Replacement of Trenches for OST
4 Jun 2015, 02:20 AM
#1
Posts: 95
I would really like to see trenches removed and replaced with constructable green cover in the doctrines that have this ability. I think it would add a good deal more strategic depth to the commanders that contain this ability as opposed to a campy molotov trap. Anyone else feel that this change could bring about a different play style or whether its an idiotic idea all together?
4 Jun 2015, 02:58 AM
#2
8 
Posts: 2470
i have two issues with trenches.
one, they're huge which makes them hard to place and fucks up the pathing on everything else.
two, they're super weak, tiny buildings and so have all the associated issues like being able to spawn falls (lol), dieing fast, and being a massive AoE trap.
i don't really want to see them removed but they're also not very good as they are now and sandbags are really useful for things other than cover (like path blocking).
one, they're huge which makes them hard to place and fucks up the pathing on everything else.
two, they're super weak, tiny buildings and so have all the associated issues like being able to spawn falls (lol), dieing fast, and being a massive AoE trap.
i don't really want to see them removed but they're also not very good as they are now and sandbags are really useful for things other than cover (like path blocking).
4 Jun 2015, 06:42 AM
#3
Posts: 484
I was surprised that the new trenches were so different to the ones in CoH1. Not least because vehicles could drive over them, so they didn't choke an area up.
Was there much unhappiness with the CoH1 trenches?
Was there much unhappiness with the CoH1 trenches?
“Disobedience, in the eyes of any one who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion.”
― Oscar Wilde
― Oscar Wilde
4 Jun 2015, 06:47 AM
#4
Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1
I don't want them removed. I just want them to mean something. Virtualy, placing your squad in a trench it's rather a bad idea because you will be super exposed to grenades, flames, etc not having a powerfull bonus to compensate for. They don't need replacement, they need re-thinking.
Maybe units inside gain a consistent accuracy bonus at far, health bonus, ROF bonus, anything will make you consider this option not ignore it as for now.
Maybe units inside gain a consistent accuracy bonus at far, health bonus, ROF bonus, anything will make you consider this option not ignore it as for now.
BeefSurge wrote:
A lot of people have an image of how they want a faction to play, leading to problems. This is why you have people complaining about lack of Soviet bunkers, why T34/76 sucks, why Cons don't scale, Grens don't get normal grenades, Muricans don't get heavy tank, OKW laser weapons and Die Glock Death Bell, etc.
A lot of people have an image of how they want a faction to play, leading to problems. This is why you have people complaining about lack of Soviet bunkers, why T34/76 sucks, why Cons don't scale, Grens don't get normal grenades, Muricans don't get heavy tank, OKW laser weapons and Die Glock Death Bell, etc.
4 Jun 2015, 07:56 AM
#5
Posts: 138
How about instead of making the trench a garrison, turning it into the same type of trenches that are found in some maps, (like the ones on rails and metal, that are on the north cp and south fuel point) these however would allow vehicles to move over them to prevent players from blocking sides of map with them
Right now they are pretty useless due to all the counters, flamers, nades or mortars both ally factions can get any of these, some trough doctrines (like US mortar halftrack with white phosphorus)
Would also like it if this type of trench building came with ambush camouflage on the same doctrine
Right now they are pretty useless due to all the counters, flamers, nades or mortars both ally factions can get any of these, some trough doctrines (like US mortar halftrack with white phosphorus)
Would also like it if this type of trench building came with ambush camouflage on the same doctrine
4 Jun 2015, 10:30 AM
#6
Posts: 1605 | Subs: 1
IMO:
1) shouldn't block vehicles passage
2) should give some protection against explosions
3) should be extremely vulnerable to flamers
4) shouldn't give any bonuses except non-directional green cover because it costs 0 to construct
1) shouldn't block vehicles passage
2) should give some protection against explosions
3) should be extremely vulnerable to flamers
4) shouldn't give any bonuses except non-directional green cover because it costs 0 to construct
4 Jun 2015, 11:22 AM
#7
Posts: 1217
I was surprised that the new trenches were so different to the ones in CoH1. Not least because vehicles could drive over them, so they didn't choke an area up.Coh1 trenches were quite annoying. You needed a Sniper or flamer to get rid of them. Grenades also did the job but were available in T2 only. The trenches were buildable right away though. Snipers always proofed risky, flamers were available after some minutes. This left you with literally one unit on the field (a flamer pio) that could fight a trench in the first 5 minutes.
Was there much unhappiness with the CoH1 trenches?
I´m kind of glad they moved away from borderline OP trenches.
Though I have to admit that the current trenches seem useless.
4 Jun 2015, 11:37 AM
#8
Posts: 2272 | Subs: 1
I was surprised that the new trenches were so different to the ones in CoH1. Not least because vehicles could drive over them, so they didn't choke an area up.
Was there much unhappiness with the CoH1 trenches?
They were a plague
4 Jun 2015, 11:47 AM
#9
Posts: 484
Sure, encountered that myself; once had the Brits pin me on Scheldt with a trench across the causeway; a little while later it was changed so that the recon squad couldn't make trenches, probably for that very reason.
And while it would seem a bit odd to put trenches behind a CP, it might also be solved by increasing the build time. That would make it risky to use early, because of the loss of capping time etc, but it could easily be used mid-game by pios etc. that otherwise might not have anything of consequence to do.
As for the 0 cost, I think that's OK because it can be garrisoned by the enemy and turned against you.
The current trenches seem both rather ineffectual and quite fragile.
And while it would seem a bit odd to put trenches behind a CP, it might also be solved by increasing the build time. That would make it risky to use early, because of the loss of capping time etc, but it could easily be used mid-game by pios etc. that otherwise might not have anything of consequence to do.
As for the 0 cost, I think that's OK because it can be garrisoned by the enemy and turned against you.
The current trenches seem both rather ineffectual and quite fragile.
“Disobedience, in the eyes of any one who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion.”
― Oscar Wilde
― Oscar Wilde
4 Jun 2015, 12:22 PM
#10
Posts: 476
Replace them with CP0 sandbags
4 Jun 2015, 12:59 PM
#11
Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1
Them being replaced with Sandbags that are as durable as conscript sandbags would be nice. No idea what Relic was thinking when they made USF and OKW sandbags so fragile comparatively.
I would also be happy with them being made to cost manpower (Don't ask me were I got this idea), in exchange for them becoming much better in performance. That way they are actually useful but are not able to be spammed.
I would also be happy with them being made to cost manpower (Don't ask me were I got this idea), in exchange for them becoming much better in performance. That way they are actually useful but are not able to be spammed.
4 Jun 2015, 14:10 PM
#12
![avatar of 1[][]](/uploads/avatar/9394.png?updated=1397144681)
Posts: 172
Was there much unhappiness with the CoH1 trenches?
So much you wouldn't believe it. Brits were the hated faction for a long long time. PE didn't even come close.
4 Jun 2015, 14:20 PM
#13
Posts: 2742
So much so it's hard to tell if the trenches were the problem or if it was the association with the British that made them such a problem.
Ain't no trenches without brits.
Ain't no trenches without brits.
Strategic Territory Points Mod:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=604491510
Classic resource points!
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=604491510
Classic resource points!
4 Jun 2015, 17:37 PM
#14
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
I don't want them removed. I just want them to mean something. Virtualy, placing your squad in a trench it's rather a bad idea because you will be super exposed to grenades, flames, etc not having a powerfull bonus to compensate for. They don't need replacement, they need re-thinking.
Maybe units inside gain a consistent accuracy bonus at far, health bonus, ROF bonus, anything will make you consider this option not ignore it as for now.
Heavy suppression:0.1
Heavy penetration:1.0
Heavy accuracy:0.5
Heavy damage:0.5
Trench suppression:0.0
Trench penetration:1.0
Trench accuracy:0.2
Trench damage:0.3
My controls weren't working
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
4 Jun 2015, 17:46 PM
#15
Posts: 1304 | Subs: 13
Trench suppression:0.0
Trench penetration:1.0
Trench accuracy:0.2
Trench damage:0.3
The main reason the bonuses don't help is because the trench itself explodes so easily and it generally arrives when the AT hits the field. Maybe it would help if its target size wasn't so large so all heavy weapons don't home onto it.
4 Jun 2015, 19:50 PM
#16
Posts: 1484
I always thought the net at the top would stop a grenade or Molotov.
 |
Playercard of WingZero |
|||||||||||||||
|
4 Jun 2015, 20:38 PM
#17
Posts: 67
How about instead of making the trench a garrison, turning it into the same type of trenches that are found in some maps, (like the ones on rails and metal, that are on the north cp and south fuel point) these however would allow vehicles to move over them to prevent players from blocking sides of map with them
Right now they are pretty useless due to all the counters, flamers, nades or mortars both ally factions can get any of these, some trough doctrines (like US mortar halftrack with white phosphorus)
Would also like it if this type of trench building came with ambush camouflage on the same doctrine
I like this idea the best so far. At least your units wouldn't be force to be static inside like they are in garrisons.
5 Jun 2015, 00:19 AM
#18
Posts: 2779
Ost and OKW trench are useless, making it worse than not using them.
On the other hand, Brit, well,
On the other hand, Brit, well,
5 Jun 2015, 00:23 AM
#19
Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1
Permanently BannedI love how AT guns will snipe the dirt mount and blow it up, absolutely retarded LOL.
1337 h4X0R, dank memes
axis
5 Jun 2015, 01:53 AM
#20
Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1
I love how AT guns will snipe the dirt mount and blow it up, absolutely retarded LOL.
If you can collapse a dirt mount, you can collapse a tank.
*Much ammo is then wasted*
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
SHOUT IT OUT!
Willy Pete: @Rosbone not dead yet. when that happens the font will switch to Papyrus 
Today, 00:16 AM
Today, 00:16 AM
aerafield: yeah I already prepared my "Can't believe there's comic mode for the 10 daily visitors even on this April 1st" 
Yesterday, 20:29 PM
Yesterday, 20:29 PM
Lady Xenarra: Does anyone else think that USF needs buffs? It feels like they’re on life support sometimes
Yesterday, 02:36 AM
Yesterday, 02:36 AM
Willy Pete: @Rosbone Ahh I missed that memo. I still think its a bad decision though. Adds frustration for players and isnt gonna make them that much money
Last Thursday, 15:46 PM
Last Thursday, 15:46 PM
Rosbone: It is also good they left it free until after the free to play weekend. Points for that.
Last Thursday, 09:34 AM
Last Thursday, 09:34 AM
Rosbone: But I agree, the cost to get a full decent Coh game pushing $115 US is not the best idea. Especially when it needs so much more work for casuals.
Last Thursday, 09:32 AM
Last Thursday, 09:32 AM
Rosbone: To be fair, it was a thank you to early fans right? They said it was not free for long and it would become a pay DLC at some point.
Last Thursday, 09:30 AM
Last Thursday, 09:30 AM
Willy Pete: Re-releasing free DLC so they can charge new players money for it. Brilliant marketing strategy 
Last Thursday, 04:31 AM
Last Thursday, 04:31 AM
Rosbone: Congrats to Relic. Looks like Coh3 has finally usurped Coh2 s the popular Coh. You smell terrific. 
.
24 Mar 2025, 02:46 AM
.24 Mar 2025, 02:46 AM
Nickbn: and again someone else replies. I mean come on guys. Give @adamírcz a chance
22 Mar 2025, 14:00 PM
22 Mar 2025, 14:00 PM
Nickbn: @Rosbone it's incredibly rude to speak on someone elses behalf, especially when a question is directly adressed to them. I understand your passion for the subject at hand but I want to hear from him.
20 Mar 2025, 10:16 AM
20 Mar 2025, 10:16 AM
Rosbone: @Nickbn No, I am just saying people should not be using any Relic owned forum since they have proven they ban anyone who says true things about Coh3.
18 Mar 2025, 19:01 PM
18 Mar 2025, 19:01 PM
Nickbn: @Rosbone do you speak on his behalf? I didn't know. In that case keep us updated please.
18 Mar 2025, 16:47 PM
18 Mar 2025, 16:47 PM
Livestreams
 |
|
|
141 | ||
 |
|
|
28 | ||
 |
|
|
1 | ||
|
|
|
|
124 | ||
|
|
|
|
19 | ||
|
|
|
|
14 | ||
 |
|
|
6 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.43163.872+9
- 2.57580.878+14
- 3.800454.638-1
- 4.313114.733+9
- 5.12744.743+1
- 6.194101.658-1
- 7.282161.637+1
- 8.371284.566-1
- 9.17773.708+3
- 10.14059.704+7
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
14
Download
1354
Board Info
208 users are online:
208 guests
1 post in the last 24h
12 posts in the last week
79 posts in the last month
12 posts in the last week
79 posts in the last month
Registered members: 53177
Welcome our newest member, Nessl541
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, Nessl541
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM