Would it hurt the Germans if Reric removed the MG upgrade, and ability to garrison the medic and command post; effectively limiting the ability to garrison bunkers to the mg upgrade (ie: base mgs nests)? Perhaps then, swap the commander specific trench for the mg upgrade, giving Germans the trench as a core ability and limiting the garrison-able mg nest upgrade to a commander ability.
I don't think the MG nest is as bad as people say it is, but I also do not find it terribly important to the faction's balance and am happy to suggest removing it/changing it's availability a little. They are a pain, especially on 3vs3 and 4vs4.
Do Germans NEED mg bunkers?
30 Mar 2014, 20:19 PM
#1
Posts: 49
30 Mar 2014, 20:38 PM
#2
Posts: 1042
Considering that the Soviets don't even have bunkers, I see no problem with this, though their doctrinal one might need a look at if that is the case...
30 Mar 2014, 20:39 PM
#3
Posts: 308
Yes let them have it. It's waste of their munitions so I like it when they use it when ever I'm soviets. Seriously, one penal satchel can kill a bunker.
31 Mar 2014, 07:57 AM
#4
Posts: 247
I think the germans needs bunkers because if your building a diverse army you will need something to keep the enemy from outcapping you, and force him to commit to fighting.
31 Mar 2014, 08:55 AM
#5
Posts: 1042
Err... and the Soviets aren't building a diverse army? There is an appalling lack of cogent arguments as to why Germans have MG bunkers and Soviets have no equivalent.
31 Mar 2014, 09:05 AM
#6
Posts: 247
Err... and the Soviets aren't building a diverse army? There is an appalling lack of cogent arguments as to why Germans have MG bunkers and Soviets have no equivalent.
Some soviets are, point is, the soviets are by design more capping oriented so removing bunkers would be a bad idea in my oppinion. I have posted in a lot of different threads that I think the soviets needs more defensive capabilities, so I agree that they should get some.
31 Mar 2014, 09:10 AM
#7
Posts: 1042
Both sides are capping orientated! That's the point!
31 Mar 2014, 10:01 AM
#8
Posts: 247
Both sides are capping orientated! That's the point!
So you would disagree that soviets have a potentiall capping advantage early game?
31 Mar 2014, 10:08 AM
#9
Posts: 140
IMO germans should have to garrison the bunker with an MG, so that it could also be cleared with grenades/molotovs
31 Mar 2014, 10:16 AM
#10
Posts: 1042
So you would disagree that soviets have a potentiall capping advantage early game?
I would disagree that bunkers are the response.
And as almost all units cost about the same as their counterparts (grens - cons etc) there really isn't much of a difference, even extreme early game. The only time Germans would begin to lose that capping advantage is when they start placing down bunkers...
31 Mar 2014, 10:25 AM
#11
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
So you would disagree that soviets have a potentiall capping advantage early game?
What advantage you're talking about?
The 10 second difference between first con and first gren?
Thats not really an advantage at all. You'll be 1 sector ahead and that won't change anything, cons are likely to get pushed back after first engagement now by basically anything german makes except osttruppen.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
31 Mar 2014, 10:35 AM
#12
Posts: 247
I would say the possibility to go heavy T0 is a potentially big capping advantage. I think most people would agree. I agree that there have been introduced some imbalancies, but thats another topic entirely. Again, I think both sides should have bunkers, and im afraid that removing them would jus encourage more grenspam.
31 Mar 2014, 10:41 AM
#13
Posts: 1042
It's a fallacy that even heavy T0 can provide Soviets with a large capping advantage, considering the speed with which T1 goes up for Germans (no problems there, IMO neither side should really have a "capping advantage).
I'm tempted to agree that the removal of bunkers would lead to heavier gren spam but I wouldn't want to see the command or medic bunkers gone since those are interesting parts of the game... it's just the non symmetry of fixed defences which worries me...
I'm tempted to agree that the removal of bunkers would lead to heavier gren spam but I wouldn't want to see the command or medic bunkers gone since those are interesting parts of the game... it's just the non symmetry of fixed defences which worries me...
31 Mar 2014, 10:46 AM
#14
Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1
I would say the possibility to go heavy T0 is a potentially big capping advantage. I think most people would agree. I agree that there have been introduced some imbalancies, but thats another topic entirely. Again, I think both sides should have bunkers, and im afraid that removing them would jus encourage more grenspam.
Heavy soviet T0 loses to equal amounts of Gren spam.
31 Mar 2014, 13:27 PM
#15
Posts: 50
Heavy soviet T0 loses to equal amounts of Gren spam.
Bingo. The Soviet 'capping advantage' is a complete myth. Even more so with this patch. I don't see how T0 is a viable strategy for Soviets with the new lethality. Combined arms is even more important than ever. The only way I've been able to survive (in 2v2) as Soviets has been heavy use of Maxims and mortars to keep the Gren horde somewhat manageable.
31 Mar 2014, 13:36 PM
#16
Posts: 1637
Make the M3 upgradable to have Medics, Reinforce and Suppresion. M3 is the Soviets bunker. Problem Solved as well as many others. I already have a thread on it here:
http://www.coh2.org/topic/15812/m3-upgrades
http://www.coh2.org/topic/15812/m3-upgrades
The PTRS's are fine as they are. Whenever i'm up against Guard Infantry, I always have to be careful with my vehicles or the Guards will completely destroy them. Good range, good damage and fairly cheap; if anything, the PTRS should nerfed since it's ridiculously good for the price. Even in the hands of Conscripts, the PTRS's are extremely potent.
31 Mar 2014, 14:05 PM
#17
Posts: 247
It's a fallacy that even heavy T0 can provide Soviets with a large capping advantage, considering the speed with which T1 goes up for Germans (no problems there, IMO neither side should really have a "capping advantage).
I'm tempted to agree that the removal of bunkers would lead to heavier gren spam but I wouldn't want to see the command or medic bunkers gone since those are interesting parts of the game... it's just the non symmetry of fixed defences which worries me...
I would argue that the possibility to produce infantry without investing in a building gives a slight capping advantage, but I agree, its nothing big. Im probably a bit biased in that area as I never grenspam myself, but often go heavy cons, so I was probably a bit to quick.
My original and main point, wich works for bouth factions, is that if youre building a diverse army you will want something to keep your enemy from simply outcapping you and avoid combat, and I think bunkers does just that. Bunkers, if used right, forces the opposition to comitt, and from my point of view helps limit the effectiveness of one unit tactics, like conspam and grenspam, if soviets were eventually given bunkers.
31 Mar 2014, 14:11 PM
#18
Posts: 230
they had a doctrine with soviet mg bunkers, but they never released it
lol relic
lol relic
31 Mar 2014, 14:14 PM
#19
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
they had a doctrine with soviet mg bunkers, but they never released it
lol relic
We would have had it and many more already, but certain gaming community slushed the idea with their tears and refusal to adaptation to new units.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
31 Mar 2014, 15:55 PM
#20
Posts: 49
We would have had it and many more already, but certain gaming community slushed the idea with their tears and refusal to adaptation to new units.
You really want more DLC commanders? Pay2Win commanders is the single most complained about thing in this game by newbies and potential buyers. Whether it is true or not that they are P2W, the DLC commanders have greatly hurt the game's reputation and have continually upset balance with each release (even if they are balanced later on).
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
61 | ||
|
|
|
|
51 | ||
 |
|
|
10 | ||
|
|
|
|
830 | ||
 |
|
|
55 | ||
 |
|
|
22 | ||
 |
|
|
8 | ||
|
|
|
|
3 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.35057.860+15
- 3.1110614.644+11
- 4.624225.735+2
- 5.276108.719+27
- 6.306114.729+2
- 7.919405.694+3
- 8.262137.657+3
- 9.722440.621+4
- 10.1041674.607-2
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1236
Board Info
735 users are online:
735 guests
0 post in the last 24h
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
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
Welcome our newest member, Bohanan
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM