Overhaul to Engineer DEFENSIVE Structures

Suggestions
1

It has been requested a few times recently, as well as quite a lot in the past, to buff the resistance and durability of *Engineer’s Defensive structures (Barbwire, Sandbag walls, and Czech Hedgehogs).

One of the most frequent counterarguments is that especially in the case of barbwire, that it is “too spammable”.

Rather than implementing bits and pieces of this suggestion, for it to actually be balanced and work the whole thing needs to be implemented.

PLEASE NOTE:
This suggestion includes both buffs and nerfs to not just fortifications, but also soldiers as well. I know that some players are completely against dynamic fortification as a whole, but I remind you that it is one of the selling points of the game, and this is NOT CoD.

Fortification Blast Resistance:
First off I would like to note that currently, defensive fortifications are constantly getting decimated by artillery fire and bombs (among other explosives) very frequently. So frequently in fact that it makes them almost worthless to put down anywhere OUTSIDE of a building, as the FRAGMENTATION of the explosions break the structures, not even the blast themselves.

  • Make defensive structures IGNORE blast fragmentation. – The direct blast itself however can still destroy them. (This means that rather than decimating every structure nearby, explosions have to be on or directly next to these fortifications in order to destroy them.)

  • Explosives that the primary damage done is fragmentation (such as frag grenades, rifle grenades, etc) should do very little damage to structures even upon close or direct impact. Their purpose is to eliminate infantry, not fortifications.

  • TNT mines however would be considerably stronger and more frequently used, as their direct blast is considerably larger than most other sources. Additionally, if Bangalore Torpedos are added, they too will excel at removing structures.

Fortification Placement Restrictions:

  • Czech Hedgehogs will no longer be able to be placed indoors. (making them more used for their intended purpose of blocking vehicles, rather than cheesing the AI pathfinding)

  • Barbwire will only be able to be placed end-to-end (smallest sides together), but not side-by-side (longest sides together).
    (This means that barbwire will be more useful as wide line, rather than numerous pieces being piled up in a doorway.)

  • Sandbag walls need to have the ability to stack back, however, should not be able to be placed directly on top of the section of MG nests in which the gun sits. (This is to avoid use of exploits more than anything. Stacking sandbags on the sides should still be viable as it is the only way to improvise windowed sandbags currently.)

Additionally, sandbag walls should not be able to exceed 3 tall.

Troop Removal of Fortifications:
Currently, troops are allowed to “deconstruct” fortifications for no additional cost. This is an issue considering that it requires an engineer to build them and limited resource (engineer supplies) in addition to time to build them.

  • Only Engineers will be able to “deconstruct” for no additional cost.

  • “Toolkits” (The same ones found as an alternative to medkits in the store) would be required for non-engineer troops to “deconstruct” fortifications.

  • EDIT/ ADDITION: Engineers were recently given the ability to use shotguns as primary weapons. Engineers should not have the ability to take full-auto weapons by default (they can still pick them up off the ground like any other class).

This makes carrying a backpack with extra medkits and toolkits equally as valuable grenade pouches and ammo pouches.
Keep in mind, TNT would still be capable of destroying fortifications and is an OPTION to all troops.
The premise of this part is to equal out the effort, limited resources required, and soldier type required when dealing with fortifications, while making fortifications a more viable source of defense.

2

Well its definitely not cod as cod is somewhat functional game.
What comes to “selling” point idk, id say even the muh histori acurasi people have more valid point with theyr screenshots of somewhat shady marketing regarding history.
Never seen this game marketed as bob the builders wet daydream fortnite 2.0.

To what extend ? Since the enlisted bouncy bouncy physics are a real thing and I highly doubt they ever implement “set explosive” function as secondary option over throwing detpacks.
So windows are blocked untill someone brings in tnt ?

Agree

Sure, if engineers get only a pistol as firearm and top of that they have to drive to spawn area to get resources with truck.
Aka no more carrying 5 tons of sandbags, ~100kg of barbwire, 3 tons steel for hedgehogs, AT & AA gun and ofc machinegun.

1 Like
3

The selling point is DYNAMIC gameplay influenced by players and what they construct, as well as how they operate with those constructions.

The ad that my buddies and I saw that made us come to the game in the first place was a clip showing the difference between an unaltered area, then it shows different constructed defense setups. Showing that depending on how players set up the fortifications, the game could play out differently.

I’m not sure if this was an official ad of theirs, or a clip that a content creator put up to pull people in to the game. HOWEVER, it worked. I know myself and about 20 other guys I run with have all seen that same clip, and it was the deciding factor that brought us to the game.

It is very clear that the original intention with these structures is to give that dynamic change. Unfortunately however, it seems that they left it unpolished in favor of trying to satisfy run-and-gun players that flooded in soon after.

I know for a FACT that a few of their main selling points are “large scale fights, with AI soldiers added to give the feeling of more full games and large group combats”, and “historical battles that were some of the most bloody assaults and most strategic defenses in history” (D-Day for example).

My point is that the game has SO MUCH MORE potential than just trying to imitate other popular games like CoD, Battlefied, Apex, etc. that solely focus on run-and-gun gameplay.

While YOU may not enjoy the strategic end of the gameplay, there are those of us that do, and thanks to the DYNAMIC end of fortification gameplay, you have the potential to run into games where there are little to no fortifications at all.
It’s not even a requirement that you participate in building structures. If the only part that you enjoy is assaulting, then you can! However, adjusting gameplay away from current spam metas by enabling strategic engineering will only make the game more interesting, as it allows more classes to fulfill their unique niches.

As far as explosive packs are concerned, there is very little difficulty in cooking the grenade to where it detonates within very close proximity to the intended target. I do it all the time.

If you are incapable of properly cooking a grenade, there are multiple other options to clear windows. TNT is an option, but so is bringing up an engineer or another soldier carrying a toolkit as I also included in the original post.
Not only that, but direct hits with large tank shells will break them, AT field guns have large caliber HE, perhaps even certain AT launchers would have enough power to break through them.
If all else fails for some reason, you always have the option of flanking!

Engineers are already much more restricted to the weapons they can carry than many of the other classes. Assaulters for example get assault rifles and SMGs, flamethrowers even get the same weapons as them for the most part.
One thing in this regard that you seem to be significantly overlooking however is that engineers cannot pick up a second primary weapon. Even flamethrowers when they are out of ammo can switch the flamethrower for another weapon off the ground.

I know some forum members in the past have made the case that engineers should not have access to full-auto weapons like fg42s and m2 carbines. Believe it or not, I AGREE, and I’ll even edit the original post to reflect as such.
However, in the recent update that buffed shotguns, the devs also thankfully used my suggestion and gave engineers the ability to use shotguns as well!

My point on this is that engineers MAIN focus should be around engineering. Whether for offense or defense reasons. While they should have less primary weapon prowess than some of the other classes, their fortifications’ capabilities should be up to par to compensate for it.

4

Just a friendly reminder that CoD takes skill to master, and in Enlisted there’s nothing to master really.

This doesn’t make any sense. Players would be utterly confused that why they can’t put two sets of barbed wire parallel to each other. I know why, you know why, but anyone else with a shred of imagination wouldn’t - and the common player this game suffering the lack of - wouldn’t be able to wrap his head around this.

It makes sense why would you want to nerf the wires so you couldn’t place them so, but it doesn’t make sense in any other realistic instance.

“It’s in the barbed wire building codex, can’t do it sir, we can put ye barbed wire miles on like this, but not two parellel to each other, no sir, it’s a violation of the regulation sir, nuh-uh, I ain’t gonna do that”

Building elements in this game are fine as they are now. They are underutilizied now because bots don’t build.

Making it so that some elements would be only “DECONSTRUCTABLE” (imagine not being able to shove sandbags aside without having an ENGINEER training to do so, or having a various set of pliers and tongs with out which magically vanish after shoving some sandbags aside) would make fortification building into a carneval mass of exploitation.

I know I would exploit the living hell out of it before the devs got back to their senses, like IEG. HMG, FLAK20 penetration, Rifle-Grenade-Squad-Madness.

Building is fine as it is for now.

5

Hold on for now: you ain’t using engineers to build - like i don’t know - MG’s, PAK-cannons, FLAK’s and radio beacons and ammo boxes? Engineer is already an essential, vital unit for any squad composition.

1 Like
6

Those are FORTIFICATIONS.

7

What part are you having difficulties of wrapping your head over with? Engineer is already the most powerful unit in the game.

8

Yeah never saw that fortnite 2.0 commercial

I dont exactly consider building another sandbag to replace destoyed one as difficult task either but here we are

Yeah, no.

How exactly they are restricted ? Okay I grant that they can carry only 1 main weapon but otherthan that they can have everything else as every other class.

So they swap option for second rifle to having AT gun, AA gun, MG, Ammo box and ofc the fortifications.
I can totally see how they are restricted & suffering.

9

In a head to head fight, engineer vs. assaulter, who is going to win?

Given that the assaulter’s perks are generally geared towards making them a more efficient fighter, in comparison to the engineer’s which at least half of the perks are usually more geared around positioning (jump height, climb speed, etc) or around building (building speed, added resources).

Off perks alone, the assaulter is far more likely to win.

In terms of primary weaponry, the assaulter’s weapons are generally superior to the Engineer’s. Currently, the ONLY advantage that an engineer might have is if they take a semi or bolty rifle for range, assuming they have the opportunity to pick off the enemy at range.
This can however be easily remedied by the assaulter as they are capable of picking up a second weapon to fill the need for range, whereas the engineers can only hold 1 primary at a time.

So again, assaulter’s win again.

Assuming the engineer gets time to set up fortifications, even a MG nest, they might have an advantage… until they get flanked. All but one or two maps have the options of complete flanks. Meaning that while engineers momentarily have the advantage IF THEY PLAY STRATEGICALLY, and have time to set up, they can still be out maneuvered by assaulters.

So again, assaulters come out on top.

You asked how they are outmatched. Here you go.
The ONLY advantage they have, which SHOULD be strong enough to counter the advantages of the others, is currently too easily defeated. Hence the reason for the post.

1 Like
10

in MG / AT gun fight across the map whos going to win ?

And still can have recoil reduction top of that

FG42

MG,AT,AA

Yeah Im quite sure the engineer can hold its own

well u can flank the assaulter then

Yeah, having ability to create ammo dumps out of thin air, AA guns, MG and AT guns just aint cutting it.

11

The main selling point of the game is “SQUAD” system, which the braindead AI doesn’t help at all, would be good that all the squad can help you building stuff like any milsim games as long as you use an engineer to set a blue print, or maybe make a shovel a requirement to do such task

12

Both of which are quite easily defeated with smoke or moving along areas with cover.
At decent range, the MG is unlikely to really do much. The Field gun on the other hand… maybe we can finally add an advantage to the board for engineers!

Considering that either recoil reduction or reload speed is something that BOTH were likely to have equipped, I didn’t see the need to mention it.

However, there are a fair number engineer players that give up that ability for melee speed, in order to dig trenches faster and provide better support as engineers.

I already covered the MG and AT field guns. I’m really not sure why you decided to add AAs, as if you remember they cannot angle down. So unless the assaulter is balancing on the wing of a plane, I’m not really sure how that applies to this conversation.
However, since you felt the need to bring it up, I would like to note that there are a few responses from people on other forum posts regarding the AAs that have said the SMGs they are firing often seem to be doing more to aircraft than the AA guns currently, so that’s something to consider.

You can’t actively flank with the MG or AT guns like you can an SMG. Might I remind you that it still takes time to set them up, whereas the assaulter doesn’t need to worry about that for his firepower.

In a head to head fight, they are at the disadvantage. If they get a long enough time to actually set up, they have a slightly better chance. However that still requires time that engineers usually don’t have, and even less effect when the structures they do put up get destroyed by every little piece of fragmentation flying across the field.

1 Like
13
14

if its that simple theres your solution for fighting assaulters, just use smokes.

Yeah engineers suffer

If you prefer to spend your time with spade, then go for it.
Cant have both, just like assaulter cant.

Yeah idk, completely forgot that other classes can also build AA guns out of thing air.

Quite sure assaulters cant build any weaponry against planes, which engineer can.
But yeah, ik engineer suffer

Yeah, bug.
But if you want to stick to that we may as well mention the fact that AA indeed was capable to angle down in past and got nerfed for engineer being OP.

Sure you can, disassemble and build again.
AT gun has wheels on it, if you feel unsecure with your rifle skills while flanking.

No and assaulter cant build AT guns either so not sure what your exact point here is ?

just flank it

AT gun is quite durable.

15

Just an observation - wire in WW1 was destroyed by fragments and blast both- but HE rounds tended to penetrate too far before exploring, while timed shrapnel was very hard to set accurately to damage the wire.

Which is why the “instantaneous fuze” worked - any shell fitted with it would explode at the right time!

Also the 2" “Plum pudding” spigot mortar worked well but only at short range - low velocity and spherical warhead meant it didn’t penetrate he ground before exploding.

16

That is just not true lol.

As for what OP posted, I like a lot what was written.

I dont think barbed wire needs to be changed in regards to its placement and function, just needs to be slightly more durable.

Sandbags are decently durable, but they could improve against certain types of explosions.

Id rather fix the pathing instead of removing hedgehods from inside buildings tbh.

I do like the idea of removing the ability of non-engineers being able to deconstruct items unless equipped with a toolkit, gives more purpose to the item aside from tankers.

1 Like
17

The primary reason that I added that is that people tend to just pile wire into doorways, which in some regards can be overpowered. My hope with changing it in this way would be to change how players go about setting up defenses. It would promote using killzones and chokepoints rather than just spamming wire in an entryway and blocking the interior for their team as well.

If sandbags were more durable, able to be stacked, and couldn’t be deconstructed without engineers/toolkits, it would remove the need for Czech hedgehogs indoors, as sandbags would then do the same job, more effectively, at the same cost.
It would however free up a bit more space for defenders to work indoors, rather than having to work around hedgehogs.

I think that bot squads should be equipped with some toolkits, so that they are able to clear obstructions from doorways. This would also help to fix pathfinding issues.

18

Agree to make fortifications more resistant, all the restrictions you mentioned why? What is it with Enlisted members always wanting to restrict things instead of finding a creative solution. “Can’t place barbed wire parallel to each other”. What? That’s the only way that they can effectively fulfill their role, there is a reason why gigantic barbed wire nets were built during WWI, imagine if someone said “nuh-uh you can only place them next to each other, not parallel”. Completely ridiculous. Same with not being able to build czech hedgehogs indoors, just why?
Needing a tool kit to deconstruct fortifications? I can see why, but that that wouldbe just annoying as hell.

19

Because it’s only exploits path finding of bots. Hedgehogs should be antitank barrier, not tool used only to exploit game.

1 Like
20

What the hell are you even talking about? In a 1v1 fight it’s not about the classes it’s about who has faster reflexes and better aim lol.
About the perk points, I give every soldier vitality and recoil reduction, so no you’re not at a disadvantage when fighting against an assaulter.
About the weapons, if you are good you can wipe an entire squad with a bolt action, so yeah you shouldn’t struggle when equipped with a semi-auto.
No idea what the whole MG, AT talk was about, you place MG nests to cover paths they have to cross to get to the point and AT guns to kill tanks 10 seconds after they left their spawn. In a 1v1 fight you use your gun but okay.
If you are talking about which class is better, engineers every day of the week. Assaulters can’t build rally points, fortifications, AT and AA guns and MG nests. I play as axis and the FG 42 II is all you need and better than SMGs cause it does more damage at mid and long range, at short range you just swap to auto. You don’t even need to worry about running out of ammo.