Thick Mud

I'd loved that mud only affected to heavy armor, leaving these maps to infantry and light vehicle play.

But it seems at the end that mud is the brown snow that everybody expected.

I love the new Mud effect, I think Hill 331 is a great vcoh port, its the same layout but the the way it is played is vastly different, its great

Agree.

I think Hill 331 has a tad too much mud and the fact that one side has heal while the other repair is kinda unbalanced

I have now played Hill 331 twice. In both cases Soviets rapidly deployed mgs around the roads and then quickly built tons of mortars. Getting tanks was not possible (since fuel was on roads) and anyway mud made it too risky to deploy them to retake road, forcing my teams to forgo roads and go center. Meanwhile Soviets mined the approaches on the road and then started to build late game artillery. Lost both games to tank rushes that were proceeded by lots of artillery. Very boring map from my perspective.

I would say there is far too much mud on this map. Mud effectively makes roads unusable for vehicles and simply slows down infantry combat encourage mg spam. Mud can only be used effectively in defense and has no offensive benefit. Map should have mud removed or limited. As it stands this map has moved to my veto list, beating out City 17 summer.

It's probably true that mud favors the soviet faction in the current meta game.

But that's only because ppl have gotten used to a german strategy that aims for a win in 99 of 100 cases through massed armour in the end-game.

I welcome challenges like this because it may develop some more variety in strategies. The Steel Train of Death does become rather boring after a while.

I win matches with 1-2 tanks. I rely on infantry supported by a heavy tank to make a break through in the late game. Often times off map or on map arty is critical for me. If we are complaining about mass armor usuage I don't understand why you are complaining about Ost. Ost is often forced to go armor because Soviet tanks are so good against infantry Ost must counter with armor to slow bleed. This is beside the fact that Soviets rely on large numbers of massed tanks moving quickly to destroy Ost armor. There will always be armor in the late game, there are far more tanks in COH2 then in vCOH.

The mud could be fine, but as it is used in Hill 331 it is terrible. How do you expect a tank to use either road with all the mud on it? Strategy would be, how do I use mud to my advantage when attacking and when defending. As it stands the strategy is, don't go to that area of the map and camp the road with MGs. Not exactly great strategy.

Also mud can only be used defensively, what is the offensive function mud provides? This mechanic is not a terribly great addition to the game, and was applied in a very sloppy manner to Hill 331.

From a historical perspective Soviet tanks should be less affected by mud because of their wide tracks whilst early German armour (StuG and Panzer IV, not Tiger or Panther) should be more heavily affected because of their thinner tracks.

Ost is often forced to go armor because Soviet tanks are so good against infantry

I suppose you are referring to T70 and T34?

The former does not require a tank counter and the latter requires just one PzIV. Heck, sometimes it dies to an Ostwind too.

In most cases shreked Pgrens are the best counter.

The mud could be fine, but as it is used in Hill 331 it is terrible. How do you expect a tank to use either road with all the mud on it? Strategy would be, how do I use mud to my advantage when attacking and when defending. As it stands the strategy is, don't go to that area of the map and camp the road with MGs. Not exactly great strategy.

Also mud can only be used defensively, what is the offensive function mud provides? This mechanic is not a terribly great addition to the game, and was applied in a very sloppy manner to Hill 331.

The offensive impact of mud is exactly to attack with infantry. Not with vehicles.

You could argue that there is too much mud to make it a feature with strategic impact.

But which parts of the mud would you remove? If yuou just removed everything from the roads, it'll be back to the usual armour rush tactics.

I suppose you are referring to T70 and T34?

The former does not require a tank counter and the latter requires just one PzIV. Heck, sometimes it dies to an Ostwind too.

In most cases shreked Pgrens are the best counter.



The offensive impact of mud is exactly to attack with infantry. Not with vehicles.

You could argue that there is too much mud to make it a feature with strategic impact.

But which parts of the mud would you remove? If you just removed everything from the roads, it'll be back to the usual armor rush tactics.

Soviets have a lot more than T34 and T70 as AI tanks, those just come out early. Many have the potential to wipe whole squads in one shot. I cannot afford to risk infantry under those conditions. If you don't want to see so much Ost armor make wiping rare and I can use more infantry.

I am not going to debate T34 here, but suffice it to say if you lost it to an Ostwind, you are doing it wrong.

Mud does not let me attack with infantry either. They move slowly through the mud making retreat less viable, and exposing them to fire for longer. All mud does is just stops use of those areas. It is even more obscene because on the one side there is a house that overlooks the fuel point encouraging campy play.

I would remove tons of mud from Hill 331, not least of which the giant mud pits just outside of each base. Why are they there?

Not sure what the usual "armor rush tactics" are? Are you referring to the use of armor to deal crippling blows while moving quickly. That is what a tank does, that is how they work. Tanks live or die by speedy hits. If you want less "armor rush tactics" then we need to make assault guns better. These move forward with infantry punishing obstacles.

I really dislike the complaint about tanks moving quickly and hitting targets hard anyway. Many Ost tanks are designed to do this, and at least some of the Soviet tanks. It is a legitimate strategy which is easily defeated by mines, at grenades, button, recon flights (to let you know where armor is massing), and ram.

If you are tired of tank battles, then you need to buff all infantry, and eliminate or almost eliminate wipes from single shots.

I have now played this map 4 times, and each time both sides eventually just stall out and fire artillery back and forth until one side wins. All those games were really boring. Mud is boring, it only serves to limit movement when applied everywhere. In small amounts it might be interesting.

Soviets have a lot more than T34 and T70 as AI tanks, those just come out early. Many have the potential to wipe whole squads in one shot.

I'm sorry. We're not playing the same game. Discussion void.

I'm sorry. We're not playing the same game. Discussion void.

What? I agree you have not played much COH2 then.

For your convenience:

ISU 152
IS2
KV2
KV8

All with excellent AI, all with potential to wipe on first shot.
Were you just trolling?

I honestly don't mind being in thick Mud, it has more maneuverability than what thick snow offers.

I have now played Hill 331 twice. In both cases Soviets rapidly deployed mgs around the roads and then quickly built tons of mortars. Getting tanks was not possible (since fuel was on roads) and anyway mud made it too risky to deploy them to retake road, forcing my teams to forgo roads and go center. Meanwhile Soviets mined the approaches on the road and then started to build late game artillery. Lost both games to tank rushes that were proceeded by lots of artillery. Very boring map from my perspective.

I would say there is far too much mud on this map. Mud effectively makes roads unusable for vehicles and simply slows down infantry combat encourage mg spam. Mud can only be used effectively in defense and has no offensive benefit. Map should have mud removed or limited. As it stands this map has moved to my veto list, beating out City 17 summer.

it seems as though the routine of this map is to rush the fuel, whoever gets there first set up t1-t2 defenses, then the opposition has flank via the hill and the far sides of the map to quickly dislodge the defender. and then on and on and on.

relic obviously knew the fuel points will be the centre of combat so they made the road muddy and flanking routes dry to promote flanking.

I'd loved that mud only affected to heavy armor, leaving these maps to infantry and light vehicle play.

But it seems at the end that mud is the brown snow that everybody expected.

What i experienced is that mud is the high snow for tanks.

While infantry moves very slow in high snow, they are actually doing fine in mud.
The other way around: Tanks get quite fast through high snow, but it's a pain in the ass to get them of mud.^^

So -> snow != mud.

What i experienced is that mud is the high snow for tanks.

While infantry moves very slow in high snow, they are actually doing fine in mud.
The other way around: Tanks get quite fast through high snow, but it's a pain in the ass to get them of mud.^^

So -> snow != mud.

Yes, you're right. I don't think is an issue of snow or mud, the problem is how they're applied to the current multiplayer maps.

Let's hope than they're well implemented in some custom maps.