OK I didn’t mean exactly realistic but I just want a viable barricade
I wouldn’t mind some kind of better version of sandbags with more HP for engineers III
But I really don’t want to see such cancerous things like this.
Majority of people are unable to put barbed wires properly so they’ll end up just sabotaging their own team.
I just want defenses that don’t fall in one second to hold the objective for at least 5 minutes or more if possible It’s almost impossible to hold the first objective in most matches
2 Likes
Lol, that’s lie. Better structures wouldn’t help bad defenders to hold off attackers. You still need to shoot them. All you have to do si be on objective and kill enemies. There’s plenty of indestructible environment that you can use as cover already.
These arguments just aren’t even valid. Defenders has infinite number of respawns. All you need is plenty of rally points close to objective (that’s why first objective is easily taken. Because as game starts, everyone spawns on objective and majority of people is too lazy to go build rally points. Instead of that, they are building irrelevant shtts on objetive).
And if yout team has rally points and they actually use them to rush to objective (you need actual bodies there to hold), not camping near of it and jsut farm kill. You’ll hold the objective pretty easily.
The biggest problem of this game is that majority of people are thinking that camping/surviving is better option, a better playstyle. But it isn’t.
You need to have very active gameplay in this game. Farming kills brings you nothing. Even with lot of kills, if you lose, you’ll not get 50% bonus for winning. That’s it.
Better structures would just support unhealthy mindset. This game just isn’t meant for camping, at least for now. All modes that we have now are designed for very active gameplay.
1 Like
I’m not asking to camp I’m asking the something to hold the defensive line on the objective so we’re not just blown to bits by just looking at the enemy we need something to take cover behind
2 Likes
Git gud
Most matches take about 20 minutes to complete, so an obstacle that can hold up for 5 minutes is pretty OP. Moreover, Tanktrap is already like that. I think the tactic that the engineers should enjoy is how and where to build and how to recover if it collapses.
Currently, attackers need a certain amount of teamwork when attacking a base fortified with obstacles.
For example, if a tank is going to blow up an obstacle, another infantryman needs to enter the CP quickly, and better anti-air defenses are needed for the tank to survive longer.
If a position indoors that tanks cannot enter is blocked by an obstacle, the infantry will remove it, but they need a other player to cover them by going to hold off resurgent defenders while they destroy the obstacle.
Therefore, the game should not be designed in such a way that a single building can withstand the attacks of several players.
1 Like
here
4 Likes
Very hot guy 10/10
Personally I think both engineer squads should get heavier defensive fortifications. As far as the difference between squad 1 & 2, the engineer 1 squad should get the current MG nest that is available, while the engineer 2 squad should get one with a sandbag window on it.
The fact that tankers are able to remove it themselves is an issue to me. I do not think tank traps should be allowed to be placed indoors, but I also think they should not be able to be removed without the use of an engineer.
While they may be QUICKER to place than other fortifications, they definitely are not difficult to destroy. Nearby explosions take them down all the time. I’ve seen rifleman squads with GL and pouches of frag grenades absolutely decimate sandbags and barbwire, not to mention they are simply allowed to break them down by hand too.
Let’s also not forget that the HMG nests and those on tanks destroy these fortifications instantly as well.
That’s pretty hard to do when you aren’t even given time to set up really.
I completely agree. What’s more is that defenders aren’t even given a heads up to where future objectives will be. The first objective is pretty much a guaranteed loss unless the entire enemy team is bots. At least being able to set up other objectives in advance would REALLY help gameplay.
To be completely fair, i don’t think keo has the one and only say about it. He may have his personal opinion that he voiced (it was my question that he responded to), but I doubt that the entire dev team is in agreeance with that. Keo’s job is to relay information back and forth to the playerbase. If he’s being selective and only passing on things that support his preferred playstyle, and not letting the devs know about voiced issues, then he is not doing his job correctly.
(Unless more of the dev team steps forward and says so, this is the stance I will hold on it.)
Hedgehogs leave your feet exposed, and actually CAN be destroyed by artillery and tanks. If a crater is formed below them, they break. Both artillery shells and tank HE shells can do this.
Exactly my point. HMGs, ampulomets, Field guns, etc can all be implemented by offense to great effect as is. Defensive structures from the engineer squad definitely needs a buff.
Even if someone did have both engineer squads equipped, there is still a maximum number of structures each player can build. On top of that, if a player is spending the time engineering, that is potentially one less enemy that the attackers have to contend with. I don’t think additional buffs for attackers are necessary.
People need to get the “camping” excuse out of here. Your ROLE as a DEFENDER is to protect an area from attackers. “Camping” or not, you are supposed to protect that location. Which means staying in that location.
Yes and no. Each player is limited on how many structures of each type they can have out at a time. The fortifications set up by a single player that has dedicated his time to setting them up can be neutralized by one other player dedicating his time to breaking them down. (Or if the attacking player utilizes the correct tools like a tank or artillery, those fortifications are dealt with using only 1/4 of the effort and time it took to set them up.)
The team’s utilization of the fortifications works both ways.
If there is more than one player dedicating their time to setting up fortifications, then yes, it will likely require teamwork to get through them. At that point, you should make some friends to play with, rather than running solo.
2 Likes
I want a larger caliber Anti-tank gun, at least 75MM caliber.
5 Likes
All i think needs fixed about engineers is that pak38 and 6pdr get changed to pak40 and 17pdr in normandy
I too would like access to a larger field gun (and I think its coming before long). However, it should be given to the AT squads as a unique structure, not to the engineers. The Engineers should be able to keep the current one.
2 Likes
I want 88s, 90mm 17 pounder, 100mms…soooo many AT guns
or Artillery with HEAT LOL…been playing too much Call to arms Gates of Hell
The engineering and AT teams may be merged.
The only difference between the two teams would be the number of AT soldiers and engineer soldiers.
Depending on the player’s tactics, the team’s capabilities can be modified by adding more AT soldiers or more engineers.
When constructing a strong obstacle or a huge gun, let’s say that one engineer will take a huge amount of time or will not have enough materials, and you will always need two or three engineers for construction.
This way, the player does not have to wonder whether to have the 88mm made by ATs or engineers.
I HIGHLY doubt that.
They have 2 different functions. Engineers are meant specifically to set up fortifications, while AT focuses on taking out tanks. They won’t merge them, I guarantee it.
1 Like