Unrealistic wide bunker openings -1 reply

Please wait...

AussieZaitsev

Revenge was here.

50 XP

14th December 2003

0 Uploads

1,970 Posts

0 Threads

#11 14 years ago

take away the freakin sniper rifles.




MkH^

FH tester

50 XP

25th September 2003

0 Uploads

2,286 Posts

0 Threads

#12 14 years ago

Since we're talking about bunkers, I'd really like to see those round steel made.. what should I call them.. shooting positions like the one on the top of the bunker in the 2nd picture. They would be really nasty if correctly built.




Admiral Donutz VIP Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#13 14 years ago

You are correct sir. I would love to see more correct bunkers. Armin has a point there but still the bunkers could be done better (no offense, they look nice atm). Adding those steel round "turrets/pillboxes" on top of some bunkers would make them a lot harder to overcome, this in combination with smaller view holes and doors woudl work quite well. We still would have the occasional rambo but it would be less of a problem.




Beast of War

Born to kill

50 XP

28th May 2003

0 Uploads

2,698 Posts

0 Threads

#14 14 years ago
ArminAcewell mabye some of them arent 100% correct but this isnt the main problem why a mg42 gunner gets so fastly killed then in rl ..............

I assure you i try to be very carefull with my virtual life.......that's why i made a post out of this issue !

If i don't want to be shot in FH i can't use the MG42's in the bunkers and that defeats why they are there. In fact those bunker openings are so large, you can't fire out of them at all without being killed !!

The small Omaha and Charlie sector bunkers are very good. But the Pacific bunkers and the large bunkers are not what they should be, their openings should be much smaller ( horizontal space in mean )

If these bunker openings are made much smaller ( horizontally ) you will see a drastic increase in bunker occupant survivability. ( and that has got nothing to do with the players inside ! )

Smaller openings will :

1: make tanks firing shells inside nearly impossible unless through the door

2: make tossing in handgrenades impossible unless very close or through the door

3: make bullets ( and IRL shell fragments ) less likely to fly inside the bunker and hit occupants

That the bunker doors are open in the back, is no problem for me. Afterall they should not be impossible to attack in the game. But they should be very dangeous to where their opening is directed at ! That is their purpose !

I understand some excuse is less work then redoing all bunkers, but bunkers now are virtually useless and that is a pity in a WWII game. You are litterally safer outside ! Below picture is what they should be like, it is the same model bunker that is in FH.....note how small ( horizontal space ) it really is when you look all the way in.....maybe 10 cm only !

NSengupta_1127_Normandy1007.jpg




terminal-strike

terminal-strike

50 XP

6th May 2004

0 Uploads

2,313 Posts

0 Threads

#15 14 years ago

Id have to see myself just how off these are but I don't think a lot them are that far off. Getting sniped or bared is just part of the hazards of the posositons. Iv been impressed that they have even done any new bunkers, which are quite teh cooleness. Anyway I looked up some stuff on the details of bunker design. Its a fascinating subject, with the exact defens protl being almost like a vehile in terms of complexty of defense and attack. Some stuff I found: Various pic http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/6550/uknew.htm There is an sMG 37(t) pic at the bottom of this one which was commonly used in bunkers. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/6550/nl2a68.htm#15 This has some diffetent defense designs stucktures. (also shows a M.G 34 laffete) another gone iv not heard of. 6-Schartenturm http://www.atlantikwall.net/armoured_turrets_sechsschartenturm.htm And some other from that site 6-Schartenturm http://www.atlantikwall.net/armoured_turrets_dreischartenturm.htm And this one especially cool http://www.atlantikwall.net/armoured_turrets_m19_panzerturm.htm

This turrets was designed to house the modern 5cm Granatwerfer M19. This weapon was a 5cm automatic grenade- launcher, which could fire between 20 and 100 shots per minute, depending on manual or automatic control. The turret was 25 cm thick and was for example equipped with an ammunition supply-lift and a periscope.

The various turrets http://www.atlantikwall.net/armoured_turrets.htm Other things http://www.atlantikwall.net/main_components.htm Needless to say FH could have several full time peopel working on components of the alantika wall, and the for that matter the stuff used to attack it. Like I said I think its amazing that they'v worked on bunkers at all. Whether this bunker thing is a actual issue for bunkers in question, im not actually sure but there at least close right not EDIT: yea other eqipment woudl be cool to. FYI they given hints there working on flamethrowers.




Thunderstick

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

9th April 2004

0 Uploads

5 Posts

0 Threads

#16 14 years ago

O well, you can't have it all. I guess if the bunkers are redone in such a fashion, the other side should have at least decent smoke cover, bangalore torpedo's and flamethrowers to make a fair change clearing these obstacles.

You can't have 1 without the other, without ruining gameplay i guess.




MkH^

FH tester

50 XP

25th September 2003

0 Uploads

2,286 Posts

0 Threads

#17 14 years ago

I don't know if it's possible, but it would definitely help if the bunkers were made like house windows, so, that when looking from distance you can't see inside. It's sort of shadowed and you have to walk closer to see what's in.




[11PzG]matyast

[11PzG] clan leader

50 XP

5th October 2003

0 Uploads

3,175 Posts

0 Threads

#18 14 years ago

You have a point Beast...but don't you think there are more pressing models to be made rather than bunkers?

The PnzrIII and maybe some nice houses. There were bunkers...but on how many maps did they actually have them in rl. I think city fighting would definately prove to be interesting. The Japanese never really had any concrete bunkers of FH size.

I am all for bunkers here...don't get me wrong.

P.S. Despite of what you say about the bunker openings...wouldn't it be a lot easier to modify the player code, so that the head doesn't stick out so much when manning the MG. Like with the deployable MG.

P.P.S. On Charlie sector, the allies often get raped by MG gunners..and that is the only map where bunkers play a huge role.




MR.X`

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

30th April 2004

0 Uploads

12,409 Posts

0 Threads

#19 14 years ago
AussieZaitsevtake away the freakin sniper rifles.

NEVER!




terminal-strike

terminal-strike

50 XP

6th May 2004

0 Uploads

2,313 Posts

0 Threads

#20 14 years ago

yea good points. Its probalby better to put work into a static that can go on more maps such as ahouse or something.