Hmm. But how exactly does the armor factor into reducing RNG though? If anything I feel like it would be more of the same. Or maybe everything was less lethal? I'm still kind of confused.
The armor bones made infatry tougher vs some small arm fire since infantry did not generally get penetration bonuses. On the other hand some weapon like flamer or HMG where less effected because they had higher penetration.
They already have a huge DPS boost ability. I think strong nades that already wipe half the squad could be very problematic. I agree though that flame nades don't make an awful lot of sense. Maybe a stun nade could come in handy.
The flame grenades are "unique" and specially designed for encirclement doctrine and they allow stormtroppers to "burn" cashes.
On the other hand most cloaked imo should not have access to HE grenades but DOT grenades since being attack with HE grenades from cloaked units is not very pleasant.
The 0-10 range is there so that an SMG squad, that is obligated to close in in order to deal any significant damage, only has to cross 25 range worth of small arms fire before being able to deal maximum DPS. Unlike other small arms squads, even assault rifle ones , who basically have to cross 35 range to get at 0 range in order to deal maximum damage (with the exception of inverted profile LMGs of course). For example even PGren STG 44 loses like 30% DPS between 0-5 and 10 range. But these weapons can also deal damage at medium or long range, they are not obligated to close in, they just deal the most damage there.
That is the advantage that the SMG profile gives. SMGs need this advantage because they trade all ranged DPS for short range DPS, unlike other small arms. It gives them the edge in CQC fights if you know how to use them properly.
The problem with this theory is that even if you "know how to use the properly" practically you can not.
Even if one can perfectly judge range 10 moving all the entities of his squad to range 10 in most cases can not be done.
Unless one change the mechanic of attack and allows to set the distance of attack to 10 going for optimum range is situational so say the least.
On the other hand one could apply such a change to all weapon having them max out DPS certain ranges or having smaller gain in closer ranges.
For instance smg DPS could max out at range 5 assault rifles at 7 bolt action 10...
Breach has great animations and looks nice. But I can not see how it can work in current form in multiplier so I do not think it very relevant in this debate.
Other than the fact that fragmentation grenades were and are not strictly "defensive" even in WW2 I agree that concussion grenades should return to coh3.
This is just a general term being used and it does not mean they can be used on defense only:
I see that you are passionate, but I must admit that I feel that removing player control over combat in SP and replacing it with an abstract statistical comparison may not come across as very much player engaging.
It does not have to a "statistical" fight, I would rather see it as fight within the building but since I have no idea what the engine of COH3 allows (for instance is plausible to allow 2 squad of opposing player to occupy the same building?).
If it does not allow it one could try to bypass the engines limitation by having the fight in other place outside the "visible map" and determine as any other fight.
Can you describe how you think the breach ability should work then? Try to keep it within the context of what you have played in the SP.
One could have the assaulting unit "enter" the building and the two squad fight in CQC according to their weapon profiles.
Both player should be able to "retreat" from the fight from within the building at their will.
Since the engine probably does not allow both squad to occupy the same building at the same time one could create the illusion of that by replacing the building with icon indicating the combat and just doing the calculating
Would you rather have a random element instead of a pre-determined outcome for the breach element as it was in the game that you have played?
I would rather have a CQC inside the building where one could some control over the out come.
For instance an SMG unit would perform better than bolt action unit.
The feature, as it was in the SP, was meant to give the US faction a choice for finding solutions using an advantageous ability as an alternative to chucking grenades. There is an element of risk to the ability after all, and it is very similar to units flanking an MG that is not in a building.
Imo abilities are a good way to designed the game (and they should be more, for instance for SMG troops) but not ones with that "I press a button I win a fight" logic.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
Heartless Jäger 
