|
It's obvious that the USF Armored Company, UKF Artillery and OKW Elite Armor will get reworked, they're the doctrines that need the most attention. But yeah the defensive doctrines for the EFA were a surprise to me as well if I'm honest, it would be good to see more use of tank traps as other Armies besides USF and to a lesser extent OKW, perhaps the UKF will get them one day as well? |
|
Calvary Riflemen.
Perfect replacement for the Assault Engineers in the Mechanized company call in.
Also:
There exist M1919A4 and M2 60mm Mortar models but have no animations, and the 3 inch mortar is glued to the mortar pit emplacement. |
Cav Rifles only have a unique call in dialog (that is only for the Ardennes announcer) and symbol. The squad still uses riflemen models as well as voice lines.
Heavy Cav does preform quite well and I would rather not change that. Armor company does have the Jackson now as well Sherman (105)s. Additionally the WC51 in my mod is available non doctrinal. Which can be upgraded to a supply truck when the player does not want it anymore for combat or with an MG. Right now I am working on making these units more effective in combat.
Yes I know about the cav rifles, I'm only saying that I think they would perform better than the Assault Engineers and fit in more with the M3 call in for Mech company. They're just a better CQC unit than the AE. |
|
This is solely just my opinion but:
Specifically about Baker Company, I think it would be better to have their M4A3 "Bulldozer" 105 Shermans be replaced by either normal M4A3 Shermans, M4A3 76(W) Shermans or M36 Jacksons, or just having the option to upgrade one of the tanks to an M36 Jackson instead of a 105, it would also be nice to know that it's not a regular M4A3 Sherman with a Bulldozer since the call-in's name is very deceiving, I honestly thought they were regular Shermans but with Bulldozers since it's been a while when I played AA for free, if I had remember that I would have stuck with the M10s instead since Baker lacks AT capabilities on the move compared to let's say Able who can drop in craters of AT weapons on the field or Fox who have their Rangers armed with double Bazookas and later Panzershrecks.
Apart from that, it also made me think on how Armored, Rifle, Mechanized and Ranger Companies do not make sense in multiplayer.
You have Rifle Company that has Elite Shermans basically, Armored that doesn't have any good Armor like the 76(W) Shermans for example, or the E8s like Rifle Company, or the Pershing even which is just laughable and counter-intuative and has the useless Elite crew upgrade instead of having something like raid or Redraw and Refit for example, Rangers that have... combined arms and the Pershing, I mean for what reason exactly? Apart from Relic making an OP commander for a month before nerfing it after they made their money from it. Its better for Rangers to get Sprint instead of Combined Arms and like the WC51 truck instead of the Pershing or something, I mean yes it's going to be a huge nerf to the doctrine but it should be more centered on Rangers and overall Elite infantry instead of this mish-mash of what Mechanized should be, more or less. And finally, Mechanized, who should be all about Combined Arms, doesn't have that ability, but instead has the M21 Mortar Halftrack, I mean yeah it's nice being mobile but the Mortar HT feels a bit redudant because of the default mortar. Not to mention of the useless Combat Engineers M3 call-in, which are also a huge let down in Ardennes Assault and the reason I didn't choose them to be one of the 3 companies.
My opinion? Recreate the AA Companies but in a smaller manner because for me, they were done very well there and while I agree that they would be over the top in multiplayer in their current form, some adapting would make them very viable and something which their MP counterparts are really lacking. |
|
Just a question, have you any propositions if any of these are made non-doctrinal? I mean, they're going to have to be replaced in their respective doctrine, might as well suggest something to replace them with while you're at it if you ask me, just my opinion.
For example, I like the idea of the IS getting a 3rd upgrade in the form of the AT rifle package (I am guessing the HEAT grenades are going to be included) by default so perhaps replace it with the Land Mattress in the Special Weapons doctrine? I mean, that's the only "special weapon" that comes to mind when I think about it.
P.S.
It would also maintain the mobility of the UKF provided by the Special Weapons HT so infantry can reinforce and arm on the move as well. |
Base on my experience removing and replacing models with another tends to be buggy. In my previous mod I added an officer as part of the squad increase. My plan for this mod (next update) is to replace models of some squads with "Sergeants" for cosmetic changes and for a more diverse battle field.
Fun fact, I never played CoH1 online and only played the campaigns. All of my design choices have very little impact from CoH1
Icons and other symbols will come later. I am not very good with creating icons or using GIMP so I may have to steal borrow other peoples works. Fun fact, my avatar Icon and the previous was created with Microsoft Word.
Granted both OKW and UKF both lack non doctrinal mobile reinforcement points it would however create a large amount of adjustments for other things as well.
UKF:
The cost of hammer and anvil is one reason why I moved them to T1. This created a proper timing for the AEC and bofors, so a toggle idea probably will not work out all too well. The toggle idea also does remind me of CnC generals USA. Having the M3 behind Hammer and the forward assembly behind Anvil would be quite fitting. The Forward retreat point would be late enough so it wound not require T2. However this may just destroy Advance Emplacement. As much as people do not like it, I still want to make it viable. The quickest and easiest fix I see is replacing the WASP in Mobile assault with the M3 call in so at least two doctrines.
OKW:
With volks not having non doctrinal upgrades a mobile reinforcing would be quite beneficial. There is one mobile doctrinal reinforcement unit. Adding any non Doctrinal unit would mean replacing this ability entirely. I see two options for mobile reinforcing.
1. Add the reinforcing opel blitz non doctrinally
2. Make the SWS able to act as a mobile reinforcing point as well able to hold two squads. I am more leaning towards this idea. I would give it the same constrains as the USF ambulance, only able to reinforce while in supply and stationary. The cost of the SWS would increase by 100 to 200 manpower while the tech structures manpower cost would decrease by 100 to 100.
I will look at the AOE values. Fun fact, the sexton body was based on the Canadian Ram tank chaise.
Ah, well I don't know about replacing models as I have never done it myself, I only saw it in another mod like I said, I like the visual representation of something.
Yeah I believe it's just that what they did in CoH made sense compared to a lot of things in this game.
Borrowing icons makes sense if you ask me, just ask politely and they should oblige.
Yeah I agree on both with you, I even had the same idea for the SWs back when I was developing my first mod as well, I just never got to it. But it's halftrack so it does make sense for it to be able to transport (and reinforce) infantry... and perhaps tow guns (lol).
Yeah I know about the Sexton, I'm still wondering why they didn't put it in CoH as well tho, and replace the American Infantry Company static M2 105s with the Priest instead, I just can't help but hate static pieces that can't be moved or destroyed, apart from the 88s of course, those things were just fucking beasts and were handy against AA.
Also one more thing, I did another playthrough of Ardennes Assault since I got it for 5 bucks in the sale and Baker Company (the mechanized one) really felt like home to me and still makes me wonder why they didn't include the Cavalry Riflemen M3 call in instead of the Assault Engineer Call in and the lack of the Combined Arms ability, which is basically the whole point of the Mech Company lol, I mean it should be focused on having Armor and Infantry support each other, no? Raid is nice to have and I guess a bit nostalgic for me but I'd rather have it and the Pershing in Armored instead if I'm honest, it just doesn't make sense for Combined Arms and the Pershing to be in the Ranger Company in multiplayer, maybe it would be better to go the AA route and have the WC51 truck instead of one of the abilities, and the Rifle Company's Sprint? I don't know exaclty but it feels like the abilities in the Rifle, Mech, Armor and Ranger companies in MP need a reshuffle, what do you think? |
|
Speaking of losing, how much of those 25 games did the UKF actually win? Will I see a unicorn if I say 5? |
|
Something seems fishy here. |
Not sure if they will do DLC commanders again. Campaigns why not, I think this is legit to sell them as DLC and Army if you pay them once and there isn't extra DLC units (like commanders), there is nothing wrong with that.
Oh they will, believe me, they will, why? I already presented the example, the month old OP commanders that were released numerous times, a lot of people complained about it but most bought it and Relic noticed that, that's why they continued to do it.
What will make them change their mind, who will boycott it, at most like 20 or so people, the rest will buy them.
Now if they were loot boxes or could be presented as such yes, there would be a reason for them not to include them, but they aren't and we all know if not Relic then SEGA loves their money and will push for more DLC no matter what if it's legal.
Unless of course you're right because there was no DLC for Dawn of War 3 that was Pay to Win, only cosmetical such, but I think they played it safe and waited to release such DLC after they tested the waters so to speak since perhaps it was obvious from the first time they actually released a gameplay trailer of the game that it might flop, or someone from SEGA told them to play it safe, wo won't know for sure. |
[I posted this in another thread but It would fit better here]
Picture this...
New version of Essence engine, re-done art assets ported from coh2, add Italian faction, Mediterranean campaign.
We already know you can port assets from Coh1 into coh2, IMO its possible to port Coh2 assets into the next build as IMO they are still using essence.
CoH3/Online - Multi-theater company of heroes "games as a service" with payable cosmetics and armies.
Relic: Split in two with one side working on AOE4 with Microsoft, the other working with SEGA on CohO / Coh3.
This sounds likely sadly, they have probably heard of Generals 2 so they won't attempt to go that route, but it's possible to do with CoH2 what Blizzard did with StarCraft 2, making it F2P after what, 8 or so years? Just in a shorter time.
But yeah in general, a CoH3 being F2P and chopped up in DLC (Armies, Campaigns, Commanders, Cosmetics) sounds like Relic right now, they saw how they can manipulate the masses with the monthly OP DLC commanders that cost 5 bucks each, they saw that a lot of people didn't like the campaign too much and that the Ardennes Assault was just too expensive so they will surely make it completely optional and they saw that selling Armies individually also works. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
