Login

russian armor

The main problem in coh2 for me

9 Aug 2015, 09:43 AM
#21
avatar of afrrs

Posts: 3787

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Aug 2015, 06:06 AMhubewa


I think you have to give a better description of it. I get that English isn't your first language and I can live with it.

Because atm, platformer games like Mario, Pokemon and Sonic fit in your description (And yes, those make a lot of money, even today).



+1

Seriouly tho, CoH2 could really do with a Karma system.


you are talking about console games , pal , im talking about pc market .
9 Aug 2015, 10:27 AM
#22
avatar of Swift

Posts: 2723 | Subs: 1

You're confusing me; is your point about manpower that there is too much and therefore the game has lots of killing, or that because the game has lots of killing due to manpower excess it sells more units like shooters.
9 Aug 2015, 10:50 AM
#23
avatar of afrrs

Posts: 3787

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Aug 2015, 10:27 AMSwift
You're confusing me; is your point about manpower that there is too much and therefore the game has lots of killing, or that because the game has lots of killing due to manpower excess it sells more units like shooters.
yes just to this : " is your point about manpower that there is too much and therefore the game has lots of killing "
9 Aug 2015, 11:10 AM
#24
avatar of dpfarce

Posts: 308

I'm legitimately confused by what the OP is trying to say.

I think he says that COH2 is too much like FPS games in that all you do is kill things, because killing things, big explosions, etc is a popular genre which makes money.

I'm not saying that I agree with that claim 100%, but what does any of this have to do with manpower??
9 Aug 2015, 11:20 AM
#25
avatar of afrrs

Posts: 3787

I'm legitimately confused by what the OP is trying to say.

I think he says that COH2 is too much like FPS games in that all you do is kill things, because killing things, big explosions, etc is a popular genre which makes money.

I'm not saying that I agree with that claim 100%, but what does any of this have to do with manpower??


nothing .

i just mentioned it when i was comparing the genres .
9 Aug 2015, 11:36 AM
#26
avatar of dpfarce

Posts: 308

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Aug 2015, 11:20 AMafrrs


nothing .

i just mentioned it when i was comparing the genres .


90% of the posts in this thread seem to be discussing whether coh2 could use a reduction in manpower or lower pop caps, which seems to be a separate issue from what you are discussing.

I suggest you reword your original post so people are less confused.
9 Aug 2015, 12:15 PM
#28
avatar of Rizza
Donator 22

Posts: 101

To the OP, COH2 has lots of killing because the game is about war, not the developers trying to make money.
9 Aug 2015, 18:36 PM
#29
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Aug 2015, 09:41 AMafrrs


yes , but not if you lower them both ( less pop cap and less manpower accordingly ).


So to put it clear.

You would prefer if the game had 0/50 popcap and let's say 200mp/min.
So your army composition would be limited to a SINGLE Pio/Gren/MG/Mortar/Pak/Tank and one extra unit.

OR

You want the game as it is now with just less manpower income (200mp/min). This would only mean that direct combat is non efficient, indirect fire, turtling and sniper play would be kings as well as pure vehicle play (as they don't bleed mp).

9 Aug 2015, 19:06 PM
#30
avatar of Swift

Posts: 2723 | Subs: 1

But they'd still cost upkeep which would hit your economy harder with a lower income. Though I still think COH 2 and manpower use is ok, it could just be more efficent.
9 Aug 2015, 19:49 PM
#31
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1

Yes the mechanisms are quite simple like in a FPS. There is no penalty in losing a territory apart from a cutoff and when you are losing a big unit, your upkeep is automatically restored. So the game isn't really strategic. Except from keeping the victory points, it is all about annihilating the enemy.

Coh1 had more interesting mechanisms around with the manpower and popcap linked to the territory your are controlling. mp territories didn't provide fuel or ammo so here again there was a other layer of mechanism.
Now you have to remember Quinn Duffy saying he didn't want anymore those mechanisms because it was not fun, would end some match really fast by just controlling your opponent cutoff.

Coh2 is really far for Coh1 in the strategic point of view, they really wanted to make the game more simple. And the way to do that was to reduce mp/upkeep/popcap mechanisms to the strict minimum. As a result, you have more of them, allowing to players to spam units that only require it.
9 Aug 2015, 20:17 PM
#32
avatar of afrrs

Posts: 3787



90% of the posts in this thread seem to be discussing whether coh2 could use a reduction in manpower or lower pop caps, which seems to be a separate issue from what you are discussing.

I suggest you reword your original post so people are less confused.


i cant reword the title .
9 Aug 2015, 20:18 PM
#33
avatar of afrrs

Posts: 3787

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Aug 2015, 12:15 PMRizza
To the OP, COH2 has lots of killing because the game is about war, not the developers trying to make money.


you are wrong .
9 Aug 2015, 20:19 PM
#34
avatar of afrrs

Posts: 3787



So to put it clear.

You would prefer if the game had 0/50 popcap and let's say 200mp/min.
So your army composition would be limited to a SINGLE Pio/Gren/MG/Mortar/Pak/Tank and one extra unit.

OR

You want the game as it is now with just less manpower income (200mp/min). This would only mean that direct combat is non efficient, indirect fire, turtling and sniper play would be kings as well as pure vehicle play (as they don't bleed mp).



yes to the the second part .
9 Aug 2015, 20:21 PM
#35
avatar of afrrs

Posts: 3787

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Aug 2015, 19:49 PMEsxile
Yes the mechanisms are quite simple like in a FPS. There is no penalty in losing a territory apart from a cutoff and when you are losing a big unit, your upkeep is automatically restored. So the game isn't really strategic. Except from keeping the victory points, it is all about annihilating the enemy.

Coh1 had more interesting mechanisms around with the manpower and popcap linked to the territory your are controlling. mp territories didn't provide fuel or ammo so here again there was a other layer of mechanism.
Now you have to remember Quinn Duffy saying he didn't want anymore those mechanisms because it was not fun, would end some match really fast by just controlling your opponent cutoff.

Coh2 is really far for Coh1 in the strategic point of view, they really wanted to make the game more simple. And the way to do that was to reduce mp/upkeep/popcap mechanisms to the strict minimum. As a result, you have more of them, allowing to players to spam units that only require it.


very good insight .
9 Aug 2015, 20:44 PM
#36
avatar of hubewa

Posts: 928

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Aug 2015, 09:43 AMafrrs


you are talking about console games , pal , im talking about pc market .

I'm trying to narrow down what you're saying.

Most of what you've written feels like a stream of consciousness so you'd understand why I'm doing this :)

9 Aug 2015, 20:48 PM
#37
avatar of Rimadljod

Posts: 34

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Aug 2015, 02:47 AMhubewa


Hmm.... I don't know where you're coming from with killing = more money. Please elaborate?

The thing that drew me to CoH1/CoH2 was the strategy behind it. I think that goes with most of the pro's/decent players/everyone on this forum.

There are far better games for killing things if you wanted to do that than CoH1/CoH2.

And FTR, I wasn't too happy when CoH2 decided to release doctrines like Tiger Ace/Sov Industry for money.... considering I already paid $80 AUD for this game already... and from that, I think we know what kind of authority Sega has on this game. (That kind of BS actually made me quit for a year)

Although not everything SEGA has done has been terrible. If the game was released at its intended date instead of 3 months later, this game would have been an unrescuable train wreck. It still wasn't great, but it was at least playable.


I'll tell you where he is coming with the more killing = more money! Just look at the main portal of this site. Every picture is about killing units, the artillery that wiped huge number of soldiers, etc, etc... People are satisfied in a odd way in seeing things die, and the reactions of seeing that and the site mentioned prove you that!
9 Aug 2015, 20:58 PM
#38
avatar of hubewa

Posts: 928



I'll tell you where he is coming with the more killing = more money! Just look at the main portal of this site. Every picture is about killing units, the artillery that wiped huge number of soldiers, etc, etc... People are satisfied in a odd way in seeing things die, and the reactions of seeing that and the site mentioned prove you that!


Well, firstly I can tell you this isn't Sega's business model (lel selling DLC, OP commanders in the past and now factions).

And this is a war game, of course you'll have images of units killing units. This forums is where the more competitive players/long term players are around so they have the understanding that this is at the end of the day a simulation and no one does irl so there aren't really any moral issues to it.

When you've realised we are probably the competitive community, everyone's looking out for efficiency, plays or just something stupid like you've described, due to the nature of RNG in the game. I'd say the game is 20-30% killing units 70-80% territory control.
9 Aug 2015, 21:04 PM
#39
avatar of Rimadljod

Posts: 34

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Aug 2015, 20:58 PMhubewa


Well, firstly I can tell you this isn't Sega's business model (lel selling DLC, OP commanders in the past and now factions).

And this is a war game, of course you'll have images of units killing units. This forums is where the more competitive players/long term players are around so they have the understanding that this is at the end of the day a simulation and no one does irl so there aren't really any moral issues to it.

When you've realised we are probably the competitive community, everyone's looking out for efficiency, plays or just something stupid like you've described, due to the nature of RNG in the game. I'd say the game is 20-30% killing units 70-80% territory control.


I disagree with you! I'd say that the values are opposite. Come on, every game, be it pro level or low, its about getting your units in the middle to battle against the opponents units. The territory control is the thing that comes along...
9 Aug 2015, 21:30 PM
#40
avatar of afrrs

Posts: 3787

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Aug 2015, 20:58 PMhubewa


Well, firstly I can tell you this isn't Sega's business model (lel selling DLC, OP commanders in the past and now factions).

And this is a war game, of course you'll have images of units killing units. This forums is where the more competitive players/long term players are around so they have the understanding that this is at the end of the day a simulation and no one does irl so there aren't really any moral issues to it.

When you've realised we are probably the competitive community, everyone's looking out for efficiency, plays or just something stupid like you've described, due to the nature of RNG in the game. I'd say the game is 20-30% killing units 70-80% territory control.


i disagree with your 1st and 3rd paragraphs .

i agree with you on the 2nd paragraph .
0 user is browsing this thread:

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

587 users are online: 587 guests
1 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49061
Welcome our newest member, Rihedcfrd
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM