[WM]Bunker

2»

Comments

  • #32
    5 years ago
    whitesky00whitesky00 Posts: 410

    @Doktor_S said:

    @Baálthazor said:
    I'd like to see same stats on the allied trenches and the axis one's. It's always bugged me how the British one is stronger, cheaper and apparently sports a stopsign that enemy infantry for some undefined reason HAS to obey! Whereas the axis trench is fairly expensive, doctrinal, ludicrously easy to destroy/circumvent and is open to everyone like a whorehouse.
    The OH bunkers on the other hand, I wouldn't touch at all. They are fine for what they do and reasonably priced.

    Dont forget, UKF Trech is buildable with any commander AND in neutral/owned/enemy territory!
    This makes rushing and holding fuel/muni points early game so much easier as UKF, not to mention put a bunker and an MG on their cut off, and it's GG retreating units.

    As OST, you need to own the territory.

    Don't forget one has a cost and one doesn't! How many times must this information be repeated. Thank you for selectively choosing your information.

  • #33
    5 years ago
    ValkyrieValkyrie Posts: 2,132

    All factions should have a forward retreat point, or none of them should. Having a forward retreat is a massive advantage, especially on larger maps.

    I do not oppose changing the command bunker into having such an ability, but the Soviets will need some kind of clever solution as well to make this work.

  • #34
    5 years ago
    BaálthazorBaálthazor The shoreline by the river Styx.Posts: 1,092

    @whitesky00
    Yeah, 50mp. 50..!! In terms of wartime economy, that's about as much as a big mac menu... without ketchup.

    @Valkyrie
    Hey man, long time no see. :smiley: Glad to see that you are still around. :smiley: Have you been taking a break or something? :smile:

  • #35
    5 years ago
    whitesky00whitesky00 Posts: 410

    @Baálthazor said:
    @whitesky00
    Yeah, 50mp. 50..!! In terms of wartime economy, that's about as much as a big mac menu... without ketchup.

    @Valkyrie
    Hey man, long time no see. :smiley: Glad to see that you are still around. :smiley: Have you been taking a break or something? :smile:

    50 MP is quite a significant amount given that UKF units bleed significantly with every model loss. It's also so that you can't spam them neither. And, it reduces the firing arc of the vickers and I think it makes it easier to flank.

  • #36
    5 years ago
    ValkyrieValkyrie Posts: 2,132

    @Baálthazor said:
    @whitesky00
    Yeah, 50mp. 50..!! In terms of wartime economy, that's about as much as a big mac menu... without ketchup.

    @Valkyrie
    Hey man, long time no see. :smiley: Glad to see that you are still around. :smiley: Have you been taking a break or something? :smile:

    Hey thanks! That's very nice to hear!

    I mostly lurk nowadays. The people I usually play CoH2 with have all taken a break from CoH2 (Stellaris, Hearts of Iron and Overwatch are all claiming our free time), but with the return of one of my usual partners in crime which has been missing for a year I'm coming back to the game after about 2 months of not playing at all. This involves coming back here, because the degree of uselessness on the molotov is too much to bear.

  • #37
    5 years ago
    BaálthazorBaálthazor The shoreline by the river Styx.Posts: 1,092

    @Valkyrie said:

    @Baálthazor said:
    @whitesky00
    Yeah, 50mp. 50..!! In terms of wartime economy, that's about as much as a big mac menu... without ketchup.

    @Valkyrie
    Hey man, long time no see. :smiley: Glad to see that you are still around. :smiley: Have you been taking a break or something? :smile:

    Hey thanks! That's very nice to hear!

    I mostly lurk nowadays. The people I usually play CoH2 with have all taken a break from CoH2 (Stellaris, Hearts of Iron and Overwatch are all claiming our free time), but with the return of one of my usual partners in crime which has been missing for a year I'm coming back to the game after about 2 months of not playing at all. This involves coming back here, because the degree of uselessness on the molotov is too much to bear.

    Hehe, well, I am most certainly glad to see you back. :)

    Most people around here just cry foul to whatever nerf/buff is coming up, but I remember you as an allied player mostly with a sound mind, unpartial loyalty and good game-understaning. :)

    I miss allied players which just wants balance, not OP'edness so as to steamroll axis and I always enjoyed your posts in that respect... :) Clear, calm and balanced, unlike most others... :) Glad to have you back, man. ;)

  • #38
    5 years ago
    Doktor_SDoktor_S Posts: 134

    @whitesky00 said:

    Don't forget one has a cost and one doesn't! How many times must this information be repeated. Thank you for selectively choosing your information.

    50 Manpower for 1 trench thats OP is very little to ask for mate...

  • #39
    5 years ago
    ofieldofield Posts: 630
    edited July 2016

    @Valkyrie schrieb:
    All factions should have a forward retreat point, or none of them should. Having a forward retreat is a massive advantage, especially on larger maps.

    Using the same logic. All faction should have a sniper, all factions should have weapon racks, all factions should have cost effective tank like the panther, all factions should have a 60 range TD, all have factions should have non doc rocket arty, all factions....

    ...should be the same :*

  • #40
    5 years ago
    Sgt_SchultzSgt_Schul… Heidelberg, Baden-Württemberg, GermanyPosts: 57

    @ofield said:

    @Valkyrie schrieb:
    All factions should have a forward retreat point, or none of them should. Having a forward retreat is a massive advantage, especially on larger maps.

    Using the same logic. All faction should have a sniper, all factions should have weapon racks, all factions should have cost effective tank like the panther, all factions should have a 60 range TD, all have factions should have non doc rocket arty, all factions....

    ...should be the same :*

    No, no, no no no nonononono...

    You're taking this the wrong way. The change isn't to homogenize the factions, but instead, it's supposed to balance the factions. They all still have their unique features and such. Forward retreat points are like tumors: they are in the faction (body), but they must be removed eventually for balance (life). They were never truly part of the faction.

  • #41
    5 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,824
    The level of impact that a fwp has is no where near that of a sniper.
  • #42
    5 years ago
    whitesky00whitesky00 Posts: 410
    edited July 2016

    @Doktor_S said:

    @whitesky00 said:

    Don't forget one has a cost and one doesn't! How many times must this information be repeated. Thank you for selectively choosing your information.

    50 Manpower for 1 trench thats OP is very little to ask for mate...

    I don't know in what world you're playing but UKF doesn't have much MP to give if they want field presence. If it's so OP, then why not make the argument that wehrmacht trenches should be the same? Increase their cost free trenches to 50.

  • #43
    5 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855

    Don't break trenches by making them cost MP, just increase bunker toughness or utility!

  • #44
    5 years ago
    ARMYguyARMYguy Posts: 850

    Why don't they do what they do in coh1 and have the defensive doc double the health of bunkers? Might make that useless doc slightly less useless, among other tweaks.

  • #45
    5 years ago
    ofieldofield Posts: 630

    @Karbinder schrieb:

    @ofield said:

    @Valkyrie schrieb:
    All factions should have a forward retreat point, or none of them should. Having a forward retreat is a massive advantage, especially on larger maps.

    Using the same logic. All faction should have a sniper, all factions should have weapon racks, all factions should have cost effective tank like the panther, all factions should have a 60 range TD, all have factions should have non doc rocket arty, all factions....

    ...should be the same :*

    No, no, no no no nonononono...

    You're taking this the wrong way. The change isn't to homogenize the factions, but instead, it's supposed to balance the factions. They all still have their unique features and such. Forward retreat points are like tumors: they are in the faction (body), but they must be removed eventually for balance (life). They were never truly part of the faction.

    But the result is the same.

  • #46
    5 years ago
    KurfürstKurfürst Posts: 289
    edited July 2016

    @comrade_daelin said:
    Another, more novel idea is that instead of a retreat point, they act like the Ardennes Assault ability "Halt Retreat!", where retreating units within a respective bunker's radius stops retreating. This justifies the need to build multiple bunkers and have them upgraded to command post rather than medics or machine guns, and also require building them in strategic locations, like in most likely path of retreating units (though I prefer just giving them a large radius of effect). This also requires you to tactically consider them as smart enemies will destroy them ASAP to neutralize this advantage. The ability can also have a cooldown so players can't just liberally retreat units at a whim.

    +1, it would be a nice one. It also fits into the Wehrmacht theme of officers reversing routs and organizing ad hoc battlegroups from whatever units available. The command bunker is otherwise pretty useless. It can do nothing a halftruck can't and it can only do it in one place. But with this modification case it could be build into strategic choke points with a medium radius. I'd rather have this as a toggle ability though.

    Trenches. All trenches should born equal, that is, all should be occupyable without the energy shield, difficult to hit and should cost some manpower. To some extent this should apply to OH bunkers. The ATG counter is lame.

  • #47
    5 years ago
    whitesky00whitesky00 Posts: 410

    @Kurfürst said:

    @comrade_daelin said:
    Another, more novel idea is that instead of a retreat point, they act like the Ardennes Assault ability "Halt Retreat!", where retreating units within a respective bunker's radius stops retreating. This justifies the need to build multiple bunkers and have them upgraded to command post rather than medics or machine guns, and also require building them in strategic locations, like in most likely path of retreating units (though I prefer just giving them a large radius of effect). This also requires you to tactically consider them as smart enemies will destroy them ASAP to neutralize this advantage. The ability can also have a cooldown so players can't just liberally retreat units at a whim.

    +1, it would be a nice one. It also fits into the Wehrmacht theme of officers reversing routs and organizing ad hoc battlegroups from whatever units available. The command bunker is otherwise pretty useless. It can do nothing a halftruck can't and it can only do it in one place. But with this modification case it could be build into strategic choke points with a medium radius. I'd rather have this as a toggle ability though.

    Trenches. All trenches should born equal, that is, all should be occupyable without the energy shield, difficult to hit and should cost some manpower. To some extent this should apply to OH bunkers. The ATG counter is lame.

    This sounds like more static gameplay. It's hard enough pushing a defensive line against MGs, ATGs, HQs and bunker MGs. Now Allies have to push to their retreat areas? Many players would choose Command bunker over halftrack because..... it doesn't delay their teching and it's more durable than a 251. Toggle ability would be the equivalent of a forward retreat point. And if you're asking for that, Soviet would need one too.

    I agree to your trenches argument. Make them all equal in everything; one way or the other.

    Why should ATGs not counter bunkers? What do you expect to counter bunkers then? I have to wait until I get tanks just to be countered by ATGs protecting the bunkers?

  • #48
    5 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,096
    Well everyone has mortars now so you could go with that. Or a wasp or AEC for UK. Your bunker counters aren't exactly limited these days.
  • #49
    5 years ago
    KurfürstKurfürst Posts: 289
    edited July 2016

    @whitesky00 said:
    This sounds like more static gameplay. It's hard enough pushing a defensive line against MGs, ATGs, HQs and bunker MGs. Now Allies have to push to their retreat areas? Many players would choose Command bunker over halftrack because..... it doesn't delay their teching and it's more durable than a 251. Toggle ability would be the equivalent of a forward retreat point. And if you're asking for that, Soviet would need one too.

    I agree to your trenches argument. Make them all equal in everything; one way or the other.

    Why should ATGs not counter bunkers? What do you expect to counter bunkers then? I have to wait until I get tanks just to be countered by ATGs protecting the bunkers?

    OST gameplay as is now is more or less about holding the line until you can tech up. They have squishy squads and need a static defense line to fall back.

    ATGs vs bunkers. Same reason why ATGs and generally AT should not counter trenches. Why can't ATG counter the 17 pdr for example? They are the same thing - a tiny earthwork sitting out of the ground, it should be hard to hit and less gamey. All other things can still work - flamers, satchels, mortars, barrage from ZIS or SU 76 etc. There are already a lot of effective counters, you do not need another one. Brits have the WASP from the go, Sov has penals with satchels and Cons with molotovs and Scout car can easily deploy them past the rear.

    Who are these many players who build command bunkers as OST? Its very situational already.

    Soviets already have a forward retreat point in the UDT Doctrine. That's what Soviets do, they live off from their doctrines. All other factions have them anyway, why not the OST, which is supposed to be the flexible, defensive natured, flavoured after the professional Wehr at its peak? As opposed to the Soviet style, they already have very durable squads and weapon teams, they are far better at maintaining field presence. Which Make it 300 MP forward reatreat point even. That's 450 MP and 60 Muni in a single, easily destroyable building. I don't see how it would poorly effect balance, it would just give more tactical options to the OST, which already has the squishiest Squads.

  • #50
    5 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495
    edited July 2016

    @Kurfürst said:

    @whitesky00 said:
    This sounds like more static gameplay. It's hard enough pushing a defensive line against MGs, ATGs, HQs and bunker MGs. Now Allies have to push to their retreat areas? Many players would choose Command bunker over halftrack because..... it doesn't delay their teching and it's more durable than a 251. Toggle ability would be the equivalent of a forward retreat point. And if you're asking for that, Soviet would need one too.

    I agree to your trenches argument. Make them all equal in everything; one way or the other.

    Why should ATGs not counter bunkers? What do you expect to counter bunkers then? I have to wait until I get tanks just to be countered by ATGs protecting the bunkers?

    OST gameplay as is now is more or less about holding the line until you can tech up. They have squishy squads and need a static defense line to fall back.

    ATGs vs bunkers. Same reason why ATGs and generally AT should not counter trenches. Why can't ATG counter the 17 pdr for example? They are the same thing - a tiny earthwork sitting out of the ground, it should be hard to hit and less gamey. All other things can still work - flamers, satchels, mortars, barrage from ZIS or SU 76 etc. There are already a lot of effective counters, you do not need another one. Brits have the WASP from the go, Sov has penals with satchels and Cons with molotovs and Scout car can easily deploy them past the rear.

    Who are these many players who build command bunkers as OST? Its very situational already.

    Soviets already have a forward retreat point in the UDT Doctrine. That's what Soviets do, they live off from their doctrines. All other factions have them anyway, why not the OST, which is supposed to be the flexible, defensive natured, flavoured after the professional Wehr at its peak? As opposed to the Soviet style, they already have very durable squads and weapon teams, they are far better at maintaining field presence. Which Make it 300 MP forward reatreat point even. That's 450 MP and 60 Muni in a single, easily destroyable building. I don't see how it would poorly effect balance, it would just give more tactical options to the OST, which already has the squishiest Squads.

    no the soviets do not.

    you can reinforce there, you cant retreat there. same as with the halftrack.

    neither soviets nor Wehr have forward retreat points and thats fair.

  • #51
    5 years ago
    whitesky00whitesky00 Posts: 410

    @Kurfürst said:

    @whitesky00 said:
    This sounds like more static gameplay. It's hard enough pushing a defensive line against MGs, ATGs, HQs and bunker MGs. Now Allies have to push to their retreat areas? Many players would choose Command bunker over halftrack because..... it doesn't delay their teching and it's more durable than a 251. Toggle ability would be the equivalent of a forward retreat point. And if you're asking for that, Soviet would need one too.

    I agree to your trenches argument. Make them all equal in everything; one way or the other.

    Why should ATGs not counter bunkers? What do you expect to counter bunkers then? I have to wait until I get tanks just to be countered by ATGs protecting the bunkers?

    OST gameplay as is now is more or less about holding the line until you can tech up. They have squishy squads and need a static defense line to fall back.

    They do have a defense line to fall back to... that's the command, mg, and healing bunkers. It's static because it can't move. You can heal and hold off enemy advances by quickly healing and reinforcing there. It's a soft retreat point and not a noob-friendly button toggle.

    ATGs vs bunkers. Same reason why ATGs and generally AT should not counter trenches. Why can't ATG counter the 17 pdr for example? They are the same thing - a tiny earthwork sitting out of the ground, it should be hard to hit and less gamey. All other things can still work - flamers, satchels, mortars, barrage from ZIS or SU 76 etc. There are already a lot of effective counters, you do not need another one. Brits have the WASP from the go, Sov has penals with satchels and Cons with molotovs and Scout car can easily deploy them past the rear.

    ATGs should counter bunkers and trenches. However, trenches target size is too small which is why they miss. ATGs counter the 17 pounder. Actually everything except small arms fire counters the 17 pounder. It's a HUGE target and a structure/building so it takes heavy damage from artillery, AT, and extra from flames. ATGs have always been the hard counter to bunkers early game (played since release). Mortars are inaccurate and require a lot of time. flamers by itself take like 120 seconds to destroy a bunker. satchels require teching a certain path and getting a clown car to get close enough. wasp requires 90 muni and takes minutes into the game (depending on mode more) before being able to get. Not to mention all of these vehicle counters would easily be stopped by 1 pak40. Just like how OKW is being forced to play mechanized HQ to have a viable game, you should not force any faction into a particular teching route. ATGs have always been the counter to bunkers and they will remain so.

    Who are these many players who build command bunkers as OST? Its very situational already.

    I don't know, i'm top 10 in all the Allied factions in 4v4. However the game matches me up with my opponents, that's who builds them.

    Soviets already have a forward retreat point in the UDT Doctrine. That's what Soviets do, they live off from their doctrines. All other factions have them anyway, why not the OST, which is supposed to be the flexible, defensive natured, flavoured after the professional Wehr at its peak? As opposed to the Soviet style, they already have very durable squads and weapon teams, they are far better at maintaining field presence. Which Make it 300 MP forward reatreat point even. That's 450 MP and 60 Muni in a single, easily destroyable building. I don't see how it would poorly effect balance, it would just give more tactical options to the OST, which already has the squishiest Squads.

    And as someone else stated. SOV and OST do not have forward retreat points. It's only UKF, OKW, and USF that have them. I'd rather have no forward retreat points for all factions. This would reward players who win engagements with some extra time instead of having to re-engage 10-20 seconds later. That was always the appeal of the game to me to be rewarded with good gameplay. FRPs just negate that reward for poor gameplay.

  • #52
    5 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855

    I disagree that FRP reward poor gameplay at all. Secondly, I support a bunker buff, considering that might make all the people whining about grens go away.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

  • © SEGA. SEGA, the SEGA logo, Relic Entertainment, the Relic Entertainment logo, Company of Heroes and the Company of Heroes logo are either trademarks or registered trademarks of SEGA Holdings Co., Ltd. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. SEGA is registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

DeutschEnglishEspañolFrançaisItalianoРусский