|
Double post. |
|
Who knows? There are already significant calls on munitions early game..
I suspect many of those complaining have been asked to do the washing up or toddy their rooms. |
|
You know where mines are but you don't know exactly where Terence is going to miss his shot.
I doubt you'll find any army in the world which allows firing through a friendly formation without elevation, disallowing it in game would I think solve a range of ills.
You might have a point in team games ( 2v2 and up) but that isn't a valid reason in 1v1. Oh and if you ever get the chance to walk under a HMG stream whilst it is guaranteed to be firing over your head feel free not to duck. It's a bit like eating 10 cream crackers in a minute, sounds easy, just doesn't happen like that. |
|
Any response to this from relic ? Is it intentional for a medium machine gun upgrade to give you a light machine gun? |
|
A simple topic which barely exists in game..
It strikes me though that a proper implementation would solve many of the cheddar or Stilton smelling issues in coh2.
Blobbing would not be possible or at least effective.
Spam would actually reduce your overall firepower.
Mmgs would be true support units.
Combined arms would be necessary. Idf firing over your front line, armour being elevated enough for direct fire and a battle line necessary to concentrate force. |
|
Rumour has it munitions.. |
|
"vet 3 Tommies vs vet 5 Volks: Will win but will be a long drawn out fight. Schreck doesn't make too much of a difference"
You've hit the problematic nail on the head... I've often seen Tommies losing to Shreck Volks, but it does seem to be dependant upon RNG, the Shrecks don't seem to reduce the AI anywhere near as much as they should. 4 rifles against 2 + unwieldly and heavy AT, you'd think Tommies would walk it. Unfortunately you have to add Brens to have a decisive advantage.
Of all of them I find the Ostruppen the hardest to deal with. Not sure how much they are but guessing cheap given the numbers you face.
At least Engineers have a window of superiority at short range against the common types, IS are just a bit meh against every infantry type you face unless you upgrade them with bolster or Brens. Being good in cover is fine except that the enemy is in cover too.
Don't get me wrong, bolster in particular gives you a decisive advantage. Trouble is you have to field several squads to make it worth it, which leads to a manpower bleed that is problematic in comparison to slightly more conservative Vic usage. By the time you can afford bolster getting armour out is more important.
Sending waves in works, and probably bleeds them slightly more than you, but not enough to make it a decisive advantage until late game where you have bolstered, brenned and vetted. You can annoy them but not knock them out... |
|
Hmmm...
I think we need to move the newly constructed desalination plant from the mouth of the River Aec to somewhere that doesn't currently have a salty water source but possibly might in the future if those with 20/20 future vision are proven to be correct.... The River Hypothetical maybe?
Not a single extra complaint about the AEC since these commanders were announced? Did it suddenly become meh overnight or, dare one suggest it, might there be a certain type of character who merely whinges incessantly at the latest insult to hegemony? |
|
One of my failed experiments was building aggressive forward pits and garrisoning a sniper. Unfortunately he tended to die too easily whilst garrisoned, but fortified emplacements might change that... IS with a Piat or two produced some interesting results though. |
|
I tend not to build any, just relying on my starting squad.
Whilst I'm an awful player the mechanics aren't any different for me.
The reason being that IS are good at holding ground but distinctly meh at attacking anything without expensive upgrades. The Vic though is far superior at holding ground and two make for a force that can take ground too, sometimes even garrisons. Set one up at range whilst advancing another and even several squads tend to retreat against it once you persuade them that they can't outflank..
Hence my one IS has a job to do, which is initial capping, holding garrisons until a Vic arrives and then building trenches for Vics and healing them in garrisons. One trenched Vic can persuade squads to try elsewhere, IS can do the same but only once you've spent money on Brens much later in the game.
Frankly all of the infantry other than Commandos seem to be a distraction from the UKF strength in medium armour, though the Engis are much better at taking ground both by dint of cheapness, close range strength and being able to repair the supporting armour or deny ground with mines.
When I do build several IS early I tend to find manpower bleed problems just around the corner. Relying on Vics though tends to see mortars or ISGs as the counter which my later armour can hunt.
I'll often build them in the later game whilst waiting for fuel to tick up but with Brens right off the bat and pyrotechnics to deny a VP for almost minute. Generally then if I'm holding a 2 VP lead and my armour can't be everywhere at once.
Another thing about the IS is that bulletins on your Vics can make a huge difference, but are barely noticeable on IS. With the primary role of both being to deny the Vickers is an easy choice seeing as the cost is the same. 4 Engis are far superior to 3 IS without upgrades or vet so the choice there is an easy one too. |
0
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
