You make up about %1 of playerbase
with this one is a difficult topic, lets say the devs do as you say, then how do we destroy rally points if they cannot be destroyed because they are inside mini engi bunkers? that about engineers having stronger fortifications could only be succesfully done if the rally point mechanic as a wholes is completely remaked, not to mention, that new players, that dont have AT soldiers and that kind of stuff wont be able to deal with the fortifications, or tanks, tho tanks is already a problem for new players
We might âlistenâ to casuals from fortnite or those who completely doesnât care about gameplay fixing. This will be moar profitable i guess
At this moment in time AA guns are nothing more than fancy paperweights until theyâre fixed
2 Likes
I agree with most of what youâve said, but Iâm mostly against making fortifications harder to destroy. The point of fortifications is to slow down the enemy or redirect them into prepared kill zones; not to make an impenetrable barricade that you can just build and forget about.
If people are breaking down your fortifications then theyâre stopped from advancing while attempting to do so, and thatâs the time they should be killed by active defensive fire. If they succeeded in breaking down your defenses then you rebuild them when they are repelled, or you get back to prepared second positions and defend from there.
If theyâre breaking down your defenses without difficulty you or your team are doing something wrong
2 Likes
TNT mines are unlocked at about the same level as engineers are, in ALL campaigns.
Even newer players will have access to them.
Additionally, all campaigns give a tank to start with, all of which have HE with which to destroy fortifications, as well as can drive right through barbwire that is external.
1 Like
Iâm not asking for them to be impenetrable. There are plenty of options to break through them. However, as I said, it requires an specific soldier type (engineer) using unique resources to build them. So why is it an option for non-engineers to break them down at NO COST.
As you just said, the point of the fortifications are to slow down the enemy or redirect them, but in the current state of the game THAT DOESNâT HAPPEN when actual players are involved, only when its just AI, because AI canât deconstruct things.
Instead, actual players see fortifications, walk up and break them down.
I say this as someone that has thoroughly tested different defensive strategies in both normal and custom games.
My biggest finding was through custom games, where we agreed upon the rule that you were not allowed to deconstruct fortifications unless using an engineer, explosive packs were not allowed, and Czech Hedgehogs were not allowed indoors. The change of the gameplay was huge!
- External barbwire quickly became more favored than in doorways
- Czech hedgehogs were being used in more interesting ways outside of buildings
- Attacker type squads (assaulters and such) more frequently carried and used TNT to good effect
- Soldiers with grenade pouches often carried at least one (or more) smoke grenades
- Radio operators used smoke calls
- Tanks pushed up to help clear barbwire and mines
- AT soldiers became a lot more frequent
- infantry stuck with their tanks and moved up directly behind them, using them as shields against MG fire
- and more!
Thatâs why Iâm suggesting these things.
Like Iâve already said: if they can just run up and start breaking down your defenses with impunity so easily you are doing something wrong. You need to be able to defend your fortifications. Also, how do you even know who are engineers or not?
I love fortifying a good strong defensive point and I know I need to be able to actively defend and reinforce my constructions if I want it to stand up to a serious prolonged attack.
-
Do you realize that they donât even have to have direct contact with it to break it down?
They can begin breaking it down then turn away from it, move around the corner, have cover between them and the structure and still be able to break it down. -
You say that we are doing âsomething wrongâ, yet what is the âcorrect wayâ that you have in mind?
We set up angles the best we can but when its a flat fronted building/ objective, there are no angles in which we can properly defend from.
In an ideal situation:
-
you should be able to have windowed sandbags that offer better protection while still allowing you to fire out
-
barbwire out front of the objective wouldnât be so easy to break down when you are actually able to keep a MG nest actively watching it
-
mines would be able to protect your flanks
-
sandbags walls would be able to be stacked 2x tall, and create actual viable walls to be able to move troops
Reducing the enemies ability to easily toss grenades, fire HE, or stick a flamethrower in a window is paramount for defense, but it also keeps us from being able to look out. (This is why the windowed sandbag walls are so needed).
Again, I point out that it should require a cost of some kind to take down fortifications.
- Use of an engineer rather than whatever other soldier you would use.
- A TNT charge
- A toolkit consumable, which to get extras of a player would need to take backpacks rather than grenade pouches.
This is EXACTLY what I am talking about when I am asking for better balance. It requires a cost to put up, it should require a cost to take it down.
Iâd really have to see your setup to provide constructive criticism, send me an invite sometime and we can collaborate.
A well fortified position with a strong active defense is already nearly impossible to penetrate in this game. Of course there are many variables that can change how quickly a point can fall so nothing is universal.
Gameplay wise: having your defense crumble is less frustrating and more controllable than spending 20 minutes running against a brick wall of impervious fortifications. Itâs a delicate balancing act, and Iâd like to see some more options for sandbags, but overall I think itâs ok how it is now.
In the end, we might have to just agree to disagree, because to go much further this will just degrade into speculation, anecdotes and hyperbole, which is my word of the day haha!
What you are doing wrong: building free cover for the enemy attacker to throw grenades and shoot inside the objective instead of leaving it free allowing for safer harassing of the attackers before they get to the objective.
Correct way: Build your rally point, no need to close it between sandbags it only makes more time consuming for your team to get out of it and at the same time makes it more easily spotted. Once on the objective put some ammo crates down, spread them on different places so grenades or shelling canât take they all out at the same time. Put some anti personal mines on doors, windows, choke points, stairs. Forget you can build sandbags, barbed wire and czech hedgehogs.
If needed build AT and AA guns, if possible, MG nest.
Handheld AA is cool though, in BFV they kinda works if you learn how to use it, and still require planes fly low to hit them consistently
IRL they are⌠excellent weapon but not for their intended target lmao
all the above is fine in agame where its balanced the games are not -moscow -stalingrad is a meat grinder when u have player who simply stomp the opfor lvl 4 player v lvl; 22 waste of time this entire game if your wiped out in 5mins they grab all the bases n keep hitting the spawn area with artillery and ya wonder why players bug out cos their out gunned and out classed its suppose to be fun shoot up but now is pay as much as u can get to get to general n kill everything in sight make it playable cos its not any more