Profile of squippy

I love the Commanders system. I think it is vastly superior to the CoH1 doctrines, and allows much more variety of units, abilities etc. I also did not like the business of having to actively spend Command Points, I like the way they now unlock things without active intervention, and thus allow the player to keep their head in the game. It's all great, IMO.

On the so-called P2W issue, I'm not hugely convinced that commanders actually make that big of a difference. If DevM can win top level tournament games without even picking a commander, how necessary are they really? Surely we know it's not the case that picking this or that commander, whichever happens to top of the popularity parade this week, does not guarantee a win.

We've got stats for wins by faction, does anyone know if it is possible to get stats for wins and losses by commander?

A little while ago there was a thread discussing the loading times of troops into halftracks. However, I think the problem with HT transport is more profound than merely the time it takes to get troops in or out. I think the real issue is that it takes too many actions to be worthwhile.

First you have to select the troops, and then right click the HT; then you have to wait for the troops to get in. Then you have to select the HT, and give it its destination. You can use the unload order for one of the squads, which is convenient, but limited. If you want both to get out, you have to monitor it when it arrives.

I have a suggestion for making HT's easier to use, in the hopes that we might actually see some mechanised infantry type play. I propose giving the HT a chain button like that which the British officers in CoH1 had. After clicking the chain, you link it to as many squads as your HT can carry (I think it's all 2). From that point, if you give the HT a move order, the troops automatically load up. When the HT reaches its destination, they automatically unload.

The idea that this would be a sort of dedicated mobile group until the chain relationship was cancelled. This way your troops arrive and deploy without your intervention, so the group as a whole can be used for harassment and counter-harassment. All you have to do is tell the HT where to go next.

I can imagine a number of potential problems. Say you forget that you chained a squad to the HT, and use it normally; then you move the HT just for reinforce purposes; suddenly the chained squad would start moving toward the HT. That kind of thing would need to be considered.

What do you think of this idea? Alternately, what else could be done to make the transport function of HT's more useful and usable?

CoH2 has a terrible system that depends too much in RNG. I'm not talking about a single lucky mortar shot that wiping a squad, but when a raketten, each shot kill 2 models for three consecutive times, or a panther that bounce for 9 shots of 75mm gun at short range, then something is wrong.

Baloney. That isn't how probability works; in fact it's suggestive of the gambler's fallacy.

Humans have a tendency to attribute intentionality to an uncaring universe, which is why we make this mistake. You see if often when people play XCOM; they berate their character, saying "how can you miss an 88% shot?" or whatever it may be. And the answer is, quite easily, 12% of the time in fact. Which is about 1 in 8, so not that rare, really.

The mechanic of RNG need to be change, My suggestion:
After a miss roll, the next roll will have higher success chance.
Likewise, after a hit roll, then next roll will have lower success chance.

Really? so let's game this out; you just repelled an attack by a heavy tank, a Tiger say. You ATG has scored hits; one more will kill it. But now, according to your proposed system, because you just hit it, the odds of hitting again are lowered. Does anyone really want that?

I suspect that little could be more confidently guaranteed to produce maximum rage.

I suggest we start a "Praise A Map" thread here on CoH2.org. The purpose of the thread will be for posters to extol the virtues of a map they like to play, and especially ones which can be used for competitive purposes.

This doesn't necessarily feed directly into Relic, but it might serve to raise the profile of new maps. Also, things like upvotes, recommendations and spotlights don't actually tell you WHY a map is good. I'm imagining posts that include screenshots of the layout and so forth, as lack of info on what a map actually contains can also cause it to be overlooked.

I'd love to see more maps make it into the tournament scene. And getting more maps into that scene will also offer motivation to mappers, rewarding their substantial efforts.

That's why some of us call them incompetent. Not because they don't have the technical knowledge, but because their pride doesn't allow them to fix their product.

See, this is where we part company. You don't know that. I know you don't know that, because you're describing what's going on in someone else's head, and unless you happened to have invented and built your very own mind-reading machine, this is simply not information that is available to you.

So, seeing as you don't know that, what has happened instead its that you've made it up. You've attributed imaginary moral qualities to them, and now you feel entitled to treat them as Bad Guys. And to my mind, this is not only totally useless and un-constructive, it's also utterly fatuous.

What they've accomplished with 4 patches could have been accomplished with only one patch.

I've just pointed out to you how patching bugs is difficult and fraught with the danger of introducing new ones. So no, you can't just assume that that it could have been accomplished in one patch; you just don't know that.

As an object lesson on the difficulties of debugging, I leave you with The Story of Mel.