Soviet HMG Bunker - why not?

Since OKW going to get non-doc HMGs and doctrinal howitzers (2 things, absence of which balanced OKW with their other benefits like non-doc super heavy), I would like to suggest to give to USSR 200 MP 15 fuel HMG bunkers in stock, because... really, how long USSR will be only faction without defensive positions at all? USF is pretty agressive and mobile, but even they have fireing positions!

OKW was only faction without howitzers at all and HMGs in stock - fixed. Now I think, it is time to fix soviet weaknesses - absence of defensive points!

And if you don't agree - explain, why USSR doesn't deserve to have and use HMG positions? And we also keep in mind, that USSR has lack of other important kinds of units, for example - field officiers.

As HMG positions they can use base deffensive HMG points. They are good enough.

Since OKW going to get non-doc HMGs and doctrinal howitzers (2 things, absence of which balanced OKW with their other benefits like non-doc super heavy), I would like to suggest to give to USSR 200 MP 15 fuel HMG bunkers in stock, because... really, how long USSR will be only faction without defensive positions at all? USF is pretty agressive and mobile, but even they have fireing positions!

OKW was only faction without howitzers at all and HMGs in stock - fixed. Now I think, it is time to fix soviet weaknesses - absence of defensive points!

And if you don't agree - explain, why USSR doesn't deserve to have and use HMG positions? And we also keep in mind, that USSR has lack of other important kinds of units, for example - field officiers.

As HMG positions they can use base deffensive HMG points. They are good enough.

Why 15 fuel? Why not 200 mp and like a 50-60 munitions upgrade?

Why 15 fuel? Why not 200 mp and like a 50-60 munitions upgrade?

Because:

1. Diversity and assymetry purpouses. I don't think, that it is interesting to just copy Ost/OKW bunkers for USSR. Such way will be more reasonable.

2. That's how USF HMG positions in CoH 1 worked - 200 MP and 15 fuel. And USSR in CoH 2 has a lot of common with USF in CoH 1, so - it would work well here too. And I guess, that fuel bunkers in CoH 1 was made for same assymetry and diversity purpouses.

3. Fuel price instead of ammo can prevent "early bunkerspam", because each bunker will slightly slow your tiering up. And getting to T3 for USSR is pretty important.

Because:

1. Diversity and assymetry purpouses. I don't think, that it is interesting to just copy Ost/OKW bunkers for USSR. Such way will be more reasonable.

2. That's how USF HMG positions in CoH 1 worked - 200 MP and 15 fuel. And USSR in CoH 2 has a lot of common with USF in CoH 1, so - it would work well here too. And I guess, that fuel bunkers in CoH 1 was made for same assymetry and diversity purpouses.

3. Fuel price instead of ammo can prevent "early bunkerspam", because each bunker will slightly slow your tiering up. And getting to T3 for USSR is pretty important.

I see, good points.

Because:

1. Diversity and assymetry purpouses. I don't think, that it is interesting to just copy Ost/OKW bunkers for USSR. Such way will be more reasonable.

2. That's how USF HMG positions in CoH 1 worked - 200 MP and 15 fuel. And USSR in CoH 2 has a lot of common with USF in CoH 1, so - it would work well here too. And I guess, that fuel bunkers in CoH 1 was made for same assymetry and diversity purpouses.

3. Fuel price instead of ammo can prevent "early bunkerspam", because each bunker will slightly slow your tiering up. And getting to T3 for USSR is pretty important.

No Soviet player is going to spend fifteen fuel on a defensive position which can be easily destroyed by mortars, Panzerschreck, 222s, and Flame Halftracks.

The USSR make up for the lack of defensive positions via merge or Halftracks with upgrade. After all, it is a mobile vehicle that can suppress units on the move.

Because:

1. Diversity and assymetry purpouses. I don't think, that it is interesting to just copy Ost/OKW bunkers for USSR. Such way will be more reasonable.

2. That's how USF HMG positions in CoH 1 worked - 200 MP and 15 fuel. And USSR in CoH 2 has a lot of common with USF in CoH 1, so - it would work well here too. And I guess, that fuel bunkers in CoH 1 was made for same assymetry and diversity purpouses.

3. Fuel price instead of ammo can prevent "early bunkerspam", because each bunker will slightly slow your tiering up. And getting to T3 for USSR is pretty important.

no one will use bunkers for 15 fuel

No Soviet player is going to spend fifteen fuel on a defensive position which can be easily destroyed by mortars, Panzerschreck, 222s, and Flame Halftracks.

The USSR make up for the lack of defensive positions via merge or Halftracks with upgrade. After all, it is a mobile vehicle that can suppress units on the move.

Well... I would spend, because I need them really. It's impossible to play with only 1 anti-infantry supressing tool, which is totally ineffective in defensive role (Maxim). Bunkers would help with that hardly.

M5 Halftruck is only one unit, which coming in midgame, costs like 2 bunkers and dying very fast, when meet any kind of AT. And yes - M5 takes your poplimit, bunkers don't. Btw, it is not excuse for leaving USSR without deffesnive positions. And besides, other factions also have "mobile supression platforms", but still have static defensive positions: OKW with Flak222Truck, USF with M15AA. Mobile supression platforms and static bunkers are not equial anyway, so USSR can use both together HMG positions, M5s and Maxims without any problems at all, because they needed for different purpouses. M5 is supressive support for infantry/tanks, and bunkers just cheap lineholders.

And yea... maybe 15 fuel is too much. 10 then maybe? 200 MP + 15 fuel means, that you won't need to upgrade it for HMG - it will instantly have it, that can be reason of such high fuel price. But 10 fuel would be also fair for that.

I heartily disagree with MissCommissar's opinion for her favourite faction to have this change. I do believe that her proposed changes are quite outrageous, misleading and would certainly not benefit to the fun of the game. I do recommend her to stop playing and supporting USSR if she wishes to obtain the benefits of Ostheer, which is, in this case, bunkers and other defensive structures.

I heartily disagree with MissCommissar's opinion for her favourite faction to have this change. I do believe that her proposed changes are quite outrageous, misleading and would certainly not benefit to the fun of the game. I do recommend her to stop playing and supporting USSR if she wishes to obtain the benefits of Ostheer, which is, in this case, bunkers and other defensive structures.

Lol, until B-4 won't be fixed, USSR won't be my favorite faction. And I didn't see any reasonable arguments or points here against "soviets getting defensive structures".

Lol, until B-4 won't be fixed, USSR won't be my favorite faction. And I didn't see any reasonable arguments or points here against "soviets getting defensive structures".

It was rather clear in my post, as supported by previous posters Kamzil118 and bicho1. No need to be rude because I do not support your cause.

The benefits of each faction should stay unique, and there should not be too many overlap. There is no need to incorporate elements of game-play because you keep underlining that it is unfair that Axis get things, but not your USSR, without looking at the greater picture of the gameplay mechanics (e.g. Kamzil118 underlined half trucks and merging).

There is no need to argue about a means to cover a lack of your favourite USSR faction. Each faction is unique with their pro and contra. If you wish to get the benefits of Ostheer, go play Ostheer!

It was rather clear in my post, as supported by previous posters Kamzil118 and bicho1. No need to be rude because I do not support your cause.

The benefits of each faction should stay unique, and there should not be too many overlap. If you wish to get the benefits of Ostheer, go play Ostheer!

Ha-ha, so, runining "uniqness| of OKW by givning them non-doc HMGs and howitzers in doctrine is fine, but giving some defensive positions for USSR - "you gonna ruin game design, FU!".

And what benefits USSR getting for having lack of defenses? More powerful offensive units? Yea, all of them in doctrines, and your stock is full of low quality shit, like T-34-76. It is not benefit at all.

USSR getting absolutely NOTHING for having no defensive AI or AT positions! It's fail of faction design, which should be fixed, like accepted by Relic fail of "absence of normal supression platform in OKW" will be fixed very soon.

Again, if it is acceptable for OKW to get non-doc HMG and howitzers, why it is not accpetable for USSR to get only 1 type of defensive position - DShK bunkers? We could also remind, that BS-3 fireing position would be very great replacement of trashy M-42 AT. BS-3 could be also added as heavy AT defensive position, why not again?

If anybody needs MG bunker, it would be Brit, currently Brit either goes either full Simcity troll or AEC mad rush. If Brit choose AEC, they have zero defensive buildings and USF fighting position sucks ball though, one flame nade and it goes down in no time and small arms fire can damage it so no thanks.

Ha-ha, so, runining "uniqness| of OKW by givning them non-doc HMGs and howitzers in doctrine is fine, but giving some defensive positions for USSR.

Again, if it is acceptable for OKW to get non-doc HMG and howitzers, why it is not accpetable for USSR to get only 1 type of defensive position.

This started as an interesting thread, but you do come across as yet another typical low-ranked USSR player who is displeased that OKW is getting a few changes things in the next upcoming patch, whereas USSR hasn't had enough love to fulfill your narrow tunnel perspective of the game.

This started as an interesting thread, but you do come across as yet another typical pro-USSR player who is displeased that OKW is getting a few changes things in the next upcoming patch.

I'm actually happy, that OKW already getting howitzers, even if it is not Hummel or sFH, but LeFH again. Now I can play as OKW, at least. So, Im really happy about OKW.

But if Relic fixing weak points of faction design of one faction, why not to fix another! I giving you that example for to show my logic. OKW long time suffered of lack of HMGs, as supresion platforms and also lack of countertools for dealing with Simcities. And USSR long time suffers of lack of deffensive positions. If they fixing one - why not to fix another? It would be fair, reasonable and would make soviet gameplay way less painful and micro-required for to keep enemy infanty crowds under control.

[..] It would be fair, reasonable [..]

There is nothing unfair, nor unreasonable in Relic's attempt to make Axis more enjoyable against UKF, whilst not fixing the disadvantages, that only you perceive, of your favourite Allied faction.

There is nothing unfair, nor unreasonable in Relic's attempt to make Axis more enjoyable against UKF.

And why not to make USSR more enjoyable against Axis in that case? Or we can make enjoyable only Axis, ignoring USSR, which is already faction with lack of so many things - officiers, non-doc weapons, normal stock units...

OKW deserved fixing way less, than USSR. And I say that, not because USSR is my "favortite faction". As I said, USSR won't be my favorite, until M1931 won't be fixed back to normal, I play as Ostheer now mostly. But even in that case I feel, that USSR really needs such things, like static defenses.

And why not to make USSR more enjoyable against Axis in that case? [...] Ignoring USSR

OKW deserved fixing way less [...] because USSR is my "favortite faction". [...] I play as Ostheer now mostly. [...] that USSR really needs such things, like static defenses.

No, you are wrong. USSR does not have problems against any type of game-play that Axis offers. USSR always has some room for counter-play against any Axis tactic. I doubt Relic spits on USSR the way you are portraying them.

I repeat, there is absolutetly nothing unfair, nor unreasonable in Relic's attempt to make Axis more enjoyable against UKF, whilst not fixing the disadvantages, that only you perceive, of your favourite Allied faction.

The additions for OKW are to change the overuse of UKF emplacements, and to allow OKW some counterplay, which was, until now, rather difficult to defeat if used at higher ranked level of play.

No, you are wrong. USSR does not have problems against any type of game-play that Axis offers. USSR always has some room for counter-play against any Axis tactic. I doubt Relic spits on USSR the way you are portraying them.

I repeat, there is absolutetly nothing unfair, nor unreasonable in Relic's attempt to make Axis more enjoyable against UKF, whilst not fixing the disadvantages, that only you perceive, of your favourite Allied faction.

The additions for OKW are to change the overuse of UKF emplacements, and to allow OKW some counterplay, which was, until now, rather difficult to defeat if used at higher ranked level of play.

So? OKW have counterplays against emplacements, actually even without howitzers. You have LeIGs, you have Stukas, volks firenades, offmaps, like "zeroing", which combined with sight on target wipes all simcities to hell. But, as you said, for to make OKW life against UKF more comfortable they adding howitzers. So, why not to make defensive USSR gameplay more comfortable by giving them defensive positions? Because you know what - soviet defensive gameplay does not even exist!

And Im not sure, that HMGs are going to help them to deal with emplacements somehow... They adding HMG because "oh... OKW suffering from infantry blobbing against them, so let's give them supression platform". Seriously? And how should I deal with OKW blobing against USSR? Maxim is not that HMG, which deals good with crowd control. Low arc of fire, low supression area - it all causes ineffectiveness of Maxim as defensive HMG, so because of that USSR needs defensive HMG bunkers. Bunkers should replace Maxims in defensive role, and let them be offensive only, as originaly designed. Everything is going to be fine and right! What is so problematic here, I don't understand? USSR won't become OP, overdominative or something. USSR will only get effective tool of holding enemy infantry, nothing more, because right now we have some problems here with that.

P.S. Would like too see that crazy bastard, who gonna use howitzers in 1v1...

Sigh, and thus this thread and OP can now be mostly summarised into:

*OKW gets new things to counter meta, but USSR gains nothing new. I will now go to the forums, create a problem that is not existing, and be unhappy and shout out how it's unfair and unreasonable by Relic that they didn't fix that problem.

Sigh, and thus this thread can now be mostly summarised into:

*OKW gets new things to counter meta, but not USSR gains nothing. I will now go to the forums and be unhappy.

OKW gets new things, which fixing their old designed balance-weaknesses, like absence of long-range artillery or absence of HMGs as common supression platform.

I don't see any reason from here not to start fixing same balance-weaknesses of other factions, and specially - USSR, which has too much of them. And I ask about fixing only ONE of problems - absence of defensive positions, which is absolutely unreasonable and hardly cripples soviet gameplay in defensive part.

Explain me, why USSR should have no defensive positions and what USSR gains as faction for absence of such important part of faction design? I see absolutely nothing worthy for it.