General Information
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJT-oswDRyOrhrVghT-6ZRw
Steam: 76561198157193379
Nationality: United States
Game Name: Snaek
Vet 1 vehicles opening, it's like the jeep is killing more models than your rifles.
I'm a 4 digit rank player so, what do I know, right? Still, I think it's intentional that these really early light vehicles are powerful for a reason: risk vs. reward -- you trade late game power for early game dominance.
It's not like this jeep is going to carry you through the whole game. Yeah it's going to kick ass early on, but it's stealing experience from the infantry that you're going to be relying on later on when light vehicles get swatted out of the game like flies.
I think it's less of an issue that rifles are bad, but rather that you're looking at a risky unit that has high reward and saying, "why aren't my mainline troops this powerful early in the game?" Which is the wrong way to look at it imo.
Care or nerves to elaborate?
I've played some of the MoW2 single player content right before the last playtest stopped.
Having played previous iterations it, generally speaking, seemed like a somewhat modern take on MoWAS2. Nothing too groundbreaking.
They did not improve the game at all from the playtest. In fact, they broke the encyclopedia system, so you can't see information about your troops while you're equipping them to your army.(This was fixed by clearing my game cache.)
The voicelines were all default Gem engine stuff in the playtest, but they added a slew of voicelines that are absolutely atrocious and immersion-breaking to the point where I just can't play Americans, it's so bad. I'm told it's the same for German and Russian voicelines too (according to Katitof).
I still love the Battalions system, and it's still the only game in the Men of War series that I actually enjoy playing PvP in. However, I said that I couldn't recommend the game as it was then in the playtest (after the CoH 3 launch disaster), and seeing as the game has actually become worse than it was in the playtest, I most certainly can't recommend it now.
So is the conclusion of all this MoW 2 furor that basically COH3 has become the premier WWII RTS game? I'm not saying that's a high bar with the games industry in general these days.
CoH 3 is the best arcade-style WW2 RTS put on the market this decade, absolutely.
Don't buy this game unless you want to gain a newfound appreciation for CoH 3. Somehow in the year between the playtest and now they actually made it worse. Not by a lot, but it's absolutely incredible to me that it comes out worse than it was in the playtest. How is that possible?
Don't get me wrong, it's got potential, but it's absolutely not worth buying by any stretch of the imagination.
I have a pretty hard time believing a large number of ppl are skipping to tank depot. There's nothing there worth rushing out...
Getting a greyhound as early as possible is one of US strongest plays. What loses ppl games is motor pool timing. If you prioritize anything else or fall behind in fuel, thats where whirbelwind and FV timings can kill
Yeah just because I made a thread about it once doesn't mean every US player is as dumb as I am. Even *I* make greyhounds now.
Let me rephrase then:
Relic does not want it to be anything other then different Garand as evidenced by it being how it is in 3 different games over 20 years.
Ok, cool. Relic may not want it, but if the audience wants it, then there's no reason not to advocate for it to be changed. Relic wanted blizzards in automatch, and the playerbase didn't. There are no more blizzards in automatch.
Now that we've established a precedent for Relic changing something after not originally "wanting it" that way, we are left with no reason to snuff out a conversation just because Relic isn't doing it at this very moment.
Carbines worked like that since forever in CoH...You're arguing real life. I'm arguing reality of the game series.
I just don't personally think that "it's always been like that" is a good argument for something to continue being like that. Say, for example, CoH has always implemented the Bazooka as a weapon that you use against other infantry squads like it's Call of Duty or something, and since it's so effective at anti-infantry, they made it so that it's really bad against vehicles to compensate. Then, since they needed something to perform well against vehicles, they gave the riflemen a grenade slingshot upgrade that they can use against tanks.
So, the game is definitely balanced; the bazooka is a good anti infantry weapon that's bad against tanks to compensate, and then riflemen have a good anti-tank weapon if they need it. It makes sense in the game, and in this hypothetical it's always been that way, since CoH 1 even. Does it make sense though? Does it need to be that way? Not really.
Point of the absurd hypothetical is just to say that just because something is the status quo, it isn't necessarily the best way of doing things.
Although I said I wouldn't come in here to talk balance, I do want to say that I like the idea of the M1 carbines being some kind of MP44 equivalent. Realistically, I think that it would be fine if they just slowed down the RPM of DAK panzergrens' K98s (visual change only). If you do that, then M1 Carbine is more of an outlier compared to the other mainline weapons.
Maybe, just maybe, if there was some kind of M2 Carbine upgrade (like NaOCl mentioned), then the paratroopers would have access to some kind of "fire superiority" type ability that lets them use their M1s to their fullest potential.