British mortar pit

Pit PROBABLY would have been fine had they not done the forwars assembly bullshit tbh. As for now why not let it increase its barrage range substantially when garrisoned so it can be used defensively without garrison or offensively with one at the cost of taking minimum 210mp extra for duration?

Hahahah makes armies too similar to each other?!?! They literally gave USF a mortar team out of the blue a few patches ago ????

Honestly I’d take game balance and fairness over uniqueness of armies any day. What I think is so perfect about this is that it literally goes with the theme of UKF infantry being better in cover/garrisoned. They can still have their beautiful mortar pit creation if they want, essentially all we’re doing is making its garrison bonus that it shoots when a mortar team is in it.

Sounds to me like Lelic are just being stubborn for the sake of it.

Hahahah makes armies too similar to each other?!?! They literally gave USF a mortar team out of the blue a few patches ago ????

Honestly I’d take game balance and fairness over uniqueness of armies any day. What I think is so perfect about this is that it literally goes with the theme of UKF infantry being better in cover/garrisoned. They can still have their beautiful mortar pit creation if they want, essentially all we’re doing is making its garrison bonus that it shoots when a mortar team is in it.

Sounds to me like Lelic are just being stubborn for the sake of it.

It's not just Relic, it's also the small part of the game's competitive community as well.

Why do you think the FA bonuses were removed as you said. Or why the Brits are underused in the competitive scene?

Because people cannot and will not play with them because deep down the British still contain what made them special from CoH, and people absolutely hate that. That is also the reason why they're having so much trouble with the OKW HQ trucks as well, both playing with it and balancing it.

CoH was a more slower, bigger scale tactical game where there was a lot of RNG involved and that made it feel realistic in the sense that there are unforseen circumstances which can curb your actions, that is severely decreased in CoH2 because it doesn't fit in with the game's competitive e-sports narrative.

So yes, these changes and many more which were the most logical steps in actually balancing the game for the bigger part of the game's community were not undertaken because of the new Relic and select few "elite" on here for which we need to stride to become in order to "properly" play the game.

Nobody wants to acknowledge that most of the people playing this game have a job and a life and just wanna sit down and relax for a few hours, not to have the game as their full time job or make it an unhealthy obsession like it's some kind of sport worth watching.

What if UKF had regular mortar team but which was able to garrison trenches with trade-off bonuses and penalties like more protection at the price of reduced range/RoF.

Moreover, as someone mentioned, UKF did have a theme of playing defensively but this style is simply not applicable in reality since such turtling is easily punished by Axis wide arsenal indirect fire (with the exception of the time period when emplacements spam was a thing but that is a thing of a past now): OST have good regular mortars, mortar HT, OKW have ISG which outrange mortar pits, stukas, and both have leigs which outrange sexton

Mortar pit was fine in CoH1, I'd suggest just copying that. Remove one mortar and make it half the price. It'll be a lot more accessible and wouldn't be as devastating to lose it. Less annoying for the enemies, too.

Honestly, I understand the logic of relic, a competitive scene/decent matchmaking and multiplayer are what gives a game longevity, more people playing means more in game purchases and dlc purchases which makes them more money, a lot of people slate them for that forgetting that the player base of rts games is tiny relative to fps etc, so if people want more games/better games the studio needs to make as much money from each game as it can, which i think relic have done acceptably without it being a cash cow or pay to win.

The issue is coh2 has a tiny competitive scene but actually a half decent matchmaking playerbase, especially after each steam sale/humble bundle etc. I feel relic could do better to see where their money-making potential is and try and cling on to some of these players. The game is never going to become the next Star craft but company of heroes is still hugely famous because of its casual scene. Command and conquer failed because they desperately tried to make it an e-sport at the expense of what it’s players actually wanted.

I would normally say it’s essential to balance games for the competitive scene to keep people playing but I just can’t say that that is particularly relevant for CoH2 and it’s qualtity of life issues like this mortar pit thing that killed command and conquer.

And @wiking all that is the exact reason I end up taking royal artillery nearly every game now, for counters to axis easily obtainable artillery superiority. We’ll see what it’s like next patch after the nerfs to artillery. But I’m still expecting to find myself on artillery counter duty almost every game, it’s either counter the artillery or lose. USF are screwed by it rn because they don’t have access to counters unless they have a royal artillery ally or Soviet with ML-20s.

(Mostly a team game issue)

Honestly, I understand the logic of relic, a competitive scene/decent matchmaking and multiplayer are what gives a game longevity, more people playing means more in game purchases and dlc purchases which makes them more money, a lot of people slate them for that forgetting that the player base of rts games is tiny relative to fps etc, so if people want more games/better games the studio needs to make as much money from each game as it can, which i think relic have done acceptably without it being a cash cow or pay to win.

The issue is coh2 has a tiny competitive scene but actually a half decent matchmaking playerbase, especially after each steam sale/humble bundle etc. I feel relic could do better to see where their money-making potential is and try and cling on to some of these players. The game is never going to become the next Star craft but company of heroes is still hugely famous because of its casual scene. Command and conquer failed because they desperately tried to make it an e-sport at the expense of what it’s players actually wanted.

I would normally say it’s essential to balance games for the competitive scene to keep people playing but I just can’t say that that is particularly relevant for CoH2 and it’s qualtity of life issues like this mortar pit thing that killed command and conquer.

So what you are saying is gut vet to the point that the stars are mostly decoration, homoginize the factions and pump out patches with no rhyme or rhythm to them? You sir might have a career at relic!

@thedarkarmadillo Hahahah XD I don't mean listen to every idiot who whines on the forums about <Insert unit that you think is horrendously OP here> I mean take a balanced view on what's best for the players they have and what will keep people playing, and perhaps design their patches and games like they did 10 years ago as that's what won them their fans to begin with anyway. Who knows? they might collect a few more. Wouldn't turn down that job at relic though

Maybe I'm going off topic here a bit but my point was more, in my opinion, if relic stopped aspiring to be what they're not (Blizzard with starcraft) and trying to hopelessly streamline their games so that people will watch it on twitch. They'd see what their community actually wants.

As is totally evident with the failure of Dawn of War 3. They probably lost half the potential playerbase with the DoW3 Beta because people reacted accordingly to what they saw. People wanted DoW2 on a bigger scale like DoW1 with better graphics but they gave us something totally evident that they do not care about what their playerbase thinks or wants. If Age of Empires 4 isn't AMAZING relic could well go bust I imagine, (2 flops in a row for a small studio?) something I think relic were probably foolish to take on, or they're desperate, as the hype behind that game means it will almost certainly fall short of expectation. Rant over, just sad watching my favourite studio do this to themselves.

It's not just Relic, it's also the small part of the game's competitive community as well.

well said, honestly the worst thing relic did was removing OKW and UKF's unique design. Then adding in more generic crap like USF mortar to make every faction the same, hell even little stuff like changing the Ost PIV model to the same as the OKW one.

I was hoping on release we would have got a emplacement redesign possibly with some resource penalties to balance after people kicked up a fuss but instead Relic just took a lazy hammer and nerfed everything. Now brits have half their roster just not being used (Mortar pit, bofors, air landing officer, comet etc).

With the Bren nerf for example this was a great chance to make the Vickers K and brens perform different roles rather than the clones they have been on release. Maybe vickers less accurate but better mid to short range? Relics response? Nope just keep them the same boring clones but nerf them together.

@Swordfisch That's a point I hadn't really considered, I know I said I'd take game balance over variety but there's ways to balance the game without relic just mirroring the stuff that works, i.e.- giving every goddamn faction a mortar team, although obviously any unit too different requires new voicelines etc which may be an issue, but again, they managed that for the USF mortar team.

Also yes, I agree, although I wouldn't say half the roster is useless, it's just become very marginalised in comparison to the stuff that's good. Like I said, I don't equip a single commando regiment anymore as I just find them meh compared to sappers which are god tier, also the churchill is ungodly in power right now and the comet does the same job as the cromwell but more expensivley half the time. And yeah I'd like to see the vickers perform a different role to the bren, at the moment I'm honestly surprised they bothered implementing the different skin, seeing as they're clones, seems a waste of resources.

well said, honestly the worst thing relic did was removing OKW and UKF's unique design. Then adding in more generic crap like USF mortar to make every faction the same, hell even little stuff like changing the Ost PIV model to the same as the OKW one.

I was hoping on release we would have got a emplacement redesign possibly with some resource penalties to balance after people kicked up a fuss but instead Relic just took a lazy hammer and nerfed everything. Now brits have half their roster just not being used (Mortar pit, bofors, air landing officer, comet etc).

With the Bren nerf for example this was a great chance to make the Vickers K and brens perform different roles rather than the clones they have been on release. Maybe vickers less accurate but better mid to short range? Relics response? Nope just keep them the same boring clones but nerf them together.

Those were well intentioned but badly executed changes.

I can guarantee that you can keep an Army unique even if it has mostly the same roled units.

Take the Ostheer and Soviets for example, or the American Army and Wehrmacht of COH1, you could say that they're almost clones of each other however, they play very differently and if you want to you can even ask around to see which Armies people think are the most balanced.

^^^^ can confirm Ostheer and Soviets most balanced and probably most enjoyable to play rn. And that's from a Brit main. Although I feel soviets are strong against all at the moment whereas I think Ostheer, depite being well balanced, can suffer against the Asymmetrical balancing of allies without OKW Teammates (in team games anyway).

I think it's likely that certain aspects of allies perform better than they perhaps should against OST rather than Ost themselves performing worse than soviets in that regard, I really enjoy Ostheer atm but I definitely find OKW to be easy mode.

I think mortar pit is fine. It forces the enemy to get indirect fire, which means they lack infantry, so you can just rush them.

I think mortar pit is fine. It forces the enemy to get indirect fire, which means they lack infantry, so you can just rush them.

what Okw and ost player wouldn't get at least one of their excellent mortar and leig?

Normal Mortar should be added to the Platoon Command Post.

Now in the Company Command Post (Last Building) we have Hammer, Anvil, Sword (or whatever you want to call it) and then we can add the mortar pit and Sexton (and or Land Matress) and have an artillery/indirect fire upgrade.

Mortar pit imo should get its BARRAGE range increased, maybe as a garrison bonus so that it can be improved with a little micro and upkeep. Other than that imo it's fine. It defensive. If the enemy is barraging you do something about it, like counter barrage for example...

mortar pit is shit, all you need is one ATG to counter it, and the range is somewhat limiting. The only good thing is the smoke barrage.

It's useless in 1v1 and in team games it need a lot of support to be useful.

mortar pit is shit, all you need is one ATG to counter it, and the range is somewhat limiting. The only good thing is the smoke barrage.

It's useless in 1v1 and in team games it need a lot of support to be useful.

If the enemy gets an AT gun up to your pit and the like minute unmolested to chip it down I'm not sure what kinda buffs would fix the pit....

nice necro