As someone with experience in game dev I can honestly say that making different forward and reverse speeds is not rocket science. I don't want to trivialize anyone's work, and I am sure the engine handling unit movement is not simple (see also: the pathfinding problems, 3-point turn plans and whatnot) - but make no mistake, it would have been an easy thing to code in at the beginning of the project if Relic really wanted to.
First of all, let's get this out of the way: this change is not going to happen. The engine doesn't support it currently, and it would ruin the current balance so much that lots of stats would need to be tweaked.
But as a thought experiment, what if I told you that a single tweak could completely change gameplay for the better (in my opinion... that I am sure will be opposed by some):
Reverse speed should be 60% of forward speed. For ALL vehicles.
Besides M20, simply attacking the sniper is a counter. Can't kill the sniper because of MGs and so forth? Then your problem isn't sniper, it's you got outplayed.
Except sniper can influence troop movements. An MG alone does not force anyone to approach it, so walking into the arc could be considered lack of forethought or solid positioning by the Ostheer player. But every time a sniper shoots at the US player he has three options - either stay and eat the shots (manpower bleed), or try to move away (cede territory control) or follow the sniper and risk getting caught into an MG cone (retreat and lose field presence). It places the US player into a lose-lose situation and to try to pass it off as skill is highly disingenuous.
High reward, but no risk (at even remotely competent levels of play).
Now, sniping UKF or Sov players at least puts you at a risk of countersnipe.
Note that all of the above still doesn't mean I argue for giving a sniper unit to the US.
tl;dr: Baiting infantry with a sniper to an MG arc is not exactly the pinnacle of ingenuity. It is sniper usage for non-retards 101. Such outplay, many pro, very top of the ladder, wow.
Snipers are high-risk, high-reward, but they are also a high-micro reward unit, they get better the more skill a player has. At highest level they become nigh unkillable
The fact they even made it into the game that is supposed to be all about cover and position is bullshit, the rationale of snipers was to be in camouflage and wait to take out priority targets (in this game I suppose that would mean the weapon teams). The rationale was definitely not to take potshots at enemy infantry, then turn around and run for your life while the Benny Hill theme plays, with the ability to get Romulan cloaking field by the sole virtue of touching a wooden fence with your pinky finger (while running at full speed, mind you) and baiting infantry into a Machine gun.
At least they are way better implemented than in coh1.
For God sake, why was it garbage!? It was interesting, worked good with faction mechanics and it was veeery nice balanced.
In the same sense that a 0 minute Kingtiger for 40 fuel would be interesting, work good with faction mechanics, and be veeeeery nice balanced.
You call Vet2 pak bonus of +20% hit points to be a good bonus that works for faction mechanics?
(A vet2 57mm meanwhile got substantial bonuses to penetration, accuracy, and damage?)
Wehrmacht "faction mechanics" was to build a medic bunker behind the hedge on Angoville and convert zombie Volksgrenadiers into elite Grenadiers, which, thanks to veterancy, meant you could get loads of free vet3 squads.
How is that balanced, interesting, how does that work with faction design?
Wehrmacht's faction design was to be the bad guys in the campaign. That is why they got almost exclusively defensive bonuses until that was at least somewhat addressed at around the time Opposing fronts came out, but they never could get any good or cool veterancy bonuses because the bonuses applied to all units simultaneously so it would be utterly imbalanced to even approach the (godlike) US and PE veterancy bonuses.
British veterancy was utterly cancerous. Officer system, emplacements and movement penalty completely pigenholed the Brits into a single blobby playstyle.
Coldtech was a great gimmick and I was sad to see it go. I agree with elchino that it was atrociously implemented.
Keep Line of Sight penalty and inability to use airstrikes, remove movement penalty, make units out of cover lose hit points until they hit 1hp (like white phosphorous) but can't die of it. And voila, balanced cold tech. I suspect at least 50% of the reason coldtech was removed from automatch was that it was the biggest contributor to performance issues and Relic started caring about the game's image a bit more somewhere around the release of WFA.
But, I guess it's still possible to make differences in veterancy of factions without using vCoHs experience, Im sure. Again - look at OKW and their Vet 5 system. That's different and it makes OKW more interesting faction because it's different not simply in some units, but in core mechanic!
Oh, definitely! I agree 100%. What was wrong in CoH1 was that ways of obtaining veterancy were wildly different between factions and just so happened to promote some weird playstyles (blobbing). Whereas they should have just left that part alone and make it so veterancy was obtained more or less always through the unit gaining experience. But then they can make conceptual changes to veterancy effects and it would probably make for a richer game yet still be balanceable.
Maybe a faction where each units get a branching upgrade at vet1? E.G. Grenadier squad at vet1 can choose to get LMG42 (no ammo) OR a 5th man squad size upgrade (for that squad only).
Maybe a faction where vet3 gave no bonus over vet2, but the third star could be "spent" on a really powerful ability, different for each unit type? After using the ability the unit would revert to vet2 and could grind for the third star again and again...
Agreed that vCoH veterancy caused incredible problems. It looked cool when viewed superficially - I mean, 4 different veterancy systems! Nice!
But then you get into the game and encounter a Lt blob, unkillable captains, Wehrmacht medic bunkers turning cheap volksgrenadiers and pioneers into vet3 grenadiers for absolutely free.
Or, losing all that hard-won British veterancy to a single tank shot and suddenly you have vet0 Tommies facing off versus multiple G43 Panzergrenadiers with 2 or 3 levels of offensive veterancy.
Another example, US sniper got to move at full speed while cloaked at vet3. Wehr sniper didn't get that because of the way veterancy system works, every sniper would be vet3 sniper. Wehr bonuses were mostly defensive and even broken, for a long time support weapon veterancy was literally nonexistent (vet2 PaK : +20% hit points , vet2 57mm : +25% damage, +25% penetration, faster reload).
So yeah, if you want all this in coh2 because it "sounds cool" you should never be let near a game design ever because veterancy systems (of Wehr and Brits) were literally cancer.
Considering its tiering, its fragility, the fact it requires a spotter for full range action, and the fact it can be taken with its pants down if not set up, proper positioning of the AAHT should be rewarded. Not sure about proposed penetration - I am okay with creating a no-go zone for the m20, the m5, or the Bren carrier. Stuart, AEC and t70 should still be able to take it out.
Edit: To clarify, I think the aforementioned vehicles should be able to just barely take it out in a purely 1v1 scenario. If the AAHT is supported in any way (Sturm Schreck, Volks faust) it should win.
Serbia
.
0
Wapoon
drChengele
drChengele
crexus100
drChengele
Relic Entertainment
