|
Somehow I doubt that the layoffs will hit the people it should, which were the project managers and people above them. Several of my immediate family are programmers. I hear their side of stories like this when they happen, which usually happens when the project manager doesn't understand everything that needs to happen to deliver a successful product.
In this case, there is no way that they developed the scope or work breakdown structure correctly, as there is no indication that they realized what features should be in a competitive RTS.
They also skipped on the QA/QC and testing with too many examples to note.
Lastly, it doesn't seem like they had a solid project plan at any point, and should've just released two factions, Wehr or Dak and Brits, and one campaign. By spreading themselves too thin and deciding to release at a given date regardless of state, they made sure that the product was bad. |
Hey guys I guess I need help. 
At the moment my friends and I play a lot of allied 4v4 in CoH3. (Since this is the only way to find a game without waiting for 15 Minutes or so.) But although we have experience from CoH2 (1.400h on my side) and the advantage of an arranged team, we struggle hard even against lower ranked players.
Most of the time it goes like this: Two of us go mid, both sides get to play their 1v1. We win a lot of early engagements, prepare the frontline with MGs and stuff, only to get overwhelmed by massed infantry like Bersaglieri, close range PG or 250s with flamers. Somehow we hold on to the battle and can do a few good runs with light vehicles, but we are not able to secure the territories long time. Again, mostly because of massed infantry like Jäger Shreck blobs, Lufftwaffe pioneers with launchers or other stuff, only to face a medium tank pack. The end game then is so chaotic (I know 4v4...) that my PAKs get artied, or a loiter kicks in and so on. But in my opinion this would not be the problem if we would perform better in the early stages.
On a side note: I absolutely hate to mass infantry or blob. Normally I send my inf in groups of two, try to flank or fight from cover.
My build orders are normally:
UKF (Air and sea operation doctrine): HMG, T1, IS, IS, IS, T2, Humber or Stuart; medic tent, grenade upgrade if necessary
USF (Airborne doctrine): Scout, Scout, T2, HMG, mechanized upgrade, Quad; medic tent if necessrary
Is there some general advice you can give for 4v4, e.g. building a ress cache asap, or focussing on two victory points, or something? And how am I supposed to fight massed infantry, without massing myself?
Maybe I/we just have to ltp, have more map awareness and have to build more infantry to fight back, but perhaps you have some advice, so I can learn.
I hope I could make my points clear, thanks in advance for the responses.
Cheers!
TL/DR: I want to get better at allied 4v4 
I wouldn't skip the Dingo, as it can cause a lot of bleed. If you're getting overrun by blobs, consider a second Vickers and one less Section. A quick resource cache is always a bad idea unless your opponents are terrible. |
Hey Grumpy,
Nice suggestions here.
You can give them to SpecsRanger, the mod's author. He is very open to suggestions and help. Maybe you can help them with the mod. 
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/comments/2958174636
Thanks! I'll ask him if he wants any help. I know how to do all of the basics in the Essence editor but don't know how to do everything that SpecsRanger did. |
|
This looks really good! There is only a few things that I would do differently.
Increasing the cost of the Bazooka squads while giving a slight increase to the bazooka damage won't really help them. I think they need camo so that they have some chance of getting a satchel off. Also, 75 damage won't really help much. Bazooka's were buffed to 100 in COH2, and that was against tanks that had 640 health typically. The small increase likely won't decrease the number of shots to kill or TTK.
The Hellcat should have the same range as the Marder. They don't have any armor and not a lot of hit points. Currently with the range of the 88's, it's difficult for them to get more than one shot off before they have to retreat, which makes them nearly pointless on a map like Winter Line.
The reinforce cost for DAK's PGrens seems too high. I'd lower it to match Rifles since they don't seem to be any better than rifles. When I play DAK and use them, I always seem to be manpower starved.
US doesn't have any light or heavy arty. Would you consider giving the Scott the range it should have? The real-life Scott had a barrage range of around 8km. In comparison, mortars typically were 2-4km, the leIG was around 4km, and 105 howitzers were around 11km. In that background, it seems like the Scott barrage should be 120 to 160. In gaming terms, it seems like mobile light arty should have a shorter range than less mobile light arty so 120 seems better.
I made my own mod that is in the Workshop. It is much less ambitious than this one. Mine was done with the idea that Relic isn't likely to be ambitious either, so what would be the fewest changes we could make that would balance the game. I'm trying to balance it with only buffs so it's always going to have some problems like "Zeroing" arty guaranteeing wipes.
Do you mind if I copy your Grenadier changes into my mod? I wasn't sure what to do with them in my mod. |
You complained about Axis having an alleged 60 win rate, not about Soviets being bad in 4v4. I've shown that the statistics you provided are biased because you only look at a few selected months. Soviet's win rate this may doesn't matter, the whole point of the paragraph was that win rates in single months jump like crazy. ...
This is absolutely not true. You're making up things that you think I said, ignoring what I did say, throwing out all types of extraneous arguments, then calling the things that you think I said absurd.
The 60/40 number came from the early days of the patch. I specifically said "in the range of" which tells normal people that I didn't look up the exact numbers. It turns out that I was off by about 5-7%, depending on the faction. Had I taken the time to look it up for all 2757 top 200 game, I would've averaged it to 46/54, which still isn't balanced. If my being off by 5-7% is absurd, your 5-8% error in claiming it is balanced is even more absurd.
I made a very specific complaint about the Walking Stuka, and the fact that they ignored complaints about it. I know that several of us complained specifically about the Walking Stuka and it's effect on Soviets. I'd have to question if you've ever played all three Allied Factions if you really think that it doesn't hit Soviets harder. Specifically, it hits Soviets harder in 4v4's where units are a lot more clumped together and maps are more lane-like. They could have changed it to a larger AOE while capping the number of models killed to 5 which would've had a huge effect on Soviets.
You keep trying to dismiss the effect of Soviets being worse. If you had bothered to look at all of the data, that you accuse me of cherry-picking, you'd see that teams of 4 Soviets have a win rate of 28% in 4v4 over the entire range of this patch. In general, the win rates for Allies get better with fewer Soviets, with Brits being pretty good if they're not teamed with two or more Soviets.
I seemed to have touched a nerve here. My guess is that some of the people on the balance team are your friends. I don't know who they are, or if they're actually biased. To be fair to them, the did an excellent job in balancing 1v1, 2v2, and 3v3. Most of the win rates are 50+/-1 % (exception being Soviets in 3v3) which far better than Relic ever did. They listened to a lot of suggestions, and a couple of mine even made it into patches. However, I am more than a little salty about the Walking Stuka complaints being ignored.
|
If you already accuse others of selective perception and biased opinions, at least fact check your own stuff. You base your pro Axis 60/40 split on coh2stats.com data for top200 games from January, March and April 2023 with a total of about 250 games. February (140 games) shows 55% winrate for Allies and May so far is balanced with 70 games.
What do we learn from that? This number of games is way too little. Most imbalances occur after coh3 release and if you look to either all data or the top200 data for all of 2022, you'll see a pretty even split. If Axis arty constantly wipes your 7 men Cons, you're just bad at dodging and counterwiping.
Wow - you're an alleged moderator and you respond to a post about statistics by attacking my personal skill level? That says a lot about you.
In long games, you'll always hit the point where you don't have a choice except to keep a squad on a VP, even when you hear the sound of the rockets. There isn't a lot of dodging within that circle.
Also, even if I go back all the way to the start of the last patch, the Soviet win rate is 45.5%. While that's looks a little better, it's still not even close to balanced. The number of games is 2757.
As for May being balanced, it shows a 42% win rate for Soviets. If that's your idea of balanced then ok. |
Marco and DevM weren't involved in CoH2 patches. They are CoH3 only devs.
On the other hand, SturmPanther and other Axis main 4v4 players were the patch guys in CoH2 end life.
COH2 4v4 is badly unbalanced now, with win rates in the 46/54 split range. {actual win rates are 45.5%-47.6% for Allies}
The Walking Stuka's ability to one-shot 7-man vet 3 con squads, or any other Russian infantry, makes it terrible to play against in 4v4's. They nerfed the Land Mattress and Calliope so that it wouldn't do that and should have done that to the Walking Stuka.
(Edited due to overstating some things and removed speculation about balance team since I don't know them or their motivations) |
Its a crazy, reality denying narrative for sure. I don't envy the kids going through college/university at the moment. That's where it seems to be the most fervent, almost like a religion.
I agree. I thought it was bad when I went to college 40 years ago, but that was nothing in comparison to today. It's especially disturbing when you consider that the groundbreaking "research" that went into all of the sexual identity theory was done by someone named John Money and his work is accepted as gospel by the left, even though two of his research subjects committed suicide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money
|
I do not play Coh3. So I am asking you players a question. Is Coh3 fun to play? If not, what makes it not fun?
I play COH3 because my COH2 friends are now playing it. For me, it's not a lot of fun but that depends on the faction.
Wehr is fun to play and feels normal because you always have a counter available to what your opponent is doing.
UKF is somewhat similar, just not as good.
DAK isn't a lot of fun to play. It has a lot of meh units, and a couple batshit OP units. I'm on a 12 game win streak by just spamming FallsPios into Stugs and Marders. Playing the same thing over-and-over isn't fun.
USF is shit to play in 4v4's. It has no heavy tanks, no heavy arty, no light arty, no good off-maps. It only feels okay for the first five minutes or so because the overtuned Rifles win a lot of engagements early. I played a 1v1 on an alt account and found that Rifles are stupid good against the base infantry of the other factions. They just don't scale well into larger games when facing Stug D's and 8 Rads.
The overall balance being bad is a large part of what is ruining it for me. Two days ago, my friends were playing as Axis. We have 4v4 rankings everywhere from around 200 to 1500. We played a team with 3 top 200 players and one 3000 player. It was a 12 minute base pin by us. If we switched factions, it probably would've been a base pin by them in about the same time. |
CoH3's campaign is just rehashed skirmish with some unique missions. Honostly, I only have 4 hours of gameplay in Coh3 because the campaign was boring.
Most RTS I would say have a good campaign that at least has more thoughtful mission design than just skirmish.
Age of Empires Series to include AoE 4
Command and Conquer Series. Even CnC4 had a more thoughtful campaign than CoH3
Supreme Commander
Starcraft and Warcraft
The skirmish mode could be better if they actually improve their AI. If Age of Empire's 2 AI could heard deer, then CoH3 AI can atleast find cover reasonably.
It feels like the campaigns of most RTS's have been trending downhill over time. Before the ones that you mentioned, RTS's like Total Annihilation and MechCommander had excellent campaigns. The individual battles could easily be lost if you screwed up. Total Annihilation even hired James Earl Jones (the original voice of Darth Vader) to narrate their campaign. They were fun and involved.
COH1 had a decent campaign. The original COH2 campaigns weren't great but Ardennes Assault was at least interesting. However, the COH3 Italy campaign is insultingly easy, yet at the same time bugged. On the missions where you "defend" strongpoints, it's easy to just charge to the spawn point and kill everything as it leaves the base sector. When you're attacking strong points, you can typically call in off-maps to destroy them and not really even play. On all of the other maps, you can spam Rifles and M8's to easy victory. |
1
![Orange Zombie [ROK] flag](/images/replay/ostheer_flag.jpg)
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
