Vaulting is completely pointless

snip

If I agree with you, it is also important to point that one faction in COH2 can break fences with one of its first unit and then with its truck. A map like farmoville approach was disadventaging south spawn because of fences except for OKW which could remove them in a minute.

Now having an automatic vaulting could be a nice improvement for the next coh game.

IMO everyone who says vaulting is not important has not played a lot of vCoH to be honest.
It was a pain in the ass if your soldiers walked around a complete area to get to point B which took almost a minute and still with vaulting they could have been there in 3 seconds.

I think it is perfect the way it is. Auto vaulting could lead to much worse problems, just look at the vehicle pathing right now. Vaulting is something that distinguishes a good player from a very good one.

I don't like the idea to auto vault. You could also say your units should take auto cover. It's still a game where you win because of gameplay and decisions. And vaulting is not so micro intensive. TBH I usually vault about 1-2 times per game, but I am also not pro player.

...

thoughts ?

Vault become necessary because it created lots of problem in COH1 where a simple fence good make quite a difference for faction that had access to early vehicles that could crash it like USF jeeps or UKF Trucks. Rails and metal being a good map to demonstrate the issue.

It does create a problem for Ostheer currently who can not built mainline infantry from T0 but it would probably be better for ostheer if HMG42 was swapped with grenadiers in T1.

Vault become necessary because it created lots of problem in COH1 where a simple fence good make quite a difference for faction that had access to early vehicles that could crash it like USF jeeps or UKF Trucks. Rails and metal being a good map to demonstrate the issue.

It does create a problem for Ostheer currently who can not built mainline infantry from T0 but it would probably be better for ostheer if HMG42 was swapped with grenadiers in T1.

US Jeeps in vcoh could not crush. Only faction with unit that could was Brits, and basing any future design decisions on potential problems reserved specifically to Brits (in either game) is a joke tbh. They both suck, start over from scratch.

IMO everyone who says vaulting is not important has not played a lot of vCoH to be honest.
It was a pain in the ass if your soldiers walked around a complete area to get to point B which took almost a minute and still with vaulting they could have been there in 3 seconds.

I think it is perfect the way it is. Auto vaulting could lead to much worse problems, just look at the vehicle pathing right now. Vaulting is something that distinguishes a good player from a very good one.

I don't like the idea to auto vault. You could also say your units should take auto cover. It's still a game where you win because of gameplay and decisions. And vaulting is not so micro intensive. TBH I usually vault about 1-2 times per game, but I am also not pro player.

I can think of one spot on one map where lack of vaulting really slows you down, and even there its a 20 second delay lol. If by pain in the ass you mean setting up a flank takes more time and effort because you are more limited in the approaches you can take, exactly, and the early game was better for it. Furthermore if use of vaulting is differentiating between the good and very good players, which I still find pretty hard to believe, in no way is that a good thing. What differentiates between the good and very good should mainly be strategy and offensive capability, not clicking on a fence.

I think you can argue about the actual value of it on a strategic level, but it removes nothing from the game. Mappers can still add unvaultable fences to maps and it will function just as in vcoh.

On the other hand, it adds more depth in situations where it needs it. It gives the maps a more natural look and flow to be able to vault huge sections of walls instead of walking around them.

I really don't see any drawbacks, as long as unvaultable walls are still possible.

I think you can argue about the actual value of it on a strategic level, but it removes nothing from the game. Mappers can still add unvaultable fences to maps and it will function just as in vcoh.

On the other hand, it adds more depth in situations where it needs it. It gives the maps a more natural look and flow to be able to vault huge sections of walls instead of walking around them.

I really don't see any drawbacks, as long as unvaultable walls are still possible.

The main drawback is how incredibly annoying those barely visible fences are on maps like Vaux.

If you look closely, the original post actually complains not simply about the vault feature itself but also the fact it adds micro tax.

As some people already said, vaulting should exist in the game, naturally, because otherwise some maps would be completely insane. I imagine a blob of 4 rifle squads going "CURSES, FOILED AGAIN BY A THIN WOODEN FENCE, okay lads, time to go for a 300 meter detour" (this maneuver is also known as "CoH1" in the community.)

However, why does it require a separate command and click?

I guess it could be said vaulting is a way to reward good micro but this line of thinking is flawed. Imagine if base infantry didn't fire automatically but you had to right click the enemy squad every time you wanted your grenadiers or riflemen to fire off a voley, technically this too would require micro and would DEFINITELY reward players with better micro. GCS would then be a series of people with ADHD hopped up on alertness drugs and you would get your game that is SO GOOD IT REQUIRES MICRO!!!!1111

And yes, if you think this would be absurd, this is EXACTLY what vaulting is: having to issue an explicit order to perform the most natural of tasks that I as a commander and an RTS gamer do not expect to have to explicitly issue.

What's next? Explicitly having to reload your MGs or they won't fire?

tl;dr: vault is good, having to manually click it is bad. Make it automatic.

Let's not open up the can of worms of whether it should be autovaulting on retreat too.

Auto vaulting could cause so many problems. Control wise, code wise...

I think you can argue about the actual value of it on a strategic level, but it removes nothing from the game. Mappers can still add unvaultable fences to maps and it will function just as in vcoh.

On the other hand, it adds more depth in situations where it needs it. It gives the maps a more natural look and flow to be able to vault huge sections of walls instead of walking around them.

I really don't see any drawbacks, as long as unvaultable walls are still possible.

But as we already said nobody does this when making maps. In theory we could have wildly unbalanced factions but with maps so narrowly tailored that they can fight somewhat fairly. Terrible idea because we can't rely on mappers (especially the Relic mappers making the most played maps) to build maps around the gameplay.

Units should automatically jump over fences, maybe make the animation 1sec slower and during the crossing apply a negative cover.
"light" support weapons like mortars & hmg should be able to do the same but slower than infantry. big stuffs like HM-38 120mm Mortar and ATgun would still have to go around.
the whole thing would be more realistic dat way

Middle point.
Force move command, which makes the unit go as straight as possible, vaulting in the process.

Full automatic/on retreat = nope.

First up, I like faulting for immersion, and the team weapon and retreat dynamic, but also for the micro involved (seems like I'm the majority on the latter point...). I get to that below.

If by pain in the ass you mean setting up a flank takes more time and effort because you are more limited in the approaches you can take, exactly, and the early game was better for it.

I never played vCoH, seems like the dynamic there was quite different. You liked that more, and that's fine. Surely, simply copying a Coh1 map to Coh2 is problematic because the dynamic will be different because suddenly you can vault.

And also, it's likely that several fences currently exist for the visuals only without considering the implications on gameplay (although I can't really fault the mechanic for that...).

All that said, I've read several complaints about maps in the past years, but while "not enough options to flank" was a very common thing, I don't recall an instance of "stuff is too easy to flank here!". So...

snip

I think the analogy is off, for a number of reasons. And actually I think for these reasons that this is a micro item done well.

• Vaulting isn't necessary; you can get your squads to any point on the map without vaulting. However, you can optimize their way by manually order them to vault. So, you can do without, but you can optimize some things if you spend the extra effort.
  
• Vaulting is something that doesn't happen too often. I mean, how often do you actually use it during a game? Map dependent of course, but maybe 10 times? So, it's not something that keeps you horribly busy.
  
• Vaulting is an early game thing. So, it's mostly relevant when you otherwise have not much to do. Later, when you have a lot of units to look out for and are strapped for attention, almost anything vaultable has been flattened already.
  

What I'm not too happy about is that very light vehicles destroy fences too casually. I would like to see something like a "vault" command for them as well, like, normally they would path around the fence, but you can specifically order them to go through it, but they will take a small amount of damage from that.

Furthermore if use of vaulting is differentiating between the good and very good players, which I still find pretty hard to believe, in no way is that a good thing.

Well, I don't think it differentiates good from very good players either. The vaulting itself might differentiate "newbies" from "not complete noob" players, finer stuff like crushing fences to open pathways might differentiate "not complete noob" from "mediocre" players, and finally vaulting before retreating might be something where mediocre players differ from above average ones... Well, I guess you get the point.

Why's that relevant? Well, learning how-to-CoH is hard enough, and I think it is nice if you gradually learn stuff and improve your play. I always find it gratifying when I properly e.g. do the vault-then-retreat thing instead of panickly smash "R" right away. You know, little things...

Actually I would suggest that wire-cutters work on ambient fences also.

Vaulting is actually very important for game movement in the early game. Since weapon teams cannot vault it gives infantry vastly more approaches. If you look at COH1 if an mg had a fence next to it there was no way to get to it with a flanked squad. He just packed it up and moved it back. Now it gives a chance to push from multiple angles. Whether it happens or not in the game is irrelevant because it changes the way players go to set up before any engagement happens.

Vaulting makes the unit movement feel more fluid, and can be removed easily in worldbuilder. There are no downsides to this ability.

On rails & metal in vCoH I would use a flamethrower to bust down a section of fence on the south. This allowed me on many occasions to slip forces past the garrisoned MG and pull off a flank that often would win me the fuel.

This simple dynamic has yet to be replicated in CoH2 as a strategic move. At best there's a few tall, sight blocking fences and walls you can burn down. (But hey, kubels crush everything anyway. Where the bren carrier might've been an exception, crushing cover and fences from the first minute is just an implied norm for coh2.

I've made a few maps with ambient, map object barbed wire that can be cut, but again, the dynamic of busting past a barrier with a unit that needs a munitions upgrade to get an edge in positioning didn't translate well.

I can vault an infantry squad past a fence, but not clear a path for any team weapons. I can cut wire, but that isn't really much of an obstacle.

I think the analogy is off, for a number of reasons. And actually I think for these reasons that this is a micro item done well.

• Vaulting isn't necessary; you can get your squads to any point on the map without vaulting. However, you can optimize their way by manually order them to vault. So, you can do without, but you can optimize some things if you spend the extra effort.
  
• Vaulting is something that doesn't happen too often. I mean, how often do you actually use it during a game? Map dependent of course, but maybe 10 times? So, it's not something that keeps you horribly busy.
  
• Vaulting is an early game thing. So, it's mostly relevant when you otherwise have not much to do. Later, when you have a lot of units to look out for and are strapped for attention, almost anything vaultable has been flattened already.
  

Thanks for the well argumented and nicely put reply. You may only need it a few times, it may be just one extra click but - let's just say I disagree with extra micro on principle, regardless of the specifics of vaulting. Just because a game mechanic means extra micro is rewarded, this does not make the game mechanic inherently good, because the goal of CoH2 is not to maximise micro, it is to maximise decision making as it is a strategy game.

I am not asking the game to play itself for me. I am asking for it to not impose artificial micro tax where unneeded. I believe extra clicking for vaulting is unneeded. You can disagree and that is okay.

My point is, what would the game lose if vaulting was automatic? Would it be worse in any way?

Just because a game mechanic means extra micro is rewarded, this does not make the game mechanic inherently good, because the goal of CoH2 is not to maximise micro, it is to maximise decision making as it is a strategy game.

Thanks for the response

First, about the "strategy game": True, CoH2 has strategy elements (Commanders, tech choices, BOs and probably most importantly where to push on the map); then there are tactical elements, like, how to attack a certain position (which route to take, flanking, which units to focus) and finally there is the execution part that involves the actual micro (moving units, cover and ability usage...).

We will all probably disagree to some extent about which element goes where, and certainly about how important the different aspects are and how much they contribute to our gameplay experience. But properly and quickly applying micro is certainly one element of CoH2.

If it shouldn't be about micro at all, only about decisions, well, there are other things that could be automated, for example:

• Volksgrenadiere and IS could automatically start to build sandbags on their side of the post when capping.
  
• Pioneers could automatically start to wire cover on the opponents side when idle for more than 5 seconds.
  
• Panzer tactician could automatically engage when the tank is one shot from being destroyed.
  
• Panzerfauts could be a toggle so that the Grenadiers would automatically fire it when they find a vehicle with undamaged engine if it's health is low enough.
  

All of these points are more or less no-brainers (so no actual decision involved), but a considerable amount of people would not like all of them being implemented.

That doesn't mean that the benefit of micro can't be discussed at all, of course. There are examples of microtax that I feel were bad. One example were the USF medics which required the push of a button to do their work. This would be more like your analogy: A supercrucial function that requires micro to work at all, and often is relevant while a lot is happening at the same time. Vaulting does not fall into this category for the reasons I listed.

My point is, what would the game lose if vaulting was automatic? Would it be worse in any way?

I agree in that the game wouldn't loose a gameplay mechanic, true. That said:

Personally, I'm bad at micro, and I guess I would fare better the more micro would be removed. However, due to the optional nature of vaulting, I'm not stressed out by it, because I know it's not a big deal when I forget to do it.

On the other hand, I draw some satisfaction from instances when I manage to use a feature like this to good effect (yeah, I'm cheap ). So, yes, for me the game would be teeny-tiny bit worse; obviously, this is totally subjective, I get that other people perceive it more as a chore...

(snip)

In the end it will boil down to preference, a matter of where to draw the line before me or you feel what should be expected as an automatic logical behaviour.

Putting up sandbags and wire to me FEELS like a command that should be explicitly issued by the commander, not up to the personal initiative of the individuals (on top of the fact that the AI could never really figure out where to build what). On the other hand, soldiers not jumping over fences unless being deliberately told to seems silly to me.

The Panzer tactician example is an interesting one, to be sure. I would actually like this being automatic behaviour, given that you present very clear criteria for using it. The ability could be called something like "veteran crews : tank commanders will deploy defensive smoke when tank is close to destruction".

Once you get into automatic sandbags and automatic fausts things do become a bit silly. Panzerschrecks already shoot automatically into tanks and we don't mind; why are fausts so different? The obvious answer is of course that fausts are designed to be on-demand ability : they cost ammo and have cooldown, and so you will not want to Leeroy Jenkins panzerfaust every time a vehicle enters the field of view. If a Schreck team is in range of a tank, and can fire, there is practically no scenario where you DON'T want them to shoot. So they shoot automatically and we consider this natural. To me, vaulting is more like Schreck than a Faust in this regard, since it has no downsides and if it is possible it is always better than the alternative (walking around).

I suppose what diferentiates all these from automatic vault in this case is that vault has no cooldown, expends no ammo, has no detrimental effects on your troops, and the AI can always calculate the optimal pathfinding with vaulting taken into account better than you can. Only because all of these are true, I think vaulting can and should be automatic; but these things do not hold true for tactical stuff like deploying tank smoke or throwing grenades.

I actually wouldn't mind a game where tanks drop smoke automatically, infantry throws grenades automatically, and the player had to make less specific but wider, battalion-level command decisions, and less on where exactly each unit farts. However, Company of Heroes is not that game.

• Volksgrenadiere and IS could automatically start to build sandbags on their side of the post when capping.
  
• Pioneers could automatically start to wire cover on the opponents side when idle for more than 5 seconds.
  
• Panzer tactician could automatically engage when the tank is one shot from being destroyed.
  
• Panzerfauts could be a toggle so that the Grenadiers would automatically fire it when they find a vehicle with undamaged engine if it's health is low enough.
  

Sounds more like a list of scrapped DLC commander abilities...

Also, as far as vaulting is concerned, I think it is closer to the unique animations of infantry walking through heavy snow than true sight in terms of gameplay importance.

On one hand, we could argue that infantry should be able to just walk through hedgerows, and on the other hand we could argue that infantry should be able to attack a garrison by climbing through the windows or busting in the door. At a certain point the gameplay has to be considered.

Also, there aren't a whole lot of options for walls/fences that provide cover and prevent movement including vaulting. The few that do are all green cover and might be heavy crush. And I know at least one can be wire-cut. While mappers aren't making maps with a whole lot of non-vaultable movement blockers, there aren't a whole lot of options to work with without some really ugly and repetitive maps.

There are less assets to work with, most are winter variants, and a huge amount of objects have shot or sight blocking properties that are dubious at best. One of the best brick rubble objects is a sight blocker despite it having, like, the exact same dimensions as conscripts sandbags.

About donnie vs soldier
Show Spoiler

Vaulting adds value to the game. Fenced paths punish transit when under fire. Your maneuverability changes depending on whether you are engaging or not.