Grenades vs garrisons

Does it matter where exactly the grenade lands inside the building if the building is large and models are clumped together on one side? Or they are treated as one, undivided entity and it doesn't matter? Is there a difference between flame grenades and regular ones in this regard?

I answered these questions and many more in the starter series on garrisons https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPx2wcvQnHM

Thank you very much!

Unfortunately, it does. It's a regression from Dawn of War II, where clicking a building with a grenade ability made the squad throw it into a window of the building and damaged everything inside.

It's utter idiocy how it works in CoH2, with the grenades flying through building walls like they're not there and basically behaving like the building is just a hologram on top of a piece of land where units are sitting and have a cover bonus.

If Relic regress more basic, sensible things in CoH3 like they did in CoH2 after DoWII (the aforementioned garrison regression, AT guns regressing into not snaring vehicles they hit and allowing tanks to hard counter their own hard counter, HMG teams not suppressing everything in their arc of fire by waving the MG all over the arc constantly), it'll be dead on arrival.

Unfortunately, it does. It's a regression from Dawn of War II, where clicking a building with a grenade ability made the squad throw it into a window of the building and damaged everything inside.

It's utter idiocy how it works in CoH2, with the grenades flying through building walls like they're not there and basically behaving like the building is just a hologram on top of a piece of land where units are sitting and have a cover bonus.

If Relic regress more basic, sensible things in CoH3 like they did in CoH2 after DoWII (the aforementioned garrison regression, AT guns regressing into not snaring vehicles they hit and allowing tanks to hard counter their own hard counter, HMG teams not suppressing everything in their arc of fire by waving the MG all over the arc constantly), it'll be dead on arrival.

I agree with the grenades vs buildings stuff, but...
ATs snaring tanks and MGs insta-suppressing their entire arc is just utter BS

I agree with the grenades vs buildings stuff, but...
ATs snaring tanks and MGs insta-suppressing their entire arc is just utter BS

And yet Dawn of War II still plays more reliably and sensibly than CoH2 ever has, because hard counters actually hard counter their intended targets.

CoH2 regressed so far that it's just a fustercluck of RNG and bruteforcing (walk three infantry units into an MG's arc of fire, drive tank past an AT gun and then drive circles around it, etc.) -- zero tactics, just abuse of mechanics that don't work as they are supposed to (and do work like they're supposed to in a nine year old game by the same developer).

CoH2 regressed so far that it's just a fustercluck of RNG and bruteforcing (walk three infantry units into an MG's arc of fire, drive tank past an AT gun and then drive circles around it, etc.) -- zero tactics, just abuse of mechanics that don't work as they are supposed to (and do work like they're supposed to in a nine year old game by the same developer).

It's called supporting your units. Company of Heroes 2 is a game of soft counters.

(walk three infantry units into an MG's arc of fire, drive tank past an AT gun and then drive circles around it, etc.) .

Support your support weapons and this won't happen.

USF if not pick some Commander with Flamethrower
when fight in Urban map pineapple not useful Throw it Their out
and back in after blast munition sunk T-T
but when Volk use flame nade is better in anti garrisons role

And yet Dawn of War II still plays more reliably and sensibly than CoH2 ever has, because hard counters actually hard counter their intended targets.

CoH2 regressed so far that it's just a fustercluck of RNG and bruteforcing (walk three infantry units into an MG's arc of fire, drive tank past an AT gun and then drive circles around it, etc.) -- zero tactics, just abuse of mechanics that don't work as they are supposed to (and do work like they're supposed to in a nine year old game by the same developer).

If you want a game of hardcounters, play starcraft or LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE OTHER RTS THERE IS

If Relic regress more basic, sensible things in CoH3 like they did in CoH2 after DoWII (the aforementioned garrison regression, AT guns regressing into not snaring vehicles they hit and allowing tanks to hard counter their own hard counter, HMG teams not suppressing everything in their arc of fire by waving the MG all over the arc constantly), it'll be dead on arrival.

thats the most stupid thing ive ever read here. how is this stupid stuff supposed to work? it would be utter cancer. just wtf

And yet Dawn of War II still plays more reliably and sensibly than CoH2 ever has, because hard counters actually hard counter their intended targets.

CoH2 regressed so far that it's just a fustercluck of RNG and bruteforcing (walk three infantry units into an MG's arc of fire, drive tank past an AT gun and then drive circles around it, etc.) -- zero tactics, just abuse of mechanics that don't work as they are supposed to (and do work like they're supposed to in a nine year old game by the same developer).

If a PaK killed a T34 in one shot which would be realistic, T34 should also cost no fuel because in reality there were a lot more T34 than you see in CoH.
Also I am pretty sure that tanks in real life also drove around enemies like AT guns and tanks in order to attack them from the sides.
I's called flanking.
And this flanking can be prevented by support units and mines. All of which is included in the game.

And yet Dawn of War II still plays more reliably and sensibly than CoH2 ever has, because hard counters actually hard counter their intended targets.

CoH2 regressed so far that it's just a fustercluck of RNG and bruteforcing (walk three infantry units into an MG's arc of fire, drive tank past an AT gun and then drive circles around it, etc.) -- zero tactics, just abuse of mechanics that don't work as they are supposed to (and do work like they're supposed to in a nine year old game by the same developer).

Don't put DoW2's "There is only war" patch on a pedestal when it belongs in a garbage bin. A hard counter system in a game where unit preservation is key is the dumbest move anyone can make. Soft Counters is why CoH1-2 work so well and is an overall better game. In CoH, Just because someone builds a unit that soft counters yours, it doesn't mean your build choice was completely invalided.

In DoW2 it's "Oh hey I just spent 500 Manpower and 50 Fuel on an ASM squad, good thing you hard countered it with a squad that's far cheaper then it that costs 300 Manpower. Man I love hard counter systems in a game where I have to keep my units! For the rest of the game I will forever be countered and screwed!" Only certain factions had to obey these rules too btw, counters didn't even work half the time.

That crap works in games like Starcraft where you scout your enemies base and composition, collide units together, rebuild what you lost against your opponents current army strategy, constantly adapting and expanding.

And don't put that "CoH2 is about bruteforcing through MG" crap in here either. I was an avid DoW2 player/tester who helped test a lot of things. A single hormagaunt squad could literally just attack move through a SM devastator squad and kill it while being suppressed. Imagine that for a second in CoH2 guys, A Riflemen squad literally just attack moving through an MG42 squad from the front at max range and having the riflemen squad win while being suppressed. That was DoW2 balance.

- A very salty DoW2 Fanatic

From everything I've seen about DoW2 multiplayer, I am very happy CoH2 is dissimilar to it and would be even happier if it is intentionally pushed away from DoW3 design.

Also, I like that a grenade in a building doesn't auto-hit all units in it. If it's a huge building, it shouldn't, and part of the appeal of a huge building should specifically be that your units are more spread out.

Part of the risk of a small building being the opposite.

A hard counter doesn't mean instant death of enemy units...

In fact, instawipes happen in CoH2 waaaaaaaaaaay more than in Dawn of War II.

A hard counter means that the unit being hard countered CANNOT, under any circumstances, pose a threat to its own hard counter.

That is proper design. An anti-tank gun must not be threatened by a tank. A machine gun must not be threatened by a headlong rush directly into its cone. This has nothing to do with support or lack of support (especially since supporting does nothing in CoH2 because of the percent-chance-of-hitting mechanics making it impossible to reliably whittle down enemy units that are focusing on doing something else).

That is proper design. An anti-tank gun must not be threatened by a tank. A machine gun must not be threatened by a headlong rush directly into its cone. This has nothing to do with support or lack of support (especially since supporting does nothing in CoH2 because of the percent-chance-of-hitting mechanics making it impossible to reliably whittle down enemy units that are focusing on doing something else).

You are playing the wrong game as anti-tank guns are also infantry. Tanks are also meant to kill infantry and are much costlier than ATGs. Same as infantry firearms vs team weapon crews. Game of soft counters. Don't want an MG to be threatened by infantry, scout and utilize its 45 range vs the 35 range of rifles. ATGs also outrange the majority of the vehicles in the game.

A hard counter doesn't mean instant death of enemy units...

That is proper design. An anti-tank gun must not be threatened by a tank. A machine gun must not be threatened by a headlong rush directly into its cone. This has nothing to do with support or lack of support (especially since supporting does nothing in CoH2 because of the percent-chance-of-hitting mechanics making it impossible to reliably whittle down enemy units that are focusing on doing something else).

Sounds like bad design to me.

Player skill/micro should be able to beat a counter in games like these. If an AT gun immediately snared a tank not only would it be broken but it would also mean that a players skill is not implemented in the engagement. Which is detrimental to a more complex model of rts like COH2.

Grenades could be separated into fragmentation (defensive) and concussion (offensive).

Defensive grenades would do more damage bad would have low modifiers vs heavy cover/garrison.

Offensive grenades would do less damage but would have damage bonuses vs cover/garrison forcing enemy to leave the cover even if it for a sort time.

DOT grenades should simply be removed from mainline infantry and have the DOT damage harm all in garrison similar to flamers.