But logically, if the bunkers are suited only to the locations where the mappers decide they should be placed, then this will be so even with placeable bunkers. I also don't see why it needs to be different all the time, district, escort, and other non-comm maps are still very popular, as are maps where the bases are always in the same place, like streetsoffire, and even on maps which allow multiple base locations, people usually stay in the starting areas, or move to the alternate sites, like the centre on dust, or the other two corners on cyclopean, so there isn't really any variation there either.
By following your logic one could say that every structure in Empires should be pre placed by the mapper and not by the commander, to allow for the ultimate control of how the map is played. But Empires is not about mapper defined objects, hell thats why the maps are so barren and open, so it gives the commander the ultimate decision of where to place that said bunker, not the mapper. If the commander decides that he wants his bunker over there; who is the mapper to decide?
Isn't he the one that does tho? The mapper is the one who create the flat terrain for the buildings to be placed on, and most (I assume most anyways) test the possible placements as much as possible, if they don't want that particular building there, they change the terrain enough to prevent its placement. So while they might not physically place it there, they defentley decided that it could/would go there.
A bunker would be cool, in theory. But. Like jeeps, I think it would be used terribly. Noob comms would place them like turrets, failing to realise that they have to be MANNED to work. And nobody will use the things anyway. They'll completely ignore the damn things if they're a noob. And if they aren't modelled correctly, they'll be shunned by vets...
However, a base is useful wherever the fighting takes place, and the fighting will usually take place wherever the base is, because the bases define the spawn points and directions of attack, a bunker is useful only at a choke point which you know the enemy will continue to attack through for some time. It does not define the direction of attack, so it cannot be placed anywhere and expected to be useful. Arguably the game could have pre-placed structures, but structures also have a role in advancement, the order in which you place them matters, so you'd have to work that in, and they are going to be the same every game, whereas bunkers would benefit greatly from being customised to suit the location, and structures are much more complex, so having the mapper make them every time is less sensible than just having them spawnable, whereas bunkers are much simpler, and should probably incorporate features you can't have with placeable structures, like tunnels (which I just put in and which look very good on kutm).
The original idea isn't a bunker. You could make pillboxes (rather, manned turrets) out of it, but you can do the same with walls currently. The important matter is that it easily turns walls from obstacles into defensive structures, without complicated building, which in turn can be quickly used offensively as an aid to a base assault, or just maintaining and controlling the front line. A true bunker is a semi-underground system of paths for infantry to navigate. (Just in case anyone didn't understand what Chris was on about.) This is really only useful for protection from artillery and other heavy weaponry. It might be useful in maps like Escort where your only objectives are the flags and tickets are a valued resource, but in traditional maps you're probably just better off putting a barracks wherever you want to go and protecting them from attack. This is mostly because all the mission critical objects; resource points, buildings, CV; are above-ground and can't be defended from below-ground, as well as being easy to seize/destroy faster than someone in a tunnel system could respond to, while tickets are an expendable resource. Be honest. If you could kill yourself and spawn instantly halfway around the world, would you EVER bother with using tunnels to get somewhere? I sure as hell wouldn't.
I know what it is, and the only way to make a bunker useful is to make it strong enough to resist fire, hard to breach with infantry, offer a good vantage point for the defenders, and be easy to access when under siege. The map placeable bunkers can do all that, all these can offer is a small amount of cover, which is of little use in empires when the weapons are all so accurate and powerful, concealment is more useful, and having an obvious target like one of these is not very good concealment. Having lots of cover dotted around the place where people could attack from any one works much better, so either you make millions of these things, or they are of little use, as they do not have the ease of access through protective tunnels or the benefits of a vantage point without also being susceptable to rocket sniping. And yes, I would use tunnels when you can't simply spawn anywhere, you can only spawn in a barracks, not the frontline bunkers, and having to walk to them is dangerous. If the suggestion was for a concealed bit of cover, like a foxhole with camo netting which automatically matched the terrain underneath then I'd support it. Because a few of those would be useful by providing easy to use cover with good sight lines and would also be hard to see, making the enemy less likely to just obliterate it before moving in. I tried making them in kutm but there wasn't really room and I didn't have any camo net materials.
I just wondered, as most of you say that the bunkers will be vunerable from behind, does that mean that He cannons and Arty can one shot them by shooting over them?
well it could clear it out pretty good. But same with a grenade. Up untill that tech level ther pretty powerful.
Look all you need to do is to have a bunker buster rocket or cannon it would do little of dmg to walls and but ownge people behind them. Problem solved :D
No, we actually have bunker buster rockets, they work by embedding into the wall of the structure before detonating the main charge, thereby expending all the energy into the structure and not suffering from the main issue of anti-building munitions which is that most of the energy gets expended in the other direction as the charge detonates on the surface. Quite ingenious, really.
I beg to differ: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jABgoThhqtw&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBjf3N7NTAQ&feature=related Bunker Buster = Win :D :p
My explanation for 'bunker' was for Shinzon (and possibly anyone else reading who wasn't sure why there was argument to begin with), not for you. The parenthetical comment was meant to clarify that. The thing you seem to be missing is that these aren't bunkers, anymore than walls are. (With creative use, walls can do pretty much nigh on everything.) They let you attack the enemy while recieving the same protection a wall gives. They benefit most from being commander or engineer-placed, where infantry might need extra protection from tanks or other infantry, while wanting to shoot back. Useful if you're on the front line and are trying to do the offensive thing while minimizing your enemy's ability to push you back. (Same reason people make offensive turrets.) Fixed map-placed buildings aren't going to let you do that. As far as troops getting to it, just use an apc. Or chances are, your infantry are already there and you're building it for them. It's not going to do much to protect you from artillery and it's not supposed to.
But as I said, cover is not helpful against anything but a tank, and that can be provided just as easily with a less visible and more spammable cover structure, which can also provide infantry concealment and the ability to move from place to place to prevent enemy infantry from knowing where you are every time you engage at that location. An infantry battle is not decided by who has the best cover, but by who can shoot first, and that is decided by who sees who first, and that is decided by who has the least obvious hiding spot. If you put an obvious piece of cover down, enemy infantry can simply point their ARs or sniper rifles at it, and you will be dead within a second.
A full fleged bunker, hell; that thing would be cool placeable by the commander; but in reality the space it would take up would be better served by a simple barracks... What theese things are; are exactly what you are describing under foxholes, they are no bigger then the current wall; and provide a line of sight one way. The mean reasoning behind this was that currently walls are 2 way; they can provide cover for your troops; but the enemy can use them just as well. With theese "Fox Hole Pillboxes" this allowes for the use of walls as is now; except the enemy is put at a disadvantage... So if the commander decides that a wall will be effective in a given situation; then this would make that wall double as effective compared if it was just a long wall segment with no "Fox Holes" in it... **** @Christ; I see what you are saying; but this is about making walls alot more effective at what they do, currently most of the time they serve as simple dragon teeth; preventing tanks from moving; and sometimes they are used as infantry trenches. What would you suggest to increase the effectivness of walls in directing tank traffic while providing a cheap cover for infantry that is also a low strategic target?
I wouldn't, I would suggest keeping walls as walls, and if you want some sort of interdiction structure which also allows fighting to take place, add in a separate tank trap placeable in the form of actual dragons teeth. Also perhaps some barbed wire which would slow down and harm infantry which tries to do anything other than crawl through it. For actual concealment, I suggest some sandbag emplacements with camo netting, probably low to the ground too, so you have to go prone or crouch to use them, thereby making them less noticeable, and also making them spammable, you can place them in a number of locations without making them very obvious, although they would probably be a bit useless as there isn't any way to get to them without being shot at. The best solution I think would be to make the exisitng base structures more fortified and complex on the inside, so that you can actually use them as cover against tanks, put a number of fire ports on the exterior of the structure to present multiple possible targets to an attacker, and make them harder to destroy from range. I'd suggest making this an upgrade and require a number of base structures nearby to have it, such as a barracks, radar, and VF, although you might consider letting the barracks have it all the time. This would resolve the issue of spamming the upgrade, restricting it only to full bases and to forward barracks. (it would also let you use the barracks as a defensive structure if you want, it would still be attacked because it's an important objective, and the upgrade should be expensive because of the power it confers, especially in maps like crossroads) Rather than a dedicated bunker, I essentially suggest adding some of the properties to the current structures, meaning you don't waste resources on them, and alleviating the issues I outlined earlier (they are accessible, because you spawn near them, they are always where the fighting is, as bases define the fighting area, they are hard to destroy, and they are cheap)
Then Vess's idea about the pillbox is nothing but the said sandbags; because there is no way in hell you can create a model that will cammo in with the map (Look at the wide range of backgrounds already avalable; from desert to ice) so it will cammo in with the rest of the wall; persumable theese things will turn into "Fox Holes" as a commander wants them (Click a wall segment and click turn into pillbox) then the wall instantly turns into the said ministructure that has a tiny foot print; while serving everything a sandbag can, but this will actualy fit in with the rest of the base. As for the rest of what you are talking about; it has already been suggested a while back; a good search for "Upgraded Sturcture" or "Base Fortifications" will reveal that even a ressearch tree has been though up for this, and the razor wire idea as well (All of which I support gladly) :p
Wow. There's a lot of big discussion about this. I think if done right, this would be an epic addition to the game. Bunker, PillBox, wallslit or whatever. I support.
