Profile of donofsandiego

When you get involved with the ESG mafia, the product suffers.

Bud Light, anyone?

Lots of thoughtful changes with some big exceptions:

Marders needed to be changed but this is a dramatic nerf. 120 damage makes them completely unviable.

Bro what. 120 damage is the same amount as a frigging sherman 76 or easy eight without HVAP shells. Get the panzershrek if you love doing 160 damage per shot so much. Lmao.

The stug D probably has the 160 damage you desire.

Oh yeah, by the way, 120 damage main gun for 35 fuel is STILL a great deal, as a US player has to pay 50 fuel upfront and 90 fuel after to access it.

It has nothing to do with how effective or not blobs are.

Actually, it has everything to do with it. That is literally the title of this thread. The goal is to introduce methods for countering blobs WITHOUT punishing individual squads.

Even if you add some sort of "reverse zeal", it simply wont change anything, because the only counter to blobs in CoH3 - tanks, since they can one-shot bunched up models, everything else is basically soft-counters. Everything else is just aren't dealing sufficient damage, to punish bad play.

**YES** That is EXACTLY why I am trying to CHANGE. Everyone here seems to dead set in reviving the rocket arty and indirect meta WHEN THERE IS ANOTHER WAY.

I like the ideas of:
- No auto reinforce on forward trucks.
- Slowed Reinforce in combat.
- No reinforce unless in owned territory.

And would also like to see:
- Inf suppressing after MG suppression like in Coh2. This rewards good micro on the MG and support infantry.
- Larger AOE for tanks, mortars, etc or more anti blob arty like Katy, Werfers, etc. This could help weaken blob health and your support infantry can pick off the weaker units, thereby punishing blobbing.
- Units taking more damage when retreating (as opposed to falling back).

I agree with most of this, but again it falls short of addressing the topic of the thread, that being how to nerf blobbing without affecting players who play with individual squads.

(Def agree on no reinforce unless in owned territory and infantry squads causing lingering suppression on suppressed squads though)

In time the TTK issue needs adjusted. I fear it would take Relic months to adjust all of the damage profiles, etc. So I dont expect to see it soon.

fgsfds
Rosbone, wouldn't increasing received accuracy vs. clumped squads achieve this easily?

Stopping bitching about blob control units being potent vs single squads as well would be a first step.
Stubby stug, 105 sherman, wehr command P4/brummbar, that weird brit one from armored bg.

These do the job well, unless its AT blob.

Ok besides the fact that the 105 sherman is worthless to build in 4v4 because of how much it's outshined by literally the default sherman (and 76's) HE shells, you could say the exact same thing for CoH 2: "Oh well you know, the brummbar and the scott are perfectly fine at dealing with blobs, so we don't really need rocket artillery." Huh? Why do people advocate for giving the USF stock rocket artillery if they have the scott? Isn't that enough? Why does OST get the panzerwerfer? Isn't it unnecessary? Can't we just take it away?

Again, devs are moving away from rocket artillery and instawipe gameplay. This has brought back into scrutiny the glaring flaw with the CoH ballistics simulation; that being that there are no actual ballistics, it is only squad vs. squad combat in its current implementation.

Because of this, all you need is a simple numbers advantage to beat a squad. 2 is better than 1, right? Well not in warfare. You DON'T see modern militaries walking around in the fucking human meatball formation because it is retarded and any fire they draw will be WAY more likely to hit them. THAT IS WHY ARMIES SPREAD OUT THEIR UNITS. WE DON'T NEED TO KEEP REVIVING THE ROCKET ARTY AND INDIRECT META IF WE ACTUALLY DEAL WITH THE UNDERLYING CAUSE AND MAKE IT SO THAT BLOBS BECOME BIGGER TARGETS.

Listen, imagine you have a baseball, and you're standing in the middle of a field, with a wooden door 50 feet away from you. Your goal is to hit the wooden door. In fact, you can hit any wooden door, and it counts, if you hit the wooden door, you win! Now, is it easier to hit one wooden door standing in a field? Or a row of 6 doors standing next to each other in a big line?

I'm sure anyone here knows what the answer to that is.
Thank you for your time.

This isn't a "hate thread", I'm being genuine here.

I'm a 4v4 player. Most of you who've seen me comment already know this. I play Allies mostly, but I play both depending on what arranged team I'm playing with (I'm more competent with allies I think). For CoH 3 4v4 I settled into playing USF, because I liked the customizability/versatility that it had in theory over Brits. Otherwise I played DAK.

To me, it's pretty clear that the playerbase thinks Axis is OP in CoH 3. I'm drawn to underdogs, because I like to be confident that my skill is what allowed me to win, not overtuned units , etc (Sidenote: I think allies easily have counters to axis gameplay, but not without corny sh*t like blobbing and spamming units). So, I mostly played Allies. I also like to play games, so I didn't play much Axis, as their queue times were 10+ minutes long because everyone is playing them (as opposed to Allies who have a sub 2 minute wait at pretty much all times).

I played a crap ton of CoH 3 during the multiplayer alpha, and the first week of release. The 2 maps got old quick, and I'm pretty sure that I played all the possible permutations of battlegroups + support center combinations.

All my friends I play 4v4 with have stopped playing CoH 3, and I dislike solo queue 4v4, because somehow the game usually finds players even more monke than I am to put me on the same team as.

I've gone back to CoH 2 just b/c I have more fun playing it. Does anyone here have some reasons why I might want to come back?

I'm down to queue up with people in CoH 3 if you've got room for someone rank 1700 in coh2 .

Why would you want to punish player, if he has numerical advantage over you? Sure you can introduce reverse zeal and why not, but isnt it easier to find a problem why its effective?

I think that it's just a better idea from a common sense perspective. Why did armies give up on standing in big lines and firing at each other? The introduction of rifles that can actually hit targets further than you can throw them. If you stand all your troops in a line, then even the enemy's miss can turn into a hit.

It's also why modern militaries space out their troops during marches where it's possible they will be attacked. The goal is to be spaced far enough so that a grenade's kill zone would only hit one soldier (obv it would injure more than one person b/c of shrapnel, but you get my point.)

You space out units because it makes them harder to hit. Therefore, blobs should be easier to hit. Very simple and common sense solution. If you're firing a machine gun at a literal human wall 30 meters away from you, it will take a miracle for you to miss any shot you take.

Again, my ideal solution is that missed shots have a large chance of being fired again at closely adjacent or overlapping squads, but who knows how resource intensive that could be. I'm not a programmer.