- Stupid. Successive game versions should ADD to the game. Not remove from it data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ecfe2/ecfe2613eb6afd4b4388b8d76da1403b9fb07925" alt=":) :)"
- I remember, yea. Good days data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ecfe2/ecfe2613eb6afd4b4388b8d76da1403b9fb07925" alt=":) :)"
- It would be great to delay the tank stage and give infantry/light tanks more time to play data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ecfe2/ecfe2613eb6afd4b4388b8d76da1403b9fb07925" alt=":) :)"
- More realism AND more balance AND fixes a host of problems AND teaches people proper use of units.
What's not to like?
* How about paying extra for non-historical composition? Say, +20% cost each time
you buy same non-base unit (Firefly Sherman, for example, but not Cromwells, or T34/76).
(Maxim, or M42 for example, but not 2x Riflemen).
Now, you KNOW someone will say that's not how the economy works.
The more of a specific type of unit you order, the cheaper it should become.
Let's just tie this guy up and leave him gagged in a corner, shall we? data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ecfe2/ecfe2613eb6afd4b4388b8d76da1403b9fb07925" alt=":) :)"
Reminds me of a few other games I've played. They called it "The order of battle".
Premium upcost would be required for each deviation from the order of battle.
Believe it or not the most common tank in British service was the M4A4 Sherman, developed to fit British standards, and every 4th Sherman in a tank column would be a Firefly.
So not to say that the Cromwell was a rare tank, it was certainly more common than the Firefly, but it still wasn't as seen as much as the M4A4.
So if we are to make a combat group it would probably consist of 3 M4A4 Shermans and 1 Firefly to keep it historically accurate, and perhaps like another combat group made up of like 2 or 3 Cromwells and a Comet but you'd of course be paying almost double that of the Sherman combat group as you said for example.
I'm still wondering about the Churchill battlegroups tho, what would be an ideal Battlegroup for them, maybe 2 Mk VIIs and perhaps a Croc with them, and if you go Royal Engineers you'd also get an AVRE as a 4th tank, something like that perhaps.
I'd kill for a Churchill Kangaroo model tho. |
- I like it a LOT! No more MG42 spam. No more Grenadier Spam.
And it encourages you to use them together, as they are meant to be.
- Officer-attach was in COH1. It isn't in COH2?
- You could call in a USF BattleGroup in COH1 (I forget the name)
Something like 2x M10s and a bunch of infantry? Same principle.
- Could do something similar for tanks?
To avoid TD tank spam, or Panther spam, or StuIIIG spam, or...
Maxim Spam! data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ecfe2/ecfe2613eb6afd4b4388b8d76da1403b9fb07925" alt=":) :)"
I like NSD44's slot concept, too.
Yes, officer-attach is missing in CoH2 for some reason, and I can't find any such ability.
The Blitzkrieg doctrine had battlegroups before as well, with each of it's call ins having a tank as well as Stormtroopers before, also the PE had a Panther battlegroup call in.
Yeah something similar for tanks would also be a good idea.
It would both delay tanks since they'd come in battlegroups and cost a lot (we might be looking at around 1500-2000 manpower and a hell of a lot of fuel as a price) and it would also expand the game's scale.
And the good thing about making these self contained combat groups is that as they'll rely on each other you won't be confined to just using singular squads, you could mix em up with multiple rifle squads, or MG teams covering a choke point as well as Assault teams fighting for like a point or in an urban environment. |
Damn, this makes me wish for the actual M18 Hellcat to be added, small as an M5 Stuart, fastest Allied vehicle in the Western Theater of Operations with a 76mm gun and a .50 cal mounted on top.
It would basically be Sonic the Hedgehog compared to all other tanks altho it's not really a tank itself. |
True. The one purpose of all these trolls is to make people feel bad about themselves. In the future I should just completely ignore them.
The harder ones are the genuinely angry people, whom take everything personally. I really don't know what's the best way to deal with this kind. Do you have any suggestions for this one?
Just ignore them, if you have any smart come backs to roast them with just say/write them and pull out, let them fry in their own delusion of being right.
If in game just leave the match, teammates that are hell bent on destroying your base is a tough one that is extremely hard to deal with, if you leave again they think that they won but in reality it's just you having to deal with less bullshit and frustration really.
If in real life however it becomes a huge problem, especially as the person can plead that he's insane and tries to sue you over pushing him back if he becomes a physical annoyance.
If he's just trying to be a vocal/mental annoyance you can just block em out.
Words and letters are sounds we give meaning to, so if you just ignore them they can't do anything to you.
Avoid confrontation if possible, if not be ready to make a move and pull out, if that's not an option as well just stand your ground. |
In my experience the 17 pounder is near useless in urban environmenta because of the limited firing lines, and baby sitting a unit is a huge no go for me in order for it to be effective.
So I just prefer to build it out in the open somewhere as to have it cover a large open area where it's most effective without having to babysit it like I mentioned.
If you're a German in a city tho the Pak 43 is a pretty good choice, provided of course it doesn't get nuked while you're even building. |
You're in the wrong place on the internet 8if you expect sympathy and constructive feedback, trolls even lurk on these same forums and try to disagree and humiliate you even if they're wrong.
As modder with an opinion I decided that I will only mod for myself and consider any good feedback I receive from the small amount of people that actually give it to me. Also, learn to be thick skinned, it helps a lot not to give a fuck in both the internet and in real life, people are just assholes and it's best to just keep your shield high as to deflect their bullshit, don't give them the satisfaction.
If you get angered, they have already won, so remember that. |
That system sounds like a mix of MoW and CoH2.
It sounds interesting considering its takes a medium between the two, Taking the flexibility the MoW system while also preventing the micro hell hole by not making them individuals. Its an interesting idea for sure but one that would likely require a new engine/game mechanics meaning it would be hard to make a mod for it.
Seeing as how CoH is more suited for this slower and more tactical approach I might just modify either vanilla or Europe at War with this concept and see how it goes.
The only problems I might face is that I need to modify the manpower income and figure out a way as to have the whole squad of 3 fireteams follow each other right from the get go instead of the player manually having to do it.
I am also not sure if I can summon a whole "combat" group like this from the building itself. |
Hello, so after playing some Brothers in Arms I found the 2-4 man fireteam concept fairly interesting and it made me wonder if it would work in CoH/CoH2 as well, keep in mind however that this is not meant to be implemented within the current game, it's just a more tactically realistic approach and if ever attempted would just be a small mod of sorts.
Now for those of you who don't know about/haven't played Brothers in Arms, it's a First Person/Third Person tactical and fairly realistic shooter, it's not Arma/Squad level tactical realism but it makes the cut to me. Think of Red Orchestra 2's level of tactical realism and it would probably hit the mark.
Anyhow, a fireteam is basically a 2-4 man team that is within a squad, so for instance if a squad is made up of 8 people, that would be 2 fireteams.
As for how I'd implement this fireteam concept is simple and I'll be using the German squad as an example so people can understand me a little better.
Now a German squad in the early parts of the war was 10 men, later this dropped to 9 and even 8 in the case of the Volksgrenadiers who as we all know were "better" equipped to compensate for their lack of manpower.
In game this would translate to said squad being 3 fireteams essentially, a Riflemen fireteam of 4 guys all armed with K98k rifles, an assault team made up of 4 people all armed with MP40s for example and maybe StG 44s for the Volksgrenadiers, and finally a 2 man MG34/42 team.
How this would work is by you calling in a squad would get 3 "sub-squads" or like I said, fireteams. These fireteams would be attached to each other like how the British officers could attach themselves to other squads in CoH with a special follow ability or how you could attach singular units to squads in Dawn of War. These sub squads would be able to un-attach or un-follow each other and go their separate ways so the player can tactically move them and engage the enemy.
To get a better idea of what you'd be getting from a squad is this:
Like I said the 4 riflemen fireteam would be just that, guys armed with rifles and maybe grenades or rifle grenades, and perhaps be able to build sandbags/barbedwire, basically your generic guys. I also wanted to mention here that they would also be able to suppress but it would take them a hell of a lot of time, but in a fight where you have 2 rifle teams vs 2 enemy rifle teams if you focus fire on one of them you'd be able to suppress them much faster.
The assault fireteam would be able to only throw grenades as a special ability of sorts and smoke at the most, similar to Red Orchestra 2's gameplay and they'd be primarily meant to be used as what the tin says, close quarters assault guys, meaning that they won't be able to suppress however they will have the highest damage output when in close quarters.
And now we come to the bread and butter of German infantry tactics, the MG fireteam. This fireteam will have the job of carrying most of the squad's fire as well as suppression power with them, and in order for them to do that the LMG variants of the MG42 and MG34 will need to be changed up a bit to be able to quickly suppress enemy infantry but have the same damage as the rifle team and less accuracy, but you won't be able to pin squads like the heavy MGs.
So in short, if you wanna kill something you will need to first suppress them with massive amounts of rifle fire or an MG team and then move in your Assault team to finish the job.
This would create a sort of rock-paper-scissors balance where the MG team is a vital suppression platform, while the Rifle team would be a bit more versatile and generic, being in between the MG and Assault teams in terms of damage output and suppression, and finally the Assault team would be the most devastating in terms of damage when in close range.
Now people will ask what's the point in the rifle team when an MG and an Assault team combo would be able to tear through most squads? Well for instance the rifle team would be able to provide and build cover as well as additional suppression for both the MG and Assault fireteams.
Then again there's the question of what happens to the tri-pod heavy MGs. It's simple, they will be as they are now but a bit slower and if caught off guard in a not setup state they will be quickly dealt with, encouraging people to actually use them as defensive tools on choke points or ambushes instead of just A moving them like with the Maxim currently. So if you want suppression on the offense you will have to rely on the MG fireteam, if you want to suppress, pin and then kill you will need a heavy MG team.
I also had another idea of support teams being able to dig themselves in instead of having MGs magically pop up in emplacements if you pay 50 ammo, so that would mean the end of the Bunker spam that some people complain about as well but I guess I'll leave that for another topic.
And the last question I would like to cover is what happens to other Armies' squads and specialist such. I thought little about that but I guess that other Armies' squads will get the same treatment as well as specialist squads with little differences here and there to make them unique, like for example the American riflemen squad historically was 12 men, that would mean that their fireteams would be a man or 2 more than the German ones, I won't list all of the possible combination but their MG team could like have 3 men instead of 2 and so forth and their rifle team would have a single BAR as well, while a specialist Ranger squad wouldn't have an MG team but instead a medic such and so on.
Several problems with this concept are first, the follow or attach command/ability which is missing in this game for some reason. Second is the questionable survivability of these smaller fireteams, now a few people have claimed that improving the squad's spread would help, others have said that giving models more HP or making high explosives less damaging as to lower their wipe potential will also help so these are a few things to consider if this concept is ever attempted. This would also give more reason as to have the rifle team stick to the MG team more as to be their flank protection as well as meat shields if needed, and the squad spread would help out if the MG team was to be targeted by let's say a mortar or a bazooka team or even a tank, so if you lose 1 guy another could retreat and you'd still have your MG fire team.
Now again, this is not to be taken as it would be implemented in the current game's state, I'm talking about an entirely different approach to the game's infantry play which would need to be put in a mod or something of that sort, so please if you're here to troll like some specific people you're welcome to leave as this does not concern you, I just made this topic to see what people think of the concept for a mod and I am also aware that it would probably be better for it to be implemented as a mod for CoH instead of this game.
Thank you for reading my several paragraph block of text and cheers. |
That being said feel free to ignore the obvious forum trolls answers (not calling his name).
This individual's name doesn't happen to start with a K, does it? |
Let's just listen to the Polish guy because he knows what he's talking about while ignoring the probably a hundred threads by now about how badly bugged the raketen is. |