Login

russian armor

Next patch opinions

1 Jul 2016, 23:28 PM
#41
avatar of BeefSurge

Posts: 1891



If trenches could be used by everyone then you have to give some thought to where you place them and if you over extend your decision bites you in the arse. Its core coh2 doctrine. But not anymore because the game has to be retard friendly. Don't want anyones feelings to get hurt because they can't master coh. Seriously, just fucking hell.

So much of what relic does is just short sighted and poorly thought out. Usf morter anyone. No one wanted a morter except retards that basically want everything ( but thats another thread ). And no one wanted a rapid fire morter where the second shell fires before the first one lands. And no one wanted more indirect fire before gren wiping was fixed.





People wanted T0 garrison counter, lots of good players did

1 Jul 2016, 23:56 PM
#42
avatar of skemshead

Posts: 611

How about fixing the fucking tactical map. Its fucking ridiculous how unresponsive that thing is..

Lost count of how often I've repeatedly tried to select a unit using tac map only to retreat the wrong unit.

Its just shit piled upon shit piled upon more shit.
2 Jul 2016, 00:00 AM
#43
avatar of Grumpy

Posts: 1954



If trenches could be used by everyone then you have to give some thought to where you place them and if you over extend your decision bites you in the arse. Its core coh2 doctrine. But not anymore because the game has to be retard friendly. Don't want anyones feelings to get hurt because they can't master coh. Seriously, just fucking hell.

So much of what relic does is just short sighted and poorly thought out. Usf morter anyone. No one wanted a morter except retards that basically want everything ( but thats another thread ). And no one wanted a rapid fire morter where the second shell fires before the first one lands. And no one wanted more indirect fire before gren wiping was fixed.





Trenches should be neutral. They should either be like the Ostruppen doctrine trenches if free or directional trenches if not free.

If a player is paying for trenches then one of the following should apply:
Trenches give green cover from one side and but just yellow cover from the other side (there are some maps with this already)
Trenches give them green cover from both sides but don't allow units to fire out the other side.

Also, trenches should be able to be destroyed using the COH1 mechanic of de-capping

Someone made a Competitive Mod (or something like that). I like how the tiers in that are organized much better than the regular game. The All Units mod is also pretty good. In short, it would be better if the core units are all competitive and the commanders just add a different flavor to the play.

2 Jul 2016, 02:10 AM
#44
avatar of skemshead

Posts: 611



People wanted T0 garrison counter, lots of good players did



I am assuming you are referring to team games because although garrisons are frustrating they are by no means op in 1v1. If you are reffering to mg spam or mgs rushing to key buildings thats different.

The thing is, the usf morter is not op vs buildings. IME a building and the unit inside can take indirect fire for a considerable amount of time. The counter to garrisons has always been flamers.

However, by trying to fix 1 problem in the game they have inadvertently broken other areas of the game and weakened the overall game. The usf morter is op vs non garrisoned and especially vs units bunched up in cover. I have always thought that indirect fire tends to remove positional play from the game because you will get wiped or at least loose enough squad members to be at risk of being wiped. So the game has devolved into bumrushing your opponent and trying to force a retreat.

The other problem is by giving usf a T0 morter it basically has all counters necessary to counter axis openings and thus another decision is removed from the game making it weaker overall. Some people will argue that each factions should have all tools available to counter opponent and the game should be decided entirely by micro and positioning. That to me seems like weak design because decisions are based entirely around which unit to build and less about teching and overall strategy.

Disclaimer : I am currently only playing usf and have been since brits bullshit began.

2 Jul 2016, 09:01 AM
#45
avatar of MATRAKA14

Posts: 118

please fix:

Underperforming commanders (including useless abilities like hit the dirt or single il2 strafe)

KV1

B4

M42 AT gun
2 Jul 2016, 09:40 AM
#46
avatar of BeefSurge

Posts: 1891



I am assuming you are referring to team games because although garrisons are frustrating they are by no means op in 1v1. If you are reffering to mg spam or mgs rushing to key buildings thats different.

The thing is, the usf morter is not op vs buildings. IME a building and the unit inside can take indirect fire for a considerable amount of time. The counter to garrisons has always been flamers.

However, by trying to fix 1 problem in the game they have inadvertently broken other areas of the game and weakened the overall game. The usf morter is op vs non garrisoned and especially vs units bunched up in cover. I have always thought that indirect fire tends to remove positional play from the game because you will get wiped or at least loose enough squad members to be at risk of being wiped. So the game has devolved into bumrushing your opponent and trying to force a retreat.

The other problem is by giving usf a T0 morter it basically has all counters necessary to counter axis openings and thus another decision is removed from the game making it weaker overall. Some people will argue that each factions should have all tools available to counter opponent and the game should be decided entirely by micro and positioning. That to me seems like weak design because decisions are based entirely around which unit to build and less about teching and overall strategy.

Disclaimer : I am currently only playing usf and have been since brits bullshit began.



I feel you brother. USF early was about always capping points, flanking, and going around spots where the other guy has troops dug in. With the mortar it's opened up a more offensive playstyle where you sacrifice map control and flanking but you get to kill his units, or force them to move. (Where Rifles then kill them.)

Note this is about okw-against Ost mortar is beyond broken, fast t2 is osts only prayer
2 Jul 2016, 10:13 AM
#47
avatar of StonedAssassin

Posts: 63



I have always thought that indirect fire tends to remove positional play from the game because you will get wiped or at least loose enough squad members to be at risk of being wiped. So the game has devolved into bumrushing your opponent and trying to force a retreat.



Yeah, the incredible accuracy of indirect fire forces units to not stay in cover for more than 5 seconds. Of course you see people forming blobs to close the gap with artillery. You can't play a positional game. It wouldn't be so bad if it didn't turn engagements into just trading hitpoints like a regular RTS. It's like playing starcraft with ww2 skins. Reduce the accuracy of indirect fire and increase the scatter of all direct artillery of all armies. Even make skillful artillery like the Stuka HT not fall into completely straight lines. Give everything more scatter, less damage, and goddammit please increase the unit spacing
2 Jul 2016, 16:01 PM
#48
avatar of IncendiaryRounds:)

Posts: 1527

Permanently Banned


Wow I never thought such bias would be possible. Apart from the mine suppression this is a HUGE power creep leap for axis.

Sturmpio caches? What full resources AND caches?
75 fuel ostwind? Thats just 5 more than a stuart!


Absolutely no way in hell, you are just whining for axis.


Yet the Stuart is a much more reliable anti-inf (can chase and wipe retreating squads) and is almost as durable as an ostwind, gets a vet 0 stun, and by the time the OH player gets an Ostwind, the USF player can usually get a Sherman, hard countering it, while the pak is more of a soft counter to the Stuart.
2 Jul 2016, 20:27 PM
#49
avatar of RiCE

Posts: 284


Sturmpio caches? What full resources AND caches?


Yes. Youknow.... like the rest of the armies in this game
2 Jul 2016, 22:44 PM
#50
avatar of Carlos Danger

Posts: 362

I don't want caches for OKW ... Wouldn't mind seeing the scavenge ability get a revamp though.
3 Jul 2016, 01:20 AM
#51
avatar of vietnamabc

Posts: 1063



Yet the Stuart is a much more reliable anti-inf (can chase and wipe retreating squads) and is almost as durable as an ostwind, gets a vet 0 stun, and by the time the OH player gets an Ostwind, the USF player can usually get a Sherman, hard countering it, while the pak is more of a soft counter to the Stuart.

But against Soviet, Ostwind totally rekts USSR T3 and team weapons. Also blitz.
3 Jul 2016, 14:41 PM
#52
avatar of Mittens
Donator 11

Posts: 1276

Those first 2 Circle jerk posts seem very biased and limited in scope and definition on why changes are needed.

Sturms should not get a shrek and a sweeper, simply because you would like it. You should be required to make a decision to choose 1 per squad and not have a be all end all unit.

USF mortar
should have a 10 range reduction maybe, its stats should stay relatively the same as you already pay for them with the 260mp. Moving it to t1 might be an ok idea but in that option you look to limit USF in the early game both factions that get an MG pretty early. On top of that, its already very risk to choose t1 over t2 due to the lack of AT support in t1 that requires you to take another risk with handheld AT or to hope your m20 mines do something.

Brace reduction is another poor idea, not only are you investing pop cap in these 'units' but you are wasting tech, fuel, mp, and time in building these static positions. There are already more options to deal with them and even the Goliath can almost 1 shot one of these positions. All in all brit emplacements are trash.

Ostwind changes could happen but at the same time the cost for the centaur would also need to come down to match, units fill same role, perform the same, come out at same time.

Giving volks extra slot would remove a tactical decision players need to make and give them a 'be all end all unit', not a good idea and simply rewards bad play.

Strumpio catches may be alright, OKW is pretty muni heavy (much like USF ;) ) but outside of that the direct changes to fuel income might push their already fuel cheap tech tree further E.G 4v4 meta.

Moving the t-34 to a tier 3.5 would significantly reduce the viability of this unit. Not only does it come in the t4 build, but it also comes later than a p4 with less pen, armor, and overall accuracy. Would never be built and simply would push this unit into oblivion.

Improving reketn stats is a different story, currently the vet on the rekten is obscene. ROF increases, 1000x pen on first shot, no cloak movement penalties, damage increase, and even range increase. The unit builds on vet which makes keeping it alive very important, now, on that note the unit could use an extra man making it a 5th man squad. Giving it green cover would require the removal of the cloak it gets currently in order to make up for the changes.


Buildings: all buildings should take more damage as ghosts such as sandbags and such.

Personally I would like to see the brummbar armor come down slightly as it comes out earlier (therefore less AT options on the field).

Changes to USF late tech, the major cost should come down by 10 fuel, the sherman comes super late almost to the point that a panther is often times on the field beforehand.

Buff the Solv AAHT AA capabilities, due to the high ROF the RNG gods often make it impossible to shoot down a single fly over plane and even just a recon.

Maxim Hmg price should also come down to 250 rather than 260, the rotation/set up rate change has been enough to fix the spam meta.

OKW Base upgrades : Honestly We could see these drop in mp price, the reinforcement upgrade is enough to be pretty demanding on the faction. Dropping the medics/engineers upgrade to 75mp would still give them a relevant cost but also ease the pressure on OKW.

off maps in base zone: these are simply game breaking, Stuka dive bomb, IL2, ect, are silly. Those cheese shouldn't be a thing but was in a pre-WFA game where you could build Arty in base sectors.



Outside of that everything seems to have justified changes and feel right in the meta outside of b4,kv1, kv2, opentop 251 ht, hit the dirt, possibly bulldozer, ect. Basically what MATRAKA14 said
3 Jul 2016, 16:04 PM
#53
avatar of Brassatko

Posts: 175

Sturms should not get a shrek and a sweeper, simply because you would like it. You should be required to make a decision to choose 1 per squad and not have a be all end all unit.


Sturms cost 300, 32 to reinforce. That unit cannot be spammed, unlike USF/UKF cheap REs that are able to upgrade 2 AT weapons on top of their sweeper.
3 Jul 2016, 18:52 PM
#54
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4474

Sturms should not get a shrek and a sweeper, simply because you would like it. You should be required to make a decision to choose 1 per squad and not have a be all end all unit.


Sturms cost 300, 32 to reinforce. That unit cannot be spammed, unlike USF/UKF cheap REs that are able to upgrade 2 AT weapons on top of their sweeper.
+1
0 user is browsing this thread:

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

687 users are online: 687 guests
1 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49062
Welcome our newest member, Mclatc16
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM