There is a massive difference between concentration of force and the "blob" in game. As you said, the formations become dispersed as firepower increase.
The "blobs" we see are literally out of the Napoleonic wars.
In the game, a rifle can only shoot about 40 feet; thus of necessity, rifle units are going to be a lot more clumped up than they are in real life.
But it is not apparent to me that "we" really do see such "blobs" at all, given that some people seem to treat moving two units together as a "blob". It seems to be taken as a given by many, but I suspect there's quite a wide range of opinion as to what constitutes "blobbing". And explanation for why it is to be considered a Bad Thing is also pretty thin.
If you gave me some example of what you're specifically talking about, a replay or a vid or something, I might have a better idea. But to me, it looks like a position for which there is a great deal more peer-group support than actual evidence. |
hehe, WW1. yep, concentration of force against MGs was really powerfull there. the generals clearly did know it better then us
I'm not sure that particular case is really a concentration of force issue. Even so, I've yet to see a convincing argument that another strategy would have worked better. After all, in WW1, innovations like tanks, aircraft and gas, were all employed to solve this problem. But that's another discussion.
There is one salient feature from this scenario which I think is actually relevant to this topic, and that is sight range. In WW1, star shells were used to extend the sight ranges for machine gunners. And they can be used in CoH2 in exactly the same way, if you happen to have a unit/commander/army that has the ability. But even if you don't, you can still extend the sight range of an MG by having a friendly unit out in front.
Which I mention because the scenario described sounds very much like the expectation that an MG will/should be able to suppress anything that wanders into its own native sight range, which I don't think is a design intention. I think a better way of looking at it is that an MG that is, in effect, surprised by having a hostile unit appear at the perimeter of its own sight range is by definition out of position. |
Yeah, then explain why we don't all fight in lines anymore.
No problem.
As the quantity of firepower available to the basic combatant increases, formations become more dispersed.
(This is the principle behind Heinlein's Starship Troopers, btw. The book, of course, not the movie.)
However, this is irrelevant to the topic, because more dispersed formations changed nothing strategically; all armies today still use concentrations of force, its just that those concentrations now take place over tens or hundreds of miles rather than yards. |
Those 3 events in a single game would result in a MASSIVE advantage for the 'lucky' player, which the 'unlucky' player could do nothing to counter. For a competitive game, luck just can't hold that much power, even if it is an unlikely possibility. If in a game like 'Dota 2', the final match of a massive tournament was decided by a consistent string of "5% likely" events, people would be outraged. You can't give a team a $9m+ crowed-funded prize for being lucky - the donators demand that the game be dictated and decided entirely by skill; that's the point of the game.
I think the more likely response would be utter astonishment. Because having a mere two 5% events would only happen about 1 time in 400, having three in a row would happen about 1 time in 8000, four in a row 1 time in 20,000 etc.
Of course, none of these events in any way precludes the other side from also getting a 5% event, so for the matter to really be decided by such a run of luck would be even more rare than just calculating the odds, above, might suggest.
It does not seem to me that this can possibly constitute a problem. Such a string of luck is by definition so unlikely that it just cannot happen often enough to matter, IMO. Even if a vanishingly tiny percentage of all games were decided by such luck - which I don't even accept as a premise, btw - it's difficult to see how this could be described as a serious problem, let alone warrant tampering with the game as it stands.
The assertion that this is a special problem for 'competitive' games remains as unconvincing as ever. |
This was the solution used to minimize Pioneer spam in CoH 1 and should be used in CoH 2 as well with ALL infantry to reduce the usage of brainless tactics such as mainline infantry spam.
What do you guys think?
I think it's fascinating to see such a basic and reliable military principle as concentration of force being dismissed as "brainless tactics". Apparently, C21st gamers understand the military sciences far better than any historical general... or claim to, at any rate. |
Except it's not. The game isn't based entirely around RNG; yes, it has random elements, but the game isn't designed to be decided entirely by random factors. The better player SHOULD always win; not the one that was consistently lucky.
"Consistently lucky" should be a red flag statement; if you have to appeal to people being "consistently lucky", your argument probably doesn't make sense.
Unless you believe that 'luck' is some kind of abstract property assigned to people, there is no way for anyone to be 'consistently lucky'. Being lucky many times in a row is itself just another form of luck, and by necessity, all the more rare. 'Consistently Lucky' could well be the name of a super power.
The net result is that while a player may be lucky or unlucky from moment to moment, being consistently lucky is inherently rare and infrequent. And something that is inherently rare and infrequent is usually not of sufficient concern to warrant doing much of anything about. |
Well you thought wrong. The reality is you just weren't involved in it. How many Relic devs have you had come join your own teamspeak/vent server? My money is on zero.
This is special pleading cobblers; I made no claims to special insight, only that the quite open and easy-to-sea carping has always been present. I don;t need to rub shoulders "with insiders", learn their secret handshakes, or roll up one trouser leg to do that.
Just because some guys on the fringe were salty all along does not represent the community as a whole (particularly the original content producers and staff).
Nobody represents the community as a whole. Obviously. However, you're clearly admitting that I am correct, that there was "salt" all along. Whether or not this "represents the community" is neither here nor there. |
Rock Paper Shotgun has a pretty long hands on report. Overall very positive, highlights like:
"That final fight is the realisation of both the army construction that base-building allows and the close tactical attention that the active skills and hero units demand. If it can be replicated through the rest of the campaign, Dawn of War III will be a triumph."
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/08/15/dawn-of-war-iii-eldar-warhammer-40k-preview/ |
I think you're relatively new to COH scene so I'll fill you in. This was exactly the attitude everyone had going back to the pre-release and beta days. Community members even helped Relic find leaked gameplay videos on youtube to get taken down just to be nice and build bridges. Relic proceeds to shit on said community by disregarding what most the top players were saying about balance and mechanics, milking DLC after having said they would not, their Toxicity™ thread here, and so on.
This is not how I remember things. The shitposting started long before release, during beta, because some could not - and still have not - come to terms with the fact that vCoH was no longer being supported and extended. On top of that, there was plenty of this bad blood and Relic-hate, for reasons just as silly and spurious, from the VCoH days anyway.
So no, this idyllic pre-lapsarian paradise of community involvement is, I think, a complete fiction, a figment of your imagination. Or indeed, of self-justification. |
|
Lol, it's actually pretty bleak:
When the soldiers
Are marching through the town,
The girls open
The windows and the doors.
Ref:
Hey why? Hey because!
Hey why? Hey because!
Hey merely because of the Ringing of the brass, Beating of the drums.
Hey merely because of the Ringing of the brass, Beating of the drums.
Two colored scarfs,
Moustache and stars
Hearts and kissing
The girls so gladly.
Ref:
""
A bottle of red wine
And a little piece of roast meat
The girls toss
To the soldiers.
Ref:
""
When in the field flash
Bombs and grenades
The girls weep
For their soldiers.
Ref:
""
(When) the soldiers come
Home again
All their girls
Are already married.
Ref:
"" |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
