I'm not playing 1sv1 or 2vs2 anymore as USF (at least until next patch). But in 4vs4, I'm always going scott first + jackson.
The problem with the sherman is
1- the overconfidence it gives sometime.
2- very vulnerable to OKW Puma. Not talking to have it destroyed (unless you're sleeping)but it force you to withdraw it too often. The puma probably need a pen decrease vs sherman (Imo  ).
3- you need more micro than the scott not keep it alive.
Scott gives you
1- good AI potential and from far enough to weaker a blob before it comes at their fire range.
2- Can damage the Puma at max range or from behind a building.
3- vet1 smoke is better than Sherman smoke
4- smoke shot is better than Sherman smoke and actually can neutralize an ATgun or MG for your rifles to attack. It is better in combo with other players but it works great!
5- it is cheaper, only 80 fuel so your jackson come faster, since a sherman isn't enough vs tanks, better to go scott.
But it is true that in 4vs4, I usually let my random mates going AT and focus myself on killing those blobs... |
Disclaimer: This is a comment of a middling player.
1. You can't if your oponent is same skill level or higher skill level;
2. You can't, if you lose entire squad/squads in early game;
2. If point 1. and 2 is not true, you have a fair chance. Personaly, I do this: I invest as much as enemy allows me into things that can transform a rifle blob in something that counts: grenades, BARS. Because this things require fuel, I go directly to captain and next I build asap a AT gun in order that these two units (USF AT and captain) along with some lucky AT rifel nades counter that PZII or Puma or, god forbid, an AA Ht. Usualy I go paras doctrine (at least pathfinders and paras are worthing) and later I have the P47. But if you are good at micro, armor doctrine may be a verry annoying choice for your enemy. Sherman buldozer is quite thick and you have the M10 to. 1 M10 values nothing but build more than 2 and things change. You can put aside T4, just spam buldozers and M10s.
Spamming a fuel unit is a really tough idea in 1vs1. Moreover when we talking about a balance match.
Imo, for what it is, the M10 comes too late, not in term of fuel but CPs, having it 1 or 2 CP would make the commander more interesting.
Now the matchup is broken, one faction has all the tools at the right moment at the right price to overcome the opposite faction. And if Volks spam isn't downgraded or punished more severly, nothing can really change. |
|
Timing is around 1-2 minutes before Puma hits the field in a 50/50 map control.
I don't understand why people just not insta-retreat when they see the greyhound coming. It is not like it had a huge range to use its ability... |
|
Just wanted to lol on that topic, I just faced RICE on the same map 4vs4 and pickup Reco commander and use the M8 around the same corner of the map as on the video. I used maybe 3 time the canister shot and had a lot of kill with before being shot to death by shreck, I didn't upskirt it so it was not that difficult.
Just a question, simple one, why don't you use a Puma? I mean, the game we had 5 minutes ago was only a blob of 4 OKW players. 2 fast Kubel which failed + maybe 2 halftrucks and... nothing else.
Just consistent waves of blobed volks+sturm+obers when a single puma is enough with his range to keep any light vehicle at max range and so the m8 out of range for a canister shot.
I can understand it is probably easier, funniest maybe as well, to only blob and reach the critical mass that will break your opponent line, but sometime you have to adapt. I ate your various blobs with 4 M8A1 (1 destroyed) and you didn't even build a Panther.
Honestly if all your games are like that, the problem is clearly not the Greyhound... |
|
Reco Commander and IR pathfinder arty.
you push him, use smoke to deny his long range firepower and arty him in the fog of war. If 1 arty isn't enough, take 2 pathfinder and wait to have enough ammo. |
So popular it got canned due to not bringing in any money from the users, even with nearly zero development costs (a couple new menu screens, some new server code, and rearranged command trees). A high standard to try to achieve 
Allies would never win a game again if lone machineguns could stop 5 infantry units charging them.
Playing against mine spam is already boring for all parties involved, slowing down sweeping would make it twice as bad.
It got canned 1 or 2 months after having implemented the micro transaction system with really few option in it. And honestly looking at how Relic implement stuff and how they support it. The failure wasn't coming from a lack of player enthusiasm to spend their money...
The game was doomed before they implemented money transaction, and the worst it that they knew it and still implemented it to suck as much money as they could from their playerbase. Erk, You make me remember that just know, it is not going to improve my vision of Relic. Disgusting company...
Now about Gren/MG42 synergy. It all comes from they stupid early design.
Sov = assault infantry that need to close the range to deal damage
Ostheer = LMG faction that need to keep the range to deal damage
USF comes with WFA = mid range faction murdering grenadiers early game |
That's not exactly how it works. PRD is generally implemented so that the first proc chance is actually lower than the desired average value.
http://dota2.gamepedia.com/Pseudo-random_distribution
Furthermore, there are still elements of pure randomness, such as bash, evasion, Ogre Magi's Multicast mechanic, Faceless Void's Backtrack, etc.
Hard to compare two games completely different. But game mechanism are clearly under control in Dota2 (don't know for LoL but suppose also). Element of randomness can all be countered by items and heroes capacities are derived from items themselves. In Coh2, there are no items giving you immunity from damage for a period of time.
But anyway, I'm not against RNG, but here it takes to much space on the gameplay design, those mechanisms are lacking of control limits.
when a units has 50% chance to pen another, it can be over 10 shots, 5 first pen or 5 first bounced, and honestly at any level of skill it gives the same result. For sure, at higher level a player will manage the situation better, but the result is the same at the end, your windows opportunity has been annihilated, not by your opponent but pure luck/bad luck. I don't see that in Dota2, from the 1200 hours I have played that game so far, I have never experienced this feeling of being so unlucky, same when I took a super multi strikes from Ogremagi... |
What's there to say? It's just part of the game. Sometimes crazy shit happens, most of the time normal shit happens. I never had a problem with RNG in CoH, you just have to play with it in mind. A good player knows when the odds are in his favour and when they are not, and structures his gameplay accordingly.
RNG in Dota is different than RNG in CoH, because Dota is a different game than CoH. Never, in the history of CoH or Dota, has a game been decided by RNG. If you put yourself in a situation where you have to rely on random chance to win, it's your own damn fault when the chips don't fall in your favour.
The difference between DOTA2 RNG and COH2 RNG is Valve controls its RNG. And to make sure RNG doesn't break the game balance put mechanisms to limit it. It is as simple as putting timer or count control on RNG actions.
You know like, side armor have 50% chance to be rear or front armor. So you put a count with timer on it. If RNG's god decides to take front armor value to a 1st shot, automatically the next shot withing 5 seconds will take rear armor value.
And each time it takes front armor value, again and again.
Or like you set an incremental % value, if the 1st shot is front armor value, so the next shot in the next 5 sec has 70% chance to be rear armor value and if not, it goes to 90% etc...
And of course you adapt your overall units values base on those mechanisms. (numbers above are purely random, please don't come and argue on it)
And so you have RNG and fun but you control its upper and lower limits. And you avoid stupid 3 or 4 side shots bounced in a raw because it took front armor value every time and completely break the game. |
That's why some people suggest a debuff for blobs. It actually makes sense and can resolve a lot of issues for all 4 factions.
Blob is a hard concept to define. Is 2 squads a blob, is 3 squads, 4 squads? And how close do you consider it a blob a group of units? And how do you do at shock points? If the HMG is set up, it's done? Cannot take it before a light vehicle because the path is too narrow to avoid the blob debuff?
Ostheer has many early blob hard counter in fact. They got flammers, they go AP mines, they got HMG, they got mortar to support indirect fire. So the problem isn't how to control the blob itself, but the support to make the blob bleed when controlled.
But honestly people asking for an single HMG capable to completely stop a blob are wrong. |
|
There a lot of dreams on this topic, the problem with HMGs being more effective is to make it more easy to spam and lock down the map with 2 or 3 of them.
HMGs are not hard counter to blobs, they[re here to slow down blobs and give you time to reposition your line of defense. Well in that way, they are hard counter since a blob suppressed isn't really effective. HMGs + grenadiers have really good synergies, suppress a unit and riflenade it is, in my opinion, one of the best early combo you can found in this game.
So now, the issue isn't the HMG itself but the complete meta around it. Ostheer is probably lacking of something early game and too strong late game, a balance change is more than necessary here. |
Relic Entertainment
