As we all know, the company of heroes series has somewhat low weapon ranges. Some maps are designed around this range (Stalingrad, Achelous river), while others seem to be designed for a range of 40 or 50 meters (cover placement and sector size/shape).
I personally like the range EAW and TGW present us (50 meters), as I think the maps are designed better for them, it works better with squad-ai, allows more room for maneuvering, and is better for cinematics.
I want to know what you chaps think. Thus im setting up a poll to determine what most people want to see. Please add a comment after your vote explaining your decision, as every opinion can provide thoughtful insight.
Note: The poll is just a general measure. Other ranges (like sniper range) would scale according to the average range above.
Weapon ranges - Is everyone blind?
20 Sep 2017, 22:33 PM
#1
Posts: 327
20 Sep 2017, 22:44 PM
#2
1
Posts: 2885
I agree that ranges look totally unreal, but keep in mind that you need to fit the engagement into your screen. In fps games you look at the direction of the gun, so the distance is not important. In RTS you look from above. Then there are two options: either the units are very small (RUSE style) so you lose cinematics, or the engagement range is larger than screen so you lose both cinematics and the ease of commanding your army. When you add the fact that tanks need larger range than infantry and their fights also need to be commanded on screen, you get why the range is exactly 35.
20 Sep 2017, 22:44 PM
#3
Posts: 3053
My first instinct was to go with 50 but I think the unrealistically reduced range we currently play it is actually better because i think it leads to a more mobile and fluid game and makes flanking and the like more effective and usable. I think longer ranges would lead to more face to face and static combat, which would be a bit stale IMO but probably more realistic if that's what you're into.
20 Sep 2017, 23:49 PM
#4
1
Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4
More range would either make close range troops uselessly get gunned down, or long range damage would be so weak as to be completely ineffective. Would just promote attack moving too much.
21 Sep 2017, 01:28 AM
#5
Posts: 1153 | Subs: 1
Ultra high realism is what made Steel Division fail. It's a fun game but it has a high level of skill required at entry. Not just of military knowledge but of game knowledge (the first time you enter the build-your-deck screen is pretty daunting).
The ultra realism makes things rather difficult.
The ultra realism makes things rather difficult.
21 Sep 2017, 03:03 AM
#6
Posts: 372
Ultra high realism is what made Steel Division fail. It's a fun game but it has a high level of skill required at entry. Not just of military knowledge but of game knowledge (the first time you enter the build-your-deck screen is pretty daunting).
The ultra realism makes things rather difficult.
It's a niche game for a niche audience.
21 Sep 2017, 04:02 AM
#7
Posts: 875 | Subs: 6
It's almost as if Company of Heroes 2 is a video game.
21 Sep 2017, 05:28 AM
#8
Posts: 4314 | Subs: 7
I must mention you the formula: GAME PLAY > REALITY
If you want realistic game playou realism mod where everything dies by a small breeze.
If you want realistic game playou realism mod where everything dies by a small breeze.
21 Sep 2017, 06:07 AM
#9
Posts: 1944 | Subs: 2
Ultra high realism is what made Steel Division fail. It's a fun game but it has a high level of skill required at entry. Not just of military knowledge but of game knowledge (the first time you enter the build-your-deck screen is pretty daunting).
The ultra realism makes things rather difficult.
If anything what made Steel Div fail was lag slowing all players and some long wait queues. I took a break from SDN44 because Tarkov, BF1 expansion, and some friends returning to PUBG recently. I plan to get back in to the game when the 4 new division dlc is released in a few days. The Wargame series playerbase has been carried by 75% off sales and I think SDN44 can get a healthy playerbase when they fix those issues and start having decent sales because the actual gameplay is good.
21 Sep 2017, 18:02 PM
#10
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
I agree that ranges look totally unreal, but keep in mind that you need to fit the engagement into your screen. In fps games you look at the direction of the gun, so the distance is not important. In RTS you look from above. Then there are two options: either the units are very small (RUSE style) so you lose cinematics, or the engagement range is larger than screen so you lose both cinematics and the ease of commanding your army. When you add the fact that tanks need larger range than infantry and their fights also need to be commanded on screen, you get why the range is exactly 35.
This
PAGES (1)
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
188 | |||||
18 | |||||
6 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.613220.736+7
- 3.35057.860+15
- 4.1110614.644+11
- 5.276108.719+27
- 6.306114.729+2
- 7.918405.694+2
- 8.262137.657+3
- 9.722440.621+4
- 10.1041674.607-2
Replay highlight
VS
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1236
Board Info
800 users are online:
800 guests
0 post in the last 24h
5 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
5 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49125
Welcome our newest member, Xclusive
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, Xclusive
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM