they already did tho
?
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
Posts: 818
?
Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
Posts: 266
Posts: 556
Posts: 818
Bunker spam is easily countered with 3-4 shots from ATG. Jesus are they that good rather than a manpower shrinking hole ?
Posts: 450
I agree, I don't really think bunkers are too strong, sometimes they work out well, most often they die without too much trouble. Thats .6 of a fuel cache someone isn't building or half the cost of a new squad.
Posts: 379 | Subs: 1
Bunker spam becomes op when you add indirect fire to the equation. Everyone spams bunkers in high 3v3-4v4 play.
Posts: 960
Bunker spam becomes op when you add indirect fire to the equation. Everyone spams bunkers in high 3v3-4v4 play.
Posts: 450
An oxymoron if I ever saw one.
Posts: 960
My friends and I are in and out of top ten as axis.
Posts: 450
Posts: 606
Personally had the idea of a single AT Osttruppen squad at 2 CP, which would help the doctrine after Puma nerf. They'd have AT rifles.
Posts: 3260
Posts: 818
Posts: 857 | Subs: 2
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Has anyone tested how the buffed riflemen trade in cq Engagements with assgrens?
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
Bunker spam is easily countered with 3-4 shots from ATG. Jesus are they that good rather than a manpower shrinking hole ?
Posts: 556
In team games they are that good. You have resource inflation basically nullifying the cost in a lot of games
You could make bunkers cheaper if they had a pop cost. The current system makes it only a tactical choice in smaller modes. In larger modes it's too much of a "why not" imo
141 | |||||
59 | |||||
11 | |||||
8 | |||||
27 | |||||
3 | |||||
2 |