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

[JimQwilleran]

-a secret vehicle that 2 shots mg emplacements (shhh this is a secret... i only told like 2 other people.)

HE 37mm HT.

(You haven't told me, so I don't count )

[sgtToni95]

He told me and it's not that but CONGRATS!!!! You just showed 1 more way to deal good damage to emplacements.
Just i think theese don't count since smoke would work on them too and without smoke 17p emplacements would just kill them (not sure how accuracy nerf affects Hostwind tho), but they'd be good against all other emplacements.

[JimQwilleran]

Stubby 75 mm ht with HE mode also kills emplacements in 2 shots.. is that it?

[kwok]

Kick illa plz. Report for being a snitch. SNITCHES GET STITCHES!!

Yes the 75 stubby is my ht of choice because it has smoke, ap, he, and a mean ass mg.
If you ever want to tilt shadow and make him panic, get that. It literally ruins his day. He would rather face a panther or tiger, no joke. It's hilarious to hear him on team speak and I pull one of those

[JimQwilleran]

I have been using it gor ages . It vets up pretty nicely.

And generally my few words on this discussion are: if you know that some player camps - pick anty-camp doc. Think about adjusting yourself and your style before you try to change the game itself.

[kwok]

It vets up hella fast becuase its base capability/reliability/power is insanely good. i dont even think it needs vet and it holds its use through all stages of a game.

[Warhawks97]

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.

What i wrote in Whatsapp group should have been here instead. But if anyone remember... the good old 88.... Oneshoting inf and any tank at a range of 100 while taking just 25% from actual arty damage and that was the naked one. And having arty capabilties. As i said i Whatsapp already it makes me laughing to see all this about 17pdr emplacments. Feels like "late justice" for me.

And about "Frustrating games". I think there was never anything more frustrating in BK over years as the permanent bunkering from axis sides with several doctrines. Double def and bullshit of the like. Fighting all that slowly down with repeated attacks, arty and what else. And it has always been "OK" because ..... because axis did it. And when two or three out of 4 players are just bunkering with hordes of Pios while the last rushes for Panther (or even worse, the old Godlike overkilla Stupa shit in combination with that coz of like 2 or three def players....)

And now people write about "frustrating" 17 emplacments that cant die? Srsl? The new HE might be broken coz it doesnt suffer from smoke.... but same does 88HE and did over years.

And it got downplayed....... "Ah, 88 isnt that bad"..... it took me an entire crusade to achieve at least a few changes. But i always got to hear: "Live with it", "play differently" (esspecially with specialized allied docs -.-) or "you can leave if you want.

I am not defending HE shots that might be broken a bit..... but alone that a few AT gun emplacments that are just "frustrating", not even balance breaking actually, causing such a outcry. Just a joke.


Nobody here in this topic has probably played really frustrating games. Otherwise we wouldnt have such a childrish crying. I am talking about arty barrages costing just half of what they do now and when on every engi squad dropped a 150 mm shell from grille for 35 ammo every 30 seconds.

And when rocket arty was placed right behind the bunker line to make sure nothing will pass guarded by stupas. And when games went on over hours like this.

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

yes...Though i didnt like stuhs. Didnt need them. Cheap and early Tank IV D, mortar and puma provided better support to my storms.

With blitz ability you mean that global one or the assault ability of storms with massive range, suppression removal and nading target untill its dead?

[kwok]

@warhawks
I think the difference here and your 88 crusade is that there is blatant misplays against RE doc and the players are refusing to adapt at all. like tiger's replay in question where he kept bringing in off-map tank support against a 17pdr spam... that's like saying the 88s are OP because players should be able to defeat them with direct assaults and not even bother trying to arty it.

for the record, i still think to this day that the 88s spam is avoidable on larger maps. The only change from 88s since then is their durability to artillery which now I think crippled them to either planting them right outside bases as siege weaponry or counter emplacements to a failed team doctrine composition that elected not to bring any arty.

Yeah your style was much more storm heavy, they ARE extremely efficient... I don't really use stuhs often either to be honest except against inf doc. inf or ab doc. the scatter on stuh really made it unappealing for anything more than to be used as a psychological weapon. it's almost like a force retreat weapon, lesser experienced (and sometimes higher experienced) players will hit retreat after the first BOOM even if it missed.

I mean the global one that gives insane buffs without penalty. but the assault ability is also pretty freaking strong if it didn't glitch on my 70% of the time. I have shit luck with it.

[sgtToni95]

Am i the only one here hearing an heavenly choir when Warhawks comes down from above and starts spilling his lost knowledge about the glorious past of BK?

[Warhawks97]

@warhawks
I think the difference here and your 88 crusade is that there is blatant misplays against RE doc and the players are refusing to adapt at all. like tiger's replay in question where he kept bringing in off-map tank support against a 17pdr spam... that's like saying the 88s are OP because players should be able to defeat them with direct assaults and not even bother trying to arty it.

Which led to "RA must have" in most cases.

What bothers me here is, that even if i would hypothetical say that 17 pdrs can be only destroyed by SE doc using Hummels, people would complain that this is the only way. While 88 spam, which was indeed more or less only managable with good RA player, was absolutely OK and not OP over years despite their imperishability and smoke resistance and super range.
But 3 pages full complains just because 17pdrs emplacments are a little bit nasty.

Got my point what makes me mad here?

for the record, i still think to this day that the 88s spam is avoidable on larger maps. The only change from 88s since then is their durability to artillery which now I think crippled them to either planting them right outside bases as siege weaponry or counter emplacements to a failed team doctrine composition that elected not to bring any arty.

Range was set to 85 and adjusted penetration here and there. The emplaced from def doc, as far as i could see, survives long tom with approx 50% HP (maybe got changed up to now, idk) when defensive upgrade is unlocked.

Yeah your style was much more storm heavy, they ARE extremely efficient... I don't really use stuhs often either to be honest except against inf doc. inf or ab doc. the scatter on stuh really made it unappealing for anything more than to be used as a psychological weapon. it's almost like a force retreat weapon, lesser experienced (and sometimes higher experienced) players will hit retreat after the first BOOM even if it missed.

I never did. It was expensive and was more like a slow bulldozer rather than a swift sword. Storms and Ostwind/Tank IV and Puma gave me much more momentum. You could crush deep into enemie territory when a key defensive weapon was down (like a pak). Its a boring weapon and as you said, more a psychological weapon. besides that it did need defensive cover again like paks to prevent that enemie rush the stuh. Thus this limited the ammount i could spend into really offensive weapons.

I mean the global one that gives insane buffs without penalty. but the assault ability is also pretty freaking strong if it didn't glitch on my 70% of the time. I have shit luck with it.

Maybe get into range before using it (like as you do with nebels). Use it against emplacments and dont hold ground or change order. Then it should work. And dont give new orders after first nade volley. They will throw more untill emplacment is down or crew dead. Should work then. I also thought its a bugged ability untill i figured how it works.

Am i the only one here hearing an heavenly choir when Warhawks comes down from above and starts spilling his lost knowledge about the glorious past of BK?

What?

[Krieger Blitzer]

indirectly calling those who say that the emplacement spam is nasty, being biased and pointless just because Bk in the past used to be even more nasty with 88s and Axis defense or whatever.. is an extremely negative attitude.

Statements like;
"Axis were nasty back then, now it's time for the Allies to be nasty in return. Late justice!" as well as other statements more like "When 88s were nasty, it was just fine.. but now people complain about 17pdr emplacements, how hypothetical..." such statements ONLY imply how someone could be so biased himself, or how someone is looking for "his own justice" rather than improving the overall game balance as a whole... As it only implies how somebody just wants to revenge from those who told him "Deal with it!" back then, not even caring much about the game or the balance in that case, which is in fact the true childish behavior on the other hand! From an opposite perspective however, it would just make no sense if you were to say something like "Luft airstrikes used to be useless for a long time, Now bring back the justice! All the Allied airstrikes have to be as useless too!!" Simply, nobody cares how BK used to look like in the past.. specifically as long as it's currently fixed, as there is absolutely no point to bring up those old stories here.

Moreover, there is no bias. Clearly, we are not only talking about the 17pdr emplacements being nasty, but also.. how the bunkers are currently taking no damage from the AB airstrikes. As I have generally pointed out for a couple of times already, how I believe that this might be a downside for BK, favoring the defensive play-style over anything else. As for the particular players who point out at this, they are not that kind of players who stick with only 1 faction either. Dolphins play all factions, same as me... Lehr obviously does RE doc often enough, and Wurf is no longer an Axis only player. So, there is no bias here.. we are only pointing at a generalized game-play issue, which we believe to be a ridiculous way to represent the gameplay.

[sgtToni95]

You complained many times about AB being OP since they can deploy 5 101st squads at a time and outnumber any other elite infantry from axis side, so why having to use a somehow more "MP risky" but less "ammo costing" tactic, which might lead to lose some of them, to throw satchels at emplacements is so wrong for you?

And don't you think that rewarding the brainless click-to-kill instead of little more tactic could bring some people complaining about airstrikes being all-capable and too good against everything?

Since Elephant example didn't fit at your eyes i'll bring a different example, which does not fit as good as that, but still might give you the idea of what i mean.

RAF bombing run is supposed to damage infantry, must get a very lucky roll to kill halftracks, and on tanks and emplacements might just give the grace stroke , but if you use that on Luft paras or upgraded storm it hardly kills anyone. Maybe it lowers soldiers HPs, but killing more than 2 per squad (being lucky) with 1 strike is pretty much impossible .
I came on forum reporting this time ago on some thread about Luft OP rambos, and they just told me to use other tools to deal with theese infantry units (probably using less than 3 post pages), people showed other ways to deal with them and i started not being so worried even if i couldn't use bombing run on elite infantry.
Does the fact that big bombs falling right on the head of a person and barely scratching it make more sense than big bombs falling on bunkers and barely scratching it?

I'm still fine with this since both luft and bk players have to invest their CP (Gebirs apart) to make inf this strong against bombing run: I hope you can see any analogy with both bunkers and emplacements from DEF and RE docs.


Sry for the off-topic, this might be moved to a new one.

May I ask you who decides the nimber of games one should have with a faction to be considered as one who plays that enough? I think the relative ratio of my games as brits and any other faction is comparable to the Lehr's or Wurf's ratio between PE and any other faction, so why should people consider them worth listening to, as objective, and not me?

I mean, Kwok, Playbetter and Nami kept quite a low profile and didn't say much here but they have games with all factions and many more than i have. Should i private message them to convince them of my ideas and let them express them for me to get some consideration?

It honestly seems to me that your criterias to decide who is worth paying attention to and who is not are two:
1) how much the ideas of a person are close to yours.
2) how louder and stubborn the supporter of an idea is on forum.

If you don't fit theese you're clearly too inexperienced or obviously too biased towards the "wrong" idea/faction/whatever so your words will/should simply get ignored. This almost feels like we were debating on the "Tiger1996 guidelines BK Forum Section".

[Krieger Blitzer]

Mate, each time I think this discussion has finally come to an end, you come up with a new post full of irritating questions! Listen, if you don't like my viewpoint, then it's fine, but i don't really have to explain further, however; i am still going to respond you, but for the last time. Nonetheless, I will cut it short, because you really started to get a bit silly and also off-topic... Anyway, I have mentioned several times that AB might be OP, yes i did.. yet; this doesn't mean that 250 kg bombs should deal no damage to a bunker. I consider brain-less camping to be even worse than the brain-less click to kill abilities.

Now, to your example about the RAF airstrike against Luft inf, the air-strike can be still dangerous against Luft inf.. even after the upgrades. Perhaps less effective, but definitely not dealing 0 damage. So your example again doesn't fit... Not saying that AB airstrikes should destroy bunkers though, but they should deal more damage, otherwise we should really consider throwing rocks/stones rather than any bombs. At least it would be less expensive.. and the dealt damage would be the same results.

Lastly, to your off-topic part... No, i have not messaged a single person or asked someone to come and post anything on this matter. Not even Lehr, he posted this replay out of his complete own will.. he was not asked to post this replay. But he did it as he believes that RE doc is OP, which is not exactly the same of what I believe btw. My point of view might be more precise, in particular. As I am not saying that RE doc is OP on the other hand, but I am saying that the game-play is somewhat favoring defensive tactics so much in general, which I find to be a ridiculous thing that has to be improved.
But you know what? Even if i did ask somebody to come down and post his opinion (which didn't happen) but EVEN IF I DID ask, there would be still no shame whatsoever.. as long as this person agrees... It's not like I am paying people money to come and tell what they think. SO, you better stick to the subject and not even begin with such blatant accusations.
Trying to make my standpoint look less valid in such a way, is a one big false claim if I may tell you... Moreover, I didn't literally mention that you are not worth listening.

This is my last post on this topic here. Because I already said everything, and such questions only make me repeat my viewpoint over and over again.. in fact, this topic already ended in the first page after i said "Alright, looking forward to the new patch as always!" but then MarKr posted one large text, and therefore the conversation kept moving nowhere.. not saying that his post was a mistake, but now... REALLY enough said.

[sgtToni95]

I consider brain-less camping to be even worse than the brain-less click to kill abilities.

Brain-less camping is a strategy you can prevent or counter in many ways that has been shown you, click-to-kill abilities are usually (apart from airstrikes maybe) hardly counterable.

Now, to your example about the RAF airstrike against Luft inf, the air-strike can be still dangerous against Luft inf.. even after the upgrades. Perhaps less effective, but definitely not dealing 0 damage. So your example again doesn't fit... Not saying that AB airstrikes should destroy bunkers though, but they should deal more damage, otherwise we should really consider throwing rocks/stones rather than any bombs. At least it would be less expensive.. and the dealt damage would be the same results.

my words were exactly: "Maybe it lowers soldiers HPs, but killing more than 2 per squad (being lucky) with 1 strike is pretty much impossible"

I never said it deals zero damage, as you never said 250kg bombs deal zero damage against bunkers, just they do very little (that's why i brought that "throwing stones" example made by you. And that's why by making a wrong report of my words you just proved that my example perfectly fits instead, I don't really know how the hell you can not see this and it's frustrating.

I don't like doing this either. I don't like being this "bad" to people in general. Just if someone tries to fool me around (and that's what you keep doing to me) I really don't like it and have hard time just staying quiet.

Where did i accuse you to ask other people to post for you? I was talking about you considering Lehr's, Dolphin's and Wurf's opinion as more objective since they play both factions.
But since you brought this thing about you "asking other players to post for you" saying

Even if i did ask somebody to come down and post his opinion (which didn't happen)

I can really now say you're really trying to fool me around.
Lehr said you asked him to post the replay on High Valley about emplacement spam, Leonida told me you asked him few times to post for you some time ago, and most funny, you even asked me to post for you time ago. I have no problem with you asking other people to start the topic (they wouldn't do it if they didn't agree with you since you're not forcing them anyhow) just so then you can bring your opinion right after.
My point is you saying false things and publically treating me like a stupid.

[Panzerblitz1]

Lehr said you asked him to post the replay on High Valley about emplacement spam, Leonida told me you asked him few times to post for you some time ago, and most funny, you even asked me to post for you time ago. I have no problem with you asking other people to start the topic (they wouldn't do it if they didn't agree with you since you're not forcing them anyhow) just so then you can bring your opinion right after.

Its not very nice to balance topics in your way and asking your camarades to put more weight into it, not very fair Tiger, Busted!
We don't balance bk Like that anyway, so its not a pressure point for us, if we found something funky or broken, we are fixing it, trying always to be fair to players, and for all docs.

[kwok]

Am i the only one here hearing an heavenly choir when Warhawks comes down from above and starts spilling his lost knowledge about the glorious past of BK?

What?

Lol, maybe I've played the game for too long, but whenever I hear Warhawks talk about past BK, I definitely don't think glory... I think more gory...
Dark times when KCH production was 80% of an axis build order, AB was chosen 5% of the time, a time when I could play RA doc and alt tab 60% of the game and still come out with the highest score in a 4v4, stuh was a walking 100% hitting 17pdr HE shot (yeah you think the bug right now is bad... put wheels on the fucker), and oh god so much more. I'm sure Warhawks has similar memories but through it all we masochists play it again and again like the real addicts we are. Even now Warhawks doesn't play bk actively (that I know of... I think he is avoiding me... COME GET ME HONEY) nor do I, but we find ourselves dicking around on the forum lol.

[Warhawks97]

Am i the only one here hearing an heavenly choir when Warhawks comes down from above and starts spilling his lost knowledge about the glorious past of BK?

What?

Lol, maybe I've played the game for too long, but whenever I hear Warhawks talk about past BK, I definitely don't think glory... I think more gory...
Dark times when KCH production was 80% of an axis build order, AB was chosen 5% of the time, a time when I could play RA doc and alt tab 60% of the game and still come out with the highest score in a 4v4, stuh was a walking 100% hitting 17pdr HE shot (yeah you think the bug right now is bad... put wheels on the fucker), and oh god so much more. I'm sure Warhawks has similar memories but through it all we masochists play it again and again like the real addicts we are. Even now Warhawks doesn't play bk actively (that I know of... I think he is avoiding me... COME GET ME HONEY) nor do I, but we find ourselves dicking around on the forum lol.

Gory, indeed. And way more frustrating as it is probably now (as you said, stuh, stupa, cheap arty and the like.....And dumb kch spam with nebel VT for 0 ammo (yes, 0)......Broken allied guns (76 couldnt pen Tank IV as if it is a tiger).

But no, i do not avoid anyone. I just have less contact to online mates currently. Just came back to TS with shadow and toni haha... didnt speak to any this year.

Also i played less or different games and our timezones..... I am not avoiding but i found forum interesting again^^