In the current state of things, where there usually isn’t a whole lot of restriction to movement (which again is because many engineers have given up at this point) SMG wielding assaulters have basically free reign. That’s why they are so “fun to use”. However, that also means that they cut everyone else down rapidly, decreasing THEIR fun. So a counter that reduces the mobility of these Blitz style infantry can increase the fun of the less mobile types.
I’ve had plenty of games where the defenders team was full, with almost everyone on the objective, yet the attackers with half as many players can absolutely wreck. Why? Because none of the defenders fortifications could live long enough to keep the defenders alive! Tank, MG, and sniper fire coming through the front. Sandbags put in place to block that from happening. It started to help until the infantry ran up and broke it down. In addition, many times they deconstruct a window sandbag, and toss a single grenade in to take out a ton of people inside. My point being is that its not because of a “lack of players” but rather because there is no game-altering advantage they have as defenders. Attackers have the advantage as the defensive point will always require attention from the defenders. Attackers can freely move through the flanks to attack those on the objective, and eventually behind the objective, giving easy captures.
How is it not already compromising the enjoyment of the defenders? In its current state, it is a KILLZONE against defenders. They are forced to hold an area they did not chose, against an attacker that is free to move around the sides. Their only saving grace is defenses, that in their current state, cannot hold up against what is being brought against them.
What you are saying is that someone should have to sit near this location and baby it in case someone comes through. My whole point is that if they are not allowed to remove the CH themselves, they will either have to go through an area that is mined, or it forces them through a choke point that is easier to maintain without dedication a squad to that specific location. Enough people carry explosive packs that if tanks come through high-traffic areas (which is a large part of what I’m saying) they will be taken out easier, or at least be exposed to enemy fire in a way that they otherwise would not be.
Anti-Personal and Anti-Tank mines are available to all infantry classes via the mine slot currently. Limit is one per person. Most people don’t use mines because the amount of space that is available for enemies to use. I’m talking first regarding the tanks. If CH were no longer able to be broken down by the tankers, it would force them to follow alternative routes. This significantly cuts down the number of possible paths for tanks to take, meaning AT mines can now be placed and used more accurately. This gives a good solution to squads not always having access to longer range AT options. If planning is used properly, and tanks aren’t allowed to clear CH on their own, AT defenses are significantly stronger.
Following up on the mines conversation, and to tie it in with the topic at hand: If enemies see barbwire and other fortifications impeding their path, they may opt to chose an alternative path. Mining a seemingly open area can be a very effective way of eliminating dangerous infantry (flamethrowers, assaulters, etc). However, currently they are allowed to go through most barbwire and such with ease by simply deconstructing it, usually while behind cover. Meaning they usually have no reason to try to push flank routes, where mines are extremely powerful.
