well i do know that, i always put down rally and fortify it little bit and maybe ammo/medic boxes but that’s it, i was talking about more complex structures such as hedgehochs, barbed wire trenches or even AT mines
The game is already balanced around this… perhaps even to where those that set up fortifications are still at a disadvantage due to the enemies’ capability of deconstructing structures without a cost.
From our experience, CURRENTLY if a defending team attempts to hold an objective with no fortifications up, they are going to lose that point. Trying to put down fortifications on an ACTIVE objective tends to lead to bad defenses, and again, usually going to lose the point.
What is frustrating though, is about 75% of the time that I set up a location in advance, it goes to the other location. If this is done intentionally, I don’t know, but it sure feels like it.
I really don’t think so. As I said, most players don’t care about fortifying.
-
Between 1-3 players at most will.
-
Currently, attackers have tons of options to break through defenses. From breaking things down by hand for no cost (which I truly think needs to be changed), a multitude of explosive ordinance, and even making use of tanks to break through fortified lines of wire and sandbags. It would give them more reason to leave the greyzone.
-
All too often, when an objective falls, the defenders are left stranded at the old objective, and by the time they die, they can’t spawn directly on the new objective, leaving a MASSIVE gap in defending forces. Being able to set up a solid defense can buy defenders time to get into an area to fight, without the objective already being half way captured.
-
With things like flamethrowers being in the game, the only way to really stop them is through the use of defenses. All it takes is one open window and one flamethrower (or even WP/ molotovs), and the defending team is cooked. It would provide a much higher chance of survival against a squad type that many players run 2 squads of, therefore is constantly coming at the objective.
-
Please note that the highest number of deserting players that I see is always games where DEFENSE is a factor. Either Defense on invasion, destruction, assault, or confrontation as a whole. It’s because in its current state, its really just not fun going into a game that you are forced to hold objectives without having a chance to really give yourself an advantage through fortifying. Player Enthusiasm drops significantly just being on defense.
try to place rally points all around the capture points, one on left flank, one on right flank and one on rear, its very strong and i’ve won many games without losing a single point by placing rally on side not on rear.
but if this becomes a thing, they will, just prepare for AP landmines covering entire point.
this is a lot
dude… you know how hard would it be for attackers to attack a fortified point without being able to deconstruct fortifications? it already slows me down a lot when going through such defences
how was the point lost if defenders are there? and cant they just run back?
no, its not the only way; snipers, machinegunners and engineers with mg nests will make short work of them if positioned properly and ordinary troopers stand a chance too if they are armed with grenades
bots should pay more attention when flametrooper is detected.
i tought its on the team i fight against lmfao
you are just not doing it properly, i stopped an entire enemy team with only a mg nest, one barbed wire and a landmine from taking even the first point… i ended up with ~60 kills and 0 deaths
i imagine that with “fortifying” you mean placing sandbags and barbed wires literary everywhere… try a diffrent approach - time is a valuable resource
1 Like
Can I just say if you stopped an entire team with a single MG nest and a land mine, they were certainly doing ALOT wrong.
HE shells, bombs, TNT mines, using a tank to flatten them, etc. There are actually a lot of options out there.
Its usually lost in these situations because the point is much larger than it should be, allowing attackers to cluster up outside without actually getting into the building. When you try to come around the corner to clear them out, you get snapshotted into oblivion.
As far as running back, not really. They either are trying to fight the incoming enemies or die just outside of the time that you can spawn directly on the next objective, forcing them to spawn behind the next objective. We have also been frequently running into attackers that are lined up at our greyzone and the second the objective changes, they are making a mad sprint for it, often getting there before we even can.
The higher tier flamethrowers have ridiculous range and the fire burns through walls right now (as a bug), meaning if they basically point it at a building and pull the trigger, especially if it goes through a window, the whole building gets cleared out. The ONLY way we have been able to deal with them is getting barbwire out front to slow them down so we can pick them off.
Yeah that’s what happens when you play against solid bots. When you play against actually players, its very different.
No, not everywhere. I set trenches for my wire so that its harder to destroy and harder to avoid.
Czech hedgehogs and AT mines at key locations to take out tanks before they are a major issue.
Sandbags with shooting platforms in windows and an ammo box next to them.
MG nests with sandbags on the sides (depending on location) to give it more resilience.
MG nests watching over the area with trenched wire to quickly clean up advancing forces there.
AP mines on hard to cover flanks.
I know exactly what I am doing, and can do it efficiently, IF I know where it is going to go next.
it could simply be too easy to exploit barbed wires if people couldnt destroy them manually… it still takes a relatively lot of time though
There. Spot on!
By rewarding players for their battle performance, rather than for battle outcome, would give players no reason to quit matches and no reason to complain about team Ballance.
The player progression should be based on individual performance and not on the team win/loose
most of player frustration comes from team balance.
Limiting matches to weapon type as in war thunder, will make weapons on the battlefield be on same level but it will not make all players be on same level at all.
I can just equip my squadrons with mosins and knifes, and dedicate my time to sending new players bitch on this forum about balance just the same.
If you’re taking the game in a direction where I will be using winter uniform in a Pacific island or short sleeve and shorts in the Russian winter, at least make it as an optional campaign .
Even war thunder has an option for semi realistic historical battles.
Still allow engineers to take them down. Most people have at least one engineer in a squad, this gives them more reason to protect that soldier.
and if engineer gets taken out? most squads will only have 1 and you can stop an entire offensive by killing some engineers…
imagine soldiers going like “oh, right, im not an engineer, i guess i cannot knock down this pile of sandbags” or “darn, im gonna need advanced combat engineer training to cut this barbed wire…”
1 Like
Considering that most soldiers didn’t actually carry the tools with them to do so, they wouldn’t be able to cut wire, take down czech hedgehogs, etc. As far as sandbags go, have you ever actually tried to push over a wall of sandbags? There is a reason they are used not just for combat, but also to protect in cases of hurricanes and tornados. A soldier isn’t going to be able to just “push them over”.
of course not, and this is why it takes time to deconstruct
okay, but should they be given, they would probably all know how to do it without any training (surely, slower, but this is already a thing in this game) but in this case, ability to deconstruct shouldnt be limited to engineers, but soldiers that carry the right equipment…
and should the only guy carrying bolt cutters die, other soldiers should be able to pick them up, which is not a thing in this game right now, so its a no
cmon, there are other things that have to be done for your suggestion to even be considerable and should have higher priority right now.
rebalancing engineers, as well as game mechanics for defense SHOULD be high priority, as a lot of other balancing would ride on the changes