Login

russian armor

It is time for the OH MG bunker to cost popcap

7 Jan 2018, 12:07 PM
#21
avatar of Dangerous-Cloth

Posts: 2066

You people forget that Ost needs to build a bunker to get the weakest healing in game for 60 munitions. You now want this to cost popcap too? Lol get out of here.
7 Jan 2018, 12:21 PM
#22
avatar of YRon²y

Posts: 221

they keep coming with stupid idea's...
7 Jan 2018, 14:21 PM
#23
avatar of Alphrum

Posts: 808

I don't know how people can defend OST MG bunker (and OKW with fortification doc) when it become serious meta right now, especially bigger team game. It's extremely annoying just to flush out those mg bunkers defending victory point. Of every axis players I encounter, all of them resort to MG bunker spam, no spare.

MG bunker spam is worst as Brit Emplacement spam. Just imagine Brit Emplacement with 0 popcap - you know how terrible it is. At least, Brit have big manpower and fuel cost slap along with it. If you can complain one side, why not other?

US MG emplacement can have pop cap as well, at least it's ten time easier to dislodge an US emplacement when I'm playing as axis.

Counter? Possible. But when late game hit with Jagdtiger/Elefant and bunches of rocket artillery, all allies counter options become invalid. You just have to over skill your opponent or become salty.

Either you are axis fanboi wanting to abuse it or just playing 1v1 and claiming it's not a problem.


hahahhahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaha ooo hahahahhaahahahahahahahahaahaha
7 Jan 2018, 17:06 PM
#24
avatar of kitekaze

Posts: 378

You people forget that Ost needs to build a bunker to get the weakest healing in game for 60 munitions. You now want this to cost popcap too? Lol get out of here.


Read the topic title carefully, will you? MG bunker.
7 Jan 2018, 22:26 PM
#25
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

i wouldnt be opposed to something like:
bunkers cost reduced to 100mp
mg costs 60mu+ 50mp and like 2 pop (give pit similar treatment)

this makes the OTHER noncombat roles of the bunker cheaper and makes multiple MG bunkers unsustainable

or hell, is it possible to make the bunker and pit provide the MG as sort of a crew weapon limited in the building? think like a garrison bonus al la brits. the mgs are there but only active when the building is crewed. no free defense but can be manned to create a strong point and abandoned when not needed
7 Jan 2018, 22:45 PM
#26
avatar of AceOfTitanium

Posts: 162

I see how mg bunker/fighting position spam can a bit too much but making those take popcap isn't the best way to solve this. Maybe have a limited number of them being available to build would be better at preventing these from being spamed.

Something similar to this would also be my solution to the brit op emplacements.
8 Jan 2018, 00:18 AM
#27
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

I see how mg bunker/fighting position spam can a bit too much but making those take popcap isn't the best way to solve this. Maybe have a limited number of them being available to build would be better at preventing these from being spamed.

Something similar to this would also be my solution to the brit op emplacements.

In my opinion these defenses (emplacement, okw AA guns maybe hmg bunker)could get increasingly bigger penalties for being spammed.

Price and POP could increase according to number being built on map.
8 Jan 2018, 06:42 AM
#28
avatar of vietnamabc

Posts: 1063

Like US fighting position ?

If anything a pioneer squad inside should get rifle grenade free =)


Sure if MG bunker can be killed by small arms and 1-shotted by flame nades too.
8 Jan 2018, 10:36 AM
#29
avatar of AceOfTitanium

Posts: 162

jump backJump back to quoted post8 Jan 2018, 00:18 AMVipper

In my opinion these defenses (emplacement, okw AA guns maybe hmg bunker)could get increasingly bigger penalties for being spammed.

Price and POP could increase according to number being built on map.


I'm not a big fan of increasing resources over a number of units/time. It is much more intuitive if you could only have a max of, let say, 4/5 bunkers/fighting positions and only 1 of each type of brit emplacement (seeing how they are op as individual units) per game per player. It's a way easier solution to implement and less complicated for players to understand.
8 Jan 2018, 10:51 AM
#30
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



I'm not a big fan of increasing resources over a number of units/time. It is much more intuitive if you could only have a max of, let say, 4/5 bunkers/fighting positions and only 1 of each type of brit emplacement (seeing how they are op as individual units) per game per player. It's a way easier solution to implement and less complicated for players to understand.

Limiting emplacement to 1 actually more complicated because commander like:
Royal engineer
Advance emplacement

would have to be redesigned. One would also have to add a way to get read of emplacements and a refund.
8 Jan 2018, 11:07 AM
#31
avatar of DonnieChan

Posts: 2272 | Subs: 1

Funny considering even the UK sniper can hardcounter ostheer bunkers
8 Jan 2018, 12:09 PM
#32
avatar of Brick Top

Posts: 1162



Read the topic title carefully, will you? MG bunker.


Its called asymmetrical balance..

Ost have the worst and most expensive healing.
They happen to have a kinda meh bunker which doesnt cost popcap (but does drain their already in demand munis).


Do you just want all factions to have exactly the same abilities and costs, because thats retarded.


Ost is a very defensive faction, hence why good defensive tools and not so great attacking tools (like 6 man squads and great healing needed to grind out assaults).
8 Jan 2018, 12:20 PM
#33
avatar of AceOfTitanium

Posts: 162

jump backJump back to quoted post8 Jan 2018, 10:51 AMVipper

Limiting emplacement to 1 actually more complicated because commander like:
Royal engineer
Advance emplacement

would have to be redesigned. One would also have to add a way to get read of emplacements and a refund.


I really isn't because you could replace improved fortifications with allowing the player to build one or two more emplacements of each type and buff emplacement repair ability or something along those lines.
Keeping on topic now.
8 Jan 2018, 12:56 PM
#34
avatar of Array
Donator 11

Posts: 609

Off-topic I feel the fact the OST mg bunker is being discussed says something good about general balance. On topic I still don’t see the issue with it. The people punished most by it are blobbers who get their whole blob suppressed and sent home, because their double bar/been blob can’t kill it frontally like a normal mg. Otherwise it scares off a scouting squad and prevents opportunistic capping at which point you send something to kill it for free xp. If a team has the time , space and resources to spam them before armour makes them obsolete then the allies aren’t doing their job.
8 Jan 2018, 13:22 PM
#35
avatar of AceOfTitanium

Posts: 162

jump backJump back to quoted post8 Jan 2018, 12:56 PMArray
On topic I still don’t see the issue with it. The people punished most by it are blobbers who get their whole blob suppressed and sent home, because their double bar/been blob can’t kill it frontally like a normal mg. Otherwise it scares off a scouting squad and prevents opportunistic capping at which point you send something to kill it for free xp. If a team has the time , space and resources to spam them before armour makes them obsolete then the allies aren’t doing their job.


Like I said the problem is when in late game (more in team games) the wehr player has enough manpower to just lockdown the flank or important points and it's really frustrating to have to move some unit that is really needed somewere else just to kill a bunker spam. Restricting players to be able to build a max of 4/5 bunkers/fighting positions might help prevent spam in late game. Another thing is that if a player spams bunkers late game he doesnt really need infantry, he only needs pionners to repair and tanks.
8 Jan 2018, 13:33 PM
#36
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


... Another thing is that if a player spams bunkers late game he doesnt really need infantry, he only needs pionners to repair and tanks.

If ostheer infantry was not that easy to evaporate in late game people might actually build them in late game instead of making pioneers (and bunkers).
8 Jan 2018, 13:39 PM
#37
avatar of Array
Donator 11

Posts: 609

jump backJump back to quoted post8 Jan 2018, 13:33 PMVipper

If ostheer infantry was not that easy to evaporate in late game people might actually build them in late game instead of making pioneers (and bunkers).


Bunkers can’t survive late game with armour and artillery in play. 60 range td’s in particular eliminate them for 0 risk. Late game I normally find I only build pioneers because I need the cheapest unit I can to recreate my dead team weapons and fix my broken vehicles. As vipper? Said my other infantry is already dead and replacing them with vet 0 squads isn’t going to help

Edit: meant to quote ace
8 Jan 2018, 13:39 PM
#38
avatar of AceOfTitanium

Posts: 162

jump backJump back to quoted post8 Jan 2018, 13:33 PMVipper

If ostheer infantry was not that easy to evaporate in late game people might actually build them in late game instead of making pioneers (and bunkers).


I can't argure with that. I don't understand how infantry sections start with better stats than grens + can bolster squad + can have two brens/vickers lmgs. Shouldn't grens beat and be better then infantry sections early to mid game?
8 Jan 2018, 13:44 PM
#39
avatar of AceOfTitanium

Posts: 162

jump backJump back to quoted post8 Jan 2018, 13:39 PMArray


Bunkers can’t survive late game with armour and artillery in play. 60 range td’s in particular eliminate them for 0 risk. Late game I normally find I only build pioneers because I need the cheapest unit I can to recreate my dead team weapons and fix my broken vehicles. As vipper? Said my other infantry is already dead and replacing them with vet 0 squads isn’t going to help


In theory you could destroy bunkers with tank destroyers but in pratic it doesn't work. You shoot one or two times the bunker and a tank or at gun shoots your td. Mortars work a little better but as I said you might really need them somewere else instead of being the entire game killing side bunkers. Don't get me wrong I don't have problems with bunkers I just have a problem with 5+ of them blocking part of the map.
8 Jan 2018, 14:04 PM
#40
avatar of Array
Donator 11

Posts: 609



In theory you could destroy bunkers with tank destroyers but in pratic it doesn't work. You shoot one or two times the bunker and a tank or at gun shoots your td. Mortars work a little better but as I said you might really need them somewere else instead of being the entire game killing side bunkers. Don't get me wrong I don't have problems with bunkers I just have a problem with 5+ of them blocking part of the map.



Every time you kill a bunker you wipe 150mp 60 muni from the enemy for no cost (unless satchel) besides time and you get a little xp. Td’s can kill them from fog of war without paks seeing you. Su85 are self spotting, brits have valentine us can use major recon. A single bazooka / penal /PIRA squad flanking them destroys them as they can’t retreat. They also can’t be redeployed somewhere more useful. It brings to mind the maxim about an immobile tank = a dead tank. I see them as speed bumps to slow the enemy.

Being fair I’ve mostly been in 2v2 recently and using them myself but I’ve never seen them much in big games before the patch. What has changed do you think apart from less okw players?
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

Germany 17

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

810 users are online: 810 guests
0 post in the last 24h
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49139
Welcome our newest member, vibhak
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM