Leave it but limit it to 1 only, or increase it's popcap significantly. All arty should have limits - 1 or 2 per player. Limits should apply to Katy's, ML20, B4, WS, Panzerwerfers, LEFH, and Priests. UKF players should be encouraged to buy at least 5 land mattresses. |
Here's a questions for the community as people argue about the B-4 203mm;
1. Would you prefer it to be tuned in its current iteration with stat adjustments. 3 shots with lower damage over a period of time.
or
2. Revert it back to what it was. 1 high damage shot.
Tuning the cooldown and the maybe reducing/removing the suppression would likely be priority on question 1.
Suppression should definitely go, unless you're using option 2.
The current B4 is about what the ML20 should have been (other than the cooldown being too short and the suppression). The ML20 should hit harder than the LEFH. Instead, it hits about the same or less and fires fewer shells.
I liked some things about the old B4 better, but randomly wiping full health mediums was extremely annoying when you're playing against it. I wouldn't mind seeing a 600 damage B4, with a direct fire that works and isn't terribly expensive. The problem with the old B4 was that it was roughly 1/3 as effective overall as the ML20, and the ML20 was slightly worse than the LEFH. |
Some time ago, I posted a complaint about OKW spam. At the time, I believed this phenomena to be exclusive to OKW. I was wrong. I played several games as OKW and Ost, attempting several spam- based strategies to see if they were viable, if it's a L2P issue on my part, etc...
I experienced mixed results. What I did notice however, was that Allied factions were just as likely to spam in team games. In fact, this approach seemed to dominate team games.
The overall effect seemed to be that games accelerated, with whoever fielded the most infantry and were careful with preservation, generally winning in the end. The only response seemed to be a frantic arms race toward anything that could counter masses of infantry.
In the end, whoever had the largest groups of infantry won, due to winning enough time to field their own heavies, etc...
Question : has anyone else noticed this in team games ? Are longer strategies dead ? Are combined arms strategies now the province of elite players, ie: those that can make them work properly ?
Combined arms is always better, but you have to be realistic. One mg isn't going to hold back five or more squads of anything.
You can call it "blobbing" as much as you want, but high level players "blob" together more than low level players. If you're playing a 3v3, if you can double team one player when they're not expecting it, you might be able to wipe them before the other team reacts and significantly turn the game. A big attack is almost always better than a timid one. If you're in a 4v4, the worst thing that you and your teammate can do is keep attacking out of sync with each other. You'll bleed more and accomplish less. So take you pick - attack with your teammate and have someone call you a blobber while they are surrendering, or get a ggwp from them when you lose.
Lastly, anyone who says that only "allied" players are blobbers just outed themselves as an axis-only player and vice versa. |
i have the same issue, two times, the whole team crash after i activate hold the line.
It just happened to me, and I wasn't the one that was playing Brits. My game crashes even when just playing the replay. |
Oh this is beautiful 
 |
|
Your poll is somewhat flawed since tanks depend on fuel as much as they do MP. If you're getting rolled by massive amounts of tanks then you probably didn't have a good start to the game. |
|
Yes, replace it with a 20 munition Precision strike, because that won't be terrible....... |
yes. it is time for axis to suffer.
Nah, but maybe time for enough people to realize that arty needs to be toned down.
In games like Total Annihilation, you could have games with units either banned or limited. I think the game would be a lot more fun with limits on arty. |
Thread: Bunkers22 Jun 2021, 01:54 AM
I might agree that Bunkers should cost population, but the difference in strength between OST and USF "bunkers" isnt something I think you can totally fairly compare directly.
They're on very different factions, USF being a very "aggressive" faction, and OST being a very "defensive" one, which not to mention the utility of the Rifle Grenades.
I honestly always found it a bit strange that USF have the Fighting Position at all, while SOV and especially UKF do not. UKF in particular is a much more "defensive" faction in design. Is there some design goal here I'm missing?
Admittedly I don't know for sure, but I'd also assume the Fighting Position is using the same profile for its 50 cal as the teamweapon version, and the Bunker is using the teamweapon MG42 profile, other than arc in both cases. If this is true, the Fighting Position is pretty well advantaged in that aspect.
All I'm saying here is that I don't think that the FP being more vulnerable is necessarily bad. I will also state that static defences in general are historically not a great fit for CoH.
EDIT: It is definitely absurd that the OST bunker can fail to be penetrated by explosives, however. That's certainly something that should be changed, even if nothing else is.
The fighting pit and bunker are so different that I don't know how you can really compare them. Yes, the bunker is tougher but the fighting pit gives free rifle nades to a garrisoned RE. That's really apples and oranges.
I do think that giving them a pop cap of 1-2 would be justified. |
Just axis players being braindead and sucking CB for too long 
I play both Axis and Allies. The point that the Axis players could've made is that a viable on-map howitzer will force them into the same stale meta that Allied players have had to endure for years. It wasn't too bad if you played Soviets before they took the bombing run out of Mechanized, but it got bad even as Soviet after that. I'm not looking forward to autopicking Storm for the next 300 games because I see 7 B4 commanders in the 4 opponents loadouts every game.
I've made the suggestion a couple of times that howitzers should be given the same treatment as heavies, meaning a limit on them and possibly even a cooldown on building them. I hope that the balance team thinks about something like that instead of just nerfing the B4 and pretending everything is fine. As a point of reference, the balance team specifically made the Priest so that it could not be decrewed when Priest spam was a thing. They should've done that to all howitzers. |
0
Effen.Newbie
CHANGE
Relic Entertainment
