Login

russian armor

Can I have an empty steel bunker?

11 Jan 2020, 09:18 AM
#1
avatar of Bakairu

Posts: 24

Costs so much mp maybe on par with bofor cost? Can i just get a empty one and put my mg squad in it? Maybe in a more reasonable price?

Concrete Bunker*
11 Jan 2020, 11:41 AM
#2
avatar of Widerstreit

Posts: 982

The concrete bunker is one of the most disappointing units implemented.

simply make it more resistant verus normal tank-fire and AT-guns and it will become usefull and you get what you are looking for.


Maybe balance team start to balance? Maybe? ^^
11 Jan 2020, 12:45 PM
#3
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 2156 | Subs: 3

simply make it more resistant verus normal tank-fire and AT-guns and it will become usefull and you get what you are looking for


960 hitpoints isn't enough for you? How else would you expect enemies to kill them then?
Ironic how you ask for balance and propose indestructible MG bunkers in the same post.


They are a bit too expensive right now, and their cost is planned to go down a bit, but durability is definitely not an issue.
11 Jan 2020, 12:54 PM
#4
avatar of Bakairu

Posts: 24

Why didn't they made it like a normal bunker where you have to build it then upgrade it. Instead it is seperated by being a repair station and an mg station. It even has 2 or 3 slots to be garrisoned by infantry but can the infantry inside even fire? How do the units move inside, how many models can fire per each side of the bunker?
11 Jan 2020, 12:57 PM
#5
avatar of Widerstreit

Posts: 982



960 hitpoints isn't enough for you? How else would you expect enemies to kill them then?
Ironic how you ask for balance and propose indestructible MG bunkers in the same post.


They are a bit too expensive right now, and their cost is planned to go down a bit, but durability is definitely not an issue.


- multibe Zis high-expolive barrages
- simlpe Mortar
- artillery

It sounds unfair if you have to side-tech for counter it? Ohh... sad story.


Also PaKs and tanks are able to counter normal dirt-MG-bunkers so quick is a joke. Using smoke or passive fire is so difficult? Give it hit-box of trench, give it 2pop. Fixed.

It is an old balancing error, one thing why CoH1 was better. Logic counters.
11 Jan 2020, 14:48 PM
#6
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 2156 | Subs: 3

- multibe Zis high-expolive barrages
- simlpe Mortar
It sounds unfair if you have to side-tech for counter it? Ohh... sad story.


ZiS barrage and mortars do 80 damage per shot. It'd already take them 12 direct hits to kill a bunker with the current healthpool. Artillery would need 5 direct hits. Take scatter into account and that is a hell of a lot of effective health. And you'd want to increase that even more. What you're suggesting is honestly completely unreasonable. Durability is absolutely not an issue for the concrete bunkers, cost effectiveness is.
11 Jan 2020, 14:57 PM
#7
avatar of Widerstreit

Posts: 982



ZiS barrage and mortars do 80 damage per shot. It'd already take them 12 direct hits to kill a bunker with the current healthpool. Artillery would need 5 direct hits. Take scatter into account and that is a hell of a lot of effective health. And you'd want to increase that even more. What you're suggesting is honestly completely unreasonable. Durability is absolutely not an issue for the concrete bunkers, cost effectiveness is.


No, normal shots do too much damage. It is fine when the barrage do that damage, but normal fire shouldn't do that much.

e.g. look at the DPS of StuG E, it should do more damage versus british emplacements than a StuG. Also PaK40 and normal tanks do too much damage versus emplacements. Like, also the normal bunker of german gets too much damage, it should work like trenches.
11 Jan 2020, 14:59 PM
#8
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 2156 | Subs: 3

No, normal shots do too much damage. It is fine when the barrage do that damage, but normal fire shouldn't do that much.


Bunkers are meant to delay the enemy, not stop them dead. There's no other unit or structure in the game that can tank up to 6 standard AT shells for a comparable price. The game isn't about creating fortresses.
11 Jan 2020, 15:01 PM
#9
avatar of Widerstreit

Posts: 982



Bunkers are meant to delay the enemy, not stop them dead. There's no other unit or structure in the game that can tank up to 6 standard AT shells for a comparable price. The game isn't about creating fortresses.


Stop them death, because they build wrong units? You are joking, or? Where is the problem to force someone to build a mortar or using an HE-ability?

The hole british franktion bases on that, meanwhile the system is made wrong.

Edit: At the moment you only have to build a AT-gun an shot direct at dirt-bunkers and concrete-bunkers. That shouldn't be the case. Use barrage with Zis, use mortar.

Soviets: use SU76 barrage, use Katjusha. Soviets wouldn't need much changes.

US: use Howitzer, Mortar, Scot, Sherman HE shells.

UK: use mortar and base-barrage.

You have enough tools.
11 Jan 2020, 15:06 PM
#10
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 2156 | Subs: 3

Where is the problem to force someone to build a mortar or using an HE-ability?

The hole british franktion bases on that

And most players despise emplacements. There's no need to create more.


Edit: At the moment you only have to build a AT-gun an shot direct at dirt-bunkers and concrete-bunkers.

And land 6 shots, which means having to fire at least 8 if we take misses into account. That's a long time to take down a structure. That's plenty of time to react and mount a counter attack on whatever is firing on the bunker. The game isn't about creating Siegfried lines.
11 Jan 2020, 15:13 PM
#11
avatar of Widerstreit

Posts: 982



And everyone despises emplacements. There's no need to create more.


Because the balance-team fucked up the system. Not because Brits need to be despises, they are simply made wrong.

1. Mortaremplacements shouldn't be a duo-mortar.
2. Bofors should be a suppression plattform, not insta fuker.

and the German should have high-explosive tools to deal with them, make them working right and it works.

You have:

Ostheer: mortar, StuG E (I would make it non-doc T2*tech3) to arrive earlier, Panzerwerfer, Brummbär (I would make it doc, instead of StuG E). Also Ostheers Commando-Panzer 4 could get HE-shells

OKW: leIG18 (I would make it more like Zis, direkt fire mun-cost ability for aggressive style) and Stuka zu Fuß (fire-barrage should arrive earlier) also I would remove the fire-shells of leIG18 of fire-commander and make HEAT instead.
11 Jan 2020, 15:13 PM
#12
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 7180 | Subs: 1

Imo the problem with bunker has more to do with the availability of anti building satchel to infatry like Penal's and IS's.

These tools should simply not be available to mainline infatry but specialized units.
11 Jan 2020, 15:15 PM
#13
avatar of Widerstreit

Posts: 982


And land 6 shots, which means having to fire at least 8 if we take misses into account. That's a long time to take down a structure. That's plenty of time to react and mount a counter attack on whatever is firing on the bunker. The game isn't about creating Siegfried lines.


You know why nobody uses that commander, right? Because you are wrong. That is no time to react if you simply can counter everything without any handy-cap.

That is why so many people hat CoH2, because the system sucks and was better in CoH1.
11 Jan 2020, 15:16 PM
#14
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 2156 | Subs: 3

Because the balance-team fucked up the system. Not because Brits need to be despises, they are simply made wrong.

1. Mortaremplacements shouldn't be a duo-mortar.
2. Bofors should be a suppression plattform, not insta fuker.

and the German should have high-explosive tools to deal with them, make them working right and it works.

You have:

Ostheer: mortar, StuG E (I would make it non-doc T2*tech3) to arrive earlier, Panzerwerfer, Brummbär (I would make it doc, instead of StuG E). Also Ostheers Commando-Panzer 4 could get HE-shells

OKW: leIG18 (I would make it more like Zis, direkt fire mun-cost ability for aggressive style) and Stuka zu Fuß (fire-barrage should arrive earlier) also I would remove the fire-shells of leIG18 of fire-commander and make HEAT instead.


So pretty much exactly how emplacements worked and were countered in vCoH?
That's interesting, because most players despised vCoH emplacements too.

It doesn't matter how they function or how they are countered, most players simply do not like static play in a high action RTS like Company of Heroes.
11 Jan 2020, 15:17 PM
#15
avatar of Widerstreit

Posts: 982

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Jan 2020, 15:13 PMVipper
Imo the problem with bunker has more to do with the availability of anti building satchel to infatry like Penal's and IS's.

These tools should simply not be available to mainline infatry but specialized units.


The isn't the problem. And you knows it xDDD

The problem is, that you need no brain to simply destroy it by things like AT-guns. If you use smoke to threw multible satchels, then you used your brain.

Simply shooting on the ground with PaK -> stupid.
11 Jan 2020, 15:18 PM
#16
avatar of Widerstreit

Posts: 982



So exactly how emplacements worked and were countered in vCoH? That's interesting, because most players despised vCoH emplacements too.


In CoH1 you had the option for effective non-doc counters. In CoH2 the system is fucked up and Arty or bombs are behind Commanders.

Edit: beside, the hole Commander-system of CoH2 is bad.
11 Jan 2020, 15:20 PM
#17
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 7180 | Subs: 1



The isn't the problem. And you knows it xDDD

The problem is, that you need no brain to simply destroy it by things like AT-guns. If you use smoke to threw multible satchels, then you used your brain.

Simply shooting on the ground with PaK -> stupid.

I have pointed out in another thread that ATG should be less effective vs Static structures. ATG already have a role and they do not need the extra utility of countering structures. That utility can be move to other units to make them more attractive and increase built diversity.

As for emplacement I have also suggested multiple times that their should be specific tools able to counter them.
11 Jan 2020, 15:25 PM
#19
avatar of Widerstreit

Posts: 982

CoH1 had a way better line-up and fraction design, the problem of CoH1 was the bad interaction and the coordination of units. You lost units because of path-finding or unlogical movements.

But Wehrmacht had options of multible weapons to deal with emplacements:
Mortar, Nebelwerfer (extra fire-damage) and StuKa zu Fuß.

Panzerelite had Sdkfz.250-mortar able to lay smoke for PnzGrens to use fire-nades. And yes, that isn't much but back in time I was wishing the simply give them a non-doc bombing-run or something else, they didn't.



Edit: And in CoH2 you need luck if you can set attack ground with AT-gun, of if enemy had luck because of shit-map and you can't counter emplacement without bleeding. xD
11 Jan 2020, 17:14 PM
#20
avatar of Fire and Terror

Posts: 125

concrete bunker is a joke, period no person which is not trolling will ever build one becouse of various reasons

1. becouse it costs more then a regular inf sqad, you pay a lot of mp for a bunker which a) does no mp damage b) performs worse then a regular bunker, so why not put mg there in the first place? or build a regular bunker if you only need to hold for some time

2. it gets countered by a single pak and target ground, 960hp thats 6 pak shots that need to hit

3. you cant build it around corners etc (like bofors, which is barely build in the first place), lack of brace or any other mean to buy time

4. it takes ages to build or rep ( repping it becomes a death trap)

5. not to forget is that you pick a commander that lacks any kind of call in tank, if you wanna play defensive you are better of playing fortified armor 99% of the time IMO.

so to summarize it competes to hard with afk mg ( if you wanna hold flank) or normal bunker (trading mp and mun for map) and not to forget fuel/mun caches. Combine that with a relative long build time it doesnt seem attractive ( you cant just rush it on the cutoff like regular bunker)

I would suggest buffing the mg to regular bunker level, reducing mp cost and adding maybe mun? or small fuel cost? This would hardly make them OP

Just to point out I like the regular bunker it has quite the niche.


1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • Ostheer flag CrossFire
  • Ostheer flag JoeRambo
  • Soviets flag |GB| The Lieutenant
  • U.S. Forces flag |GB| The HS H[oo]ligan
uploaded by |GB| The Lnt.599

Board Info

203 posts in the last 24h
1225 posts in the last week
6874 posts in the last month
Registered members: 79800
Welcome our newest member, Greenoaq8c
Most online: 918 users on 27 Oct 2019, 01:03 AM