Login

russian armor

Six Generals Heat vs One General Winter = unfair fight?

5 May 2013, 17:13 PM
#1
avatar of Haupt

Posts: 25

Fire Pit
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.
5 May 2013, 18:01 PM
#2
avatar of Purlictor

Posts: 393

This makes complete sense.
5 May 2013, 18:50 PM
#3
avatar of Haupt

Posts: 25

what I meant is that on the real Eastern Front, millions of Soldiers succumbed to General Winter, but in the entire Beta I lost maybe less than 10 Soldiers, including frost byte. So did they intentionally tone General Winter down for the Beta? He seems a bit UP. Will he unleash his full force when Coh2 goes Gold?
5 May 2013, 19:36 PM
#4
avatar of GeneralHell
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 1560 | Subs: 1

It's all about the scale.. :P On the real Eastern Front there were millions of soldiers suffering from the cold. In a game of COH2 you won't see much more then 50 soldiers at the same time. Ofcourse you won't lose that many soldiers to that cold. And I don't want cold tech to have more influence in the multiplayer. The blizzards are annoying enough to me. Maybe they can add some settings for custom games in which you can set how much cold tech you want, for those that just can't get enough of it :P
5 May 2013, 20:08 PM
#5
avatar of Basilone

Posts: 1944 | Subs: 2

What else do you want to produce cold, portable refrigerators?
5 May 2013, 20:45 PM
#6
avatar of Marcus2389
Developer Relic Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 4559 | Subs: 2

No, it will be definitely toned down more because in competitive games you can't even think that General Winter kills your last man of a vet 3 squad while retreating. I'll say more, they are going to add more heat sources like burning houses and burning destroyed vehicles, and you'll be able to build camp fires for free even during blizzards. If you want to experience the true General Winter don't worry, Single Player Campaign and Theaters of War are there for that reason and millions of your soldiers will die to that ;)

But the multiplayer is focused on gameplay and balance and General Winter's presence will be less important. :D
5 May 2013, 20:57 PM
#7
avatar of Spanky
Senior Strategist Badge

Posts: 1820 | Subs: 2

General Winter - sounds like a faction.
5 May 2013, 20:59 PM
#8
avatar of DanielD

Posts: 783 | Subs: 3

Good players will make sure they keep their units warm. If you have a vet 3 squad that is freezing you don't send it into combat. Once it became one of my habits in-game I found that keeping my squads warm was just another satisfying task to accomplish correctly.
5 May 2013, 21:50 PM
#9
avatar of TychoCelchuuu
Senior Caster Badge

Posts: 1620 | Subs: 2

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.
5 May 2013, 22:10 PM
#10
avatar of RagingJenni

Posts: 486

I hope that they'll remove soldiers freezing to death on retreat for the release. It makes realism sense, of course, but I have no resources to stake fires following retreat paths, and retreating or being driven off by your opponent is already punishment enough. (Losing time and possibly map control)
5 May 2013, 22:44 PM
#11
avatar of Twister
Honorary Member Badge
Patrion 39

Posts: 2072 | Subs: 1

Get used to keeping your units warm, that's all.
5 May 2013, 22:58 PM
#12
avatar of BartonPL

Posts: 2807 | Subs: 6

what about retreat button reducing suffered cold to units?

and maybe new upgrade in HQ or new building like Armory - Winter uniforms also reducing suffering colg for units?

6 May 2013, 04:58 AM
#13
avatar of DanielD

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.
6 May 2013, 05:47 AM
#14
avatar of TychoCelchuuu
Senior Caster Badge

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.
6 May 2013, 15:58 PM
#15
avatar of BeltFedWombat
Patrion 14

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.
6 May 2013, 20:55 PM
#16
avatar of kafrion

Posts: 371

TBH , i think that blizzards that are harsher with the exception of retreating men dying with adequate time between warning and starting , those six ways to counter and fixed duration will perhaps create more room for good players to shine
6 May 2013, 21:01 PM
#17
avatar of DanielD

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.
6 May 2013, 21:11 PM
#18
avatar of Multispec

Posts: 36

One change I would like added to blizzards is VP's freezing over, stopping the VP ticking for the duration (but still able to cap them of'c). Maybe shorten blizzards by 15% or make them an equal amount less frequent to not overly lengthen the game. or make them tick faster outside of blizzards.
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.
10 May 2013, 11:48 AM
#19
avatar of TZer0

Posts: 180

jump backJump back to quoted post5 May 2013, 20:57 PMSpanky
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.
12 May 2013, 21:56 PM
#20
avatar of DanielD

Posts: 783 | Subs: 3

LoS is more important for defending than attacking, since the attackers are the ones who have to leave cover, so blizzard dont' favor the defender.

Tycho was talking about mechanics that are player vs environment rather than player vs player. Anything that isn't unit on unit fighting qualifies.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

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

738 users are online: 738 guests
0 post in the last 24h
12 posts in the last week
24 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49852
Welcome our newest member, vn88company
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM