I would push for faster VP bleed, specially when there's no attempt at trying to decap a VP back. Games takes too long when you can force a 2vs1 VP situation and the defensive player has no reason to over extend for like 300 VPs or more.
To counter it, a contested VP would not count towards the bleed as long as a unit is fighting inside the point. So you would effectively stop the bleed at 1vs2 VP deficit even though you don't manage to neutralise the point, as long as you are able to keep units fighting in the decap zone.
Or simply cut down the standard VP amount from 500 to 300.
In regards to base rushes and defense, that's been an overlooked design problem, specially since WFA were released. There's no reason ATM that OKW has flak defenses (specially when its RNG on teamgames on which type of defenses you will have when paired with OH) and USF having extra MG bunkers on it's circular base. Bunker MG on small maps tend to also protect strategic points which is really stupid IMO.
For a future COH3, i would experiment on reducing the amount of MG bunkers or pushing them way further back, so you have a bit more space to maneuver or been able to smoke them to go for a base dive. Or give them little to no AoE suppression so you can try to bait the MG with one squad and let others get in.
To counter it, maybe make HQ have a single garrisonable spot for damaged units plus say an LMG (no suppression) model defending it to deter long stays on the inside of the base.
In somehow unrelated note, i wonder if the game would benefit from having say +50mp income (350mp) and variable upkeep ratios which goes more aggressively at higher pop values and lesser at lower ones.
A crude example would be: 0.5mp between 1-24 pop, 1mp at 25-49, 1.5mp at 50-74 and 2.0mp at 75-100.
I think one solution would be to have MG bunkers start inactive, but let players spend MP to permanently activate them. Their activation time would be very short (10-15 seconds maybe), so if you feel a base rush coming in, you can scare it off. You'd still be behind the curve, as you spent resources on base defences, but at least you'd still be in the game. |
|
You guys remember "Main Gun Destroyed" crits from CoH1? They were basically an opposite of abandoned vehicles from gameplay perspective - they favoured the attacker, because they allowed your deep-diving vehicle to survive with a sliver of health when they should normally get destroyed. From what I recall, it was almost universally disliked too.
My point is that it doesn't matter whom it favours, it's better if such drastic tempo swings are left outside the game. |
|
A squad dropping a slot weapon is certainly not good, but it's not the end of the world. One player loses 40-60 munitions and other gains the equivalent. Although some weapons are better to pickup than the others, in the end it's not really game defining.
Having your vehicle destroyed is much more impactful than dropping a slot weapon, but it's still something you can come back from usually. But losing your vehicle and effectively giving your opponent one for free? That's a huge swing. It's like if during a football match, every time a team misses a shot on the goal, the referee rolls a d20 and on a roll of 1 gives the opposing team a point. |
|
I recall that last Winter Patch someone proposed that AT Rifle Grenade would unlock for Riflemen regardless of their vet level after producing a Major as a part of "T4 passive bonuses" design that's going on, similar to how Mobilize Reserves unlocks on all Conscripts after building Soviet T4. I think that's a good way of doing it that wouldn't affect balance too much. |
Garrisoned units (including a Raketen in a garrison) should remember their priority settings
So I assume it's working as intended then? If so, then I'm glad that I could help.  |
rapid conscription receives the exact same attention reserve infantry does in the mod.
I didn't know that. It isn't mentioned in the change notes in the first post and I haven't tried the mod yet. It makes sense now, though I'm still hoping there's a unique and useful way of replacing those abilities, while keeping their theme.
Relief Infantry and Rapid Conscription could be changed to something that lets you regroup faster, like cutting reinforcement times and cost for the duration.
The problem with this solution is that there isn't much interaction between this ability and your opponents. You pop it outside of combat and your opponent might not even know that it happened.
My suggestion is that this abilities provide a new infatry squad with target size 1 that can merge but can not reinforce.
It is also unique and does not load with unwanted squads.
In other words you get the entities back than can move to front line on their own and merge to the squad that are fighting, which perfectly describes "relief" infatry.
I've read your suggestion in some other threads and I think it's kinda nice and thematic thematic, but a bit counter-intuitive, as the game revolves around not losing your squads. It also creates some peculiar situations - what about re-crewing abandoned team weapons with them? Will they be able to reinforce or not? |
Relief Infantry
Relief Infantry is a very weak ability. It is being adjusted in order to make it more attractive to use.
- Ability no longer gives Osstruppen squads to replace losses, but instead gives a manpower bonus of ~10-15 per casualty sustained while the ability is active
I've been thinking lately about ways of reworking Relief Infantry and Rapid Conscription. Turning them into Recoup Loses equivalents is a solid option (though I'm still trying to come up with something more unique to differentiate more between the factions).
I'm wondering though - why didn't you change Rapid Conscription too? In my opinion, it's equally as bad as Relief Infantry (if not even worse) and commanders that have it are not very good either, so the risk of turning them into meta-monsters is minimal. |
|
Interesting idea! Others have already pointed out the error in the front/rear armour. I also volunteer for the modding help. I published a couple of small mods in the workshop and I think I have a solid grasp on the Attribute Editor. |
I get much more reliable performance from SCAS both against me and for me. Just seems harder to dodge and less likely to collide with structures
Its also 40 munitions cheaper, not that that's a huge difference
I also think that Stuka CAS has greater tactical impact, primarily because it forces antitank guns and MGs to either relocate or risk being decrewed. Regular off-map arty also forces them to move, but CAS has bigger area of effect. My mistake, I was thinking about Stuka Stafing Run.
Anti-Tank Overwatch fits same role as P-47 Loiter, but it's cheaper and not affected by the map layout. The planes have the added advantage of chasing after locked-on targets outside the loiter area, but also a disadvantage of being vulnerable to AA. Loiter has just barely longer duration time, but much faster cooldown (65 seconds compared to 95 seconds of AT Overwatch).
Questions is how they compare in dealing damage when things are set up for them to shine (i.e. a vehicle has damaged engine). From my experience, the Anti-Tank Overwatch is more effective at what it does, but I wonder how other players think. |
But.... airborne have 2 and I&R have 1...
As katitof said, I&Rs have the 1 scoped garand and regular have the 2. 1 scoped garand is superior anyways typically because there aren't usually enough below threshhold models to shoot at. So regular paths kinda get the bad end in both less utility and performance.
You guys are correct, my mistake. I mixed up sbps when checking in Attribute Editor.
And is it really worse to have 2? Target entities are chosen randomly, no? So if you have 2 scoped Garands in your team, there's a higher chance that either one of them will target the low-health entity.
|
mais niquez vous
Chocolek
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
Heartless Jäger 
