New British Helms Deep commanders

People like me? You mean people who started and stuck to the CoH series because it was something new, where you could use cover, flank weapons and the point of the game was constant combat around points? People like me who don´t like a dull mechanic totally breaking the concept that once made this a favorite series?

Just focus on the things that made this game awesome and don´t add stuff that totally goes against this concept.

Figuratively speaking: Emplacements in Coh are like a camping van added to a sports car. Sure, it´s something new, but in the end you ruined your driving experience.

What you just said proves your denial to adapt.
Emplacements are team support weapons (the ones COH series brought),which sacrifice mobility for durability,they aren't cheap and not in any way a one man army,they need support to stop the enemy from destroying them.
From that it feets your criteria almost perfectly other then the part of mobility which goes against the emplacements design.
The only problem I see here is one player disliking emplacements cause they aren't a direct copy of its counterparts AND declaring them bad for the game cause of that.

That's just... Your opinion man...

shut up donny you're out of your element

What you just said proves your denial to adapt.
Emplacements are team support weapons (the ones COH series brought),which sacrifice mobility for durability,they aren't cheap and not in any way a one man army,they need support to stop the enemy from destroying them.
From that it feets your criteria almost perfectly other then the part of mobility which goes against the emplacements design.
The only problem I see here is one player disliking emplacements cause they aren't a direct copy of its counterparts AND declaring them bad for the game cause of that.

No, it's bad game design.

CoH has always been about mobility, combined arms and constant movement on the battlefield. The entire game is based around this; capturing territory gives resources, cutting of connected territory denies enemy players resources, use of cover is key, smoke is key, the use of combined arms (i.e. using tanks to support your inf) is key.

The entire game is based around mobility; it always has been. Look at vCoH. The US were insanely focused on mobility, with only an MG bunker for defense, while Wehr also had an MG bunker, and a de-crewable, doctrine-restricted flak 88. Short of things like sandbags, wire and TTs, there was literally no way of 'camping'.

Then everything went terrible with OF adding brits. PE was generally an alright faction, but brits literally threw the existing (very good) design out the window. Suddenly you could build free garrisons anywhere that made the infantry immune to most types of damage. You had an AA-gun much like the PE flak turrets, but it couldn't be decrewed. You had an 88 (the 17lb AT) that couldn't be decrewed. You had a 105mm (the 25lb) that couldn't be decrewed. All of these emplacements were essentially existing units from other teams, but with the added benefit of the crews being invincible (excluding getting them to very low HP). Pretty much everyone called them out on this; that brits violated the core design of the game (mobility) and let "noobs" play a city building game instead of a tactical RTS.


Now look at CoH2. It's literally the exact same thing. Somehow, relic mad a great base game (Ost vs. Sov), then made a solid expansion (USF vs. OKW), and then learned exactly nothing from the entire ~6 years between the release of CoH1 brits and CoH2 brits, and did the EXACT SAME THING.

Except this time, it's somehow worse.

This is what blows my mind. Relic obviously has a decent enough level of skill to make a very solid game, and listens (well, mostly) to the community, but somehow did the exact same, generally disliked thing, twice in a row. And it's not even a case of "a brit faction will always be bad"; no, it's that CAMPING will always be bad. A mobile brit faction is entirely possible, even utilizing only the existing units (although, with some tweaks). Yet somehow, somewhere, someone said "hey, let's make them campy again"... "and let's fix the weaknesses in camping".

So now we have emplacements (again), that can only be RNG-de-crewed at low HP (worse), that have an "oh no im being attacked" invulnerable mode (worse), that gain the benefits of the "true-sight" system (no more looking through a building/wall/whatever for LOS)... (worse).



It has nothing to do with "your denial to adapt". It's patently bad game design which contradicts actual GOOD game design; and it's not even fun. Ask any high-level player (that plays brits) if they enjoy making a ton of emplacements; they'll almost all say "no, it's boring". Ask any of them "would you rather have a mobile AT gun/mortar/bofors like the other teams" and they almost all say "yes". Why? Because it compliments the gameplay mechanics (mobility and such) far better than static emplacements.

Now as the players at mid/low level what they'd prefer to play against: the current emplacements, or normal mobile stuff. Again, they'll almost all say the mobile stuff because it can be decrewed/destroyed easily. The ONLY people who enjoy this are the lower-ranked players that actually play brits.

And I know this for a fact; I used to be a low-skill brit player in CoH1, and did EXACTLY this. Yes, that's right; Brits, Scheldt, start #6. You bet I went Royal Arty and built 3-4 25lb guns and did nothing but creeping barrage. Why? Because "look at me, I'm helping with indirect fire support".

Then I got decent, realized it was crazy boring to play as AND play against, and started playing the actual well-made teams.




And now look at the new doctrine; the 'counter barrage' ability is broken on a fundamental game design level, and purely contradicts game mechanics that were put in to fix "arty land". Now we'll have:

1. Free Arty (brit tech base stuff)
2. In the base sector (where you can't build it)
3. That can't be de-crewed (so it can't be counter barraged)
4. That auto-fires on the arty that CAN be de-crewed, isn't in the base sector, and costs a ton


Explain to me how this is a lack of me being able to adapt, and not just horrible design.

In CoH2 the UKF emplacements aren't as mandatory because of 6 pounder and Vickers. They only offer strategic advantage in one particular area for a high MP price.

I would find it difficult to make a Defensive British faction that doesn't rely on Emplacements.

In CoH2 the UKF emplacements aren't as mandatory because of 6 pounder and Vickers. They only offer strategic advantage in one particular area for a high MP price.

^This.


Thread might as well be closed, it's doing nothing but giving trolls opportunity to stir crap up. And it's doing no good for the subject at hand without further information about the commanders.

...a de-crewable, doctrine-restricted flak 88...


And now look at the new doctrine; the 'counter barrage' ability is broken on a fundamental game design level, and purely contradicts game mechanics that were put in to fix "arty land". Now we'll have:

1. Free Arty (brit tech base stuff)
2. In the base sector (where you can't build it)
3. That can't be de-crewed (so it can't be counter barraged)
4. That auto-fires on the arty that CAN be de-crewed, isn't in the base sector, and costs a ton

Pak 43, Sorry, I had to.

+1, They should either allow Wehrmacht to build howitzers, and Pak 43's in base, or remove this ability because of what you mentioned above.

And now look at the new doctrine; the 'counter barrage' ability is broken on a fundamental game design level, and purely contradicts game mechanics that were put in to fix "arty land". Now we'll have:

1. Free Arty (brit tech base stuff)
2. In the base sector (where you can't build it)
3. That can't be de-crewed (so it can't be counter barraged)
4. That auto-fires on the arty that CAN be de-crewed, isn't in the base sector, and costs a ton


Explain to me how this is a lack of me being able to adapt, and not just horrible design.

You've missed the part where that awesome arty can't even hit sector it targets and when it does, krauts need to double check for the shell not to confuse it with mosquito bites.

You know, there is a reason why no one sane is using arty regiment.

Hmmm...

I think we need to move the newly constructed desalination plant from the mouth of the River Aec to somewhere that doesn't currently have a salty water source but possibly might in the future if those with 20/20 future vision are proven to be correct.... The River Hypothetical maybe?

Not a single extra complaint about the AEC since these commanders were announced? Did it suddenly become meh overnight or, dare one suggest it, might there be a certain type of character who merely whinges incessantly at the latest insult to hegemony?

No, it's bad game design.

CoH has always been about mobility, combined arms and constant movement on the battlefield. The entire game is based around this; capturing territory gives resources, cutting of connected territory denies enemy players resources, use of cover is key, smoke is key, the use of combined arms (i.e. using tanks to support your inf) is key.

The entire game is based around mobility; it always has been. Look at vCoH. The US were insanely focused on mobility, with only an MG bunker for defense, while Wehr also had an MG bunker, and a de-crewable, doctrine-restricted flak 88. Short of things like sandbags, wire and TTs, there was literally no way of 'camping'.

Then everything went terrible with OF adding brits. PE was generally an alright faction, but brits literally threw the existing (very good) design out the window. Suddenly you could build free garrisons anywhere that made the infantry immune to most types of damage. You had an AA-gun much like the PE flak turrets, but it couldn't be decrewed. You had an 88 (the 17lb AT) that couldn't be decrewed. You had a 105mm (the 25lb) that couldn't be decrewed. All of these emplacements were essentially existing units from other teams, but with the added benefit of the crews being invincible (excluding getting them to very low HP). Pretty much everyone called them out on this; that brits violated the core design of the game (mobility) and let "noobs" play a city building game instead of a tactical RTS.


Now look at CoH2. It's literally the exact same thing. Somehow, relic mad a great base game (Ost vs. Sov), then made a solid expansion (USF vs. OKW), and then learned exactly nothing from the entire ~6 years between the release of CoH1 brits and CoH2 brits, and did the EXACT SAME THING.

Except this time, it's somehow worse.

This is what blows my mind. Relic obviously has a decent enough level of skill to make a very solid game, and listens (well, mostly) to the community, but somehow did the exact same, generally disliked thing, twice in a row. And it's not even a case of "a brit faction will always be bad"; no, it's that CAMPING will always be bad. A mobile brit faction is entirely possible, even utilizing only the existing units (although, with some tweaks). Yet somehow, somewhere, someone said "hey, let's make them campy again"... "and let's fix the weaknesses in camping".

So now we have emplacements (again), that can only be RNG-de-crewed at low HP (worse), that have an "oh no im being attacked" invulnerable mode (worse), that gain the benefits of the "true-sight" system (no more looking through a building/wall/whatever for LOS)... (worse).



It has nothing to do with "your denial to adapt". It's patently bad game design which contradicts actual GOOD game design; and it's not even fun. Ask any high-level player (that plays brits) if they enjoy making a ton of emplacements; they'll almost all say "no, it's boring". Ask any of them "would you rather have a mobile AT gun/mortar/bofors like the other teams" and they almost all say "yes". Why? Because it compliments the gameplay mechanics (mobility and such) far better than static emplacements.

Now as the players at mid/low level what they'd prefer to play against: the current emplacements, or normal mobile stuff. Again, they'll almost all say the mobile stuff because it can be decrewed/destroyed easily. The ONLY people who enjoy this are the lower-ranked players that actually play brits.

And I know this for a fact; I used to be a low-skill brit player in CoH1, and did EXACTLY this. Yes, that's right; Brits, Scheldt, start #6. You bet I went Royal Arty and built 3-4 25lb guns and did nothing but creeping barrage. Why? Because "look at me, I'm helping with indirect fire support".

Then I got decent, realized it was crazy boring to play as AND play against, and started playing the actual well-made teams.




And now look at the new doctrine; the 'counter barrage' ability is broken on a fundamental game design level, and purely contradicts game mechanics that were put in to fix "arty land". Now we'll have:

1. Free Arty (brit tech base stuff)
2. In the base sector (where you can't build it)
3. That can't be de-crewed (so it can't be counter barraged)
4. That auto-fires on the arty that CAN be de-crewed, isn't in the base sector, and costs a ton


Explain to me how this is a lack of me being able to adapt, and not just horrible design.

It's rather simple.....
You don't know shit about emplacements yet you claim otherwise.
Emplacements on vcoh were decrewable alot if you used flame weapons or small arms fire (something apparently you don't know).
Also vcoh has never ever based around mobility,only USF was based around mobility not the game (just like the British are based around static emplacements and not the game itself).

The rules you brought forward aren't something to support your claim either because their just rules and each faction has a unique identity and exploit it based on their strength.

Then you talk about OF as if you ever knew why the British were bad,it wasn't because of the emplacements but because of the stupid debuff and vet system that promotes blobing a moving (ignoring features like cover).

But how would you know that you barely understand emplacements.....

And to end this replay in hopes of you learning I must remind you the arrival and the price of the emplacements (which also take pop) could not tolerate being one shotted by simple skills like the awesome good looking railway artillery and for that relic gave them brace.

Emplacement counters are indirect firepower (mortars,heavy artillery) and flame weapons use those tools and not tanks or simple unupgraded infantry everytime you encounter something (cause it ain't gonna work),and since you mentioned mobility USE IT emplacements are static team weapons they can't hold the entire map.

You've missed the part where that awesome arty can't even hit sector it targets and when it does, krauts need to double check for the shell not to confuse it with mosquito bites.

You know, there is a reason why no one sane is using arty regiment.

But I use it for the visuals

But I use it for the visuals

Its not good for anything else

they should add some flavour to glider commandos in return.

You can reinforce at them in territory.

Pak 43, Sorry, I had to.

In CoH1 it was actually a Flak 88 (well, technically it was called a flak 36); it was the AA version, and it could target both vehicles and tanks. The Pak 43 is the dedicated AT gun.

You've missed the part where that awesome arty can't even hit sector it targets and when it does, krauts need to double check for the shell not to confuse it with mosquito bites.

You know, there is a reason why no one sane is using arty regiment.

Just because it's bad doesn't excuse its poor design. The new arty rule (according to pretty much every recent change) is that arty doesn't go in base sectors - either in nor out. So now we have arty (which while bad) can ONLY be built in base sectors, is immune to counter-fire (unlike all other static arty... which can also be sniped, etc.), with a counter-battery ability.

Ignoring that it might be bad, how do you counter this? You can't drop 90% of off-map onto it, you can't snipe it, you can't rush it with infantry, you can't even de-crew it. Yes, we are lacking some key details; but my bet is that it's going to be terribly designed, and break some fundamental rules in CoH's design.

It's rather simple.....
You don't know shit about emplacements yet you claim otherwise.
Emplacements on vcoh were decrewable alot if you used flame weapons or small arms fire (something apparently you don't know).

Huh.

but with the added benefit of the crews being invincible (excluding getting them to very low HP)

Yes, they were soft-decrewable. You had to get them to a low-level of HP. Throwing a single nade into them wouldn't clear them out (as a nade into a Wehr bunker would), a short attack with a flamer wouldn't decrew them (any building it would), snipers did exactly nothing... The mechanic basically allowed for them to be decrewed (iirc, not even 100% of the time) only in very specific circumstances.

Also vcoh has never ever based around mobility,only USF was based around mobility not the game (just like the British are based around static emplacements and not the game itself).

Both USF and Wehr were focused around mobility; at least more than the brits ever were. The only static structures for Wehr were the bunkers and Flak 88; nothing else. I'd hardly count 1 core building and a single doctrine unit making the faction based on 'camping'.

And my entire point is that brits then and now are poorly designed. Yes, they are based around emplacements; which is horrible. It doesn't work well with the rest of the game, and its core game design.

The rules you brought forward aren't something to support your claim either because their just rules and each faction has a unique identity and exploit it based on their strength.

There's a difference between the core game design and faction design. I'm talking about the core game design; which is focused on mobility. That's why you can't win with only 20% of the map; that's why resource cutoffs are so crucial, that's why "L2P Smoke and Flank" is the reply to 90% of threads.

In vCoH you had a very mobile faction (US), a somewhat mobile faction (Wehr), then OF added a very mobile faction (PE) and... then the odd one out; brits. Based on camping (and slow infantry for some reason). It was a bad choice then, and it's a bad choice now.

Then you talk about OF as if you ever knew why the British were bad,it wasn't because of the emplacements but because of the stupid debuff and vet system that promotes blobing a moving (ignoring features like cover).

Both were bad problems in vCoH. But I was never even attempting to address blobbing; I was addressing emplacements, which were horrendous. Go look back at forum posts from back then: no one liked them (except the brit players who used them heavily).

But how would you know that you barely understand emplacements.....

Constructive.

And to end this replay in hopes of you learning I must remind you the arrival and the price of the emplacements (which also take pop) could not tolerate being one shotted by simple skills like the awesome good looking railway artillery and for that relic gave them brace.

So what you're saying, is that due to the design of emplacements (immobile support weapons), they need to be tanky to justify the price. This then brings in the perceived problem of camping.

What if I had a magical solution that removed the root of the problem?

Replace emplacements with normal, mobile, crewed weapons like every one else.

Emplacement counters are indirect firepower (mortars,heavy artillery) and flame weapons use those tools and not tanks or simple unupgraded infantry everytime you encounter something (cause it ain't gonna work),and since you mentioned mobility USE IT emplacements are static team weapons they can't hold the entire map.

I don't really have a reply to this. You've basically stated exactly the problem I've said, but simply said it's a solution.

Wow this thread is pretty cancerous.

Just replay vCOH.....
Brace was added as a way for the emplacement to "retreat" and avoid being one shotted by offmap call ins ,giving the British player a chance to avoid the damage.
Also howitzers can fire in the enemy base just fine
And to prove my point further about your denial to adapt

I don't really have a reply to this. You've basically stated exactly the problem I've said, but simply said it's a solution.

Your problem is basically your utter denial to adapt on the changing battlefield and demand the battlefield to go back to it's old ways.

Wow this thread is pretty cancerous.

I agree.

Even cancer doesn't want part of this..

What Doomlord52 said! I couldn´t have worded it better myself.

Also vcoh has never ever based around mobility,only USF was based around mobility not the game.

That´s why not capping the map won you the game, right?

There is barely any game that focuses so much on mobility as the Coh series once did.

And complaining about a faction and then a Commander that builds up on this bad design is on topic imo.

Explain to me how this is a lack of me being able to adapt, and not just horrible design.

Its not horrible design (you have the right to your opinion), its a part of the design.
There are so many units, not British, that are not mobile.

All the Artillery (howitzers), B4, all OKW structures, fighting positions from US, MG bunker from OST, forward base from SO (doctrinal) and many more.

As i said, you have the right to dislike them, that doesn't mean that this is bad design.
It WW2