|
"I honestly think the infantry gun needs a slight tone down, This gun is simply an MVP every game. It has great vet scaling and can direct fire against light vehicles. Its simply fantastic and probably a little over preforming its cost."
Maybe I'm using it wrong, but as far as I can tell, it's generally less effective than the ost 80mm mortar, costs almost twice as much, can't retreat, and can barely kill anything because the splash damage is so low.
"Can we please reduce the damage the stuka fuss does? Panzerwerfer and Katyushyas got nerfed for a reason. its simply not fun to loose so much to the point and click of a moderately priced mobile artillery piece. Plus this one has even less RNG as you draw the line."
They were nerfed practically to extinction, which was bad, but that's not a great reason to also ruin the Stuka. Why not just buff the Pwerfere and the Kat? Okay I know that doubling the stats of the Kat didn't work, but surely there's a middle ground?
"PanzerJagers need a slight adjustment in lower DPS. They are incredibly great like the Infantry gun and are probably over preforming for their cost."
What are panzer jaegers?
|
|
Currently rank ~2000 with OKW ...
So maybe this is just a level of play difference, but isn't breakthrough actually really good? Pfuses with the SO have incredible long range killing power even without the upgrade. Keeping the SO in the pack removes the retreat problem.
Again a possible level difference, but to me infiltration grenades is better than "generally pretty good." Compared to the 30 MU volks grenade, which often does almost nothing, these can completely turn an engagement around or even wipe a squad that's injured. The other day I attacked a house with an LT and a riflesquad, double infiltration naded it, and for 20 MU both squads, previously healthy and full, were wiped. RNGesus? Maybe. Some bad play involved? Probably.
Do you have to wait to use it? Sure, but that's true of normal grenades. I'd say if anything it's more spammable than the 30 MU grenade despite being several times more effective. It's weaker with a wounded squad, but then again, how often do you wanna nade someone with a half dead squad anyway? That's asking for a squad wipe.
|
|
When I was playing as USF just now someone took out my AA HT with the incendiary rounds from an MG42.
Under the impression that the AAHT was totally OP against OH (OMG!) (which I think it is, actually, I just used it wrong), I set it up at moderate range next to a huge Ostheer force that I knew had a mortar, an MG42, flame pioneers, and some grenadiers plus an armored car with just a bit of rifleman support.
I actually was killing/retreating everything but there was an MG42 in a house that I didn't bother to kill for some reason. Then it popped incendiary rounds and took out the HT.
Before I was the impression that Ostheer has to rush a PAK to deal with the US HT, otherwise it's practically GG. But the MG42 worked great. Then again, I didn't use the HT very well.
So: is a vet 1 MG42 a good counter to the AAHT, or is that only if the HT is used poorly?
|
|
Casual SP/some automatch 1v1 and 2v2 player here, not sure if my opinion counts for much, but here goes.
I've played every Relic RTS from Dawn of War 1 to CoH 2.
CoH 2 is not only a better game than CoH 1, but probably also the current pinnacle of Relic RTS games.
When Relic made Dawn of War, they experimented with capture points, cover, squads, long range units, armor being (somewhat) resistant to small arms and stuff. It was a cool game but it still played similar to a conventional RTS, mostly because cover wasn't enough of a factor yet, and morale and retreating, though present, weren't changing up the game play too much.
Then they made CoH. CoH is awesome. Finally, cover really matters, there's suppression and pinning, tactical flanking, armor is immune to small arms - and retreating! Awesome. I only played it after they finished patching (2011) so I can't speak for its balance, but I found it mostly balanced then at least.
These things aside, it had its share of flaws. Pgren blobs, airborne blobs, brit blobs. Tanks with papery armor that couldn't even take out an AT gun if you ambushed successfully - sure, the ATG should win from the front, but if you sneak behind it, you should be rewarded for that! The pacing was also too slow, and it was too hard to come back from a disadvantage. If you did badly enough in the first few minutes you might as well just quit. If an early mistake kills you off, that's awesome. If it kills you off but the game still has to drag on for another tedious 30 minutes, that sucks.
Dawn of War 2 introduced cool single player features, specifically, co-op campaign plus last stand mode. Both were great. In the few MP games I tried, I found the game lacking, though. The campaign was awesome but for some reason the skirmishes were, I would say, "like CoH, except scifi, and not as good." IMO they didn't really succeed in making a game with melee units work on the CoH system. Also, the scale was tiny and evocative of "whack-a-mole," plus the maps felt cramped and too divided into lanes.
CoH 2 I hated, before the lethality updates in March. After that update, though, it waaay surpassed CoH 1. Pacing is worlds better, blobs are sorta back from WFA but hey, at least they're not as bad as airborn blobs. Tanks are better implemented - they lose to ATG in an even fight, but if you sneak up on a PAK, hey, that gets rewarded now! Critically, matches are not decided as much in the early game. True sight makes the game far more interesting as well. Squads fighting while capturing, and the lower number of points across the map, focuses the game more on combat and less on boring "capture point grabass" (stole that from someone, can't remember who). All in all, a much better game.
IMO it suffers from having a poorly designed faction (soviets), but Wehr, OKW, and US are all pretty solid. So it gets a 3/4. CoH1 I'd give a 2/4 for factions, as PE and Brits were terrible.
|
0
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
