If they removed their ability to dismantle, it would hopefully also remove the ability to place Czech Hedgehogs indoors as well. Explosive packs still destroy most structures just fine. It would just force them to use one or two of their grenades.
How about dont touch nothing because is already fine and work
Sounds good!
It WOULDN’T be nice.
Non-engineers already take more time to dismantle them than engineers. And sometimes, they don’t have explosives.
Let me ask You this - what should the average trooper do, if he has no explosives left, and there are barbed wires and other fortifications all over the place? Just walk on and get himself killed?
What about the new players who have no engineers, and for, probably, dumb reason, decided to not take any explosives capable of damaging the fortifications (say simple grenades/molotovs)? They should just suicide/desert? Hope that some fellow player has an engineer in the squad? What if he/she is the only player in the team, full of A.I.?
As for this:
This is a fair point.
“The only OP thing here is amount of defense an engineer player can build.”
One expo pack.
1 Like
They are nerfed dont even destroy a barbared wire
That is 100% untrue. Explosive pack obliterates everything near it, unless there is solid cover between them.
Sure, maybe go read how the fragment are halfed and so even his explosive power
What are they to do? Attempt to flank! There will NEVER be an objective that is 100% fortified. They will either leave the side near their teammates open, OR their team will open it for themselves.
Also, if they didn’t think in advance to bring something to deal with the fortifications, perhaps they need to reconsider their loadouts!
Also, another thing to support my argument is that tankers are allowed to remove Czech Hedgehogs. The very thing designed to stop them. All they have to do is park the tank where it gives them cover, make eye contact the structure for a split second, then hide in cover while they break it, then move on.
What about destruction mode in Moscow, where the targets are in the buildings, and engineers have been over-engineering and thus pretty much blocked all the entries and exits?
I still think it is giving the defenders with engineers way too much power.
So, it would discriminate new/inexperienced players.
It is also forcing a ‘meta-tactic’ to pretty much everyone. Oftentimes reffered to as ‘grenade spam’.
I don’t see this suggestion as beneficial to the game - it does not give players new ways to deal with obstacles in their way, it just forces 1 universal solution to everyone - explosives.
Why players shouldn’t have a dietary/makeshift/silent approach to dealing with obstacles?
What about axis Berlin defenders, where logically all the explosives have been used by the more capable units already, and all they have left are under-equipped volkssturm-grade byproducts?
You’re also going to say tough luck, losers! Explosive META is the way!?
Why tankers only? What makes them equipped to deal with engineer-built structures, that regular infantry can’t?
I even remember some folks pointing out that digging a trench is actually a better way to stop (and even trapping) a tank, than hedgehogs.
The option to “remove silently” would still be there, but only for engineers. Grenade spam is ALREADY an issue. This would actually cut down on it. By forcing enemies to use their grenades OUTSIDE the building/objective in order to get IN, they don’t have as many grenades to spam inside the objective.
As far as “giving new players ways to deal with things”: new squads often are given one or two EPs, plus it only costs 1 silver order to get more. Tanks are often times given early on too, and can often destroy fortifications. The options are ALREADY THERE. Plus, what is the point of leveling through campaigns and earning better gear if new players are given all the same options as an advanced player?
I was pointing out that CURRENTLY tankers are allowed to destroy Hedgehogs for some reason. I believe they should NOT be allowed to. Again, only engineers should be allowed to deconstruct fortifications.
If this were to be implemented, Hedgehogs ideally would not be able to be placed indoors as well.
This means that they can then actually do their job, rather than be a joke.
This is another thing that needs to be looked at. Sadly it is currently true that digging a trench is VERY effective at stopping tanks. They do need to add a fortification that can be used to bridge across trenches, but that is a whole different discussion.
I played a LOT of Moscow, and I know what you are talking about. However, its usually only an issue when attackers are going out of their way to try to deconstruct fortifications, rather than using a field gun, tank, or EP. Especially in this campaign (Which sees a LOT of new players) even attackers could benefit from this change, as it would influence that gameplay to see more suppression fire rather than Blitzing infantry, which currently causes trouble for attackers. Other campaigns you will notice that defenders are usually on the losing side, because aircraft, tanks, and field guns all are more predominant.
So, it’s either choose an engineer or a bomb…
Otherwise, risk being bogged down.
I still find it weird that an average soldier won’t be able to deconstruct a simple wall of sandbags.
For barbed wire - can’t he cut it with his knife, if pliers won’t be available?
In squad upgrades, engineer trooper slot has to be selected among 2 or 3 options. Obviously, in current meta, engineer is basically the most useful, so, Your suggestion wouldn’t change much here… Heck, maybe radio operator could become a powerful counter to the overengineering, where it actually gets a new purpose…
But, the new player may not be aware of the meta, and we might need an easier way to change the squad upgrade, without all that battle pass unlocking…
The point of levelling would be - choice for advanced players to improve a certain option or 2, making them more effective in certain situations - for example, faster deconstruction/more powerful explosives/etc.
EDIT: I figured out that EP - Explosion pack. Well, what are the ways to deal fortifications for attacker, without causing noise, then (other than bringing an engineer of his own)?
They are very vulnerable when they are outside, though. If hedgehog forces them to come outside, they present themselves as easy targets, not to mention delaying their attack.
But if not…
Then they have little reason to leave the tank. Thus, again, forcing lowly infantrymen to take the explosives/AT gunner squad upgrade to deal with this threat. Since, tankers will just stay inside and shell that hedgehog. 1 slot for AT gunner - 1 less slot for engineer.
Issue for who? Defenders? Or attackers?
I may be in favor of a slower-paced game, rather than the rush capture point we have now, and some elements You offered may be of use to achieve this, but there have to be more changes in different areas of the game to make it worthy.
For infantry, its choose an engineer, bomb, artillery, or flank. Vehicles still clear them up pretty quickly.
As far as barbed wire with a knife: have you ever actually had your hands on barbed wire? You definitely are NOT getting through it with a knife. MAYBE an axe to break the wooden pieces, but thats it.
Most people prefer to take assaulters and MGs in the current meta. Radio Operators are already plenty strong.
Again, I really don’t think the game should be made easier for the sake of new players. They need to grind and progress just like everyone else. As far as your continued references to “quietly” taking down fortifications, I again say that the ONLY one that should be capable is an engineer.
If a tank parks behind an CH (Czech Hedgehog) I becomes increasingly difficult to land the solid hit needed to kill it from the front. Tankers only reason to leave the tank is for repairs, or to abandon if its too damaged. They do not carry the tools necessary to deconstruct the CHs.
If they fix it to where you still have to have line of sight do deconstruct, the only side it will hurt is the attackers. By forcing them to be in the open to deconstruct, rather than hiding behind a wall, they will be much more vulnerable to attacks, which is the whole point of the fortifications. To stall their progression forward long enough to be eliminated easier. If it is implemented, people will likely start to see that the alternatives like field gun, tank, etc have their merits. It would shake up the meta so that assaulters and MGs aren’t the only viable attackers.
Flank is not always feasible - Moscow monastery invasion map, unless exploits are used, tends to really favor the defenders. Not to mention, most maps have fairly questionable map design, not really giving room for flanking moves.
Vehicles… Considering that free-to-play users have only 1 vehicle slot, it’s basically a choice between a plane and a tank, severly limiting the vehicular options.
Well, then how about letting infantry folks disassemble barbed wire when they have an axe? I could understand this option.
As for sandbags - what is Your opinion on them? Should they also be undisassembable for the average rifleman?
MGs… may be true for console users, but it’s too bulky on PC with mouse and keyboard on the offensive. Not to mention, folks have already complained about it’s ridiculous dispersion, especially on… $30grad.
Either way, Your suggestions would basically shift meta to the engineer, making it a must-have in pretty much all the situations (though, it already sort of is, for it’s ability to build rally points).
So, now we also need AT gunner and an engineer, as meta in our squads…
sigh…
Maybe at this point just ask the devs to give every squad a free engineer slot?
Yeah, I know. I already agreed with this.
How exactly is this an issue that they “go out of their way” to deconstruct these fortifications? The fortifications are doing their job in this case - they delay the attackers.
More vulnerable to the defenders responses.
No, I don’t think the point of fortifications in this game is to create killzones for the defenders - it is to prolong the life of defenders and delay the attackers.
What You are suggesting is the creation of killzones.
I once pulled AT gun across the Maisky forestry map (basically from the main building and on to the starting zone of the train station) - and it probably was one of the reasons why we lost. ATs are too bulky to be used on the offensive effectivelly.
AT guns need to be more mobile for them to be worthwhile on the offensive.
1 Like
Fun fact: the monastery have a secret entrace for attacker wo let them place a working rallypoint in the defender butt
And yea i agree what you say, the actual system is working and fine there are no notive to change it
1 Like
There are in fact flank routes. They are even usually unguarded.
The current “must-have” on PC are the assaulters. Most people only take engineers for rally points as you said. This is one of the reasons defenders get their teeth kicked in over 60% of the time. If engineers were more useful, people would start using them more for what their INTENDED purpose was. Let’s face it, in their current state, how many people would use them if you could put up a rally point with a different character?
Killzones are how defenses are effective! What slows the attackers down more? Stopping their path for a couple seconds? OR creating a killzone to repeatedly kill them off, force them to respawn, delaying them and bleeding their reinforcements? You can tell the difference between a “good” defense and a “bad” defense quite easily. If you are setting up fortifications only with the intent to stop the enemy moving forward at all, you are setting up a “bad” defense. However, if you limit their movement, but leave choke points “open”, you can create effective killzones. This is a “good” defense.
I don’t see where you are getting the idea that an AT gunner is so necessary. Restricting paths with CH would lessen the need for additional AT gunners. AT mines would become more effective, and can be used by ALL infantry. In addition, if you use good pre-planning, you can force tanks into range for explosive packs, without exposing your infantry as badly.
Also, engineers wouldn’t become meta like you are thinking, I guarantee it. Yes, people could opt to put an engineer in every squad, but how is that any different from them adding an assaulter to every squad? Explosives are still an option to breach defenses. Just because you can’t “Quietly” breach them its a problem?
I still hold to my opinion that non-engineer infantry should NOT be able to dismantle them. Its not a question about realism, but rather about game balance on this part. Sandbags are necessary to block lines of sight, especially in windows. However, the option to add a windowed sandbag (which you can see in a lot of the prebuilt sandbag structures) is not available to us. If it were, I could MAYBE get behind infantry being able to tear them down. The reason for this specifically is that the area to hit targets in an open window is too high, therefore its blocked with sandbags. However, with only the solid sandbags available, it blocks the defenders view as well, allowing attackers to come directly up to it to break it down. It comes down to a question of sight line reduction, as well as effective distance of the defender.
My buddy is also noting to me as I chat with him about this: a sandbag wall is far more difficult to take down that perhaps you realize. With a large sandbag wall there is a lot of weight and friction to consider. It’s not as simple as pulling one sandbag out and watching them fall. For infantry to remove it, they would need to start at the top, and even so it would actually take a LOT longer to break it down. So with realism added, the verdict appears to be that infantry would NOT be able to take down that wall in the heat of battle by hand.
Let’s just say it is debatable. I don’t remember the exact names of maps, save for most of Moscow campaign ones, so I’ll leave the details and reasoning for later.
The reason is, that significant amount folks, take Shiivex or gastanofrizzi as examples, lean into the more usual (some would say casual) SMG spam tactics, focused on close quarters combat and point capture.
They aren’t exactly “must-have”, but they are convenient, and in Shiivex’s words:
FUN.
Keep this in mind for later.
As for myself, I’m somewhat of a (a)historic fetishist, maybe even masochist at times. Let’s say that every soldier would be able to build a rally point. I suppose Your assumption that engineer would become less used is true. It is likelly, that the usage will shift mostly to their dedicated squads, where they can build AT and AA guns.
In some ways, this would even alleviate the problem that the older premium squads have - no engineer slot availability.
Defenders teeth kicked in is usually due to lack of players at least giving a minimal attempt at defending the objective, not due to lack of engineer use.
Bold statement. I am sure You are asking for the wrath of casual players and SMG users.
Do You remember what I said earlier? I’ll remind You:
FUN.
You are going to murder or at least seriously compromise the enjoyment of the casual players with this.
Killzones are a sadomasochistic approach to the problem, possibly giving the defender unfair advantage.
Mate, let me remind You what I said earlier:
Very vulnerable when they are outside.
And thus, present an opportunity to defeat a tank, via eliminating it’s crew, without the need of AT gunner, explosive or an AT gun.
If You force tankers to remain inside, You’re basically making hedgehogs lose that possibility of luring the (brawer than usual) tankers outside - meaning they are likelly going to simply attempt to destroy the CH with their main gun (it is an option even now, of course, but with disassembly the tankers can conserve ammo, not to mention about questionable feasibility of eliminating the CH for some tanks (take 20 mm - 37 mm gun tanks, like Panzer 2, T-60, Stuart and AB)).
Which means, that the squad with engineer cannot (try) to rely solely on engineer’s CH to defeat a tank, meaning they WILL have to take explosive/AT gunner to deal with the tank.
It may even worsen the tank greyzone camping with this.
Lastly - where is the chivalry option? As the tanks can be seen as the logical progression of noble cavalry, nobility with duel traditions and etc., I demand the chivalry option - En garde, you filthy peasants, who dared to annoy my steed!
I don’t know, I don’t use them.
Also, should they REALLY be usable by all infantry classes?
They sort of already are (looks at rally points).
Thanks for… reassuring, I guess.
If explosives would be re-fillable at ammo boxes, MAYBE - but even then, You’re probably asking for grenade spam with this.
Sandbags on windows can be… somewhat of a bad thing - I am not sure that an attacker could even toss the explosive right at them, normally, it means that the explosive will fall to the ground, possibly failing to destroy the sandbag (as it is somewhat inside the building, and above ground).
At this point, even explosives will require finesse to use. As an attacker on invasions, it would make the game a chore.
Realistically, engineers shouldn’t be able to build things that fast and in the heat of battle in the game as well.
I’d say leave the capability to disassemble, for fairness sake.
Hey i use only 4 smg
1 Like
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.
Not really - the SMGs shine because the maps and their objectives are the most suited for this, not to mention that using SMG is easier than a bolt action rifle - SMGs are more lenient to mistakes, plus, it’s more fun with the mutiple dakka-dakka.
Would You prefer that a starting weapon was an SMG, a bolt-action rifle (which we have now), or a compromise - Semi-automatic rifle?
Engineers didn’t gave up - they are just rather cumbersome to use, most folks don’t exactly have a sense, talent or enjoyment in building, and thus prefer to beat and destroy stuff, than to construct. The only thing that the engineers do usually is a rally point, maybe an ammo box and a sandbag wall or 2 to prevent random shrapnel from hitting the built stuff. And nothing else really.
Well, maybe they didn’t built enough of them? Also, while they are at the objective, why are they going with engineers, rather than assaulters?
Also, why they all are just standing inside? They should fight against them through windows/sandbags/other cover, rather than wait (pseudo-safely) inside for a grenade or explosive - that is the purpose of the grenades anyway. Defenders should activelly try to engage and prevent the enemies from getting into the grenade throwing range.
Personally, I usually build sandbags near doors and other potential places where our side could enter, but I no longer block up our windows, as it disallows retaliating against the enemy.
In invasion mode, defenders already have infinite respawn and time on their side as advantages. All they need to do, is to prevent the attacker’s side infantry from entering a small circle on the map.
If your defenses are not helping to achieve that goal, you are essentially wasting engineer’s resources.
On flanking - not necessarily, some maps are rather bad at giving options to flanking the opposition - It is at least 1 of the Berlin maps. Not to mention of the Moscow Monastery again.
Because it is pretty much a no-brainer for the defenders of Invasion - just stand at the capture circle and aim more or less in the direction of the enemy. There, minimal contribution to victory already here.
If You want to make things more interesting - go on the limited scale counter-attack and other tricks less used by the average players.
No, it is not. I am resisting the urge to call this a skill issue. Please do not torture me with these pathetic claims.
If they are so concerned about choosing, the very least they could do is head over to the custom games, with the maps that they want.
Choosing relevant map in custom game mode can also help with it.
Then they should build more.
The purpose of the defenses is to prolong the lives of defenders, so obviously they should be close by.
Or, to delay the attackers.
I remember driving in Berlin maps is already a chore, with all the scrap lying around.
So You want to turn it into literal hell…
(In Your defense, they already have 75mm guns, at least…)
Also, this already starts to sound very much like a camper mentality. I may be a bit guilty of it as well, but I at least try to resist the urge…
Either way, the defenses are effective ONLY when there is an actual garrison manning it.
If they are empty, then I think that the attackers should have the right to dismantle them. They already would be wasting time here, rather than heading straight to the objective.
So many tank wrecks…
Do You at least propose a way to dismantle the tank wrecks that would be created if Your suggestions end up being implemented?
Lastly, tanks can’t capture points, so there are some cases where the crew may have a valid reason to leave the vehicle.
Some tend to use AP mines on enemy spawn points…
Considering that You wanted to leave CHs without garrison… Are tankers going to be able at least demount the mines? They can be put by rando infantry - should they be taken by rando tankers as well?
I suppose at least the blokes can try to spot the mines and shoot them.
It’s not easy. Or, at the very least, time consuming, especially when they don’t have engineers.
Reason to try flanking - personally at least - is the fact that I lose squads if I keep trying to go that route, and didn’t manage to at least take some of the opposition with me.
Considering that I am a F2P player, my options on what kind of squads to take are already limited. And, with my playstyle to take the squads to level them up, I usually have suboptimal ones, not really capable to clear out the fortifications rapidly. So, flanking is often a consideration. But, on the other hand, suboptimal squads are more expendable…