More similar working armies
9 Jan 2016, 13:35 PM
#1
Posts: 33
I know diversitiy between armies and the way they are played is a great and exciting feature, but personally i think that every faction should have a few core units, that they share with each ohter. I think every faction should have NON DOCTRINAL acces to HMGs, AT guns and mortars. In the case of the British, just replace the mortaremplacement with normal mortars. For the OKW i would simply swap the MG34 with the Kübelwagen and maybe, just maybe replace the Raketenwerfer with a Pak. USF need a total overhaul i think, because all they can is spam riflemen and later shermans or jacksons. Maybe giving OKW and USF Snipers wouldnt be a bad idea too, but i suck in using snipers and dont know much about their balance.
9 Jan 2016, 13:38 PM
#2
Posts: 2070
i agree. it is a pain in the ass when some basic things aren't available to each factions such as: mines, defensive structures, MGs, early indirect fire, etc.
Axis doesn't have the best AT options in the game
9 Jan 2016, 13:48 PM
#3
Posts: 33
The reason that Ostheer and Soviet are so good opponents is, that they are just two different versions of the same army. Cons are Grens, Maxims are MG42s Stugs are SU76s, T34s are P4s and so on. The difference is in the details, for example squadsize, troopquality and cost, the time the tanks hit the field.
9 Jan 2016, 14:02 PM
#4
Posts: 1144 | Subs: 7
i like that each faction is pretty different and have perks and cons, are good in a particular area of combat but maybe not as efficient in another.
9 Jan 2016, 15:04 PM
#5
Posts: 609
I agree with LemonJuice, and believe that its more then possible to have asymmetric access to the necessities. For example, the Artillery flare could easily substitute for both mortars and late-game arty if Relic would just make it useful or the Flak Halftrack being a suitable suppression platform. Its just a matter of Relic making the right units able to fulfill their function.
9 Jan 2016, 15:11 PM
#6
Posts: 823 | Subs: 3
i like that each faction is pretty different and have perks and cons, are good in a particular area of combat but maybe not as efficient in another.IS IT TRUE??? It is.
If all armies would work similar that would suck dick
Me: I am scared, that i will need to shake ma head the same as when i read ur posts, so i rather not
Katitof: Its not even close to me even at my worst in the past, imagine ullu, incendiary, aaa, vetlolcake and disto merge into one mega axis zord with forcefield protecting it from accepting any factual data. Add to that a victim card(his rumblings at my PM).
Katitof: Its not even close to me even at my worst in the past, imagine ullu, incendiary, aaa, vetlolcake and disto merge into one mega axis zord with forcefield protecting it from accepting any factual data. Add to that a victim card(his rumblings at my PM).
9 Jan 2016, 15:35 PM
#7
Posts: 1283 | Subs: 4
"but personally i think that every faction should have a few core units, that they share with each ohter..." Just as a heads up, after that is where you state why. Otherwise you're just rehashing conversations that have been had umpteen times already up to this point.
I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I think you need to take a more in depth look at unit statistics or see a few more in game scenarios if you consider these factions/units to be at all analogous to one another. This statement is also very counter to the point I presume you're trying to make. Unless that is, the WFA's should be more like the vanilla factions. in which case you should just come out and say it.
And in case this discussion does get expanded upon. I agree with Lemon. Strategically each faction has the capability to do the exact same things, only this will manifest itself through different, unique tactics. Each faction also adopt different postures and execute different strategies more effectively than others, not to say that they can or can't do specific things.
Ostheer and Soviet... are just two different versions of the same army. Cons are Grens, Maxims are MG42s Stugs are SU76s, T34s are P4s and so on.
I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I think you need to take a more in depth look at unit statistics or see a few more in game scenarios if you consider these factions/units to be at all analogous to one another. This statement is also very counter to the point I presume you're trying to make. Unless that is, the WFA's should be more like the vanilla factions. in which case you should just come out and say it.
And in case this discussion does get expanded upon. I agree with Lemon. Strategically each faction has the capability to do the exact same things, only this will manifest itself through different, unique tactics. Each faction also adopt different postures and execute different strategies more effectively than others, not to say that they can or can't do specific things.
11 Jan 2016, 19:49 PM
#8
Posts: 552
i like that each faction is pretty different and have perks and cons, are good in a particular area of combat but maybe not as efficient in another.
Pro's of UKF?
ahwoah kenny
11 Jan 2016, 19:57 PM
#9
Posts: 1891
Nope lol.
Outside of a couple unit choices for some factions and a lack of upgrades faction design is in a good state.
Outside of a couple unit choices for some factions and a lack of upgrades faction design is in a good state.
The Fascisti Will Pay.
11 Jan 2016, 20:40 PM
#10
Posts: 1144 | Subs: 7
Pro's of UKF?
http://www.coh2.org/replay/47691/ukf-on-life-support
spammable mediums, strongest offmaps.
brits are probably the hardest faction to play in the early game, much like ostheer losing one model is a huge setback. but if you can manage your sections well, dont get caught out in the open, theyre pretty strong.
11 Jan 2016, 21:02 PM
#11
Posts: 556
I'd agree with lemon, the only thing I would add is make the weapons available useful to help the faction as a whole, I hate how a single MG can stop the entire US army at the start of the game without any real counters.
........smoke and flank kappa
........smoke and flank kappa
12 Jan 2016, 00:02 AM
#12
Posts: 552
http://www.coh2.org/replay/47691/ukf-on-life-support
spammable mediums, strongest offmaps.
brits are probably the hardest faction to play in the early game, much like ostheer losing one model is a huge setback. but if you can manage your sections well, dont get caught out in the open, theyre pretty strong.
You mean spammable medium, not plural, as I assume you're referring to the Cromwell. I can agree with the off maps, but coming from 20+ dollars of DLC, don't you think the faction should have more going for it then a spammable tank and some cheesy abilities?
As you said, It's already hard enough making to the late game to use all these abilities, without getting crushed by artillery and mines.
ahwoah kenny
12 Jan 2016, 00:09 AM
#13
Posts: 680
I wish coh2 were as chess. No balance issues just cool skins.
12 Jan 2016, 02:47 AM
#14
1 Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4
They don't need to be the same, but they atleast need something else to fill the role (isg instead of mortar on okw for example.)
Emplacements are not a good substitute.
Emplacements are not a good substitute.
Tobis "Complete Throw"
Someone asked what my avatar was from... I really don't know.
Defeated Paula and knocked him out of 2v2 Anniversary Cup
Someone asked what my avatar was from... I really don't know.
Defeated Paula and knocked him out of 2v2 Anniversary Cup
12 Jan 2016, 03:40 AM
#15
Posts: 199
I ran a survey on asymmetrical balance and besides me no one seems to want it.
The reason Ost and Sov are so well structure is because they have the ability to have a counter for everything. I do not buy the fact this game would stop working if you added more units to it. MGs, sniper and indirect fire (Transportable in the UKF case) should be viable options for every faction. I am not saying the stats, timing and implementation need to be the same but some units are just mandatory for countering differing situations.
Also why can we not have more baseline infantry units options. Would it not be nice to have multiple unit types without going specific commanders for differing situations.
Take US, they have rifleman rifleman and rifleman. They screwed up the DPS increase to the RE with having the reinforce cost nearly the same as the rifles so they do not count. Add pathfinders or another unit to offer variety to changing circumstances. I cannot think of one viable reason why their isn't more unit variety to this game.
The reason Ost and Sov are so well structure is because they have the ability to have a counter for everything. I do not buy the fact this game would stop working if you added more units to it. MGs, sniper and indirect fire (Transportable in the UKF case) should be viable options for every faction. I am not saying the stats, timing and implementation need to be the same but some units are just mandatory for countering differing situations.
Also why can we not have more baseline infantry units options. Would it not be nice to have multiple unit types without going specific commanders for differing situations.
Take US, they have rifleman rifleman and rifleman. They screwed up the DPS increase to the RE with having the reinforce cost nearly the same as the rifles so they do not count. Add pathfinders or another unit to offer variety to changing circumstances. I cannot think of one viable reason why their isn't more unit variety to this game.
12 Jan 2016, 03:44 AM
#16
8 Posts: 2470
i like that each faction is pretty different and have perks and cons, are good in a particular area of combat but maybe not as efficient in another.
lets take this to an extreme (for the sake of a bad example) and have a faction that can't fight but also can't be targeted. they would be super asymmetric but not in a good way. it's the same thing with HMG/mortar/AT guns; they're such a core concept that not having (or having shitty versions) is a massive disadvantage as well a limit on play styles.
12 Jan 2016, 04:23 AM
#17
Posts: 1144 | Subs: 7
lets take this to an extreme (for the sake of a bad example) and have a faction that can't fight but also can't be targeted. they would be super asymmetric but not in a good way. it's the same thing with HMG/mortar/AT guns; they're such a core concept that not having (or having shitty versions) is a massive disadvantage as well a limit on play styles.
every faction has serviceable HMGs and AT guns (dont say the 50cal is shit, its not. dont say the USF at gun is shit, its cheaper than a pak and also has great veterancy). you can argue that the leig/pack howitzer are different than mortars, but theyre still most definitely indirect fire. the brits definitely get the short end of the stick with the mortar pit, but its still 2 mortars no matter how you look at it.
the only thing that some factions DONT have are snipers (even then there are pseudo snipers like pathfinders anad JLI) and UKF dont have rocket artillery or flamers.
12 Jan 2016, 04:29 AM
#18
Posts: 1891
USF could use nondoctrinal light 15 muni anti personnel mines on REs imo, every faction should have nondoc infantry mines of some kind.
The Fascisti Will Pay.
12 Jan 2016, 04:35 AM
#19
Posts: 168
I wish coh2 were as chess. No balance issues just cool skins.
But chess is a racist game that makes white move first before black!
Of coursh
12 Jan 2016, 04:51 AM
#20
Posts: 1144 | Subs: 7
You mean spammable medium, not plural, as I assume you're referring to the Cromwell. I can agree with the off maps, but coming from 20+ dollars of DLC, don't you think the faction should have more going for it then a spammable tank and some cheesy abilities?
As you said, It's already hard enough making to the late game to use all these abilities, without getting crushed by artillery and mines.
i never said its hard to get to the late game?
they do have more than that. i would say that fully upgraded infantry sections are the strongest infantry, and in the right hands are really powerful in the early game. their vickers has the highest lethality out of the HMGs. the PIAT is a decent counter to heavy tanks and OKW trucks. they have a lot of things going for them, they just dont have a lot of things that fit into the current meta.
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
56 | ||
|
|
|
|
37 | ||
 |
|
|
104 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.35057.860+15
- 3.622224.735+2
- 4.1110614.644+11
- 5.276108.719+27
- 6.306114.729+2
- 7.919405.694+3
- 8.262137.657+3
- 9.722440.621+4
- 10.1041674.607-2
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1236