Bunkers

Jump back to quoted post21 Jun 2021, 21:24 PMVipper

UKF trench where meant to be their bunkers/fighting positions where their infatry could fight from.

It simply never correctly implemented.

Jump back to quoted post21 Jun 2021, 22:05 PMPip

They're not really comparable at this stage, as Trenches are free, require an occupying unit to do anything, and can be used by the enemy. Trenches are like Sandbags, not Bunkers/Fighting Positions.

Jump back to quoted post21 Jun 2021, 15:22 PMLMAO

we should just have all units have the same stats and abilities with different names, there balanced

Jump back to quoted post21 Jun 2021, 18:33 PMPip

I might agree that Bunkers should cost population, but the difference in strength between OST and USF "bunkers" isnt something I think you can totally fairly compare directly.

They're on very different factions, USF being a very "aggressive" faction, and OST being a very "defensive" one, which not to mention the utility of the Rifle Grenades.

I honestly always found it a bit strange that USF have the Fighting Position at all, while SOV and especially UKF do not. UKF in particular is a much more "defensive" faction in design. Is there some design goal here I'm missing?

Admittedly I don't know for sure, but I'd also assume the Fighting Position is using the same profile for its 50 cal as the teamweapon version, and the Bunker is using the teamweapon MG42 profile, other than arc in both cases. If this is true, the Fighting Position is pretty well advantaged in that aspect.

All I'm saying here is that I don't think that the FP being more vulnerable is necessarily bad. I will also state that static defences in general are historically not a great fit for CoH.

EDIT: It is definitely absurd that the OST bunker can fail to be penetrated by explosives, however. That's certainly something that should be changed, even if nothing else is.

Jump back to quoted post21 Jun 2021, 18:00 PMHannibal

Complete lie. You made that up to "support" your own argument. Quote me where I said "brace is fine".
Brace has nothing to do with the armor value of an OST bunker. Brits do not have a "counter part" to the bunker, so go state what you're comparing the Bunker to. Being decrewable is a huge benefit for any structure, I'd rather pay 3 infantry models to recrew instead of paying for the whole structure again.

Correct, I am not okay with the nonsense implementation that a grenade can deal exactly zero damage to a bunker while landing on top of it.
And to circle back since you seem to be quite obsessed with the brace ability: If the Bunker had had brace instead of armor, it would have died.

You can interpret this as not having double standards for both sides by not making up fake facts and assumptions.

Jump back to quoted post21 Jun 2021, 17:43 PMSkysTheLimit

Stop projecting yourself on to other people. Given that you're this upset about his minor suggestion, it's pretty clear that you're the one having double standards

You've barely even addressed the topic in your ridiculous ranting. There's no reason bunkers and FPs shouldn't cost pop

If you have a problem with emplacements (which cost pop....) then make a thread about them. I look forward to reading it

Jump back to quoted post22 Jun 2021, 15:10 PMZeroZeroNi

So, I have been listing a laundry list of advantages and not just the brace. How the hell are only able to focus on the brace. What about the fact that I pointed out it has SAME DAMAGE, SAME PEN, 900HP vs 640 HP ,NOT BEING DOCTRINAL, BEING AVAILABLE EARLIER. How can you not notice this????? Do you have some kind of tunnel vision. I saying you are fine with all of this.
I'm pretty sure your pak 43 getting killed by infantry in mere moments while the enemy can push armor along side the infantry with impunity is much better not having to even bother protecting the damn thing vs infantry + armour pushes at all

Right so you think this is stupid but the actual solution which is too increase the armor pen of gamons to makes sure that it pens and fire arms do not and then Having to increase the Armor and Pen of all vehicles so that Gamons can't blow apart tanks but Tank v Tanks combat stays the same is NOT STUPID.

Jump back to quoted post22 Jun 2021, 15:11 PMZeroZeroNi

I'm not upset about the suggestion. I upset at his perception that Bunkers have an unfair advantage, which it does not.

Jump back to quoted post22 Jun 2021, 16:47 PMSkysTheLimit

So you are fine with what happened in the clip? Then you are the only one using double standards. Clearly the grenade should've destroyed the bunker

Jump back to quoted post22 Jun 2021, 17:12 PMVipper

Imo AI infatry should not have an easy time destroying fortified position. It promotes blobbing.

Simply all faction should have tools to deal with them.

Jump back to quoted post22 Jun 2021, 15:59 PMEtherealDragon

are grenade damage bounces against bunkers frustrating RNG that should changed?

Jump back to quoted post22 Jun 2021, 17:12 PMVipper

Imo AI infatry should not have an easy time destroying fortified position. It promotes blobbing.

Simply all faction should have tools to deal with them.

Jump back to quoted post23 Jun 2021, 06:47 AMleithianz

AFAIK you can destroy USF fighting position nothing but with small arms. I'm actually with you. We need to buff fighting position's armor so small arm can't deal dmg to bunker.

Doing dmg with nade is another story of course.