A lot of people seem to be on board for a 5 man Grenadier squad. I think this would completely change the identity of the squad. At the moment Grens are squishy and are supposed to be squishy. It's their shtick. That is why they are the cheapest mainline inf (in addition to cons), have long-range DPS profile, long-range abilities, and a long-range upgrade.
After years of back and forth, it can be said that the early game infantry matchups of all factions (except Brits who are still oscillating between UP and OP units, overbuffs and overnerfs) are more or less in the right spot. If you overturn years of finetuning you better have a damn good way to do it.
That battle phase 3 suggestion is the best of them all. Doesn't affect early game, helps with those late game wipes to a lucky tank shots.
So true...we are at the best spot since launch of WFA. A 5 man squad any sooner than T4 could be disastrous and huge upset of what balance we have. |
I don't think you can actually limit the pershing to 1.
I mean, if the game tells you can only have 1 pershing. Just decrew your tank and walla you have no pershing because your not in the tank anymore. Just call the second pershing and get back in your first one and there you go; 2 pershings.
Repeat process till your popcap is filled with tank crew men and man all your pershings.
SPrice is that you?  |
Plus, rifle mines.
Why even go infantry company commander now? 
ZE PRIEST YOU HERETIC! J/K....good point. |
|
Since they are asking for naming help on these commanders, I suggest "Go ahead and Alt+F4 now" for this one...rangers and a Pershing wow. |
Ok name at least two currently active RTS games (not Command & Conquer clones) that is a "higher quality game" than COH2.
Let's try to be more fair here. When it comes to RTS, Blizzard are just C&C copycats and I think Relic deserve abit more credit as pioneers in RTS along with Creative Assembly with the Total War series.
IIRC, Blizzard Entertainment have been publishing their own games for many years. Relic Entertainment had to work with at least 4 different publisher with one going bankrupt.
To name a few;
Homeworld 1 + 2, Sierra Entertainment
Impossible Creatures, Microsoft
Dawn of War, THQ
COH, THQ
COH2, SEGA
CA & Relic are both pioneers in RTS that have been living in the shadow of Starcraft and others C&C copycats for more than a decade. Yes Blizzard currently make good MMO/MOBA games.
But when it comes to RTS, they cant continue to just milk money from classic C&C RTS which are a dying game genre on PC.
In South Korea, SC1 eSport & community helped alot to build up "hype" for SC2's popularity in the EU/US.
Now the SC2 hype are dieing in South Korea, Blizzard RTS will die slowly with it.
Many players are moving to MOBA/MMO games and Bllizard are moving with games such as Overwatch (team based FPS) and Hearthstone + Heroes of the storm. Bllizard are just not going to take the risk with innovative RTS like Relic and Creative Assembly or to create a MMO RTS.
It's getting pretty obvious for potential eSport sponsors that Blizzard are abandoning RTS for MOBA/MMO games. So that eventual will mean less money for SC2 tournaments. For CA/Relic that mean if they polish their RTS franchise (console + pc) they can get more attention from eSport sponsors that want to focus on innovative RTS that can potentially take over from SC2.
Mobile casual RTS games (Game of War + Clash of Clans) are more popular than ever and casual gamers are the fastest growing community in the gaming industry. Console/mobile RTS = Casual gamer, PC RTS = less casual and more hardcore RTS.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/03/the-shocking-truth-about-mobile-gaming.html
Compared to most COH2 players I am an relative old RTS/MMO gamer. I played Homeworld 1 in the top10 ladder and was also a top player/visionary leader in a very complex MMO game (EvE Online).
HW1 released 1 year after SC1 and was light years ahead of Blizzard in innovation.
With Homeworld, Dawn of War and COH, Relic have made at least 3 innovative RTS games that are not C&C clones.
So stop with the naysaying. Either believe in COH2 (or COH3/DoW3) and help make history. Or go back to C&C clone games and have fun with that dieing era. Your choice.
So much this. I grew up om AOE and those simple types of RTS but fell in love with total war and the much more tactical play and would never go back to a C&C or AOE style RTS again. Might as well try to make the best of it because everyone else seems to be moving to console games and mobile/freemium content where casual players s don't complain about DLC and it is all pay 2 win. |
|
Katyusha is what I keep trying to use when I choose a doctrine without KV-8 and hey have really been underperforming compared to when I was last playing in fall and winter of 2014. Back then it didn't have too much scatter so you could severely punish a blob as long as you weren't at max range. Now that scatter is increased it is very hard to get wipes on blobs unless you drive so close that literally you are barely out of schreck range and you can't even fire all your volleys if the lead blob squad doesn't retreat/get wiped because he will close the distance and one shot you |
inefficient if you don't take advantage of your spam. But if spaming T1 units gives you control on 70% of the map and then you can switch into spaming t2, it is efficient.
Maybe, I'm skeptical that you can gain enough of an advantage by spamming so hard and then withdrawing many units. Conscripts already can merge to reduce pop cap and make effective forces anew, granted you do not get a resource bonus but con:Max spam no longer works against good player and penal spam is just LOL bad |
Yeah, all snipers should be 1 man and 82 hp models.
that would be easy to balance but so boring...historically the SU used 2 person teams so why not use that as a base to design a solid unit, more survivable but slightly less lethal with a nice ability at Vet 1 and then tone down the frangible grenade for Ost sniper which stops flanks in their tracks and can be spammed with dual snipers for insane flank defense. |
Actually I kinda wanna disagree. I tried T1 with a sniper to countersnipe devm's sniper in OCF. The Soviet sniper team is extremely clumsy. The moment it steps out of cover it decloaks meanwhile its Ostheer counterpart can walk from one side of the map to another while beeing camouflaged. This means that the Soviet sniper is only able to countersnipe once you pushed your opponent back and set up an ambush. Which is rarely happening since you are short on infantry (maybe 2,3 cons against MG42, 3 Grens, Sniper) and give up a lot of early map control which you would have with a 3 Con T2 opening. Plus the danger of a 222 forces you to either pick a doctrine for guards or T2 for AT gun. If you just go AT nades you will be pushed back eventually.
I really wish that Soviet sniper was just one guy with decent camouflage for manouvering. Plus the spotter is super awkward since he shoots sometimes by himself, revealing the other sniper too. Good players can deal with Soviet sniper quite well to be honest.
great points....someone correct me if I am wrong, but i didn't see more than 2 soviet sniper squads built all SCC. In theory, teh squad system would provide historical flavor and asymmetric balance but it fails right now due to those points mentioned. Also, bc of low hp I have had the few snipers I built all die to mortar/ISG laser fire in team games but I can keep my UKF sniper alive so long as shot doesn't hit right on him. I noticed that my own mortar fire can't wipe the Ostheer sniper even with a direct hit. SU snipers should be more survivable but have slightly lower ROF...right now they aren't even more survivable plus no awesome vet 1 anymore. |
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.
Where is the drawback in upgrading Sherman's, panzers, etc with LMG? Sometimes an upgrade is just a way to make player have to choose how to spend munitions to get maximum utility from units. That being said a PG blob would be almost un-counter-able of they could just switch in between modes so Firesparks idea of making them only be able to switch in base would be possible if coupled with making PG more expensive/upgrade more expensive. I don't trust relic would get it right so I voted "no" but I would like a simple prioritize vehicle option so you can wAit for armor to approach and not shoot at infantry |
United States
![[CFIS] Dartarius flag](/images/replay/okw_flag.jpg)
Relic Entertainment
