This do not work for me. With the old script you have in the first post they don't start a new game after finished the first one. Stops after showing the statistics.
With the experimental script the script starts the game, but do not click on the button after I loaded the game.
Any thoughts about this?
Yeah it stops there for me as well. Looks like this new patch makes the current scripts not work. |
I'm sure that if it turns out doing good stuff, you will be back apologising for previously picking a terrible attitude just because you felt like it. Your post will say something like
I'm sorry. I realise now that I shouldn't have soaked the forum with bitching and moaning based on what I couldn't have known instead of waiting and THEN complaining if the patch had been no good. I mean, even if I had been right, it looks pretty terrible to have that attitude in the first place. I will do so much better in the future because I will feel better for it and the users around me that come here because they are fans of the game will also feel better. Sincerely, Spajn
I'm sure you will write a post like that as you are a stand up community member. And I will look out for it.
Most people are like him because it's fashionable to be cynical these days. All the cool kids are. |
|
Heavy tanks are only a problem because they outperform everything else. Heavy tanks should be a high-performing unit but high risk as well -- you lose a KT you have most likely lost the game.
Balance would be if you stall the entire game for a call-in to win, then you should be paying a significant opportunity cost the entire time you are stalling. And that players who pick a doctrine without a call-in, but with better earlier abilities, would not pay that opportunity cost and would have earlier opportunities to lock up the game.
Unfortunately the metagame has many variables that conspire to make the call-in a safer choice than the alternatives, and that is something that has nothing to do with adding a Pershing.
The fix doesn't revolve around a decision to add or not add a USF heavy, the fix is to make the alternative something that can win just as many games as stalling for a call-in. |
He's right, more doctrinal heavy tanks into the meta would just make things worse and even more boring. We should be moving away from the generic IS-2/Tiger call in play not encouraging relic for more of it only this time from Americans. Otherwise what's the point of different factions when every match is just an Infantry/Support weapon stall into Heavy tanks?
Terms like "worse," "boring," and "generic" seem totally subjective to me.
What if it's worse to have to frantically micromanage 3 or 4 units at the same time to eliminate an enemy heavy tank? Even Relic admitted this during its last set of patch notes, that a USF player has a much harder job trying to counter one unit than the Axis player. Their conclusion was that they have no idea how to fix this without a more comprehensive patch (which is the one coming soon we hope).
Others have said the obvious, which is that Pershing commander would only be used if it's actually better than all other options. Just on principle I think it's possible to devise a Pershing commander that has useful but minor abilities, and a Pershing that is itself balanced.
To my mind picking Pershing helps you avoid that mismatch of control and micro in the end game, but doesn't give you many of the advantages current commanders offer in the early and mid-game (Paras, LMGs, off-map arty, Rifle flamers, etc.) |
I play USF almost exclusively these days and I don't want the Pershing.
I would much rather see the M24 Chaffe, M18 Hellcat or Sherman Firefly (Brits.)
How would the Firefly be any different from M36? Mechanics would be identical except it's slightly tougher. Plus you'd have to bring the Brits back. If they are back as a faction it makes sense for them to get Firefly, otherwise it doesn't really.
And you're still solving for the same problem -- a beefier long-range AT tank unit. |
yes, more heavy tanks is definitely what this game needs
Thanks for that comprehensive and learned argument.
That said, I could see them being out of hand in 3v3/4v4s but those types of games are like party games. The kind you play drunk with lady friends because it's all casual.
In a 1v1 or 2v2 there is always a progression in COH from infantry to light vehicles to tanks, to heavy tanks/elite infantry/off-map abilities.
Guess which army has no doctrinal option for a heavy tank? |
The OPs ideas are a little odd. Cheaper caches are the last thing this game needs. Maybe it could be "listening posts", sectors with caches in them reveal all enemies on the minimap while the cache is alive. Could be an interesting utility ability but not super effective or anything.
Recovery vehicle resurrecting vehicles do not fit hte design of CoH2, which allows for repair/recovery, but not resurrection. There are no medic stations for a good reason, and adding a USF bergetiger would be a bad idea IMO. A good salvage vehicle might be reasonable, e.g. it gives you 25-33% of the fuel of the salvaged vehicle back or something like that. But it would need to be cheap for that to be useful and IMO it would be better to have that ability on rear ech, not a dedicated recovery vehicle.
Rear ech with 1919s is wierd, I would rather have bazookas, but I wouldn't really want that ability at all. USF is often strained for manpower and popcap, one RE squad is usually plenty, one extra at most.
Pershing should IMO be more like 210-220 Fuel and be slightly inferior to a Tiger. Vet 1 ability should be HVAP rounds to make it more competitive with the heavies for a munition cost.
Yeah, I'm thinking the caches should just reveal map and cost the same. The intention was to have a sort of low value early ability but obviously it would be out of control for large teams. I just play 1v1s though so it didn't occur to me.
Recovery vehicles, I liked the idea as it fits the theme of the Allies being so well supplied and organized they could restore disabled tanks back to fighting status in days. The first Pershing ever knocked out suffered 3 crew KIA, and was back fighting in a week thanks to mechanics and logistics.
I'm thinking the better redesign of this commander is replace ARV with a passive ability making Rear Echelon Troops more useful. For example, "Field Salvage" allowing Rear Echelon Troops to get a flat fuel amount from vehicle hulks like OKW.
This also makes it more useful to call in Rear Echelons with LMGs. They could have bazkookas instead if LMGs would be too strong.
As for weapon racks, I vacillated between making it a munitions discount or a manpower/fuel discount for the unlock research. Maybe it could just be the same M1919 unlock ability that Infantry Company gets. |
So a non-paper Jackson? Like Easy Eight?
Like Easy Eight in that it can still one-shot a weakened squad if it's clumped together. But a lot more HP.
Panther has 800 HP, Tiger has 1040, I am thinking Pershing would have 900 HP. The Pershing's armor might be the place for the most radical stats. Like give Pershing 340 front armor, 110 rear armor. This gives Pershing one of the most heavily armored fronts for heavies, but the weakest rear armor of all heavies.
For comparison, front/rear armor values for other tanks:
Tiger I: 300/180
King Tiger: 425/225
IS-2: 375/205
Panther: 320/110
Sherman: 160/80
Sherman E8: 215/95
Jackson: 130/60
Note these values are for the base unit and do not account for veterancy (though I don't think veterancy improves armor or HP for tanks). |
I don't see why a Pershing should be cheaper and (presumably) worse than a Tiger when it's the superior tank.
I'm not sure why the Pershing is the superior tank, it's comparable to the Tiger on paper but there's nothing to definitely make it "better" other than things like ease of maintenance, availability of spare parts and fuel, etc. that are intangible as far as COH goes.
At the end of the day the Pershing was much lighter than the Tiger, 45 tons vs. 54 tons, and had better all around armor though less armor in some places. Again game balance matters far more than historical trivia like this especially since this is not a simulation game.
My feeling is the Pershing should be faster and less armored than the Tiger, a strong AT tank that is less effective against infantry. It can still counter infantry with a munitions-required skill shot ability (HE phosphorus round) and targeted smoke. But first and foremost it is a heavy tank deterrent and heavy tank finisher, strong enough to risk charging through the fog of war to get that last hit against German heavies that would get M10s, Jacksons, Shermans, etc. vaporized by shrecks and Paks.
Also I'd like to think that a player who picks Pershing still has plenty of good reasons to build a Sherman first, to fight infantry and because Pershing is a late call-in. |
|
All the Allied fans keep asking Relic for a Pershing commander so here's what one might look like. I think the key is to balance a commander so it is not 100% reliant on its call-in to be effective, while not giving it too many early CP abilities as to make it overpowered relative to other commanders.
Tactical Reserve Company
Contain enemy attacks with well-equipped core infantry, then unleash powerful units from rear-line reserves. Discounted resource caches improve battlefield awareness while the M32 Sherman ARV can return knocked out vehicles to service. Counter enemy armor and exploit Allied breakthroughs with the newly developed M26 Pershing heavy tank.
Forward Outposts (0 CPs)
Fuel and munitions caches cost 150 manpower and provide additional sight range.
• Passive ability
• Does not increase cache HP
Rear Echelon Reserves (4 CPs)
Deploy two squads of fresh Rear Echelon Troops to reinforce vulnerable points. Each squad is equipped with an M1919A6 Light Machine Gun and comes with a random amount of experience.
• Costs 380 manpower.
• Squads can have anywhere from zero to rank 2 veterancy. A rank 2 squad will come with all 5 members.
• Each squad carries a single LMG.
Extra Weapon Stockpiles (6 CPs)
Items from Weapon Racks cost 50% less munitions. Does not affect unlock costs for each rack.
• Passive ability
M32 Sherman ARV (9 CPs)
Deploy an M32 Sherman Armored Recovery Vehicle. This unarmed unit may recover US Forces vehicle hulks and return them to operation. Can be upgraded to reinforce nearby infantry.
• May purchase “Infantry Carrier” upgrade for 100 munitions, allowing nearby infantry to reinforce and allowing the M32 to carry a single squad (troops may not fire from the ARV).
• May repair vehicles.
• May recover vehicles from intact hulks only. Recovery takes 150% of the vehicle’s original build time. A recovered vehicle will have either an engine or main gun critical, and will have 10% of maximum HP.
• At rank 1, gain “Repair Critical” ability to remove any single vehicle critical in 3 seconds.
• At rank 2, gain increased speed and acceleration.
• At rank 3, gain Concealing Smoke ability (30 munitions).
M26 Pershing (11 CPs)
An M26 Pershing is available for frontline deployment. Heavy armor and a 90mm main gun allows this unit to engage any enemy tank. Can fire white phosphorus rounds to clear garrisoned structures or scatter infantry.
• 600 MP, 190 fuel
• May mount .50 caliber MG for 70 munitions
• May launch smoke at target area with minimum range
• At rank 1, gain White Phosphorus round. For 50 munitions, this will fire one incendiary HE round that does area damage to infantry and burns their HP over time. Damages infantry in buildings. 15 second cooldown.
• At rank 2, gain increased speed and rate of fire
• At rank 3, gain increased accuracy and sight range |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
