RE: COH3 Request: Bring back infantry armor types

Since mods have an inexplicable allergy to people responding to threads from a while ago that are still relevant to present discussion, I am reposting my comment so that anyone who would like to respond has the ability to.

If COH3 is released within this millenium, I hope infantry armor stays as far away from it as possible. It's incredibly unintuitive and is needlessly confusing for newer players. MP40s in Company of Heroes fire the same bullets right? Well, why does that bullet suddenly gain homing properties against paratroopers? Do they wear armor magnetized to attract 9x19 Parabellum? I played CoH for a few years and I never caught on to *any* of that. It's not communicated to the player in any way. I only learned of infantry armor years later when I decided to visit the CoH1 wiki for funsies.

I think it makes sense to balance the game around adjusting units speciically, not how accurate/ damaging two other factions' weapons are against it based on what arbitrary "type" of unit they are. Which is unknown to the average player.

I suppose that I can see its advantages. (E.g. "Oh well paratroopers are quite good against grenadiers but against volksgrenadiers they are too strong so lets just give volks access to such and such armor later on in the game so they are less susceptible to the M1919s" I'm not saying that that's the way it is in the game I'm just making up an example BTW)But there should be some kind of in-game explanation for it or at the very least a unit encyclopedia (A La Men of War 2) where every single infantry model is listed page by page, and you can see the exact stats of that infantry model.

In men of war, I can access the encyclopedia and see that this recon team model actually has access to the "Aimed Shot" perk which would allow it to snipe enemy soldiers if it were to loot a sniper rifle off of an enemy. Or that this militiaman infantry model has lower health and lower accuracy with rifles than the average soldier. All of this data is accessible within the game. I think that CoH should have that as well. In fact, I think they should with or without infantry armor added to the next title.

It served no purpose then convoluting stats, confusing everyone who wasn't stat digger and being utterly pointless at the end.

It wasn't repeated in CoH2, because it was proven non functional concept in CoH1.

Its never coming back, because you don't re implement things that don't work.

It served no purpose then convoluting stats, confusing everyone who wasn't stat digger and being utterly pointless at the end.

It wasn't repeated in CoH2, because it was proven non functional concept in CoH1.

Its never coming back, because you don't re implement things that don't work.

Good. And I hope that a unit encyclopedia is added as well.

It wasn't repeated in CoH2, because it was proven non functional concept in CoH1.

Well no. CoH2 uses the current system because it's much simpler to implement(code wise).

Honestly rather than having Infantry armor types the way it was in coh1. We could have armor and damage types like in rpg's for CoH3. they would function the same way as it does in CoH2.

I believe only Shock troops had armor value ?

I believe only Shock troops had armor value ?

Don't confuse the existence of armor, with target tables/armor types.

All units started the game with armor and it was phased out with received accuracy, because the gameplay effect was practically* the same while visually it was more coherent.

*I still have my doubts that infantry armor made suppression more reliable.

Target tables/armor type means that a unit weapon deals more damage or is more accurate against a certain type of unit.
The game already has this implemented but only for few weapons.

Example: infantry AT weapons deals say 25dmg against infantry and a bonus 75dmg against non infantry type units.
Certain light vehicles have a bonus accuracy against snipers.

I don't think target tables will be a big advantage for gameplay. They just make everything very convoluted and easily lead to balancing errors, while the players barely have a chance to see what is actually happening.

Slightly off topic though, but related to damage and balance:
What CoH3 should have is a base skill value fpr each squad, which influences their DPS output for all weapons and potentially even recrewed ones. This would circumvent having multiple versions of the same weapon and explain performance difference more naturally. Weapon drops could also be more easily balanced.

COH3 Vietnam jungles

i hope coh3 doesnt look like DotA / any MoBa game as we have 2021

i hope coh3 doesnt look like DotA / any MoBa game as we have 2021

really have to agree with you there

i hope coh3 doesnt look like DotA / any MoBa game as we have 2021

Like they tried to do with Dawn of War 3 and it became the biggest failure in Relic's history.

The infantry armor system was insanely complex and often made no sense, I do not miss it at all.

The Infantry armor system may have been complex but it was better for overall balance.

The whole point of the vet system is unit preservation which rewards you for keeping your units alive. This is why everyone wants extra squad models in COH 2 because the rng is so random that there are times that you simply cannot do anything to prevent a wipe.

Infantry Armor prevents that by allowing units to be counters to specific units vs doing generic damage vs everything. Coh 2 mortar could do 100 damage for example, and it would be the same regardless of what it hits while in Coh 1 that mortar would do 100 damage to Machine Guns (the thing it was meant to counter) while doing 50 damage to a 3 man squad, and 75 damage to a 4 man squad. Basically it prevented more BS than the current system

The Infantry armor system may have been complex but it was better for overall balance.

The whole point of the vet system is unit preservation which rewards you for keeping your units alive. This is why everyone wants extra squad models in COH 2 because the rng is so random that there are times that you simply cannot do anything to prevent a wipe.

Infantry Armor prevents that by allowing units to be counters to specific units vs doing generic damage vs everything. Coh 2 mortar could do 100 damage for example, and it would be the same regardless of what it hits while in Coh 1 that mortar would do 100 damage to Machine Guns (the thing it was meant to counter) while doing 50 damage to a 3 man squad, and 75 damage to a 4 man squad. Basically it prevented more BS than the current system

Think you are confusing target tables and armor.

Target tables allow units to do more or less damage to specific units.

Infantry armor does no such thing.

CoH1 had a completely different armor system with different armor "types" and different HP on entities but that has nothing to do with armor infatry had in COH2.

Think you are confusing target tables and armor.

Target tables allow units to do more or less damage to specific units.

Infantry armor does no such thing.

CoH1 had a completely different armor system with different armor "types" and different HP on entities but that has nothing to do with armor infatry had in COH2.

Kurobane wasn't talking about CoH2. They were using a CoH2 mortar as an example to illustrate armor types in CoH1.

Kurobane wasn't talking about CoH2. They were using a CoH2 mortar as an example to illustrate armor types in CoH1.

Still there 2 different systems different armor types may offer increase protection from certain weapon, one needs to use target tables to make weapon cause more or less damage to different targets.

Complicated system are not need when there easier solution.

Kurobane wasn't talking about CoH2. They were using a CoH2 mortar as an example to illustrate armor types in CoH1.

He's making a semantic argument, i guess. Technically it wasn't called "infantry armour", it was called "infantry type"... Though It's very clear what Kurobane was talking about, and it's also clear that Kuro understands the difference between "Infantry armour" (The target tables) and "Infantry armour" (Actual armour, as Shocks, Anvil REs, and vehicles possess).

He's making a semantic argument, i guess. Technically it wasn't called "infantry armour", it was called "infantry type"... Though It's very clear what Kurobane was talking about, and it's also clear that Kuro understands the difference between "Infantry armour" (The target tables) and "Infantry armour" (Actual armour, as Shocks, Anvil REs, and vehicles possess).

Again COH 1 system was much more complicated than that and thus bad.

Entities had different HP
Entities had different armor types
Weapon where using target tables

Still there 2 different systems different armor types may offer increase protection from certain weapon, one needs to use target tables to make weapon cause more or less damage to different targets.

Complicated system are not need when there easier solution.

To be completely honest, I don't agree that having infantry armor types are necessarily the complicated system.

For example, to me reading through the history of these forums, it seems like a lot of weapons/vehicles/teamweapons were garbage at what they did or completely oppressive.

I think that infantry armor type did lend itself better to "Rock Paper Scissors" type gameplay where it's less effective to cheese and spam units.

Like in Kurobane's example where mortars did more damage to teamweapons instead of infantry squads. Imagine how much time could have been cut from balancing the game if instead of having to balance a unit around its damage being equal against every single other unit in the game, the damage could have been fine tuned against units.

If, for example, the 120mm mortar when it was an insane wipe machine, had its damage reduced against infantry but kept high damage against garrisoned and teamweapons out in the open, how much of an issue would it have been?

You cannot spam it as easily because it's not as effective against enemy infantry any more.

I can see the merits of infantry armor type.

The Infantry armor system may have been complex but it was better for overall balance.
...Infantry Armor prevents [random rng] by allowing units to be counters to specific units vs doing generic damage vs everything. Coh 2 mortar could do 100 damage for example, and it would be the same regardless of what it hits while in Coh 1 that mortar would do 100 damage to Machine Guns (the thing it was meant to counter) while doing 50 damage to a 3 man squad, and 75 damage to a 4 man squad. Basically it prevented more BS than the current system

Like I said, I can see the merits of infantry armor. It's just that it needs to be communicated to the player somehow.