Lack of game changing options

Something is missing, the enemy team gets the better start and you fall on the defensive. It seems at the moment the game is too easily decided in the opening set. We need earlier heavy tanks to allow the losing team to be able to have a chance of turning back the tide. There is also a distinct lack of airborne ability which would allow troops to be dropped behind lines. This would reduce an entrenched gameplay default and add dynamism.

wasn't that the same in vcoh? If i remember correctly, a great american early game always ended up being whermacht's struggle to get back into the game. Or the other way around. You need to play smart and anticiapte situations not to fall that far behind, that you feel you have to dig in and wait for the push to get you back on the track.

Overall, i feel that the games are quite similar in this matter.

There is a strange lack of airborne troops I noticed

Probably because there where no airborne troops on the eastern front?

Wtf am I reading. This is getting beyond ridiculous to the inane.

Probably because there where no airborne troops on the eastern front?

Wtf am I reading. This is getting beyond ridiculous to the inane.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_forces#World_War_II do notice the little part under "soviet airborne operations ww2" nice little history lesson for you

I think that the current upkeep system allows unbelievable comebacks.
For example: a match, where I had only 1 conscript and 1 guards squad with AT gun fighting against 2 full health tigers with infantry. And... I won it:
http://www.coh2.org/replays/4862/cold-blood-come-back-from-hell-or-how-to-counter-tigers
No need to change anything.

mjsegaline: lol you didn't even read your own link.

are you 12? btw, what country are you from?

mjsegaline: lol you didn't even read your own link.

are you 12? btw, what country are you from?

The Soviets mounted only one large-scale airborne operation in World War II, despite their early leadership in the field in the 1930s. Russia also pioneered the development of combat gliders, but used them only for cargo during the war.

Axis air superiority early in the conflict limited the ability of the Soviets to mount such operations, whilst later in the conflict ongoing shortages of materiel, including silk for parachutes, was also a problem. Nonetheless, the Soviets maintained their doctrinal belief in the effectiveness of airborne forces, as part of their concept of "deep battle", throughout the war.[7] The largest drop during the war was corp-sized (the Vyaz'ma Operation, the 4th Airborne Corps). It was unsuccessful.[8] Airborne formations were used as elite infantry units however, and played a critical role in several battles. For example, at the Battle of Kursk, the Guards Airbourne defended the eastern shoulder of the southern penetration and was critical to holding back the German penetration.

The Soviet sent at least one team of observers to British and American airborne planning for D-Day,[9] but took pains not to reciprocate the liaison

mjsegaline: lol you didn't even read your own link.

are you 12? btw, what country are you from?

If you read the entire paragraph you would see that it listed several battles where russians employed airborne forces... You really need to learn to read. I am 27 and am American

It lists one airborne drop.

If you can't understand that the rest of the battles are airborne fielded ONFOOT then you really don't have the required reading comprehension to attempt reading wiki entries.

It lists one airborne drop.

If you can't understand that the rest of the battles are airborne fielded ONFOOT then you really don't have the required reading comprehension to attempt reading wiki entries.

It mentioned one "large scale airborne operation" in the first sentence, and an airborne drop. Contradictory to your arrogant comment that airborne forces werent used in the eastern front.... That doesnt even include the germans airborne uses.

Dont debate war history with me, I am American, my nation was built by war.

I am 27 and am American

That would partially explain why you think a wikipedia link is proper support for your argument...

That would partially explain why you think a wikipedia link is proper support for your argument...

Ya, because the battles that took place and were mentioned and supported by historical documentation to include airborne forces and airborne operations were all made up by wiki....

It mentioned one "large scale airborne operation" in the first sentence, and an airborne drop. Contradictory to your arrogant comment that airborne forces werent used in the eastern front.... That doesnt even include the germans airborne uses.

Its the SAME DROP.

Dont debate war history with me, I am American, my nation was built by war.

This is the most inane statement from you yet. Kindly, leave.

Its the SAME DROP.



This is the most inane statement from you yet. Kindly, leave.

Does one LARGE airborne operation still not discredit your comment that there were NO airborne forces on the easter front? I did not even include the german luftwaffe airborne commandos on the eastern front.

I cant believe I have to explain to a 27 year old that a wikipedia link is not considered a decent and usable source.

You simply dont know the credentials of the people that write on such a website. For example, it could be you that wrote a part of that page...

I cant believe I have to explain to a 27 year old that a wikipedia link is not considered a decent and usable source.

You simply dont know the credentials of the people that write on such a website. For example, it could be you that wrote a part of that page...

LOL I can not tell you how many people who have been discredited by information readily available on the internet say that exact same bullshit. Look up the battles mentioned. Look at credible sites. Airborne forces were used by both sides on the eastern front, its a fact. Please stfu

I am sorry to dissapoint you, but the internet as a whole is not considered a viable and usable source for these type of subjects either. May I suggest you try reading books and articles instead?

I am sorry to dissapoint you, but the internet as a whole is not considered a viable and usable source for these type of subjects either. May I suggest you try reading books and articles instead?

Read whatever you want, it is a historical fact that airborne forces were heavily used throughout the entire war on both fronts. I can give you hundreds of accounts, I can sit here all day with you. War history is my thing and I have traveled the world, including living in Germany for two years studying it. You are talking to the wrong guy about this, I can assure you.

One Corps sized failed drop by Soviets= heavily used.

Ok dude!

You are the one who is surpriswd airborne drops are not prevalent in CoH2 which portrays the Eastern Front, derp!

Ps:I lived 5 years in Moscow and 4 in Hamburg and have served in the military up to reserve officer rank.
Your basis for argument is hereby trumped and disqualified.