Whenever I play 2s I just feel like no matter what side I play I'm just getting cheesed to death by either bunkers, pack howies, snipers, LMG blobs, MGs on no flanking maps etc. Maybe i'm just washed up and need to take up bird feeding.
But actually though I feel like both sides struggle because of cheese.
+1000
truer words have never been spoken. |
Technically even US marines are a form of shock troops. Heck, in game pgrens are more or less shock troops too by the same definition. The term is pretty loosely defined and should really be a more blanket term like “rifleman” as in an infantryman with a rifle as opposed to specifically mainline US infantry. The terminology of the word shouldn’t define the actual role/balance of the coh2 Soviet unit called shock troops.
i'm glad we all agree now!
/thread |
And Mechanized assault doctrine should be about excessive use of halftrucks to transport motorized infantry to the front line quickly and provide covering fire, not about StuG-e and tigers.
I also assure you that blitzkrieg and lightning war was the exact same thing, yet in coh2 these are 2 completely different doctrines.
Soviet advanced warfare wouldn't be focused on IL-2s and regular T-34/85, but actually advanced stuff, like IS-2.
See, its just a name to make the doctrine look cool.
You're only going to end up chasing your own tail in circles if you keep focusing on nomenclature instead of making interesting and functional doctrine.
these names aren't nearly as silly as some of the brit ones: Advanced Emplacements? Show me the historical basis for THAT. |
While we are at realism of explosions: What I always found funny in video games is how granades work there. Compared to throwing range of about 30 meters, real ww2 granade death range (aoe near) is between 5-15 meters and safe range (aoe far) is around 100 meters. Yes, over 3 times the throwing range if you have no cover. Imagine that in coh2 
Eh, this isn't totally the case. Sure, in some crazy circumstance, a grenade could kill you at 100m, but a lot depends of the situation. 5m is a realistic figure and even that isn't a guarantee.
If you want to make it more realistic, grenade tosses into buildings or trenches should be far more devastating than those in the open... And cover should only mitigate damage if it's between the grenade and the models, not based on the throw path as it is now. |
|
i watch this movie every time i flank a vickers MG and it gets away without dropping a model, no matter how many guys i have shooting at it... |
Noticed, using either incendiary or regular barage triggers a cool down for both barrages now. No one will use the incendiary if it costs a hundred munis and denies the regular barrage, no?
i get this, because OKW can float munis late game and just start double-tapping with stuka barrages... but if they're gonna make incendiary cost 100 munis it should at least hit close to where it's aimed. |
With respect to how to choose the scope. I think that we can have more interesting results if we are allowed to focus on one faction at a time, fixing the most pressing issues of that faction, and also addressing the immediate knock-on effects in other factions.
going for one faction at a time doesn't seem like a great idea... sounds like a great way to create imbalance.
that said, trying to adjust ALL the problems in a single patch also leads to unpredictable results. maybe focus on a single issue and go from there? also, some of this "no-brainer" stuff like infiltration should be doable in a single patch before all the crazy balance work. |
For teamgame purpose imho we need 3rd axis faction which must be somewhat defensive like brits with emplacements etc.
please no. emplacements are the single worst part of this game. |
AA time fuses are very accurate because the need to be able to detonated at the altitude the planes are flying. So it does not have to howitzer gun.
The technique was used by 88 flak crew in WW II often. There are even reference in "Band of bother" series (that comes from the experiences of USF paratroopers)during the Baston encirclement.
not arguing the AA piece. i'm saying that direct fire weapons systems don't use time fuses. the concept of an Elefant having an airbust shell does not exist.
if this still doesn't make sense to you, let me know. |
Actually you are completely mistaken.
The German Flak 88 was never designed as direct fire weapon but as AA gun able to have its shell explode in mid air so that the explosion and the shrapnel could knock out planes.
Since the same weapon was used against land targets a similar technique was used to provide "indirect" fire support, and the same timer fuse was used to explode the shell over the intended soft target for instance a trench.
i'm not. this is possible for artillery weapons (time fuse) due to the long time of flight to target (relatively). from a tank it is not done. |
-Ostubaf.Vaelve-
Relic Entertainment
