Toolkits to "Deconstruct" Enemy Fortifications, and it's effect on mine usage, plus Bangalore Torpedos

Suggestions
1

I know its a long post, but please read ALL of it before passing judgement on the suggestion!

A lot of us can agree that currently, Defense is ridiculously difficult to play in a way that is strategic. It has mostly boiled down to needing to play offense against attackers just to have a chance.

A large contributing factor to this is that fortifications become too easy to bypass (on top of barely having a chance to put them up to begin with, unless you pull back from the front line and try to set up in advance).
Between Artillery, Aircraft bombs and rockets, and Tanks alone, all fortifications other than Czech Hedgehogs get annihilated. That’s bad enough.

Now the part that is the issue is that it requires engineers to build the fortifications, but ANY type of soldier is free to break them down at ultimately no cost (time does not count as it took time to build it too!), and without any special tools.

My suggestion includes multiple parts that all need to be applied to make the intended difference.

- Step 1
Make fortifications either immune or highly resistant to fragmentation damage. Large direct blasts or tools should be needed to break through fortifications.

- Step 2
Make “Deconstruction” of fortifications only available to Engineers or Soldiers carrying Toolkit Consumables.
The new tank repair system already works with a similar system of “charges” per toolkit. Each toolkit has 8 charges which can be used to repair the vehicle, so using it in the capacity if breaking fortifications could be similar.

    • Essentially each toolkit would have 8 charges to break down fortifications. Some fortifications would take more than others to break down in this manner.
      • Barbwire = 1 charge
      • Ammo boxes = 1 charge
      • Sandbag walls = 2 charges
      • Czech Hedgehogs = 4 charges
      • AT field guns, AA, and HMG = 8 charges

- Step 3
While deconstructing fortifications is an option, you can still use TNT to blast through! Additionally, Bangalore Torpedos should be added as a mine slot.

    • Using this mine would place a tube on the ground, in the direction you are facing. Its reach would be about 4m each piece.*
    • Additional Bangalore tubes from additional characters could be added to the original to give it more reach. This can even be done while around a corner or in a trench (with the tube on the ground above).
    • Upon reaching the desired length, the player can then use the explosive to clear away fortifications at the other end.
      • Just like other mines, the tube will not be destroyed upon death. It will only disappear when used or otherwise destroyed by enemy players.

- Step 4
Certain restrictions would be implemented for fortifications. in order to avoid spam or exploits.

    • Czech Hedgehogs would not be allowed indoors
    • Excessive barbwire piled together (to many within x distance of each other) would not be allowed, in order to prevent massive piles of wire INSIDE of objectives.

Potential Results that could be seen from these changes.

  • Defenders having a chance to actually build meaningful fortifications from which to defend is the most obvious result.

  • Needing certain items or characters to deal with fortifications will help to deter players from “one man army” type moments, especially when it comes to flamethrowers. No longer would they be able to push through as easily by themselves, making players need to play more strategically to move them into a viable position.

  • By requiring a toolkit, it will cause more players to equip the backpacks so they can have both the toolkit AND medkit(s). By doing so, it helps to reduce the spam of grenade pouches, helping to bring better balance between the 3 backpack/pouches options.

  • By putting more emphasis into the usage of TNT (and Bangalore Torpedos if they are added), less people will be carrying AP mines. Which has been a cause for concern for many people as discussed on the forums.

  • By reducing or negating the damage done by fragmentation damage, not only are the fortifications more durable, but they will also help to better protect against explosions that would have otherwise killed them easily, providing defense against explosions unless direct hit. This includes things like artillery, aircraft, and tanks.

  • By increasing their effectiveness against tank shells, it will be less effective for tanks to sit back and continuously shell an area, meaning a reduced effectiveness for tanks just sitting back in the greyzone.

  • By being harder to push through, tactics that have currently fallen by the wayside could see a resurgence, things like digging foxholes and trenches, and using smoke.

  • If toolkits are present in a character’s inventory, they are can still use that toolkit to assist in the repair of friendly tanks (which actually gives a lot of points), making it potentially more worthwhile for tanks and infantry to work together to push the objective.

  • Tanks can still break through the fortifications upon contact, so if adequate points are given to tanks for breaking enemy fortifications, they are more likely to help push through the defenses, getting them to leave the back of the map.

Feel free to link this post when discussing balance changes for defenders!

@Greyparrots , @VoyoMayPL , @Lisqs , @ErikaKalkbrenner , @EdVanSchleck , you guys have been pretty decent about being able hold good conversations about balance of things like this. I’m curious to hear your thoughts on it.

7 Likes
2

Half the stuff in here when it comes to defenders is pointless with how fast pace this game is the enemies are not gonna let you fortify the objective or go outside and actually put defenses in front and we also need stackable sandbags back and maybe barricading windows so we can shoot through them and stop people from hopping through them.

So overall the pace of the game needs to change before we can actually have any realistic defenses or letting us know where the next objective will be.

3

as i said before, and as i’ll keep saying it,

defense is the easiest to play.

because you’re effectively an attacker with no tickets.

personally, i’m against tool kits to deconstruct enemy fortifications.

because the fortifications are needed to slow down the attackers and slighlty aid defenders to make cover where there isn’t, or obstruct path of tanks and infantry.

i’m more in line with the Lead game designer Sergey where he dislikes engineers as a whole.

( but i believe for different reasons )

they are too arcady and personally, more in line as sim city where they can construct everything out of thin air.

the game is now only around engineers and personally pretty dislike that in quite all honesty.

not to mention, the game is often fast pased to place defenses and what not. let alone the AI having to reliably overcome such obstacles.

that, is my general idea.

marathon of why and how in depth i dislike each points

seems a bit unecessive considering that they are only supposed to work as cover and deny access to things.

so… essentially Engyfield.

engineers will be pretty much needed to do bloody anything and evolve the whole gameplay around it.

that’s a hard pass from me.

because you are shifting the meta and force even more players to play things in particular / specific more than they already have to ( due to bp, challenges, grind etc ) effectively cutting out most of it.

and you would make even more op defenders than they already are.

this, would greatly contrast what i just said.

which it’s good.

but at the same time, you seem forgetting that… free to players will suffer even more because of only 3 slots.

first slots will be used for attackers, second for defenders, and good luck with the third in making a reliable line up for all situations. ( since… unfortunately team play is a lost cause )

if matters though,

i’m on board with:

they… don’t really need those though.

their job is to kill as many attackers in any way as possible.

fortifications only slighlty aid in doing that. but it should’t be the meta and make the already difficult jof of assaulters to overcome defenders even harder.

mostly because as said, defenders have elements of surprise to their advantage ( they don’t have to be on the objective. at least, not everyone )

they have infinite tickets ( hence somewhat making attackers on their toes on wasting lives and going around to avoid casualties )

and so on.

well, considering the last adjustement, i’d say that is no longer the case as they are much slower than they used to.

except it will not.

because you’d just carry tnts and even more grenades since most likely defenses will be palced left and right to potentially even let teammates block their own allies.

and will be bunched up in the same square objective.

speaking of, i forgot to mention an essential problem.

you have no idea how many times some annoying useless teammates build in the most random and self team damaging certain fortification. ( literally placing barbwire from where the ally should cross and place sandbags to windows facing the ally spawn )

loosing the ability to destroy them on my own it’s both frustrating and even worse as bad actors and noobs outright make actively it’s own team lose and sabotage the team. trolls would even sky rocket as you just made their life easier. it’s just too risky to be of any good.

to be fair, a mine detector or… actually opening your eyes when walking to objectives would greaty help.

or even fixing mines from blowing up to grenades would be a good solutions too.

since they don’t… you can use 300 explosives and those will not go off.

that’s just wishfull thinking i’m afraid.

again, i’m not here to discredit your vision or points.

but reality is often different from envisions.

let me tell you.

no one, uses smokes. outside me.

and expecting to do the same from teammates, it will never happen.

in 3 years, i haven’t seen anyone using smoke artilleries once.

both from the enemies, or the allies.

smokes grenade somewhat. and mortar smoke round much less.

that already happens.

but… i could be the only one running with toolboxes on my engineers already.

anyway. those are my cents.

4

playing defense is the easiest because, for example, if both the attacker and defender are not fighting for CP, the defenders will win anyway. There’s so much of clueless players in the game don’t get me even started. Buffing the defense can only exaggerate this problem, I think your suggestion is good, you would just need to buff the attackers in some way first. my favorite way would be, for example, a buff for defenders, their fortifications, positions, and buff for attackers, e.g. a larger number of them, regardless of whether they are bots or players. this could simulate RL conditions in which you do not attack another target that is similarly strong to you. but idk.

For me, this would be a good path since I would like the attack and defense to be more diversified and use different tools, but I don’t know if this is a design that developers can bear.

after all enlisted is still a mindless shooter is it?

5

Resonable

Too harsh. Make it possible but 1.5-2 times slower for non engineer classes.
Though I’m afraid it may make engineers or explosives too meta.

Resonable

Resonable

6

First and foremost I would like to address this. Please Note that the suggestion was to make ENEMIES unable to break down fortifications without tools. You can still break down friendly ones in order to prevent toxic teamkilling and sabotage.

Stop and think for a moment though: TNT is a single use. Meaning that if fortifications are actually properly spaced out (like barbwire out in FRONT of the objective rather than in the front door) then those TNT may get you past one line of defense, but not more than that, plus it requires you to push in close to use, AND back off to safety to detonate. Which ultimately gives a lot more opportunity for defenders to counter.

From my experience, and everyone that I’ve talked to in order to help refine this suggestion before posting, that is NOT the case at all!

Usually attackers are utilizing Paratroopers, APCs, and constant artillery barrages to keep the defenders from being able to do really anything at all.
Additionally, its not uncommon to see the first objective fall within the first 2 minutes of the game, and objectives 2 and 3 get rushed before defenders can even get to them!!!
So by the time you get to objective 4, the enemy still has 800-900 tickets!!!

If they are no longer getting the sheer number of kills (and therefore points) from sitting back like that, then a lot of them will either push forward, or not try to continue with that method.
I’m not saying ALL of them will change, but at least 50% I’d be willing to bet would.

I use them a bit, as does my team.

The reason they aren’t really used though is because it is already too easy to push WITHOUT using it. This suggestion would greatly help with that.

Think about it for a minute, if attackers are no longer able to push right into the objective, and were instead being held at a medium range engagement, unable to push directly through the front or side due to wire (that they actually need to get close to in order to get rid of) there is a decent possiblity they will use smoke to cover while they get in and break through that wire.

I asked about 30 players if they used toolkits on any troops other than tankers currently. Only 2 people carry them on a couple of troops.

2 Likes
7

The suggestion actually benefits MORE than just defenders!

Defenders may get more use out of it, due to them being in the position where it’s their turf being actively attacked, but attackers actually get benefits as well:

This part would also significantly help attackers too! Especially in the case of sandbag walls. Attackers would now be able reinforce forward positions as to be less easy to be taken out by explosives.

Think about it this way:
If as an attacker you take a moment to dig a foxhole, and put some sandbags around its edges, then it is a whole lot harder for your enemies to fire one shot or drop artillery and instantly wipe out your whole squad. You could prevent losing a large number of troops by utilizing this.

That is only if that is what feedback the developers receive! We’ve seen them take a lot of player feedback into account for changes; HMGs, APCs, Paratroopers, Shotguns for engineers, and plenty more were all player suggestions that got support.

So rather than just automatically assuming your voice is not heard, keep up the conversation. They do listen, and the game ultimately changes according to the feedback they receive.

1 Like
8

The reason that I suggest this over just the time consideration is that it comes down to resource management, loadout selection balance, and ultimately the viability of the different options.

Look at the state of things currently.

  • Grenade pouches and ammo pouches are taken far more than backpacks ever are. Leading to an overabundance of these resources on the battlefield, causing balancing issues in many different cases.

By making the toolkits necessary for a non-engineer soldier to break through, players now would need to decide what is worth carrying on their soldiers, rather than just falling into a default of meta spam. It would cause players to diversify their equipment, work with teammates, OR face the consequences of just spamming one strategy when they are no longer able to push in from any angle they choose!

Without requiring toolkits, you wouldn’t be changing the prioritization factor. Players would still be able to easily order their AI to break something down, have it down in a matter of seconds, and then continue on.

The whole point of this part of the suggestion is to make it harder for infantry to easily push through defenses. Which is still extremely easy unless it comes at an ACTUAL cost. Time is NOT ENOUGH of a cost.

1 Like
9

i am well aware.

i dont see why i have to sacrifice my own equipment to carry the burdens of mistakes of others.

except i was more talking about the fact that players will not reduce grenade spam and much less using / taking backpack in the first place.

youre just making the whole process more tideous for the attackers more than it already is by forcing them to carry and have individual team for assaults and defense.

which… only premium units with at least 2 additional slots of infantry can ever overcome.

even funnier if we consider the train mode where they would become pointless and just a burden.

that’s a massive skill issue.

and i do not say that lightly.

because legit:

attackers has to:

  • place rallies

  • check flanks

  • be weary of ambush from enemy tanks while being in a tank or on foot too

  • be weary of enemy suicide planes

  • be weary of the enemy rally points

  • unknown enemies around and inside the point.

  • has to be always on the move

  • avoid casualties in any way as possible

  • sometimes even if you cap a point, you get 100 reinforcements.

defenders on the other hand can:

  • ambush easily attackers because of the coinceil position. and just deal with tanks

  • suicide bomb or spam vehicles with no repercussions

  • don’t have to worry about tickets

  • literally can assault their own except toward the enemy spawn

  • occasionally wipe the attacker rally point.

  • knows where the attackers are coming from

  • place fortification to slow down attackers

if you ask me, the task of a defender are way easier than ones of the attacker.
especially since they don’t have tickets.

the only reason why people lose defence, it’s because of teammates.
or… attackers have a stack.

otherwise, it always come down to defenders having more advantages than attackers.

paratroopers since the adjustement are much slower to land, and easier to intercept and kill mid air.

not to mention, so defenders can use them too the same way or even better by respawning as ground unit ( usually, the 100round allies can do some work even without crate )

that has more to do with the map design.

for example, berlin opera, pacific guardalcanal and stalingrad.

where there are literally 3 / 2 objectives in the radious of 200 meters.

but at the same time, when the point has changed, and there are still defenders on the previous point, that’s on them for not retreating.

not for the attackers to actually push the next objective.

literally, one of the few advantages of attackers that it’s more of a window, is to be relentless and push as fast as you can. otherwise you get bogged down by defenders.

most of the time by the attackers reach the 4 th objective, tickets gain is pitifull.

normandy is quite the example.

you capture a point with trilions of death caused by cas and tanks, and you get slapped with 100 reinforcements.

it seems to me you are complaining about the game not letting you time to build your little castle when in reality it’s the player who are the most clueless and still are trying to decide what to do when in defense.

defense is, and i still stand by it, the most easy thing in enlisted.
yet people fails at it.

but the game gives enough advantages to the defenders.

that’s quite an exagerated number

the point was, no one used them, and with this, no one will use them either.

you can spoon feed all you want, people will just be the same as before doing the same thing despite not working

( to then complain about the game rather than themselves )

they will either leave entirely, or get stucked untill the end of the match.

you’d be surprised.

and… you expect all of a sudden all of those 30 players to carry more?

again, that’s wishfull thinking.

something that will not change because you made defense stronger.

you just created and extended problems that were somewhat present before.

10

:-1:

People rarely build rally points, not everyone has engineers in their squads (and if has then only one), so this will paralyze the game.

11

I run on most toons, always have
Only recently i gave AT gren pouch, instead of tools,

never seen this
Same as above reply

And for staying on topic
Don’t need tools, you have a J button.

1 Like
12

Its called diversifying loadouts and working as a team. Its TRULY sad to see that so many players are incapable of working as a team anymore. I remember back in the days of BF3 & BF4 that players that had never met each other before were easily capable of coming together and using teamwork.

From a game balance standpoint, the entirety of the suggestions is to help balance the game in such a way that it doesn’t follow the exact same path that Battlefield 2042 shot itself in the foot with, which is turning the entire game into a run-and-gun crapshoot based strictly on solo balancing. The exact same issue that we have been dealing with on here for at least the last year.

The game needs to push game mechanics and balancing toward teamwork and strategy, not just making it easier for every solo player to spam the same thing over and over again because it was made to be game-breakingly overpowered.

They will if the method that they were using previously is simply not valid in the event of someone actually taking the time to fortify. If no fortifications are present, their method still works!

I ask you this:
How often do you actually see fortifications being used by Defenders?
Now how often do you see defenders using fortifications on the border of, or in front of the objective?

You say that defending is so easy, especially because they don’t have to worry about tickets.
The game needs COUNTERS to each type of gameplay, rather than just continually dumping more and more things in of the same type (which is offensive gameplay).

My overall questions to you are this though:

  • Why label it as offense and defense if its just going to be offensive gameplay from both sides?

  • If defense did not have infinite tickets, how would that play out?

  • If defenders were not allowed to push as far out, do you think it would help game balance?

    • Does pushing through a fortified position and trying to come out on top not sound more entertaining than just another run-and-gun game like CoD?
1 Like
13

The point is to work on diversifying squads and loadouts. It doesn’t make it a REQUIREMENT that you have an engineer, or even a guy with a toolkit, to play overall.

It does however make them necessary if you intend to push through the fortifications without the use of high powered explosives.

You still have the option to try to flank, or find a route that isn’t fortified, or use teamwork to try to get through.

It should work as an incentive to use more than just a single type of squad or tactic. If players see that the tactic they were spamming prior is no longer working, they will be inclined to diversify in order to successfully push through.

There is a time and place for rush tactics gameplay, but it should not be the only tactic used.

1 Like
14

it’s called actively self sabotaging your own performance in vain hope of finding decent teammates.

true.

but to be fair, what can you do.

almost all free to play games are like this because young people have access to those, others simply don’t care, and many others reasons.

you can’t just relay on teamwork.

problems of that games are not even in sight with this one thank god.

but… bf always have been a gun and run.

problems were in the lacking features and hero shooter with unispiring operators.

your suggestion doesn’t help the balance.
only makes it worse.

well. as much i’d agree, you’d have better chance in doing that through mods rather than attempt to change the base game.

after all, it’s part of the business model.

you are incentivize and get rewarded for soloing the whole enemy team.

and if you don’t, make a stack.

not at all.

you would still bring some explosives, perhaps change one tnt or few, and keep spamming the point.

at least, if i’d be a gloryhound of meta that’s what i would do.

either that, or run 3 squad engies plus the additional one with AR that is about to come.

not really that different as you would think.

everyday.

low tier, high tier.

they do what they are supposed to do.

even though, believe it or not, i’m an engineer my self.
i do place ammo regularly ( just for me… even if i try to be a team player. love medics too ), rally points, barbwire and even sandbags on few occasions.
but… not sure if that counts. as it goes for my opponents, they do quite alot too.

regularly?

unless it’s a rofl stomp.

that’s precisely how it works lol.

defenders are just attackers but better because have no consequences.

what sort of question is this one?

i mean, they could call it team a and team b.
it wouldn’t make a difference if the team that has defenses can just attack the other team and prevent them from ever reaching the point by just spamming stuff and no fucks given about how many times they die.
they’ll just keep doing it.

that’s a good question.

it would turn out to be a war of campers or who dumps more bodies first.

nope.

no.

neither does gun and run cod version.

the gun and run cod version happens because the game is kinda too fast with movements and if you don’t move fast, you get cutted out by endless defenders lives.

what would balance it, would be higher respawn times for said defenders.

avoid spam, and… i guess good luck.

which i’ll be the first one to admit that it’s far from being perfect or ideal too.

15

You can design game balance around working together as a team!

There are tons of options to be able to group up with other players. Both built into the game and otherwise. There are a LOT of gamers out there that are looking for a game they can play with their friends, where working as a team is a lot more gratifying than everyone just playing by themselves, for themselves.

I met some of my best friends through playing games with teamwork based play. Friends that I’ve had for 5-10 years now. There are plenty of players like that around, they just need to be drawn in with a game that rewards it, and doesn’t promote toxic solo players.

BF4 wasn’t strictly run and gun. A lot of the really intense moments were from players that were set up in smart positions, using equipment that was better for defense than offense, and incentives for synergies and teamwork among players. Vehicles are the most obvious ones but even anti-tank squads where there was a spotter, a support player providing ammo and other support, and one or two guys using launchers to take down anything coming through.

Its teamwork like that which would really help this game to shine. It has the potential to do so, but it needs more push in the direction of synergizing with other players. Which is why I push for diversification of loadouts and working together with your team.

Everyone taking up the mentality of “that’s not my job, someone else should do it”, but not effectively coordinating that with the team is what screws entire games.

I assure you, if you take the initiative to be the player that does that task a couple times, or even thanks another player for doing so, you will quickly find players that actually want to team up.

1 Like
16

Personally I think it is very restrictive, I like many points, but I think others would be solved if the defenders had manpower, maybe less than attackers (@Conscript_Joe like ro2)

1 Like
17

Add TNT Satchel charges instead of just a slice of TNT and we are good.

18

In general, I dislike this idea. It wouldn’t be too horrid if limited to hedgehogs, AT guns, AA guns and HMG.

There’s no reason at all to limit destruction of wire, ammo box or sandbags. It would be potentially game changing (in a very bad way) and has no logical basis. Many soldiers in WWII were issued wire cutters - not just Engineers.

Why? I mean, probably no hedgehogs were built in small houses IRL, but it seems a trivial thing to want changed. Why not prioritize development time on more important matters?

What’s wrong with lots of wire? Don’t get me wrong - I hate it - but it’s not like it’s completely and totally unrealistic. Wouldn’t a better solution be to just limit the amount of those structures that engineers can build? I still don’t think it’s necessary.

This is not the best way to solve the overuse of grenade pouches if the devs even feel that is a problem.

Again, this is not the best way to solve the overuse of AP mines (in your opinion). I don’t want to use TNT. You’re welcome to use TNT all you like.

We’ll start using smoke again when they make it useful as it was in the past. Spend dev time on that! I do NOT want to dig trenches or I’d go buy Farm Simulator.

19

Could you explain what you mean better?

That is, to some degree, the point.

There seems to be a recurring issue when it comes to balancing that the run of the mill infantry (like assaulters, riflemen, etc) are being given the ability to deal with things that SHOULD present a challenge and require certain counters to deal with.

This suggestion is only one of the issues like this. Another very good example is the explosive packs. Knowing as much as you do about the game and its playerbase, let me ask you this:

  • In terms of infantry killing tanks, how much more often are explosive packs used than AT weaponry?
  • From my experience, about 2/3s of players carry explosive packs and only 1/10 carry and use AT weaponry.

The explosive packs are essentially just a way for players to not have to use AT equipment or soldiers specifically designed to deal with tanks.
We can clearly see the effect that this has had on the game, as majority of tanks no longer even attempt to push up with their infantry, instead hanging back in the greyzone, which then causes another whole host of issues.

How does this relate to the topic at hand you might ask?

Because I see the exact same type of mistake being made when it comes to engineer fortifications and how players deal with them.

It is far too easy currently for basic infantry to push right through something that appears to be in the game for the specific purpose of countering those same infantry, with little to no cost.

Barbwire for example should be capable of being used with decent efficiency outside of just being tightly stacked in the objective. Look at the map design for example, there are plenty of locations where wire built into the map, (but unfortunately is generally not very useful due to odd boundaries of greyzones in correlation to objectives), and are spread across an area rather than just a solid pit like what players currently create.

If it weren’t so easy for any type of soldier to destroy, we would actually see lines of it outside of the objective be useful in slowing down incoming infantry or creating killzones. However, in the current state, its a miracle if its not obliterated by artillery (that isn’t even targeted on it mind you, thanks to the wide spread fragmentation damage), but even if it manages to survive that, soldiers are able to just be remotely close to it and break it down, at no cost.

So the fortification that is specifically there to be a hazard for them is now gone with no cost at all to them.

Same kind of concept with majority of the other fortifications. They should present a challenge to enemies and require specific counters, rather than run-and-gun infantry be given yet another pass on something that should require a strategic approach.

If you want to bring up “the speed of the game”, I would like to point out that speed is what is leading to a lot of issues, like paratroopers dropping into the next cap and taking it before defenders have a chance to move back.
The speed of the game could afford to be slowed down a bit, to bring in more strategic elements, rather than just trying to entice run-and-gun players that got bored with other games of that exact same type.

1 Like
20

The point overall is that fortifications should be viable enough to withstand pressure from attacking forces.
Hedgehogs indoors likely wouldn’t even occur if sandbag walls actually stopped enemies from being able to access windows and such effectively.

Similarly is barbwire, it shouldn’t need to be stacked in bulk inside of the objective, if it was capable of withstanding pressure outdoors.

Overall, the issue here is that the entirety of the fight is taking place on the objective, and very little if any is occurring out in front of the objective, where it should be. The point of fortifying is to thin out their forces on the way into the objective, and then defenders being able to deal with those that get through in a favorable manner.

Historically, look at the major offenses during the war. D-Day is a prime example. Did the Germans let the Americans go straight to the bunkers and only really fight in close quarters? NO!

Defenses were set up so that the Americans would have to try to cross the beach which was being targeted by TONS of machinegun fire, barbwire was set up between the bunkers and the beach,

and in the case of D-Day, they had wire cutters, yet they still opted to use bangalore torpedos to punch through it, because it presented enough of an obstacle that basic methods wouldn’t get the job done.

During D-Day the largest amount of casualties were on the beach. Not in the trenches, not in the bunkers, but in the middle ground between where the attacking force was deployed, and their objective which in the first stage of the attack was the bunkers.

Within the game, if the sandbags and barbwire presented a viable defense against infantry, we would see a huge shift in gameplay for the better.

1 Like