A little bit like an overextended tank being abandoned and not being able to deal the final killing blow?
The only reason I know of that weapon drop RNG is accepted while abandon RNG is not is because weapon drops are less impactful while tank abandons are more so.
And yet you want to make weapon drops more impactful too? I don't understand.
Dropable weapons are already in Coh2 but there are a mess, some squad squad pick a better version of the weapon (see Obers) some lesser (see ostruppen).
The suggestion is about creating a unified simple system that player can comprehend. This is a design issue how impactful it is a balance issue. |
Or when a squad is geeked by a grenade, or loses one too many models on retreat, neither of which require overextending of any sort.
Squads like Guards start dropping weapons after losing only two models, too, which is hardly something that requires overextension.
You're not being "punished" for bad play, you're just getting unlucky. Being punished for overextending is losing your squad, or at the very least bleeding heavily. Why must there be an added "punishment" on top of that?
" Dropping a weapon and not being able to pick it up" is what I posted.
As for weapon drop mechanism Guards do not "start dropping weapons" losing 2 model, they have a chance to drop a weapon when they lose the fourth entity and that chances is lower then other squads. And the cap pick that weapon up.
But I am not sure why we are talking about Guards in Coh3 since they will not exist in that game... |
The number could easily be called "proficiency" and include those numbers as well. But we're getting into the territory of being penalized for upgrading troops because if you lose the weapon and some enemy elite troops pick it up you're now down a weapon and the enemy got it for free.
I'm already certain that tourney players would be crying about this, like abandons.
Dropping a weapon and not being able to pick it up usually happens when someone overstretches his troops.
From my point of view there is little wrong being punished for it. |
I like the Men of War system where every unit has a set of stats for how well they handle a weapon.
For example, a "border militia" russian soldier (first tier infantry) has a "1" in accuracy to all weapons besides the one he's equipped with, the rifle, which is "2" (the number is a flat modifier to accuracy so it doesn't exactly translate but you get the idea)
Whereas the elite Marines troops have a "4" in accuracy to weapons besides the one they're trained on, which would be "5".
How could this be applied to CoH3? Weapon profiles could be slightly modified by a similar accuracy number. Say, riflemen are t1 infantry for example, and since something like panzergrenadiers come later maybe they are t2 infantry so they get a higher number.
So basically it's the exact same weapon profile but with an increase to accuracy based on what "tier" of infantry it is.
Bonuses/penalties should probably include accuracy/CD and reload since not all weapon benefit equally from accuracy (see flamers).
This change would also allow slot weapons to balanced and easier compared for mainline infantry that would have no penalties or bonuses. |
|
Main difference between Scott and Stug-E is that Scott can barrage (even on the move) and Stug-E can not.
If I changed something about StuG-E I would start with vet 1 ability which is a simply a joke. |
|
I altered that suggestion so that attack order should be allow to be done at different range and not attack move orders. That is because A move make it easier to blob.
The change could also help with allow all entities of squad to attack from the distance something that is difficult to now since entities tend to move to where they want. |
|
Pathfinder have 2 sniper carbines+ 2 elite carbines
I&R Pathfinder have 1 sniper carbines+ 3 elite carbines |
|
ABG have superior DPS on the move since they can fire all their weapons instead of 1/3.
In a static fight I would rather have the GR since they can destroy enemy cover. |
Dont go and point the finger at others.
You are not showing all context. The p4 is a generalist medium. The jackson is hard at, the excact purpose of the jackson is to hard counter armour such as the p4. The p4 fills multyple roles, the jackson fills only 1.
The p4 has no need nor justification to 100% pen its hard counter on hit at max range. Yet it can now because of reasons.
You would support a t34/stug change to pen the stug 100% at max range? They are simaler in price after all. Also no one bats an eye that the t34 cant.
I am showing the exact context (and you are taking what I have posted out of context):
....
There are no more RNG going in favor for USF, Jackson, Calliope, Sherman, Scott are all unable to bounce anything (kidding, sherman can sometime once every year). The last units able to get some favorable RNG are the Pershing and heavier variant of sherman which are irrelevant on teamgame.
So why do you think people prefer going for Path&Scott? Because this strat reduce the need for favorable RNG.
In the PzIV vs M36 the RNG is in favor of the M36 contrary what has been claimed.
|
This is pretty much a non-issue. As far as I know the BAR vs PGren STG 44 is the only instance where this even applies. And even then the BAR is still better beyond range 23, so it's an even trade at worst, and usually worth it anyway just to deny the weapon to the enemy.
The only inconsistency regarding weapon drops that could be improved upon is how it's quite arbitrary which weapon upgrades can be dropped and which ones can't. STG 44s (as a Volks or Gren weapon upgrade) and G 43s for example could be droppable too.
The current implementation in coh2 though is a mess.
Some units pick up the regular weapon and other pick a different weapon while other units have penalties on slot weapons.
A unified solution should be applied and these changes allow for that.
As I have already explained slot weapon should balanced differently for different units (then one could keep units like the UKF m5 in game). |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
Heartless Jäger 
