I understand where they are coming from, but for me personally I don't like this over-simplification. The little macro management CoH has has now been reduced even further. A sign of a decent player is not only how he manages combat, but also takes care of how fast reinforcements and replenished squads get back on the field. Also there is no reason to ever look at the base again apart from building the few structures a faction has to offer.
Um, you can double click on the structures and it will automatically build the structure at an available location. You don't have to look at the base at all after your first halftrack is out.
I don't think it will flop. I played about 10 hours of it this weekend without a single bugsplat. I'll take that over better sounds. Considering that most people play single-player, all the customization options in unit composition will probably keep them playing longer than players did with COH2.
The UI could be better arranged, but after playing it long enough I got used to it. COH1's and COH2's were better but it isn't so bad that the game is unplayable.
The tactical map needs to go back to the old size. They shrunk it to where it isn't very helpful. Also, in COH2, rotating the tac map would rotate the normal view without changing the elevation. They changed that for COH3 and I'm not a fan.
The instant, launching s-mines from the Tiger are going to generate a lot of complaints. So far my record is 2 full squads wiped. Call-ins of all types seem strong, but especially the American air call-ins.
I liked the change to the Walking Stuka. It looks better and is more accurate to what it would've been.
I'm not sure I'm a fan of all the ways to get free veterancy.
You're taking things too literal. Editing also means adding info. You can even literally edit any page on wikipedia, and the review process there is often not competent, so a ton of none sense comes through regularly.
If it was "mass produced" or not is a matter of where you personally draw the line. Objectively, we can say that the project was scrapped early and the that those tanks would not have existed if the company had not overinvested into building chassis during development. Production numbers are far from other standard tanks and tank hunters.
I wouldn't call it mass produced. The Ferdinand was not planned from the beginning, they had those chassis lying around and had something to do with it. The Ferdinand was basically developed after the the base of the tank, it was not a straightforward decision and production process, which would usually be the case for anything you'd call mass produced.
This...
Mass-produced normally also means that someone develops a production line specifically for the item being produced, not utilizing a product of another production line and modifying it on an ad-hoc basis.
Adding heavies to the game is just the WWII version of all of the fantasy RTS's with "heroes" that absorb tons of damage. Fans usually want them and it doesn't necessarily make the RTS worse.
The Ferdinand/Elefant may have been the most successful mass produced tank destroyer employed during the war in kills per loss[citation needed], reaching an average claimed ratio of approximately 10:1. During the Battle of Kursk, sPzJgrAbt 653 claimed to have knocked out 320 enemy tanks, for the loss of 13 Ferdinands.[10] This impressive average ratio was due to its superior firepower and protection, which gave it an enormous advantage when used in head-on combat or a static defensive role (however note that claimed tank kills are well-proven to invariably greatly exceed actual kills, and different organizations have different standards of defining a 'kill'). However, poor mobility and mechanical unreliability greatly diminished its operational capability.
The Elefant and Nashorn were both superseded by the Jagdpanther. All three vehicles mounted the same gun, with only some minor differences between them. The Jagdpanther—a true jagdpanzer—was a successor to the other two, combining acceptable mobility and good, sloped armour while retaining the excellent gun, mostly solving the reliability, mobility, and/or protection problems that the earlier vehicles had. "
There has been no edit it is wikipedia which talk about mass production and not me , so pls stop defaming other forum members by accusing them of "editing" quotes.
I didn't accuse anyone here of changing anything on Wiki. Stop making defamatory claims about me.
You still don't understand the basic point that 91 of anything does not equal mass produced. It is barely beyond a prototype.
Nothing wrong with my reading ability.......
Just because some "genius" edits a Wiki page and makes the ridiculous claim that 91 vehicles is "mass produced" doesn't mean people should mindlessly parrot it.
Also, the claims about the miraculous performance of the Elefant seems a little incongruous to the fact that nearly half of them never left Kursk. This is just another variation of the supremacy myth. Had it really been very good, the Germans wouldn't have developed the Jagdpanther.
There are two surviving Elefants. One is in Russia. The other is in Fort Lee, Virginia. The one in Fort Lee was abandoned in Anzio. They showed the restoration on "Tank Overhaul". The best thing about it was that they found the left track was bound up. Some Yank with a lowly 75mm Sherman put a shell between the track and the hull which crippled it and caused the crew to abandon it.
You may or may not have a PhD, but using the title bestowed upon you is contingent upon respect. With the way you talk to people on this forum, you neither command respect nor deserve it. You'll be called whatever people feel appropriate and that is enough.
In this case, I think it is a "Piled higher and Deeper" title, and has something to do with sanitation.
You are simply wrong.
Elefant was the most successful mass produced TD in kill ratio with around 10:1 score.
No, he's right. A total production run of 91 is not mass produced by any stretch. They defeated around 320 allied vehicles out of probably 200,000 total. It's such a miniscule percentage that Germany would've been better off just building a bunch more PIV's or Panthers.
Also, only 13 out of the 91 were lost in combat. The others were lost due to lack of spare parts or fuel. If you factor in the other losses, it's K/D ratio is more like 3.5 to 1, which probably isn't any better than a Panther.
I was completely indifferent that Pershing was not in the game. And yes, I will continue to believe that the Black Prince has no place in the game. The game is based on World War II, you take the time period you take its limitation. Do you want the Black Prince? Go to Operation Unthinkable and alternate history. You can add anything there: Black Prince, Centurion, Tortoise, T95 everything that did not get into the war. Leave WWII with WWII units.
None of us play COH because we think it is historically accurate. I'd play the much more realistic snooze-fest called Steel Division, then just arty and rocket the shit out of Axis heavies when I play allies, or faust Shermans with their paper-thin armor when playing Axis.
All of the factions need heavies as damage sponges, particularly in the larger game modes. It has nothing to do with historical accuracy.
Relic is trying. I'd rather they not add new features and worry more about making the existing ones less buggy but they're probably thinking that a new game needs new features.
Acting like a white knight and setting my posts to invisible is not going to change the fact that Relic has a track record of failure.
COH 2 had a terrible launch. The game was literally unplayable for years and even then the game is full of bugs that literally take 5 seconds to fix and are still present in the game.
Advanced Warning launched with UKF roughly 7 years ago and it is still broken and does not work. This is one of many bugs reported that have gone on for years and never fixed.
Dawn of War 3 was a failure of epic proportions almost as bad as COH 2's launch.
AOE 4 only sold copies because it had the name Age of Empires attached to it. Had it came with any other name it would have flopped harder than Dawn of War 3. AOE 2 has more players on it than AOE 4 which is a huge embarrassment.
I spent years being Constructive even going as far as highlighting bugs and exploits and sending them to Relic only for it to be ignored until they are forced to do a hotfix.
The simple fact is that Relic died with THQ which is why all former Relic staff left and are in Blackbird Interactive making Homeworld 3. The people who are left are extremely incompetent.
Look 45 seconds at the Artillery or 53 seconds when the Calliope starts shooting. The animations are way off and a huge downgrade from COH2. The entire video showcases terrible animations for different units and Relic is proud to show that off just like how they were proud of the new UI that they put in that everyone hated forcing them to respond saying that they will change it.
They are out of touch and have no idea what they are doing.
I'm going to buy the game, but expect that it will be buggy. There were more cringe-worthy parts of the video than the Calliope. They bragged about infantry riding on tanks, then showed video of the infantry suspended in mid-air next to the two tanks as the tanks were moving. Then the tanks started phasing through each other, like some cross between WWII and Harry Potter. It did bother me a bit that they would brag about something that poorly executed.
Relic Entertainment
