Unrealistic wide bunker openings -1 reply

Please wait...

Forrest Hump

The Internet ends at GF

50 XP

31st January 2004

0 Uploads

131 Posts

0 Threads

#41 14 years ago

The side bunker covering the ditch on the left of Charlie Sector is a lot better protection for two reasons. 1. Shots at the gunner are more difficult because the man in the bunker has a much smaller field of fire to observe at any one time. As well, the men on the beach have less ability to hit him and have to be in harms way (IE more or less in front...give or take an angle) more often to hit him. As it stands now you shoot the machine gunners from anywhere on the beach in the big bunkers, whereas with the smaller bunker this is definitely not the case. 2. Grenades. On the omaha maps I can stand below the german bunker and throw grenades thru the slit on the big bunkers with near impunity, and the people up above cant do a damn thing about it short of sending someone down to the beach. Were GIs really able to chuck frags up that high and into the RL bunkers thru the firing slits? I know others are able to do this just as easily as I can...narrowing that slit would make it more difficult. Sure, this would give the MGers in the bunkers a lot more protection ergo advantage, but as others have said, if the allies had some arty on those maps they could pound the ridges and keep the germans not in bunkers at bay as well as blinding the ones in the bunkers with smoke/dust. I could definitely be wrong...*shrug*




Frederf

I take what n0e says way too seriously

50 XP

2nd March 2004

0 Uploads

2,156 Posts

0 Threads

#42 14 years ago

Sounds like a problem of seeing everything from a tiny bunker slit. In real life you could stand up taller or shrink down a bit and to view the battlefield. In BF you can't, you're stuck either prone, crouch, standing.




javierlopez

tester

50 XP

13th May 2003

0 Uploads

516 Posts

0 Threads

#43 14 years ago

yeah! make bunkers more realistic, but in real life people didn't respawn after being killed, so make that the axis don't respawn once they die. By the way, Allies should be able to respawn to simbolize that in real life they outnumbered axis units.

Conclusion: keep the bunkers as they are now




S1l3ntSt4lk3r

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

27th May 2004

0 Uploads

2,627 Posts

0 Threads

#44 14 years ago

Long respawn times ruin the momentum of the game.




Ohioan

Not Wise Shitashi - Cheston

50 XP

6th October 2003

0 Uploads

3,604 Posts

0 Threads

#45 14 years ago

Good post Beast. Eben-emael is one of my stops when I visit Europe next year. I agree, bunkers could use a makeover.




The Warlock

Slightly cooler than a n00b

50 XP

7th March 2004

0 Uploads

31 Posts

0 Threads

#46 14 years ago
Komrad_BYes, exacly! And if the MG gunners in Omaha are dying less often because of that, it will only be more satisfying to knife them. Also being in a bunker should give a feeling of safety... right now it is a death trap (of course this would all be better if those bunkers could be destroyed but i know very well it is impossible).

Bullshit! You can most definately have destroyable bunkers. Just look at Battle of Britain. We need realistic bunkers to make it difficult (but not impossible) to pick off the machine gunners, but we also need the bunkers to cave in if they get the shit kicked out of them by either land or sea-based artillery bombardment.




Ohioan

Not Wise Shitashi - Cheston

50 XP

6th October 2003

0 Uploads

3,604 Posts

0 Threads

#47 14 years ago

What we NEED is DD tanks. That would make all the difference on beach landing maps.




Von Mudra

Lo, I am Mudra, za emo soldat!

50 XP

25th September 2004

0 Uploads

7,064 Posts

0 Threads

#48 14 years ago

you know hwat I think we need??? Cheese!

Ok, yeah, BUnkers should be alot more realistic. Small openings, and art in the bunkers! Oh, and, Tobruks!!! They were put in by Rommel for godsake! Surely, they can be put in at somepoint. Also, I argee, ships and maybe one DD tank are needed. I say only 1 DD tank, as most never made it to shore or were knocked out by the TOBRUKS withen seconds of landfall. Also, is it possible to make it so that at least 3/4 of the sllies must spawn before the landing boats will move? This way, the first wave can be realistic, with german MGers killing up to 90% of the first wave.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#49 14 years ago

The thing about bombs from fighters falling into the bunker openings. THE BOMBS? ARE THEY JET PROPELLED FOR GODS SAKE? they fall in a diagnal line. shure for a while they fall like that but then they loose speed and drop like a rock. i cant stand that. and while im on the subject of airplanes, dive bombers have to be able to pull up from a dive fast. they ARE called DIVE BOMBERS for a reason!:deal: And the DD tanks they almost all died before the landings.:tank: distroyable bunkers would be great. but make them hard to kill. if i didnt say that fh would make them so week. ppls would e-pack them (or snachals). for snipers. god all omaha is now is a sniper battle. the germans should have 88artys waiting for the allys. that was the ENTIRE mission for the perratroopers. My $0.10




schoolkid

your mother is a beaver

50 XP

3rd June 2004

0 Uploads

1,134 Posts

0 Threads

#50 14 years ago
AussieZaitsevtake away the freakin sniper rifles.

Taking away the sniper rifle from the Omaha Beach map would seriously kill the Allies. However, there's no way a sniper could have taken out machinegunners from the shoreline, as snipers in FH Charlie Sector do, prob because the beach stretch in FH is shorter. I don't think the sniper kit should be available at the shoreline - move it farther inland, closer to the bunkers, so the machine gunners have somewhat of a chance. As for tanks, I believe only two tanks made it ashore, and it was on different parts of Omaha Beach, not Charlie Sector. Besides, if DD tanks were included on the Charlie Sector map, the whole cliff would have to be reworked to create a path way up for tanks. Just give us a ship to return the German artillery fire :)