Why change the spawn system?

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

It's only infantry and small weapon teams. I don't believe that ISGs count as small weapon teams, so the only thing popping out of OKW forward trucks will be Obersoldaten... Add 15 second build time, fixed. Such balance issue, much broken. What about we look how all the changes play out together, because the changes to come are massive and there are a LOT of them.

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.

You keep saying that a decision can't be strategic if it's the first thing you do but that doesn't make any sense. Strategic just means it's bigger picture rather than more situationally focused (tactical). When I develop a marketing campaign coming up with a strategy is the very first thing I do and it would be boneheaded not to for reasons I can explain if that would be interesting to anyone.

Also the irony of this is that tier placement for the most part happens just as early as commander selection.

Selecting which commanders to take with you is a strategic decision.

You keep saying that a decision can't be strategic if it's the first thing you do but that doesn't make any sense. Strategic just means it's bigger picture rather than more situationally focused (tactical). When I develop a marketing campaign coming up with a strategy is the very first thing I do and it would be boneheaded not to for reasons I can explain if that would be interesting to anyone.

Also the irony of this is that tier placement for the most part happens just as early as commander selection.

The only reason its strategical at all is you've played the same guy several times recently and you have a pretty good idea what hes going to do, and you pick a commander right of the bat because it counters him well. Thats sort of strategical, but in a rock paper scissors way because he might throw a curve ball and do something different. Even then, once you've played enough games in the current meta and you figure out some formula (ex. if this map pick X if that map pick Y), the strategy is pretty much gone. Its like solving a rubiks cube. Its something that makes you think a lot when you first try it, but once you figure out the secret way to solve it 100% of the time its a contest of how quickly you can go through the motions.

I never said that placing your buildings is strategic, I said its annoying not being able to control units when they finish producing.

Selecting which commanders to take with you is a strategic decision.

Thats even less strategical to the point that there isn't really any strategy whatsoever. At least picking at the start of the game you can see which ones the other guy has and what map you're on to influence your decision. Choosing the 3 to take with you is a crap shoot, all you can do is follow basic common sense rules like not using 3 different IS2 commanders.

The only reason its strategical at all is you've played the same guy several times recently and you have a pretty good idea what hes going to do, and you pick a commander right of the bat because it counters him well. Thats sort of strategical, but in a rock paper scissors way because he might throw a curve ball and do something different. Even then, once you've played enough games in the current meta and you figure out some formula (ex. if this map pick X if that map pick Y), the strategy is pretty much gone. Its like solving a rubiks cube. Its something that makes you think a lot when you first try it, but once you figure out the secret way to solve it 100% of the time its a contest of how quickly you can go through the motions.

I never said that placing your buildings is strategic, I said its annoying not being able to control units when they finish producing.

You seem to be arguing that it's not a strategic choice because commander selection is no-brainer,and I partially agree with that, but going Osttruppen is not really a no-brainer choice but rather a selection that grants unique opportunnities but also disadvantages. It's not a permanent solution and can work out or backfire depending on what your opponent does and how you play it. Unlike day old guard motor meta where that commander was always a good idea.

Thats even less strategical to the point that there isn't really any strategy whatsoever.

You appear to be using this word in a rather unusual manner. The core part of any definition of 'strategy' that you care to look up is the making of decisions to achieve particular ends. Choosing which set of commanders to play certainly qualifies.

The question of whether a particular problem is an easy one to solve or a difficult one is not directly pertinent to whether it falls into the purview of strategy.

he means it's a strategy he does not appreciate. hes just so used to saying whatever it takes to slag off coh2 quasi objectively.

If you haven't noticed already, the experiment has apparently been postponed.

I would have thought it is integral to this proposed spawn change, that Relic chop up the USF/UKF bases and make them build, which is a good thing. OTOH, I don't want to see more UKF trucks...the UKF have been driven backwards too far already into Camping World, with that dreadful hirsute Commander.

going Osttruppen is not really a no-brainer choice but rather a selection that grants unique opportunnities but also disadvantages. It's not a permanent solution and can work out or backfire depending on what your opponent does and how you play it.

It can have pros and cons, that doesn't really make it a super strategical choice. Its like hitting on 12 in blackjack. You could bust, but you're going to do it anyway. I choose flamethrowers on Arnhem because of the buildings I miss out on getting a Pershing, but its still an immediate decision.

You appear to be using this word in a rather unusual manner. The core part of any definition of 'strategy' that you care to look up is the making of decisions to achieve particular ends. Choosing which set of commanders to play certainly qualifies.

The question of whether a particular problem is an easy one to solve or a difficult one is not directly pertinent to whether it falls into the purview of strategy.

Conventionally strategy means an operational level battle battle plan ex. Overlord. But we aren't talking about the invasion of Europe, we're talking about the choices you make inside of the match. For COH this means economy based decisions, whether preemptive or reactive with some calculated risk.

Theres two types of strategy in the game. The first is based on experience, this is the knowledge you take with you heading in to the match. Examples are playing the strongest faction, using the best commander, different early game plans for certain maps, always getting rocket artillery in response to massive infantry blobs, etc. These are the decisions you make without much thought. The other type of strategy is the type people mean when they say "strategic depth." These are the decisions that vary more from one game to another where you outwit the other guy by picking a certain doctrine or tech path. I'm talking about the latter.

he means it's a strategy he does not appreciate. hes just so used to saying whatever it takes to slag off coh2 quasi objectively.

The same can be said for COH1 to some extent. If I choose defensive doctrine campy MG play on Wrecked Train that is an experience based decision. The difference is the game is more balanced, has more fuel upgrades, and isn't dominated by the P2W commander of the month that dictates play, giving more free reign w/ the choices you make mid and late game. Your going pretty off-topic though.

I wasn't taking a piss at COH2, all I said was making an insta choice doctrine slightly weaker isn't really detracting that much from strategy. This is really off-topic and no need to discuss further.

Conventionally strategy means an operational level battle battle plan ex. Overlord. But we aren't talking about the invasion of Europe, we're talking about the choices you make inside of the match. For COH this means economy based decisions, whether preemptive or reactive with some calculated risk.

Oh really? 'Cos I thought we were talking about "strategy". That's certainly what I was talking about. And whatever way you slice it, commander choice is certainly a part of strategy.

I don't really know what it is that you are trying to communicate, only that trying to pin whatever it is on the concept of "strategy" doesn't seem to be helping you at all.

I honestly dont have a opinnion for either, to me frankly is seems that the only significant impact is at the start of a match.

However if possible i would love to see some animations if soliders of walking out of the tent in the usa player, soliders using the ladder and exiting the tents from the special rifles command and volks opening the door to the HQ truck, walking down the mini stairs, perhaps one putting a helmet on and another one passing out rifles from a rack inside.

Its usually small details like this that make a big difference. Maybe its nostalgic of me but kinda reminds me of the service as we where exiting the barracks strap, lock and loading out the door.

@Basileone I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.

Basically my position is that this will screw with too many other design elements of coh2 and your position is that those design elements are bad/inconsequential anyway so it doesn't matter. Fair enough.

...
The same can be said for COH1 to some extent. If I choose defensive doctrine campy MG play on Wrecked Train that is an experience based decision. The difference is the game is more balanced, has more fuel upgrades, and isn't dominated by the P2W commander of the month that dictates play, giving more free reign w/ the choices you make mid and late game. Your going pretty off-topic though.

I wasn't taking a piss at COH2, all I said was making an insta choice doctrine slightly weaker isn't really detracting that much from strategy. This is really off-topic and no need to discuss further.

you made it sound as if i choose ostruppen commander at the start so i can build my whole army composition around the commander from to get go is shallower in strategy then just simply choosing the puma commander in mid game because you are pushed into it.

but this "insta choice" problem you are referring to really is a balance problem. don't you think?

you made it sound as if i choose ostruppen commander at the start so i can build my whole army composition around the commander from to get go is shallower in strategy then just simply choosing the puma commander in mid game because you are pushed into it.

but this "insta choice" problem you are referring to really is a balance problem. don't you think?

Yeah bad commander imbalance is a big part of the problem. But its all compounded by the overlap with the Soviet and Ostheer commanders, all the new content, and having more than 3 per faction. If you don't know which of the 5+ shocktroop commanders some guy chose, you won't know how to counterpick his late game perks. If some guy is a using a commander you are unfamiliar with, you can't counterpick. If someone is using a howitzer but you don't have a dive bomber in your selection, you can't counterpick him.

In COH2 usually the stars must align just right to effective counter the other guys doctrine with your own, so its just better to immediately get something that helps early and late game 99% of the time. Ranger company for example; you wanna pick it early to make use mines plus the Pershing is a safe choice late game.

Oh really? 'Cos I thought we were talking about "strategy". That's certainly what I was talking about. And whatever way you slice it, commander choice is certainly a part of strategy.

I don't really know what it is that you are trying to communicate, only that trying to pin whatever it is on the concept of "strategy" doesn't seem to be helping you at all.

Actually we were talking about whether running in from off map hurts the game strategy. Then for some reason you looked in a dictionary and misquoted strategy, particularly to how it was being used in the context of the discussion. Chess is strategic, playing rock paper scissors and picking scissors because the other guy went paper half a second earlier isn't. Not everything that involves some sort of choice is strategic. I can choose not to stick my ballsack in a toaster oven, not strategy.

I really am not a fan of this change. I hope it gets reverted. I really liked that they changed the spawn system from CoH1 because it's much more realistic and immersive.

Actually we were talking about whether running in from off map hurts the game strategy. Then for some reason you looked in a dictionary and misquoted strategy, particularly to how it was being used in the context of the discussion. Chess is strategic, playing rock paper scissors and picking scissors because the other guy went paper half a second earlier isn't. Not everything that involves some sort of choice is strategic. I can choose not to stick my ballsack in a toaster oven, not strategy.

I responded specifically to your claim that a certain thing was "not strategy", and showed that this claim was false. The fact that it was false makes whatever you were trying to get at less comprehensible. I misquoted nothing, FYI. If you'd rather stand on your pride than be understood, go right ahead.

I responded specifically to your claim that a certain thing was "not strategy", and showed that this claim was false. The fact that it was false makes whatever you were trying to get at less comprehensible. I misquoted nothing, FYI. If you'd rather stand on your pride than be understood, go right ahead.

You didn't show (prove) jack shit, you posted some ill informed op-ed that wouldn't even get a thumbs up from a part-time BuzzFeed editor. Your definition of "strategy" was about as lose as goose's butthole. By your definition of strategy I could eat 5 fried chicken buckets per day in attempt to lose weight, get fat as fuck, and that would be my valid strategy. You didn't even get the general definition of the word correct, and even if you did, you weren't using the definition that applied to the context of the conversation. For anyone that hasn't been following what nonsense this guy was saying, he basically said anything you decide in COH2 is a strategy. Like no the hell its not, not if its a no-brainer decision. If I decide not to bang someone that has AIDs, its not "strategic abstinence," its called common sense.

You will never beat me in a debate, champ. I don't know everything there is to know, but I don't post about something if I don't know what I'm talking about. Thats a rule you obviously need to adopt, tried to fact check me and didn't even have your own coherent talking points. I was hoping you would just take the hint that you were way off topic and nobody cared. But since you wanted to start a smartass semantics war like a turd, get talked to like one.

edit: Oh by the way Lucas knew what I was saying, we agreed to disagree, which is fine. That means if your having some comprehension issues, its your own personal problem.

You didn't show (prove) jack shit, you posted some ill informed op-ed that wouldn't even get a thumbs up from a part-time BuzzFeed editor. Your definition of "strategy" was about as lose as goose's butthole.

Lol. In fact, I quoted nothing, because I don't tend to make arguments based on a quick google. Nor did I need to, because this is not a particularly difficult concept. Your claim that some decisions are so simple as to no longer be considered strategic is self-evidently false; frex, the opening moves of chess are very well known but are none the less part of strategy. And this is even so if the player decided on it before the game began. That's the whole point of strategic thinking - putting together, and then implementing, a plan, not just reacting.

None of your bluster will dig you out of this hole.

You will never beat me in a debate, champ.

I already did.

I already did.

You did.

According to Bass playing 4 pio into T2 vs brit or 3 rifles into M8 vs wehr or 3 engies vs PE was not a strategy.

I think choosing a commander early-on HAS the BIGGEST impact on the game, thus making it a HUGE strategic option