Login

russian armor
COH2.ORG » Forums » Parlor Room » COH2 Central » Lobby » New features in coh3 request/discussion

New features in coh3 request/discussion

PAGES (3)down
New topic New topic     Upload replay New Reply
Sander93
22 Nov 2019, 09:08 AM
#21
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Nov 2019, 08:56 AMelchino7
Unit volume, speed and battlefield size, makes side armor trivial for CoH.


I disagree entirely, as it would increase the area in which a flanking vehicle can reliably hit weaker armor from ~30-40% to ~60-75%, making dives significantly less risky and making armor/penetration values and match-ups across all classes more balanced.

Obviously the game would have to be designed with side armor mechanics in mind, with maps and mechanics accommodating ways to get in side shots easier.


I've played both Wargame and CoH2 on a very high level, and I'm convinced adding side armor to the CoH franchise would be nothing but a huge improvement, as it would make balancing a lot easier, help make a lot of different strategies more viable, help reduce the influence of RNG, and help raise the skill ceiling.
Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
elchino7
22 Nov 2019, 09:44 AM
#22
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Nov 2019, 09:08 AMSander93


I disagree entirely, as it would increase the area in which a flanking vehicle can reliably hit weaker armor from ~30-40% to ~60-75%, making dives significantly less risky and making armor/penetration values and match-ups across all classes more balanced.

Obviously the game would have to be designed with side armor mechanics in mind, with maps and mechanics accommodating ways to get in side shots easier.


I've played both Wargame and CoH2 on a very high level, and I'm convinced adding side armor to the CoH franchise would be nothing but a huge improvement, as it would make balancing a lot easier, help make a lot of different strategies more viable, help reduce the influence of RNG, and help raise the skill ceiling.


As i said, i consider it a possibility, but the implementation should mean that how the game approach armor vs penetration should be different.

I based my response on how the game has been built in both versions of the CoH. I see it feasible to implement side armor at the moment on CoH2, but that would only apply to specific vehicles.

My controls weren't working
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.

Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.

Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
Vipper
22 Nov 2019, 09:44 AM
#23
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Nov 2019, 08:56 AMelchino7

You are confusing game scale when comparing CoH with franchises like Wargame or Steel Division.

Unit volume, speed and battlefield size, makes side armor trivial for CoH. You would also require angling calculations which would be a nightmare to implement and play around on such a fast pace game.

If the system remains to be: it matters only where the shell impact on the hitbox, I keep my opinion on the subject.
If the system converts to take into account the position between each vehicle/weapon, disregarding where the shell lands, i found it feasible.



I don't think that side armor does require the relative position of weapon and target. One can simply separate the hit box in 3 parts, front mid back.

Angle of attack is separate feature.
:)
Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
elchino7
22 Nov 2019, 11:25 AM
#24
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Nov 2019, 09:44 AMVipper


I don't think that side armor does require the relative position of weapon and target. One can simply separate the hit box in 3 parts, front mid back.

Angle of attack is separate feature.


It does, when the only factor that matters right now, is the location at which the shell impacts on the hitbox. More so when we had 2 factors into account, scatter and accuracy shots been (probably) centered towards the middle of the target.

The benefit of the current system is that its simple and straightforward to implement and understand.
The issues which arise are that even with perfect positioning, you can have unwanted results due to scatter, elevation and hitboxes.

The point of adding side armor should be to further improve the game and reward players for better positioning. In the current system, it would add a further layer which would indeed incentivase flanks but would also randomly punish players even more.

I should clarify, that my vision on angling for CoH, would be simple to determine what type of armor value (front, side, rear) should the shell use if it hits a vehicle disregarding which part it actually hits. It would roughly be a 120° split for each one (probably a bit more favoured towards the front than the sides).

My controls weren't working
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.

Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.

Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
Vipper
22 Nov 2019, 11:34 AM
#25
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Nov 2019, 11:25 AMelchino7


It does, when the only factor that matters right now, is the location at which the shell impacts on the hitbox. More so when we had 2 factors into account, scatter and accuracy shots been (probably) centered towards the middle of the target.

The benefit of the current system is that its simple and straightforward to implement and understand.
...

Not sure what different it would make adding an extra part to hitbox so now instead of 2 parts one could have 3. The mechanism remains the same, only now instead of just front and rear hit one has also added mid hit (side armor.)
:)
Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
elchino7
22 Nov 2019, 11:47 AM
#26
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Nov 2019, 11:34 AMVipper

Not sure what different it would make adding an extra part to hitbox so now instead of 2 parts one could have 3. The mechanism remains the same, only now instead of just front and rear hit one has also added mid hit (side armor.)


"It does, when the only factor that matters right now, is the location at which the shell impacts on the hitbox."

If the game was in 2D and shells impact with the first part of the tank they SHOULD met, there wouldn't be an issue.

In the current game/engine, you will be increasing problems on expectatives (as you would be both reducing frontal and rear armor hitboxes to add side armor) as it would be more evident the problems the game has with ballistics.

A tank facing another one frontally in a roughly 90° cone vision, should never use any other value to tank penetration other than frontal armor. In the current game, even with a split of 50/50 we still have cases of getting rear shots.
My controls weren't working
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.

Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.

Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
distrofio
22 Nov 2019, 12:42 PM
#27
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358

I would like some sort of squad AI option, but with actual effect on the squad performance,not like AoE2 formations that only changes their distribution.

Some abilities would also change the squad AI by default, like ambush or camo abilities.

Some examples could be, strict formations, using rows and columns to displace faster but as soon as combat shows each soldier either finds cover nearby or goes prone on the spot.
Another one would be, hunt formations, models will be on delta formation, moving slower but with better line of sight and all models can find cover on a wider area.
Other formations could be ambush, in doors, dig up and I would cap it at max 3 or 5 formations just to keep it simple enough.

Formations should affect the squad RA, suppression received, rate of fire, field of view, moving speed and in combat move speed by small but significative amounts.

Formations can be changed on the fly but a small time delay is needed, just to make the fair not too APM intensive ot exploitable
Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
Maret
28 Nov 2019, 08:43 AM
#28
avatar of Maret

Posts: 711

1. Add system of quick messages like in Apex. Example: you can press Middle button of mouse on enemy unit and in chat will be pushed message "Enemy infantry/sniper/mg/ATG here" or "Enemy armor here". If you do it on ground "Carefull mine/demo here". You can do it in fog of war too, but must choose who hiding in that place from circle menu "Team weapons/ infantry/armor/arty"
2. Ability to draw lines of attack on mini-map like in actual battle plans. Like "I will attack here" "You will attack here". Adressat of message depends from pressed button.
3. You can use it on points as well: "I will get this point" "You should take this point"
4. Messages about droped weapons and armor as well. "Abandoned p4 here","Bar/bazooka here".
Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
GI John 412
1 Dec 2019, 02:57 AM
#29
avatar of GI John 412

Posts: 495 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Nov 2019, 08:06 AMSander93


I disagree, it would add a lot of flavour to medium tank engagements as well. In the case of mediums like P4 Ausf.J or Sherman EZ8s now winning against cheaper tanks purely because of the armor advantage, with side armor they would actually have to be microed well or they could easily go down to these cheaper tanks. Even for light tanks it would make engagements more dynamic, as for example 2x 222s would stand a much better chance vs a Stuart, and AT Rifles wouldn't be as leave in cover and forget.

ATGs could probably get a lot less penetration so they'd have a good chance to bounce off even most medium tanks' front armor, only working well when positioned on the flanks. ATGs in CoH2 are arguably a bit too powerful (making stalling strats or comebacks too viable) as almost all of them are guaranteed to penetrate mediums frontally.

Micro would become absolutely vital, and it will allow cheap tanks to become very cost effective when used well. It could also help balance tank destroyers better against mediums, as for example a vehicle like the Jackson could get lower penetration so it'd have to use its superior mobility to get side shots, rather than easily shutting down both medium and heavy tanks frontally from 60 range because of high penetration. Heavy tanks wouldn't have to be gated behind artificial delays (such as high CPs) as they would be a lot more vulnerable to an overwhelming number of flanking mediums taking side shots. All this would make medium tank play a lot more viable.

I've played a lot of Wargame (and some Steel Division) and having side armor on all vehicles really helped making tank combat very diverse, dynamic and exciting. It made all strategies (going for expensive main battle tanks, or going for a lot of medium main battle tanks, or going for a healthy mix, or even going for a swarm of cheap outdated tanks) viable as long as they were microed well.




I’m a huge fan of side armor and armor angle becoming a feature of CoH3.

It poses a huge opportunity for added realism in a way that is still easily understandable to they player at a glance. It would also make for interesting historical tactics more viable and give distinct advantages to some units.

For example, Panthers have very strong frontal armor, but weak sides and rear. Tigers have strong frontal armor and good side armor, so positioning one at a 45 degree angle to incoming fire gives it an angled advantage that only works with tanks that have good side armor (real historical tactic taught to Tiger crews while Panther crews were told to never do this due to having weak side armor.)

Sherman tanks also had surprisingly good frontal armor even compared to a Tiger (3.6 vs 4.1 effective frontal armor value when you factor in slope), but they had flat sides that were quite thin by comparison.

Panzer IVs has decent front armor but weak sides and rear and, to compensate against AT rifles used by the Soviets, they added side skirts. This could translate to Panzer IVs having bonus side armor only when equipped with side skirts, because it’s frankly silly that side skirts add frontal armor, as it does in CoH2, when it is clearly only on the side of the tank. (An example of how current visual indicators in the game don’t match with bonuses and game mechanics).

Side armor also gives players a tactical choice when engaging, examples are Panther vs Sherman and Sherman vs Panzer IV.

The Sherman wants to flank the Panther to get at his side armor but to do so would expose his own side armor and so does the Panther. Meanwhile the Panzer IV with his skirts wants to flank the Sherman to get at his side armor and has stronger side armor himself so it’s a less risky maneuver for him. In this matchup the Sherman wants to keep it as a frontal engagement where his superior front armor outmatches the Panzer IV, but not the Panther.

Really it just adds a whole new level of tactical complexity that is easy to understand, but hard to master.
“Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Marines don't have that problem.” ― Ronald Reagan

Semper Fi
Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
GI John 412
1 Dec 2019, 03:10 AM
#30
avatar of GI John 412

Posts: 495 | Subs: 1

I’d like to see more variation between uniforms of factions based on the environment and type of unit.

3 types of uniform variations per faction; tropical, temperate and cold weather.

Tropical: North Africa, Sicily and Pacific theater.

Temperate: European mainland.

Cold weather: desert night time and winter maps.

As for unit type, the current Wehrmacht faction does this extremely well. Mortar crews look significantly different from MG crews and Grenadiers and Pioneers.

Bad example is OKW where every crew member looks like a Volksgrenadier. This is especially troubling when recrewed team weapons have identical models on them, but their stats are very different. For example a Rear Echelon squad can beat an MG34 crew if they flank them, but would lose to the identical looking crew if it’s been recrewed by Volks. Same problem goes for current design of UKF where everyone is a Tommy model. USF is better but not as good as it was in CoH 1 or as good as current Wehrmacht.
“Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Marines don't have that problem.” ― Ronald Reagan

Semper Fi
Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
Vermillion_Hawk
1 Dec 2019, 09:09 AM
#31
avatar of Vermillion_Hawk

Posts: 224

I too would like more customization options. One of the reasons why I'm still sour about Dawn of War III being killed by Relic was that it was one of the few RTS games to give you nominal control over your army's look - you could change up skins for your Elites (some of which, like the Primaris Chaplain, looked pretty awesome) and you could create a colour scheme and emblem.

Obviously with a World War II setting, some of the more liberal features of an army painter might be a bit egregious (although the current "historical" toggle presents itself as an option), but I would like to see something similar in Company of Heroes 3. At the very least, maybe let us create an emblem or a company patch or something, and give us a little control over our units. Let us put decals on our tanks, choose our units' uniforms and the like.

I'd even like to see them add in customizable special squads that you have a bit more visual control over. They'd be normal units in terms of stats and weapons and such but you'd have a bit more control over them - maybe you could name them, and give them different uniforms, give each squad member a different look, and for tanks maybe add camouflage, decals, slogans, (purely cosmetic) applique armour and such. None of this would affect the game much, as all of the information you need on an enemy unit is right in its shield anyways.
Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
distrofio
31 Dec 2019, 21:23 PM
#32
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358

Ok, i spent nearly an hour writing a detailed post. A blackout cut me off. I will post again but with less time spent.

Hopefully this thread will grow in importance and devs will take it in account for a possible CoH3 release if we all keep an open mind and welcome new players with a clean and polished gameplay, not a simple and reiterative balance design. I understood that Sturmtigercobra said we should not have high expectations for a CoH3 release that supports a niche playerbase if the game ever happens to be released.

My 2 cents are:

Better aiming

Preloaded/Select ammo toggle

Arty Abuse

Better Handbrake

Better Reverse

Better soldier AI and stances
Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
thekingsown10
31 Dec 2019, 21:59 PM
#33
avatar of thekingsown10

Posts: 232

1. FIXING THE UTTERLY ATROCIOUS PATHING

2. AN OPTIMISED GAME THAT PERFORMS WELL WITH NO MEMORY LEAK ISSUES.

3. Proper modding support so we can import our own skins into automatch games (INCLUDING INFANTRY )

4. DO NOT SIMPLIFY OR DUMB DOWN THE GAME IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM LIKE DoW 3 , You will destroy this franchise quicker than you can say "cat in a hat"
Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
T.R. Stormjäger
31 Dec 2019, 22:21 PM
#34
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

I just want a worthy sequel, not a debacle like Dawn of War III.
Playercard of T.R. Stormjäger

1v1: Pstreak: - 1
1v1: 11streak: + 1
1v1: 14streak: - 2
1v1: Pstreak: - 7


Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
SkysTheLimit
1 Jan 2020, 00:35 AM
#35
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1

I agree with a lot of suggestions here. Side armor is a must IMO, angle effecting penetration would be really cool but I feel like that's very difficult

I think adding friendly fire/suppression to heavy machine guns would be a good change. I think it looks kinda silly when squads bait an enemy into an MG, but they themselves are walking straight through the stream of bullets being fired. We should at least have to avoid the line of fire of the thing when it shoots
Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
distrofio
1 Jan 2020, 01:08 AM
#36
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Jan 2020, 00:35 AMSkysTheLimit
I agree with a lot of suggestions here. Side armor is a must IMO, angle effecting penetration would be really cool but I feel like that's very difficult

I dont think is that complicated. As long as the shot connects, you simply compare the attacker turret and attacked husk rotation, if they are at 0<+-45 its a back shot, if its +-45<+-135 its a side shot if it is +-135<+-180 its a frontal shot.
It adds 3 checks but tanks shot are not fired that often, it should not affect heavily performance.
The hard part is the ballistic fire, that is already coded.
Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
SkysTheLimit
1 Jan 2020, 02:44 AM
#37
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Jan 2020, 01:08 AMdistrofio

I dont think is that complicated. As long as the shot connects, you simply compare the attacker turret and attacked husk rotation, if they are at 0<+-45 its a back shot, if its +-45<+-135 its a side shot if it is +-135<+-180 its a frontal shot.
It adds 3 checks but tanks shot are not fired that often, it should not affect heavily performance.
The hard part is the ballistic fire, that is already coded.


Fair enough, I'd certainly like to see it

Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
Mithiriath
3 Jan 2020, 10:08 AM
#38
avatar of Mithiriath
Director of Social Media Badge

Posts: 830 | Subs: 3

jump backJump back to quoted post20 Nov 2019, 22:37 PMDoomlord52
I have a few...

UI:


Tech / Match-making:


Gameplay:


Post-Launch:


Unit design:


'Would be nice' (these aren't remotely as important as the other suggestions):


Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
alcoholic
3 Jan 2020, 11:16 AM
#39
avatar of alcoholic
Patrion 15

Posts: 93

My main request would be:

Shorter games.

Maybe by faster ticking VPs or fewer VPs to start with.

Also it would be nice if relic found a way to reduce the minimum time of Gameplay by a lot.
Something like: you dont issue any ingame-command for 3-5 minutes of time - you lose.
Now it takes about 12 minutes to end a game where 1 player is afk.



I would like to see the average time to play a game to go down from 20-60 Minutes to about 15- 45 minutes.
Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
Doomlord52
3 Jan 2020, 20:00 PM
#40
avatar of Doomlord52

Posts: 960

jump backJump back to quoted post3 Jan 2020, 11:16 AMalcoholic
My main request would be:

Shorter games.

Maybe by faster ticking VPs or fewer VPs to start with.

Also it would be nice if relic found a way to reduce the minimum time of Gameplay by a lot.
Something like: you dont issue any ingame-command for 3-5 minutes of time - you lose.
Now it takes about 12 minutes to end a game where 1 player is afk.

I would like to see the average time to play a game to go down from 20-60 Minutes to about 15- 45 minutes.


I definitely agree on fixing the situation we currently have regarding AFK players, I even had some suggestions for fixing that:


I'm not sure on how to shorten games, though. The current tick-rate seems pretty good to me, where it's fast enough that games don't drag on for ages when triple-capped, but still slow enough to allow a comeback. I'd also like to avoid bringing the 4v4 "super resource speed" issues into 1 and 2s, so simply increasing resource gain probably isn't the answer, either.

I like the core idea (slightly shorter games), but I'm just unsure as to how to do it.
Opinions reflect all team modes (not 1v1)
I often edit my posts several times after posting
Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
PAGES (3)down
New topic New topic     Upload replay New Reply
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest
COH2.ORG » Forums » Parlor Room » COH2 Central » Lobby » New features in coh3 request/discussion

Livestreams

tightrope
 New Zealand 58
Velmarg
 unknown 7
big_ole_dog
 unknown 2
BobisWinning
 United States 1

Ladders Top 10

UKF
USF
OKW
SOV
OST
1v1
2v2
3v3
4v4
  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

Top Tier Teams
VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Einhoven Country Honor
Honor it
11
 Download
Download
1262
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

397 users are online: 397 guests
4 posts in the last 24h
12 posts in the last week
30 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49940
Welcome our newest member, 789winvnnet
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM