|
I agree completely with what has been said on this thread.
I have a very reliable internet connection, never had an issue until today. I was winning a game, then suddenly it froze for a second, everything sped up and the defeat screen showed up, that soured my mood immensely.
I have another friend with minimal internet jitter like you guys sufferning from a one second disconnect every couple of hours and I cant play with him reliably, same can be said for players with slow PC that take a little bit to load the Game, they get kicked before it starts. The server is just an impatient kicking whore, if one loses connection for a millisecond he will lose. The Battle Servers should give at least a 5-10 seconds grace, but only once in order to not be abused.
Also remember the servers are in New Jersey, so anyone who is not from North America is getting higher pings and thus more prone to connectivity issues with the battle servers.
Regards. |
|
Battle Servers have really smoothed the online experience in my humble opinion. Games are no longer unplayable because a player has a poor PC that can't run the game above 40 fps and I get around 120 ping from Paris which is acceptable for CoH 2. I don't feel like I'm playing handicapped.
SC2 has better latency because Blizzard has servers everywhere and the game engine itself is very simple and has an easier time with the netcode, the animations on SC2 are horrible it's all about reaction time, the animations in CoH 2 are top notch and thus add extra latency. It's like Comparing CoD and Battlefield netcodes, one is much more complex than the other.
However I'm all for Relic creating an European server cluster! Set it up in Luxembourg, Relic won't have to pay taxes, the country has good network infrastructure, and it's a pretty centralized location for Europe (I get 30-40 ping), Dota 2 and Netflix servers are already there.
If Relics vows to establish European Battle Servers on the condition of increased sales, I will buy every single bit of DLC and the expansion, that's about 150 euros! That would be a great marketing ploy now wouldn't it?
Cheers.
|
at the time panzer 4s didn't have the feared anti tank gun but the stubby one  .
Well said, during the battle of France the Panzer IV had an equivalent gun to the Renault R35 and Renault D2 while the Renault B1 had better cannons, a 47mm and a secondary 75mm one (used more often for indirect fire ala ZiS-3).
Panzer III and Skoda tanks were light tanks, equal to British and French light tanks and inferior to British and French Heavy tanks.
The 75mm cannon on the Panzer IV was a desperate response against the T-34/76s in 1942. Also the PIV has never been praised for it's armour, British/French heavy tanks still had thicker armour, the PIV's had to be constantly upgraded throughout the war in factories, and sometimes with improvised skirts on the field (Vet 2). The revolutionary thing about the Panzer IV is that every single one had a Radio. Still during the Battle of France they had few PIV in comparison to PI, PII and PIII, and thus served more as command tanks than breakthrough tanks due to having radios.
"According to Heinz Guderian, the Wehrmacht invaded France with 523 Panzer Is, 955 Panzer IIs, 349 Panzer IIIs, 278 Panzer IVs, 106 Panzer 35(t)s and 228 Panzer 38(t)s"
As I said, during the early stages of WW2, tanks were countered by towed AT guns, the french army had plenty SA-L modèle 1934 AT guns in varying calibers from 25mm to 47mm. Until 1941, the 47mm SA-L modèle 1934 was considered amongst the best AT guns alongside the PAKs, a bigger caliber than 47mm was overkill for all tanks but the T-34.
Cheers. |
|
I am still baffled by this. Why on Earth not a single Relic game has customizable hotkeys, every AAA RTS game has such a feature. QWERTY keyboards users can handle the default hotkeys but southpaws and players with other keyboard layouts such as me (AZERTY) truly suffer, my micro and APM could be much better.
I will try that program, thanks for sharing. |
Depends on what you see as military succes, you definatly have to include medieval times if France is even considered as most succesful military.
Probably British are most successfull military or even germany depending on how you define succes. Their kills per death were insane.
Historians start speaking of nations in the mid 15th century for a select few, France and England only became nations due to the fact that 100 years wars bolstered their nationalism and allowed them to identify themselves as English and French. Medieval Europe was Feudal for the most part people considered themselves normans, burgundians, bohemians, Scottish, welsh etc... Anyways France had most of it's great victories after the Medieval era which ended in 1453, it was from 1453 to 1815 that France became a superpower, succeeded by the United Kingdom (1815 -1939) and then Soviet Union/USA (1945-1990/today).
Wars are not won by K/D, one can lose all the battles and win the war, war is a continuation politics, the military is subordinated to political aims. Guess why USA hasn't won a single war since WW2, the military is tasked bad political aims that cannot be translated into military objective by inept Statesmen.
I can't speak for best military in the world as I lack understanding of most Asian and Eastern history, China, Siam and the Ottomans (Turks) must be in the top 5, they could be very well superior to westerners in warfare.
But when it comes to the greatest military nation in Western history, it's France. The French have fought more military campaigns than any other European nation and won twice as many battles as they have lost. Then come the British as second, and thirdly I would put the Russians (Muscovy). The Germans are far, far off, they weren't an unified Nation-State until 1870, furthermore their war score is pitiful: 4 wars fought; 1 won against the French in 1870, 1 against the Spanish in 1936 and lost 2 World Wars at great price leaving the country either under a horrible war burden or split in 4 then 2 amongst the allies during 50 years.
According to british historian Niall Ferguson, " of the 125 major European wars fought since 1495, the French have participated in fifty – more than both Austria (forty-seven) and England (forty-three). And they’ve achieved an impressive batting average: out of 168 battles fought since 387 BC, they have won 109, lost forty-nine and drawn ten."
The British tend to be rather selective about the battles they remember. Triumphs at Waterloo and Trafalgar and in two World Wars easily make up for losing at Hastings, yet most british wars are fought in coalitions or diplomatically bought or persuaded other nations to war for them, as Francis II of the Holy Roman Empire(Austria) declared after losing at Austerlitz "The english are dealers of human flesh they pay others to fight in their place". Which is very smart, but I reveals the inherent weakness of the UK, their lack of manpower, sensibility to casualties, lack of endurance.
But at school the history class never mentions the battle of Tours in 732, when Charles the Hammer, king of the Franks, defeated the Moors and saved the whole of Christendom from the grip of Islam. While every Anglo-saxon schoolboy was once able to recite the roll-call of glorious wins at Crécy (1346), Poiters (1356) and Agincourt (1415), no one’s ever heard of the French victories at Patay (1429) and (especially) at Castillon in 1453, where French cannons tore the English apart, winning the Hundred Years War and confirming France as the most powerful military nation in Europe.
The Duke of Enghien annihilated the Spanish at Rocroi late on in the Thirty Years War in 1603, ending a century of Spanish dominance. What about the siege of Yorktown, Virginia, in 1781 in which General Comte de Rochambeau defeated the British and paved the way for American independence? Under Napoleon, France crushed the might of Austria and Russia simultaneously at Austerlitz in 1805, and, at Verdun in 1916, the French pushed the Germans back decisively in one of the bloodiest battles of all time.
The British always prided themselves on superiority at sea, but this was only because they realised they could never win a land war on the Continent. The French army has, for most of history, been the largest, best equipped and most strategically innovative in Europe. At its best, during Louis XIV it warred successfully alone against the whole of Europe, and later on led by Napoleon in 1812, it achieved a feat that even the Nazis couldn’t repeat: it entered Moscow.
And to conclude another quote by Niall Ferguson :
" These remarkable achievements help explain another French military victory. Whether it is ranks (general, captain,corporal, lieutenant); equipment (lance, mine, bayonet,epaulette, trench); organisation (volunteer, regiment, soldier, barracks) or strategy (army, camouflage, combat, esprit de corps, reconnaissance), the language of warfare is written in one language: French."
Hope this long post was informative for most. |
|
*Chuckles*
I think a Finnish axis faction would make more sense than either adding AGAIN the USA or a implementing a French faction, thus keeping Coh2 more about the eastern front.
To answer the OPs question ; the French army of the Third Republic could only be added for a Theater of War Scenario, seeing the battle of France only lasted over a month. After that the French Third Republic was abolished and replaced by the Vichy Regime. Consequently the French State lost any manufacturing infrastructure necessary to upgrade their tanks and armament as the war raged on.
Thus, Free French Forces / French Army of the Liberation faction are the only possibility for Multiplayer, yet there would be little to add besides unique infantry (Résistants, Colonial troops and French soldiers) considering the CoH franchise multiplayer is set in 1944-1945 there’s little balance in putting a Renault B1 or D2 vs a Tiger Tank. The Free French Forces mostly used armour and aircraft provided by the USA or UK, so there’s little novelty there for the Coh2 gameplay formula, unless you loooove Shermans.
Little precision, the Free French forces where under Général De Gaulle until 1943, then they reunified with the rest of the French forces in the mainland and became known as “l’Armée Française de la Libération” henceforth, but Anglo Saxons did not make the distinction and kept calling them Free French Forces.
Now to rectify some broad-minded thing said in the posts:
"A tous les Français.
La France a perdu une bataille! Mais la France n'a pas perdu la guerre! Des gouvernants de rencontre ont pu capituler, cédant à la panique, oubliant l'honneur, livrant le pays à la servitude. Cependant rien n'est perdu! Rien n'est perdu, parce que cette guerre est une guerre mondiale."
Charles de Gaulle declared in June 1940.
Contrary to popular belief (symptoms of brainwashing by anglo-saxon media a la Saving private Ryan/Band of Brothers = All WW2 history), France did not lose the war in 1940 nor gave up, the leadership did, but the rest kept fighting major battles in several theatres, notably north Africa, Syria, Lebanon, Italy, southern France and the liberation of Paris.
It was the Free French Forces and New Zealand troops that captured Montecasino, and most of Italy, not the USA, the French berber colonial troops (Tirailleurs Nord-africains) excelled in mountain skirmishes in Italy and desert combat in North Africa, also they were the only ones to seriously threaten the Gustav line; whereas Parisians, Londoners or kids from Brooklyn were out of their element and could not maneuverer properly.
As for the French tanks being crap, it’s an uneducated affirmation, French and British post-war tanks where better than German Panzer II & III or Czech LV 35 /LV 38 (Which were superior to German panzers at the time). Same 37mm or 45mm guns but much better armour, however they were intended as infantry support tanks ( Tuned for moderate speeds in order to accompany jogging troops) not as tank destroyers. Furthermore, every western army had tanks equipped with radios just not all of them, for instance Charles de Gaulle’s Tank battalion was heavily with equipped with radio command tanks. Contrary to popular belief not every Nazi tank had a radio. French & British armies relied on towed anti-tank guns to deal with armour during 1939-1941 as did the USA in 1944, it was mainly the soviets and Germans that used tanks more often as AT.
For those who still doubt me on this last paragraph, read “Le fil de l’épée “(1932) and “Vers l’Armée de Métier(1934) by Charles De Gaulle, he basically invented the Blitzkrieg and implemented it for his battalion, alas the archaic French High Command never took him seriously stuck in their WW1 strategies, but Guderian did, copied it, adapted it to the Wehrmacht and applied it successfully. Later on the British Liddel Hart and J.F.C Fuller kept theorizing on the Blitzkrieg but after WW2.
Cheers.
|
|
Hmm. Could be that he was, but the MG34 can shoot and pivot independently from the main turret.
I'm aware that there is a shocked crew critical that makes any tank or TD non responsive but last about 2 seconds.
Also I know there are plenty of crits that are implemented in the game yet extremely rare in CoH 2, we mainly see engine damage, heavy engine damage, shock crew and dead top gunner often.
Is there a dead crew or dead gunner critical? That would made sense because if the gunner was dead, then no one would be there to traverse the turret, but the tank still could drive around (Which was the case for me).
Cheers. |
|
They did have guards but the panther was not under button, as I had forced them off in an earlier engagement.
The panther was in my base being chased off by a T-34/85, and the main gun was not disabled. It was so weird when the turret stopped responding as there wasn't a single critical icon on the panther, even the soviet player was surprised. The T-34/85 sat in my base shooting at the panther & following him for about 20-30 sec, the turret never responded during the remainder of the engagement so I doubt it was a crit.
I would have loved to provide a replay, alas Coh 2 is poorly optimized and I try to get as many FPS I can.
Cheers. |
|
Hello,
I just played a match in which my panther's turret stopped responding. It did not fire, nor move, stuck roughly on a 45° position. The panther was low health but did not suffer any criticals besides being under Mark target. The panther could move, but the turret was immobile until I lost it.
Sadly I can't upload the replay because I used the steam performance guide that disables them in order to get extra fps.
First time it happens to me. Could be an isolated incident but I'm reporting it anyways.
Cheers. |
Hello CoH2.org community,
I Started this thread on the official CoH forums yesterday, but I wanted to discuss this suggestion with the whole CoH 2 community. Furthermore, relic staff seems to be more active in this site.
Here are my previous posts at the Company of Heroes forums.
Hello ladies and gentlemen,
Since the awesome March Deployment patch I have been playing a lot of ranked matches, mostly as Ostheer. Curiously Soviets have completely abandoned T3, my Panzer IVs or Panthers no longer face T-34/76s.
So I started playing as soviets and found out why.
I’m happy with the current fuel cost for both soviets T3 – T4 buildings, as they delay the armour and make the game pacing more enjoyable. However seeing that soviets can only afford a single tier, there’s no incentive into going T3, due to T70s being tin cans and the T-34/76s seem to be designed as support tanks, their role being to ram a panzer so the ZiS-3 can easily shoot at crippled target. Most soviets have to go guards into SU-85 + call-in armour.
If we take into account the historical performance of the T-34/76 compared the Panzer IV, on one hand the T-34/76 was faster, had a better gun (only in 1941-2), better mobility (wide tracks) and had vastly superior sloped armour, yet was rarely equipped with radios. On the other hand, as the bulletin notes state, Panzer IVs had better radios (Better coordination), better optics (Thus better visibility & range) and properly trained or experienced crews.
Why don’t you test the following?
T-34/76s should have more health and armour than Panzer IVs, while keeping current speed and mobility (superior tank design). Yet it should miss more often and reload slower (inexperienced crews)
T-34/76s could keep the ram or not, and instead of having the secure point vet 1 ability they should earn “flank speed”, to flank panthers & tigers and hit them at the side armour (That’s what they did in real life). It would help a lot the Soviets on the Anti-tank departement, T-34/76 already performs well against infantry.
However, Panzer IVs should have a noticeably longer line of sight and range (Radios+optics), shoot much more accurately be it on the move or static while reloading faster with minimal scatter (Better crews).
Panzer IVs could get armour piercing rounds ability (similar to vCoH), losing the AoE against infantry for 100% guarantee penetrating hits without any increased damage, just so rounds never bounce off T-34/76s and T-34/85s. However this should not work on Heavy Kv1s & IS2s. Maybe a 50 munitions cost should be about right?
Seeing the multiplayer takes place in 1944-45, both tanks have equivalent guns so they should have the same damage output and penetration values.
I think with these changes the PIV would play differently instead of being simply considered a much better T-34 (Which bugs the authenticity freak I am); Surely ending the arguing about which tank is better overall. Because now it would be at what task they perform better than the enemy medium tank.
Result: T-34/76s are more durable than PIVs but the PIVs deal more consistent DPS to compensate.
You will have to see how this could impact the Stug III, I think that with these suggestions the Stug III wouldn’t be used as much considering the PIV would have a similar performance to a turreted Stug III. Changes to the Stug III would have to be made, but the balance team knows all the dots and I can’t connect them all, So I don’t know what to suggest for that unit.
Anyways I thought this was a decent idea to propose, some might disagree and others might agree but I just wanted to share it and see how Relic balance team thinks it could fit in the medium armour/heavy armour overhaul they are working on.
Cheers.
Reply after some posts, feedback and further precisions. People were not enthusiastic about changes to Panzer IV as it would render the Stug III redundant, but liked the suggestions for the T-34/76s.
Hey,
So it seems most people agree on an armour and health increase for the T-34/76.
However should it be a slight increase? Meaning a T-34/76 = Panzer IV health and armour.
Or should it be a substantial health & armour increase resulting in a slightly sturdier T-34/76 compared to the Panzer IV?
[Originally posted by Death's Head View Post
I think you have to consider the impact of these changes on T-34 vs infantry encounters.
Also from a historical point of view, the Panzer IV with the L43 gun was overall a better tank than the T-34/76 mainly due to the significant effective range advantage. This is a game and not a simulator but I just wanted to point that out as you seem to think the T-34/76 was definitively superior to the Panzer IV, which it most certainly was not.]
Not going to debate on whether the Panzer IV or T-34/76 is the better tank as it would derail the thread off topic, also I said superior tank design, which he is, not overall better tank, maybe there's a thread on that already.
I did consider the impact of the changes against infantry, that is why I proposed to give the T-34/76s a soviet equivalent to blitzkrieg. So guys what do you think about “flank speed”?
Instead of buffing the T-34/76 damage output, which could be very problematic to infantry, it would allow the T-34/76 to deal more damage to panzers and light vehicles by outmaneuvering them and hitting the sides & rear.
Furthermore, flank speed could be activated to dodge panzerfausts, consequently increasing the T-34/76s survivability and keeping veterancy for the late game scalability.
If we increase the penetration of T-34/76s, spamming them and launching a frontal assault, kitting with them or keeping them at range could be too powerful and overwhelming against axis armour, T-34s/76 need to take some risks for the tank gameplay to remain balanced.
Should Flank speed replace secure point?
Should Flank speed replace ram?
Maybe having ram + flank speed can be too powerful?
The original idea was to make the T-34/76 a more aggressive tank by tailoring it into a shock troops mechanic, respectable health & armour amplified by a short speed burst to close in on a panzer IV and shoot him in the rear.
Lastly, if overhauling the Panzer IV is out of the question, then with these changes the T-34/76 should receive a cost increase, because it would be equal to a Panzer IV if not better.
Cheers.
Ladies and gentlemen to your marks! Discuss constructively! |
France
0
Relic Entertainment
