Login

russian armor

Game Completely Unbalanced After *Patch*

23 Nov 2013, 11:53 AM
#41
avatar of Nullist

Posts: 2425

Permanently Banned
jump backJump back to quoted post23 Nov 2013, 11:45 AMGreeb
Great contribution.


The suggestion is so ridiculous it doesnt warrant more.

I could write a page on how stupid it is, but its self-evident to anyone with any sense why it is so.
23 Nov 2013, 13:06 PM
#42
avatar of hubewa

Posts: 928

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Nov 2013, 01:17 AMGreeb


You should waste more mp reinforcing damaged cons/grens units, thus delaying tech.

Players not spamming those units should tech as usually.



You have obviously not played with vet 3 rifles.

And tech is mostly dependent on fuel, not mp.

Hope that may explain why nullist is a bit annoyed
23 Nov 2013, 16:48 PM
#43
avatar of Greeb

Posts: 971

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Nov 2013, 13:06 PMhubewa


You have obviously not played with vet 3 rifles.

And tech is mostly dependent on fuel, not mp.

Hope that may explain why nullist is a bit annoyed


Well, it's not the same having 5 cons squads fighting with a reinforce cost of 20 mp/model than with 30 mp/model.

The mp bleed will be higher, thus you will be encouraged to make some resistant or defensive units instead of just spamming cheap but weak infantry.

But it is just an idea. Take it or leave it.
I just think that in CoH2 early game is way more profitable to spam cheap infantry than to try to play with some tactics and combined arms, and that is too boring.

23 Nov 2013, 17:15 PM
#44
avatar of Le Wish
Patrion 14

Posts: 813 | Subs: 1

I think balance is better after patch. And about soviet industry and elite troops. Very beatable as NorthWestFresh stated, and isnt a win-button. Still would like them somewhat toned down slightly though. Lastly the big MP start isnt really much to my liking (yet, you never know). I think a number inbetween would be better.
23 Nov 2013, 17:25 PM
#45
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Nov 2013, 16:48 PMGreeb


Well, it's not the same having 5 cons squads fighting with a reinforce cost of 20 mp/model than with 30 mp/model.

The mp bleed will be higher, thus you will be encouraged to make some resistant or defensive units instead of just spamming cheap but weak infantry.

But it is just an idea. Take it or leave it.
I just think that in CoH2 early game is way more profitable to spam cheap infantry than to try to play with some tactics and combined arms, and that is too boring.



I don't agree. Spamming cheap infantry vs combined arms is not more profitable by default. Spamming cheap infantry gives you the advantage of early map control, allowing you strike from multiple angles and quickly overwhelm a player who is spreading his combined arms too thin. The trade of comes in the later stages of the game. When the opponents army starts growing and pushing out in a solid formation, the infantry spammer will not have units that can effectively hold the front line and he will start bleeding a lot of MP.

A combined arms army suffers from a lack of early map control. You will often see that inexperienced players are not aware of this and they will often grossly over extend themselves trying to cap territory, using MG squads or snipers as stand-alone squads. Another error you will often see is that players put lone MG squads in buildings defending fuel/cut offs, and then send the rest of their infantry to fight the opponents (much bigger) spammed infantry force. In an effort to cap the opponents fuel or what not.

Using combined arms is all about getting a late game victory. Spamming infantry is all about getting early victories in order to enter the late game with a solid advantage to snowball the opponent despite having a weaker unit composition. The objectives for both players should be:
Spamming player: Play aggressive, cap both fuels, ignore strong defensive positions, overwhelm isolated squads, trick defending player to over-extend by attacking and harassing from all sides, enter the late game with a solid unit/income advantage, crush combined army player with bigger army.
Combined arms player: Play conservatively, hold 1 fuel, maneuver support weapons to defend against incoming attacks, do not over extend, do a little harassment with pio/engineers, enter the late game on even footing, push out with superior composition.

23 Nov 2013, 18:00 PM
#46
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742


Spamming player: Play aggressive, cap both fuels, ignore strong defensive positions, overwhelm isolated squads, trick defending player to over-extend by attacking and harassing from all sides, enter the late game with a solid unit/income advantage, crush combined army player with bigger army.
Combined arms player: Play conservatively, hold 1 fuel, maneuver support weapons to defend against incoming attacks, do not over extend, do a little harassment with pio/engineers, enter the late game on even footing, push out with superior composition.


These take into account heavy assumptions about map design.
23 Nov 2013, 18:34 PM
#47
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1



These take into account heavy assumptions about map design.


The objectives stay the same regardless of map design, the effectiveness, or difficulty of execution, of each play style depend on map design. For example, it's easy to tear apart a defensive player on Moscow Outskirts, while Road to Kharkov lends itself perfectly for a defensive player to hold roughly half the map.
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

848 users are online: 848 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49113
Welcome our newest member, Dedek545
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM