Why change the spawn system?

The point is to make placing buildings important. If you wanna play super safe, place your buildings at the back of your base. If you wanna play super agressive and hi-risk, place your buildings at the very front of your base. Your units get out faster, but you run the risk of your buildings being sniped by AT-guns or tanks.

The point is to put some more strategy back into this game. The designers blundered when they removed strategic elements from COH2. The left-hand-side and right-hand-side commander tree choices from COH1 are a perfect example. Why in the world would you remove that system, and make commander abilities auto-unlock? Were they trying to take the "S" out of RTS?!?

Anything they do to put more strategy back into the game is a good thing, imo. I never liked the off-map spawn points.

I am afraid your "strategy" reasoning for removing off map spawns makes no sense. People already build their T1/T2 to the front of the base sector in order to allow reinforcements to join on the move to the front, the risk is minimal at best. 9.99/10 times if your opponent has you locked into your base sector its GG, regardless of tier placing Sorry bru but you aint making no sense here, you don't like off map spawns end of........

As for the commander system, 100% agree.

Just make the building a spawn point equal to the map border spawn points. If your rally point is closer to the building than the border spawn then use that. Now everyone will be happy.

Moving on, VonIvan is not an authority on this subject. Sure he knows more about current COH2 meta, what doctrine best counters emplacement regiment, how well Comets are currently performing against Panthers, etc. This is a design issue, and there are other people here more qualified to speak in terms of general RTS design than he is.

"More qualified"

Edit: Another option, would be to make the build order part of the walk-in time. As the unit approaches completion it begins entering the map, if canceled it spins around and walks back, but if completed it arrives at exactly the same moment as the announcement of its production. This would, I assume, solve the issue of arrival outside of control time. Another simpler option is to leave the units symbol greyed out until the unit is on the field to give the player a very obvious tool to know when the squad can be ordered to begin a task.

+1

I really like this option but if it's too hard to implement why not just reduce the build time of units to account for their off-map arrival time?

I truly done see it as a big deal and I think you guys are getting to wrapped up in this change. its impacts will be slight at best by shaving off 15 seconds of unit arrival times.

It doesn't take a RTS God to understand that.

Another design issue - some call in infantry are designed to flood the map faster than normal infantry. Osttruppen will now, however, will lose some of their speedier deployment relative to grens. You can put Osttruppen in tier 1, but that will also delay them relative to before.

The point is to put some more strategy back into this game.

No offense Sir PolizeiFunk, but placing a building on the edge of your base sector has nothing to do with strategy. It's a no brainer, since there are barely situations where you get punished for doing that (no real risk given the reward). While it removes the opportunity to let units enter from certain entry points.

Storm in a tea cup. Given the current and future level of support available to CoH2 it doesn't make sense to target minor issues like this.

This will alter the early game for a bit but eventually adjustments will be made to smooth out the balance. But at that point, what has been achieved? Two factions have the option to spawn their infantry in a slightly different place, meanwhile we've lost the flexibility offered by multiple spawn locations. Now whether this is a net gain is obviously not something we all agree on, but the cost of this is the time and resources put into implementing and balancing the change which could have been better spent on easier or more pressing fixes.

A better solution would be to address some of the shortcomings of the current spawn system. This could be achieved by allowing units to be given repair/build tasks while they're still outside the battle area, or putting a clear indicator on the unit shield to show that the unit isn't on the field yet and making a clear indicator when they do come online.

One hundred percent agree here.

Another design issue - some call in infantry are designed to flood the map faster than normal infantry. Osttruppen will now, however, will lose some of their speedier deployment relative to grens. You can put Osttruppen in tier 1, but that will also delay them relative to before.

With the exception of Ostruppen call-in infantry are typically more expensive but stronger, or have some unique quality. The whole concept of Ostruppen, a 2 for 1 infantry unit that sucks but comes cheap, is retarded. Reason being even if you are matched in net infantry strength the Ostruppen player gets double capping/harass power while being more or less equal in terms of investment and combat power. I'm not saying they break the game, but they aren't some poor mistreated step child either. Having double the number of units early on is its own advantage, nobody cares if they have to enter the map like usual.

With the exception of Ostruppen call-in infantry are typically more expensive but stronger, or have some unique quality. The whole concept of Ostruppen, a 2 for 1 infantry unit that sucks but comes cheap, is retarded. Reason being even if you are matched in net infantry strength the Ostruppen player gets double capping/harass power while being more or less equal in terms of investment and combat power. I'm not saying they break the game, but they aren't some poor mistreated step child either. Having double the number of units early on is its own advantage, nobody cares if they have to enter the map like usual.

I care! Part of what makes them unique is you can cap more early game. Now they won't have that and a strategic option has actually been cut from the game.

I care! Part of what makes them unique is you can cap more early game. Now they won't have that and a strategic option has actually been cut from the game.

You still have a twice as many squads in the early game, that by itself is a capping advantage. Plus there isn't really anything super strategical about it, you pick that doctrine and get early game capping bonus and pass up on something else like a late game tank or air ability. When you make the choice you aren't thinking "well it could back fire on me and I won't have access to Elephant if he spams Fireflys." You blindly pick Ostruppen at the beginning of a match, its not a thought out reactionary decision. Should I use my "pay to cap" commander if I want early map control is like asking if I should turn my monitor brightness down if my eyes are getting watery.

You still have a twice as many squads in the early game, that by itself is a capping advantage. Plus there isn't really anything super strategical about it, you pick that doctrine and get early game capping bonus and pass up on something else like a late game tank or air ability. When you make the choice you aren't thinking "well it could back fire on me and I won't have access to Elephant if he spams Fireflys." You blindly pick Ostruppen at the beginning of a match, its not a thought out reactionary decision. Should I use my "pay to cap" commander if I want early map control is like asking if I should turn my monitor brightness down if my eyes are getting watery.

You trade early game capping for late game firepower, since many osts eat pop cap but can't get LMGs.

You trade early game capping for late game firepower, since many osts eat pop cap but can't get LMGs.

I didn't say there wasn't any tradeoff. Doesn't change the fact that picking a commander when the game starts isn't a very strategic decision. A very minute downgrade to Ostruppen does not strip any strategy from the game, not that there was a hell of a lot to begin with. Its mostly a micro and positioning contest.

edit: nvm sent a PM so this isn't a playercard war (mine is better). If Dullahan wants to address what I said instead of "playercard" then fire away.

edit: nvm sent a PM so this isn't a playercard war (mine is better). If Dullahan wants to address what I said instead of "playercard" then fire away.

I just wanted to see if you played the game at all in the last 5ever.

All I see you post is whining about how bad CoH2 is and how great CoH1 is.


As to address what you actually said: Picking a commander is a strategic move even if you do it at the start of the game when you either use it immediately or your gameplan revolves around using it. Pretending that reactionary picking is the only strategic option is ridiculous. Someone picking Ostruppen doctrine isn't just getting their pay2cap capping power, their army composition, army scaling and tech path is going to be very different.

For example, the reason Ostruppen is chosen against Brits so often for example is because it takes advantage of brits less mobile and lesser squad count to gain an early game map control advantage and transition into a much faster T2 with 2-3 222's that UKF struggles to deal with. The downsides being that ostruppen start to perform very poorly against veteran and upgraded squads in the midgame and either need additional support (halftrack reinforcement) or to be replaced by elite infantry like panzer grenadiers.

You're obviously in favour of CoH1-esque mechanics because you prefer CoH1 as a game, to the point where you say stupid shit like "[Blah blah] does not strip any strategy from the game, not that there was a hell of a lot to begin with. Its mostly a micro and positioning contest." It's ironic to say something like this while singing the praises of CoH1, a game that received this very same criticism from more traditional RTS fanbases.

I just wanted to see if you played the game at all in the last 5ever.

All I see you post is whining about how bad CoH2 is and how great CoH1 is.


As to address what you actually said: Picking a commander is a strategic move even if you do it at the start of the game when you either use it immediately or your gameplan revolves around using it. Pretending that reactionary picking is the only strategic option is ridiculous. Someone picking Ostruppen doctrine isn't just getting their pay2cap capping power, their army composition, army scaling and tech path is going to be very different.

For example, the reason Ostruppen is chosen against Brits so often for example is because it takes advantage of brits less mobile and lesser squad count to gain an early game map control advantage and transition into a much faster T2 with 2-3 222's that UKF struggles to deal with. The downsides being that ostruppen start to perform very poorly against veteran and upgraded squads in the midgame and either need additional support (halftrack reinforcement) or to be replaced by elite infantry like panzer grenadiers.

You're obviously in favour of CoH1-esque mechanics because you prefer CoH1 as a game, to the point where you say stupid shit like "[Blah blah] does not strip any strategy from the game, not that there was a hell of a lot to begin with. Its mostly a micro and positioning contest." It's ironic to say something like this while singing the praises of CoH1, a game that received this very same criticism from more traditional RTS fanbases.

Not sure what you're on about. I'll I've said about the game lately is mines wipe units too much and its good they finally changed an annoying feature where you can't control your unit for the first 10 seconds. When it comes to commanders, even if you have reasons for picking a certain one it doesn't really make it a strategic decision if its the very first thing you do. Sometimes I immediately pick rifle company for flamethrowers instead of Pershing if its a building dominant map. But I figured this out through experience and already know which maps to go flamers on, its not a decision I make while playing. Its the same concept as playing Brits back when the centaur was absurd. You have a reason for choosing Briits, easier wins, but it was a predetermined decision.

The game definitely could use some more strategic options, but even if the game had it I highly doubt it would matter right now. Every patch since as far back as I can remember has favored one or two clearly superior ways to play each faction
Now its emplacements for Brits, before it was double leigs for OKW or partisans for soviets. Until the game gets more balanced and less flooded with new op content, more strategic choices won't make a hell of a difference as long as factions consistently have the definitive way to play them.

Yeah having OKW spew out units in a forward position from their Med + Schwere HQ is just going to be fair and just balance...

I don't really feel qualified to judge the wisdom of this change. But there was one observation I wanted to make that relates to this change. With every patch lately, two things happen:

1. The factions become homogenous
2. The game gets more similar to CoH1.

I'm a big fan of both mirrored RTS games and the original CoH, but changes like this can't help but make me feel that something unique is slowly being lost.

That is what I also said. The mirroring sucks.

If I didn't know who you are I would think that this post is supposed to be a satire. The elitism and snobbiness...holy shit. Also when did you and inverse gather the high level experience in coh2 you were mentioning ?

You know NOTHING. They practiced in a special room. If you practice one hour in that room, its equivalent to 10 years. Have you not seen Dragon Ballz, noob