|
Jackson is getting put in this weird limbo where it gets to be a slugger in a game where people are used to tank destroyers being something that has to be flanked and is no longer a problem.
This is not what a Jackson is, at all. If a StuG is vehicle equivalent of MG42 (requires positioning, can be flanked), then the Jackson in this comparison is more of a Fallschirmjaeger (high DPS glass cannon).
Do not confuse the Jackson's identity crisis with the real issue: americans do in fact need a strong anti-tank platform. But they can't have it both ways. Either the M36 gets to be cheap or it gets to be effective. Decide which and stick to it. Hell, make it cost 180 fuel and then suddenly it will be okay if it eats mediums for breakfast if they try flanking it. This means getting two of them will be more expensive than a goddamn Jagdtiger and therefore I expect having 2 Jacksons to instill as much fear into Axis tanks as a Jagdtiger / Elefant do to Allies. |
OKW is already a mun starved faction So the logic is "OKW has to buy infantry upgrades therefore all its ammo abilities should be cheap". It is literally the best recon ability in the game. Would you be satisfied if it cost 5 ammo and also destroyed an enemy tank at random when activated?
Ostheer, US and UKF also have to buy infantry upgrades. Why aren't you advocating for the reduction in cost of US offmaps and UKF grenades?
Not to mention the flares ability cost was literally balanced around the time when OKW had ammo and fuel income penalties. As a consequence most of its abilities were cheaper. Ammo penalty was lowered from 33% to 20%. Then to 0%. When fuel penalty was removed ALL tank costs were correspondingly increased. Interestingly, the same did not happen for most ammo-based abilities. (ALSO, OKW gets a free pass on the IR halftrack because it has few offmap or reconnaissance abilities.)
I swear to God even if flares cost 10 ammo people would still complain if someone proposed bumping it up to 20 because "NOOOO DONT NERF AXIS REEEEEEEEE" |
|
I am sorry, but this is a terrible idea.
I know CoH series traditionally fudges some numbers, most notably where ranges are concerned, but the proposed 12-(ish) minute night day-night cycle would completely throw me off.
In Warcraft 3 and Dota it works fine, as I am sure it would work in Pacman or Galaga or Tetris or other abstract games. But CoH2 aspires to at least some semblance of authenticity. A tank that can't shoot further than 40 meters is acceptable to me, while a 3-minute night is laughable. If I had to explain this inconsistency I would say it's because the way ranges work is a core mechanic of the game (with realistic ranges, the game would not play nearly as fluently because minor elevation differences would dictate what you can hit and what you cannot across the map, and spotting and analyzing these elevations is simply not possible with the eye-in-the-sky camera setup of an RTS.)
On the other hand, the night/day cycle is not a core feature, the game works just fine and almost identically without it.
Regardless of the above - let's say I can get over this 3 minute night thing.
Let's look at what this change brings from a game design lens. It is a timed, predictable period of reduced line of sight. So far so good, I can see it working maybe, it's what Blizzards should have been but then Relic added all these needless mechanics around it such as fire pits and freezing etc.
You make the same mistake: you proceed to detail entire game mechanics, call-ins and upgrades revolving around this VERY LIMITED PERIOD of reduced LoS. What the hell do I do with a canal light when it is NOT NIGHTTIME? It was supposed to be a side mechanic adding a little bit new to the already deep CoH2 strategic game, and now here you are making upgrades, elements, resources to be spent to allow specialization for this... it almost feels like you are not making CoH3 with a side mechanic, you are making a side mechanic and building armies and commanders and entire CoH3 around it.
In game design, more is not always better, on the contrary. One of the reasons CoH2 works so well is that its core mechanics are straightforward and simple.
I could see these intricate mechanics working in a game that was built specifically around night ops. |
i also dont really understand why you want to "eliminate" call in doctrines that let you skip tech. thats the whole purpose of those doctrines, to give you an alternate way to play rather than always forcing you to tech the same way. I know you didn't ask me, but I am going to reply anyway.
The call-in meta was actually what was forcing people into identical strats every time. If you want diversity, the call in changes are what will finally allow it, not destroy it.
90% of high level games are M4Cs/KV1s/KV8s vs Command Panther, or M10s vs Command Panther, or some variation on the theme. Not all call-ins are inherently too good. It's just that most factions have some hard-hitting mediums that come at the right CP time to allow not teching too much and still not being punished for it, but even rewarded with cost-effective units. |
|
Wow, a patch without any wtf changes.
Dive bomb, howitzer and ele / jt changes will save the team games. Also 1v1s will no longer be M4Cs vs Command Panther, what ever shall people build?
Cons are conscpicuously absent, they appear to actually be meant as AT-nade carriers and merge platforms. Just make them cost 210 and be done with it. |
(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. |
|
What CoH1 did better:
- User interface, it was was clear, military-looking, simple, and functional.
- Doctrines
- Voice acting
- Vehicles reversing slower than going forward (facilitating flanking and mobile operations, which are bread and butter of CoH franchise).
What CoH2 did better:
- Veterancy.
- Snipers. Still could stand being removed completely, they add nothing to the tactics of the game, make top of the ladder matches devolve into who can babysit their sniper better, and completely shatter immersion.
- The way CoH2 handles accuracy, penetration and armour is much better than coh1. However, vehicles need side armour.
What needs to be cut from CoH2:
- Super-units (both Axis and Allied) have to go, as well as call-ins that bypass teching. Medium tank vs medium tank is where this game shines, but all the AT weapons are calibrated for an ecosystem where King Tigers can hit the field at minute 30, so where does that leave medium tanks? They are in this weird place where they are just a stepping stone towards some better heavier stuff, or worse, they are a call-in that is to be spammed to death in lieu of teching.
- British style of static emplacements, OKW trucks, forward retreat points. The game is not about that. Defensive options should be given but they should be mobile as CoH is all about SHIFTING FRONTS AND COUNTERATTACKS.
- Business model. The DLC cashgrab was an unmitigated disaster, which in my opinion created so many bad reviews for CoH2 that Relic probably lost much more money in missed sales than it ever did recoup from commander / DLC purchases.
- Bulletins. In general, the idea of modifying your army loadout a bit in addition to just commander choice is great! Except the bulletin bonuses are pathetic, and good game design is granular and chunky. So instead of 3 crappy bulletins, why not have just 1 bulletin slot, but make bulletins really strong and impactful? Like batshit insane bonuses : "81mm mortars have +33% range", or "grenadiers get 1 extra squadmember at T2", or "Get free conscript squad with every tank built"... the more insane the better (how can it be imbalanced if EVERYONE gets a slot for equally insane bulletins).
Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - the untapped potential?
- I have so many things to list here, but I am so interested in one feature in particular that I will forego all others : MORE LOVE FOR TEAM GAMES.
Take a look at the 10 most played games on Steam, and they virtually all have in common is the strong focus on multiplayer: DoTA 2, CS:GO, Team Fortress, Rocket League, PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS etc. I am not saying that Relic needs to emulate these games, but I am saying is that obviously the potential for mass success lies in the more massive multiplayer modes. But if you are alergic to money, by all means, stick to 1v1s. Take a look at the CoH2 player stats per game mode. There is a stigma that 4v4 is for scrubs and cheese tactics, which happens because a game balanced around 1v1 core gameplay is hilariously inadequate for 4v4s (fuel caches anyone?)
This was a classic mistake with Dawn of War 3, where Relic put in some MOBA-like elements while remaining 1v1 oriented, which is quite literally missing the point that ended up pissing off everyone. CoH needs epic large battles with wide fronts. Although cat-and-mouse tense 1v1 outsmarting is also cool, a lot, and I mean A LOT of people play CoH2 for its feel of massive ww2 battles and Relic needs to focus on this first and foremost. 1v1 mode in Rocket League is an afterthought, the default mode is 3v3. The CoH franchise needs exactly this sort of approach to appeal to a broad audience.
What do I play?
It's all about PvP for me. I play team games in automatch with friends, 1v1 automatch, and sometime mods. |
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? |
|
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. |
OKW, an already struggling faction. Onto the fartlist it goes. |
Serbia
0
Wapoon
drChengele
drChengele
crexus100
drChengele
Relic Entertainment
