Profile of V-T

Standard deviation, mentlegen. I'm pretty sure the RNG follows this as well...

So every blue moon your lucky mortar gets that wondershot which wipes the whole squad. And just as often there should be a critical miss when it could have killed the whole squad but it just didn't.

Game usually has two players, or at least two teams. A RNG event is a loss AND a win as long as you spectate without favourite player. It's not that YOU always miss with snipers and the ENEMY always squadwipes your teams. It goes other way around too.

When you think of it, every mortar shell has RNG already calculated in. Most of the shells just fall in to the "normal" area and behave as they're supposed to do. Same goes with everything else.

I liked Wardonnos post, but:

Basically, the general idea is the RNG is fine as long as it does not cause to much of an imbalance between players. The main problem is that COH2 stresses the importance of unit preservation, however, making it that when RNG kill valuable units frustrating.

The RNG doesn't kill units, the ability does.
Those "unfair stuka loiters" are not a RNG killers, but a game mechanic. If you see stuka, you should move your infantry, or risk a wipe. Same goes for all barrages and offmap abilities. Don't blame RNG, if you stick around you're bound to get hurt. Bad.

Game doesn't simulate ricochets actually hitting anything, dud ammo, human error (such as totally screwing up artillery barrages), misfires, engine/mechanical failures, bogging down, detracking etc... All this would bring even more RNG into the game and spice things up. Maybe they're left out for not to totally outrage the sore losers and chess/pokerplayers.


TL;DR
RNG is everywhere. Abilities and gameplay wipe units, not RNG.

Heh.

I love simulators so it's sometimes hard to handle games as, well... Games.

But i simply hate when this happens in COH X__X
My HMG on right, enemy lolppshrushd00d coming from left

Nop cuz we all know what does mean super HMG = spam and kill any infantry play.

Do you expect an Atgun to stop a swarm of 3-4 t34, pz4 or shermans? nop. Same applies here. You cannot expect a single unit/260mp stopping a multitude of units costing 270mp+120/140amo each.

But isn't that the idea behind MGs? Otherwise we'd be playing something which resembles Total war napoleon, with bayonet charges and massed infantry?

I'm trying to say HMGs SHOULD kill infantryplay in their field of fire. If you waltz into MG ambush, you should be punished with losses. This is why players should move in with a recon unit, and only assault with multiple squads when there's little resistance.

But again, this is against the game.

Personally i'd like more realistic approach. 75mm pak and faust should oneshot shermans etc... But it's a game.

I'd buff the suppress & pindown factors for ALL HMGs, so that the blob stops in it's tracks and becomes a perfect target for counterattack or a barrage. That should be enough for stopping a blob. The MG damage doesn't need buffing, neccessarily. This would also emphasize for flanking, use of smoke, indirect fire, combined arms etc etc...

the crew would mostly only abandon the tank, if the engine or main gun were damaged/destroyed, not if they had taken 20 shots and the tank still worked perfectly.

Ever heard of armor spalling? A non penetrative hit rips small metal fragments from INSIDE the armor plating, hurting, incapacitating or even killing crew. I'd leave my deathtrap too if my tank was hit and my mates were dead or dying. THIS is what abandoned vehicle is trying to simulate.

Weapon drops... I think if the squad is retreating, nobody would pick up a MG or a zooka, if they're just haulin' ass out of the harms way. If just moving, or not in that much of a pinch, a squadmate propably would pick up the squad weapon.

Check Osinyagov's post before (The #7 one cause I don't know how to quote post from different page). It's not about balance problem, but more of a game design problem. It was a flaw that got fixed (The removal of veteran call-in units, the removal of OKW's resouce penalties) but not this guy. You can say that it has its own beauty, but OKW resource penalties were the faction's own beauty as well, the veteran call-ins (Veteran Rifleman, instant Vet-3 grens, OKW double veteran Pz.IV) had their beauties as well, but they got removed. So why does this one stand? In addition, remember that OKW can call-in a similar-in-strength tank (KT) without having any penalty, but the Ace got it, and the Ace can't even vet up while the King still can. 

Also, the way you used the Ace effectively now is against the game's core mechanic: Unit preservation (Sacrifice it for kills, not even worry about its survival since as long as it's alive, you'll still have to carry penalties). Like I said, the Ace is more of a game design problem! ‎

I still dare to disagree.

Every unit and decision has a flipside. AT gun is bad against infantry, MGs are useless against tanks, Heavy tanks cost a lot, but can be effective, etc.

This oddity stands out of the crowd.

It's fuel free, so it doesn't need what KT needs: fuel.
It's "vet" from the start, so you don't NEED to preserve it for it to be effective (i don't want to start the vettable/non-vettable TA fight again, you guys know what i mean)
To me, it seems, the only flipside is that it kills income.

And this decision, to call it in, or not to call it, is what makes it an "Ace in a sleeve". Calling it can turn the tide of the battle. For better or worse.


Yes: Rest of the "elite veteran call in units" and the resource penalty mechanics have been removed, but this one still exists. And it intrigues me. If the battle is going tits up, this can be a last resort heroic counterattack unit to save the day. It's expendable, since keeping it for longer just brings the penalty, but this is why it's such a beautiful unit.

Don't tell me, that you have NEVER been in a position, where your inevitable loss could have been turned into a glorious victory, IF you had quick access to a single, cheap, very powerful tank. This, my kamerad, is where The tiger ACE fits in.