Vaulting is completely pointless

Why is vaulting a popular feature in this community ? It is illogical. It makes an area passable (by allowing units to vault fences) after making it impassable (by putting a fence there in the first place).
The only effect it has is requiring one extra click at one specific location to get the intended unit path and slightly slowing the unit down. Slowing down units can be done by mud deep or snow.

The one thing that vaulting actually does is allowing infantry to pass terrain that support weapons can't. However the gameplay effects of this are very small and I doubt that this is even taken into consideration by mapmakers.

So in the end of the day it only increases APM requirements which is totally stupid because no player in the history of coh has ever come close to reaching a skill cap by being able to control all his units perfectly. So why distract players unnecessarily without adding anything to the gameplay instead of "giving" them APM to do more skillful moves with their units ?

Another point I want to add is that some of the fences have really bad visibility and can be extremely annoying because of this. Overall having to precisely click on the fences feels really lame and tedious to me at least. I admit that this point is kinda subjective but the other arguments still stand.


Ideally (not realistic I know) all fences that can be vaulted should just be passable terrain for infantry and impassable for support weapons and if thats not possible be simply removed completely from all maps.

thoughts ?

You don't vault back over a fence to retreat

complain about something which is actually to complain about! (brits for example)

mappers can easily use un-vaultable but still low enough walls

Wrong, one of the best features in the game

complain about something which is actually to complain about! (brits for example)

Or maybe you should just learn to play, I mean you got those fancy stats to prove you're better, so why need to complain then?

As far as on topic goes. I think that it should be automatic, as well as infantry units being able to vault automatically when retreating.

I understand what you mean, vaulting could be automatic.

Vaulting would work great if, rather than having to click the obstacle, you simply hold a modifier key when issuing a normal move order. Hold the key - units vault over stuff on their way. Don't hold the key - they move around it (as usual).

I don't think it's really a big hassle the way it is now, though.

Or maybe you should just learn to play, I mean you got those fancy stats to prove you're better, so why need to complain then?

Those fancy stats prove i actually dealt with a lot of aspects of the game.

Unlike you, who has 86,1 posts per every game played (proof:
https://www.coh2.org/ladders/playercard/steamid/76561198038732900 )
.

In the first game you had situations where certain flanks could not be pulled off until vehicles crushed certain fences or stone walls. This gave way to ´corridor´ camp play that was very frustrating to fight, especially when facing camping Wehrmacht.

Vaulting offers so much tactical depth. It is just that most maps don´t take advantage of it.

Those fancy stats prove i actually dealt with a lot of aspects of the game.

Unlike you, who has 86,1 posts per every game played (proof:
https://www.coh2.org/ladders/playercard/steamid/76561198038732900 )
.

Yeah so there you have it, but please explain this to me, how does a person with such laughable stats such as myself actually not complain and tries to adapt and a person with better stats such as yourself complains and asks for nerfs?

Oh and very sad indeed that I have over 1000 hours in game, which I can prove since my Steam profile is set to public, while you can't prove your experience besides those competitive games because yours is set to private, it's like you were trying to hide something, hmmm?

As if personal attacks on the internet is the only way of arguing, it's a really strange phenomenon also known as trolling, done by loners and nerds in real life who have no sense of self-worth so they try to berate others with something that most of the time isn't even relevant.

Very strange indeed, but I guess we will never know the answers to our questions.

Carry on.

Wrong, one of the best features in the game

+100

Wrong, one of the best features in the game

^ QFT

Wrong, one of the best features in the game

^

Wrong, one of the best features in the game

You don't vault back over a fence to retreat

Both very true statements.

Vaulting is NOT an objective improvement in the game. Maybe you like it, doesn't make it a massive upgrade. As GiaA said its just an extra click which is not adding any sort of strategy to the game, not even on a small tactical level. If you like vaulting just because it seems an intuitive feature for infantry, in that case it should be done automatically and on retreat. If you like vaulting because of the risk/reward associated with having a bad retreat path, 2 things:
A) I have roughly 2000 games played, and if hopping a fence has ever cost me units I otherwise would not have lost, it is such a rarity that does not justify its existence as a feature. If your defense of vaulting as a feature is the risk/reward with retreat paths, it better damn well result in unit deaths every 2-3 games.
B) Even if the risk/reward mechanic made a decent tangible impact on gameplay, which it really doesn't, you are detracting from other parrts infantry gameplay in the process. I'll go in to why in the next paragraph.

The reason the infantry play was better without vaulting comes down to controlling lanes of travel, and MG play. Whereas MGs could only be approached from so many directions before, now it is just about limitless. Don't use the whole "well its just up to the mappers to use the right objects" argument because most won't, and even if they did that removes the possibility of impassable green cover that is a strong point (what I mean is if you replace a stone wall with a tall wooden fence or hedgerow to block the movement, it cannot be a defensive position anymore). MG play was just right on the COH1 maps because while aggressive early game Wehrmacht play with MG42s was risky, it was a viable opening with good enough awareness. When you can be approached from 2-3x as many angles, this goes out the window and MG play is relegated to a sort of central defensive role and not as a viable offensive unit. Another level of depth added by no vaulting was the vehicle crush. Flanking was much more fun when it meant that you needed to maintain a foothold in certain points of the map just to protect an important flank route, then send infantry from about 4 different angles to converge all at the same time. Theres just too many positions on too many maps in COH2 where you only need 1-2 angles of attack because you have enough width to do a lazy frontal attack.

Best map of comparison I can think of is Angoville since its in both games. For the aggressive riflemen player it was important to maintain control of the road, you needed it to have access to more flanking routes on the left side of the map because the base fence. In COH2 you just spread out along the fence, hop over and send 4-5 units running straight. You can swoop from the side to improve chances of killing something on retreat, but previously this was a necessity just to win the engagement against a competent player.

GiaA a lot of Reborn guys that quit playing COH2 early on complained about the exact same thing (including Marinez, Arma, Newport....all top 5 COH1 players at one point). Just because the more active COH2 community people like it does not qualify it as a great feature.

Vaulting is NOT an objective improvement in the game.

Since it is subjective, I can easily say that it is a good improvement and a good feature that adds tactical depth.

You don't vault back over a fence to retreat

This is a good point I completely overlooked. However, the whole risk/reward question rarely plays an actual role in gameplay. The vast majority of the time it is very obvious whether a fence should be jumped or not. And if there was an "automatic" vault it could be deactivated on retreat I guess.

To DonnieChan: I just wanted to share some thoughts about a general issue that could play a role if there's a CoH3. That's the only reason I think it's worth discussing. I don't care about CoH2 specific balance problems.

mappers can easily use un-vaultable but still low enough walls

Well, they obviously don't use them as we see in CoH2.

well that might be just design/ intentional design choice to move away from restricting movements and less about the vaulting itself.

but in cases like there is 40 m of fence in front of moscow outskirt south spawn is clearly just bad map design since support weapons needs almost extra 10 secs+ to move around it. but again, it is just bad map design not the issue with the mechanic.

and yes, i think most maps does not show that mappers thought about usage of the fences as deeply as you did.

---------------

you and basilone raises interesting points. while they can be addressed by more attentive mappers easily, but not diversely. what i mean by that is that there are fence types that are waist high but not vaultable - but i believe they are all stone. if relic made a wooden fence that is double height but still shoot-through-able, i think the whole issue can be solved.

I think it's a nice cosmetic/immersion feature.

Maps without fences and walls would look plain.