|
Fighting positions are a must have on maps light Faymonville and Arnhem. They give you free grenade dispensers, which ensure that buildings cannot be used by enemies. They are also useful on 2v2s to lock down a fuel point (don't need RE in them for this job).
The mine though, is the best part of the changes. USF NEEDS the cheap anti-everything mine to help themselves transition into the defensive lategame their fragile units demand. |
I'm sorry, I don't like Cancer with my tea.  |
|
The Pak40 and 6lber are functioally identical, with several differences.
1) 6lber has +50% accuracy.
2) 6lber has a lot tighter of an arc.
3) 6lber has "rapid maneuvers" instead of TWP.
I would like to see it cost at least 300mp to justify it's firepower (no unit should be cheaper than it performs). The correct fix would be for Relic to fix UKF's bleeding problem. They are already looking into this with the tech cost mp changes. |
|
If you are fighting infantry, don't bother shooting. Just go for the crush. If you are fighting armor, you typically want a 2-1 advantage.
I typically skip this tank, but using it as an ambush vehicle is probably best. Advancing over open ground is typically a bad idea vs. Shrecks. |
given the allies' dominance of light vehicle, the ost are basically forced into getting the panzergrenadier+schreck.
At this point it's more about not gimping the ost with a munition and a manpower heavy unit.
It's not really true though. You have access to paks and 222's for munition free at, and tellers for munition at. Panzergrenadier shrecks are just icing on the cake.
Look at it this way, usf, ukf, and soviets can deal with early flack tracks, luchs, and pumas with AT guns. Shrecks are not necessities. They are luxury support weapons that are quite situational. |
|
I believe the bren has more firepower against infantry, and the Vickers is better against light vehicles due to its Rate of fire.
Don't quote me though,I need to look up the stats. |
|
The whole idea behind upgrades is that they are supposed to force the player to make decisions.
Do I want bazookas for more AT the expense of my squad's AI firepower?
Do I want smgs for more close range firepower at the expense of other ranges?
The problem in coh2 is that not enough upgrades have enough drawbacks. G43s and lmgs will always increase the dps of the squad at all ranges, which makes them brainless. There is literally no reason not to upgrade lmgs, besides opportunity costs (which all abilities and upgrades have).
The real issue is that coh2 is not consistent on forcing player choice. Lmgs have no drawback, but smgs will always make a squad lose firepower at other ranges. Anti-tank issues are currently one of the well designed upgrades that force you to make a choice between a great AI squad and a great AT squad. As a result, we artifical feel that some upgrades are underperforming in comparison to the more brainless ones.
We want more thinking in strategy games, not less. |
|
If you upgrade the engineers with 2 vickers/ brens before you unlock heavy engies on them, they can have 3 lmgs. They also gain 1 armor, for a total of 2. For comparison, Shocktroopers have 1.5 armor. I believe they gain better repairs too.
Their big, and I mean big drawback is their speed. If you throw a grenade, they have to retreat. If you have a tank, or any AOE weapon, they become kind of worthless, because they can't soft retreat easily, and armor doesn't help against explosives.. |
Vickers does almost exact same damage HMG42 does at long range. I don't know for sure, but i think HMG42 have better accuracy which results in better DPS.
Vickers suppression and AoE suppression suck big time. As i said, lone volks can crawl into vickers and throw grenade to kill it — i saw how it happened in lots of games. And rifle grenades... the horror... they just kill vickers pretty much no matter what.
As a honorable maxim spammer i can say that maxim, which is cheaper HMG suited for attacking, suppresses far more reliable than more costly Vickers, which by design suited for defense. DAFUG?
Vickers is not worth 280mp, it dies too easily and constantly fails to do its job.
At it current state vickers hardly worth even 240mp.
I believe MG42 has more DPS at extreme close and far, but Vickers has more damage at all middle ranges. MG42 has more suppression for sure as well.
There was a chart, I'll see if I can find it. |
OKW have really no flame damage weapons so you can't rely on flame damage. As much as people don't like it when people say this, see COH1. Emplacements could be over-repaired which is a far better mechanic than brace since it slowly wears down a little and gave them a HP increase temporarily but not a get out of jail free card like brace.
To put it simply, emplacements are a boring facet of gameplay and generally draws in the noob players who like to just build up a giant sim city and then throw arty at each other. I'd rather see them a little on the weak side than the strong side for competition sake. Anyone who played COH1 with Royal Engineer doc know what I'm talking about, and this is far worse with brace.
The idea of wanting Brits to just sit there and wait to be attacked sounds absolutely boring. This is the last thing I want to see.
But thats just it. Brits are supposed to have the option to be mobile, but Relic forgot to give them a mobile indirect fire support option.
Without any choice other than the mortar emplacement, Brits are FORCED to build at least that on many maps. As a result, they end up defending that position, and having no choice but to attack the enemy mortar position (which is hard for such a cover oriented faction.
Mortars and LEIGs hard counter brits, due to their reliance on cover. At the very least, the mortar emplacement should have these changes so that light artillery can't just roflstomp brits. |
3
nora
commash
commash
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
