[1.2 Balance] Axis bunkers are overpowered comparing to their cost

[PrinceMyshkin]

Hello again guys,

I am also concerned about offensive bunkering strategies. It seems to me that offensive bunkering strategies are too much overpowered comparing to their cost.

Here is a classic example Bentguru shows again that he knows how to exploit the imbas of this game better than anybody.

Bent spams offensive bunkers blocking his opponents economy and buys the time he needs for the axis war machine to start the all mighty puma/stug spam. Solidsnake keeps destroying them with mortars and engineers, but due to their ridiculously low cost/high combat effectiveness/hardness to destroy Bentguru keeps rebuilding new ones.

Anybody else sharing the same views regarding bunkers?

I would suggest increasing slightly their cost, and definitely the cost of their MG weapon upgrade.

Thank you,
N00bMysh

[Exotus]

No they are not (far from it), why is everything overpowered?

I swear to god, after reading this forum it seems that every unit is somehow overpowered.

[Sephlock]

Stuh and Nebelwurfer are overpowered :D!

Seriously though, bunkers are effective, yes, but hardly as ridiculous as, say, mass riflemen, or even calliopes.

During the early game, if you can arrange things properly, an early bunker can prove to be an impassible obstacle which can handle any number of enemy soldiers (Think Leonidas ;)), HOWEVER, in mid-to-late game, there are several ways to handle them.

Presuming that the bunker has an MG squad in it (since its ridiculously easy to flank otherwise):

AT guns, paratroopers (with fire up and satchel charges... RRs can't hurt, either, though I doubt they'd make much of a difference since 2 satchels will take down the bunker), any kind of armor...

Bunkers are effective for early lockdown but in lategame they are more like dragon's teeth with... teeth.

Imho the issue is more with angoville than with bunkers. In ango there are two zones that pretty much control the whole map.

[AntiCommie]

Bunkers are 150MP and 50 Muns plus time to set them up. If they are "Offensive" use rifles/mg/jeep/snipers to kill the pioneers then the bunker is useless. I know rifles will kill a building bunker before it finishes. If the bunker is done and they have an MG squad in it you can still snipe them out, or use a mortor. After the MG squad is dead use flamers to kill the structure. If they added an MG its still easy to flank on most maps. I find bunkers to make great speedbumps at chokepoints, but they definately shouldnt be spammed.

[ericlflau]

The main thing I have about bunkers is not that it's imba, it's that the allies version of it is very uneconomical:

- cost fuel instead of munitions, which makes no sense and severely limits its use in early game, where fuel is at premium.
- provides less cover than bunkers.

My suggestion would be to make allies MG placement cost munitions instead of fuel.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Yup, I know three ways to kill a bunker in early game:
1. Flamers
2. Demolition explosives
3. Mortar teams

The thing is that a Bunker+MG+some basic infantry support can be a very nasty combo, eventually you will take it down though, but the time your opponent bought halting your eco would be enough to cost you the game.

Look at this game vs snake for example, the guy after spamming 3 turrets brought mass pumas there. Offensive turrets need nerfing.

Get troops, do micro, don't be lame. ;)

[Timeless]

Agree with Prince, even though a bunker with an MG inside cost 410 MP. The problem would be easily solved with just allowing snipers to take the MG out just like in any building. Then, a flamer could sweep from behind to destroy the bunker. As is, once the bunker is in place, it becomes very difficult for allies to bring it down. I don't know, I'll have to think about this some more before I come to any final conclusions.

[Albi]

Yup, I know three ways to kill a bunker in early game:
1. Flamers
2. Demolition explosives
3. Mortar teams

The thing is that a Bunker+MG+some basic infantry support can be a very nasty combo, eventually you will take it down though, but the time your opponent bought halting your eco would be enough to cost you the game.

Look at this game vs snake for example, the guy after spamming 3 turrets brought mass pumas there. Offensive turrets need nerfing.

Get troops, do micro, don't be lame. ;)
Dude, this just sounds like whinging.

its a 460MP building. Personaly for that kind of resource I would expect something hard too.

[Painboy]

As soon as vehicles show up bunkers are basically worthless. At most they might delay for a short period time as said vehicles slowly pounds away at it. If anything I wouldn't mind if they were even a little cheaper. Maybe people would actually invest in mortars then.

[Timeless]

I think this is more apparent on Agnoville. I've seen it used early game to completely keep Allies of any resource at all on the left side of the map.

[Zylon]

just watched the replay and yes its almost sick how the allied player used a mortar to destroy 1 bunker, wich takes a long time to take down.
yet the axis player just builds another one next to it and thus keeping the point.

150 manpower and 50 munitons big deal, compared to the allied bunker that actually costs 25 fuel!! as well as manpower.
you cant spam those in the early game.. yet you can spam bunkers that only cost 50 munitions.

the axis could even build just the bunker for 150 manpower and add a mg squad of his own. add a building on a place that lacks those and not spend 50 munitions.

munitions do not slow down your teching.. fuel does.

[Stefan_D]

I watched the replay and the allied played got outplayed. The bunker factored in NOTHING in the Axis player winning.. The allied player didn't even TRY to recap that point. At all. A poor Allied player will lose against a skilled Axis player, always.

[PrinceMyshkin]

@Albi
Dude, this just sounds like whinging.

its a 460MP building. Personaly for that kind of resource I would expect something hard too.
I don't get your maths mate. An axis bunker costs 150 MP + 50 MU for the MG upgrade. A pioneer armed with a flamer costs 120MP+50MU.

The problem is that it behaves indeed like a 460 MP building. ^^

Shifting its cost to 300MP+ 75MU would be nicer.



@Stefan I didn't post the game to prove that Bent >> Snake. We do know that. I've just posted the game to show an imba.

If you watch Bent's replays you will realize he is a smart guy and he always uses the imbas of this game to his advantage.

[Stefan_D]

The Axis bunker behaves exactly like it should, a strongpoint that has a few viable counters, ALL vehicles with some kind of armour, flame engineers, mortar teams and huge explosives =p.

[Timeless]

But until then, the Allies are cut off from fuel that side of the map, with relatively no effort from Axis.

[Stefan_D]

150 MP and 260 MP for a gun inside, or 50 ammo for a one-sided gun (making it useless for the purpose at hand).

That's a lot of resources.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Unless the axis player completely walls off the map, it's relatively easy to flank bunkers.

And it takes time to construct bunkers, during which you are completely vulnerable.

[Timeless]

I'm not saying it's 100% imbalanced, but Shoe perhaps you should watch a few recs of Bent totally handicapping other top players on Angoville with a single bunker and MG. It's that one point, it totally cuts them off from resources on that side and can be done relatively quickly early game. Now, I'm an Axis player and I still see that this is worth examing with more than a simple dismissal. Also, you can't flank an Axis bunker with an MG inside - it has 360 degree arc at that point. For some reason, it is also impervious to grenades and Snipers miss over and over. Mortars seem to do the trick, though, but that requires the Ally player build a second building just to take that spot back. Again, I'm not sure about this one way or another, but I do see the concern for healthy discussion.

[Virigoth]

MG garrisoned bunker is just like a house with an MG in it. You can fix and flank with a flamethrower or grenades.

[Timeless]

No, it's not like in a house. In a house, the MGs are subject to being grenaded. And if he upgrades the bunker, both sides are firing, instead of one, which means you can't flank it like that. Also, Snipers don't have problems hitting MGs in houses, yet seem to in bunkers.

[Brat_Boy]

They're fine. Since he was able to spam bunkers, the Allied player wasn't playing right. He was using manpower that would be better used in making units to take ground. IMO the Allied MG nest shouldn't cost fuel while the Axis' only costs MP and Munitions. The Allied player could get greyhounds and cap the points behind the bunkers as Armor since resistance would be minimal behind them, or hit them with artillery as infantry, or drop troops and AT guns as Airborne.

[Virigoth]

No, it's not like in a house. In a house, the MGs are subject to being grenaded. And if he upgrades the bunker, both sides are firing, instead of one, which means you can't flank it like that. Also, Snipers don't have problems hitting MGs in houses, yet seem to in bunkers.
It's a house that costs 400+ manpower that is not used on other things.

The only issue worth noting is how hard it is to snipe units out of it.

[Timeless]

Capping the points behind the nest would do absolutely no good considering that he needs that SP for the points behind it to count. They have to be connected.

To Virigoth: That AND the fact that grenades seem not to work on them either, making two of the most used early game counters a bit worthless. And while it may be +400mp, some would argue it's worth it since otherwise, he'd have to spend much more MP in units to starve the Allies on that side of the map. For example, even a single MG/Volks on the left side would cost 540 MP, yet it usually takes even more than that to hold the left side. For 410 MP, Axis can starve the Allied player of resources that side of the map long enough to make a difference and focus all his attention on the right side.

It's not fool proof, though, not saying it is. Just correcting some incorrect statements.

[Demon_Eyes]

It's a house that costs 400+ manpower that is not used on other things.

The only issue worth noting is how hard it is to snipe units out of it.
Bunkers cost 150mp, it has a seperate cover type as listed by Victix Legio HERE (http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=112311) in which he explains (from his looking at the actual game code) that bunkers, unlike any other building, decrease damage from grenades. The actual best counters as listed in that thread would be AT equiped infantry or the Sherman tank.

[Commander_VOW]

If you make the bunker cost too much it is no longer effective for the already sucky defense tree to be viable. I've also toyed around with the bunker idea myself and I've found that it is incredibly slow to pull off. One time when I was playing allies someone was trying to do that very same strategy on the left. I simply ignore those points and cut off his fuel on the left. then I made a mad dash to take the strategic point, succeeded using one squad and that was that. I had the entire map locked off from him, didn't have to build a mortar. Without fuel he can't really upgrade and since he spent some man power making that setup he didn't have many mobile troops to take the rest. He also could never leave that bunker because my jeep was watching it. In short you do the same thing you do when you don't have grenades. You ignore the MG emplacement and just lock off his other points.

[Dread Moose]

All i can say is that axis bunkers are 100% better than allies. 25 fuel for the allies is crippling, but if the allied cost like 50 mun instead, i would perhaps build one.

[Victrix Legio]

Just a slight correction: the only thing that'll actually kill the infantry inside a bunker with any real reliability is a flamethrower, everything else (including the Sherman and AT equipped infantry) does less damage and is less accurate. Of course, if you just blow the damn thing up, as a Sherman or AT infantry would, it won't make a great deal of difference.

Note: I currently do not have access to the game or its files as I am on a business trip, so I cannot verify the above information with 100% certainty, but that is how I remember it.

[Demon_Eyes]

Thanks for the update Victrix, when you can verify that you might want to add a specific bunker line to your cover outline so that is made clear. Forgot about the flamethrowers, they can also destroy the bunker fairly quickly as well.

[Timeless]

Yea, if they can get close enough, which is often easier said than done. It may be in fact fine the way it is, I'm just trying to see it from all angles.

[Naru]

Three are some misconceptions regarding bunkers here:




Axis bunkers cost 150 manpower TO BUILD. Then you can electively upgrade it into one of three different variants, but crafty players don’t upgrade them immediately or possibly ever. They just drop their own MG42 in it, thus treating it as a nifty on the spot house to garrison their MG team, and save the 50 munitions they might have spent on a bunker for say, a Volksgrendier squad MP40.
Axis bunkers AND Allied bunkers have four “windows”, and the active gunner of a garrisoned MG squad can move to any bunker window to fire, i.e. a MG42 can fire out in all four cardinal directions of a bunker, not just the front forward arc. This is exactly the same an average sized house with a window on every side. If you upgrade an Axis bunker to a MG bunker, the MG part of it can only fire in the forward arc, but a MG42 squad can fire any where. Again, so can a Mg .30 caliber in the Allied bunker, they are the same.
The “cover” granted to units in a bunker, Axis or Allied, is better then the cover granted to them in a house. In my own tests, for example, I could kill a garrisoned MG42 in a house in 3-4 sniper shots, but it took over 12 to kill one in a bunker, due to misses.
An MG team will not die to one grenade attack when in a bunker.
While both Axis and Allies can build such bunkers, the bunkers for Allies is more expensive, requiring more manpower but specifically 25 fuel which makes it prohibitive vs. teching earlier.


While the Axis bunker due to cost is more likely to be used, this is a nice balance to other Allied early game abilities that Axis don’t get, such as Allied grenades and BARs which the Axis don't have immediate counters for, and thus the lower cost tends to balance out. Though it goes to reason some very small or poorly designed maps could be slightly beneficial to Axis bunkers, thus the Axis side, the same could be said about some maps being more advantageous to riflemen, and often it's the same map (i.e. Angoville). Overall, this seems to be quite a small number of maps compared to all the shipping maps in the game, and its arguable but not usually a definitive imbalance on said maps. Really, all we need are more maps.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Again guys,

>> Bunker costs ~= Pioneer with a flamer costs <<

They are über cheap and über abusive. A pioneer with a flamer is not.

Let alone that to arm a grenadier with a LIGHT Machine Gun costs 75. To arm the bunker with a HEAVY Machine Gun costs 50.

@ Stefan: I am not talking about what would be the cost with an extra garrisoned MG inside, please don't confuse people.

Bunkers need nerfing. They don’t promote skills and lead to an abusive, static, less exciting play.

Thank you,
N00bMysh

[Timeless]

For a change recently, I actually agree with Naru's post.

[Heartcutter]

I hear that AT guns are pretty handy in clearing out bunkers.

[lordkosc]

I find bunkers too easy to take out and their MG range of fire is too small, compaired to a MG42.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Have you guys seen the replay?

The thing is how you deal with the early turret in tier1, where your only viable solution will be the flamers.

Mortars wont work because the other guy will keep spaming turrets a bit behind, covering his heavy teching, while halting your eco.

It's not a matter if you can defeat a bunker or if you can flank it or not. You can but by the time you do all these you would have spent too much time.

[Demon_Eyes]

Three are some misconceptions regarding bunkers here:




Axis bunkers cost 150 manpower TO BUILD. Then you can electively upgrade it into one of three different variants, but crafty players don’t upgrade them immediately or possibly ever. They just drop their own MG42 in it, thus treating it as a nifty on the spot house to garrison their MG team, and save the 50 munitions they might have spent on a bunker for say, a Volksgrendier squad MP40.
Axis bunkers AND Allied bunkers have four “windows”, and the active gunner of a garrisoned MG squad can move to any bunker window to fire, i.e. a MG42 can fire out in all four cardinal directions of a bunker, not just the front forward arc. This is exactly the same an average sized house with a window on every side. If you upgrade an Axis bunker to a MG bunker, the MG part of it can only fire in the forward arc, but a MG42 squad can fire any where. Again, so can a Mg .30 caliber in the Allied bunker, they are the same.
The “cover” granted to units in a bunker, Axis or Allied, is better then the cover granted to them in a house. In my own tests, for example, I could kill a garrisoned MG42 in a house in 3-4 sniper shots, but it took over 12 to kill one in a bunker, due to misses.
An MG team will not die to one grenade attack when in a bunker.
While both Axis and Allies can build such bunkers, the bunkers for Allies is more expensive, requiring more manpower but specifically 25 fuel which makes it prohibitive vs. teching earlier.


While the Axis bunker due to cost is more likely to be used, this is a nice balance to other Allied early game abilities that Axis don’t get, such as Allied grenades and BARs which the Axis don't have immediate counters for, and thus the lower cost tends to balance out. Though it goes to reason some very small or poorly designed maps could be slightly beneficial to Axis bunkers, thus the Axis side, the same could be said about some maps being more advantageous to riflemen, and often it's the same map (i.e. Angoville). Overall, this seems to be quite a small number of maps compared to all the shipping maps in the game, and its arguable but not usually a definitive imbalance on said maps. Really, all we need are more maps.
To be exact, allied MG Emplacement is 240mp/25fp which is +90mp/25fp over the axis bunker but starts with a MG instead of needing an upgrade. As far as balance, I believe the bunker itself is fairly balanced the sniper/frags modifiers might need to be looked at but if anything I believe could only be reduced a small amount. I agree with Naru, this is most likley a map-centric issue however the cost of the MG upgrade for the bunkers might need to be reviewed as well, it is only 50mu but when considering it should be noted the bunker MG upgrade has a static, narrower and shorter arc than the MG42 squad.

[TarlSS]

The problem here is that once Axis bunkers are down, they are -very- difficult to remove. It's not even that hard to put down Axis bunkers. Sure we can all say 'prevention is the cure!"

but frankly the main problem with what we label 'imbalanced' is that they're very easy to repeat, and very easy to recover from.

Compare:
Axis Bunker: It takes very little attention to place down a bunker in a vital location, and very little in terms of resources.
The Allied Counter- Constant vigilance over that location, sacrificing attention over other areas.

The Axis can very easily cement a location and make it impossible to bypass, allowing them to tech up while cutting the Allies completely off from the map. Meanwhile, it is very difficult to keep the map constantly 'on the move' in order to allow riflemen to stop the axis from cementing vital positions.

Consider the three maps
Semois- Building in front of the Church
Sturzdorf- south exit of allied base.
Angoville- Allied Southern control point in the open field, House next to base.

These locations are VERY easy to cement and fortify, requiring just a little luck to take if the Allies are the -tiniest- bit slow on the draw. Slapping down a bunker anywhere NEAR those locations spells doom for the Allied player.

Meanwhile, an allied player has to constantly monitor these areas to watch out for 'entrapment' while trying to control the rest of the map. This DOES not mean he gains any kind od advantage, infact the AXIS has the advantage because they are free to concentrate on other areas of the map.

Conclusion? Bunkers are overpowered, thanks to 'murder' spots on the map that completely kill the Allies if fortified. Bunkers are very easy to put up, very tough, inexpensive, and are practically inpregnable until armored vehicles- There isn't anything nearly as potent and immediately devastating on the Allied side at the same tech level. Not BAR, not anything.

[sgb]

I wouldn't have problem if allies could do the same thing. Problem is allied bunker is suicide early on, as 25 fuel is pretty much giving the game to the axis. The allied bunker also doesn't give building cover to garrisoned troops, just heavy cover.

My suggestions would be to:
a) lower the cost of the allied bunker
b) change the axis bunker so it only gives heavy cover
c) switch positions of axis sniper and morter units. This would give axis the same access to a counter while giving a bit more incentive to get tier 2.

[Bentguru]

Here is a classic example Bentguru shows again that he knows how to exploit the imbas of this game better than anybody.

If the axis had a version of the calliope I would so happily prove you right.


That said, the anti-grenade and sniper values axis bunkers give garrisoned units needs to be toned down, and the mp requirement needs to be toned up to somewhere near the allied bunker's mp cost. The fuel/munitions are racial differences relic seems to want to stick to, but there's no reason why the axis bunker should be so cheap. Losing one to mortar fire should be more than a blow then the equivalent mp of a pioneer squad.

[Al_Ka_Pwn]

Dont know if it would work havent tested it but mortor smoke + engineer flame thrower seems like ti might be effective

[KlavoHunter]

Dont know if it would work havent tested it but mortor smoke + engineer flame thrower seems like ti might be effective

Mortar is T2 for both sides - have fun teching up that far that quickly if you have zero control over half the map.

[Demon_Eyes]

Mortar is T2 for both sides - have fun teching up that far that quickly if you have zero control over half the map.
Mortar is only Tier2+krieg for axis, allies can get it form WSC which can be built from the start.

[PrinceMyshkin]

@Bentguru:
If the axis had a version of the calliope I would so happily prove you right.

- You are absolutely right here. Calliope was the allied version of russian Katyusha rocket launcher, or the axis six-barreled Nebelwerfer rocket mortar.

All these weapons were very cheap and effective short range anti-infantry units. But no serious threat vs tanks and hard targets like buildings, bunkers, etc.

- Calliope in CoH diversidies and proves a match to long range artillery and at the same time 88mm Flak gun. It's so LoL. I will write about it when I have the time. ;)

Calliope rocket launcher should be as effective as the Nebelwerfer. There is no difference in their working principles.

- So to conclude: Nerf Calliopes, Nerf Bunker spamming. :)

Thanks,
N00bMysh

[Demon_Eyes]

Calliope and Katyusha are nothing like a Nebelwerfer. Calliope isn't even that similar to a Katyusha. Calliope could engage targets at 3000+yards, that is not short range, the T40 rockets were the short range (maximum of around 300 yards). Calliope should not be made even close to the same as nebelwerfer.

[raydude]

Let me add:

Calliope launcher carries 60 rockets. Nebelwerfer carries 6. To quote Stalin, "Quantity has a quality all its own."

[DrunkenOne]

So Bentguru is now exploiting by using bunkers?

learn what an exploit IS before throwing around the E word.

[Virigoth]

Jesus christ, now bunkers are an exploit.

420mp is a lot to spend on a static emplacement that becomes obsolete the moment light armor comes out. Not to mention that a solitary german bunker with no MG crew inside will go down 30s after a flamer engy walks up to it's side.

By the time a german player can put down a bunker + dedicated MG crew, allied player can put down WSC and mortar crew.

To reiterate: 150/50 bunker is a piece of cake to destroy. It's when you stick an MG crew inside that they are a serious threat, and by then the axis player has spent over 400MP on static defense.

PS. Only problem with axis bunkers is their anti-sniper cover which seems far too effective.

[Saunders]

Random, random note that may not have been brought up before : Allied bunker-thingy has a wider MG arc.

[PrinceMyshkin]

@Drunken: I didnt accuse Bentguru at all, on the contrary he has my full respect.

Please read my post and please do not flame or try to throw commands on me.

Peace.

[Demon_Eyes]

Random, random note that may not have been brought up before : Allied bunker-thingy has a wider MG arc.
Didn't notice it being any wider of an arc than the axis bunker, if someone has a screenshot for comparison it would help. Also I was looking at an old change log sayin allied bunker counts as heavy cover, Victrix can you confirm this? I didn't see anything about it in your cover thread.

[Saunders]

Axis bunker :
http://i10.tinypic.com/43q26pl.jpg
Allied bunker :
http://i10.tinypic.com/2evrmdf.jpg

[DrunkenOne]

wow, definitely noticeably wider, wonder if that is why axis bases have such enormous blind spots?

[Albi]

I actually think the fuel costs are justified for allies.
They dont pay fuel to gain expience and to get to tanks costs alot less fuel.

Personally it seems fine to me.

Calling it an exploit, well I think that is totally wrong.

If everything was even, might as well play chess. I hear thats got equal units on each side, however the queen is OP and needs a nerf.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Well I don't know about you mate, but I am a chess competitive chess player. :P

Just to remind you what Bentguru said:

That said, the anti-grenade and sniper values axis bunkers give garrisoned units needs to be toned down, and the mp requirement needs to be toned up to somewhere near the allied bunker's mp cost.

I do agree here. I feel as I have nothingmore to say

[Fitz]

Risk > Chess

[PrinceMyshkin]

Has Fritz the Risk the largest bibliography than any other game ever?

Risk is cool though. I like it. :)

But feel like comparing a Sherman to a Königstiger. ^^

BTW Isn't Calliope launcher what the Wurf was?

[evotech]

i want allied battlecruisers in my ponds

[damocles]

Axis bunkers are fine the way they are. The allies get a very strong infantry start with cheap riflemen that can kick the ass of most other infantry units until the axis can afford to get to skirmish phase. The bunkers are the axis's only way of holding onto the important SPs in the early game (not counting barbed wire, but that's very easy to bypass giving only a brief lockdown).

As it is now, the axis have to take the territory they want to build a bunker in and they have to have it connected back to the HQ. If the allies player can't manage to stop the axis from doing this and then taking the time to build a bunker in that area, then they deserve to be denied the SP.

[Dread Moose]

damocles, if you have noticed, there is no effective way to counter that building. It is sniper resistant, and grenade resistant, you cant flank it if they toss another MG in it. It effectively cuts off an entire portion of the map from allies. Your ideas that if they couldnt stop it, then they deserve to lose is just like saying that since they cant stop calliope spam they deserve to lose.

You are another rifle spam believer, well the fact is MG42 are still greater than riflesquads, and they cost less, and come faster, if you cannot take and hold ground with a much longer range and more damaging unit. Don't forget about the mp40 upgrade that comes before the bar to, and that is totally devestating to your uber riflemen, so if you cant beat those, then you had lost before the game started. The bunker effective makes that mg42 unit invulnerable, instead of being able to be flanked. That is the opposite of the allied bunker, you can still snipe and kill the units within rather easily, and you cannot build/spam these in critical location because it costs fuel, that will stop you from getting you super bar, or super shermans.

[DrunkenOne]

Rifle Spam > mg42s. Sorry. Riflespam > all actually.

[Virigoth]

You can:

1) Flank it with two units just like a house: Your choices of flanking direction are limited due to possible upgrade of HMG from bunker front which makes your units die twice as fast, but you can still do it if you don't mind the losses. So you normaly need to fix+flank it from opposite sides, or side and rear. Ie: it is hard to flank it but not impossible. I do it sometimes with airborne and I'm a shitty allied player.

Side note: Grenades suck against bunkered crews (takes something like 3-4) but any flame attack on a bunker crew causes it to die almost instantly. So use engies for the flank.

2) Mortar it: build WSC and bring out a mortar to pound it out. It will cost you 15 fuel, which on most map sets you back 1 minute at most. Alternativly you can pop a smoke barrage on it, and run a flame engy up to it for super fast instant death of the mg crew.

3) Chew it apart with an AT gun.

4) Drive an AC to it and clear out the crew/bunker.

5) Take it out with armor.
-------------------------
So basicly the only things you cannot do it is: Snipe it, or quickly grenade it. The bunker is also most dangerous only 1vs1 on maps that allow single sector to cut away alot of your income = Ango.

[Dread Moose]

cant chew it apart with at gun, or armor, or armored cars, why because by that time, the bunker has already done its job.

[damocles]

why because by that time, the bunker has already done its job.

Bingo. Nail on head. It IS the bunkers job to hold positions until at/mortars/armor destroys them. It sounds to me like you want the allies to have total early game domination. As it is now, the riflemen are cheaper and faster to produce than the MG42s required to stop them, and they are far more mobile and have a very flexible upgrade structure.

For the cost of a bunker with a proper MG crew in it, you can output 2 rifleman squads and kick some axis ass. The riflemen can go anywhere, the bunker and MG crew can only hold that one area. If you nerfed the bunkers, the axis would have a harder time than they already do in the opening stages. Bunkers are essential to axis survival on some maps and useful on others.

And as I said before, if you let the axis player get all the way to your vital fuel/mun points, capture the territory and build a bunker there, then you are not doing your job properly. No amount of bunker nerfing can make up for poor skill - I should know, I suck :)

Actually - a thought strikes me. I would not mind if they made bunkers neutral, so if a bunker was built, but the allies managed to garrison it before the axis did, then it would become an allied bunker while the allied units remain inside it. That would help a little for those poor suffering allies :)

[Dread Moose]

Wow, you just don't understand it. The allies are not overpowered, you have 4 units to build to start vs 2 for the allies, proper use of mg42 volks and snipers, and motorcycles can take early map control.

As far as i can remember, mg42 are 240 manpower and rifles are 270. Setting up in a staggered formation, no amount of riflemen will be able to flank that mg42 that is protecting the units building the bunker. I totally dismissed this issue until i tried it last night. As there are 4 pages worth of talk before i looked into it myself.

[DrunkenOne]

Wow, you just don't understand it. The allies are overpowered, you only need 1 unit to build to start vs 3 (snipers suck) for the axis, proper use of riflespam can take early map control.

[Demon_Eyes]

Druken, Moose, this line of arguments leads to no productive thread conversation :(

[DrunkenOne]

Which is why he should stop making open ended (and wrong) statements about balance.

[Demon_Eyes]

Pot calling the kettle black there Drunk ;)

Axis bunker :
http://i10.tinypic.com/43q26pl.jpg
Allied bunker :
http://i10.tinypic.com/2evrmdf.jpg
Thanks for getting that, very good catch. I never noticed it was that much of a difference in the MG arc.

[Timeless]

Only Drunken speaks from utter experience, playing the top players, rather than just speculating from replays how easy or hard it may or may not be. Big difference.

[Saunders]

I'm confused. I thought the point of a bunker (axis, specifically) was to "do its job" and hold locations. That flamethrowers and mortars are both ideal for clearing/destroying them, and both being available right off the bat or with building a single structure.

[Demon_Eyes]

Only Drunken speaks from utter experience, playing the top players, rather than just speculating from replays how easy or hard it may or may not be. Big difference.
Basically your saying his observations and opinions are more valid because he is a high level player, without consideration that others might be better observers. High ranked ladder 1v1 is a good experience in game skill, the ability to observe and analyze is a seperate skill.

[Timeless]

No, I said that when you referenced Moose and Drunken together. I said, "only that" as in "the difference being". "Book" knowledge is rarely ever as good as experiencing the real thing. That's not to say there aren't exceptions and that some people don't think incredibly well, even lacking experience. I happen to mix the two together in my analysis of things.

[Demon_Eyes]

Experience is a teacher, not a balance analyst. Someone who is good at analyzing something can be terrible in actually using that something. The opposite is also true. So really, you said exactly what I elaborated on.

[Timeless]

More often than not, those wout experience make wild and crazy claims that they would know not to be true if they actually had the experience as well as this so called "fantastic" observation ability above and beyond everyone elses. But, nevertheless, you go on believing what you like. Games should be balanced not on experience AND reasoning, but only on wild, unfounded claims made by just anyone, just because they happen to appear intelligent and therefore just MIGHT have superior reasoning skills. Heh. Okay.

[Demon_Eyes]

Those without experience or the ability to observe and analyse can make wild statements. Those who can do either or both do not, which is to say, you think that only experience shows the truth, when it fact a good observer can often see things even an experienced person cannot. Hence why good companys bring in 3rd party organizations to help them with security, productivity and such. Because an outside opinion and observation is most often very beneficial. You are confusing my statement to mean no experience or ability to observe and analyse.

[Bentguru]

I would say that being a top level player requires you to be able to observe what units work well in what situations, or to anaylze a unit's strength/weaknesses to see if it's worthwhile to build and how to employ it.

So if in the case of a high ranked player saying something is imba, i'm going to lend him alot more credit then somebody who hasn't played the game nearly as much. The fact is higher ranked players push the game to it's limits, and only at the limits can you really find out what's balanced and what isn't.

Mediocre players can do a riflespam and get owned, people see that and think "oh riflespam is balanced." But when somebody like sepha gets his hands on it, you start to see how utterly ridiculous it really is. And thats not to say it's hard to beat in only Sepha's hands, but in general it seems to be that there is a disproportionate amount of skill needed to defeat a riflespam than there is to do one, and that is basically the definition of an imbalance.

In this case a conclusion is simple. I am the top axis player at the moment, and I am saying that AXIS BUNKERS need to be changed. Their manpower needs to be around the same level as the allied bunker to prevent spamming. Currently at 150mp they are too easily spammed, and they provide an enormous advantage. Mortar's don't work because losing 150mp in the time it takes the mortar to kill it means nothing, you can easily set up many more in that time period. Losing a bunker should hurt alot more than it does noq.

[Starfisher]

Guys, remember the guidelines. If someone makes a pointlessly open-ended statement, just ignore or it even report the post. Once people get into it with each other there's not much a mod can do except either ignore it or delete all posts involved. At this point in the thread there's not much reason to do anything, as all the evidence for and against overpowered bunkers is out there.

Bumping the MP cost to (say) 200 or 225 would work for me. It's not a huge change, but it cuts a little deeper into the Axis players' ability to reinforce units and tech, and makes bunker spam impossible.

Heh, as a sidenote, the interesting thing here is that the vast majority of people who play are not going to think this makes any sense whatsover. It puts Relic in an tough situation - balance for the ladder and satisfy the competetive 20%, or balance for the unranked/team games and keep the 80% happy. It'll be interesting to see what they do after the patch.

[Demon_Eyes]

I am of the opinion that Bunkers cost is the least likely issue. To reiterate my opinion I belive the bunkers could have an issue with the modifiers to accuracy and damage to those units garrisoned in them, the configurations of maps could be an issue as well. I see a major issue with increasing bunker cost as it could simply make them like allied MG emplacements, e.g. nearly non-existant in game due to the high cost. As well I believe allied MG emplacements are overpriced in regards to fuel which only pronounces the bunkers and gives them a stigma in relation to cost.

As for remedial steps, I would suggest testing with the modifiers for the bunker garrisoned units reduced by 35% at first, this should still give the bunker better defense than a normal building but not the massive one they have now which is justified by the cost. An alternative would be to test with bunkers providing heavy cover like the allied MG emplacement. The map balance is a much more complex issue and I don't have a suggestion for that.

[Bentguru]

well according to a relic balance guy automatches are supposed to randomize the starting points on maps, so much of the map related issues atm will be solved just with that.

Also, forgot to mention that bunker's should not get grenade-resistant and sniper-resistant attributes as much as they do now as well.

[Phazon]

I have no issue with the Axis bunker having grenade resistance, because back in WWII those sort of concrete bunkers usually had some sort of small pit or bin where an axis soldier could quickly kick the grenade into if one was thrown inside.

[Thoragoros]

All at the Topic Creator, NOTE: I have had just about all I can take of these overpowered topics.

Have you ever seen how few shots a bunker can actually take? Very few, last I looked, about four.

Secondly, bunkers are meant to be just as offensive as they are defensive, and the same applies to the MG Nest. Once you take ground, isnt it a rather good idea to bunker it up, if you can? DUH!!! THINK!!!

Third, The Concrete protects the soldiers, the MG kills infantry, therefore, protected MG gunners, in a bombproof box, hmmm, sounds formidable to a lone infantry man in my book.

Fourthly, similar to three, it is a big concrete box with a big gun, if you rush it with infantry, I really, really, really, think you should take a long, logical look at what you are trying to do. Think D-Day, or WWI Somme. Hmmm, lots of infantry, rushing a big concrete MG nest, NOT A GOOD IDEA!!!! Kind of like this :banghead: Same idea. Same result.

Fifth, Might I ask what you expect, when charging infantry at a bunker? If a lone group of infantry could simply charge it from the front, and win, either the MG guy is asleep or dead, or the concrete was made of cardboard!! WAKE UP!!

Sixth, Cost? 150 MP is not alot for a single gun with a relatively low range and a narrow arc? ARE YOU JOKING? For that price I could upgrade THREE units of Volks with MPS, or call down a Firestorm, or upgrade my Grenediars with heavy weapons, COME ON!!!

Sometimes things aren't overpowered, sometimes tactics are underpowered. Your case.

[Bentguru]

150 Manpower thorg, not 150 munitions.

The fact that you don't even know what the axis bunker costs makes me discout the rest of your arguement. Plus the fact that you don't really say anything as to how it can be countered, other than to not try with infantry...

[Vicious_CB]

The only viable counter to an early game bunker is the mortar,and that mortar has to be proteced while it does it job meaning it can take anywhere from 45 secs to 1:30 mins to take out a bunker depending on luck(using barrage if out of sight range)

This FORCES the allied player to build a WSC and using 180 MP 15 fuel + another 280 mp = 460 mp and 15 fp for a mortar team. 15 fuel is very valuable early game meaning the difference between getting BARs or teching at the right time.

Since most players skip the WSC fast tech bunkering can slow down that BAR spam, or slow down the fast tech simply by putting a bunker in the right place

Thats 460 MP + 15 fuel for a counter to 410 MP bunker + MG team

Sound fair to you?

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Flamers do a fine job against bunkers.

[Vicious_CB]

Flamers do a fine job against bunkers.

Umm no they dont. Not against a bunker that can fire 360 degrees

[PrinceMyshkin]

Being a very determined automatcher in my life -in DoW- I know exactly what Bentguru means.

Regarding rifle spam a good solution would be grenadiers.

o Allied infantry upgrades are at the moment buffed -stay forever- (e.g. BAR upgrade gives a +3 to all infantry squads forever!)
o While axis need to spend a fortune to get some heavy weapons upgrades: +50MU/Volks squad for +2 submachines: which are not as effective as BAR, and
+x2(75MU/squad) for grenadiers for Light MG42s, which are ownage but way too expensive! So at the end of the day nobody is using Krieg Barracks.

If you want to form a proper counter from Krieg Barracks, eg. 2 Grenadiers x4 MG42s that would cost you: 600MP+300MU (300MU is LoL!). So the best you can do is go straight on for Pumas and... pray for map control...

So I would suggest 20-40% MU reduction in axis infnatry weapon upgrades, so buildings like Krieg Barracks will start being effective...

Hence, riflemen spam together with Calliope's imba rocket launcher and low cost, or 105mm How. HQ-HQ fire: Allies >> Axis.

So some say: Come on give me a break here! Cheap bunkers is all Axis have at the moment! Why do you want to take them apart completely?!

No, I am saying that ALL of these imbas should change, so we can enjoy fully our game.

Regarding bunkers, axis bunkers need to be nerfed. Bunker spamming should be only a n00by n00by n00b hobby.

[Thoragoros]

Bentgurur, It costs 150 munit for the MG/

[PrinceMyshkin]

50 MU for the MG upgrade mate. 50.

[Thoragoros]

Bentguru, so I didnt memorize their cost, sorry!

So just how easily should they be destroyed? As easily as the Allied MG nest which is made of a green tarp and sandbags? At some point we need believability too... And if I can mortar a concrete bunker into rubble in a a few seconds, that is not believable, and hence not fun.

PS,
I dont play Axis, so I dont really know much of thier cost.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Listen mate, the problem is not in their hardness. The building itself is as resistive as it should be.

There are two issues that need improving:
o Axis bunkers are very cheap comparing to their efficiency.
o Bunkers provide a tremendous defensive bonus to the units garrisoned inside vs. snipers and vs. grenades.

(e.g. if I were in a bunker and somebody would throw a grenade inside, would I survive easily? As it is now you have to throw like 3-4 grenades to kill something garrisoned inside.)

[Thoragoros]

Yeah, but lets face it, that is a problem with the game engine that gives a flat defense bonuse to garrisoned units, and hence their resistance to grenades, thus your left with the question, give the units defense inside a conrete box, or dont for the sake of their resistance to grenades.

Personally, I have never had or even considered their bunkers to be too effective, I just either lob mortars at them, or bing in a AT gun which I always have alot of.

Also, Sherman kill these bunkers in like four hits, so I dont see the problem. Personally, I would increase the defense of bunkers for this reason alone.

Besides, even if you kill the units inside, there is still the MG that the bunker upgrades with.

[SmellyTerror]

Personally, I have never had or even considered their bunkers to be too effective, I just either lob mortars at them, or bing in a AT gun which I always have alot of.

Also, Sherman kill these bunkers in like four hits, so I dont see the problem. Personally, I would increase the defense of bunkers for this reason alone.

The ENTIRE problem is the bunker in the early game. No-one is saying it's too strong once tanks and AT guns are out. They are saying it's too much in the first few minutes.

[Thoragoros]

But then the bunkers will be useless later..........Just stay away from the for the first few minutes, besides, if an Axis player spends his entire early game building bunkers he wont have the manpower to make volks or tech.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Thoragoros mate have a look at the reply if you would like please. :)

[Thoragoros]

??? Reply?

Funny we agree on the other two important topics and disagree on this one realtively minor topic.

[PrinceMyshkin]

:)

[Bentguru]

thor, you're plan of staying away would work if I wasn't completely cutting off the entire map from you with 2 bunkers.

[Thoragoros]

2 bunkers? How on earth are you cutting off half the map with 2 bunkers? Even in Semois that would not cut off half the map.

Besides, in a map like semois 400 MP could be put to much better use due to lack of resources.

And again, even in the early game, if you protect your mortars, you'll deal just fine with the bunker. And once you've got an AT gun, that bunker is useless unless their are volks their to rush the AT gun. Please, just devise a better strategy, and stop whining.

Note, this is coming from an Allies player. So I am usually the one playing against the bunkers. Its called being fair.

[Bentguru]

And I'm the one using them against top 10 allied players and realizing that they effectively end the game once they go up.

On maps like ango there are strategic points that disconnect entire sides of the map from the bases. If I take those 2 points and bunker them up, there's NOTHING you can do.

[Thoragoros]

Your being silly. Nothing I can do? I can throw a satchel charge from an Airborne group, use an M10, or use a AT gun. Nothing? Your just being an idiot.

[ZuppoX]

He's #1 Axis so I wouldn't say he's an idiot. So snipers or mortars for example can counter AT guns very well.

ZuppoX

[Bentguru]

You will never get an m10, you wont have the fuel. You may be able to get an AT gun if you were able to delay my advance long enough, but only the very good can manage that.

Even if you do, it will take a while to kill off the bunker, and in that time I'll make another one. There's also no possible way you will have enough munitions to throw the 75mun a pop satchels to kill it, assuming your airborne squad even survives that long.

Keep in mind that as you're trying to deal with the bunkers that are seperating you from the rest of the map, I'm teching like a madman. So even if eventually you DO clear one of the points to be re-taken, I'm going to be hitting you with pumas, stugs, or even flaks very very soon.

[Starfisher]

Thoragoros: Do not flame other members.

If you cannot refute his argument rationally, which is that early game bunkers are difficult to impossible to defeat, then you should examine your own position to make sure you want to keep defending it.

On Semois, a single bunker will cover the top bridge, and then a second will cover the second bridge. It's a simple matter to wire off the bottom ford. Once the Axis player gets that bunker in, the Allied player has a very short period of time where they must break out somewhere else before they get completely cut off and lose.

[Thoragoros]

Can I ask what you guys expect? Infantry are not supposed to be able to defeat bunkers. AT's can take care of bunkers, satchel charges take care of bunkers, and lvehicles take care of bunkers. If a group of rifles squades could take care of a bunker then bunkers would lose thier purpose. It is simple logic.

Whenever I see bunkers I say to myself "An easy AT/mortar/airborne target."

Your assuming an awful lot. Your assuming I cant throw the satchel charge, your assuming I cant get an M10 your assuming I cant use a mortar, Why dont you tell me what I am capable of doing.

At the Mod,

I have said the above over and over by this time, all he keeps saying is, "Bunkers are Hard targets" I have said REAPTEDLY how to counter them with ease. He has yet ot say WHY my methods of getting rid of them dont work. So direct your silly threats elswhere.

[Bentguru]

Thoragoros, on angoville you WILL NOT get an m10 since I am going to CUT YOU OFF from fuel. I'm also going to cut you off from munitions, so no satchel charges.

The point I'm making is that bunkers as they are are impossible to defeat with the counters that should do it, eg. mortars. You begin mortaring a bunker and I'll simply build another for 150mp. The mortar takes so long to kill them that I can spam them effectively, making mortars in general useless for clearing bunkers. Even though I'm losing mp and your not, every second I keep you bottle up in your base allows me to tech more to units that you cannot counter, like flaks.

The bunker as-is is too powerful a delaying tactic. The reason I don't tell you a counter is because there IS NO GOOD COUNTER to early bunker spam once it goes up. I have never, ever, been beaten once my intial bunkers are made. Not once.

[Thoragoros]

I have never, ever, gotten into a position where I have been totaly unable to destroy a bunker, on the bunker's merits alone, even if there was wire in front of it. I am simply in shock at this.

So, in your perfect game, what would be the effective counter to bunkers, and what would be the mainstay of the Axis defense line? Lets restart the discussion on that beginning point.

[DrunkenOne]

Also, 1 satchel doesn't kill a bunker.

[Thoragoros]

Your right, as of 1.2 it no longer will take of a bunker on it's own, but it will take a good chunk of it's life away. I concede that point. But I still dont understand what you people are expecting. Standard infantry should not be able to take a bunker by themselves as it is the bunkers purpose to stop infantry in their tracks.

[Starfisher]

Thoragoros: You've almost convinced me that you're not reading his posts.

You cannot buy an AT gun unless you either tech to it (which costs fuel), or get it from the Airborne drop (which requires you to get XP). A well placed bunker prevents you from ever getting the counters to it, or at the very least will delay you so that when you do get a counter to the bunker, he will be too far ahead of you in the tech race for you to ever catch up.

The point they are making, and have made very clearly, is that bunkers need to be more expensive or less powerful to prevent them from being spammed.

[Demonic Spoon]

Nothing wrong with bunkers. If anything, I think the problem lies in being able to cut off the enemy's supplies simply by holding one point.

[Thoragoros]

Starfisher, unless your a completely incapable player, why and how would let him bunker a certain area to the point where you cant retake it? I still dont understand how you bunker any area until there is absolutely no counter.

Here is what you are saying,

1)Player A takes point 1,
2)Player A bunkers and wires point 1,
3)Player A Does same to points 2 and 3,
4)PLayer B is starved of points.

Can I ask where and what player B was doing that whole time? If you allow your apponent to build defenses such that you cant retake an area, your just a bad player.

Furthermore, are you telling me, that he bunkers every fuel point? And every munitions point? I think your stretching the truth a tad.

[Bentguru]

Watch the replay Thoragoros before making another post.

On every map there are chokepoints. Ango is especially bad because by controlling 2 strategic points you can sever the entire map from your opponent. By taking those points by FORCE and bunkering them you acheive an advantage almost impossible to overcome.

Since bunkers don't cost alot, and since i'm not building one before the point is in my possession, I am not gimped in any way in terms of my offensive forces (usually infantry and mg42's). You ask where my opponent is, usually they're doing their best to prevent me from getting the bunker up. But one mistake, one mistep, and I've secured the area and bought myself the 20 seconds to set up a bunker that can not be overcome except by extreme patience and sometimes luck. Once the 1st bunker is up, I move to location #2, and since i've won the infantry fight to take position #1 i usually can bunker #2 easily, at which point it's game over.

Watch the replay please, it's obvious you haven't and until you do you don't really know what you're talking about. I can also post replays of games against Architect, EyeOftheStorm, Promethius, smpl, and many MANY others where a bunker is a game-ender.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I told you before Thor, watch the bloody replay mate!

You will have 0 income. By the time you have 1 mortar team and 3 riflemen and engineers with flamers and take these 2-3 bunkers, you will find mass pumas and stugs in your base.

Yes you will take down the bloody bunkers, but who gives a *$^! about them!

[Vicious_CB]

Thor you obviously have no idea what you are talking about here.

Look at the tactical map of Agonville. Closely...

[PrinceMyshkin]

Anybody watched the Bentguru vs. Everborn replay on Ang? ^^

I was laughing my butt off all game long!

[DrunkenOne]

Lol, watch this replay and look how long the fuckin mg lives.

http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=115439

[Virigoth]

All the bunkers really need is a tweak to their grenade/sniper protection effects. The fact that sniper needs +10 shots to take out a lone MG crew in a bunker is sort of silly :)

If they were to be treated as normal garrison or heavy cover, the current version of shermans would just nuke the mg crews in one shot like they do with mg crews in a building.

[TarlSS]

I think it's been proved with many replays that the bunkers mean pretty much a slow death once they've been established in the proper place- IE the allied strat point on Angoville.

Thoragoras has pretty much stopped using facts and merely responded with incredulous denial. I think it's safe to say we can move on.

I think that Axis bunkers, much like Allied bunkers should require a tech upgrade to acheive. Place them at Assault or Battle phase and I think we should be good. Having early access to bunkers is by no means a defining flavor trait or neccessary on part of the Axis strategy- I mean. The Allies have no similiar options, what with the MG Nest being utterly useless.

[PrinceMyshkin]

But be carefull with what you wish, with the current balance, if you nerf bunkers you have to make Grenadiers much more sexy...

... or else axis will be played only by romantic heroes who enjoy winning 1:10 games by outmicro their opponents 20:1. ^^

[bbos]

Compared to its cost, is the main topic, and for the bunker to be effective, it requires 410mp, 150 for the bunk and 260 for the mg team I believe that if a player is willing to shell out 410mp on a static defence, it should atleast hold its own for a certain amount of time considering that it is high resource cost that early in the game. Plus, for the bunker to cut off half the map or whatever, it must be build on soil which is already connected to your base. this takes quite a long time to accomplish, and should that axisplayer control all those points and is able to plant down the bunk, then the allie player pretty much hasn't donehis/her job. I read the previous post and I do agree that this issue is mainly due to the unbalanced map being used.
It is also easily counter with a smoke grenade.