Remove capping ability from all support weapons?

This thread is funny...

No, just no.

Maxim spam is mostly a problem in team games, but still very counterable. The capping system in CoH 2 is one of the best improvements from CoH 1.

This thread is funny...

No, just no.

Maxim spam is mostly a problem in team games, but still very counterable. The capping system in CoH 2 is one of the best improvements from CoH 1.

Disagree. The capping system is one of the things that COH2 changed that needed no changing. Now anything from an AT gun to a Mortar can cap and with no penalty or risk. The COH1 capping system required the player to make a strategic decision to either fight or cap. This was an important part of the early game shuffle and helped create a lot of the back and forth that made COH1 early game great. Now just pick whatever unit you want and plop it in cover while capping and let it marinate. No decision, no strategy, no skill. In COH1 if you went support crew heavy you did so with the knowledge that you will lack capping power, yet another CHOICE that COH2 removed. Other than being more noob friendly I cant think of a single thing that is better about the current system. Maybe because vehicle push cant stop your cap? Other than that nothing.

If anyone wants to give any logical reasoning as to why other than "I like it this way" please elaborate.

My reasoning:
1) Cap or fight mechanic rewards micro/macro. If someone is bad enough to cap instead of fight you deserve to win the engagement.
2) Build orders are not considered anymore because capping is irrelevant despite of it (less strategic depth). If someone goes 4 MG start they should have a consequence. The name of the game after all is combined arms.

That said, this thread is about removing capping abilities from support weapons and though I think its a good idea I think a starting point is reducing the capping speed for mortars and MG's and removing it all together for AT guns (sillyness that they can cap anyway).

Disagree. The capping system is one of the things that COH2 changed that needed no changing. Now anything from an AT gun to a Mortar can cap and with no penalty or risk. The COH1 capping system required the player to make a strategic decision to either fight or cap. This was an important part of the early game shuffle and helped create a lot of the back and forth that made COH1 early game great. Now just pick whatever unit you want and plop it in cover while capping and let it marinate. No decision, no strategy, no skill. In COH1 if you went support crew heavy you did so with the knowledge that you will lack capping power, yet another CHOICE that COH2 removed. Other than being more noob friendly I cant think of a single thing that is better about the current system. Maybe because vehicle push cant stop your cap? Other than that nothing.

If anyone wants to give any logical reasoning as to why other than "I like it this way" please elaborate.

My reasoning:
1) Cap or fight mechanic rewards micro/macro. If someone is bad enough to cap instead of fight you deserve to win the engagement.
2) Build orders are not considered anymore because capping is irrelevant despite of it (less strategic depth). If someone goes 4 MG start they should have a consequence. The name of the game after all is combined arms.

That said, this thread is about removing capping abilities from support weapons and though I think its a good idea I think a starting point is reducing the capping speed for mortars and MG's and removing it all together for AT guns (sillyness that they can cap anyway).

Totally agreed. The skill cap and strategical thinking back in 4 Pios 3 MG, Blitzkrieg strat by Inverse is waaay better than the casual shit in COH2. That strat was originally turning the whole map into a festung and strike with StuH. The silly thing like COH2 have is like blobbing a maxim group A moving and still able to cap the map as fast as Cons, still able to achieve the similar effect like that strategy.

The capping system in coh 1 led to binary decision making: can I cap this point in time or not? The new capping system allows battles to occur over the point: can I keep this pio squad in cover against this conscript long enough for my gren to get into the point to block the cap? You end up with more decision making with the new capping system, since you can block capping by getting on the point.

There is still a consequence going a 4 mg start. You only have MGs. They can't throw AT nades, other nades, or fight without fear of retreating really slow and potentially dropping the mg.

wonder if this thread would exist if not for maxim spam

The capping system in coh 1 led to binary decision making: can I cap this point in time or not? The new capping system allows battles to occur over the point: can I keep this pio squad in cover against this conscript long enough for my gren to get into the point to block the cap? You end up with more decision making with the new capping system, since you can block capping by getting on the point.

There is still a consequence going a 4 mg start. You only have MGs. They can't throw AT nades, other nades, or fight without fear of retreating really slow and potentially dropping the mg.

No, you can do the same in vCOH, with jeep/bike/ket push, required more skill and risk, not dumping a cons inside the circle.

Here's an ImperialDane shoutcast (love his shoutcasts ) where the soviet player at 6 minutes has 6 Maxims and an AT gun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnKsKPJM7K4

At the time when JellyDOnut has 6 maxims out he still has a better manpower income than Luvnest and the maxims are so cheap to reinforce - pretty hard to compete in the manpower war against that. That's the reason why this strat is so abusive. Even when he gets the T-34 he still has an income of about 30 mp more per minute.

The capping system in coh 1 led to binary decision making: can I cap this point in time or not? The new capping system allows battles to occur over the point: can I keep this pio squad in cover against this conscript long enough for my gren to get into the point to block the cap? You end up with more decision making with the new capping system, since you can block capping by getting on the point.

There is still a consequence going a 4 mg start. You only have MGs. They can't throw AT nades, other nades, or fight without fear of retreating really slow and potentially dropping the mg.

+1, 100% agree. The "foot in the circle" as I like to call it adds a whole level of depth that vCoH simply never had. You can use the CoH 2 capping system to prevent/delay capping of points in a way that didn't exist in vCoH. (This has won me at least 1 tournament game)

@Budwise - Daniel is also spot-on about the binary decision making of the vCoH capping system - you either had the time, or you didn't. Not exactly a deep/skillful system if you ask me. Also the CoH 2 map can change hands a lot faster since every squad can cap, which increases chances for comebacks (good thing) and increases the pace of the game (also a good thing). Weapon crews are already riskier investments than mainline infantry squads, removing their ability to cap is just foolish. Weapon crews are also less mobile than other infantry squads, so you do give up map control/mobility if you choose to build tons of them.

In regard to your comment about sitting squads in green cover to cap - this only applies to a few points on most maps. Generally, but not always, to cap you'll need to be in red/neutral/yellow cover which gives your opponent a significant advantage if he's in green cover.

Even though weapon crews can cap you hardly see anything except for MG squads capping because moving an AT gun/mortar into a cap circle can a) give away it's positioning if you're not careful about where in the circle it goes and b) generally makes it more vulnerable than if it were behind your lines. Regardless, that adds another choice for a player to make and choices correlate highly with skill. (The more choices a game presents players with gives more opportunities for the better player to make the better choice, thus giving the better player an advantage)

There are already tons of drawbacks to going a 4x MG start(or any heavy support weapon start). As I said before you're less mobile, you give up map control, you have no protection against light vehicles (no faust/AT nade) you're highly vulnerable to flanks, you are extremely vulnerable to indirect fire, you have no combat-boosting weapon upgrades (LMG/PPSh/Dp/G43/etc), they can't chase/wipe retreating squads, they don't bleed your opponent as much as normal infantry, you risk giving your opponent the weapon if your squad dies - I think you get the point. Also, build order *IS* considered, and honestly probably more so than in vCoH. It's actually pretty humorous that you seem to think that vCoH had deeper build orders or some crap. Yeah rifle spam into BARS or M8. Wow. Much strategy. Such deep. So vCoH.

Finally - @Porygon - suggesting that a 4 Maxim start will give you as much map control as a 4 Con start is bullshit. Maxims hit the map slower, have to pack up/set up, and don't bleed at all. Please tell me how that's capping the map as fast as cons... =/

At the time when JellyDOnut has 6 maxims out he still has a better manpower income than Luvnest and the maxims are so cheap to reinforce - pretty hard to compete in the manpower war against that. That's the reason why this strat is so abusive. Even when he gets the T-34 he still has an income of about 30 mp more per minute.

That game is actually a great example of why weapon team spamming sucks. Sidenote: WP by Luvnest.

But if we analyze this on a deeper level you'll notice that Luvnest, despite having less MP/min income generally has more available manpower - why? Because Maxims can't/don't bleed at all. I'd love to see the units killed/lost at the end of the game but I don't have time at the moment to watch the replay and find out - perhaps I'll edit it in tomorrow. You also didn't factor in that a sniper takes up more population than a Con/Gren squad, which was the cause of the disparity of Mp/min income early game.

Secondly you can see how vulnerable he was to the Sniper/MHT/222. The sniper had what... 44 kills when it died? And Luv could have easily saved it there honestly. The 222 was tearing everything up.

Thirdly (this is more directed towards Budwise's comment about no risk in weapon crews) Jelly gave Luvnest the ZiS gun that he needed to survive the 11 min T34/76. He also gave up at least a maxim or two and wasn't even close to wiping any squads until the T34 hit - which got some pretty lucky squad wipes let's be honest.

So yeah... spoiler alert - the guy that actually used combined arms ended up winning. Seems fine to me.

Also, Budwise you should watch that game if you still think that KV8s are OP or whatever stupid shit you said earlier today. Normally the people that think KV8s are still OP because of flamers ignoring retreat mods blah blah blah are losing their squads because they're playing poorly, not because KV8 or FHT are still over-performing. (I'll give you that the beta FHT was stupid OP though).

wonder if this thread would exist if not for maxim spam

million dollar question.

The more choices a game presents players with gives more opportunities for the better player to make the better choice, thus giving the better player an advantage)

In CoH2? Don't get me wrong, I play both CoH and CoH2 and I like them both. But this statement made me "lol".

I guess it's a matter of opinion, but I really preferred the capping/ economy system that CoH had. It took longer to cap, certain points gave more ressources and were contested more to gain the advantage over the opponent, mapcontrol really made a difference becasue your pop cap depended on it and being cut off meant that you couldn't get more units during it's duration if you were pop capped. Comebacks felt so much better, and one could prove his skill making the right decisions.

In CoH2, the whole map will be capped by both sides under the five minute mark, and it's a back and forth between contesting players. Comebacks in most cases are the norm now. Fixed pop cap set to 100 let's me save and call in/ build almost anything since territories grant all ressource types... it is a simplified, more casual system IMHO. Probably the reason why the beloved early game suffers so much. All in all, it's a faster game. And if I might add, easier to master for most...

No, you can do the same in vCOH, with jeep/bike/ket push, required more skill and risk, not dumping a cons inside the circle.

The decision of how long to leave the bike pushing before it needs to get away is the same as the current mechanic of dumping a unit in the circle. The only difference is you had to spam some clicks. Yea it took a little more APM, but you could only do it with a handful of units and it was only relevant in the early game.

Allowing support weapons to cap or not allowing them to cap both create different strategic options. I think the flow of the game is much better when they can cap, as it encourages less static gameplay. If your support weapons can't cap you won't move them as much. I also like that you can go try to harass or defend part of the map with a weapons team, in vCoH sending an mg42 anywhere alone was pointless, now you can do it if you're keeping track of your opponents units.

You suggesting sending a MG42 alone in COH2 isn't pointless?

If only the stupid maxim had an undeployed state they could just balance it so that they could only cap while packed up.

well, support units should have 0.5 or 0.75 capping speed, that's my opinion

At the time when JellyDOnut has 6 maxims out he still has a better manpower income than Luvnest and the maxims are so cheap to reinforce - pretty hard to compete in the manpower war against that. That's the reason why this strat is so abusive. Even when he gets the T-34 he still has an income of about 30 mp more per minute.

Umm, Maxims do not cause any attrition, unless you want them to.
Its not hard to keep up with them, because they do not kill anything unless you let them.

I also like how no one gives a shit about CieZ, apparently good players should GTFO from balance discussion, because they do not know how to praise germans and scream "nurf sov" right.

+1, 100% agree. The "foot in the circle" as I like to call it adds a whole level of depth that vCoH simply never had. You can use the CoH 2 capping system to prevent/delay capping of points in a way that didn't exist in vCoH. (This has won me at least 1 tournament game)

@Budwise - Daniel is also spot-on about the binary decision making of the vCoH capping system - you either had the time, or you didn't. Not exactly a deep/skillful system if you ask me. Also the CoH 2 map can change hands a lot faster since every squad can cap, which increases chances for comebacks (good thing) and increases the pace of the game (also a good thing). Weapon crews are already riskier investments than mainline infantry squads, removing their ability to cap is just foolish. Weapon crews are also less mobile than other infantry squads, so you do give up map control/mobility if you choose to build tons of them.

In regard to your comment about sitting squads in green cover to cap - this only applies to a few points on most maps. Generally, but not always, to cap you'll need to be in red/neutral/yellow cover which gives your opponent a significant advantage if he's in green cover.

Even though weapon crews can cap you hardly see anything except for MG squads capping because moving an AT gun/mortar into a cap circle can a) give away it's positioning if you're not careful about where in the circle it goes and b) generally makes it more vulnerable than if it were behind your lines. Regardless, that adds another choice for a player to make and choices correlate highly with skill. (The more choices a game presents players with gives more opportunities for the better player to make the better choice, thus giving the better player an advantage)

There are already tons of drawbacks to going a 4x MG start(or any heavy support weapon start). As I said before you're less mobile, you give up map control, you have no protection against light vehicles (no faust/AT nade) you're highly vulnerable to flanks, you are extremely vulnerable to indirect fire, you have no combat-boosting weapon upgrades (LMG/PPSh/Dp/G43/etc), they can't chase/wipe retreating squads, they don't bleed your opponent as much as normal infantry, you risk giving your opponent the weapon if your squad dies - I think you get the point. Also, build order *IS* considered, and honestly probably more so than in vCoH. It's actually pretty humorous that you seem to think that vCoH had deeper build orders or some crap. Yeah rifle spam into BARS or M8. Wow. Much strategy. Such deep. So vCoH.

Finally - @Porygon - suggesting that a 4 Maxim start will give you as much map control as a 4 Con start is bullshit. Maxims hit the map slower, have to pack up/set up, and don't bleed at all. Please tell me how that's capping the map as fast as cons... =/

+1

Umm, Maxims do not cause any attrition, unless you want them to.
Its not hard to keep up with them, because they do not kill anything unless you let them.

I also like how no one gives a shit about CieZ, apparently good players should GTFO from balance discussion, because they do not know how to praise germans and scream "nurf sov" right.

Disagreeing =/= no one gives a shit
It is more likely a vCOH veteran argument vs a COH2 system supporter.

The capping system in CoH 2 is one of the best improvements from CoH 1.

+100

And you know what people, lets try to look forward and not backwards (stop comparing COH2 with vCOH). This is getting soooo old, i cant hear it anymore.
COH2 is what it is. If you love something, you love also the bad stuff not only the good!
Get over vCOH!!!

I have never been a fan of weapon teams capping since the beta. It feels unfair that a unit can set up in cover on a cap point and force the decision there. The cost for set up should be you can't cap.

I frequently use mortars to cap. Have them cap a point back and use grens/mg to cap forward cutoff. Lets me also mortar to clear mines or incoming enemies.

A larger issue with this game may be that cut offs are not as common. Cut offs rewarded skillful flanking and allowed a player who was down to force a conflict at a weaker point.

I would also like to see uncapped sectors decap faster when an opposing unit is in them and no friendly unit is in them. I don't like that I have to wait the same amount of time to decap a point if I have control of the territory as when I just ignore it and walk by.

On a side note, the easiest way to negate maxim spam would be to increase the accuracy of the Ost mortar. If this happened the Soviet mortar would also need to receive an accuracy boost. If Ost mortars were more accurate maxim spam would stop immediately because they would be wiped far more consistently. So if opponent went hard counter to your maxim (mortar) you would need to get scripts or shocks.