Luvnest's state of the game report

I certainly hope that is not their reasoning.

it is their m.o. when dealing with their customers. Say nothing until it's definitely complete, that way people can't get mad at us breaking promises.

I think it sucks as well but that's why they do what they do.

pretty good at all, vids where funny to see too, but that with the decrewing of vehicles.. It actually happened pretty often that especially the germans used enemy armour. I would just say that its not completely random (if it is) but depends on the vehicle itself and the thing that is shooting at it. A bombing strike shouldnt leave anything behind. but if a small gun can take out the last bit of a tank then why not? that together with the side armour thing should encourage people engaging heavier tanks with lighter ones and makes it maybe planable to capture an enemy vehicle. Also it forces people to support their vehicles more by infantry. havent thought of it that much, just some initial ideas.

Actually it happened a lot to both sides. Many MANY panthers and Tigers were captured because they broke down or ran out of gas. The engine on a Panther (considered much more reliable than either Tiger) still only had an average life of 1000 km, and its final drive gear, made of steel much below the required standard, had an operational life of only 150km (93 miles).

The difference is that the allies, unlike Germany, were not desperate for any tank they could get their hands on, and were moving so fast in the summer of '44 that they weren't stopping to learn how to repair someone elses' new and overly complicated designs, particularly with their industrial infrastructure being an ocean away.

Relic pls read this post!! I love this game and hope it can get some real Esports attention...and posts like these are how this will happen!

Agree 100% with Luvnest on changes...especially on the reliance on call ins and underused commander abilitys...I play mostly Oshteer myself and to me the meta is so stale right now its sad. Grens Paks Tigers. GG.

I am wary of this...as I started playing from the alpha of COH2...and eventually stopped because I was bored with the meta....coming back this summer...Im finding a new meta...but still it is becoming a fixed go to metagame and I am feeling the same boredom creeping up.

Relic NEEDS to see this post!!

it is their m.o. when dealing with their customers. Say nothing until it's definitely complete, that way people can't get mad at us breaking promises.

I think it sucks as well but that's why they do what they do.

Really? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Calling it "maintenance" instead of a patch so that nobody will get mad makes people mad.

Really? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Calling it "maintenance" instead of a patch so that nobody will get mad makes people mad.

Dont get me wrong I think the policy is dumb and the silence causes nothing but frustration but Relic prefers to say nothing and deliver features when they are complete rather than acknowledging issues and giving their customers an insight into what's going on because if they fail to deliver then the backlash from the customers can be quite negative.

Better to say nothing so that you can never be held accountable for not delivering certain things since you never promised them

nvm

One thing I've noticed recently is that sometimes when I try to get behind green cover, the unit moves there but the green cover icon doesn't appear over the squad, even though according to the unit placement dots (for the lack of a better word) are all green and behind cover.

This might be either just the actual icon not working properly or in the worst case units actually are not getting the cover bonus properly on some spots. I've noticed this especially in the cemetery area on semoskiy where the stone wall seems to not give you any cover - at least when coming from the cemetery's side.

I have a feeling the green cover doesn't actually benefit you without the icon since my squad started taking a lot more damage when I moved it to another spot behind the wall. However I cannot verify this 100 %.

(BTW, needing skill in a Panther's use would also be historical, since inexperienced Panther crews took great losses in France in the summer of '44.)

Inexperienced crew allways took heavy losses regardless what nation they were from and wich vehicle they used.
Crew experience and leadership is what matters most. The armor of a vehicle is rather unimportant. For an experienced crew its gun > mobility > armor. For an inexperienced it doesn't matter an experienced crew will usually get the better of them anyways.

I certainly hope that is not their reasoning.

It would be a mistake to comment on "bugs" when the outcome is uncertain.

The engine on a Panther (considered much more reliable than either Tiger) still only had an average life of 1000 km, and its final drive gear, made of steel much below the required standard, had an operational life of only 150km (93 miles).

You do know that the Panther and both Tiger E and Tiger B used the SAME engine, don't you?

The engine itself didn't have a lifespan of 1000 km. The whole statement is actually meaningless. Tank engine lifespan is measured in hours of operation not travel distance. A tank or AFV is not a car! The engine of a tank is run in idle for most of the time with some partial load and a little full load. Most of the time the engine is running the vehicle isn't moving. The HL230 engine itself is reliable and a good design. Some seals and joints and gaskets needed to be serviced regular. This is not special for an AFV engine of the era. The major source of engine troubles was the low quality lubricant supplied to the German military.

The final drive problems of the Panther have nothing to do with steel qulity. The pinion was badly desiged. They used the wrong type of cogging and an overall simpler design. This was done in order to economise production.
For the simplified end drive to function properly high grade special purpose steel would have been needed. Wich would have canceled the simplification out because the problem was not solved but only moved elsewhere. So this was concidered not an option.
Even though the design team tried to intervene and prevent this mistake it was pushed trough by the military bureaucracy regardless. So the Panther suffered from the same problem as a lot modern AFV do. Incompetent paper pushers!

If you guys want to argue historical points about a tanks build quality please start quoting your sources.

If you guys want to argue historical points about a tanks build quality please start quoting your sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank

yes yes, it is Wikipedia, but there are a lot of sources in the bibliography.

Secondly, if you guys want to argue history and engineering, do it in another thread.

If you guys want to argue historical points about a tanks build quality please start quoting your sources.

Here is another good write up:

http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/chieftains-hatch-french-panthers/

And back to topic now please?

yes yes, it is Wikipedia, but there are a lot of sources in the bibliography.

Wich means it isn't a source by itself.

At best the notes and references give a hint of real sources. Wikipedia isn't a reliable secondary or tertiary source.
There are even differences in the Wikipedia articles on a topic in different language versions of the same article.
Neither is anything available for free on the internet... especially nothing that has "worldoftanks" in its URL. The Internet is at best a quick reference or reminder IF you know what you are looking for and have a good base knowledge of the topic.

Books written by Spielberger and/or Hilary L. Doyle are very good sources. Very detailed and technical though... so an engineering degree would be helpfull as well.

Uwe Feist, Bruce Culver and Thomas L. Jentz also wrote good books on the Panther tank.

Wikipedia quotes all of these authors as reference BUT without having read the books its impossible to tell if they quoted right and what the full context of the quote is. Its even possible that they just claim quotes to give credibility to stuff somebody made up. Without having read the primary or secondary source you will never know.

P.S.: Just in case it isn't clear I claim works of all of the above mentioned authors as sources... go to your bookshelf crossread them and tell the page where I got it wrong.

I agree with most points but not with the RNG part. Firstly, in my opinion, rng is what makes that game so interesting and fun to play, a game with no rng (like starcraft) is boring and there is nothing you have to react to. Here in coh2 you cannot do everything ideally because sometimes rng will screw your plan, then you have to REACT, and ADAPT the strategy. Reaction to unwanted events is the soil of the game, and tactics adaptation (not after watching buildings shadows in soviet base but as true reaction to things that happen on the field in your area of vision) is what makes some players better than the others. And I say: let it stay, don't make the game boring with build plans from the very beginning to ending of the game decided long before it.

That's one thing, mostly subjective stuff, now the objective part:
If you want the game to be more competitive you shouldn't decrease the probability of random events but increase it! Seems werid? Maybe, but it is true, you can prove it mathematicly. I don't want to make you sleep so I'll just try to explain that:
Imagine when abandon vehicle happens once on 10 000 vehicles you kill. What do you do? You ignore it. Still it can happen in SNF finals for example, and the better player loses the game, that is in fact unfair.
Now lets imagine that it happens once on every 2 vehicles you kill. No it's not mad. Then you would be prepared for it, it becomes a feature that every player can use to his own advantage. You just know that it can happen and wait a little longer with you TD to kill the wreck, what's more then it is more constant so it happens few times every match to both of the players: that is fair in fact.
The last possibility is that it happens once per for example 100 times that the vehicle is NOT abandoned. What then? Then you would be mad and you will be able to lose a game because the enemy distroyed the tank in first iteration with no ability to kill the wreck, and you thought that is should be abandoned as it usually is and wanted to take it back and repair it.

As you can see the closer the probability of event is to 1/2 the better it is for competitivness of the game and right now those probabilities are far from it, what is the real reason that makes you so upset about it. As an example the infantry gameplay is usually close to that: lots of iteration of high probability event(shot hits ot misses), that's why it actually feels quite constant and reliable (at least much more than abandoning vehicles)

Sadly i cannot write tldr as I can't explain it shorter, just read the post if you want to know what's in it.

Off topic referencing to Wiki.

As I see you posted only one minute after my warning, I know you could not have written your post that quickly, so I will not invis on this occasion.

Please however continue your discussion outside this thread, either by PM, or in the Scrap Yard

DoW2 used the same armour system with the front armour the front 75% or so. i'm sure coh used the same system.

as far as different reverse speeds go, is there a field in the files to easily allow that or would relic have to add something in? i think it's a good idea, and easier than adding additional armour boxes to all vehicles and a new table of values, but if there isn't already a field it's still a lot of work. at least it wouldn't require artist time.

As far as I know, vehicles have only one base speed. That speed effects forward, reverse, road speed, engine damage speed, and pivot turning.