Territory point LoS

What do people think about friendly territories currently giving Line of Sight(LoS) in a small radius? Do you think it should be removed to keep unit composition of the capping squads unknown? Or should it stay to allow for higher micro players to have choice of keeping squads near the edge of territories to keep their composition concealed.

The removal of the LoS would incentivize the soviet and OKW flares mines to provide LoS. It would also require better scouting techniques as well as incentivize MGs to have a scout unit instead of holding their own points. It would also allow for composition concealment with queue capping as opposed to revealing to your opponet what is side capping territories.

Thoughts?

Yeah i would like it to give sight so i could bombard infantry with arty, kat more accurate pls

I think defended territories should be actively supervised, so I'm in with OP ideas

I think I may be unclear. I'm saying currently as it stands, when a territory is friendly it gives a small LoS radius around the flag. I personally want that removed, but am curious as to what everyone else thinks.

I would also want that removed. It just gives unnecessary intel and buffs to annoying arty.

Micro should be rewarded for using gameplay features correctly, not for learning how to make otherwise unnecessary clicks and getting them into musvle memory.

I don't think it should be removed. It adds more depth to gameplay. Trying to micro squads around the flag to not get revealed and if your opponent makes a mistake by getting their units near to the flag, it also rewards the player who watches the battlefield carefully.

However, in maps like Nexus where some cap territories are so small, this might be a problem. Adding some scaling between cap territories and the LoS given by the flag is a better solution IMO.

You're right about OKW flares though. I've seen some Soviet players placing flare mines but almost never seen OKW players placing flares since the last patch. IMO It isn't the micro required but more importantly, time spent on points placing flares discourages people to use them. Reducing the time required to place flares or even better, letting them place flares on neutral points while they're capping but making the flares active only when point is captured would be a good solution.

Also, assuming LoS on flags got removed, what would you suggest to replace Anvil tactics' increased LoS on flags buff with?

It could go either way.

Leave it alone. It's a nice way to reward players for extra micro. I know I pay attention to my capping if I'm using a 2man ostruppen squad, I won't shift-click the point on the mini-map, instead I'd cap on the edge to not reveal how weak that capping unit is.

If capture point's los get removed then what will happen to the bonus sight in UKF's anvil specialization? Will it remain or will it be replace with st new ?

I prefer to keep it. I pretty much never put my squad in the center unless I'm building sandbags. Sometimes I'll choose not to build them until the point is neutral if I think I have the time

LOS provided by the flag is lower then capping circle.

Opponents don't know what caps the point, unless you deliberately show it to them.

Its exclusively how noob friendly you want it to be for the attacking party.

I personally have no problems placing my squads on the edge of capping circle.

Who cares? Why bother changing this? Why risk harming the game?

I would also want that removed. It just gives unnecessary intel and buffs to annoying arty.

Micro should be rewarded for using gameplay features correctly, not for learning how to make otherwise unnecessary clicks and getting them into musvle memory.

+1

If capture point's los get removed then what will happen to the bonus sight in UKF's anvil specialization? Will it remain or will it be replace with st new ?

Also, assuming LoS on flags got removed, what would you suggest to replace Anvil tactics' increased LoS on flags buff with?

If it were up to me I'd look into giving a scatter buff from anvil for the 25 pounders.

I believe the game has some issues with an overabundance of scouting information, which limits some of the nuance that the truesight system introduces. I look at maps like kholodny ferma and see that there is no way to get passed the territory points in the hedgerows without revealing yourself or capping it. This slows down the game somewhat as the aggressive player either slows down to cap the point or gives the defensive player information and time to preposition machine guns and counter the unit. Removing this would require more planning and scouting, require more defense in depth than just a mass frontline.

The game would be better off without the territory point vision, but it's really not that important to change so late into the game's life. It would be a bit of a nightmare to balance. You're going to need to make a bunch of changes to help defensive factions because it's a huge buff to light vehicle play and aggressive factions like USF with riflemen and early sturmpio flanks. I'm speaking from a 1v1 perspective, it wouldn't matter in team games where the maps are more spread out.

I believe the game has some issues with an overabundance of scouting information, which limits some of the nuance that the truesight system introduces. I look at maps like kholodny ferma and see that there is no way to get passed the territory points in the hedgerows without revealing yourself or capping it. This slows down the game somewhat as the aggressive player either slows down to cap the point or gives the defensive player
information and time to preposition machine guns and counter the unit. Removing this would require more planning and scouting, require more defense in depth than just a mass frontline.

The game would be better off without the territory point vision, but it's really not that important to change so late into the game's life. It would be a bit of a nightmare to balance. You're going to need to make a bunch of changes to help defensive factions because it's a huge buff to light vehicle play and aggressive factions like USF with riflemen and early sturmpio flanks. I'm speaking from a 1v1 perspective, it wouldn't matter in team games where the maps are more spread out.

Do you really think that this change will make such a huge difference?
I agree that defensive factions are nerfed since the points can't be defended with an MG as easily, but you make it sound as if it were a change that required major rebalances.
The additional sight of Britisb hammer tactics is conceived as a weak bonus and is absolutely far from being a game changer although it makes thr whole circle visible (I know that it comes quite late in a match).

Do you really think that this change will make such a huge difference?
I agree that defensive factions are nerfed since the points can't be defended with an MG as easily, but you make it sound as if it were a change that required major rebalances.
The additional sight of Britisb hammer tactics is conceived as a weak bonus and is absolutely far from being a game changer although it makes thr whole circle visible (I know that it comes quite late in a match).

I think you can look at how much the goliath commander with the free flares was used in GCS to see how useful it is.

I don't think it would break the game or be this huge change, but it will require some changes to particular maps or units. Really it's been the way it has for 6 years now, changing it now would probably have more repercussions than we can guess at. It's more of a change to think about for CoH3. I do think it's a good idea though.