Not sure what you intend to put on the table with that video, it's a handful of upgraded vet3 units in yellow cover winning against a badly timed AP round MG42 that isn't in cover.
But... would those units beat MG bunker on same position? I guess no. |
But is it not redundant? What would the bunkers add? Two bunkers are immobile and vulnerable to barrages and more vulnerable to tanks.
So? Ostheer/USF bunkers are vunerable to tanks, barrages and other shit and nobody complains. Ostheers spam bunkers and they doing their job nice, I should say.
We don't want here to make "super-puper OP defensive position". We already have Bofors. Let it be just simple MG emplacement, just as all others. And for assymetry - let it cost not ammo, but fuel. It may be strange, but it wasn't strange in vCoH - won't be strange here, I guess. |
The AA halftrack is much more practical than a bunker, can move, can be repaired, and allows you to spend the massive munitions float you have with most doctrines.
AA Halftruck costs too much for to be good "deffensive" tool. 270 MP + 30 Fuel + 120 Ammo for Quad. Just like 2 bunkers + 30 fuel and Tiering up. Concept of MG bunker is much more simplier and costs lesser.
|
Interesting. How would this be not effective than an MG in a house, other than positioning?
You not always may have building for to put there Maxim/DShK. And even if you have it, it can be destroyed and there is no way to rebuild it.
From all sides - MG bunkers will be better than usuall Maxims for purpouses of defense. |
Not all defensive positions need to be static emplacements or bunker-like structures. As long as they have support weapons like the ZiS, Maxim, and even things like the M-42 and DShK, they still have a way to be defensive.
ZiS is deffensive, mortars are deffensive but... Maxim? DShK? A lot of people convinced me, that they both are OFFENCIVE HMGs, not deffensive. And that's quite right, cos with such arc of fire and such small AoE supression it can't effectively be "crowd control tool". For to be good defensive HMG Maxim should have wider arc of fire and area of supression. MG-42 is perfect deffensive HMG, Vikkers is good, 0.50 is awesome. But not Maxim.
And about bunker cost... Hm... I think we can make it like "USF bunker" in vCoH. 150 MP + 15 fuel and it will instantly have HMG in - no ammo upgrades. Guess it will be pretty fair.
|
Yes, but most of the things you said were not true or blown out of proportion. Saying things like shocks do not have survivability and emplacements would fix maxim spam.
Whole point was about disbalance in factions design. All factions in CoH 2 are universal, so they can play both in deffensive and offensive game. They have nice units and usually some defensive positions.
But, USSR has absolutlery no defensive positions, so, they are offencive-only faction. But even in that role they are bad, cos they don't have TOP-tanks or infantry, more than that - they have mostly all worst units in all types! + Doctrinal addition, which also cripples USSR hard.
So, here I see 2 ways - make USSR same universal as all other factions by giving them some defensive construction or...
overbuff their units so hard, that they could justify "offensive-only" class of USSR. Give them veeery good infantry, like Obers and Volks in stock, hardly buff tanks. Absence of defenses in USSR should be compensate with something, don't you think so? Right now they just don't have defenses and... have units, mostly worse than their analogs in other factions. I don't think, that it is fair. |
Ok, Commissar, exactly what changes do you want to see? List them all and why they would make sense.
As I said in first post - DShK MG emplacements, which will be able to build by engineers. Maybe (not sure) - BS-3 heavy AT gun in doctrines instead of M-42 and few other useless abilities.
Why would it make sense? Read thread, I explained it wide. Won't write it again. |
I would love to see some replays where a SU player overwhelming his opponent (a decent opponent, same level than SU player at least) with sheer numbers....
could you link some of them.....coz really tired to hear about t34 cheap price...but all I can see is that this unit sucks hard, at any level of play.
Maybe as I´m a noob coh2 player, I´m plain wrong, and then, I would love to check two or three replays where this tactic works....please, don´t send me replays where game is won long before SU player starts fielding those t34.
I used T-34-76 before, when it was in T3 and Soviet Industry was normal, not like it is today. With that doctrine I could fast spam 5-6 T-34 and faceroll. And all loses I could fast replace, cos fuel income was bigger and producing time lower.
That was only way that I found how to use T-34-76 in CoH 2. Only one since very start of game. Now it doesn't work, T-34 in T4 and Soviet Industry turned into shitty doctrine. |
Last time I checked Soviets had pretty good TDs and T34/85 which is also pretty reliable. So "bad" is not what I'd call em. I'm against any balance changes that makes anything "super"! Ost is supposed to be defensive and a late game faction but struggles to hold ground against US or Brits. Brits are the closest to a super faction imo with strong tanks and emplacements and that causes quite some rage in the community.
I still think Soviets are fine (except some small tweaks here and there. Penal buff and Maxim nerf for example). Otherwise they are a well rounded faction with good to excellent performance in attacking and defending. At least that is what if seen in ESL, casts and from my own experience with the game (though I'm not a good player and have only 200 h of game time.)
Last time I cheked Panther, Jagdtiger and Firefly were not soviet, so they may be have "pretty good" TDs, but definitely not best. That's a joke to see, that ZiS-3 (only soviet AT gun) 5 times can't penetrate Panthers armor, when Panther needs only 1 shot to become dead and has destroyed engine... That's about "pretty good" TDs.
T-34-85 is veeery reliable! But it should be stock in T4, not doctrinal. Make it so and it will be soooo good and right!
And I don't agree that they are fine. Even ESL games won't convince me in that. |
So you want all the cool stuff in Soviet faction of I get you right?
IS2 with King Tiger armor, Shocks with long range of Obers yet same short range performance, SUs with Stug armor, stock guards in T0 and Cons with Panzerschreck and Stg44s? Does that sound like a Soviet faction you'd like to play?
Don't you think that would take away the uniqueness Soviets have atm (that you seem to not recognize)?
Sorry to repeat myself here but if you think all other factions are cooler, why not play those? What's it that lets you play Soviets although you clearly don't like them?
Well, I want not so much  But, I like idea of IS with KT armor and Ober-version of Shocks with modern PPS-42/43 SMGs or even AVT-40 Rifles. SU with Stug armor is too much, as guards in T0. Cons with global DP-28 or SVT-40 upgrades would be good also. And Penals with PTRS upgrades.
Anyway, I think all assault-offencive units of USSR (which is designed to be ONLY offensive, look at Relic scheme, don't know where to find it, sorry) should be very powerfull, for to justify status of offencive only faction of USSR. No defeses for USSR - then give us super-offenses!
Uniqueness of Soviets today is that they are hardly "doctrinal addicted" faction with pretty bad stock armory and not "TEH BEST" doctrinal units. It make them uniqe, but not balanced, cos they are weaker.
And I sometimes play as other factions, Im not "USSR-only" player. But still, USSR makes me worry more, than any other factions, which also have serious problems. For expample, I won't stop propagande, that OKW need howitzers! And they should put it instead of FlamenHetzer in Feuersturm doctrine. Hummel or sFH 18. OKW just hardly suffering from all possible enemy artillery and just can't counterbattery it, that's pretty strange.
But, that's for another topic. |
Relic Entertainment
