Strategy in Company of Heroes 2
Posts: 879
I agree with Inverse's points, and the problem is the global upgrades were what slowed the game down, and made it possible to win over time without THE hard counter. Ie., you could still go heavy vet T2 against bars and win. You could also tech to Pumas and counter the bars.
The big problem is that the heavy hitter call-ins like shocks and assault grens only have very specific counters. If you don't use that hard counter, you are going to lose. There were simply more soft counters, more ways to get to the same objective in COH.
To be specific for those who don't know vCOH, here's what would happen vs the biggest upgrade ever, bars:
1) Volks, volks MG, sniper start meets 4 bar rifles.
2) Wehr player gets extra MG to handle bars. Holds out till Puma hits, maybe takes a pitstop or backtechs to get Pak for later. With the power of the MG42 in vCOH it was quite possible to dawdle even longer in T2 getting more inf (though unvetted).
OR
2) Gets extra MG, vets infantry, holds territory, begins to increase it with infantry already on field, gets medic bunker.
VS.
1) Gren, gren, MG, gren start hits two maxims/con or 3-4 concripts.
2) Shock troops hit field.
3) Ostheer player makes flamenwurfer, continues playing.
OR
3) LOSE.
Posts: 1944 | Subs: 2
Really, if you just slowed down the teching speed and increased infantry combat damage, 80% of vCOH player issues would suddenly disappear.
+1
That and doctrine system are my biggest gripes with the game. You know something is wrong when a Shocktroop is considered OP yet it takes like 3 times longer to kill a squad at point blank compared to a Thompson Ranger or KCH.
Posts: 16697 | Subs: 12
Making a linear progression with automatic CP-unlocks has never made any sense to me. Bring the branches back and make CP-unlocks and decision-making once again an important strategic aspect of the game.
/nobrainer
I also believe that certain basic upgrades should move out of the commander system and into the base game; PPsH, tank smoke, tanktraps, to just name a few.
Posts: 578
Blitzkrieg doctrine:
A single doctrine from the Blitzkrieg mod gives a total of 16 call in Units/Abilitys.The variety of Options and Units per game was extremely high in the Blitzkrieg mod because the doctrines were very big and you had Access to all 16 abilitys in a game.
In Company of heroes 2 we have 1000000 of commanders but you can only choose one of them per game and a commander gives you only 5 call in Units/abilitys.The variety of Units is extremely low because the commanders gives you only 5 abilitys per game.
Blitzkrieg mod Doctrines > COH2 Commanders.
The whole gamedesign is a completely fail and feels like a downgrade.
THE SOLUTION FOR THIS PROBLEM: Relic should redesign some of the commanders and give the Players the ability to use ALL 3 Commanders in a game that were choosen before the game.
It could be look like this:
Commander 1 getting unlocked at 1 CP.(some Kind of an early game commander)
Commander 2 getting unlocked at 5 CPs.(mid game commander)
Commander 3 getting unlocked at 10 CPs.(end game commander)
So we could costumize a doctrine and Combine all 3 commanders together.
So we would have Access to a total of 3 commanders in a game that makes a total of 15 call in Units/Abilitys per game.This would raise the unit variet and Options in a game extremely.Its simply stupid that there are sooooo many commanders and we can only choose 1 of them per game with its laughable 5 call in Units/abilitys.
Posts: 3548 | Subs: 2
Posts: 578
This would fix the Problems with the commander System.There are too many commanders and we can only pick 1 of them per game.Give us the Option to use 3 commanders and all there abilitys in the same game with a total of 15 call ins/abilitys instead of only 5 like it its now.
Posts: 578
Please do mind that there is a certain overlap in most of the current commanders,thus restricting the abilities one can choose.
Like i said: The commanders Need to have a redesign by relic.
Or they could make 3 different kinds of commanders:
Early game - mid game and late game commanders and Combine all 3 to a doctrine like the Players want.
Posts: 688
Regardless of what has been added of objecions to the initial ost by Inverse, I think his overall observaton - that the game lacks strategic depth - still stands. The gameflow does feel very linear. And there are no big surprises.
Not even the DLC commanders add surprises to the gameflow because as soon as you see for example the first assault gren, you know the rest of the game from that player. It is linear.
Remember how in COH1 you had to chose beten two paths down each doctrine? That kept the window of uncertainty open even if you had spotted the doctrine of your opponent. That is missing in the commander system.
The new ressource system is part of the problem
One cause of the linear feel that I think hasn'tbeen mentioned yet, is the change in the ressource system. I'm not at all arguing for COH2 to be like COH1, but it removed some of the basic strategy in COH2 that all points give all ressources. The gamble is simply too low now.
It's been suggested, that nothing major can be changed in the basic game at this point, but technically I suppose this part could? Surely ressourceoints can be reverted to single-ressource points? It would not be unbalancing if ressources are still mirrored.
DLC is OK. It's just the stuff they put in it.
Finally, I have a hard time seeing how making the commanders free would help anything. As I say above, the commander system is part of what makes the game feel linear. Making them free just means linear along more variations. It doesn't add surprises.
If anything, the players' commander roaster sould at least be removed from the loading screen.
I have no issue with DLC as such. It's more the way it is used to reserve game breaking units for those who want to dump more money on the game.
I had planned to buy all DLCs, but changed my mind when I saw what the Boss Tiger Ace did to the game. I'm not buying anything further if that's the way Relic s playing it.
Think about it, Relic. I bet I'm not alone here.
Posts: 3548 | Subs: 2
Posts: 16
I have no issue with DLC as such. It's more the way it is used to reserve game breaking units for those who want to dump more money on the game.
I had planned to buy all DLCs, but changed my mind when I saw what the Boss Tiger Ace did to the game. I'm not buying anything further if that's the way Relic s playing it.
Think about it, Relic. I bet I'm not alone here.
Yeah - this is so true! I didnt just not buy the new batch of commanders but I also didnt buy the new TOW DLC! I might have, but I think this is the only way to reach a company - by not buying their products anymore...
Posts: 1468 | Subs: 4
+1
That and doctrine system are my biggest gripes with the game. You know something is wrong when a Shocktroop is considered OP yet it takes like 3 times longer to kill a squad at point blank compared to a Thompson Ranger or KCH.
I'm not entirely sure what game you're playing but Shocks kill infantry pretty quickly, especially weapon teams. Regardless of that, the real strength of Shocks is not their DPS output, but instead their ability to shrug off small arms fire damage - which makes them difficult to deal with. They're considered OP because of how hard it can be to deal with them at the timing at which they enter the field.
@Sluz - There are multiple ways to deal with early Shocks, FHT is only one of them. People seriously underestimate the amount of depth in CoH2 and greatly exaggerate the amount of depth in vCoH. I've seen plenty of streams/casts where players use exactly the same build order/doctrine in every game(sometimes spamming no more than 4 different units, yay! very depth, much strategy, such vCoH!). Maybe they're just boring players that lack innovation, I don't know - I guess the same could be said about CoH 2 when everyone just spammed Grens/Cons straight into spamming medium tanks, but thankfully the meta has shifted away from that. Either way how is the SSSSS build strategically more deep than making 5 Cons/Grens? It certainly takes more focus/micro to play, but strategically it is boring.
@Ami - I really don't think making PPSh a global upgrade is a good idea. Maybe now that they actually fixed the fact that PPSh were bugged and grossly over-performing it would be okay, but I'd rather see them become a stronger doctrinal choice and have Relic add different global upgrades to other Soviet units. Making PPSh global would further encourage Con spam in much the same way that we see BARS all day everyday in vCoH. I'd like to see more "defensive" structures/global upgrades available to players so that they have more options for spending resources/holding ground but I don't think tank traps fit into CoH 2. Lowering the number of commanders but implementing branching trees (maybe with 8-10 total abilities) might be cool but even with this system in vCoH there wasn't much doctrinal depth in reality - but I think with CoH 2's emphasis on commanders this might be an interesting option to explore.
Finally, it would be silly to allow people to re-pick commanders or have access to multiple commanders unless they *completely* redesigned the way things work. I really don't want to be fighting off Shocks + Guards simultaneously in a 1v1 or trying to deal with Tiger + Elefant + Oppels + Strafing Run + leFH18 + G43s all in the same 2v2...
Posts: 574
Posts: 971
Finally, it would be silly to allow people to re-pick commanders or have access to multiple commanders unless they *completely* redesigned the way things work. I really don't want to be fighting off Shocks + Guards simultaneously in a 1v1 or trying to deal with Tiger + Elefant + Oppels + Strafing Run + leFH18 + G43s all in the same 2v2...
My suggestion was that you could re-pick commander at the loss of half of your CPs.
It would be possible to see Shocks and later Guards from the same player, but most probably you will never see any high CP ability in that game, and obviously no Tiger+Elefant.
Posts: 208
Bulletins: they really do sod all at the moment. They need to be tweaked to have some use. I’m not saying bring back a lot of the damage ones they had earlier but something more could be done. They also should all be unlocked and not require leveling to unlock if any advantage they confer has any significant impact.
I think a large issue is them appearing at the loading screen. If you pick anything other than the standard gren/conscript ones then your opponent knows what you’re (most likely) going to use, which is more of an advantage than the bonuses themselves… Same goes for the commanders really, I would prefer them to be hidden also.
Snipers: I love what they've done with the cover aspect of them but I do miss sniper wars from vCoH. 2 man sniper teams are just silly. Making one guy have the sniper rifle and the other purely spot would also work for me (AFIAK I don’t think you can manual aim with snipers in CoH2 though…?)
How it works now with Ostheer if you pick a sniper you have to hope the Soviet hasn't gone T1, and if he has, you just have to avoid their sniper as much as you can (which just doesn't feel right) and use others methods (mainly mortars) as soft counters.
Mines: only 1 side being able to lay dual purpose mines removes a lot of strategic depth in my opinion (protecting MG42's with them was a vital aspect in vCoH). Making the anti-personnel mine patches smaller could also work and I think a lot of people have suggested this
Posts: 951
Posts: 688
I'm sure they're thinking about it but it isn't easy for them to come up with something. They can't overhaul their business plan entirely. Decisions like these could make or break the game so it's better to be patient and see what they will implement.
I'm not impatient. I can wait. In fact I'm not playing the game much anymore since x-mas.
Take your time, Relic, but come back with a solid improvement to the concerns in this topic.
Posts: 299
Having choice in a 5 cp system just adds way too much uncertainty unless none of the docs have any overlap. And in some cases having redundancy is a good thing. Having commanders that can completely change the way a game is played is great, relic just needs to do more of them and needs to balance them better. the more commanders there are the more likely that the meta will get less stale as people will have options to play completely differently them someone else. The more of this they do the better, of course too much and balance gets out of hand quick.
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
-Correct if wrong-
10 Strategic point: 3/5 >> 30/50 muni-fuel
2 Fuel/Muni: 7/11 >> 14/22
Cache: 3/5
Opel: 3-5/5 fuel/10 muni
____________________________
If we change strategic points income (and caches/opel accordingly) + adjusting fuel cost of light vehicles (so they dont become a great burden to get tanks), shouldnt this be a possible way of extending a bit the early-mid game?
I know we can do a lot of brainstorming n that implementing and seeing what changes do to balance is difficult but i just wanted to say what i would like the game direction regarding strategy.
- 1/2 mins extended of early game.
- 2/3 mins more mins of midgame making light vehicles more reliable. Like to see more recon/harassing vehicles (not pushing vCOH vehicles). I think this also would give T70/M5 a bit more window of opportunity.
- With the previous points, this would result in a delay of med tanks, which i think they arrive quite fast.
- If they reduce fuel income, it would also deliver to less spam of tanks/tank call ins.
Regarding abilities/commanders:
-I dont see why Tank traps should be doctrinal.
-I dont know if PPSH should be a global upgrade but i think theres a lot of potential here.
-Bulletins is another thing which HAD potential. I think less bulletins, with higher impact on the game would had been better. I´m not talking about high buff on stats, MAYBE some passive/unlockable/upgradable abilities-weapons.
-Rework of some of the heavy repetitive abilities.
Posts: 531
The issue with infantry skins is that those units are very small relative to the game. We had to do a lot of colour work to make sure that they're visible against the ground, so that you're not always losing your infantry units.
Which of course bumps up against the realistic point of most uniforms which is to decrease visibility during a battle.
At this point we don't feel that infantry skins is viable, though we may figure out a way to do it without in the future.
Just the gren skins, please god.
just the gren skin
no more silly green camo
no more fur shawl
please jesus the grens please
please allah and christ and buddah and the god-emperor, the grens need skins
don't give me that 'visibility' problem, MG's and pio's and ostruppen's have more or less more 'realistic' uniforms and they stand out just fine, don't they.
Posts: 2742
Infantry units have always, always felt extremely sluggish just entering the battlefield, let alone retreating or finally moving out of base again.
It's hard to ever isolate a single reason, as if the maps themselves just seem off scale and too large, or infantry simply move too slowly across the terrain, but the amount of idle time units spend just moving has always seemed off to me.
But more than anything I have always felt that the unified resource points were a placeholder from an alpha build that just never went away. Scaled resource points puts a varying degree of value on territory. Strategy points with little to no resource income placed in key positions help provide a choice between cutting off enemy territory or taking it.
One of the main reasons Langres and Semois were so popular, ehough to be remade into CoH2, was because the fuel and munition points were very well distributed across the maps. The fuel point next to the HQs in Semois being +10 instead of +5 or +16 made a big difference to the balance of the map. The way the two +10 fuels on the right of Langres were set up versus the one of the left had very real strategic implications.
The commanders, the vet, the upgrades, the units and their tiers, I can chalk all those up with the 'new game, new strategies' jargon. But clunky unit movement and stale map fundamentals just seem like core issues for an RTS game.
Livestreams
1 | |||||
14 | |||||
13 | |||||
4 | |||||
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.655231.739+15
- 2.842223.791+5
- 3.939410.696+5
- 4.35459.857-1
- 5.599234.719+7
- 6.278108.720+29
- 7.307114.729+3
- 8.645.928+5
- 9.10629.785+7
- 10.527.881+18
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
11 posts in the last week
27 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, rwintoday1
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM