Why not give to ost commander P4 same shells as stug-e? Their both have the same short-barrel gun and both used as support for infantry, not as AT.
Question is why did they give stug e those shells? Was it really necessary? I think the only thing those shells did was take some authenticity out of the game... :/
We need to keep things as realistic as possible while making the game fun and balanced, I can't emphasize this enough. I think one of the reasons why people play this game instead of other strategy games is because it looks (kinda) realistic and historical, it is what makes coh COH! |
|
Blobbing has it's own place such as emplacements. The problem is that some factions dont have a supression platform that reaches a minimum standard and thus cant supress the said blob. One way to fix blobs would be to "link" the supression effect of close together squads making one hmg, that is targeting and supressing a squad, supress direcly nearby squads to that said squad.
Imo a moral system doesnt have a place in coh, reason being that what some people are saying would be a good moral system sounds like (to me) the supression system we already have, not to say that moral system fits best a game like steel division because it has a bigger scale of battle while in coh you have a more squad tactical fight over a town or field. The moral system would be best implemented in coh in things such as the ardennes assault campaign where if a company would suffer a lot of losses or would be surrounded by multiple enemy company's would lose some moral, taking some kind of effect on the troops. |
|
Tbh the biggest problem with infantry engagements is that the sometimes you have one squad with more than half way health and you lose a model and other times you have a squad with 1/4 of the health and still have all models... This makes things a bit frustrating when trying to play a bit more competitively because you cant predict then your oponent is going to drop a model. But at the same time I like how each model has its own health pool, its a bit more realistic. :/
I dont know if it would be better to make, in the grens case, each 1/4 of the health bar correspond to a model or make some UI improvement to show each entity health. |
I did this too by mistake. I expect when the promotion ends in 3 days I will discover that I have lost all my usf and okw skins and commanders. This is a major screw up
I HOPE NOT! |
|
Personal opinion:
-The elefant HE barrage doesnt make any sense, things need to keep being somewhat realistic after all it is a TD not and AI. Why not make the elefant and brummbar the weaker/smaller versions of the feared jagdtiger and the sturmtiger? I think you should be looking to make the brummbar easier to use instead of needing to use attack ground to be effective, this can be pretty hard to do/know about for new players and in relation to the elefant, lowering its movement speed and/or rear armor should do the trick.
-The katyusha incendiary creeping barrage also doesnt make sense, why not just give it a regular creeping barrage with double the rockets when it reaches vet 2/3?
-Dont know about demos, no one wants a demo to "secure flanks", for that you can plant regular mines and maybe put one hmg there and not worry about having to keep an eye of the flank (so much). Dont know what to do with demos to be honest, some suggestions would be nice to give some inspiration.
-M-42 stealth is great but garrison buildings is a no go.
Speaking of stealth, why not make all at guns that can steath not move while doing so? This would fix que abuse of sneaking at guns to capture points.
-Although partisans arent ridiculous anymore they are now not worth it at all, maybe buff them in some way? or else no one will use the commander/unit.
-Forward headquarters are still frustrating, why not restrict the player to only deploy one at a time? There is no need for one player to make every building a FHQ...
-Still think that the t3/t4/bf3/bf4 system you guys are experimenting with is a mess and confusing. Why not just make the bf3 and bf4 give certain buffs to pios (key unit), for example "bf4 gives pios +50% repair rate" (then adjust the veterancy on pios accordingly), and unlock t3/t4. And to make t4 more desirable (and other factions tiers too!) remove the call in meta and place those tanks in tiers for instance "want a elefant? you need t4, want a m4c sherman? you need t4" and so on (again adjust the prices of teching accordingly). This way you would fix the cheese that are call in tanks like you kinda did with partisans.
-Give vet to removing mines and getting mine kills is a great idea because it needs skill (know where to place the mine) and one can lose muni if the enemy finds the mine, this way engineers can earn xp outside combat. |
|
Call in's in my opinion are a very bad game mechanic reason being they can be so easly abused/spammed, just allow call in's to infantry and super heavys and everything else should need tech. I mean look at the T-34-85, it needs tech and is still pretty spamable... there is no need for kv1's, elephant, m4c shermans, tigers and so on to be call in's. But if these would need tech their price and performance should be looked at and adjusted accordingly.
This requires a simple solution, lets not overthink and complicate things with tech providing bonuses or tech changing the price of the unit, simple and consistent is the way to go here guys. |
It's fine the way it is, if Mortars are overperforming then nerf them, no need for tricky convoluted changes that might confuse the casuals.
I am all about that and making the game balanced and actually making sense while being fun to play, imo it makes a lot of sense to me to remove auto-fire from mortars since they are supposed to counter static play not moving squads. Even before coming here to write this I had a game where I wiped a pioneer squad as is was moving in the capture area trying to cut my territory off and I wasnt even paying attention... Tell me that makes sense... Every time I get these kind of kills I feel like I dont deserve them at all tbh.
Plus, if this change actually happens team games will be a lot more enjoyable instead of spamming mortars and the battlefield being constantly being bombarded without players having to give orders and micro their units. |
|
The problem with emplacements is the fact that one brit player is able to build multiple of these and some commanders even help them maintain these alive.
Removing emplacements isnt an option because they are kinda what defines the brit faction in the first place, if they were to be removed the brit faction wouldnt have a soul.
The best solution would be to:
First - Make an alternative unit for the emplacement. It only makes sense to give the player the choice to have a static and strong unit or a mobile and fragile one. This coule be achieved by putting in each tier one "upgrade choice" like there is for the aec/bofors.
For example, in tier 1 you could choose between a mobile 3 inch mortar or the mortar pit (that has two 3 inch mortars), in tier 2 you have the aec or bofors choice and in tier 3 you would have the 17 pounder or the firefly (choose between these two because they basically have the same gun and it is kinda op that one player alone can build multiple 17 pounders and multiple firefly's in one game).
Second - Allow each player to only build one emplacement of each type (one mortar pit, one bofors and one 17 pounder) unless they choose the advanced emplacement regiment commander. This would force players to build a proper army to contest the rest of the map instead of locking down one vp or the entire map with two mortar pits and bofors coupled with the stand fast ability from commanders, and this would fix the team games absurd amount of emplacements that can appear.
Third - Make brace stop the stand fast repair ability. Obvious explanation.
Fourth - Fix the damn bofors rate of fire, it is highly irrialistic and it's broken that one unit can wipe one garrisoned unit in milliseconds, just give it the rate of fire of the schwerer panzer headquarters which does a pretty decent job defending an area from infantry and light vehicles. The bofors should be the middle ground between an hmg and a at gun.
Just like that the emplacements would be a functioning feature of this game adding diversity to it instead of being a cancerous mechanic that most people hate and wants to get rid of. |
|
The thing is, it wouldnt really need much "babysitting", just set your mortar or mortars to a control group and make shift order to barrange and move if needed and after a bit of time if you need it again to counter a support weapon/garrisoned unit/building select it again and repeat.
I find it funny how the mortar knows where the infantry is moving to and can land a shot to kill some models, super realistic. Not to mention that mortars arent supposed to counter moving infantry...
Why not make all mortars not auto-fire and take the cooldown away from the barrage ability and make their barrage more precise with each shot the mortar takes. For example, the first shot will always be the less accurate (could still hit but the probability of doing so would be the lowest) giving the other player time to react and if he didnt he would be punished by the increasing amount of precision of the next shots. And if that wouldnt be enough maybe decrease the time the mortars take to shoot the first round.
I think this change alone would fix the cancer that are team games with no skill/no micro mortar spam. |
|
Imo emplacements just need to be restricted to one of each type (one mortar pit, one bofors, one 17 pounder) unless the player has the advanced emplacement regiment. This way the brit player can still lockdown one vp/a good part of the map and make a proper army to contest the other two vp's. |
Portugal
Ace
LiquidSun
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
