[1.2 Axis Balance] Axis Bunkers what do u think?

[Kyoosh1017]

Axis bunkers.. hehe thats all im gona say. They ability to house troops. Turn into a repair bay. MG nest and a axis medic station that retrieves dead bodies from the battlefield. I knoe that I for one do not use the bunkers for anything else other than repair depot. Because now here is the crazyness!!!

U CAN PUT MG gunners INSIDE THE BUNKER... effectively giving them a 360 degree firing arc... Because if you look at the bunker closely. It acts as a another building. So Axis players can not only build repair depots.. but those same repair depots can house mg gunners... giving it 360 degree arc and rendering the mg nest utterly useless... At least to me anywayz... haha I probably hsouldnt of told u guys this... cuz now I cant abuse it! But yah 260 for one mg gunner that can reposition itself inside the bunker giving it a 360 degree cover? 200mp for an mg nest that shots one way? I would go with 60 extra MP and get the bunker to do 360 degree firing arc. Of course it all depends on the situation...

Im just saying. As an allied commander.. There isnt much effective counter against an repair depot filled with MG gunners and stug tanks waiting for repairs =D

Its effectively a forward rearm base for the axis and stronghold. Axis bunkers... haha yah what do u think? Too cheap?

[FootKnight]

Indirect fire. Off map arty, bombing runs, howitzers, calliopes, mortars, etc can take care of a stationary bunker and damaged stugs clustered around it well. Even AT guns, which can just sit out of range of the bunker and shell it to hell.

[Kyoosh1017]

i knoe but what do you think about the balance issue. vs an allied player only having an mg nest.

Since the axis gets field repair and an mg nest in one. Effectively making it a mobile repair station and a VP holder.

While allies can only have 1 bunker with a fixed firing arc.

[DrunkenOne]

Yeah. Axis bunkers are pretty much crazy overpowered at the moment. Cost 0 fuel, very spammable, and stick a mg42 in there and they are basically immune to all infantry besides mortars.

[Vicious_CB]

So who actually upgrades bunkers into anything other than an MG nest?

[Shadue]

Yeah. Axis bunkers are pretty much crazy overpowered at the moment. Cost 0 fuel, very spammable, and stick a mg42 in there and they are basically immune to all infantry besides mortars.
funny, I take out bunkers with sachels all the time.

[DrunkenOne]

So who actually upgrades bunkers into anything other than an MG nest?
Who actually upgrades bunkers into anything at all?

funny, I take out bunkers with sachels all the time.
Funny, I seem to be able to simply get out of the bunker before the satchel blows all the time. And 1 satchel doesn't kill a bunker. So gl with that, since you satchel, waste munitions, and i just get right back in the bunker and force your airborne to retreat.

[Lezt00]

you can put troops in the mg nest too and they do fire 360 deg.

the mgnest is 160mp 50fuel

the bunker is 150?mp and 50mun for the upgrade

the first aid station and repair station - i forget their cost

so they are ok.

[VoodooKing]

Heh good one Drunken.

[Bentguru]

If your gonna whine about axis bunkers, whine about the right thing:

They're pretty much invulnerable to anything but mortars or AT fire with a mg42 inside + the inherent upgrade. Grenades barely scratch people inside, snipers miss a lot. and because it only costs 150 mp to build it's available VERY early on and it aboslutely KILLS allied on maps like angoville where 1 or 2 strategic points command the entire map.

[Shadue]

Thus the reason I usually have 2 Airborne together at any time.

And I shouldnt USE the ammo resources I am compiling!?! I will have to try that tactic and put it in a glass case so I can stop every once in a while throughout a battle to look at.

:crazy: ya im just being a smartass now :nana:

[Demonic Spoon]

By the time the Axis can muster a sufficient force to take a critical strategic point and put a bunker on it, you should have mortars. Mortars are invaluable ANYWAY, so even if they don't get bunkers, get 'em.

[W4rdoG]

crocs/flamthrowers totally destroy bunkers easily

i dunno if they still do if its empty without mg though

[Bentguru]

You all are not getting my point. A good axis player can build bunkers with 2x mg42's, a 360 degree field of fire, near invulnerablity from snipers and grenades, immediately.

You will never get crocs, or armor. I'm going to take a point, slap a bunker down on it, garrison it and then leave. Your 4 rifles can throw themselves at it all they want, the units inside will not die. If you get mortars, it's going to take at least 3 minutes to take out that bunker, and when i notice the shells falling, I'm going to ungarrison it and build another for a petty 150mp. Repeat ad nausem. Did i meantion that the point I took is probably going to be one that cuts you off from the entire map (angoville), or bottles you up like a dolphin in a fishing net (semois)? Cause thats gonna be the one.

I have never seen anything rape the riflespam more in my entire life. The common tactics of flanking and such you use against normal mg nests simply don't work against bunkers.

[Naru]

An MG42 in an Axis bunker does have a larger potential field of fire, he can also be sniped, grenaded, and burned out of it just like any other buidling --while the actuall MG bunker upgrade for munitons suffers none of those problems. Additionally, you can put a MG .30 cal in Allied bunkers as well, with all the same drawbacks.

Incidentally, it's not bene my experince at all that my men in bunkers have 'near invulnerbilty to snipers and grenades", maybe some tests are in order?

[DrunkenOne]

Naru, maybe you havent played around with bunkers. Grenades do like 0 damage and snipers seem to miss or do 0 damage 3/4 of the time. And as far as flame engys? Lol gl getting close.

And 30 cals in allied bunkers are no comparison. 30 cals are worse than mg42s cept for the AP ability, which you lose in a bunker. On top of that, it doesnt have 360 fire, and the allied bunker costs fuel.

[Kyoosh1017]

lol i just meant its cheap cuz even after u make the repair depot u can garrison MG guys in IT... which is what i USE. since i use stugs... and other armor that needs repair..

SO u dont even use the bunker for MG nest upgrade... u use it for repair depot upgrade. and u can put an MG gunner inside to get and MG bunker/ REPAIR depot

thats what i meant about the cheapness... Try it out right now. I use bunkers for forward repair depots.. since allied commanders have field repair... i invest in repair bunkers so my tanks dont die as easily.. as any tank commander knoes when to retreat and when not to...

[ericlflau]

Bunker / encampments matter much more at early game, where fuel is very much at a premium. I would gladly trade the fuel cost for MG camp for mun cost 1:1.

Right now I see way too many axis pushing to allies fuel areas, set one bunker, and be virtually impervious to attacks in those areas till tier 3. Allies simply cannot do the same due to fuel cost.

I don't see how an MG post should cost fuel. That imho is the biggest imbalance at the moment.

[Naru]

I'm curious, I will check it out tonight.

[Boomstar]

Axis are supposed to be about a more defensive play style, which is why there bunkers are so cheap and cheap to upgrade. I think allied bunkers costing fuel is completely wrong though, manpower is fine but 50 muntions instead of fuel please building them right now is a good way to get you killed.

The fact axis bunkers gives a 360 degree of fire though needs to go, thats simply too good.

[Brat_Boy]

So who actually upgrades bunkers into anything other than an MG nest?
What Axis player doesn't make repair bunkers? They're lifesavers for tanks on the front lines! I didn't know this little trick with the MG gunner (never bothered), but I like to keep my repair bunkers out of enemy firing range anyway, since I don't want my tanks to be caught in the AT/howitzer fire if possible. Just last game I had my enemy destroy a bunker with an AT gun (which was promptly taken out by some Pumas), but the point is that they're vulnerable to attack.

Edit: On the other hand, mr. oh-so-wise poster, when you put an MG in a repair bunker instead of an MG bunker, you do get 360 degrees of fire, but they can only fire in one direction. That forward MG is a lifesaver. Being able to fire at a squad in front and another at the side/back is brutal. Just last game, my enemy tried to rifle/para spam me in the beginning. His men were slaughtered by my MG's: 1 in a bunker and 2 set up in heavy cover. Actually, the best part was having several squads pinned between 2 MG's firing across one another. It was...sweet.

[Lezt00]

boom star, if u use the upgrade, it is only 90 deg, if u put a mg squad in, it is 360. same with the mg nest.

[TairosAurelius]

Yeah, great. Too bad they may as well be made of heavy duty paper for all the durability they have.

[AnatolyChekov]

they are good but easily destroyed by mortars and even long range anti-tank guns.. it also suits their defensive war against an allied invasion

[Boomstar]

boom star, if u use the upgrade, it is only 90 deg, if u put a mg squad in, it is 360. same with the mg nest.

Really didn't know that, I hardly ever build them and haven't put an MG in one.

[Lezt00]

well i havn't put mg in it too, but i have put engies in it and it does shoot 360deg, hence i dun see why not for mg.

[Skyhawk]

I believe you can put up to two MG teams in either the bunker or nest. A rifle squad for that matter as its capacity is 6 I think. Flamer seems to fire out of the MG nest, but not out of a bunker. It tries to but somehow the bunker contains it (must get hot in there) The MG nest is only heavy cover like sandbags, Bunker is a like a garrisoned building.

Of course filling your bunker or nest with troops is a great way to ask for indirect fire. Better than them standing in the open though as long as you pop them in and out during a strike as long as the structure holds.

[Jagr]

if you upgrade the bunker with an MG and place an Mg team inside their as well your can have 2 MG's pointing out of the front of it allowing double havok. You can't do that with the allied MG nest

[Albi]

Axis are supposed to be about a more defensive play style, which is why there bunkers are so cheap and cheap to upgrade. I think allied bunkers costing fuel is completely wrong though, manpower is fine but 50 muntions instead of fuel please building them right now is a good way to get you killed.

The fact axis bunkers gives a 360 degree of fire though needs to go, thats simply too good.
360' only if you position a 260 manpower HMG there.

Otherwise its arcs are just the same as Allies.

[DarkKnight]

Grenades do like 0 damage and snipers seem to miss or do 0 damage 3/4 of the time. And as far as flame engys?

There are tons of other counters, tanks, AT guns, artillery, mortars, satchels, etc. Just because these methods don't work, doesn't mean that bunkers need nerfed.

[Xan]

Anyone tried putting a sniper in a bunker? I'm curious how it would work.

Edit: Bah, I said building when I meant bunker.

[DrunkenOne]

There are tons of other counters, tanks, AT guns, artillery, mortars, satchels, etc. Just because these methods don't work, doesn't mean that bunkers need nerfed.
"tons of other counters"? So you either A) spend 250 munitions on offmap arty to kill it, B) build a WCS just to get a mortar to attempt to kill it, which will still take forever and not actually kill the mg, which will just move, or C) Wait until you have AT guns/tanks to kill it.

Sure, it doesn't need to be nerfed at all. Hell its not like I care, I whore bunkers as much as I can.

[Naru]

I have two comptuers that can run this game, so I did a bit of testing. First, just to verify, the Axis and Allied bunker work in a similar way, that is, a garrisoned MG team can fire out from all four sides.

When trying to snipe out a garrisoned MG team, the team "seems" to get about 80% protection. My test was executed at max range for a sniper (snipers can shoot farther then they can see, and Allied ones CAN outrange a MG42). When firing at this range, the combat effectiveness of Allied and Axis snipers were identical, and on average, it would take 4-5 shots to kill one man hiding out in a bunker. To kill a MG42, it took me 10 shots one test and 13 the next. To kill a volkssquad it took 25 shots one time and 23 the next.

In every case, IF the sniper hit, he killed one person. At no point did snipers score a 2/3 hit. However, I did notice a graphic lag where a sniper will kill the last man of a squad and you will get the exp, and the squad will die, but graphically it wil still appear as if the squad is in the bunker for a short time when in fact, it's destroyed. This might give the illusion of a 2/3 hit.

I passed my findings along to a friend and we took the net. My friend and I squared off against a level 4 and a level 5 Allied player in a 2v2. While I wanted to test this funcitonality in combat, I found one overwhelming fact about CoH persisted ...the most combat effective manuever is to consntatly rebase your MG teams and press them forward. Suprise was always > supreme cover. Having the enemy roll up on a bunker he "thought" has a MG 42 with his armored car only to find out the MG42 had moved to a house on the flank, and catching his two riflemen squads trying to flank me was WAY more effective then just leaving my MG42 entranched in the bunker, weathering Ac fire.

In fact, the for almost hte whole game, my bunkers were ungarrisoned, and instead I ended upgrading them to machine guns as munitions permitted, and pressed my MG42s in other areas. We won that game in a landslide victory of something like 450 to 0.

In conclusion, while the bunkers to provide great cover I think their inherent static nature does make it balanced, since this game rewards non-static defense much more then static ones. Having the ability to have some of your troops "dig in" is actually a nice feature, and is still quite counterable by any method you would use to destroy a bunker normally, such as mortar, armor, and artillery.

[CaptainPanda]

How hard is it exactly to kill a bunker?

Seriously, 1-2 mortars will make quick rubble out of any bunker. I can take a victory point, slap down 2-3 bunkers nice and quick, do the upgrade and then watch as allies mortar the crap out of them.

And don´t forget that manning bunkers with MG squads take up pop cap as well. Which is the reason I dont use it.

[Shizzle007]

Lol mortars take forever? 1 mortar barriage can kill it for 90%. You can kill it pretty quick. If he repositions adn build another one you kill it, you nearly got your mortar cost back, not to mention they are extremly usefull for other purposes.

[Havoc01]

I do think that the fuel cost on ally MG nests should be changed to ammo, fuel should only be for vehicles and upgrades.

[Tankcommander]

Well there is an interesting difference in cost.. I forget how much the Allied MG nest costs in MP, but to place an upgraded Axis bunker it costs 150 MP. Now, I do know that the Allied MG nest costs 25 fuel. To upgrade an axis bunker, it costs you 50 munitions. Seeing as Axis are pretty munition dependent anyway, that could hurt. However, the 25 fuel (half of the Axis upgrade, btw) does hurt the allies a bit too.

However, it is much better to garrison troops in an axis bunker rather than an allied mg nest. As mentioned before, the MG nest acts more like heavy cover while the bunker acts as a garrisoned building.

[Xan]

The Axis has no way of dealing with MG nests early game, though. No units capable of destroying or even bypassing a well-placed one that I know of come before tier 2\3 (building a Krieg Barracks isn't always a good idea).

[Metavirulent]

I think the combination of some maps with extremely important points and the bunkers current state makes this a bit of a bad thing. Being strangled in angoville with a bunker at the right positions can sure slow you down by a game deciding factor.

[Wolfleader]

Axis bunkers.. hehe thats all im gona say. They ability to house troops. Turn into a repair bay. MG nest and a axis medic station that retrieves dead bodies from the battlefield. I knoe that I for one do not use the bunkers for anything else other than repair depot. Because now here is the crazyness!!!

U CAN PUT MG gunners INSIDE THE BUNKER... effectively giving them a 360 degree firing arc... Because if you look at the bunker closely. It acts as a another building. So Axis players can not only build repair depots.. but those same repair depots can house mg gunners... giving it 360 degree arc and rendering the mg nest utterly useless... At least to me anywayz... haha I probably hsouldnt of told u guys this... cuz now I cant abuse it! But yah 260 for one mg gunner that can reposition itself inside the bunker giving it a 360 degree cover? 200mp for an mg nest that shots one way? I would go with 60 extra MP and get the bunker to do 360 degree firing arc. Of course it all depends on the situation...

Im just saying. As an allied commander.. There isnt much effective counter against an repair depot filled with MG gunners and stug tanks waiting for repairs =D

Its effectively a forward rearm base for the axis and stronghold. Axis bunkers... haha yah what do u think? Too cheap?
There's also a trick to get 2 MG's inside a bunker. Build a bunker, upgrade to MG then send a pioneer unit inside then follow it up with an MG squad. Zoom in and look inside, 2 guys manning MG's and IIRC from the last time I used it, both MG's fire.

Also if your strangling your opponent with unbunkered MG squads in the open (behind walls or sandbags for protection), having a medical bunker close by allows those units to recover casualties much faster I think.

[cpaw88]

The thing is when you have a Bunker and 2 MG squads inside Motors shouldn't be a problem in the first place because by they you should have some back up to fend off them or a sniper, half-track ect...

[Demonic Spoon]

The Axis has no way of dealing with MG nests early game, though. No units capable of destroying or even bypassing a well-placed one that I know of come before tier 2\3 (building a Krieg Barracks isn't always a good idea).

By the time he can get one in a critical position that really hurts you, you should have tier 2. If you skip Kreig barracks, that's your own damn fault.

[TarlSS]

The fuel cost means that MG Nests ARE tier 2 for allies, same cost to get to skirmish phase.

[DrunkenOne]

Lol mortars take forever? 1 mortar barriage can kill it for 90%. You can kill it pretty quick. If he repositions adn build another one you kill it, you nearly got your mortar cost back, not to mention they are extremly usefull for other purposes.
If you build a mortar at all then the bunker has already surved its purpose in making you waste resources on a WCS.

[SmellyTerror]

The problem (if it is a problem) is early game area denial. They are cheap as hell, and very effective. Sure they'll die later on, but by then you've got a good advantage in resources.

The idea is to use these *past half way*. You put it on top of an important resource point that the enemy would otherwise control - and preferably at a good choke point. By the time the enemy has spent the time and resources teching up to bunker-killing capability, you've held an important point for several minutes. More resources for you, less for the enemy. All other things being equal, you win.

Consider how devastating an early MG42 can be in a vital building. Well, for 150MP you can put a building anywhere you like. The fact that it comes with its own MG is just icing on the cake.

[Kyoosh1017]

ok to clarify some things. Axis bunker costs 200 mp to make. and 50 ammo to upgrade. it does not cost a drop of fuel.

Secondly this topic is not about the bunker's protective nature or any such thing. It is just about the ability to have both an mg gunner inside the axis bunker when it is upgraded to a repair depot.

Because u can obviously upgrade the BUNKER to an mg nest with 50 ammo.. But why do that when u can instead upgrade it to a repair depot and then put an mg gunner inside and have 360 degree firing arc... effectively making it a better mg bunker than the 50 ammo it cost to make an mg bunker with a fixed arc.

[SmellyTerror]

Secondly this topic is not about the bunker's protective nature or any such thing. It is just about the ability to have both an mg gunner inside the axis bunker when it is upgraded to a repair depot.

Because in the early game there's nothing much to repair, and bunkers are at their best in the early game. Later on they can repair, but they're a lot easier to kill.

I mean, once you've got tanks rolling around, an MG42 in a bunker is hardly much of a threat, is it? Not that it's *bad* - you're right, it's pretty damn nice - but by that stage a bunker isn't really facing infantry with 'nades, it's looking at mortars and - most importantly - tanks, AT, and artillery. And you better believe a repair bunker is a prime arty target when a bunch of damaged vehicles are there.

So while the repair bunker with a garrison is nice in the mid-to-late game, an early bunker (no upgrade) is potentially game winning.

[Favre]

I just started using these more now, and placed effectively, they make excellent rapir stations / infantry annihilators. I was using one on point du hoc and its so nice having 2 pioneers who u dont need to micro. I had 2 panthers, and whenever one got damaged id send it to my reapir depot and bring the other one out from the repair depot. Quite nice.

[Bentguru]

Kyoosh, it's 150 mp, please get it right.

SmellyTerror has the right idea pretty much. Early game bunkers are like a spammable building that are both grenade and sniper proof. In my experiance it takes 2-3 mortar barrages to kill off a bunker, in which time the mg42 will easily have relocated probably into yet another bunker. And considering that usually bunkered points will be the critically important ones, angoville's strategic points are a prime example for this, denying them to allied players gives you an awesome advantage.

I can show several replays where games against top 10 allied players are essentially over when the 1st bunker goes up 3 minutes into the game.

[Sephlock]

Bent: please do. I could use the edification, especially concerning Angoville.

[DrunkenOne]

dammit bent stop giving teh sekrits!

[Kyoosh1017]

whoops my bad.. hehe i knew it was near 150 or 200 I just wanted to clarify that axis bunkers do not cost fuel. only allied ones do.

Because in the early game there's nothing much to repair, and bunkers are at their best in the early game. Later on they can repair, but they're a lot easier to kill.

I mean, once you've got tanks rolling around, an MG42 in a bunker is hardly much of a threat, is it? Not that it's *bad* - you're right, it's pretty damn nice - but by that stage a bunker isn't really facing infantry with 'nades, it's looking at mortars and - most importantly - tanks, AT, and artillery. And you better believe a repair bunker is a prime arty target when a bunch of damaged vehicles are there.

So while the repair bunker with a garrison is nice in the mid-to-late game, an early bunker (no upgrade) is potentially game winning.


Yah end game wise there usually are more tanks and artillery. It still is usefull as most allied players usually have a good mix of infantry to cap key fuel/ammo/vp points and whatnot. So it helps just the same. And everyone knows that allied players usually keep their riflemen all the way until end game, for their sticky bombs and such.

So it is just an effective way to repair your vehicles and defend your positions. I just thought it is too cheap as allied mg nests cost 240mp and i think 15fuel? or 25fuel... im not sure... but its more $$$ than axis bunkers thats for sure =D

[milkycookie]

The axis bunker however requires that you have connected territory up to the point where you wanna plonk it down. At 150 manpower a plonk, its a very very cheap way of denying territory early on. Whilst Allied bunkers need to plonk 25 fuel at the same time, thus denying the ability to churn out a barrack early on if you go down that route. Furthermore, even if it comes with an MG gun, the Axis has a very clear advantage since the building becomes a semi strong point till mortars and armor appears. by then, if the axis player hasnt screwed up royally, the denial of vital resources ensures an axis victory.

[fenwe]

Don't let your opponent build the bunker in a critical location and a sniper may miss more often but it still will clean out the garrisoned MG if you miss taking it out before it is finished. As has been stated, there are lots of counters for these things at every tier. Heck, sending in a "sacrificial" rifle squad and having a flamethrower equiped engineer will clean it right out with nary a scratch to the rifle squad if you time it correctly.

[Bentguru]

Update:

Garrisoned units inside a bunker are apparently satchel-proof as well. Had a bunker take 2 satchels with an mg42 inside... no damage.

[Victrix Legio]

Bunkers drop satchel charge's accuracy down to a whopping 15% and cut their damage in half, so that's probably not a glitch.

[Timeless]

Two satchels should destroy the bunker itself, though. Happened to me just today.

[Calvin]

Bent-do you agree that Axis bunkers are currently OP without a more significant ManP expenditure or a fuel addition? That is my supposition, as I see the placement of cheap, spammable bunkers that become 360 degree deathtraps to hold strategic points to be an almost GG tactic if used properly. Combine that with the difficulty in destroying them and the fact that you NEVER see an Allied nest placed due to the 25 fuel, would you agree that either the Allied nest need to be reexamined so that it might at least approach the utility of the Axis bunker or that the Axis bunker costs be changed to make it a more significant expenditure?

[Timeless]

I think it depends on many variables. Maybe the Axis bunkers are the way they are due to other factors - for example, Riflemen spam. I'm not saying that it is for sure, only offering that up as a consideration.

[Bentguru]

Calvin, I believe that the bunkers are balanced. The measure of protection that they provide units inside them is not.

Flanking tactics should apply to bunkers as well as they do to buildings, currently you can successfully flank a bunker and nade it as much as you want, the mg42 inside will not take damage. Which is wrong.

[DrunkenOne]

AiTd Calvin?

[Victrix Legio]

Not that this is balanced or anything, but if you want to kill someone in a bunker, use a flamethrower; it appears to be the only weapon type in the game that doesn't receive major negative damage and accuracy modifiers against units in bunkers.

[Timeless]

Assuming you can get close enough.

Mortars work, though. I think snipers should also work. It's ludicrous that they don't.

[Calvin]

Calvin, I believe that the bunkers are balanced. The measure of protection that they provide units inside them is not.

Flanking tactics should apply to bunkers as well as they do to buildings, currently you can successfully flank a bunker and nade it as much as you want, the mg42 inside will not take damage. Which is wrong.
Bent, I understand your point and it makes a whole lot of sense-but indulge me for just a moment. Do you think, as Tempest suggested, that the Allied fuel expenditure for the nest and the Axis no fuel is a balance consideration to make up for Rifle spam or more subtle balance issues? As is, I see no utility for MG nests in the allied repetoire in 1v1 games (of course, this can be said for many units). I am more concerned with 25 fuel vs. 0 than I am with the 150 manp expenditure.

I do completely agree with you that units inside failing to take appropriate damage is a significant oversight. As an airborne preferred player, I find extreme frustration in two simultaneous satchels frequently not destroying the bunker and failing to kill more than 1 of the HMG team inside, if that much.

[Naru]

Calvin, Axis and Allies are not the same, and are not supposed to be. The Axis have a more "defensive" bent, and even have a doctrine dedicated to the idea. They game designers meant the Axis to build more bunkers. What World War II game would be complete without some form of concrete Axis bunker?

To coutner the Allies have alot more early on tools that allow them to be agressive, such as their better grenade, and the amazing BAR, dropping Airborne behind the lines, effective artillery available early, etc.

I don't see any problem with how things are set up currently, except for the fact I have my doubts bunkers should give better then garrison cover. Currently, it seems both Axis and Allies have this enhanced cover advantage with bunkers, and it does seem a bit off.

[Noble]

A mortar will blow up a bunker in less than 30 seconds, 3 minutes is wayyyyy off.

[Calvin]

I understand that Naru, I am more than experienced enough to understand the obvious :) My point however, is that there is either a design intent that I am not sure I grasp fully, or a simple disparity in cost vs. usefulness between two comparable structures. Perhaps if the Axis bunker didn't have such a plethora of options or perhaps if units inside weren't virtually invulnerable right now I would mind less-as it is I think some tweaking needs to be done.

[guardsman lover]

I have a question. When you garrison a MG unit inside a bunker, and it faces the wrong way, will it automatically switch windows when enemies come shooting opposite the direction that it's facing?

[STALKER - Arach]

yes the MG crew will reset their mg to face oncoming enemy infantry. The Bunker is an effective way to stop enemy Riflemen and Rangers and what not from completely running over axis early game.

The Anti-grenade is good as well because it prevents a player from simply using the "fire up!" ability with rangers and rushing over to lob a grenade into the bunker and instantly making it a worthless building unless they spent 50 mu which really hurts the axis.

Need a great way to fight the bunker? use a rifleman (thats very cheap) to take the shots from the MG team inside - Send a eng team with 3 members and a flamer to the side. The MG will continue to fire on the Rifles and then your ENGS will burn out the mg.

And IF the mg team decides to fire on the eng thats still 3 members it has compared to a AXIS 2 manned squad. Its all balanced out and its one of the few things that makes the axis capable of stopping mass infantry and zerging riflemen and such.

Oh ya and it'd kind of piss me - a AXIS Defensive Doctorine off if the bunker lost ALOT of these features you want out because i use the bunker to defend my FLAK 88 from oncoming infantry and paratroopers.

[haido]

Maybe a 200 MP cost for axis bunkers. But otherwise no nerfing. Bunkers requires combined arms to take out that's nice. Instead of just spamming one unit on it.

[Trenchgun]

Units within bunkers can be killed easily if outnumbered.
The key against MGs in bunkers is to attack from multiple angles, and close up to point blank range (bonus if you use flamethrowers).
This kind of manuevering is very easy on maps like Agonville, as an axis player who focuses on HMGs and bunkers is not going to have much in the way of mobile forces (which also makes it very easy to get around the bunkers and cut off the axis supply).

And the WSC is there for a reason.
It's not expensive to build, and mortars will make short work of bunkers despite complaints to the contrary.
And with the increased fuel cost of Stugs and Pumas, the allied player will have more time to take advantage of the WSC before having to build a motorpool or tank depot.

I even see a lot of allied players going WSC first on Agonville in anticipation of axis bunkers - They start with HMGs to secure zones and fight off pioneers, they move to mortars to rape any bunkers placed (protected by an HMG and engineers, as the axis player is unlikely to have volks if they invested in HMGs and bunkers off the bat).
By then they'll have enough fuel to build a barracks, at which point they bring rifles into the mix and take control of the map.

[Sn1tch]

Well, another solution to this is that only 6 people can fit in a bunker. You can't fire out of the back and you can't fire out the front unless you have the MG upgrade on it.

But making it so grenades/satchels kill anything inside will be better.

@Trench gun

I'm sure if you build the Bunker just in range of the Strategic point, mortars will have to move out onto the road to shoot it. There, volks can easily smash him.

Not 100% sure but it should be like that.

[guardsman lover]

How many units can shoot out of a window at once?

[Victrix Legio]

Only one, though there's an exception to that with the Axis bunker where you can have two men firing out of the front, one of them being the MGer you purchase with 50 Mun.

[STALKER - Arach]

I've seen MG crews in a MG nested bunker both shoot out the front window other then that even with adding a second mg i don't see more then 1 per window.

[Vicious_CB]

I think bunkers should stay the way they are. First of all the bunker + MG combo is 410 MP!!!! Thats quite alot of mp to spend to lock down a point. For 410 MP its should be that effective.

In my experience most players do not upgrade the bunker and just stick a MG team in it as most players can easily beat a upgrdaed MG bunker with only a frontal firing arc

[STALKER - Arach]

@Vicious CB D: I totally agree.

[Unkn0wn]

Don't fix what's not broken.

Do you really expect that everything has to be counterable with infantry? Thats the point, If I build shitloads of mines, barbed wire, tank traps and a few bunkers with mg's in them...

Are you going to whine axis defences are overpowered?

No.. don't think so because you can still mortar/artillery/AT/Demo the defense line quite easily.


Putting 2 mg crews in a building will kill your infantry just as much.

[Higure]

Putting 2 mg crews in a building will kill your infantry just as much.
did you even read this post?

and seriously, you listed demolisions as an option?

[SiegUnoc]

5 points to whoever can produce a replay of a bunker line with their gaps filled in with tank traps and barbed wire.

[evotech]

lol

mark it "How to win against a stupid guy"

[SiegUnoc]

I prefer to call it "Having some fun."

Also, I want to see more AT bunkers. Farm the map with bunkers loaded with Grenadiers/Storms with panzershreks!

[Bonnet]

Vicious, yes it is a lot of mp to hold one single point, but on maps like angovile where the player can just put it on one point and control the whole map it is unbalanced.

[DrunkenOne]

^^ Even better than that is the fact that on ango you can effectively seal the allied player in his base using 2 bunkers. I even build a bunker on the right side instead of getting in the house.

[Vicious_CB]

Yes that happens and the lack of mobile forces will see you cut off from your 2 cut off points as well while your opp makes mortars.

Ask Germansupreme who did this against me on agonville. I bunked his 2 cut off points early game and he just came and did the same thing with mass riflemen taking my 2 cut off points.

Thats 810 MP tied up in static defense which is almost 3 volks squads you do not have to defend your points