attacking bunkers

[Melnibone]

Re: attacking bunkers

Nonsense BlackWolf and i quote

It doubled its offencive power

i didnt see any buff to ninjas and as that is the bunkers ONLY offensive unit i can only assume you mean you get troops back when attacking?
If this is the case then bunker players have actually became less effective as other routes will be getting better more expensive attacking units back consequently they will be more willing to hit bunkers than in any previous rounds
Lets now look at the landcap its very easy to attack honourably with a good combination of lethal units try doing it with ninjas and flak, heres a question what exactly can you kill in your 70-100% range with just that (at a decent ranking) - answer not much if anything therefore bunkers can only flak lower players to steal

In this thread already there are very good tips for taking out bunkers no-one said it was easy but nothing worthwhile is :roll:

 

[CountZepplin]

Re: attacking bunkers

along the HD-AD-HD combo, you could try pom-striker-sa too. doesn't take too many pom to get most of the ninja. if you don't have access to striker, CW/ass work as well, but you need the HD before the CW to make them truly shine, and as a hint, PA suck in firepower (though they do have nice init)

 

[BlackWolf]

Re: attacking bunkers

All defencively strong routes gained a lot more in injury system than routes that suxs on defence. Routes like RPG, ranger, pom lost a great deal of power in this change. In such calculation you must think more than just one battle. You must think of whole game and happenings in it.
When all people are gaining units back unit amounts are getting much higher. That means average amount of innocens and lethals you are facing in battle is higher than it was before. This weakened routes that had hard times with inns earlier to be even poorer.

Bunkers are defencively strong and can handle in 1:1 combat basicly any route out there. As thus by giving them ability to gain inns back from all losses is bumping them up a lot when compared to routes like striker which cant handle innocents that well. Thus has changed what small balance there were to situation where some routes are impossible to play and some shines.

For example puppets and vampires have become way overpowered compared to normal routes. Where earlier vampires were allready overpowered and unbalanced situation between SA and TL now that situation is even more ridiculous and vampires can simple pawn both routes hands down.

As thus i see situation between routes to went from bad to worst. There was time when routes were able to deal with each others in circle and there was no best route. Today situation is more pick right route or die in vain.

 

[f0xx]

Re: attacking bunkers

You are exagerating(sp?) things a bit, a few things need to be tweaked, yes puppets and vampires are some of them, even hypnos, but nothing THAT serious really...

 

[alwaysnumb]

Re: attacking bunkers

got to be flak. tractors/gurus/poms gotta be cheapest way and you wont give much ar meaning you can go straight back at em.

 

[vlad]

Re: attacking bunkers

BW is going along the right lines tho. Take flacking a Bunker player .. it doesnt cost as must as it did before, and the gains are alot better ... as the injuries gives you some back.

I understand the idea of Injuries as to stop zeroing people .. right out ...But i do see it has some knock on effects, and for once .. o dear god .. i might agree with BW slightly :S

 

[Cheese]

Re: attacking bunkers

Your so wrong Melni bunker is overpowered atm. Its simple fact.
How its overpowered is because of injuries.
It doubled its offencive power. Injuries smegged up whole system badly. And balance... there was no balance before injuries it was gone long time ago and after injuries its been even worst.
So im sorry but i dont agree with you.

So injuries make bunkers overpowered... does that then make all the other routes over powered thus making them equal? :roll:

 

[BlackWolf]

Re: attacking bunkers

You just didnt read or didnt want to read.
I can give you answer simply in 3 possible forms.

Form one is short and doesnt have any details in it. Its:
Theres too many routes

Form 2 is a longer with some explanation and will put it up next. And 3rd form would be detailed 30 pages long with graphics illustration of this game and its routes. Because no one would read it and i couldnt care less im not gonna do that 3rd option.

To put it all simple This game has so many routes that have been put to it without more thinking than just demand of players to have more routes in it. Those routes have overlapped each others and ended up in situation where routes after changes are more or less useless against same routes. To say in other words there are routes which behaves similar ways compared to other routes. One of those 2 is over all better than other and as such people picking that 2nd route are making mistake. Same way this game has routes that are not used basicly at all and routes like bunkers which are nice add to game but have recently turned out to be too powerfull in combination with other changes and that simple fact bunkers are ok when theres max 5% of players playing it.
As such this game has lost its original idea of having routes that works on simple factor towards other routes. A works against B but is weak to C which is weak to B... Such system can be expanded but today A is strong to B;C;D;E and not weak to anything B dies to all, C can poon E but sux against others etc... list keeps going. To put it simple there are too many routes in game and those routes have been balanced poorly. This wasnt problem before injuries because during rounds certain type of "balance" was found. It didnt make some routes usefull it was still rigged as hell and some routes were superior. Injuries changed system so that some routes that allready were strong became even stronger. And some routes that were allready in receiving end got punished. As such it has turned this game and its balance even more towards play 3 key routes or be supporter in strong alliance.

Im not even going to route setups and ways how routes can be abused by massing one type of unit which we have seen happening in the past. Such things are showing very well how unbalanced routes and those units are in this game and how unbalanced those have always been.

 

[willymchilybily]

Re: attacking bunkers

bit late posting but just seen a br from a top 10 bunker of an allie mate giving up and suiciding on him.

Battle Report -
[range] 30,000,000 hostile Bunker attacked, killing 94,680,781 allied staff.
[range] 30,000,000 hostile Sentry Turret attacked, killing 13,100,440 allied staff.
[range] 605,961 allied Cybernetic Warrior attacked, killing 418,175 hostile staff.
[range] 10,921,572 hostile Ninja attacked, killing 575,785 allied staff.
Died: 108,357,006 friendlies dead. 418,175 enemies dead.

althugh he countered for that moment he doesnt seem to have any ninjas. certainly not enough

for 60million bunker/sentry you want easily 180million ninjas/cloners to stop an rpg effectively. quite simply this guy looks understaffed.
maybe the ninjas were out. but if you could be bothered a quick calc on land score and troop score you can work out roughly if he has this many ninjas or more. and if he does currently he is in a very weak state. simply relying on being bigger than any would be attackers.

so RPG STRIKER his ass into dust with a few health hitters too for those ninjas. but the fact is people complain because they prefer to go for a target where they can win out right
no one likes a bloody battle these days.

people wave and bash and gang up and they always use the best possible counter route. they arent use to scrappy fights
they always send an rpg/striker to a robo. always have set route to go against others. people like to win without losses. and unfortunately the bunker is not designed for you to have the perfect battle. where you can wpe him out in one tick. just because almost every route has one that it is afraid of doesnt mean the bunker route does. its only weakness is from user error poor ratios. leaving itself exposed to being flacked or leaving itself exposed to being armour hit.
And it wont change. also i think if azzer wanted the route to be worth flacking past he wouldnt have added those generic killing bonuses to the bunker/sentries

the idea isnt to be able to flack past them. they are meant to be hard to kill and land. but thats not to say he didnt make them killable. or land able. people get so caught up in thier perfect world where they send vamps to sa, tls to rpgs, strikers to robos, and they win without losses. its not possible aginast a well balanced sentry/bunker route

 

[Martin]

Re: attacking bunkers

This is going on what I was scared of last round:

PAs (Now for my ratios I had a **** load of Sleeps and more importantly, Yobs) - PAs kill Ninjas (your LET flak) and your flak sweepers.
PoMs - Again general flak, stops Ninjas killing you, although not massivly important
Strikers - These things don't die, get SAs (to also sweep Strikers and as health flak, also LET flak your Strikers better)


Note no RPGs, as when they fire the Bunker will (read: should) have plenty of Ninjas, so RPGs will do feck all.



but hey, everyone will argue otherwise, I know what works for me

 

[Melnibone]

Re: attacking bunkers

Anyone who argues with that martin is an idiot as your going along the lines of HD-AD-HD which is the best way to take out a bunker

Its not an imbalance problem or anything else like that its a skill and balls problem which consequently the current playerbase lacks in spades

 

[bigdaddy33]

Re: attacking bunkers

anything can be taken out if you put your 2cents into it


there, now go attack some bunker players!!

if you afraid you will take too much damage, then don't complain about Bunkers route are impossible to be taken down. It is just that you are too afraid to try to kill one it is not that is impossible to kill one

(note to you all, Bunker players has 0% AR, a BIG FAT 0% AR)

now you can send as much let as you want,(maybe on the other hand do some math before sending) im sure you wont trigger the AR

 

[vlad]

Re: attacking bunkers

I'd argue with Martin... but hey ... whats the point in embarrasing him ... hes just jealous of my pew pew attacking abilities.

 

[TehPantz]

Re: attacking bunkers

Killing a bunker: frame them for cheating ---> lock the account ---> win

 

[Podunk]

Re: attacking bunkers

Something along the lines of F117 > PA > Striker > SA > Assassin/Harrier > CW should kill a sentry pretty well. Throw in attackdogs or a bunch of lesser vamps for your flak and the sentry should be pretty much dead.



Its all about having multiple layers there going in the order of FlakKiller > HD > AD > HD > AD > and a "finisher"
The most effective units here would be the SA Harrier CW on the first tick so make sure to have a good number of those especially.

 

[f0xx]

Re: attacking bunkers

You need 6 routes to kill a bunker? 7 if we count the attack dogs. Thats the crappiest reply I've seen in this thread

 

[Martin]

Re: attacking bunkers

Podunk, if, as a leader you tell your Ranger players to hit a Bunker, you are a bad bad man.

 

[Podunk]

Re: attacking bunkers

Podunk, if, as a leader you tell your Ranger players to hit a Bunker, you are a bad bad man.

I dont tell the rangers to, I tell the harriers to, if they live they're the strongest armor killer in the game. If you have attack dogs or other good LET flak there it would mean game over for the bunker... Till they get the massive injury returns for being "bashed"

And foxx... where are you getting this 6 route thing from? I suggested a Harrier/SA/Striker/Robo and an optional attack dog So thats 4 or 5

I even said the important ones are "SA Harrier CW". As they would be the best for cost effectiveness.

 

[f0xx]

Re: attacking bunkers

Oh yeah my mistake... I am not good at counting

Anyway, 6 or 5 routes... same thing to me...

 

[CountZepplin]

Re: attacking bunkers

Hmm.. imo 2-3 is enough, and harriers aren't one of them