The game IS a click fest now

I have a feeling it's a case of both grens and cons requiring something to tip the balance in their favour in a one on one fight, therefore a grenade works wonders for them because it can instantly tip that balance...

I'm beginning to wonder (wild random thought here) if we need two core infantry units for one side and one core infantry unit for the otherside, one jack of all trades, the other requiring a synergy of the two. Though it's too late to do such a thing.

I would think that an overall resource decrease (not alot per point, but it would stack quite well I think) would benefit the game. The way stratpoints provide both muni and fuel takes away quite a lot. If muni is more scarce there wont be as much spam of nades and molotovs. You would really have to decide more.

Also would like to se global upgrades or other types of fuelsinks that would provide techpaths outside of doctrines.

What I agree with in this thread is that I would like for cover to be more meaningful especially vs. Grenades.

Thanks for the compliment basilone, but I'm going to have to disagree with you I do think that squad losses are not punished enough, however to say that it's all about dodging nades...

What you do with your shock units is still incredibly important. Losing lynchpin units like the german HT or soviet AT gun in the mid game can cost you the game. What happens to that first t34/PIV, the choice between a pak and a PGren, etc etc all make huge differences in who wins.

I didn't really mean that dodging grenades is the only thing you need to do well, but that microing is the most important skill to have and nade dodging is just one of the more difficult things to micro. Unit preservation does matter too, but that just comes naturally with micro and awareness.

As far as strategy goes its almost non existent compared to what there was to consider in vcoh. Very few unique doctrines, counterpicking is almost completely dead since you can't even identify them anymore, and teching is extremely linear and predictable. I remember once upon a time a decent strat guide accounted for almost every contingency and the way you played it could vary greatly from game to game. Now its just a doctrine with a list of units, with the only variable being the order in which you buy certain things.

does it feel like nade range are too far? throwing nades was kinda tricky since you had to run up to the enemy and it was quite obvious that nades are going to be thrown so it was easy to dodge.

but now that nades animations are so fast, thrown over long distances and explodes like a nuke, popping them here and there is a good idea to get rid of infantry fast.

Dont be a clicker, l2hotkey!

Had to say MVGame!

But seriously, maybe better familiarisation with the maps might help or be the core of your problem?
Good map knowledge reduces micro requirements immensely, even better map knowledge makes micro more efficient.

I have a feeling it's a case of both grens and cons requiring something to tip the balance in their favour in a one on one fight, therefore a grenade works wonders for them because it can instantly tip that balance...

You bring up a good point, Marco. In CoH, the firefights were a lot quicker and shorter, meaning less time spent staring at the same two infantry squads slug it out. In CoH2, it takes literally minutes sometimes for a conscript to kill a grenadier squad (or vice-versa).

RTS players are not patient people (otherwise we'd be playing turn-based strategy). We don't want to have to keep watching all these units slowly shoot each other like blind monkeys. These slow firefights also lead to staying in cover being less beneficial since it provides less protection per second. So what do we do? We start spamming grenades to see some instant effects (and gratification).

While having slower firefights isn't a problem by itself, it is when coupled with the vastly faster teching speed in this game. We're all pressured to keep teching up and get a tank by eight minutes but the infantry are taking two minutes to kill each other. I guarantee if the firefights were faster there'd be a lot less grenades needed to be thrown around.

I didn't really mean that dodging grenades is the only thing you need to do well, but that microing is the most important skill to have and nade dodging is just one of the more difficult things to micro. Unit preservation does matter too, but that just comes naturally with micro and awareness.

As far as strategy goes its almost non existent compared to what there was to consider in vcoh. Very few unique doctrines, counterpicking is almost completely dead since you can't even identify them anymore, and teching is extremely linear and predictable. I remember once upon a time a decent strat guide accounted for almost every contingency and the way you played it could vary greatly from game to game. Now its just a doctrine with a list of units, with the only variable being the order in which you buy certain things.

I don't think teching is linear at all. German players can go T1 T2 T4, T1 T2 T3, T1 T3, and fast T2 (although its kind of crappy imo). Soviet players can skip T1 or not skip T1, and then choose to go fast T3 and then backtech to T2 or go to T4. Going T1 T4 is also a viable choice. The choice between a fast T70, or going T2 and getting mortars/maxims, or going T1 and getting snipers, or going gaurds, shocks, the 120mm, going T1 T2 and using T34/85s... I feel like there's a lot of choices that are better or worse depending on the map and your opponents build.

The doctrines sadly do not work like vCoH, it's true. But there are going to be new doctrines every month, supposedly so who knows what the doctrinal meta will look like in 6 months.


And as far as the OP and the nade discussion: I like the nades. It raises the skill ceiling and I don't think you can throw nades indiscriminately and not miss out on things like a fast flamer HT, more mines, etc.

I perfectly sympathise with the OP and may i add that when i said in the begginings of the open beta that this game should be called , Dawn of war :1941 or Command and conquer the Eastern front i did take a lot of flak .

IMO the reason that micro is so much more important in this game is that there is a lot less strategy involved and the game is a lot more fast paced . More or less the most reasons strategy has been reduced have been mentioned . I ll just add one more , the relationship between map control and resource/ pop cap and the manpower war have fundamentally changed with the new system late game evolution in which strategy ( combined arms + globbal upgrades etc ) plays the largest part imo is basically very easy to figure out in any situation ( that and the fact that there are too many units with which you cant go really wrong ).

The fact that that there is less strategy and strategy construction/anticipation is a childs play by default means that the one with the better micro (which includes awareness ) has more chances to win .

The reason the game has become a clickfest though is different . Its because tactics have changed dramaticly , picking battles you can win ,tactical positioning and terrain usage has been replaced with abilities and how well you can use them hence you just need to do alot more clicking to fully exploit your units potential

EDIT : the game is a spamfest too i only say this cause i dont think it receives enough attention

Ha, well I'm just playing Soviets now. So much easier. Walk up to mgs, throw Moly, profit, repeat. Buy T-34. The only maps Germans have a chance on are maps where you don't have a good chance of having your ammo cut so you can do something about the SMG-wielding conscripts in buildings and the guys lying in the grass picking their noses.

It's pretty boring really.

I disagree. The Osteer who spends muni on grenades - which kill unreliably, based on relative micro of both players - will find himself short when he needs a) medic bunker or b) panzershreks to counter that fast t70 in your base picking off retreated units. And then there's the LMG, mines, and mg bunkers - all of which represent valuable assets.

The Soviet who spends on molotovs is not going to have enough muni to purchase DP machine guns on his guards - much less enough left over to button the FHT charging down your cutoff. Molotovs are not nearly as effective as a well-placed demo charge. AT grenades are useful only as emergency defenses, since they put the squad at risk, and they are not nearly as reliable as mines. That said, these weapons are highly effective against players who are not paying attention - either due to battlefield distractions or inexperience.

To say nothing of expensive command abilities.

Ha, well I'm just playing Soviets now. So much easier. Walk up to mgs, throw Moly, profit, repeat. Buy T-34. The only maps Germans have a chance on are maps where you don't have a good chance of having your ammo cut so you can do something about the SMG-wielding conscripts in buildings and the guys lying in the grass picking their noses.

It's pretty boring really.

Damn, I find Ostheer way easier.

I disagree. The Osteer who spends muni on grenades - which kill unreliably, based on relative micro of both players - will find himself short when he needs a) medic bunker or b) panzershreks to counter that fast t70 in your base picking off retreated units. And then there's the LMG, mines, and mg bunkers - all of which represent valuable assets.

The Soviet who spends on molotovs is not going to have enough muni to purchase DP machine guns on his guards - much less enough left over to button the FHT charging down your cutoff. Molotovs are not nearly as effective as a well-placed demo charge. AT grenades are useful only as emergency defenses, since they put the squad at risk, and they are not nearly as reliable as mines. That said, these weapons are highly effective against players who are not paying attention - either due to battlefield distractions or inexperience.

To say nothing of expensive command abilities.

Keep in mind that molotov denies cover and buildings for a longer period of time than the RG.

Ha, well I'm just playing Soviets now. So much easier. Walk up to mgs, throw Moly, profit, repeat. Buy T-34. The only maps Germans have a chance on are maps where you don't have a good chance of having your ammo cut so you can do something about the SMG-wielding conscripts in buildings and the guys lying in the grass picking their noses.

It's pretty boring really.

its not only that , apparently the way this game is played is cons spam followed by guards spam followed by su85 spam or cons spam followed by atgs followed by su85s and snipers . Srsly this game is a fucking insult to vcoh , and prey the rng is your way , no doubt the number of players has fallen so drastically in just 3 months and the game is going on sale.

I find this entire thread to be a bit disingenuous, to be honest. COH2 is a micro-intense clickfest? What? Positioning doesn't matter?

Coming from SC2 and Dota 2, I cannot agree. In SC2, a Gold League Zerg player can easily have 90APM, and due to the artificial way in which units respond to commands, dodging area attacks or splitting units to minimize their impact is a huge part of gameplay (baneling/marine encounters or Colossus vs ... most things). By contrast, in COH2, even an out of position scout car is challenged to get out of the line of fire.

This means that positioning, and not reaction time, is still more important in COH2. Sloppy play (sending that SU85 out on its own for example) is not going to be saved by micro as it could in SC2.

Sure, grenades bring a bit of (welcome IMvHO) micro to a match and perhaps some changes related to cover or damage are needed, but that's separate from COH being a clickfest. You probably don't need more than 40-60APM to play COH2 (maybe a smidge more). I agree with DanielD - 'nades increase the game's skill ceiling and I think that's welcome. Perhaps some rebalancing is needed, but that doesn't mean COH is a "clickfest." Positioning is still of relatively high importance in relation to micro skill compared with SC2 or most other games in the RTS genre.

And I think anyone who feels that microing the handful of squads and vehicles that COH asks of you (no offense) is a burden might want to go play SC2 for a bit for perspective. The dynamics of micro are very different, but I do not feel (as a mediocre at best SC2 player) that COH2 places too much of a micro burden on its players by any stretch of the imagination.

To summarize, I think it's really disingenuous for people to assert that COH2 is too micro heavy, and I don't understand how people are claiming that positioning doesn't matter or that micro is devaluing positioning. Other complaints (re: commanders/doctrines, grenade damage, cover mechanics) I see as related issues, but solvable without lowering the mechanical skill ceiling.

Honestly, with pathing improvements, you'd arguably see the mechanical skill ceiling raised (as troops and vehicles would be more responsive) which would only be good for the game IMvHO.

A huge equalizer right now is the auto-cover system that sends troops running to places where you dont want them to. Grens into a burning molotov is a great example. The other is the "last guy in the squad" (there is always one isnt there...) that for some reason makes retreats soft or hard so much harder to pull off, since the squad wont react properly untill all of them are relativly close to eachoter. There should be a "sprint" for models that are horribly out of place. Once this gets sorted, you can get a better feel for your infantry.

I find this entire thread to be a bit disingenuous, to be honest. COH2 is a micro-intense clickfest? What? Positioning doesn't matter?

Coming from SC2 and Dota 2, I cannot agree. In SC2, a Gold League Zerg player can easily have 90APM, and due to the artificial way in which units respond to commands, dodging area attacks or splitting units to minimize their impact is a huge part of gameplay (baneling/marine encounters or Colossus vs ... most things). By contrast, in COH2, even an out of position scout car is challenged to get out of the line of fire.

This means that positioning, and not reaction time, is still more important in COH2. Sloppy play (sending that SU85 out on its own for example) is not going to be saved by micro as it could in SC2.

Sure, grenades bring a bit of (welcome IMvHO) micro to a match and perhaps some changes related to cover or damage are needed, but that's separate from COH being a clickfest. You probably don't need more than 40-60APM to play COH2 (maybe a smidge more). I agree with DanielD - 'nades increase the game's skill ceiling and I think that's welcome. Perhaps some rebalancing is needed, but that doesn't mean COH is a "clickfest." Positioning is still of relatively high importance in relation to micro skill compared with SC2 or most other games in the RTS genre.

And I think anyone who feels that microing the handful of squads and vehicles that COH asks of you (no offense) is a burden might want to go play SC2 for a bit for perspective. The dynamics of micro are very different, but I do not feel (as a mediocre at best SC2 player) that COH2 places too much of a micro burden on its players by any stretch of the imagination.

To summarize, I think it's really disingenuous for people to assert that COH2 is too micro heavy, and I don't understand how people are claiming that positioning doesn't matter or that micro is devaluing positioning. Other complaints (re: commanders/doctrines, grenade damage, cover mechanics) I see as related issues, but solvable without lowering the mechanical skill ceiling.

Honestly, with pathing improvements, you'd arguably see the mechanical skill ceiling raised (as troops and vehicles would be more responsive) which would only be good for the game IMvHO.

I agree with you that not all of the feedback in this thread is of the constructive sort, but I think much of the point is that the way infantrycombat works now, positioning really isnt that important. For example: if you had an infantrysquad in green cower, protecting an approach with red cower, any assaulting infantryunit would suffer a lot, and most would have a really hard time winning the battle. In COH2 that dosent really matter all that much, because of the length of combat, and the fact that cower isnt as important anymore. This makes the positioning of your tropps less important, and moving them arround, throwing and dodging grenades all that more important. Take my example above, in COH2 you would probably attack that infantryunit head on and start throwing nades, while in vCOH, embarking on such an assault would leave you verry voulnerable.

I think thats what people think about when they say clickfest in this matter. How dodging and running arround has become more important, and tacticly placing and manouevering your units less important. In addition it makes the combat look really strange, compared to the more realistic firefights of the original.

I agree with you that not all of the feedback in this thread is of the constructive sort, but I think much of the point is that the way infantrycombat works now, positioning really isnt that important. For example: if you had an infantrysquad in green cower, protecting an approach with red cower, any assaulting infantryunit would suffer a lot, and most would have a really hard time winning the battle. In COH2 that dosent really matter all that much, because of the length of combat, and the fact that cower isnt as important anymore. This makes the positioning of your tropps less important, and moving them arround, throwing and dodging grenades all that more important. Take my example above, in COH2 you would probably attack that infantryunit head on and start throwing nades, while in vCOH, embarking on such an assault would leave you verry voulnerable.

I think thats what people think about when they say clickfest in this matter. How dodging and running arround has become more important, and tacticly placing and manouevering your units less important. In addition it makes the combat look really strange, compared to the more realistic firefights of the original.

This x100 in the current state of the game

imrpoving pathing or relic.

pick one.

I agree in as so far that coh 1 was great. But this is coh 2.

I dont like vet 2 and p4s, I dont like the total amount of units you can have, and I don't like how it's a valid strategy to mass armor in the backfield.

Upkeep could be looked at.