they could INSTANTLY build MORE emplacements the same moment as you ALREADY advance... The problem - again - is how insanely fast RE doc is capable of constructing a huge line of defense.

I clearly gave you a direct answer to your question, yet you are still lurking on it... The 2 paragraphs above my answer were indeed necessary as a clarification. But FINE, i will answer you again...

And if you think it is HARD then how is it possible that with all your experience you consider it hard while someone with less experience considers it easy? This is illogical to me and so I don't get it. So can you explain it to me?

Maybe the guy with less experience does not know the fk he is talking about?? This does not even need an explanation, I guess.

Now to the most dangerous part;

In gameplay 150mm rockets are there to deal with infantry blobs, not destroying fortifications. So it is justified. 250kg bombs can easily kill infantry formations, tanks, buildings, even emplacements, but they need to seriously mess up bunkers too? Why? because it is "expensive"? The analogy that Toni used with Elephant is actually fitting here. You say "plane with 250kg bombs is expensive so it should be good vs everything" (yes, I know you did not say it EXACTLY like this but that is what you imply) and so when Elephant is expensive, it should be good vs everything too? No. These things are set this way for gameplay reasons. Gameplay reasons are above realism. End of story.

If you hardly break realism like this, just in order to "balance" the game.. then I am sorry, but it's a miserable fail... Not to mention that the gameplay results which are achieved with this, are not even satisfying and might be actually ridiculous. As I said, throwing stones would probably deal more damage then. (irony)

I have said enough, you did too, so I think there is no need to continue further... Otherwise this is not going to an end to be honest.
My viewpoint stands clear, your call.

[MarKr]

Talking and debating is so easy, you see.. but when you ACTUALLY play against RE doctrine... You would find out that most of what you say is in fact completely off the table. You literally are dreaming. And I assure you that the people here who keep saying that countering the emplacements is easy, in actuality - themselves - can't do shit against it, and they had their ass kicked multiple times against RE doc.

So when you had the game with Toni, both as Axis vs RE and whatever. He kept pinging to show you that he used smoke to break through emplacements...surely that was an epic fail and total example of how he "can do shit against it".

I mean, seriously when I see statements like; "throwing smoke cover and then advance with your troops" and "Now either keep the infantry there if they are healthy enough or retreat them." as well as "you should have your tanks ready and waiting." I just don't know. But this only implies how you have absolutely no idea on what you are talking about...

Practical example from YOUR game with Lehr vs RE+AB. You consistently tried to destroy the middle one of the three 17pounder emplacements. Once you managed to do it (and you managed to destroy or decrew it several times) what did any of you do after that? Lehr had...what was it? JPIV L70? Or JT? camoed nearby the whole time. You had later in the game Tiger and Panter sitting in your base, preparing for whatever. When you managed to destroy the AT emplacement with infantry (without smoke, so you took loses and retreated, OK) why didn't you move your tanks there? Because the MGs would scratch them? The other two AT emplacements would not reach there even if they turned around. So there was a hole through which your vehicles could go but they didn't. When you sent nothing there, what exactely did you expect the opponent would do? Nothing? Just sit there and not build another emplacement when you give them the chance? How long exactly would you say it should take to build the emplacement? Because from what you write here, you would like it to be the way that you could destroy it with infantry, retreat with the infantry, reinforce the infantry, and come back with them while the opponent would still not finish building a new one...so yeah..how long should it take to build one AT emplacement?

Maybe the guy with less experience does not know the fk he is talking about?? This does not even need an explanation, I guess.

So, the reason why a less experienced player has very little problem in situation where you have big problem, is that he doesn't know what he is talking about? Wow...the logic behind this is...mind-blowing! Thank you for your answer, now I finally understand...oh, wait...

If you hardly break realism like this, just in order to "balance" the game.. then I am sorry, but it's a miserable fail... Not to mention that the gameplay results which are achieved with this, are not even satisfying and might be actually ridiculous. As I said, throwing stones would probably deal more damage then. (irony)

OK, got it. Your oppinion is noted and appreciated.

But OK, if you wish to stop here, we stop here. But anyone else is still free to give their oppinions .

[kwok]

I was mid typing a response and saved the draft, but it looks like the convo went on before i had a chance to put up some thoughts.
Here they are anyways.

Problem is that he builds those emplacements in a blink of an eye... I was even attacking with my Pz.IV once, and the RE Sappers just started building the 17pdr emplacement in front of me while I was already firing at them! Had no ammo for HE rounds though, so they successfully built that thing faster than my Pz.IV would be able to shoot them at all.. and when I tried to drive backward, the 17pdr rapidly aimed and fired at me quickly, and of course there was not enough time to get out of range.

I find this laughable because from all of my experiences building in combat leads to a loss of the emplacement and the builders. The modifiers for building allow for the emplacement to go down from the weakest of small arms fire which P4's should have. Do you have a sample replay where that shows how ludicrously fast a 17pdr emplacement goes down relative to a p4's engagement?

About smoke, i already responded saying that you can't keep up with smoking dozens of emplacements that are located everywhere on the map.. furthermore; no one is going to risk moving up in front of these emplacements with his expensive Axis tanks hoping that the 17pdr would not hit him! So please enough with this smoke talk...

we keep bringing it up because it's easier than you think if you bothered to try. and besides, smoke isn't even the only or even easiest solution. I think toni and I just think it's the sexiest. so we will keep bringing it up.

As I am aware that there are "other ways" to deal with emplacements, including smoke.. nonetheless; this does still not justify how 150mm rockets would deal almost no damage to emplacements or that 250 kg bombs hardly scratches a bunker. Because, like I said.. if I throw rocks/stones with my hands... It would probably deal more damage then! Seriously. Therefore there is just noway to justify it, and you don't have to justify it either.. but rather find a way to fix it, though I totally understand that it might be very difficult to tweak.

I think the lack in damage is justified due to the availability and intent of those weapons. Every axis doc has arty that are very capable of softening a position enough to do a follow up assault as intended. For a mod where many players already often complain about click-to-kill abilities, adding more capability to a fine functioning method seems backwards from balancing.

Drilling a hole into the defensive line won't always break it, as they could INSTANTLY build MORE emplacements the same moment as you ALREADY advance... The problem - again - is how insanely fast RE doc is capable of constructing a huge line of defense.

Emplacements cost MP and are static. I very much prefer if my opponents spam emplacements because I am pretty capable of getting rid of them cheap and quickly.

Maybe the guy with less experience does not know the fk he is talking about?? This does not even need an explanation, I guess.

Hi. I have experience, do I count?

Some other thoughts that I might as well bring up since I have an opinion on RE:
The early availability of churchhills relative to a churchhill's counter availability pose a problem on small maps. I hate to bring this up because it really only relates to small maps...
Ever since the 2 second handheld AT tweak, it is pretty difficult to counter early church hills especially if a player did not gain the necessary footing in the early game. I think that the 50mm not being able to pen church hills was great. I think the AT tweak was great. But the powerplay of a church hill now is as dominating as the recce was back when the recce costed less fuel and could be rushed out before a counter was available. So much map control is lost in that moment that if an axis player does not start moving towards facing that possibility early, the player can pretty much lose the game within a span of 5 minutes (I mean they can delay the inevitable or make a comeback on the enemy's mistakes... I mean to say the chances of winning drops drastically on a short period of time). I think this is a problem because it greatly favors a formula styled play and can either make the game very dry (repeats of teh same thing over and over again) or create an extreme rock-paper-scissors meta scenario which isn't really fun in a game like coh (save it for starcraft).

Like I said, this is really only a problem on small maps... but it's something I have thought through and seen. Of course out of respect for Markr, I will propose a solution to every problem I bring up:
My proposed solution is to get rid of 1v1 maps and fix all other maps so that they fit the size the mod was intended to play.

[idliketoplaybetter]

Talking and debating is so easy, you see..

I loved this part the most from u

Debating is hard, especially, if ur opponent constantly repeating his words with "few minor humble thoughts added" and intended not to answer anything, of that he has been asked in process.And ye, all this thread is one big easy debate (irony) - since we are down enough to have a need to point irony manually.
And u know what is the most ironical to me, Tigah?Is that sometimes i see reasons in what u say(least at first few posts on any thread), so i catch myself on thought, that it would be cool to support it maybe, but then u go full "answerphone" mod, and that wish fades away

Yet another US AAquad problem.

What i will add though, is that bigger map wont solve the problem of bad/stall/boring kind of player that may abuse anything this game propose (and duh, most of so called experienced players are even that like lol).It has nothing to do with RE in particular.
Blaming RE for having fast build option, is like blaming Luftwaffe for using planes, to deploy their soldiers faster on field.

Its not even a total abuse u meet every game omg (and that is very important).Its not like, again, it was for luftwaffe(and AB sometimes) with those blobs.Its not like 107mortar problem.It is very situational and not sure if has really to do with balance issue.

What i kinda agree to, is that feel of 250lb (or whatever kind of bomb they are using) dealing few dmg to bunker is weird, however nothing weird, that in game paradygme, flame is more usefull against emplacements.

[kwok]

Playbetter, I get what you're saying that making larger maps won't change a player's style but I think it will make the same repeating styles and formulas less effective. It'll also open up more options to counter those boring and abusive formulas.

For example, say the formula is to rush emplacements as this topic mentions and there truly only is one way to counter it with arty. By playing on bigger maps, options like moving around fixed direction emplacements and attacking with things as simple as grenades OR complete avoidance OR all already available options on small maps. So, yes you're right that some players may not adapt but it does add a bit more variety in the game that you seek. Maybe eventually that'll mold the meta to something more dynamic. Small maps only perpetuate rock paper scissor scenarios that I think you're referring to, larger maps at least gives new metas and varieties a chance.

It just takes a while to adjust. If i were to comment on the current (and very limited) large map meta it would be one of the largest adjustments: I think players struggle with the most is choosing NOT to fight as a strategy which I think is a better simulator for war strategy.

[sgtToni95]

Maybe the guy with less experience does not know the fk he is talking about?? This does not even need an explanation, I guess.

I don't know if you're talking about me, and in that case i'd thank you very much for the consideration , or if you're talking about you since you never used smoke or tried the easiest of solutions i'm showing you.

I really wish i had the replay if that game. Btw i'll try like this (WARNING: IMPORTANT PART WITH QUESTIONS TO ANSWER:

1) Didn't I drive completely safe by a 17p emplacement covered by smoke with my tank, which let me decrew his mortar pit and almost (or entirely can't remember exactly) kill his triage center?

2) Wasn't that HE pz4 countered by a churchill which i didn't have the counter for, due to lack of experience as WH as Kwok surprisingly accurately predicted (lol)?

3) Didn't I destroy the 17p emplacement covering my side with just normal mortar shells, allowing me to make a little push and destroy one of Lehr's command trucks with shrecks?

I made it so you coud just answer "yes" or "no" to be easier, it's just about being objective here, reporting facts.

[Krieger Blitzer]

@sgt.Smoke.95

To firstly answer your questions.. yes, you successfully destroyed one 17pdr emplacement!!! BRAVO! You really can't be more proud of this, perhaps you should even make a party about it! Just to celebrate your great achievements.

But before you consider making a party, let me add a 4th question to your list.. just to remind you with a very simple fact;
- Didn't we actually lose that game at the end? >>> HELL YES <<<

I find it astonishing how you gladly keep repeating that you destroyed ONE emplacement, but completely avoid mentioning the fact that we actually lost in the late stage of the game SO badly. Even though we had the advantage in both early and mid game!

I really wish i had the replay if that game.

Wish no further though... I have got it for you.

Sadly not the replay file, but I actually recorded that game.. and I was never willing to upload it... Nonetheless, since you keep talking about it in every second post, i have finally decided to upload it, so here it is:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45mOKbV3q54
Me (Blitz doc) + sgtToni95 (Terror doc) VS Lehr (RE doc) + Wurf (AB doc)

HOWEVER, the video is unlisted and not available to the public... So I disabled comments, and there is no thumbnail either.

Also, in the video description... I have included all the important moments, which might be relevant to this discussion here.. so you could easily switch throw each one of them by just clicking.

But i am going to list those moments here as well.
So everyone would hopefully have a look at them, and this is what you wanted, i guess.

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

This moment can be observed at 16:55 or so.

Now, few other important moments...
- Jump at 20:50 you would see a single 17pdr emplacement shooting 2 HE rounds, in less than 6 seconds.. almost wiping out 2 volksgrenadier squads.

- At 31:00 you can see Demo StormTroop squad, retreating in crawl mode. [bug]

Conclusion;
Axis losing late game due to emplacements spam.

Lastly, it's worth to mention that I ONLY provided this replay here, just because you kept mentioning about it. As I actually have nothing to add or discuss further. But I would also like to say that yesterday I actually made a test game with MarKr, i assume some of you already know about this.. since he was looking for someone to test with, on the Bk What'sApp group... And I simply raised my hands. So he picked me up, and then we did it. As it wasn't a secret, nor was it a privilege anyhow.
But I must say that the results were in fact not very satisfying, he said some tweaks will be done. As he already said this right here anyway, so perhaps nothing new, but actually the smoke worked better on MG nests, nevertheless.. the scatter was quite high, and the 17pdr emplacement still killed 2 half-tracks from the first attempt, not missing a single shot. I have actually recorded this test game too! But I am not going to upload it anywhere though, not just because I don't have MarKr's permission.. but also because I believe there is no need to share it with anyone.
Bottom line is, I might be wrong with some of what I said, but also right on some other points... Everyone expressed his opinion.

[MarKr]

After watching a part of the video...this seems VERY different from what you claimed during the test game that is an average situation...in the test game you build a wall of 3 (or 4) 17pounders on way smaller area and had MG nests between them...here is what? 2x (or 3?) 17 pounders accross the entire map, some mortar pits, no AA emplacement (or at least I can see none; but yeah, M16 are there)...even Lehr writes in the chat he has "5 emplacements"...it just seems way different from what you were claiming to me yesterday...

Anyway, I noticed by the end in the chat you say "I need to destroy the emplacement, not avoid it" - since the emplacements were not really clustered as much as you showed durng the test game, I don't really know what held you back here.

Then you say "There is no way to kill it as blitz" - if we look away from the fact there IS a way other than arty, I would also like to remind you that some doctrines are simply "counters" to other doctrines and as a consequence, if you play against someone who has a counter to your doctrine, you will have harder time defeating them. If you play as US Armor doc vs PE TH (a player of similar skill level as you), do you complain, that you have little chance in such a game against him? If you play as AB/RAF vs Def doc, do you complain that he has (or should have, if he's any smart) AAs everywhere and about 1 out of 5 of your planes actually drops its payload (you know...if you play as intended, so on big, not narrow maps)? If you play double BK vs RE+AB, well, you probably are gonna have a harder time dealing with emplacements. If you play BK+SE vs RE+AB, is still gonna be that hard? If you insist so much on destroying the emplacements with arty, SE player can send Wespe/Hummel barrage there and once the thing is down, what stands in your way? RE player builds a new a one a bit fruther? OK, with this team you can arty it again and advance. If it he builds another one, repeat - in the end, where will he build the stuff? Behind the map edge?
Playing Axis doesn't mean you can always easily destroy everything and nothing can counter you. BK is very good doctrine, but fortifications are its natural weakness.

As for the test game, since you mentioned it - the smoke on PE HT has huge scatter, so wherever you shoot it the shells often hit far away from where you clicked which disrupts the whole smoke tactics for PE, WM mortar on the other hand is very accurate with its smoke and can utilize the smoke tactics on emplacements way better. This is also why the test on MG seemed more successful than on 17pounder - the smoke needs to hit directly on the emplacement (actually the crew of the emplacement needs to be within the AoE of smoke shell, not just "any part of the emplacement") and that was the problem - during the test, MG nest was hit directly, but then the smoke did not cover the crew of AT emplacement, with lower scatter the stuff would work better. But the fact about the scatter was important find, needs to be fixed.

[Krieger Blitzer]

After watching a part of the video...this seems VERY different from what you claimed during the test game that is an average situation...in the test game you build a wall of 3 (or 4) 17pounders on way smaller area and had MG nests between them...here is what? 2x (or 3?) 17 pounders accross the entire map, some mortar pits, no AA emplacement (or at least I can see none; but yeah, M16 are there)...even Lehr writes in the chat he has "5 emplacements"...it just seems way different from what you were claiming to me yesterday...

Hmm, I think the 1vs1 game Lehr posted here against Wurf, is actually a better example of spamming emplacements.. it better fits the average situation you were talking about... Considering that they also played Angoville, which was the same map we tested on.

[MarKr]

BK is not made for 1v1. I ignore arguments about balance based on real PvP games played in 1v1 and on top of that on small maps - these are simply not the conditions for which BK mod is made, thus such "proof" of anything is irrelevant.

[Krieger Blitzer]

What you said is true, but 1vs1 games can be still entertaining.. and are often played... They can't be completely ignored.
Though I am totally aware that balancing the game for team-fights while at the same time adjusting it for 1vs1 games might be nearly an impossible task to achieve. Nevertheless; 1vs1 games could be still a good way to measure and estimate how far 1 doctrine would be superior to another, which is something that could still help with the general balance. For example, if TH doc loses a 1vs1 game to Armor doc on the other hand.. then it means either the TH doc player seriously fked up or that there is probably something wrong with the balance...
Therefore respectively, if 1 specific doctrine has proven to be too good for 1vs1 games against ALL kind of doctrines, then it means that this doctrine is allegedly OP to some extent. Moreover; I do believe that 1 doctrine still shouldn't be completely helpless against another, even if it was supposedly the counter! Just dropping my thoughts here, no need really for a debate ^^

[sgtToni95]

@sgt.Smoke.95

To firstly answer your questions.. yes, you successfully destroyed one 17pdr emplacement!!! BRAVO! You really can't be more proud of this, perhaps you should even make a party about it! Just to celebrate your great achievements.

But before you consider making a party, let me add a 4th question to your list.. just to remind you with a very simple fact;
- Didn't we actually lose that game at the end? >>> HELL YES <<<

I find it astonishing how you gladly keep repeating that you destroyed ONE emplacement, but completely avoid mentioning the fact that we actually lost in the late stage of the game SO badly. Even though we had the advantage in both early and mid game!

@Tiger.I.have.3000.hours.on.bk.and.i.say.i.know.everything.about.smoke.and.i.claim.i.use.it.as.often.as.riflemen.1996 (I'm very sorry in advance to whoever is reading this childish bullshit)

Is your problem the fact we lost, or "indistructible emplacements"? In the video you say "bk doc has noway to destroy 17p emplacements, noway". I destroyed an emplacement with 80mm WH mortar, I'm not an expert, tho i think it's exactly the same mortar for all 3 doctrines in this faction. I'm not saying that was a winning move, just saying I showed you how to destroy 17 pdr emplacement with the easiest tool, but for you it's still indistructible.

Let's be honest: as i say at the end of the video we both didn't play good, and i didn't really expect to win that game.

If i had a counter to Lehr's first churchill i would have had a much easier time there (maybe i could have pushed firther at the start if he didn't try to abuse command truck ramming, very nice move from fair player! ). And i don't know how you could expect to win that one with 2 of the best bk players (Lehr was of course using the current fun favourite abusable tactic to annoy his opponents as always, lovely ) on one side and me playing WH (which is my least played faction, don't even know if i have 100 victories with that).

Lehr only had 5 emplacements at the end of the game. In early mid phases he had two and he was using all he had to keep them safe while not doing anything else (he was constantly losing all his infantry): what made them win are actually churchills, starting from his first one, and then his 95mm sitting back which caused huge damage, but an earlier counter to them with better moves from my part could have dealt with that much better.
Only way that 17p were blocking me was HE shots which i knew could not miss even through smoke (will be fixed, and i think HE cooldown miight be increased too) and i could not risk my infantry on them, anyways i didn't see a single tank kill scored by 17 pdr emplacements because the only time a tank got in range for one of them it was never hit. You can even see i drive it to a position where 17 pdr can't hit it because of covers, and since it's an emplacement it can't flank it.

If i made a stug or supported my Pz4 E with shreck squads during my push i could have done better (of course you'll say theese are all hypothesys, tho i made them after the game, and i think if i had little more experience i could have done it while playing instead of later, it's how learning usually works).

Did you try to smoke 17 pdr and just drive your tank into your opponent's base? I bet if you sent an HE hostwind together with a pz 4 to wurf's base he had no other AT except from handheld on paras (and good luck using that on AA shooting you, or quickly building a 17p under hostwind fire), and if lehr sent his churchill that PZ4 could take it down since it's not likely it gets penetrated. (Just one of the possible solutions, just you don't wanna try anything new).

[Krieger Blitzer]

Is your problem the fact we lost, or "indistructible emplacements"? In the video you say "bk doc has noway to destroy 17p emplacements, noway". I destroyed an emplacement with 80mm WH mortar, I'm not an expert, tho i think it's exactly the same mortar for all 3 doctrines in this faction. I'm not saying that was a winning move, just saying I showed you how to destroy 17 pdr emplacement with the easiest tool, but for you it's still indistructible.

Mate, I already clarified this point several times, I never meant that destroying the 17pdr emplacements is impossible.. but what I actually meant is that keeping up with destroying the emplacements might be impossible on the other hand... You might be able to get rid of some emplacements, but due to the insanely high speed of which they get constructed and repaired, and also due to their early availability and cheap price; you may not be able to finish your opponent, only thanks to spamming emplacements all over the place. Which is a ridiculous tactic, even it was still counter-able in other ways. And this is a downside for the gameplay, favoring the defensive play-style, while always putting more pressure on the attacker.

Did you try to smoke 17 pdr and just drive your tank into your opponent's base? I bet if you sent an HE hostwind together with a pz 4 to wurf's base he had no other AT except from handheld on paras (and good luck using that on AA shooting you, or quickly building a 17p under hostwind fire), and if lehr sent his churchill that PZ4 could take it down since it's not likely it gets penetrated. (Just one of the possible solutions, just you don't wanna try anything new).

I admit that I could have tried that though, but maybe because of the existence of his airstrikes and mortar half-tracks as well as 95mm Churchills, i never considered such an idea.

[sgtToni95]

Are 17pdrs so much earlier available than mortar squads? I can bet in that game the first mortar on WH side appears earlier than 17pdr emplacement.

Devs made a post comparing mortar smoke shells range to 95mm churchill range, which was 170 vs 120 (?), and i guess mortar halftrack range is even shorter, making them far from being a threat for a mortar in smoke range.

Airstrike could have been a counter, and 95mm churchills too, but emplacement problem wasn't surely the major threat then, and i don't think one would easily use 95mm churchill barrage or bombing run inside an allied base.

[kwok]

I think that's why I like AB, they have drop anywhere super accuracy smoke. It's awesome.
Blitz has it too on their stug iii's. It's awesome if it didn't have to turn to face. Can I request that be fixed and it not turn facing dependent? Makes things really awkward as a supporting unit.

Also, I disagree about blitz being naturally countered by emplacements... If i face emplacements I honestly prefer blitz over any other doctrine. Which is funny because I counter blitz using emplacements since it seems that no other player knows how to stop it...
Here are some hints at why i like blitz against emplacements:
-blitz ability
-stug iii and mortar 81 smoke
-demo squads (that can come out of walls sometimes which is just a bonus)
-stuh
-schrecks which do a hilarious amount of damage to emplacements
-ostwind rapid fire HE mode
-a secret vehicle that 2 shots mg emplacements (shhh this is a secret... i only told like 2 other people.)
-bundle grenades

there's nothing like rampaging storms through broken lines. It feels better than a surging panther.

EDIT: I just watched the replay, exactly what I thought was going to happen had happened. I wish I could free look more and see what happened on the other side of the map.
I blame the loss entirely on strategic and macro decisions. It was a series of non-adaptive decisions gradually over the game that caused the end outcome. Tiger you mention "emplacements keep popping up" which costs resources but you spent resources on units that are pretty much countered by those emplacements.... of COURSE 2 17 emplacements costing maybe around 600mp should make a armor'd battle group of 850mp have trouble... What's worse is you called it twice, spending up to 1700mp on units that do not contribute. You didn't play optimally to the AB player either, stormtroopers and ostwinds CRUSH ab but instead you rushed towards a t4 factory. That's just ASKING for a bombing run on your expensive useless tanks. Your volks were even holding their own, but in the long run being out numbered by AB will over taking them and the most support you gave them was an LT and useless tank that can't follow. By the time you got storms it was too late.

I wish I could see Toni's perspective and see what could be done against RE though. This replay to me just looked like a series of poor long run decisions.
"This is how nicely axis lose late game against bullshit emplacement spam". It's not balance that loses the late game, it's early to mid decisions. Allies feel the same fucking way about bullshit axis heavies and uber soldiers which is almost equally as wrong.