Bunkers are Equivalent to Coffins

[CanuckGamer]

Wood bunkers and to a lesser degree, concrete bunkers are basically coffins as they don't provide much protection.  Even small arms can penetrate wood bunkers and I incur losses when artillery even lands in the proximity of concrete bunkers.  I expected that concrete bunkers would provide more protection from artillery and tank fire.  I'm not saying that units in a concrete bunkers should be invulnerable, just harder to kill.  I've gone to the tactic of not even bothering to put men in them, not only because of their lack of protection but also because they are a magnet for enemy fire.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

@RockinHarry will be happy to see someone else commenting on this.

I recently noticed my BAR Teams were happy to engage wooden bunkers side on, TBH it didn't have much visible effect in the game I was playing, and I put a bazooka round through the back door shortly thereafter, so I'm attributing the subsequent abandonment to that!

FWIW

[Bulletpoint]

17 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

@RockinHarry will be happy to see someone else commenting on this.

Me too. Bunkers are pretty useless, both wooden and concrete, because they are immensely easy to spot, and provide very little protection.

[Anonymous_Jonze]

Hmmm I recently played the Advanced training campaign and the bunkers saved my hide when the Germans assaulted my position.

[Xorg_Xalargsky]

You should not see bunkers as a unit that gets a lot of kills or that can withstand anything, you should see them as an obstacle that forces the enemy to use a disproportionate of firepower or a lot of time to counter; and as with any obstacle, placement is everything.

[Anonymous_Jonze]

2 minutes ago, Xorg_Xalargsky said:

You should not see bunkers as a unit that gets a lot of kills or that can withstand anything, you should see them as an obstacle that forces the enemy to use a disproportionate of firepower or a lot of time to counter; and as with any obstacle, placement is everything.

I concur. In that mission the Germans spent a lot of rounds on my one bunker (they managed to kill one soldier) while my troops in the  trench shot them to pieces.

[RockinHarry]

On 12/6/2019 at 9:01 PM, CanuckGamer said:

Wood bunkers and to a lesser degree, concrete bunkers are basically coffins as they don't provide much protection.  Even small arms can penetrate wood bunkers and I incur losses when artillery even lands in the proximity of concrete bunkers.  I expected that concrete bunkers would provide more protection from artillery and tank fire.  I'm not saying that units in a concrete bunkers should be invulnerable, just harder to kill.  I've gone to the tactic of not even bothering to put men in them, not only because of their lack of protection but also because they are a magnet for enemy fire.

think I nailed it here: 

 

other than that it´s the rather simplified modelling of fortified structures (immobile vehicles) in the game, as is the AI obsession on dealing with bunkers in LOS. which likely won´t change til another game engine version I fear.

[Bulletpoint]

16 hours ago, Xorg_Xalargsky said:

You should not see bunkers as a unit that gets a lot of kills or that can withstand anything, you should see them as an obstacle that forces the enemy to use a disproportionate of firepower or a lot of time to counter; and as with any obstacle, placement is everything.

Yes that is how they are supposed to work, but they don't currently.

Wooden bunkers are usually taken out by one 75mm shell, concrete bunkers might need 2-3 shots. Bunkers are not the obstacles they should be.

[Xorg_Xalargsky]

It all depends on the placement and what other assets you have at your disposal.

A lone bunker on a hill against a Sherman '105? Not a major obstacle.

A bunker in a keyhole position also covered by an AT gun and flanked by other obstacles and infantry? That's going to be require some major work on the part of the attacker; it won't stop him in his tracks, but it'll make him waste men, shells, vehicles, and time.

[Bulletpoint]

2 minutes ago, Xorg_Xalargsky said:

A lone bunker on a hill against a Sherman '105? Not a major obstacle.

You don't need a 105. In the real war, all sides invested heavily in large-calibre HE direct fire guns to take out fortifications. In this game, 75mm is all you need, even for the heaviest bunkers.

As I see it, the reason is that bunkers are:

• Too easy to spot
• Too easy to hit (literally a "log cabin" instead of being dug into the soil)
• Too easy to knock out.

 

4 minutes ago, Xorg_Xalargsky said:

A bunker in a keyhole position also covered by an AT gun and flanked by other obstacles and infantry? That's going to be require some major work on the part of the attacker; it won't stop him in his tracks, but it'll make him waste men, shells, vehicles, and time.

In the game, the bunker in this example would not an obstacle at all, but the AT gun and the infantry would be.

[Warts 'n' all]

When I recently played the "Welcome to Sicilly" campaign during the final mission I lost count of the amount of tank rounds I had to put into the bunkers to knock them out. I'm not sure what the variables are under the hood, date, ammo quality, etc. But, it would be nice to be enlightened.

[Kaunitz]

I sometimes use wooden bunkers in my quick battles as ammo crates and "dug-outs" to offer some protection against enemy artillery. As it has been mentioned, they tend to get immediately spotted and knocked out by any non-small arm weapon. They can be effective against enemy infantry though, if you can place them somewhere 1) enemy tanks can't fire on them, 2) they can play the strength of their heavy MG (ideal distance to enemy 350m plus, i.e. outside the effective range of the enemy light MGs!) and 3) as long as you can protect their flanks/dead angles. So yeah, basically, never.  

Strangely, it seems that bunkers can't be supressed for some reason. As long as this is the case, it would probably be a bad idea to make bunkers provide a realistic level of protection...? Fortifications are in a very bad spot right now. Either they don't offer enough protection and - equally if not more important -  concealment (bunkers, trenches, foxholes) and/or they're severly overprized in quickbattles (wire, mines, AT obstacles). But it's unlikely that anything will change.

I'd also greatly welcome fortified buildings and the option to modify buildings in the deployment phase (barricade windows, add doors /blow gaps to allow covered movement to and from buildings).

Edited December 9, 2019 by Kaunitz

[Bulletpoint]

9 hours ago, Warts 'n' all said:

When I recently played the "Welcome to Sicilly" campaign during the final mission I lost count of the amount of tank rounds I had to put into the bunkers to knock them out. I'm not sure what the variables are under the hood, date, ammo quality, etc. But, it would be nice to be enlightened.

I'm curious about this too. What version of the engine are you using on CMFI? What kind of tank rounds were you using?

[Warts 'n' all]

I'm still running CMFI on Engine 3. The tanks in question are British Sherman V, so I assume it would just be the standard 75mm HE rounds that were available in the summer of 1943. I don't know if the game allows for tank crews to switch to AP when taking on bunkers.

Edited December 9, 2019 by Warts 'n' all

[Bulletpoint]

6 hours ago, Warts 'n' all said:

I'm still running CMFI on Engine 3. The tanks in question are British Sherman V, so I assume it would just be the standard 75mm HE rounds that were available in the summer of 1943. I don't know if the game allows for tank crews to switch to AP when taking on bunkers.

Thanks. I'm wondering if something changed in version 4.

Are these wooden or concrete bunkers? I haven't played the scenario, myself.

Do you see shells actually hitting the bunkers, or is it because you find it difficult to land hits because of terrain sloping or intervening terrain? Hedges in front of the bunker, or similar...

Were you hitting from the front or the side?

Edited December 9, 2019 by Bulletpoint

[Warts 'n' all]

The most annoying ones were concrete. Firing from front on, and at close range, loads and loads of "Penetrations" but there always seemed to be just one bloke who refused to die.In the end you are watching the clock and getting more and more frustrated. But, I will have try that campaign again some time.