Login

russian armor

RE: COH3 Request: Bring back infantry armor types

21 May 2021, 18:10 PM
#21
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



To be completely honest,...

To be completely honest, I am not sure what you are talking about.

COH2 never had different types of armor for infatry. Infantry simply started with armor instead of smaller targets size.

In addition explosive weapon like mortar completely ignored that armor since they had superior penetration.

COH1 used more complicated system and it was a nightmare for both users and developers. Although a great game consistancy in nightmare.

For instance certain vehicles benefits from cover while other do not.

Both decisions to use standard HP for entities and replace armor with accuracy modifier where a big improvement in the game.
21 May 2021, 18:14 PM
#22
avatar of donofsandiego

Posts: 1379

jump backJump back to quoted post21 May 2021, 18:10 PMVipper

To be completely honest, I am not sure what you are talking about.

COH2 never had different types of armor for infatry. Infantry simply started with armor instead of smaller targets size.

In addition explosive weapon like mortar completely ignored that armor since they had superior penetration.

COH1 used more complicated system and it was a nightmare for both users and developers. Although a great game consistancy in nightmare.

For instance certain vehicles benefits from cover while other do not.

Both decisions to use standard HP for entities and replace armor with accuracy modifier where a big improvement in the game.


I understand that you aren't sure what we're talking about. From the very beginning of this thread we were commenting on the infantry type system of CoH1. Maybe it's lost in translation?
21 May 2021, 18:46 PM
#23
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



I understand that you aren't sure what we're talking about. From the very beginning of this thread we were commenting on the infantry type system of CoH1. Maybe it's lost in translation?

COH1 infatry system is simply worse.
21 May 2021, 19:12 PM
#24
avatar of donofsandiego

Posts: 1379

jump backJump back to quoted post21 May 2021, 18:46 PMVipper

COH1 infatry system is simply worse.

And I disagree.
21 May 2021, 19:13 PM
#25
avatar of synThrax
Donator 11

Posts: 144

Since the postgame stats are a mes....

All i want for coh3 is that they count all all stats that can be counted as bad rng rolls againt you. Every shell bouncing , every abandoned vehicle, every first spot - instawipe. Every last model snipe on a dice roll of 0.0000001% being hit. How accurate was your last B4 shot and for the last 1000 games.

Your hall of Fame vs my Hall off RNGesus disapprovals. ;) /r with a bit of irony.

Ergo: Would really appreciated a lot more and readable stats about the game flow. Storing / Extracting and comparing would be appreciated.
21 May 2021, 19:27 PM
#26
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


And I disagree.

You are entitled to have a different opinion, but I suggest you play COH1 and check.
21 May 2021, 19:47 PM
#27
avatar of Kurobane

Posts: 658



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


Thank you for Clarifying my earlier post, you are correct with my intended example usage.





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.



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



The point of the COH 1 system was to allow subtle intricate balance tweaks that is otherwise not possible/available in the COH 2 system. Lets take British Infantry Sections for example. They have been struggling since release to get them into a good spot. Unlike other factions besides Commandos, UKF have to rely on Infantry Sections to go against literally every other infantry in the game from Pioneers to Fallschirmjäger. (Forgive the spelling on that unit if its incorrect)

There is almost an impossible task to get one Unit to be decently matched against everything. They are either too strong or too weak against certain matchups. With the COH 1 system they could go in and say

"Infantry Sections are fine vs Grenadiers but struggle with OKW, lets give them a 5% buff to Volksgrenadiers without affecting any other matchup"


This is why we have nonsense like infantry being able to walk head first directly into the cone of an MG and killing it with LMG Infantry Spam without needing to flank or use smoke. MG Covering a fuel? Why make a mortar when I can just spam 1 thing and attack it head on, no strategy needed and who needs support weapons when the solution is spam more things because the COH 2 uses a generic system where everything is good vs everything as opposed to having a Rock, Paper, Scissors approach that COH 1 had that forced you to use combined arms and diversify your army. This is exactly why in the case of Infantry Sections they were nerfed into the ground (and Rifleman on WFA launch) since they had no viable team weapons and the answer wasn't to get a support weapon but to spam more.



Current State of COH 2 due to generic damage profiles.



Would love to see COH 3 return to the COH 1 system but tweaked to be easier to understand. They had Infantry, Soldier, Heroic and other stuff which I can't remember at the moment since its been so long and it doesn't make sense.

They should do a system like Conscript -> Infantry -> Support Weapon and Elite.

Ostruppen and Combat Engineers and the like would be Conscript

All Main Line Infantry would fall under Infantry

Support Weapons would have their own type

Elite for call in infantry like say Paratroopers, Shock Troops and so on.

Granted this is just an example but its a clearer system than Soldier/Elite/Infantry/Heroic which you look at and think WTF right off the bat.






21 May 2021, 19:55 PM
#28
avatar of donofsandiego

Posts: 1379

jump backJump back to quoted post21 May 2021, 19:27 PMVipper

You are entitled to have a different opinion, but I suggest you play COH1 and check.


Like I've said multiple times, I can see the merits of the system. Just that it should be communicated to the player.
21 May 2021, 20:10 PM
#29
avatar of donofsandiego

Posts: 1379

Current State of COH 2 due to generic damage profiles.


:rofl:

No matter how far back into CoH2 forums I go, this always seems to be the case.

As much as it's not "realistic", Company of Heroes is a video game, after all. If the game was "realistic", you would be able to hit tanks from across the map with AT guns and other tanks.

In the interests of making the game fun and interesting, I don't see why the idea of infantry type (when players are made aware of what it is and what it does and have a way to see it in-game) is verboten.
21 May 2021, 20:11 PM
#30
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



Like I've said multiple times, I can see the merits of the system. Just that it should be communicated to the player.

Only it did not work in practice even though COH1 had far less units than COH2.

When one uses multiple different mechanism one has to balance every single units against every other separately.

One can achieve similar result with much simpler mechanism.
Pip
21 May 2021, 20:32 PM
#31
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1594

The CoH1 system was flawed, but the idea of being able to more easily tailor a given unit/weapon's efficacy vs a given target makes design/balance arguably easier in most cases.

Most RTS have a system somewhat similar to this, because trying to balance without being able to give certain units certain properties is a nightmare, as can be observed with the somewhat unfortunate state of infantry balance in some cases.

Examples include:

Starcraft: Units may be "Light", "Armoured" (and/or other types). Units may have bonus damage against certain unit "types".

Age Of Empires 2: Units have both Armour and Pierce Armour (The latter generally being the damage type of ranged attacks) as well as particular damage bonuses vs types of units (and even specific units)

The conclusion really is that CoH3 would probably benefit from a target table system a little like CoH1, but with some major improvements/streamlining made... And most importantly: All this information actually being communicated to the player. This latter part is genuinely the biggest problem with CoH1's system, it just isnt explained to the player properly.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

571 users are online: 571 guests
1 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49061
Welcome our newest member, Rihedcfrd
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM