Login

russian armor

German Trenches should not kill its garrison when destroyed

15 Sep 2014, 07:05 AM
#1
avatar of Arclyte

Posts: 692

The unit inside the WC-51 truck takes no damage when the truck is destroyed (probably a bug, but the commander is shit now so no need to nerf it)

German trenches are way too fragile for what is basically a hole in the ground, but you also lose the squad when it's destroyed

Trenches should act like the WC trucks. I don't think anyone would be against this simple change to make trenches viable, instead of death traps
15 Sep 2014, 07:07 AM
#2
avatar of Lucas Troy

Posts: 508

I like this idea. As it is, infantry are actually more vulnerable to AT guns when placed in trenches.

Maybe this change should also come with the addition of a cost to trenches?

15 Sep 2014, 08:39 AM
#3
avatar of Sierra

Posts: 432

Or maybe trenches, being holes in the ground should just not die... capturable by anyone who can get to them, but they shouldn't die.

I think if we went for a more traditional WWI style trench though instead of this one with the tarp/blind over the top, it might make things more interesting.
15 Sep 2014, 08:42 AM
#4
avatar of JohnnyB

Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1

Who the hell is using trenches in this game?! They are a waste of time.
15 Sep 2014, 08:49 AM
#5
avatar of AchtAchter

Posts: 1604 | Subs: 3

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Sep 2014, 08:42 AMJohnnyB
Who the hell is using trenches in this game?! They are a waste of time.


they are useful, especially in Combination with the raketenwerfer.

I like the idea, but I think it's not easy or even possible to implement, since a trench acts like a building and a collapsed building means death.
15 Sep 2014, 09:16 AM
#6
avatar of Sierra

Posts: 432



they are useful, especially in Combination with the raketenwerfer.

I like the idea, but I think it's not easy or even possible to implement, since a trench acts like a building and a collapsed building means death.



Am I the only one who feels that this sequel has less overall realistic physics and destruction compared to the first game?
15 Sep 2014, 09:19 AM
#7
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Sep 2014, 09:16 AMSierra



Am I the only one who feels that this sequel has less overall realistic physics and destruction compared to the first game?


Yes. The first game had cool mechanics where if there were holes in buildings, some shots could go through them.
15 Sep 2014, 09:21 AM
#8
avatar of Sierra

Posts: 432



Yes. The first game had cool mechanics where if there were holes in buildings, some shots could go through them.



Well it also had unique destruction for every shot delivered.. I mean it was really detailed down to the most minute thing. Also rubble from buildings could be used as green cover if it was lucky enough to fall into a good spot... or it could fall on a model and kill it. I mean the old game was VERY VERY detailed.
15 Sep 2014, 09:46 AM
#9
avatar of ThoseDeafMutes

Posts: 1026

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Sep 2014, 08:39 AMSierra
Or maybe trenches, being holes in the ground should just not die... capturable by anyone who can get to them, but they shouldn't die.

I think if we went for a more traditional WWI style trench though instead of this one with the tarp/blind over the top, it might make things more interesting.


Being able to capture them was good, the problem with trenches in CoH1 though was that flamers were the only way to reliably deal with them. You could literally stick a machinegun aiming down the trench lengthways with no obstacles between the bullets and the people sitting in the trench, and it would still count as "better than green cover" for the tommies inside.

Of course, if you make them flankable, which is more realistic, you have the problem of near uselessness because combat distances in the game are drastically short. It takes seconds to get from maximum rifle range to grenade lobbing range. It's gonna be silly and unrealistic no matter how you cut it to be honest.
15 Sep 2014, 13:28 PM
#10
avatar of Greeb

Posts: 971

I'm fine with them, and like the proposed changes.
But units in the trenches should be more vulnerable to fire.
16 Sep 2014, 02:29 AM
#11
avatar of ASneakyFox

Posts: 365

should be MORE vulnerable?

I never make them, and i never go in them if i see them. Theyre bassically death traps.

same thing happens everytime "oh hes in a trench ill throw a grenade" you escape the trench.. then they take the trench. then they immedaitly leave as youre now throwing grenades or mortaring them back.
16 Sep 2014, 02:41 AM
#12
avatar of WhySooSerious

Posts: 1248

Really? when trenches die they kill the garrison? whenever i use trenches i never lose my squads i usually lose 2 models.
17 Sep 2014, 11:57 AM
#13
avatar of Arclyte

Posts: 692

I've lost a full MG team when the trench dies

I think the trench "building" shouldn't be taking so much damage from direct fire from things like AT guns and tanks, but explosives of any kind should take them out

They also shouldn't be super durable like british trenches in coh 1, they'd be way too powerful in OH/OKW hands
17 Sep 2014, 12:17 PM
#14
avatar of broodwarjc

Posts: 824

jump backJump back to quoted post17 Sep 2014, 11:57 AMArclyte
I
They also shouldn't be super durable like british trenches in coh 1, they'd be way too powerful in OH/OKW hands


Shouldn't have to worry about that, because right now a strong breeze can collapse them...
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

Germany 272
Russian Federation 6
unknown 1

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

883 users are online: 883 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49110
Welcome our newest member, jhonnycena0400
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM