Profile of easierwithaturret

Non-doc Calliope

Wat?

Anyway perhaps it's because the calliope is more likely to be used against less mobile forces. Also what Sidaroth said; I'm sure you are using the pwerfer at short distance but I doubt you're driving it quite as close as you would a calliope because you know how fragile it is.

By 2018 or 2019 there will be a whole new crop of gamers, so maybe a new audience? Of course we will no longer be in the shadows of Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers, which laid the groundwork for the popularity of the games.

This is the biggest thing that could see CoH3 getting made. Since the late 2000s there has been a decline in interest in WW2 games. Now this can be attributed to a number of things but the biggest is simply the fact that there are only so many times players can see the same assets and scenarios without getting bored, and most current consumers had their fill of that playing MoH and CoD in the late 90s/early 2000s.

However the new generation of consumers were still in nappies while those games were in their heyday and conversely are starting to get sick of the same pseduo-realistic modern day military games. So they represent something of an untapped market, especially for a WW2 game that doesn't follow the same old Normandy/Stalingrad storyline.

As you mentioned SPR and BoB were big drivers for popularity of WW2 games, and we haven't had anything like that since those were released. Part of that is because the public has less stomach for that 'America, Fuck Yeah, war is awesome!' style of war film, but nonetheless a successful WW2 film or TV series could be a major driver for revival of the genre, given the untapped market I mentioned previously.

Now, where are these big releases? Well we have that Mel Gibson movie coming soon but given Gibson's reputation and the highly questionable casting of Andrew Garfield in the lead role I don't see that doing well. Nolan's upcoming Dunkirk film looks more promising although I doubt it will gain as much traction simply because it doesn't features Americans prominently (but perhaps there will be a badass American agent/commando/pilot shoehorned in somewhere to fill that gap). I think the biggest potential lies in a HBO/netflix-style big-budget TV series. If such a venture succeeds, THEN I can see CoH3 getting made.

I suppose maaaaaaybe it could be useful if you somehow found yourself with an extra vehicle crew, e.g. you bailed out of a tank that then got destroyed. But even then 90mun is too much.

Arty is there to support your other forces, not replace them. It has 3 main uses.

1: Support an attack by destroying or forcing the retreat of key units that form the linchpin of enemy defence.

2: A low-risk means of inflicting MP bleed.

3: Low-risk attrition of enemy defenses/base structures so that the enemy is preoccupied repairing those and can't mount effective moves elsewhere on the battlefield, and eventually either destroying those defences or weakening them to the point where your manouevre forces can finish the job.

So basically arty helps to win the game by tilting the scales of the game in your favour, either in a localised spot or as a general reduction of the enemy's strength over time.

That said it is a bit of a noob trap in that it's much easier for new players to wipe units with an arty barrage than it is via a coordinated assault with infantry & armour. This is especially the case when playing against AI/other new players who don't move their units away from the impact area.

Don't lock it behind nades, that's stupid. The whole point of the mortar was to give USF an alternative option to counter heavy building/defensive play in order to increase the diversity of their early-mid game, which before the mortar was the same in 95% of matches. Nerf its firepower or have it requiring an officer squad on the field.