At this point of the discussion, I have nothing more to add. You do strongly come across as a rather
Soviet HMG Bunker - why not?
18 Jun 2016, 14:53 PM
#21
Posts: 1273
You're starting a circular argument here; my valid points for counter-arguing your ideas have already been cited and elaborated above. I have clearly said why I do not agree with you, and replied to your ideas in a most positive and encouraging way, whilst adding to the conversation.
At this point of the discussion, I have nothing more to add. You do strongly come across as a ratherpissed soviet fanboy displeased person due to the reason that USSR has not had the same balance treatment as OKW.
At this point of the discussion, I have nothing more to add. You do strongly come across as a rather
18 Jun 2016, 15:01 PM
#22
Posts: 673
You're starting a circular argument here; my valid points for counter-arguing your ideas have already been cited and elaborated above. I have nothing more to add.
You merely come across as a ratherpissed soviet fanboydispleased person that USSR has not had the same treatment as OKW.
Pissed soviet fanboy, which don't even play as USSR, yea.
And I saw absolutely NO arguments about "why USSR shouldn't have defensive structures". You only wrote about "Im soviet fanboy-whiner". That is not argument, that is bullshit.
Just explain me, why USSR doesn't deserve to have defensive structures, while all other factions have them? While Relic fixing OKW weaksides? Why USSR shouldn't be fixed too? If you have no arguments - then you should agree, that USSR might be fixed in something too, for example - by giving them stock HMG positions.
18 Jun 2016, 15:57 PM
#23
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
Soviet defensive commander. There.
18 Jun 2016, 16:08 PM
#24
Posts: 673
Soviet defensive commander. There.
And what defensive do we have there? DsHK HMG, which is buffed version of same offensive Maxim, Mortar, which we have in bunch of other more useful doctrines, M-42 - no coments. Small mines might be useful, but never saw somebody used them, so can't judge and tank traps... seriously, I need entire doctrine slot for THAT?
As result - defensive doctrine is not defensive at all (specially comapred with Ostheer defensive doctrine). It is pure shit, which can be removed from game and nobody will even feel sorry about it.
I want USSR to have HMG positions in stock, because you just can't build effective defenses with Maxims, they are not designed for that. And you need AI-defenses anyway, cos Axis infantry is no less dangerous, that allies.
18 Jun 2016, 16:56 PM
#25
Posts: 266
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 love it. Great points, preach it baby, hope this will get to Relic ears.
18 Jun 2016, 17:30 PM
#26
Posts: 484
It isn't an unreasonable request, and there is no good reason that it should be declared out of bounds. It's true that they will probably not be used often, but nothing bar the Wehr medic bunker is. Nevertheless, there are moments when it would be the right choice.
It's not an urgent priority, but there is no compelling reason not to, as far as I can see.
It's not an urgent priority, but there is no compelling reason not to, as far as I can see.
18 Jun 2016, 21:56 PM
#27
Posts: 1891
USSR hmg bunker would never be used
They already dominate flanks with T70/M3/Cons/Demos
In map center it would get wrecked by Axis just like fighting positions as USf
They already dominate flanks with T70/M3/Cons/Demos
In map center it would get wrecked by Axis just like fighting positions as USf
18 Jun 2016, 22:34 PM
#28
Posts: 875 | Subs: 2
I do agree with Mr. JohnSmith. His points are spot on and his grammar is good enough to make a Grammar Nazi cry tears of joy. He has practically made this thread irrelevant now.
I suppose that I shall do the honors.
/Thread
I suppose that I shall do the honors.
/Thread
19 Jun 2016, 01:07 AM
#29
Posts: 484
Ad homs are always piss-poor arguments I'm afraid. Request denied.
19 Jun 2016, 03:22 AM
#30
1
Posts: 2885
+1 I guess it's a nice noob friendly addition to the game. Actually soviets having bunkers only in base was my biggest disappointment when I first played coh2 beta, so I get what miss commisar feels about it. It obviously won't get build in a serious high level game but thats great becouse that way it won't screw up the ballance. I'm all for it.
2 users are browsing this thread:
2 guests
Livestreams
32 | |||||
31 | |||||
12 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.829222.789+35
- 2.34857.859+13
- 3.1095612.641+19
- 4.587233.716+3
- 5.881398.689+3
- 6.280162.633+8
- 7.996645.607+4
- 8.300112.728+6
- 9.379114.769+1
- 10.717439.620+1
Replay highlight
VS
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
999
Board Info
277 users are online:
277 guests
0 post in the last 24h
1 post in the last week
20 posts in the last month
1 post in the last week
20 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48708
Welcome our newest member, Carogbsie04
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, Carogbsie04
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM