Profile of Xutryn_X7

Jump back to quoted post6 Jul 2016, 04:04 AMDoomlord52

Neat, it already works. 3 comments each totally disagreeing with another user. /s

Seriously though, it's pretty interesting that the first 3 comments basically say the exact opposite of each-other; too static, too dynamic, seems fine (mostly).



I don't think this would happen on balanced maps. MG spam in the early game only really works when supported. If you simply went with a 3-4mg opening, you would have almost no map presence, capping power or 'cover'. The MGs would somehow need to support each-other, and they can only do that when static - a perfect target for a mortar or smoke.

An MG Mortar combo wouldn't work either. You're going to place your mortars behind your MGs, since you're using them for cover. However, that means that they need to fire a certain distance just to get up to the MGs position. That means an enemy mortar could hit your MG while being out of your mortars range.

On top of that, an MG mortar build would easily be countered by any fast vehicle, since there would be little to no snares or even AT power. While a valid complaint, I just don't see an MG/mortar meta coming out of my suggested changes at an average or high skill level.

Also, I can just point down to "Mirdarion's" post.



I'd say that my preferred/most played faction is Ost, and I don't see it happening. Ost seems very static on paper, but it actually quite dynamic. In my suggested changes, an Ost player would support infantry with MGs and mortars as they move - upon becoming static, they would be prime targets for enemy mortars and artillery, which is what is supposed to happen to static players. However, by constantly moving (micro), your units are in new and unexpected positions, making flanking moves by the enemy player much harder. It also makes it harder to guess where your units are for enemy mortars.

I also don't see LMG-grens becoming weaker here - if anything, they would be stronger. It's true that LMG grens can't fire and move at the same time; but they can move from cover to cover and fire from there. The main issue for grens (IMO) right now is the giant USF blob, which with vet, easily outnumbers and out performs against grens. However, with the suppression changes, the blob simply couldn't exist. This would force fights to be much more preferable for grens, with smaller engagements of equal numbers of units.

I could also just point to "Omega_Warrior's" post.



The changes to emplacements may be a bit harsh, and if such changes were made, they would need to be discussed with the community first (or tested in a beta). However, I feel the 'campy' nature of emplacements conflicts with the core "mobility and positioning" theme of CoH. (IMO) Emplacements should be used to support your army; a Pak44 should be positioned further back in your forces to support your units via its range; not in the front-lines to be a main 'attack' unit. The same should be said of something like the bofors (or OKW flak); it performs very well against most units, but should only be used to secure flank or key point behind your front-lines (i.e. to prevent a cutoff). Right now, though, the bofors is being used as a front-line unit, often placed on VPs, forward fuel points or other important areas, and is being used to deal a dramatically large amount of damage. This is only possible due to its incredible resilience.

A change to the survivability (and not damage) would result in the desired change; the emplacements being used in a defensive position and used to supplement damage. I only suggest damage changes (such as to the OKW truck) due to some of them over-performing against all types of targets. An emplacement should be good against mainly one type of units, not all types: AT-gun emplacements are great vs. vehicles, mortars are great against static units and structures, but units like the OKW Flak Truck and Bofors are great against anything within range. By removing damage to vehicles, the damage 'triangle' would be much more balanced: AT vs. vehicles, mortars vs. structures and static units, flak vs. infantry.