Snipers will have less then 45 sight range.
HMGs have 45 shooting range.
Sniper no longer is viable HMG garrison counter without sacrificing a unit for HMG to shoot at, at which point you might just use 2 infantry pincer and toss a nade.
Well, yes. Hence they will no longer be self sufficient which is in my opinion good. Snipers are cancerous but I don't mind them. They add some flavor to games, and if they are no longer solo counters to MGs, I'm all for it.
EDIT: They will mostly be used, as all snipers are used, to bleed the opponent, not dislodge MGs on their own. I'm all for that.
Snipers will have less then 45 sight range.
HMGs have 45 shooting range.
Sniper no longer is viable HMG garrison counter without sacrificing a unit for HMG to shoot at, at which point you might just use 2 infantry pincer and toss a nade.
Also, from a USSR prospective. If you have a sniper it is your main counter to HMG's in buildings. Unless you get T2 as well for mortars, which would probably cost you the early game.
This is more a criticism of the USSR faction tiers than the sniper changes tbh.
Sounds like fast response, high-DPS-on-barrage mortars are a better option. Snipers were needed because mortars took MUCH longer to force a HMG to move. Its currently faster to pin your infantry and let the sniper force off the HMG than use a mortar. And smoke shared a CD with Barrage, so if you barraged and it didnt force the HMG to leave... wait 30 seconds for your next attempt! Having both on tap is nice, but the mortars might still need to be more snappy (double rotation speed and firing animation, this doesn't change placement or shell hang time).
i made this post in the OKW thread but maybe more people would be able to see it here
would this ever work for OKW, I've had thoughts about this for a while but never bothered suggesting it
Putting stuka in t4, moving flak halftrack into t3 mechanized and turning it into a cheaper and more dedicated anti air platform, moving obers into t2 and with the new changes keeping them behind the tech lockout or keeping the mg34 unavailable till t4 and having them as a proto pzgren squad
this way all the 'mech' stays together and obers come a bit earlier for vet and incentivizes more infantry play and a progress through buildings
I wonder... would early Obers compare to a P2 pressurewise? And how would OKW Battlegroup deal with LV? The current answer is P2-> Puma. It would shake up big team meta at least. Otherwise it looks nice. Im all for later rocket arti.
Infantry units with camouflage such as UKF Commandos and OST Stormtroopers have the "Hold Fire" capability.
Would it be possible to make every infantry AT equip to enable this capability as well? This uses an already existing framework, instead of enabling the vehicle-exclusive priority toggle.
Crits should definitely stay in the game. Competitive or not. It's not like COH2 has a major player base. Well, taking into account the age of the game, it's doing fairly well, but still... crits introduce that element of surprise. Same with plane crash. Did I have, in teamgames, wiped 2-4 squads that happened to clump up in base during a big retreat because of some flank? And then my own AA took down a plane that landed on them? Yes. Was I pissed? Yes. Does it make the game more fun and unpredictable, easily shifting the tide? Yes, ten times yes.
Crits should definitely stay because in the end one could always argue that the whole COH2 is one big statistical problem. Everything is either chance to hit or penetrate. I'll give an example with the plane crash analogy. Ettelbruck station 3v3: Couple of LEFHs shelling my base (I only play random so no offmap on our side). They all shelled in front of my USF base. I pulled all of my troops behind so that they avoid the shells (ambo + retreated units). One shell, only one, had some huge scatter and landed right on top, plenty of units away from where the other shells landed. Only one landed there that took out 3 squads + ambo. That's also in a way a critical hit. Don't know why "pros" complain about those, they def.make the game more fun, because in the end, the "luck" factor will be evened out. You might get a main gun crit and get effed but at some point your UKF AT gun will at some point penetrate twice in a row a KT (or not penetrate 6 times in a row on the last tightrope cast). It evens out in the end and only extremely rare cases will be "luck on only one side".
And whilst pak howi nerf might be good for the 1v1 side, USF will get butchered in teamgames as the paks will no longer instill fear into static units. Pak needs an accuracy nerf, not a lethality one. Otherwise why not go double mortar (cheaper) and use that. Pak already needs a lot of XP to vet up. That combined with the scott nerf is strange.
One SHOULD be considering using a mortar in certain scenarios. Part of the problem with the pak howi is that it makes other core units obsolete
Get rid of its auto fire and focus on its barrage. The counterplay would be moving the targeted unit. Right now any unit can quite literally cease to exist just because it's in range of the auto fire.
We had insta wipe if you were in range of mortars and it was removed, let's quit pretending it's OK if the unit is more expensive else the 120mm mortar is going to start Makin a fuss
Crits should definitely stay in the game. Competitive or not. It's not like COH2 has a major player base. Well, taking into account the age of the game, it's doing fairly well, but still... crits introduce that element of surprise. Same with plane crash. Did I have, in teamgames, wiped 2-4 squads that happened to clump up in base during a big retreat because of some flank? And then my own AA took down a plane that landed on them? Yes. Was I pissed? Yes. Does it make the game more fun and unpredictable, easily shifting the tide? Yes, ten times yes.
Crits should definitely stay because in the end one could always argue that the whole COH2 is one big statistical problem. Everything is either chance to hit or penetrate. I'll give an example with the plane crash analogy. Ettelbruck station 3v3: Couple of LEFHs shelling my base (I only play random so no offmap on our side). They all shelled in front of my USF base. I pulled all of my troops behind so that they avoid the shells (ambo + retreated units). One shell, only one, had some huge scatter and landed right on top, plenty of units away from where the other shells landed. Only one landed there that took out 3 squads + ambo. That's also in a way a critical hit. Don't know why "pros" complain about those, they def.make the game more fun, because in the end, the "luck" factor will be evened out. You might get a main gun crit and get effed but at some point your UKF AT gun will at some point penetrate twice in a row a KT (or not penetrate 6 times in a row on the last tightrope cast). It evens out in the end and only extremely rare cases will be "luck on only one side".
And whilst pak howi nerf might be good for the 1v1 side, USF will get butchered in teamgames as the paks will no longer instill fear into static units. Pak needs an accuracy nerf, not a lethality one. Otherwise why not go double mortar (cheaper) and use that. Pak already needs a lot of XP to vet up. That combined with the scott nerf is strange.
You really don't need to have random chances to obliterate units with downed planes, or your tanks becoming AI pillboxes because of RNG for the game to be fun and exciting. The random parts of the game are not the main "fun" factor.
Pro players (And many "casual" players) complain about these sorts of unpredictable bits of RNG because they have nothing to do with skill, and many people prefer to have their own skill/tactical choices swing games, rather than because a plane randomly decided to make your vet5 obers a landing strip.
To be clear Angelus main gun crits and other "bad" RNG (main gun crit in this example) should definitly be an option in casual matches or campaign, but it has no business in ladder.
Anyone who doesnt understand the real problem with some of the "bad" RNG (main gun crits, planes randomly wiping squads, etc.) in COH ladder specifically need to read and understand this portion of the article (below) in its entirety. I quoted direct from it in this thread to make it easier for everyone.
I have to now talk about something in detail so everyone can fully appreciate where I'm trying to take you because, in a lot of ways, it is a part of the soul of COH and this has to be thought about carefully. I'm talking about the chance interactions that are built into every single match. I will refer to this as RNG. It is a massive part of COH, and should remain so. As far as artillery strikes, mortars, and infantry firing at each other, etc., it makes a ton of realistic and gameplay sense to maintain the RNG in many cases.
In other cases, this RNG normality starts to break down. The examples I'm about to give aren't intended to be the norm, but they happen often enough that every single person who has played Company of Heroes has had something like this happen to them. The example below is double snipers in perfect positioning to ambush an enemy sniper. The player has been patiently awaiting the enemy to come into a well prepared kill zone. And then... this happens...
The sniper gets away and what should be a tactical victory turns into a fail and potentially you will lose a sniper or worse. Now you could say, "well it happens to both sides occasionally so its OK" but that doesn't make a difference in a single game. In a single game where advancing in a ladder, or keeping a winning streak going, or competing when there is huge amounts of money on the line, or just trying to enjoy the game... it's flawed. You can't have situations where players do every single thing right in tactical situations and lose. You're removing a key element, fun, from the game. It doesn't work. It breaks the spirit of many players to come back and enjoy the game. It's objectively wrong design when we look at this specific example.
Another specific example, is an antitank gun vs a tank at close range. We have a very impactful tank, the T-34/85, and a Pak designed to counter tanks. The player with the pak sees the weakened tank, the tank player isn't microing after a battle and leaves his tank exposed, the pak player correctly moves his AT gun into position and at a very close range...
But the Pak misses and the tank escapes. The Pak player did everything tactically correct and the satisfaction, payoff, reward, whatever you want to call it has been stripped from that player. This inherently doesn't make sense.
RNG Solutions
Now, I can hear everyone saying, "you better not talk about removing RNG from COH!" and I'm 100% in agreement. What I'm driving at is the unreasonable over-impactful low chance randomness has to be curbed to everyone's benefit. I want to say that again, the unreasonable over-impactful low chance randomness is the problem here. It's not the RNG in general that is the problem. The problem is that in these highly impactful moments there aren't clear lines. There are very likely many solutions to this, two of which I will illustrate. To be clear all this discussion on this one area of the game (close range AT RNG) is to illuminate the rougher edges of COH so that it can drive towards a flourishing ladder and be one step closer to the "made by jesus" asymptote. Relic will indeed have to analyze and thoroughly test every aspect of the game much deeper than this to arrive at what makes the most sense. And, in general, I will again point to the original COH1 factions design and what made them so compelling and reciprocal.
To highlight my point here, imagine if you were one of the North America’s most successful and well-known Esports players like Huk (who got frustrated with COH and left for SCII) and you miss an AT gun shot at close range on a last shot on a vehicle that wins or loses the game. And, it's for tens of thousands of dollars... that is the breaking point for a lot of people who consider themselves pros and would want to get into a game like this in a serious competitive way. The thing is... the COH mechanics are compelling and amazing so they would be interested. But if the difference is a dice roll, like a close range AT gun shooting a tank, and it misses, that just won't work in a competitive environment. The high impact units is where this matters. However, if it takes 30 shots to kill a unit it's OK and actually desirable to have random chance mixed in there because the impact of missing a single shot is much lower, but if an AT gun takes 3 shots to kill a tank and it misses the last shot at point blank range, it can be a deal breaker. I got a chance to have Huk look at this specific paragraph and he commented.
"For argument sake I think chance in games is good, but obviously to the degree they have it is bad, your example being good."
Huk
Image credit to Dustin Steiner
I would even suggest Relic and/or SEGA temporarily employ some of these RTS pros and take advantage of their deep RTS knowledge, experience, passion and perspectives. They could be called upon during certain stages of the development cycle and may be a valuable asset which would potentially benefit everyone.
As it stands, units that get closer to other units have an increased chance to hit, which means the edge case of missing at close range is all the more frustrating when it does happen. In this specific case, I will be talking about AT guns only, but this can apply to snipers, tank vs tank battles and any high impact unit. Artillery among other things doesn't apply here as stated before, each unit has to be looked at and individually calibrated. One solution to AT guns could be to layer a system that basically says, if an enemy tank is within (I'm using 50% here but pick any close range number) 50% of the max range of the gun then the AT gun will hit 100% of the time. This will remove edge cases. And players, knowing that they will have 100% chance to hit at certain ranges, will play differently in specific tactical situations because they will benefit from this 100% zone on the AT guns.
Another important improvement from this is that when an AT gun misses a kill shot at long range, they will know that they COULD have changed their tactics and positioned their AT gun close enough to have a 100% chance to hit, and thus, there is rational to the miss. The ability for players to rationalize these kinds of impactful moments are critical, especially to new players. In other words, I could have increased the risk for reward but it essentially is, on some level, my fault that it missed because I wasn't willing to take the risk to get closer. This is a far cry psychologically from an AT gun missing a kill on a tank at point blank after having done everything right then the player says "well it didn't matter WHAT I did I was never going to get that kill". That kind of helpless disillusionment is dangerous for the health of the game, the competitive spirit, and the community. Many of the hardcore fan base simply accept that this is part of the game, with AT guns in this example, but it is unnecessary and is one of the needless rough edges of the game.
Another potential solution is to change AT guns so as shots miss, the next shot chance increases. The target would have a timer attached to it that increases the chance to be hit by any other AT gun in a cumulative manner until the timer expires. This would reduce some of the unreasonable over-impactful low chance randomness but in a different way. You could have a modifier specific to both the target and the shooter or maybe just a modifier on the target if you dodged a tank shot in the last x seconds, the next one has a higher chance to land, something along these lines. Or perhaps some combination of both solutions would be best, or something totally novel! This is where thorough testing and a keen sense of game mechanics will reveal what is best.
A good example of a gameplay element that is impactful and has well defined lines built into the mechanic is the way that you fire a panzerfaust or AT grenade at a vehicle. The vehicle goes inside the range circle, the player takes the risk of getting close to the vehicle to obtain the reward of killing or snaring the vehicle, the player clicks the vehicle to faust and regardless of how far away the targeted vehicle gets after the action is taken the faust lands 100%. There is a tactical satisfaction that comes with knowing you did the right thing and you get the payoff, conversely the player with the tank knows he messed up because he got into range of the faust and the vehicle getting hit is his fault. There are clear lines for the players and that's important. Other elements that follow this trend where a player knows a game element will act a certain way is when a teller mines hits a vehicle or a smoke grenade conceals an area or when a flame grenade damages infantry in a building.
Please keep in mind I'm giving specific examples and solutions, but they are only examples, and the solutions presented have no testing or data to back up whether or not they would work. I'm trying to illustrate the rough edges that COH presents and providing a possible concept to address them. Much more work than this will have to be done for a new game. The meat of COH, the fundamental mechanics, are so strong that with thorough design, testing and analysis Relic can knock COH3 out of the park. All of this "edge case" discussion is, to get back on topic, part of refining fundamental game subtleties to propel the competitive scene, get players interested in the franchise, and satisfy players to the point where they want to stay. Especially new players.
You really don't need to have random chances to obliterate units with downed planes, or your tanks becoming AI pillboxes because of RNG for the game to be fun and exciting. The random parts of the game are not the main "fun" factor.
Pro players (And many "casual" players) complain about these sorts of unpredictable bits of RNG because they have nothing to do with skill, and many people prefer to have their own skill/tactical choices swing games, rather than because a plane randomly decided to make your vet5 obers a landing strip.
The game has less to with skill they you might think. Everything but movement is rng in this game.
Is it skill or rng when your rng off map arty rounds randomly drop outside of the arc or target zone and one shot a full health squad or multyple squads? Or as i saw today in dane's cast 6 cons models clumping when trying to move next to a hay stack and all six got one shotted by a p4, imagine if this was your p4.
Is this "skill" or massive rng in your favor?
And do you want this kind off "unpredictable" rng removed next if mgc are removed?
Crits should definitely stay in the game. ...
And whilst pak howi nerf might be good for the 1v1 side, USF will get butchered in teamgames as the paks will no longer instill fear into static units. Pak needs an accuracy nerf, not a lethality one. Otherwise why not go double mortar (cheaper) and use that. Pak already needs a lot of XP to vet up. That combined with the scott nerf is strange.
Like a lot of things in the game, main gun crits were intended to approximate something that happened in real life. Sometimes hits on the mantlet would jam the mechanism so that the gun either couldn't aim or would aim at the ground. Relic probably considers that a core feature and is likely to not approve removing from the game.
I'd be fine if autofire was removed from the Scott, pack, and ISG. They should just have a attack ground and barrage. The range for those should be further than a mortar though, at least 100 and maybe 120.
It would probably be okay if mortars kept their autofire. The time to hit is longer and they don't seem to turn into the homing missiles like the pack, ISG, and Scott.
To be clear Angelus main gun crits and other "bad" RNG (main gun crit in this example) should definitly be an option in casual matches or campaign, but it has no business in ladder.
I understand what you're saying, but would really be surprised if Relic agrees to it. I had one game that went an hour on Steppes. My team lost by a couple VP's because a plane crash killed my rifle squad on a VP and they capped with an engineer. I can see why a pro wouldn't put up with that, but also would be really surprised if COH ever became a e-sport.
Mobile Anti-Tank Guns
While double anti-tank guns are strong in smaller game modes, we do not want to impact their offensive performance or population. Instead, we want to focus counterplay by offering players additional options to break through an AT wall and make over-extended AT guns easier to punish.
- All mobile anti-tank gun squads - Pak, 6 Pounder, ZiS-3, Soviet 45mm, Raketenwerfer, 57mm - have an innate received accuracy penalty of +10%; this stacks with the type of entity that recrews the gun. Example: Conscripts recrewing an anti-tank gun go from 1.087 target size to 1.196; Panzergrenadiers recrewing would go from 0.8 to 0.88
- This also applies to the standard crew - increasing their model target size from 1 to 1.1.
Mobile Mortar Smoke (M21, 250 Half-Track, USF/British 81mm, Soviet 82mm, Osther 81mm)**
To encourage further the usage of smoke against defensive positions, mortars are being made more responsive and are gaining an additional smoke shell per barrage. Their wind down times are also being reduced to speed up how quickly a mortar can saturate a target area with smoke shells. Scatter bonuses at veterancy 3 have also been removed from smoke barrages to maintain decent area coverage.
- Pivot time from 2 to 1.25
- Smoke Barrage wind down from 2 to 0.375
- Number of smoke shells per barrage from 3 to 4
- Scatter bonuses at veterancy 3 no longer apply to smoke barrages
Brummbar and Dozer 105mm Sherman
These units will now have their pintles automatically fire at infantry when in Hold-Fire mode. Both units excel at attack-ground are best left on hold-fire so players can direct their shots, but their machine guns would have limited opportunity to engage without changes.
- When in hold-fire mode, pintle mounted MG will still fire at infantry when within range, but not aircraft or vehicles.
Bugfixes
- Fixed a bug where Recovery Sappers costs more to reinforce than normal sappers.
- Fixed a bug where the 50cal gunner was not affeted by suppression movement penalties.
- Fixed an issue where smoke and AT grenades for Recovery Sappers would share a cooldown.
- Fixed an issue where a destroyed Hetzer would give a heavy tank destroyed announcement.
- Fixed an issue where the Royal Artillery Coordinated Barrage would not drop warning flares into the target zone when activated.
So do vanilla Cons still lose their vet 3 accuracy bonus? They don't exactly roll over anything in the live version, and if the SVT's get too strong at vet 3 then it seems like those should be toned down instead of all Cons.
I understand what you're saying, but would really be surprised if Relic agrees to it. I had one game that went an hour on Steppes. My team lost by a couple VP's because a plane crash killed my rifle squad on a VP and they capped with an engineer. I can see why a pro wouldn't put up with that, but also would be really surprised if COH ever became a e-sport.
Specifically COH2 with its current direction and rate of change wont be a big esport, not beyond the efforts of AE, the refs, smaller cash games etc and SEGA/Relic fronting big tournies, which are comendable and impressive given how old this game is.
But the fundamental mechanisms inside the COH franchise are begging for a new COH game to rival and even exceed other RTS legends like Starcraft. Its entirely possible if done right.
Specifically COH2 with its current direction and rate of change wont be a big esport, not beyond the efforts of AE, the refs, smaller cash games etc and SEGA/Relic fronting big tournies, which are comendable and impressive given how old this game is.
But the fundamental mechanisms inside the COH franchise are begging for a new COH game to rival and even exceed other RTS legends like Starcraft. Its entirely possible if done right.
Its in Relics hands
I'm in full agreement with Whiteflash here. CoH2 would be FAR more successful if some of the very rough edges were sanded down. This isnt going to hurt the game's "Flavour".
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
