The problem wasn't just balance related tbh, its the overall game design. Terrible commander system, lackluster tech counterplay, and too many get out of jail free cards for players that aren't good flankers. All that = too many COH2 games feel more like Brits vs Wehr rather than US vs WM/PE.
I especially agree with the lackluster tech counterplayer. I would like to see the return of strategic decision-making when it comes to teching. I loved how in vcoh, as ami you really had to consider whether to spend fuel on bars, grenades or tech to a quick m8. It had huge implications on your strategy (as each tech route had obvious drawbacks) and a good opponent would do their best to quickly discern your teching route and counter it. I realize it's difficult to create such synergistic interplay, but it makes for far more interesting mind-games.
In coh2, 90% of all fuel is spent on tanks and their teching requirements, which feels very 1-dimensional. |
I see COH2's popcap/MP income relation more like WC3's upkeep system.
No one is forcing you to build more units if you're ahead (and thus decrease your manpower income). There's no penalty for floating and it's the correct thing to do sometimes. If you're already ahead on the map at 40/100 pop cap, why make more units (spending resources & decreasing MP income)? Why not wait until you see what your opponent fields and use those resources and pop cap to counter him? The exception to this is if you're expecting something like a T70, fielding the AT gun around the time you expect the unit to hit the field can save a lot of map control - but that's a calculated risk.
Hmm, I see your point, but I do not agree in the case of coh. The reason being simple, coh is a game of area control: controlling the map gives you a resource and positional advantage. This is unique to coh compared to games like AoE and SC, where resource gathering is less directly linked to map control. Now I suppose most would agree that a good player would capitalize on any advantage they have, right? As such they would make use of favorable cover and increased resource income by building superior units and/or purchasing upgrades. Floating resources in coh should generally be avoided. The only scenarios I can think of are to be able to reinforce a MP intensive army and like you mentioned to be able to respond to specific strategies that call for a very particular counter (which rarely happens, since units in coh are generally pretty versatile).
I've played 1000s of hours of coh 1 and 2, and while I like both, it's very apparent to me that coh1's resource system has more depth and is more finely crafted. Coh2's system feels good in isolation, but only because it's based on an inherently great resource system that is so heavily rooted in area control. |
That's not how it actually worked in practice though. In COH1 you could field more units before popcap became an issue, the mechanic really didn't come in to play until the late-late game and it often helped players make comebacks. Medium sized armies were not very prone to being capped out. Popcap hurts the person that gets ahead, fields too many units, and plays stupid.
That's the genius of dynamic popcap: it works both ways. In essence, all it does is reward good play. In Coh1, you could easily capitalize on a lategame mistake by your opponent by cutting him off as he retreats, making it nearly impossible for that player to comeback. In Coh2, the static popcap only ever punishes the player that's in the lead, which translate into constant comeback opportunities. It's exciting the first few times, but after a while it becomes both a chore and a bore...
It wouldn't be a stretch for me to say that static popcap is the single thing I dislike the most about coh2. |
Cause boasting is never a bad thing...
Disclaimer: It's not my car. I don't have a car license (only motorbike). I'm not even wearing the seat-belt. I'm just a poser. 
|
|
The sherman 76 has better armor/health and better anti-inf capabilities.
The M10 and M18 have better speed, range (45 vs 40), damage (110 vs 87, I believe)and penetration.
In addition, the M10 is damn good at crushing infantry.
Ultimately, the sherman 76 is a more rounded tank, while the M10/18 is a better tank destroyer, as it should be.
|
I'm just going to leave this here....
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1rXcJuEsy0[/youtube]
Nice video!
If anything this agrees with what I stated in my post. If you want good quality, you need an external setup. If you care about gaming sound emulators, you need a dedicated soundcard. It really depends on your needs and desires. Given that the OP is using gaming headphones, it's a safe bet that the latter is of greater importance to him. |
@Volo: Here you go mate: http://www.amazon.com/PCI-Express-XONAR-ESSENCE-STX-90-YAA0C0-0UAN00Z/dp/B001OV789U/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1390539715&sr=8-2&keywords=asus+essence+st
I'm sure you could find it on ebay as well or if you don't mind buying used, you could check out head-fi.org.
This is a pretty nice buyers guide for gaming sound equipment: http://www.head-fi.org/t/534479/mad-lust-envys-headphone-gaming-guide-updated-1-9-2014-shure-srh1840-added
As you'll probably notice, the best gaming headphones aren't actually marketed as gaming headphones. 
@Budwise and Ronald: I didn't read through your entire discussion, but are you, Ronald, actually claiming that people can't the difference between an onboard DAC and a 2000 dollar DAC? Is that a joke? I can tell a huge difference between the Yahama DAC in my Galaxy S2 vs the Wolfson DAC in my Galaxy S1 with anyone of my headphones (and both of those are rather cheap DACs). Sure, through low resolution headphones you won't be able to, but through either my custom iems, Ultrasone Signature Pro or Audeze Lcd-2 rev2 the difference is very audible. Also, cheap onboard DACs don't support gaming algorithms such as EAX and whatnot, which for many is reason enough to get a discrete sound card.
Last but not least, a sound card isn't only composed of the audio chip, there is a lot more to it than just that, but I'm sure you're already aware of that...
|
It depends on what you're looking for:
If you just want to hook up your setup, an adapter will do.
If you want a good, simple setup for gaming and music listening, the asus options are very good indeed.
If you want a very good music listening setup, you should look elsewhere.
Astro a50 are gaming headphones and not really good for music, so the Asus Essence One would be wasted on them. As such, I recommend you just get yourself a decent sound card that has all the features you desire for gaming (Dolby digital, EAX and whatnot). An Asus Esssence STX would set you back around 150 and make you more than happy. However, if you desire to get an additional pair of headphones through which to listen to music, I suggest you get the Asus Essence One, as the Asus Essence STX's amplifier is, generally, to drive high-end headphones.
Hope this is of some use.  |
|
I can appreciate both sides of the story. On one hand, it's logical to wait till the game is perfect before relaunching it, yet on the other hand, it doesn't make sense to further divide the already tiny playerbase.
I'm sure Relic realizes this... Besides, they said that they wanted to relaunch on the 12th, so the actual relaunch day can't be far off...
|
|
Although in my opinion Bayeux is the most balanced of the bunch, I don't see why semois 2 shouldn't be featured. It's the most interesting, in terms of design, and it's actually pretty balanced, once you discover how the map is played as wehr.
Featuring it in a tourney is also a good way to discover all the flaws of the map before it gets patched into the game (if that happens...). |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
