Login

russian armor

Ostheer bunker tweaks

2 Jan 2021, 19:01 PM
#1
avatar of DerKuhlmann

Posts: 469

Maybe if bunkers could be built, but not upgraded, on enemy and neutral ground like sandbags

And grenadiers could repair it as well as pioneers

Yes/No?
2 Jan 2021, 19:10 PM
#2
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2

Why?
2 Jan 2021, 19:40 PM
#3
avatar of blvckdream

Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1

2 Jan 2021, 19:55 PM
#4
avatar of Lady Xenarra

Posts: 956

I think this would be a very disliked change so would not go forward. Comparable to booby traps on neutral pts back in the day.
2 Jan 2021, 19:57 PM
#5
avatar of Darkpiatre

Posts: 282

still a 150 mp building against free sandbag, if at least it was like 50 mp to build, 100mp+60mun to upgrade it would be better.
2 Jan 2021, 20:48 PM
#6
avatar of Thamor

Posts: 290

still a 150 mp building against free sandbag, if at least it was like 50 mp to build, 100mp+60mun to upgrade it would be better.


yes, to this suggestion. Bunker should be more available for OST as they can't nillywilly build sandbags that easily, ostheer pioneer is overworking anyway for them. Although they should just give the ability to build sandbags to grenadiers, why this change hasn't been done...
3 Jan 2021, 00:00 AM
#7
avatar of Spoof

Posts: 449

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Jan 2021, 20:48 PMThamor

yes, to this suggestion. Bunker should be more available for OST as they can't nillywilly build sandbags that easily, ostheer pioneer is overworking anyway for them. Although they should just give the ability to build sandbags to grenadiers, why this change hasn't been done...

Because we are moving away from sandbag spam, not moving toward it. The next patch, if we ever even see it, will see all sandbag build times decreased (I dunno about Conscript sandbags though).
3 Jan 2021, 00:42 AM
#8
avatar of CODGUY

Posts: 888

If any change like this should be made it should be for the USF fighting position. That's a much weaker emplacement, not much cheaper though and all it really is is a hole in the ground.

I do think the build time for both the MG42 and .50 cal upgrades should be reduced some. Good gried takes for ever.
3 Jan 2021, 03:43 AM
#9
avatar of WAAAGH2000

Posts: 731

Maybe trench should not be commander ability?
3 Jan 2021, 11:42 AM
#10
avatar of Tiger Baron

Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2

And Ostheer still remain the only Army in the game with no forward retreat point, even doctrinally where the command bunker can get it or something for some manpower.

Nice.
3 Jan 2021, 12:49 PM
#11
avatar of Thamor

Posts: 290

jump backJump back to quoted post3 Jan 2021, 00:00 AMSpoof

Because we are moving away from sandbag spam, not moving toward it. The next patch, if we ever even see it, will see all sandbag build times decreased (I dunno about Conscript sandbags though).


With those words they should remove sandbags from all basic infantry USF rifle, OKW volks, Conscripts, UK rifle. Then add them to their "engineer" unit.
3 Jan 2021, 12:55 PM
#12
avatar of Latch

Posts: 773

You mean tweak by adding popcap to MG bunkers/Foxholes/AA emplacements, yeah?

I agree!
3 Jan 2021, 14:36 PM
#13
avatar of blvckdream

Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1

And Ostheer still remain the only Army in the game with no forward retreat point, even doctrinally where the command bunker can get it or something for some manpower.

Nice.



Sure lets give Ostheer a FRP but then remove their unique perks as well to balance it out.

And btw lets not stop there and lets just just remove all assymetric elements while we are at it. I am sure it will be much fun to play mirror matches.
3 Jan 2021, 23:15 PM
#14
avatar of Spoof

Posts: 449


Sure lets give Ostheer a FRP but then remove their unique perks as well to balance it out.

And btw lets not stop there and lets just just remove all assymetric elements while we are at it. I am sure it will be much fun to play mirror matches.

To be fair there will be no balance problems.
4 Jan 2021, 08:31 AM
#15
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1

Make bunkers/FPs cost popcap first, then we can talk about stuff like this
4 Jan 2021, 08:37 AM
#16
avatar of Tiger Baron

Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2




Sure lets give Ostheer a FRP but then remove their unique perks as well to balance it out.

And btw lets not stop there and lets just just remove all assymetric elements while we are at it. I am sure it will be much fun to play mirror matches.


That's a very biased and ignorant way of looking at it.

So why did the spam faction with 6 men in most of their squads get a FRP while the faction with 4 men in most of their squads and a field presence problem not get it exactly?

That's entirely the opposite of how it should be in the first place.
4 Jan 2021, 08:52 AM
#17
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8



That's a very biased and ignorant way of looking at it.

So why did the spam faction with 6 men in most of their squads get a FRP while the faction with 4 men in most of their squads and a field presence problem not get it exactly?

That's entirely the opposite of how it should be in the first place.

I'm gonna go with...
-because that faction with 4 men got multiple ways to heal and reinforce on field from very early game onward and non doctrinally. And its being actually used more often then FRP of that 6 man faction.
4 Jan 2021, 11:42 AM
#18
avatar of Tiger Baron

Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2


I'm gonna go with...
-because that faction with 4 men got multiple ways to heal and reinforce on field from very early game onward and non doctrinally. And its being actually used more often then FRP of that 6 man faction.


Oh excuse me, I thought it was to help maintain field presence because of said 4 man squads compared to the 6 man squads which are in need of less actual babysitting and losing 2-3 models isn't as bad as the other side but I guess I'm wrong about that.

I suppose I'm also wrong to assume that something that's not doctrinal is used more often because well, it's not doctrinal while something that's doctrinal needs you to actually choose a specific commander locking you out of other options.

If only I could spend all of my days wasting away on the internet in order to have the correct opinion instead of going to work and having a life in general.
4 Jan 2021, 11:49 AM
#19
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8



Oh excuse me, I thought it was to help maintain field presence because of said 4 man squads compared to the 6 man squads which are in need of less actual babysitting and losing 2-3 models isn't as bad as the other side but I guess I'm wrong about that.

Well, yeah, that's why, as I have already said, that 4 man party can have reinforcement halftruck very early on field, reinforcing and healing whoever needs it.

I suppose I'm also wrong to assume that something that's not doctrinal is used more often because well, it's not doctrinal while something that's doctrinal needs you to actually choose a specific commander locking you out of other options.

Except... the stock tools are very rarely used this way as well, because reasons I guess?
There literally is an early game unit plugging the only weakness of that less numerous infantry and it keeps getting ignored by most.

If only I could spend all of my days wasting away on the internet in order to have the correct opinion instead of going to work and having a life in general.

Yeah, I also am not a fan of snek, but lets not invoke him or he'll come and tell how both of us are wrong.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

673 users are online: 673 guests
0 post in the last 24h
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49150
Welcome our newest member, Bohanan
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM