Of course, this is not enough, because it is very annoying that fortifications are not so easy to be destroyed.
So I hope that the attacker will also have powerful weapons to destroy these fortifications. In this way, the fortifications can be strengthened, so that they can defend against air strikes and shelling to a certain extent, but they are fragile in front of the approaching infantry.
In Enlisted,Bangalore torpedoes may be needed.
Here are some ideas about Bangalore torpedoes:
1.Can destroy 3~5 layers of sandbags, barbed wire and Czech hedgehogs.
2.The longer fuse time may be twice (10 seconds) as that of the explosive charge.
3.Not easy to move (as slow as holding a flamethrower and unable to sprint).
4.Occupy spare weapon slot, which can also reduce the frequency of using the explosive charge (no hand grenade bag).
5.Can only throw a very close distance (about 1 meter).
6.The enemy can throw it back like a Grenade.
7.It is very heavy and can quickly consume the physical strength of the carrier.
8.Appear on the soldierās back, so that the defender can be prepared.
Of course, in order for the attacker to approach with this heavy guy, the smoke bombs also need to be strengthened(This may also reduce the use of grenades and explosives), because their smoke balls are too small!
This may not matter, because with it, you will not be able to equip ammunition bags and Grenade bags, and your physical strength will be consumed very quickly, which will have a great impact on the combat effectiveness of commandos or machine gunners.(I may also hope that my enemy will do this, because it will make me less tortured by grenades and explosives. This is actually a matter of choice. )
Cool, but completely unsuitable for squads model. this is not a tower defense game neither.
Stronger Fortification mean that attackers need higher skills to fight.When the attacker tries to remove these obstacles, they also face enemy attacks, which greatly increases the difficulty of attacking. Thatās the reason why in history, attacking side always needs several times more soldiers than the defender to conquer the target. For a 10v10 game, your suggestion is ridiculous.
The attacking side must carry specific equipment in order to destroy the fortifications, other hand, defenders did not have such restrictions and were free to use Molotov, white phosphorus and mines, so unfair. And donāt forgot, you canāt choose whether youāre defender or attacker!
In any case, squads mode is a fast-paced arcade mode. It cannot contain all ideas.
Iāve made several suggestions on this matter in the past.
Considering that the win rate is significantly higher on offense than it is defense, Iād say this is a fair change.
Playing on offense, 90% of games, feels like the game is on easy mode. Meanwhile, on DEFENSE, you are generally lucky if the enemy team is so incompetent that you manage to win. Itās not even comparable right now.
Many of us came to this game BECAUSE of the dynamic gameplay that engineering and fortification could add to the game. We are sick and tired of the run-and-gun gameplay that COD, Battlefield, APEX, PUBG, etc have ruined the FPS genre with.
Smoke bomb, this is a neglected thing. If it is strengthened and can cover more areas, then everyone will take three, which will be very beneficial to the attackers. More importantly, grenades and white phosphorus bombs are more deadly to defenders who are holed up in fortifications (because they tend to gather together and their positions are known).
Moreover, at present, it is easy for us to see that white phosphorus bombs or grenades kill a large number of defenders, and their effect on more dispersed attackers is often limited. Including shelling and air strikes, which are very deadly to defenders. So, is it really that the attacker is at a disadvantage?
In fact, the reason is very simple. The fortifications have a greater effect on the defenders. Bombs, white phosphorus bombs, grenades and flamethrowers are more efficient in the hands of the attackers.
Iād like to also note: I generally the large multi-kill feeds pop up most often against attackers, and VERY RARELY against attackers.
Currently sandbag walls get decimated every single time an artillery shell goes off in their general vicinity, making a sturdy defense nearly impossible.
Additionally, they removed the ability to double stack sandbags (which I really hope they put back in soon), which was the only way to protect some areas, and the only way to fortify MG nests, which not only is the gunner extremely exposed on, but the gun is destroyed extremely easily as well!
Generally speaking, teams with a large number of players always win. This will lead to a misjudgment of the victory rate in attack and defense. Berlin German had a large number of defensive missions, and they can easily massacred the Soviets. The Soviets in Moscow, which always serves as defenders also has more advantages. In Normandy, the Allied serving as attackers were at a disadvantage from 2021 until the paratroopers updated. ActuallyItās difficult for you to find a period when the attacker is incredibly strong and the defender is constantly losing.
Only when the defenders stands foolishly in the target point, attackerās grenade will make difference. This will not occur in high level game. Nowadays, various types of grenades have been nerfed and their range of action is very small, making them more suitable for dealing with attackers attempting to remove obstacles.
My buddies and I play custom games fairly frequently. Equal teams in numbers, as well as skill level. The large majority of the time, Offense comes out on top.
Of the very few times that defense wins, its because offense wasnāt even trying to capture objectives, rather get funny kills. Even in those points in time, Defenders had to play hard due to sheer firepower coming into objective.
This is the experience we have had with standard games. If the numbers are even, Defenders lose (unless Offense is intentionally playing badly).
Meanwhile on offense, we can generally screw around and still win with ease. Even when there are more defenders than attackers, its still an easy victory (80+% of the time).
Defenders generally donāt get time to set up fortifications in the first place. Unless they have an engineer run back in advance to either a guaranteed location, or correctly guesses when its at an objective that could go to one of two locations. (If defenders were TOLD where ALL objectives were going to be throughout the match, it wouldnāt be as bad of an issue.)
As far as grenades are concerned, defenders have to get sandbags in the windows to stop grenades from EASILY being thrown in. Additionally, unless players build additional sandbags on the ground behind that, it stops defenders from being able to shoot from that position as well.
Since they removed the ability to double stack sandbags, its nearly IMPOSSIBLE to set up protective sides to a MG nest, meaning that area is now a WEAKPOINT instead of a STRONGPOINT as it should be.
(Example of good defense: Moscow Campaign, the really small windows in the sides of some cabins are just the perfect height for the standard MG nests to be used. Due to the small window of exposure, these nests are some of the most devastating uses of the MG nest in the game.)
Meanwhile, the standard of that leaves the gunner and the MG completely exposed.
Only WP has a āsmallā radius. All the others have a fairly large radius. Especially frags and explosive packs.
Defenders using them against attackers attempting to remove obstacles is actually counterproductive, as they will often break the very fortifications they are trying to protect.
A GOOD defense would enable defenders to keep the main attacking force thinned out IN FRONT of the objective, NOT ON THE OBJECTIVE.
Because this is rarely possible, attackers flood objectives with full squads and take them with ease usually.
The number of people really affects winning or losing. But we also canāt ignore one thing:
Most of the casualties of attackers are on the way to strategic points.They mainly died in open areas or lacking bunkers narrow roads (beaches in Normandy, the Imperial Chancellery, the riverside in Kingās Square and bridges).Tanks and machine guns will cause them the greatest casualties, followed by shelling and air strikes, and grenades will do less damage.Of course, it will have a good effect when the attackers occupy it, but their occupation speed is very fast, and the progress of the occupation will hardly go back.
The biggest problem for the attacker is how to get close to the strategic point, not grenades and a bunch of fortifications (grenades have limited damage and fortifications can be easily blasted).
Such as the walls of monasteries and the blockhouses in Normandy. The defenders seem to have good fortifications, but as long as the attackers fix the resurrection point, they will easily fall. (I tried to throw grenades from the city wall and white phosphorus bombs into the bunker more than once, but the effect was limited. The former canāt completely destroy them, and the latter was too late.)
The advantage of the defensive side will disappear or even reverse when the offensive side approaches the strategic point.
In the open area, the attacking tanks and artillery will also give them an advantage. The only problem is that the infantry lacks the means to approach (smoke bombs are very bad, and heavy firepower cannot be absolutely suppressed).
Of course, this is my experience.
But I think there seems to be a little misunderstanding between us.
Since you think the attackers are weak, why not let them have Bangalore torpedoes?
One more thing, I hope that the better fortifications are just higher sandbags and trenches. The former is easy to be destroyed, while the latter is completely impossible to appear indoors, and its more function is to resist air strikes and shelling to a certain extent. And hiding in it is not completely safe(Grenade, grenades and tank guns can easily kill you).
I have some reservations about it.
1.In your design, engineers are over important which will exacerbate the imbalance between different class.
2.Once you add something to the game, you cannot stop them use as spam.
3.This is a subversion of the existing gameplay. Building and destroying fortification cannot bring enough positive feedback to players. It also consumes a lot of time and energy for players, now, even without these complex mechanisms, players already feel exhausted.
Well considering that engineers were one of the most important things in WW2, it makes sense to increase their importance within the game.
Additionally, most players only use them to put down rallies and ammo currently. Then run through with assaulters and flamethrowers predominately. In a rock-paper-scissors type of counter system, engineer fortifications should be capable of countering flamethrowers and assaulters by slowing them, causing hazards and making them easier to pick off at range, before they become an issue.
Because when those classes get in range, its a very unpleasant game for everyone in their path.
