Can I have an empty steel bunker?

-Drop MP price and add some small fuel cost
-Turn it into forward HQ with retreat point and model replenishment
-60 muni for medic upgrade

It's this fucking easy to turn this piece of shit doctrinal ability into a great one. Like goddammit how has this sort of shit never passed the balance teams mind?

The fact people are upset bunkers can be countered by AT guns is amazing. Regular bunkers are often cancer enough and it stands to reason making an invulnerable one would be double the cancer.

If anything, regular bunkers deserve a durability (principally armor) nerf to fighting position levels, so they can be killed by small arms like the FP, and then maybe a price drop in compensation.

As for the concrete bunker; expensive static emplacements are garbage in this game and they should be; the concrete bunker is probably the most durable of any ingame and it still receives so many complaints, so obviously nobody will ever be happy with it.

Drop the cost some and make MG/Repair an upgrade to the base bunker as OP suggested. If people still don't use it, oh bloody well.

The fact people are upset bunkers can be countered by AT guns is amazing. ...

It is actually it makes perfect sense.

In course of game one has reason to built ATG ,while the reasons to built units to counter static emplacement has been reduced.

The current performance of ATG vs bunkers/emplacements/trucks make the a far better choice than indirect fire weapons. By reducing the ATGs performance vs those units one increases built diversity.

It is actually it makes perfect sense.

In course of game one has reason to built ATG ,while the reasons to built units to counter static emplacement has been reduced.

The current performance of ATG vs bunkers/emplacements/trucks make the a far better choice than indirect fire weapons. By reducing the ATGs performance vs those units one increases built diversity.

+1

They are a bit too expensive right now, and their cost is planned to go down a bit, but durability is definitely not an issue.

Why?

Other than rank 5000 MG42 spamming Ostheer players no one wants to have stuff like concrete bunkers in the game.

It's not fun at all and I am glad the current ones are not used.

Why?

Other than rank 5000 MG42 spamming Ostheer players no one wants to have stuff like concrete bunkers in the game.

It's not fun at all and I am glad the current ones are not used.

while i mostly agree, i think you underestimate the fact that the majority of the playerbase enjoys a rather different play style than you and i would (i.e. tower defense) and indeed wants things like near indestructibe bunkers and omnipotent emplacements, allowing them fend off endless waves of flesh and metal with minimal imput.
clearly no fun to play against, but i guess you'd have to be on the receiving end playing allies at least once in a while in order to be able to relate.
that being said, bunkers and other emplacements shouldn't be patched out of relevance either imho, so the slight price decrease or added utility would be a good move in my view. still, a big no to any increase in durability, be it more hp or less damage by at guns as proposed above - they're already tough enough for what they're supposed to do.

I like the idea About the Forward HQ (with medic etc.). I mean, the doctrin is made for def playstyle. Just don´t op it like it was in vcoh with Zombie grens

I think the concrete bunker could be reworked to be similar to brit trenches, but only axis can enter it, there is no invincible mg crew inside and it costs like 100MP with a long building time of 40s or sth. This way it serves as garrison only and its high HP or accessibility are not as much of a problem due to flamethrowers, snipers and mortars being able to force the garrisoned troops to leave. It's just a tough building that only axis can enter, but it takes some MP and long time to build.

Tbh. I hate current implementation of bunkers with single immortal MG gunner that can only be killed if the whole bunker is leveled.

I think the concrete bunker could be reworked to be similar to brit trenches, but only axis can enter it, there is no invincible mg crew inside and it costs like 100MP with a long building time of 40s or sth. This way it serves as garrison only and its high HP or accessibility are not as much of a problem due to flamethrowers, snipers and mortars being able to force the garrisoned troops to leave. It's just a tough building that only axis can enter, but it takes some MP and long time to build.

Tbh. I hate current implementation of bunkers with single immortal MG gunner that can only be killed if the whole bunker is leveled.

+1

I think that could work, e.g. maybe make it like trenches? Everyone can go in. Maybe remove the extra garrison damage for the structure so it really gives some bonus.

I think the concrete bunker could be reworked to be similar to brit trenches, but only axis can enter it, there is no invincible mg crew inside and it costs like 100MP with a long building time of 40s or sth. This way it serves as garrison only and its high HP or accessibility are not as much of a problem due to flamethrowers, snipers and mortars being able to force the garrisoned troops to leave. It's just a tough building that only axis can enter, but it takes some MP and long time to build.

Tbh. I hate current implementation of bunkers with single immortal MG gunner that can only be killed if the whole bunker is leveled.

+1

I think that could work, e.g. maybe make it like trenches? Everyone can go in. Maybe remove the extra garrison damage for the structure so it really gives some bonus.

Brit trenches used to be similar, with a few key differences. 50 manpower, only the player who constructed it could enter, and buildable in neutral/enemy territory, and an absurdly low target size. Frankly, this functionality made them absolutely mindnumbing to play against as sections could run straight into and past LMG grenadiers, hop into the trench, then win the fight. Volks could at least dissuade this play with incendiary grenades.

Anyway, I bring this up because the suggestion starts to blur lines. As is, the concrete bunker is very distinct through its durability. Giving it this "premium trench" functionality makes it overlap with both the standard bunker and trenches.

100 manpower, long build time, and only garrisonable by the constructing player? Sounds mostly like a worse bunker. Make it "like trenches" that everyone can go in? Basically just a worse trench. Make it a low cost trench only garrisonable by the constructing player? Back to the brit trench cancer (mostly).

Maybe there is a balance to be had here, but I can't see any hard numbers that make this an interesting alternative to trenches and vanilla bunkers in the current way that concrete bunkers are (their current high cost aside).

...

If we nerf some OP abilities some factions have e.g. fire-mortar-callin of Soviets, AND remove the garrison effect of mortars for the bunker it would become useful.

soviet fire drop op?, thats a new one