I hope they'll bring out a second beta somewhere next month to show the progress they've made tweaking and balancing the gameplay and fixing bugs. Show a new map perhaps. The game really needs this to restore confidence before releasing. Any news?
I don't have a link for you, but one of the devs confirmed on twitter there is no current plan for a second beta.
I suppose that means it could happen, but I doubt it.
Mate, squad-ai has been removed from CoH2 (for a long time) along with the direct control ability. Also, I gotta say, squad-ai isnt bad if done right. It was just annoying in VCoH because there was no delay before it activated, and when it did, the movement range was too high.
I have PTSD flashbacks of my cover being destroyed so one model of my squad runs all the way around a wall spanning the whole map.
Is it possible to make it do less damage to retreating units or while it's moving? IIRC flamethrowers aren't accuracy based anymore so I don't know how well this will work. Nerf direct damage and increase the DOT so it doesn't burn retreating/moving units so well?
Also tie the CP4 into t3. It's just silly that it's the only meta medium call-in left that isn't.
You can get all kind of weapon no matter that side are you playing on what map are you playing (Narvik 1941 and you can be a british soldier with stg44), tanks are horribly horribly fast and those uniforms...
I know, it;s not realistic and historical game but totall opposite of this isn't good eighter. You don't feel at all the climate of ww2 - it could be simple another modern warfare style game...
Just hope this game won't sell and it will have horrible reviews - that may stop this nonsens...
In March and April 1940, British plans for an invasion of Norway were prepared, mainly in order to reach and destroy the Swedish iron ore mines in Gällivare. It was hoped that this would divert German forces away from France, and open a war front in south Sweden.[2]
Moving east, the Germans were surprised when the British started to abandon Narvik on 3 June. By that time the German offensive in France had progressed to such an extent that the British could no longer afford any commitment in Norway, and the 25,000 Allied troops were evacuated from Narvik only 10 days after their victory.
*** The Narvik map is based on ~April 1940.
: MG42 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_42 In service 1942–present
: MP40(Kinda)
: G43 (1943)
: STG44(Even KB2 prototype is 1942)
: Tiger (1942)
: SturmTiger (1944-1945)
: AT Churchill (Prototype, and, seriously?)
: Valentine tank : n service 1940–60 (Ok, this one works)
: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_tank : 1941
The second major improved Churchill, the Mk VII, was first used in the Battle of Normandy in 1944. The Mk VII improved on the already heavy armour of the Churchill with a wider chassis and the British 75 mm gun, which had been introduced on the Mk VI. (1944 for MK7)
: Churchill Mk VII (A22F) (1,600 produced, together with Mark VIII) 1945 !!!! (Crocodile)
: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb
: The first V-1 was launched at London on 13 June 1944,[6] !!!
... It drives... me... nuts
Different maps being set in different years, ought to have different weapons
Methinks
I was more annoyed with the stg being the starting weapon because it's literally the best possible gun to use by nature of it being an assault rifle. On the class that is anti-infantry AND anti-tank they have an anti-everything weapon good at all ranges. Incredibly silly from a balance point, unless they make the gun uselessly bad.
Battlefield has never been a realistic game; I just want a WW2 sandbox game where I can pew pew with cool weapons and tanks.
STG seems like its going to be a problem weapon like the postbuff BAR or the model 10 prenerf for BF1. There always has to be one to two guns that is/are nuts in a BF game, its the cycle of life.
It also bugs me that the most advanced gun in the war is the default starting weapon
United States
Tobis
CreativeName
Tobis
![[L2P]Frost z żelaza flag](/images/replay/ostheer_flag.jpg)
Relic Entertainment
