|
Just chiming in, I agree with the mortar cost reduction, maybe just for US though. The Ostheer mortar still has a longer range and is eminently more useful given how Ostheer is played. The Sov mortar sucks too but at least it doesn't get wiped as often. The US mortar is not built because its range sucks, so it's the unit you're most likely to lose. It loses a little health from a flank and then the Ostheer mortar has a very easy time wiping it. It's just never worth it.
Vs Ostheer in particular I feel like every game where I go rifle, rifle, captain/lt, I'm floating too much, but 3 rifles + officer is too much of manpower drain. I think if the mortar was cheaper it would ne worth the risk, open up the game and give US something to do with that extra MP early on if playing R-R-officer. Right now vs Ostheer you either go nades to have a chance against a well-microed MG or you try to stall for the flak truck/pak howies, a mortar just means a loss of map control.
MG suppression help is probably not necessary, if you want to buff, buff veterancy. That will also help late game. Don't forget the patch is giving us MG reload which will partially fix the problem of blobs sniping the gunner over and over.
|
|
New idea for ram: make ram into an equipable ability with a 60 second or longer cooldown. If you want to ram something, you lose the main gun until disengaged + cooldown, meaning you have a useless tank for a while, and if you miscalculate the ram attempt, that tank can't even fire back until the cooldown is over.
I'd still like T34/76s to be viable. Wish we could try returning to the original vision of a cheap spammable tank that's basically useless against even a PzIV unless you have two of them. Make them cheaper, build faster and more acceleration, do some DPM calculations and nerf the main gun if need be. |
|
And the mirrorification continues...
But it is a good idea to put the damn MG back in t1 and make grens buildable from HQ. You'd really rather have multiple grens and a sniper vs Brits because on most 2v2+ maps you can't do anything vs Brits who get green cover somewhere until 60 muni and the Bren carrier negates the MG anyway. Gren spam perfectly viable against US either to outnumber or outcap. Soviet a little more problematic because of hurrah but you should still be able to get your side even in 1v1.
|
Not sure when it happened, around 23 minutes in, at first I thought no units were responding to commands from the command card, but after alt-tabbing it seemed to be just this one rifle.
The command card wouldn't show up for it when I selected it. The only thing exceptional was this squad picked up an airborne LMG.
https://www.coh2.org/replay/107058/bugged-rifle |
|
Bugged rifle, about 25 minutes in. It's the unit with the airborne LMG that tries to retreat from two flamethrowers and can't. At first it seemed none of my units were responding but it was just this one rifle I think. The commands card wasn't coming up for it, couldn't retreat, couldn't reinforce.
Someone have a look please.
|
Yes, initial T3 with weak T3476 worked due to how broken ram was. Same with Su85 with turbo reverse and main cannon machine gun. IF you go for an army with limited options, then those options were broken. Maxim spam and precision strike mortars. Or double man squad sprinting snipers inside a clowncar.
Those were the days, it was a very casual unbalanced RTS, but god damn it was fun. Alternative crazy balance would be to restore all that to Sov and then make grens great again - remember that patch when G43 grens became godlike? That was hilarious. Modders? please make! Sniper car vs ubergrens would be so fun.
|
3. One Criticism I have of the balance team that pretty much falls in line with what you say is the increasing linearity and similarity of tech. It takes away decision making and leads to a very one sided meta when tech is just a linear progression without possibility or reason of skipping a building. This has happened to both Wehr and Soviets. It seems like the goal is to make the game more "convenient" to the player by giving him all the options without any trade off.
This is because of the core design decisions in the game that were made more prominent after the Western Fronts debacle. The problem is the game has never had the deep strategic decisions that could support asymmetric balance - OKW was at least an attempt at recreating some non-unit based strategic gameplay but failed in so many other ways they couldn't maintain it. COH2 needs some sort of deeper strategy layer - like the old COH1 veterancy system, major decision events like "bars or an M8" or for commanders to actually be MORE a part of the game. The game has no path forward for balance other than to gradually make factions symmetrical. Tech has to be linear across factions, otherwise there is going to be an imbalance somewhere. That's one of the reasons they got rid of the Soviet choice - T3 with medium tank spam or T4 with mobile arty and tank destroyers. I really liked that choice though because it gave different playstyles a path to victory - if you like microing lots of tanks and pulling off rams, go T3, if you are a more static player who likes to punch holes in enemy lines, you went T4.
|
|
I've come to terms with Brits except for the very early game.
Having the ability to have a light vehicle that can be upgraded to lay flame lava AND an MG is what breaks them for me. OKW really struggles against this, because you can't get everything you need to counter fast enough. If you want to counter the MG and IS sitting in green cover, you need the truck fast. But you can't lay down the truck and get the ISG because you need the raketen for the bren. So you either go 2 volks and good luck flanking the Brit's 4 units to have a raketen or you get pushed off by the bren carrier. It just seems simply totally imbalanced to me vs OKW and always has. And then they can still get an AEC out in a reasonable amount of time anyway so puma is not the answer.
I'd like to see Brits have to make a choice between the MG and the bren flame at least.
|
But if the ammo sectors on Minsk will be where the far VPs are now, it will be hard to hold both of them. AND you can easily cut them off with the point that also connects the fuel sector.
The map wont be a stalemate anymore once you have all VPs kinda close to each other
That's true. But it could turn into early-game indirect fire spam faster, kinda the way rails games usually go. The lanes on Minsk make it more likely for this to happen, Rails you can have some back & forth. It would be a similar feel though. I dunno, generally I dislike rectangular maps for this reason. If the MG lockdown fails, the team who loses an MG is usually screwed, otherwise you get a stalemate.
|
+1
Yeah but since with equally skilled players the map invariably results in a stalemate and RNG-led artyfest late game, the contestability of the ammo points can really turn the tide in one team's favor. A double ammo hold means the other team's late game will be substantially weaker, so this makes it different from most maps and somewhat interesting, even if the late game is not.
|
United States
0
Relic Entertainment
