Six Generals Heat vs One General Winter = unfair fight?
Posts: 25
Generates heat in the cold weather, and stops nearby infantry from freezing. Can be destroyed, keep infantry close. Can't build in a blizzard.
House
Generates heat in the cold weather, and stops outside infantry from cold freezing. Can be destroyed, keep infantry in. Can't build in anything.
Vehicle
Generates heat in the cold weather, and stops not-in infantry from freezing. Can be destroyed, keep infantry in. Can build in a blizzard."
Burning object
Generates heat in the cold weather, and stops nearby infantry from freezing. Can be destroyed, keep infantry close. Can burn in a blizzard.
Cover
Generates heat in the cold weather, and stops nearby infantry from freezing. Can be destroyed, keep infantry close. Can build in a blizzard.
Your base
All your base generates heat in the cold weather, and stops nearby infantry from freezing. Can be destroyed, keep infantry close. Can build in a blizzard.
Posts: 393
Posts: 25
Posts: 1560 | Subs: 1
Posts: 1944 | Subs: 2
Posts: 4559 | Subs: 2
But the multiplayer is focused on gameplay and balance and General Winter's presence will be less important.
Posts: 1820 | Subs: 2
Posts: 783 | Subs: 3
Posts: 1620 | Subs: 2
Posts: 486
Posts: 2072 | Subs: 1
Posts: 2807 | Subs: 6
and maybe new upgrade in HQ or new building like Armory - Winter uniforms also reducing suffering colg for units?
Posts: 783 | Subs: 3
OP has convinced me, instead of being a normal RTS game with Ostheer vs Soviets, the game should be all about making sure your soldiers don't freeze. Set up supply chains, manage timings of offensives, set aside time and resources for encampments... CoH 2 will be much more fun this way and they can also get rid of the tedious matchmaking system because it will just all be single player vs. General Winter. In fact if Relic doesn't do this then CoH 2 will be ruined and I won't preorder.
Sometimes sarcasm is funny and sometimes its just passive-aggressiveness in place of reasonable debate.
Posts: 1620 | Subs: 2
Sometimes sarcasm is funny and sometimes its just passive-aggressiveness in place of reasonable debate.
There's no "reasonable debate" to be had here, pretty much everyone agrees that if anything needs to change about the cold mechanic, it needs to get less intrusive, rather than more. The only people who enjoy watching their troops freeze to death are people with names like "xxFeldmarschallRommelTheDesertFoxxx" and "Haupt" and so on who want to pretend to be German generals. They can go play single player or compstomp on whatever the CoH 2 version of The Scheldt is and pleasure themselves while massive barrages of artillery destroy ice and men freeze to death by the dozens. For the rest of us that want a legitimate RTS game where the challenge is your opponent, not the lack of campfires, cold tech is kind of annoying.
Posts: 951
The only people who enjoy watching their troops freeze to death are people with names like "xxFeldmarschallRommelTheDesertFoxxx" and "Haupt" and so on who want to pretend to be German generals. They can go play single player or compstomp on whatever the CoH 2 version of The Scheldt is and pleasure themselves while massive barrages of artillery destroy ice and men freeze to death by the dozens. For the rest of us that want a legitimate RTS game where the challenge is your opponent, not the lack of campfires, cold tech is kind of annoying.
Harsh but true.
Posts: 371
Posts: 783 | Subs: 3
There's no "reasonable debate" to be had here, pretty much everyone agrees that if anything needs to change about the cold mechanic, it needs to get less intrusive, rather than more. The only people who enjoy watching their troops freeze to death are people with names like "xxFeldmarschallRommelTheDesertFoxxx" and "Haupt" and so on who want to pretend to be German generals. They can go play single player or compstomp on whatever the CoH 2 version of The Scheldt is and pleasure themselves while massive barrages of artillery destroy ice and men freeze to death by the dozens. For the rest of us that want a legitimate RTS game where the challenge is your opponent, not the lack of campfires, cold tech is kind of annoying.
Campfires are destructible, so creating one then creates a target for your opponent. Building them is a tactical/strategic decision. So is deciding when it's worth risking a squad potentially freezing to accomplish an objective.
To carry your argument to its logical conclusion, we should get rid of the resource sectors because we want the challenge to be our opponents, not a random circle on the ground somewhere.
Except that a feature like territory sectors allows for more decision making, which adds depth. Cold Tech also does that. If you don't like how it adds depth, that's fine, but there's no need to make generalizations about people and their preferences, especially when its rude and inaccurate.
Posts: 36
However I think blizzards make a fine addition, adds some extra micro but not too much.
You are perfectly able to make some fine infantry assaults in blizzards, especially with some planning and use of cover.
But what do I know, I'm just a filthy casual.
Posts: 180
General Winter - sounds like a faction.
Meanwhile in Advance Wars...
Campfires are destructible, so creating one then creates a target for your opponent. Building them is a tactical/strategic decision. So is deciding when it's worth risking a squad potentially freezing to accomplish an objective.
To carry your argument to its logical conclusion, we should get rid of the resource sectors because we want the challenge to be our opponents, not a random circle on the ground somewhere.
Except that a feature like territory sectors allows for more decision making, which adds depth. Cold Tech also does that. If you don't like how it adds depth, that's fine, but there's no need to make generalizations about people and their preferences, especially when its rude and inaccurate.
I still can't see how his argument can be extended in this way. Your troops won't die from not having captured a point (not directly at least), but they will most certainly die in a blizzard if there's no source of heat nearby.
The other issue is the fact that the blizzards most often favor the player who currently controls more sectors. It is much harder to capture territory during a blizzard than it is to defend them and having certain maps where the one who is currently winning gets this advantage and other maps where he doesn't is strange.
The mechanic makes being the one who holds certain areas when reaching an arbitrary (<- this word is the biggest problem) point in time is an additional advantage and this isn't good.
Posts: 783 | Subs: 3
Tycho was talking about mechanics that are player vs environment rather than player vs player. Anything that isn't unit on unit fighting qualifies.
Livestreams
167 | |||||
5 | |||||
5 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.614220.736+8
- 3.35057.860+15
- 4.1110614.644+11
- 5.276108.719+27
- 6.306114.729+2
- 7.918405.694+2
- 8.262137.657+3
- 9.722440.621+4
- 10.1041674.607-2
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
5 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, Babystoreuk
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM