Blizzards don't add strategic depth

Because then there would be a legitimate reason to move around even when frozen instead of just hunkering down in cover or finding a heat source, and players would face interesting strategic tradeoffs (do I use my cold unit to fight, when it will be less effective, or do I warm it up? do I spend the extra micro to keep people warm, or is that attention better spent elsewhere? do I bother rebuilding destroyed fires to warm up, or just accept that in a blizzard my units will freeze? do I focus fire the frozen enemy unit that I want to kill more, even though because it's frozen it's not doing as much damage in this specific fight?) instead of what they currently face (well, my unit's freezing, better retreat it or get it to cover because basically no other option is viable).

Exactly.

Also, as it stands now, not only is retreat not as effective a mechanism as it was in vCoH (defensive bonuses being weaker this time), but they can still freeze to death on the run back. Realism aside, which I don't care about, its excessive punishment for players: both hardened veterans and noobs alike. If they don't remove the "freezing death on retreat", then a lot is left up to a coin toss: pathfinding, map design, travel time, dynamic obstacles (tanks and deployed crews blocking the path), etc. Its just not intuitive.

With all due respect, I didn't ask you.

It was a valid answer. I don't think freezing to death should be entirely removed, but it shouldn't happen in about 30-45 seconds so that those actual tactical decisions Tycho mentioned come in to play.

With all due respect, I didn't ask you.

With all due respect, treating these forums like a debate arena where you score points against CombatMuffin by asking him questions that you think he can't answer, instead of treating these forums like a place to discuss the nuances of Company of Heroes 2, is childish and unproductive.

If I or anyone else has an idea about the strategic depth of blizzards then CombatMuffin is free to agree or disagree with us, and if I respond on CombatMuffin's behalf with a perfectly good answer about blizzards then instead of getting snippy with me because you wanted to win some sort of Internet fight and show everyone how huge your e-penis is, maybe you should either respond to my specific points or shut up and leave the conversation to the people who want to talk about the game rather than insult each other.

There are a number of interesting things I can imagine blizzards adding to the game - right now they add almost none of those. I enjoy the reduced sight range (I think - I haven't had much time to play CoH 2 of course) but the whole "freezing = units dying" thing just doesn't work as it's currently implemented.

It was a valid answer. I don't think freezing to death should be entirely removed, but it shouldn't happen in about 30-45 seconds so that those actual tactical decisions Tycho mentioned come in to play.

I agree that Freezing to death doesn't have to be removed, but its still a viable option right now. Either way, we can all agree it needs tweaking, and that it is far from a priority right now.

With all due respect, I didn't ask you.

Its a forum. Anyone can answer if they think they have something to contribute. If someone wants a specific answer from a specific person, there's PM's to do that.

I want to reply to this thread again but I feel like my time would almost be better served just reposting what I wrote earlier. It's fine to discuss ways to improve blizzards, but for the love of god stop saying it doesn't add anything.

Making it so units don't die when freezing removes depth, since it's easier to make a decision about keeping a unit around when there isn't a serious risk of losing the squad.

It's actually harder to make the decision, I think, because given the seriousness of freezing to death it's almost always a better option to keep them from freezing to death than it is to let them freeze but still have them do whatever it is you want them to do. And like Basilone pointed out in the OP, the bigger issue is that the penalty for freezing is so big that it always makes sense to pay the micro tax to keep people from freezing. This means there's never much of a tradeoff in terms of "do I let my men get to the 'freeze to death' stage" except for players with bad APM or during really frantic times. It would be much more interesting if you had to make the "do I let them freeze" choice constantly instead of saying "well dying sucks so I'd better not let anyone freeze."

With all due respect, treating these forums like a debate arena where you score points against CombatMuffin by asking him questions that you think he can't answer, instead of treating these forums like a place to discuss the nuances of Company of Heroes 2, is childish and unproductive.

...I nstead of getting snippy with me because you wanted to win some sort of Internet fight and show everyone how huge your e-penis is, maybe you should either respond to my specific points or shut up and leave the conversation to the people who want to talk about the game rather than insult each other.

There is no respect in this post, at all. Only insults and false implications.

I have not insulted anyone, least of all Combatmuffin, or perhaps you can indicate exactly where I have said anything even remotely insulting?

Where on earth did you draw the false implication that "i think combamuffin cant answer"?

My post was specifically addressed to someone. That means I am specificaloy addressing my question to that individual to ask their personal explanation for something they have said, not for a general answer from anyone. Of course, everyone is free to respond to the topic on hand universally, but it was clear from my post addressal that I was asking Fombat specifically for his personal elaboration on his view expressed in his previous post, not to someone else to "answer on his behalf".

So far you are the only one here to have been insulting, and that also in an implicit, unneccessary and overt manner.

@Combatmuffin

Thanks for your elaboration. I agree models dying of cold on retreat is counter-intuitive to the retreat function.
As to models dying of cold onfield while not retreating, I think it serves to stress the effects of cold tech on play. If it caused only combat/speed modifiers, it would not as severly cause players to account for warmth, which imo should always be a standing priority during blizzards.

Infantry currently risk/afford to move roughly one sector during blizzards. This period extended if there is a building or firepit in the sector they are moving to, without significant cold effects. A player can risk the move to capture/act in an adjacent sector also by moving into cover, at which point they will certqinly get cold impaired but not likelylose a model.

Clowncars for Sov and HTs extend this area of operation during blizzards, and form a significant strategic alternative for remaining infantry active during blizzards, granting a significant duration of advantage if your opponent is not likewise continuing aggression during blizzards with infantry support vehicles.

If it caused only combat/speed modifiers, it would not as severly cause players to account for warmth, which imo should always be a standing priority during blizzards.

CoH is made of subtle effects, and strong effects. Strong effects are things even the most casual newbie will notice: tanks don't get hurt by small arms fire. Minesweepers instantly nullify mines. Grenades kill soldiers real quick, etc. Most RTS games have strong effects only.

Then there's also subtle effects, which are what sets CoH apart from most other RTS. Subtle effects such as building windows affecting firepower. Cooldown ratings and rate of fire on weapons. Accuracy on the move.Received accuracy and supression modifiers. Even cover is a subtle effect: a newbie doesn't really understand just how much impact cover plays, and this is noticeable when you watch them play MP for the first times, even after finishing the campaign, they rarely use proper cover.

Deaths by freezing, as of now, are a strong effect, and that's fine from a storytelling point of view, but not necessarily from a gameplay one. The environment is always something you have to negotiate, but unless Relic tones down the rate at which units die from exposure to cold, I think players will feel heavily punished. A player should only be punished by decisions he or his opponents made.

So I still stand by whats been said before, so here's several alternatives:
a)Increase heat sources
b)Increase time it takes for units to freeze
c)Remove Death from Cold altogether, leaving only harsh penalties
d)Remove Death from Cold, except during Blizzards.

My post was specifically addressed to someone. That means I am specificaloy addressing my question to that individual to ask their personal explanation for something they have said, not for a general answer from anyone. Of course, everyone is free to respond to the topic on hand universally, but it was clear from my post addressal that I was asking Fombat specifically for his personal elaboration on his view expressed in his previous post, not to someone else to "answer on his behalf".

So far you are the only one here to have been insulting, and that also in an implicit, unneccessary and overt manner.

So you want to disregard a legitimate post because you were hoping somebody else would look bad when he did/didn't answer? If that is the case, then Tycho is right.

So you want to disregard a legitimate post because you were hoping somebody else would look bad when he did/didn't answer? If that is the case, then Tycho is right.

Where on earth are you inferring that I wanted Combatmuffin to "look bad", in anyway shape or form, from?

I asked Combatmuffin to elaborate on the reasons behind his conclusion, because they where not yet included in the post he remarked his conclusion in. Nothing more, nothing less. He has so done now, which for I have thanked him, responded in kind with my own rationale and conclusion, and neither of us bears any ill will towards the other (atleast from my perspective).

Why are you disregarding the direct overt insults levelled at me by Tycho?

I have not said anything even remotely insulting in any of my posts, yet look at all the personal insults and false implications he levels at me,.

I have not disregarded the contents of his on-topic post, merely pointed out that I asked Combatmuffin for HIS elaboration. Tychos insult post, however, should not be disregarded by anyone, because its full of disrespectful, insulting and altogether unbecoming conduct towards another poster who has not insulted anyone, nor given grounds f8r the false implications raised therein, such as this accusation that somehow I wanted Combatmuffin to "look bad", which makes no sense nor was even remotely my intention in asking him simply "why?" he came to the conclusion he posted.

It's actually harder to make the decision, I think, because given the seriousness of freezing to death it's almost always a better option to keep them from freezing to death than it is to let them freeze but still have them do whatever it is you want them to do. And like Basilone pointed out in the OP, the bigger issue is that the penalty for freezing is so big that it always makes sense to pay the micro tax to keep people from freezing. This means there's never much of a tradeoff in terms of "do I let my men get to the 'freeze to death' stage" except for players with bad APM or during really frantic times. It would be much more interesting if you had to make the "do I let them freeze" choice constantly instead of saying "well dying sucks so I'd better not let anyone freeze."

That's a really good point, I might have to change my mind about the freezing mechanic. The reason I'm not convinced is because I don't see heat management as a micro tax as much as I see it as decision making: do I take the shortest route to my objective or do I warm my troops up along the way? But making freezing simply a negative modifier to damage/acc/speed might allow for more interesting decisions...



PS someone who is aggressively sarcastic all the time has no place telling someone else that they need to be nicer and discuss the game politely.

That's a really good point, I might have to change my mind about the freezing mechanic. The reason I'm not convinced is because I don't see heat management as a micro tax as much as I see it as decision making: do I take the shortest route to my objective or do I warm my troops up along the way? But making freezing simply a negative modifier to damage/acc/speed might allow for more interesting decisions...

There's no decision making in the example you suggest: the answer is "if they can accomplish their objective without freezing to death, take the shorter route, otherwise warm up along the way" because there is practically no time when it's worth it to let a squad freeze to death just to get somewhere faster. The maps are not big enough or cold enough for them to freeze to death en route to a place with something to warm them up, and there is almost never anything important enough to be worth letting them freeze to death once they get there + on the retreat.

Or, to put it another way: either the destination has a source of warmth (or it has cover they can get to before they hit the "die from freezing" stage) or it doesn't. If the destination has a source of warmth, then you take the fastest route, because the destination is never going to be so far away that anyone will die en route from cold. If the destination doesn't have a source of warmth, then you ask yourself "can they make it there and back without freezing to death?" If the answer is yes, you take the fastest route. If the answer is no, you pretty much always warm up along the way, because there's almost never a time when it's worth losing most of a squad to cold to accomplish something. They won't win any fights, and the manpower cost you pay is only worth it to desperately cap a VP or something to keep from losing.

So there aren't any interesting choices or tradeoffs except in the edge case where a VP is on the line as a game ending thing. Change cold so that it doesn't kill, or so that it's much harder for units to die, and now it will be worth it to risk freezing in a lot of cases, because the tradeoff will make more sense. This is a more interesting strategic decision because it doesn't have obvious right answers all the time.

If Blizzards do one thing its add significant amounts of time to games. More so 3v3 and 4v4 games which in my experience seem to stalemate more frequently. There wasnt a blizzard every battle on the eastern front. I hope there is an option in the future to disable blizzards at ones choosing.

@Tycho

Transport capable vehicles allow movement of troops during blizzards.

The choice whether you can move your troops to an adjacent sector during a blizzard is a strategic one in terms of what you want to achieve at what risk during the restricted movement phase under a blizzard, and a tactical choice in terms of how you will maintain warmth throught the maneuver.

As I stated earlier:
-A unit can oftentimes move to an adjacemt sector without model attrition or modifiers if there is a fire pit, a building or a vehicle to support the deployment in that sector.
-A unit can oftentimes move to an adjacent sector and survive without attrition, but with cold modifiers applied, if it moves into cover in that sector.
-A transport enables unrestricted infantry mobility during blizzards, enabling a player to continue his actions regardless of the blizzard, which is likewise impairing his opponents deployments. Meaning he can continue action under the cover of the blizzard without halting for the duration of it
There is therefore, categorically, both a strategic and tactical onus centrally involving warmth.

The choices you outline are, ironically, exactly what refute your own argument.
It is exactly those choices that involve into blizzards significant strategic and tactical choices.

There is absolutely no reason to force retreat your infantry during a blizzard to "avoid deaths", as you said. There is,however, a central consideration of warmth to consider.

If you use your brain and the map to your advantage, there is no reason to retreat.
Units can survive blizzards without impairment or attrition if near fires, in buildings, or have a transport available.
Units can survive blizzards without attrition, but with modifiers, if only cover is available.
Only players that are stupid enough to leave/deploy their nfantry without either of the above will suffer both modifiers, and more failingly, attrition.

The means to counteract cold are diverse, readily available and plenty.
There is no sensible reason to lose even q single model to cold, unless you are prepared to take that loss for some more crucial strategic advantage.

-A unit can oftentimes move to an adjacemt sector without model attrition or modifiers if there is a fire pit, a building or a vehicle to support the deployment in that sector.
-A unit can oftentimes move to an adjacent sector and survive without attrition, but with cold modifiers applied, if it moves into cover in that sector.
-A transport enables unrestricted infantry mobility during blizzards, enabling a player to continue his actions regardless of the blizzard, which is likewise impairing his opponents deployments. Meaning he can continue action under the cover of the blizzard without halting for the duration of it
There is therefore, categorically, both a strategic and tactical onus centrally involving warmth.

Yes, you can use transport vehicles to bypass the decision procedure I outlined in my post, and that does add another layer, but of course you wouldn't lose that layer if you took out death from cold, and you would add more decision making to the process because transports wouldn't be the binary "do I need them to avoid death or not" choice that they are now. They would be a scalar "how much added benefit will I get from utilizing a transport." This is a much harder decision to make, players will split on it more often and at more varied intervals than they will on the "do I use the transport to keep my squad from dying," and I think it would play out better. Changing things form "these are the clear, obvious choices if you want to do X" to "well, you could do this or that, and there are tradeoffs either way" is more interesting. Removing death from cold would move us from the first situation to the second.

There is absolutely no reason to force retreat your infantry during a blizzard to "avoid deaths", as you said. There is,however, a central consideration of warmth to consider.

If you use your brain and the map to your advantage, there is no reason to retreat.
Units can survive blizzards without impairment or attrition if near fires, in buildings, or have a transport available.
Units can survive blizzards without attrition, but with modifiers, if only cover is available.
Only players that are stupid enough to leave/deploy their nfantry without either of the above will suffer both modifiers, and more failingly, attrition.

I talked about this in my post. Either there are sources of warmth available to allow your infantry to accomplish the objective without freezing or there aren't.

The means to counteract cold are diverse, readily available and plenty.
There is no sensible reason to lose even q single model to cold, unless you are prepared to take that loss for some more crucial strategic advantage.

I fully agree. You never have to lose someone to cold if you don't want to. And in fact it's a very easy choice to make. It's almost never worth it to lose someone to the cold. It would be much more interesting if instead of saying "well duh obviously I don't want my squad to die," players could choose instead to allow squads to freeze in certain situations. But freezing is so bad right now that almost nobody is ever going to let it happen, and it functions just as needless micro, because as you point out, there are many ways to avoid cold short of retreating, they just take a bit of micro.

Let me put it like this: dying from blizzards reduces the amount of interesting decisions that blizzards force players to make. Dying is so bad that it's almost never going to be worth it to let a squad freeze to death. Dying is also so bad that right now the game has to make sure there are tons of ways to keep from freezing, fairly easily, as long as you pay the pointless micro tax.

This is not good. Forcing interesting decisions makes the game good. Right now, freezing forces the following decision: "do I want to let my units get cold enough to start dying?" The answer to that decision is almost always no, which means it's not an interesting decision. If cold was changed so that freezing didn't kill, the decision that freezing forces would be different, and the answer wouldn't have to be so obvious. It might make more sense to avoid paying the warm up micro tax, or it might make more sense to forgo transports, or it might make more sense not to bother making campfires or to destroy campfires that would otherwise warm you while capping behind enemy lines, or it might make more sense to keep a squad maneuvering instead of parking it in cover, and so on.

Blizzard is a half speed button - that's it.

Changing things form "these are the clear, obvious choices if you want to do X" to "well, you could do this or that, and there are tradeoffs either way" is more interesting. Removing death from cold would move us from the first situation to the second.

Removing dying from cold would remove the necessity to DEAL with cold, which is exactly what you have to make decisions regarding tradeoffs, in light of.

Removing death from cold would exactly change the situatioin into the first "no brainer/easymode option, whereas the current situation is the latter, in your quote above, as it forces you to explore warmth options and tradeoffs.

You have this completely backward. Its the exact opposite.

If there is no death from cold, then you dont have to make any decisions regarding freezing, because they wont die anyways.

there are many ways to avoid cold short of retreating, they just take a bit of micro.

Then use them and you wont have a problem with models dying.

You seem to constantly contradict your point, and defeat your own arguments.

Dying from freezing forces you to make interesting decisions regarding cold.

The more Im reading from you, the more i am convinced you have not been microing your units properly in anticipation of and during blizzards. Especially at the beginning of the match there is no excuse to have any of your models even suffering significant cold modifiers, let alone dying. Buildings are plentiful, fires are common, cover exists qbsolutely everywhere. Utilise them and transports to maintain mobility and infantry field worthiness during the duration of blizzards.

I completely disagree. Dying from Cold is not the only way to force players into decision making.

If cold penalties are harsh enough to weaken your combat capabilities, severely, then that will be incentive enough, simply because you will lose any engagements with the enemy, because of the cold. That is incentive enough.