Login

russian armor

Bunkers

21 Jun 2021, 15:11 PM
#21
avatar of ZeroZeroNi

Posts: 1563


Because apparently only bunkers have this issue (correct me there if I am wrong, but I think that is the case). Fighting positions get reliably damaged by nades as intended as you said yourself below.

Bunkers and fighting positions have nothing to do with British emplacements and their ability to brace, nor with the 17pd or the PaK43.

Yes, It's irrelevant. When allied structures that cost same and have laundry list of advantages over the axis ones for the same cost its fine non issue, but a axis structure a slight avantage and can't be cheesed by a 35 muni ability that's is somehow a problem. What a fucking hippocryte.
21 Jun 2021, 15:22 PM
#23
avatar of LMAO

Posts: 163

we should just have all units have the same stats and abilities with different names, there balanced
21 Jun 2021, 15:32 PM
#24
avatar of mr.matrix300

Posts: 518

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Jun 2021, 15:19 PMredfox
Calm down, axis fanboy.


> has no matches as Wehr and only 5 as OKW
> calls other people fanboy


but a axis structure a slight avantage and can't be cheesed by a 35 muni ability that's is somehow a problem


Well tbf this really looks and feels strange. In my opinion the light gammon bomb should deal a bit of damage (and so should Bundle to Sov. Bunker ... if it doesn't already)

Edit: Bundle damages Sov Bunker but it takes a lot of them (same case for light gammon)
21 Jun 2021, 15:35 PM
#25
avatar of redfox

Posts: 92


> has no matches as Wehr and only 5 as OKW
> calls other people fanboy


I am not the one overreacting hysterically when someone proposes a slight change to my beloved bunkers/my whatever.


Well tbf this really looks and feels strange. In my opinion the light gammon bomb should at least deal a bit of damage (and so should Bundle to Sov. Bunker ... if it doesn't already)


See, anyone with reason clearly sees the point of OP. No need to start trembling out of my-faction-could-get-nerfed-anxiety.
21 Jun 2021, 15:45 PM
#26
avatar of ZeroZeroNi

Posts: 1563


Well tbf this really looks and feels strange. In my opinion the light gammon bomb should deal a bit of damage (and so should Bundle to Sov. Bunker ... if it doesn't already)

It does, it's just a rare case of the nade failing to pen the bunker.
21 Jun 2021, 15:46 PM
#27
avatar of mr.matrix300

Posts: 518

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Jun 2021, 15:35 PMredfox


See, anyone with reason clearly sees the point of OP. No need to start trembling out of my-faction-could-get-nerfed-anxiety.


But OP also had other points like pop cap for bunkers.



21 Jun 2021, 15:54 PM
#28
avatar of redfox

Posts: 92


It does, it's just a rare case of the nade failing to pen the bunker.


Yeah, but the concept of penetrating/failing to penetrate does not make a whole lot of sense on a nade/explosion vs a building.


But OP also had other points like pop cap for bunkers.


I think he was giving thoughts and proposing a few ideas, not DEMANDING or anything. Let's talk with reason, shall we?
21 Jun 2021, 16:07 PM
#29
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3106 | Subs: 2


Yes, It's irrelevant. When allied structures that cost same and have laundry list of advantages over the axis ones for the same cost its fine non issue, but a axis structure a slight avantage and can't be cheesed by a 35 muni ability that's is somehow a problem. What a fucking hippocryte.

Nonsense. There is nothing "cheesy" about throwing a nade into a bunker, and if you seriously want to vent some alleged huge Allied bias on a tiny and very specific discussion about weird/unintuitive in-game behaviour, then go ahead.
But don't blame others if in the end you make your own argument look bad by throwing around accusations and insults.
21 Jun 2021, 16:11 PM
#30
avatar of ZeroZeroNi

Posts: 1563


Nonsense. There is nothing "cheesy" about throwing a nade into a bunker, and if you seriously want to vent some alleged huge Allied bias on a tiny and very specific discussion about weird/unintuitive in-game behaviour, then go ahead.
But don't blame others if in the end you make your own argument look bad by throwing around accusations and insults.

Right, you are a mod so you get to be a Hypocrite, while I can't say the truth.
21 Jun 2021, 16:16 PM
#31
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3106 | Subs: 2


Right, you are a mod so you get to be a Hypocrite, while I can't say the truth.

To be honest I'd rather end it at this point since you have not shown much reasoning and either have thrown around unproven statements or even insults. I don't see any point in continuing that way.
21 Jun 2021, 16:40 PM
#32
avatar of ZeroZeroNi

Posts: 1563


To be honest I'd rather end it at this point since you have not shown much reasoning and either have thrown around unproven statements or even insults. I don't see any point in continuing that way.

You want reason fine.
You can be ok with the fact that brits can tap a button and negate the effect of 200+ muni cost ability or nullify all incoming damage to the point repairing it is faster and yet the unit can still retain all the benefits of it's axis counter part while also not being de-crew able, having 40+ more hp.
Yet you are not ok with a mere bunker sometimes being able not be penned and killed(that's completely due to how coh2 works btw) by a 35 muni grenade.
How am I suppose interpret this anything other way than you having double standards for allies and axis.
21 Jun 2021, 17:01 PM
#33
avatar of thekessvn

Posts: 109

That sometime cost a game. 1 pixel of HP bunker. Fine.
How about rifleman snare cant kill 0 HP tank just like this case ?
21 Jun 2021, 17:43 PM
#34
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1


How am I suppose interpret this anything other way than you having double standards for allies and axis.

Stop projecting yourself on to other people. Given that you're this upset about his minor suggestion, it's pretty clear that you're the one having double standards

You've barely even addressed the topic in your ridiculous ranting. There's no reason bunkers and FPs shouldn't cost pop

If you have a problem with emplacements (which cost pop....) then make a thread about them. I look forward to reading it
21 Jun 2021, 18:00 PM
#35
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3106 | Subs: 2


You want reason fine.
You can be ok with the fact that brits can tap a button and negate the effect of 200+ muni cost ability or nullify all incoming damage to the point repairing it is faster and yet the unit can still retain all the benefits of it's axis counter part while also not being de-crew able, having 40+ more hp.

Complete lie. You made that up to "support" your own argument. Quote me where I said "brace is fine".
Brace has nothing to do with the armor value of an OST bunker. Brits do not have a "counter part" to the bunker, so go state what you're comparing the Bunker to. Being decrewable is a huge benefit for any structure, I'd rather pay 3 infantry models to recrew instead of paying for the whole structure again.


Yet you are not ok with a mere bunker sometimes being able not be penned and killed(that's completely due to how coh2 works btw) by a 35 muni grenade.
How am I suppose interpret this anything other way than you having double standards for allies and axis.

Correct, I am not okay with the nonsense implementation that a grenade can deal exactly zero damage to a bunker while landing on top of it.
And to circle back since you seem to be quite obsessed with the brace ability: If the Bunker had had brace instead of armor, it would have died.

You can interpret this as not having double standards for both sides by not making up fake facts and assumptions.
Pip
21 Jun 2021, 18:33 PM
#36
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1594

I might agree that Bunkers should cost population, but the difference in strength between OST and USF "bunkers" isnt something I think you can totally fairly compare directly.

They're on very different factions, USF being a very "aggressive" faction, and OST being a very "defensive" one, which not to mention the utility of the Rifle Grenades.

I honestly always found it a bit strange that USF have the Fighting Position at all, while SOV and especially UKF do not. UKF in particular is a much more "defensive" faction in design. Is there some design goal here I'm missing?

Admittedly I don't know for sure, but I'd also assume the Fighting Position is using the same profile for its 50 cal as the teamweapon version, and the Bunker is using the teamweapon MG42 profile, other than arc in both cases. If this is true, the Fighting Position is pretty well advantaged in that aspect.

All I'm saying here is that I don't think that the FP being more vulnerable is necessarily bad. I will also state that static defences in general are historically not a great fit for CoH.

EDIT: It is definitely absurd that the OST bunker can fail to be penetrated by explosives, however. That's certainly something that should be changed, even if nothing else is.
21 Jun 2021, 18:55 PM
#37
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Jun 2021, 18:33 PMPip
I might agree that Bunkers should cost population, but the difference in strength between OST and USF "bunkers" isnt something I think you can totally fairly compare directly.

They're on very different factions, USF being a very "aggressive" faction, and OST being a very "defensive" one, which not to mention the utility of the Rifle Grenades.

I honestly always found it a bit strange that USF have the Fighting Position at all, while SOV and especially UKF do not. UKF in particular is a much more "defensive" faction in design. Is there some design goal here I'm missing?

I assume the reasoning for that is that USFs hmg is the least accessible. It's not as true anymore but at launch it was locked behind a 50 fuel officer. That's my assumption just because I have no idea why else they would get FPs, doesn't fit their theme as you said

That works both ways though. Like it's kinda weird to me that Ost has bunkers when they already have by far the best hmg, and it's available in their HQ. Sure it's in their theme, but it's a little redundant

Making them cost pop for everyone seems fair imo
Pip
21 Jun 2021, 19:09 PM
#38
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1594


I assume the reasoning for that is that USFs hmg is the least accessible. It's not as true anymore but at launch it was locked behind a 50 fuel officer. That's my assumption just because I have no idea why else they would get FPs, doesn't fit their theme as you said

That works both ways though. Like it's kinda weird to me that Ost has bunkers when they already have by far the best hmg, and it's available in their HQ. Sure it's in their theme, but it's a little redundant

Making them cost pop for everyone seems fair imo


I think if they were to cost population it might be nice if you can salvage them for a minor refund, or at the very least just scuttle them for no refund, otherwise you might well have population sitting on the field you have no way to recover. The former is more in-line with how UKF emplacement works, I believe.
21 Jun 2021, 19:13 PM
#39
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Jun 2021, 19:09 PMPip


I think if they were to cost population it might be nice if you can salvage them for a minor refund, or at the very least just scuttle them for no refund, otherwise you might well have population sitting on the field you have no way to recover. The former is more in-line with how UKF emplacement works, I believe.

Yeah I think that's definitely a good idea
21 Jun 2021, 21:24 PM
#40
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Jun 2021, 18:33 PMPip
...

UKF trench where meant to be their bunkers/fighting positions where their infatry could fight from.

It simply never correctly implemented.
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
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

511 users are online: 511 guests
0 post in the last 24h
36 posts in the last week
143 posts in the last month
Registered members: 44954
Welcome our newest member, Mtbgbans
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM