I find this mechanism more interesting than the current blow up stuff one.
You might want to change the in game name of the ability though since "cluster bombs" seems confusing.
Slow TTK might not be a “problem” but it definitely discourages tactical gameplay. Removing time as a priority in a strategy game weakens the importance of it. Examples – You rush two squads at 1 squad to try and force a fast retreat. With lower TTK you can save the situation by kiting the 1 squad back to another squad and salvage the situation. Same thing goes with fighting out of cover. Less importance on cover because the squad dies slower overall. These are just a few examples but can be applied to many situations that don’t reward timing pushes/flanks etc..
Losing a medium in COH2 in less than 3 seconds does suck. That’s correct. Maybe don’t drive into 2 At guns? Maybe use combined arms to properly scout ahead before driving a tank solo into the fog of war? The developers making everything easier to keep alive, is again a gameplay opinion on what’s preferred. I personally find no enjoyment in my opponent doing something dumb and getting away with it. Like why shouldn’t you lose a tank if you blindly drive into the fog of war into my 2 AT guns?
In COH2 blobs can work. Until you lose your entire army to rocket artillery. You can even thin out blobs with proper use of cover/mines. Because COH2 units out of cover actually drop models. It’s insane. There is no late game blob deterrent in COH3. There is no wipe potential equivalent in COH3 as in COH2. Which encourages blobbing. Because there is no justice against it.
Like I said higher TTK might not be a “problem” but it 100% lowers the skill ceiling of an RTS (Real Time Strategy). You are giving people more time to react to situations that are advantageous to your opponent and detrimental to you. It’s not subjective, its objective.
I am not sure if one should be talking about TTK or if "reaction time" is better term.
High reaction time might be an issue if 100% player can react in time but low reaction can be equally problematic when 99.9% of player can not react in time.
As for RTS it does stand Real time Strategy but in there is nothing "real" about it. It simply differentiate it from Turn basted Strategy. The emphasis is always on "Strategy" and it turning it into third person shooter where the best reflexes wins should be avoided.
Oh I've expressed everything clearly in this very thread as well as that other one.
Nope you have not.
Are you blaming women for the state of COH3?
Are you blaming member of the LGBTQI+ community for the state of COH3?
Because you have already blamed specific group within Relic without clarifying which.
You want us to treat you as an adult being capable of following context of conversation?
Or you want us to treat you like a 5 year old who easily gets distracted, confused and does not understand complicated words so we have to explain it all in every 2nd post?
If you are not able to comprehend something after 1st read and need more time, then read the post as many times as you need to for it to sink in.
You can not have both, so pick one and give us heads up for future.
Why do you refer with plural about yourself? is it Grandiose delusions again?
If you do not know what we are talking about based on last 3 posts, you wouldn't understand explanation anyway so it would be an utter waste of time for me to do it.
I am aware of what we are talking about but we not talking about a "rather controversial ideology", that is something you brought up and I am asking you to clarify what you mean by it. Instead of a strait answer you dodge the question by a feeble attempt to insult me.
It seem to me you are unwilling to actually express clearly your opinion and you rather hide behind innuendos and obscure characterization like "rather controversial ideology","clown people".
I think the better questions are why should players support a company that goes balls deep into politics and fully supports rather controversial ideology and why that gaming company does it.
Care to explain what, in your opinion, this "rather controversial ideology" that Relic fully support, is?
This argument works. If in CoH1 we were shown a story, the officer whose policy was not shown to us. It is simply the story of one battle or event. Then in CoH2 they tried to shove the events from June 22, 1941 to May 9, 1945 into a small campaign. And only one war crime (the death of prisoners of war) which is also shown very vaguely. At the same time, at one of the moments of the campaign, the Main Hero becomes a war reporter, and of course he did not see the burnt cities and villages, people taken away to slave labor in Germany, concentration camps and experiments on people. He's just blind.
If the campaign was focused on only one event: the Battle of Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, Bagration, Berlin, it doesn't matter, any of them were a huge number. Without reference to politics, as in CoH1. I would say yes, there is no love for the Nazis here. But Relic told in the campaign about the whole war.
Again claiming that Relic has anti Soviet sentiment is one thing.
Claiming that Relic is nazi lovers is another. Relic has not praised nazis or the crimes they have committed in anyway way.
I don't give a single shit if the Allies got one paper tank, focusing on minutae and tiny quibbles like that is meaningless in the overall scope of my statement, which is that, in all three Company of Heroes games, the Germans are "the late-game faction". Which means they have the biggest and most dangerous armour and infantry and the Allies need to either stop them early or build an unstoppable horde to win. If this were explicitly a fantasy game I wouldn't even remotely care. But it's (nominally) based on historical events and it therefore bears some responsibility in respect to the narrative it's creating.
This is a game not a history book, saying that it creates a narrative is an exaggeration.
But feel free to explain what "narrative it should be creating" in your opinion...
Calling Relic Nazi lovers is both defamatory and false