While it would be nice if they removed the ability to deconstruct structures from non-engineer units altogether, the least that can be done is fix this OP aspect.
Fortifications can be the difference between a win and a loss. Either by setting them up in advance, or in the heat of a battle. To place them, the engineers have to have Line of Sight to the structure. However, for some reason, the enemy is allowed to START the deconstruction process then duck behind cover to finish deconstructing. Meaning they donât have to expose themselves at all. This is absolutely broken.
Several games tonight my team lost because our fortifications were getting taken down from nearly 10 feet away, behind a wall. Countless barbwire, sandbags, czech hedgehogs, and ammo boxes all deconstructed by enemies with no line of sight to them.
No, im the type of player wen he have to defend a hause the first thing i do is build AA and AT alongside barbared wire were is the door, if the enemy is decent i build even czek head and sandbag if the enemy is strong i park my tank on the entrance
Remove the ability to other class to dismantel the shit i build is equal to make all defense map an instant win for Defender
The only OP THING Here is the ammount of defense an enginer player can build
If they removed their ability to dismantle, it would hopefully also remove the ability to place Czech Hedgehogs indoors as well. Explosive packs still destroy most structures just fine. It would just force them to use one or two of their grenades.
It WOULDNâT be nice.
Non-engineers already take more time to dismantle them than engineers. And sometimes, they donât have explosives.
Let me ask You this - what should the average trooper do, if he has no explosives left, and there are barbed wires and other fortifications all over the place? Just walk on and get himself killed?
What about the new players who have no engineers, and for, probably, dumb reason, decided to not take any explosives capable of damaging the fortifications (say simple grenades/molotovs)? They should just suicide/desert? Hope that some fellow player has an engineer in the squad? What if he/she is the only player in the team, full of A.I.?
What are they to do? Attempt to flank! There will NEVER be an objective that is 100% fortified. They will either leave the side near their teammates open, OR their team will open it for themselves.
Also, if they didnât think in advance to bring something to deal with the fortifications, perhaps they need to reconsider their loadouts!
Also, another thing to support my argument is that tankers are allowed to remove Czech Hedgehogs. The very thing designed to stop them. All they have to do is park the tank where it gives them cover, make eye contact the structure for a split second, then hide in cover while they break it, then move on.
What about destruction mode in Moscow, where the targets are in the buildings, and engineers have been over-engineering and thus pretty much blocked all the entries and exits?
I still think it is giving the defenders with engineers way too much power.
So, it would discriminate new/inexperienced players.
It is also forcing a âmeta-tacticâ to pretty much everyone. Oftentimes reffered to as âgrenade spamâ.
I donât see this suggestion as beneficial to the game - it does not give players new ways to deal with obstacles in their way, it just forces 1 universal solution to everyone - explosives.
Why players shouldnât have a dietary/makeshift/silent approach to dealing with obstacles?
What about axis Berlin defenders, where logically all the explosives have been used by the more capable units already, and all they have left are under-equipped volkssturm-grade byproducts?
Youâre also going to say tough luck, losers! Explosive META is the way!?
Why tankers only? What makes them equipped to deal with engineer-built structures, that regular infantry canât?
I even remember some folks pointing out that digging a trench is actually a better way to stop (and even trapping) a tank, than hedgehogs.
The option to âremove silentlyâ would still be there, but only for engineers. Grenade spam is ALREADY an issue. This would actually cut down on it. By forcing enemies to use their grenades OUTSIDE the building/objective in order to get IN, they donât have as many grenades to spam inside the objective.
As far as âgiving new players ways to deal with thingsâ: new squads often are given one or two EPs, plus it only costs 1 silver order to get more. Tanks are often times given early on too, and can often destroy fortifications. The options are ALREADY THERE. Plus, what is the point of leveling through campaigns and earning better gear if new players are given all the same options as an advanced player?
I was pointing out that CURRENTLY tankers are allowed to destroy Hedgehogs for some reason. I believe they should NOT be allowed to. Again, only engineers should be allowed to deconstruct fortifications.
If this were to be implemented, Hedgehogs ideally would not be able to be placed indoors as well.
This means that they can then actually do their job, rather than be a joke.
This is another thing that needs to be looked at. Sadly it is currently true that digging a trench is VERY effective at stopping tanks. They do need to add a fortification that can be used to bridge across trenches, but that is a whole different discussion.
I played a LOT of Moscow, and I know what you are talking about. However, its usually only an issue when attackers are going out of their way to try to deconstruct fortifications, rather than using a field gun, tank, or EP. Especially in this campaign (Which sees a LOT of new players) even attackers could benefit from this change, as it would influence that gameplay to see more suppression fire rather than Blitzing infantry, which currently causes trouble for attackers. Other campaigns you will notice that defenders are usually on the losing side, because aircraft, tanks, and field guns all are more predominant.
So, itâs either choose an engineer or a bombâŚ
Otherwise, risk being bogged down.
I still find it weird that an average soldier wonât be able to deconstruct a simple wall of sandbags.
For barbed wire - canât he cut it with his knife, if pliers wonât be available?
In squad upgrades, engineer trooper slot has to be selected among 2 or 3 options. Obviously, in current meta, engineer is basically the most useful, so, Your suggestion wouldnât change much here⌠Heck, maybe radio operator could become a powerful counter to the overengineering, where it actually gets a new purposeâŚ
But, the new player may not be aware of the meta, and we might need an easier way to change the squad upgrade, without all that battle pass unlockingâŚ
The point of levelling would be - choice for advanced players to improve a certain option or 2, making them more effective in certain situations - for example, faster deconstruction/more powerful explosives/etc.
EDIT: I figured out that EP - Explosion pack. Well, what are the ways to deal fortifications for attacker, without causing noise, then (other than bringing an engineer of his own)?
They are very vulnerable when they are outside, though. If hedgehog forces them to come outside, they present themselves as easy targets, not to mention delaying their attack.
But if notâŚ
Then they have little reason to leave the tank. Thus, again, forcing lowly infantrymen to take the explosives/AT gunner squad upgrade to deal with this threat. Since, tankers will just stay inside and shell that hedgehog. 1 slot for AT gunner - 1 less slot for engineer.
Issue for who? Defenders? Or attackers?
I may be in favor of a slower-paced game, rather than the rush capture point we have now, and some elements You offered may be of use to achieve this, but there have to be more changes in different areas of the game to make it worthy.
For infantry, its choose an engineer, bomb, artillery, or flank. Vehicles still clear them up pretty quickly.
As far as barbed wire with a knife: have you ever actually had your hands on barbed wire? You definitely are NOT getting through it with a knife. MAYBE an axe to break the wooden pieces, but thats it.
Most people prefer to take assaulters and MGs in the current meta. Radio Operators are already plenty strong.
Again, I really donât think the game should be made easier for the sake of new players. They need to grind and progress just like everyone else. As far as your continued references to âquietlyâ taking down fortifications, I again say that the ONLY one that should be capable is an engineer.
If a tank parks behind an CH (Czech Hedgehog) I becomes increasingly difficult to land the solid hit needed to kill it from the front. Tankers only reason to leave the tank is for repairs, or to abandon if its too damaged. They do not carry the tools necessary to deconstruct the CHs.
If they fix it to where you still have to have line of sight do deconstruct, the only side it will hurt is the attackers. By forcing them to be in the open to deconstruct, rather than hiding behind a wall, they will be much more vulnerable to attacks, which is the whole point of the fortifications. To stall their progression forward long enough to be eliminated easier. If it is implemented, people will likely start to see that the alternatives like field gun, tank, etc have their merits. It would shake up the meta so that assaulters and MGs arenât the only viable attackers.
Flank is not always feasible - Moscow monastery invasion map, unless exploits are used, tends to really favor the defenders. Not to mention, most maps have fairly questionable map design, not really giving room for flanking moves.
Vehicles⌠Considering that free-to-play users have only 1 vehicle slot, itâs basically a choice between a plane and a tank, severly limiting the vehicular options.
Well, then how about letting infantry folks disassemble barbed wire when they have an axe? I could understand this option.
As for sandbags - what is Your opinion on them? Should they also be undisassembable for the average rifleman?
MGs⌠may be true for console users, but itâs too bulky on PC with mouse and keyboard on the offensive. Not to mention, folks have already complained about itâs ridiculous dispersion, especially on⌠$30grad.
Either way, Your suggestions would basically shift meta to the engineer, making it a must-have in pretty much all the situations (though, it already sort of is, for itâs ability to build rally points).
So, now we also need AT gunner and an engineer, as meta in our squads⌠sighâŚ
Maybe at this point just ask the devs to give every squad a free engineer slot?
Yeah, I know. I already agreed with this.
How exactly is this an issue that they âgo out of their wayâ to deconstruct these fortifications? The fortifications are doing their job in this case - they delay the attackers.
More vulnerable to the defenders responses.
No, I donât think the point of fortifications in this game is to create killzones for the defenders - it is to prolong the life of defenders and delay the attackers.
What You are suggesting is the creation of killzones.
I once pulled AT gun across the Maisky forestry map (basically from the main building and on to the starting zone of the train station) - and it probably was one of the reasons why we lost. ATs are too bulky to be used on the offensive effectivelly.
AT guns need to be more mobile for them to be worthwhile on the offensive.
There are in fact flank routes. They are even usually unguarded.
The current âmust-haveâ on PC are the assaulters. Most people only take engineers for rally points as you said. This is one of the reasons defenders get their teeth kicked in over 60% of the time. If engineers were more useful, people would start using them more for what their INTENDED purpose was. Letâs face it, in their current state, how many people would use them if you could put up a rally point with a different character?
Killzones are how defenses are effective! What slows the attackers down more? Stopping their path for a couple seconds? OR creating a killzone to repeatedly kill them off, force them to respawn, delaying them and bleeding their reinforcements? You can tell the difference between a âgoodâ defense and a âbadâ defense quite easily. If you are setting up fortifications only with the intent to stop the enemy moving forward at all, you are setting up a âbadâ defense. However, if you limit their movement, but leave choke points âopenâ, you can create effective killzones. This is a âgoodâ defense.
I donât see where you are getting the idea that an AT gunner is so necessary. Restricting paths with CH would lessen the need for additional AT gunners. AT mines would become more effective, and can be used by ALL infantry. In addition, if you use good pre-planning, you can force tanks into range for explosive packs, without exposing your infantry as badly.
Also, engineers wouldnât become meta like you are thinking, I guarantee it. Yes, people could opt to put an engineer in every squad, but how is that any different from them adding an assaulter to every squad? Explosives are still an option to breach defenses. Just because you canât âQuietlyâ breach them its a problem?
I still hold to my opinion that non-engineer infantry should NOT be able to dismantle them. Its not a question about realism, but rather about game balance on this part. Sandbags are necessary to block lines of sight, especially in windows. However, the option to add a windowed sandbag (which you can see in a lot of the prebuilt sandbag structures) is not available to us. If it were, I could MAYBE get behind infantry being able to tear them down. The reason for this specifically is that the area to hit targets in an open window is too high, therefore its blocked with sandbags. However, with only the solid sandbags available, it blocks the defenders view as well, allowing attackers to come directly up to it to break it down. It comes down to a question of sight line reduction, as well as effective distance of the defender.
My buddy is also noting to me as I chat with him about this: a sandbag wall is far more difficult to take down that perhaps you realize. With a large sandbag wall there is a lot of weight and friction to consider. Itâs not as simple as pulling one sandbag out and watching them fall. For infantry to remove it, they would need to start at the top, and even so it would actually take a LOT longer to break it down. So with realism added, the verdict appears to be that infantry would NOT be able to take down that wall in the heat of battle by hand.
Letâs just say it is debatable. I donât remember the exact names of maps, save for most of Moscow campaign ones, so Iâll leave the details and reasoning for later.
The reason is, that significant amount folks, take Shiivex or gastanofrizzi as examples, lean into the more usual (some would say casual) SMG spam tactics, focused on close quarters combat and point capture.
They arenât exactly âmust-haveâ, but they are convenient, and in Shiivexâs words:
FUN.
Keep this in mind for later.
As for myself, Iâm somewhat of a (a)historic fetishist, maybe even masochist at times. Letâs say that every soldier would be able to build a rally point. I suppose Your assumption that engineer would become less used is true. It is likelly, that the usage will shift mostly to their dedicated squads, where they can build AT and AA guns.
In some ways, this would even alleviate the problem that the older premium squads have - no engineer slot availability.
Defenders teeth kicked in is usually due to lack of players at least giving a minimal attempt at defending the objective, not due to lack of engineer use.
Bold statement. I am sure You are asking for the wrath of casual players and SMG users.
Do You remember what I said earlier? Iâll remind You: FUN.
You are going to murder or at least seriously compromise the enjoyment of the casual players with this.
Killzones are a sadomasochistic approach to the problem, possibly giving the defender unfair advantage.
Mate, let me remind You what I said earlier:
Very vulnerable when they are outside.
And thus, present an opportunity to defeat a tank, via eliminating itâs crew, without the need of AT gunner, explosive or an AT gun.
If You force tankers to remain inside, Youâre basically making hedgehogs lose that possibility of luring the (brawer than usual) tankers outside - meaning they are likelly going to simply attempt to destroy the CH with their main gun (it is an option even now, of course, but with disassembly the tankers can conserve ammo, not to mention about questionable feasibility of eliminating the CH for some tanks (take 20 mm - 37 mm gun tanks, like Panzer 2, T-60, Stuart and AB)).
Which means, that the squad with engineer cannot (try) to rely solely on engineerâs CH to defeat a tank, meaning they WILL have to take explosive/AT gunner to deal with the tank.
It may even worsen the tank greyzone camping with this.
Lastly - where is the chivalry option? As the tanks can be seen as the logical progression of noble cavalry, nobility with duel traditions and etc., I demand the chivalry option - En garde, you filthy peasants, who dared to annoy my steed!
I donât know, I donât use them.
Also, should they REALLY be usable by all infantry classes?
They sort of already are (looks at rally points).
Thanks for⌠reassuring, I guess.
If explosives would be re-fillable at ammo boxes, MAYBE - but even then, Youâre probably asking for grenade spam with this.
Sandbags on windows can be⌠somewhat of a bad thing - I am not sure that an attacker could even toss the explosive right at them, normally, it means that the explosive will fall to the ground, possibly failing to destroy the sandbag (as it is somewhat inside the building, and above ground).
At this point, even explosives will require finesse to use. As an attacker on invasions, it would make the game a chore.
Realistically, engineers shouldnât be able to build things that fast and in the heat of battle in the game as well.
Iâd say leave the capability to disassemble, for fairness sake.