That all factions receive the same kind of friendly fire should be a no brainer in my opinion. The allies having less ff values doesn't make sense mostly because allies have much more indirect fire options.
Axis: LeIG, Mortar, Stuka, Panzerwerfer, LeFH
Allies: Mortar Pit, USF Mortar, Sov Light Mortar, Sov Heavy Mortar, Pak Howie, UKF Base Howitzers, Sov "normal" Howitzer, Sov B4 Howitzer, M8 Scott, Calliope, Katyusha
The biggest problem of the game currently is that unit preservation is made unnecessarily hard because of all the indirect stuff flying around. Every team game usually has at least 2 LeIGs, a mortar for each faction that can buy one, a mortar pit (double round) and in the End a Katy, Stuka or a Panzerwerfer.
It's just way easier to build a lot of indirect fire because it requires almost no micro to kill stuff and vet up. The only thing you have to do is bring the mortar in position and retreat/brace if it is being attacked. Inf meanwhile needs a lot of micro - flanking, climbing over stuff, seek for cover, etc.
If players realized that their own artillery can fuck up their own units too, I think it wouldn't be so obvious to invest so much MP in indirect fire options. Currently it's just like 'Oh, I am massing a lot of MP? Let's build a LeIG or two', that's stupid. The most annoying thing for me when playing as Allies is the LeIG. The most annoying thing for me when playing as Axis is the mortar pit. Nothing else is turning down the fun for me so much as these two indirect fire possibilites.
Artillery should be used to counter support teams, such as MGs, PaKs and units in buildings. Don't know if I just wasn't good enough, but I never saw a problem in indirect fire (besides Scheldt) in vCoH. At least for mortars. If you simply barrage enemy lines while being able to storm them at the same time with your inf, it is not good. Why use mortar smoke ever?
I know the facts I stated are not as much related to friendly fire as other posts in this thread, but hopefully friendly fire could also make indirect fire spam a bit less.
Friendly fire may help, but I think the main problem is how good autofire is with pretty much every indirect fire option (barring howitzers for the obvious reason). |
Maybe try going for 2/3 engineers, one conscript and T1 tech then for an M3 (to put an engineer with a flamers in), then maybe a sniper, depending on the map.
Hold out until 2cp where you can call in guards. You will probably build up a lot of manpower doing this so it might be a good idea to get medics while you wait for CP's.
Then call in 3 guards squads as you get the manpower.
Then tech to, and get a t70. (you have the AT in the guards so the T70 should be able to survive and work well even if late.
then whatever, dependent of which guard doc etc, but T34-76's spammed are always good.
This wont be the most effective way to play soviets but, it might work and it might be fun.
Also i see you are pretty new and you only have 3 posts, so i looked at them. I see you said you played mostly Ost, 4v4. Is this for a team game strat? Are you branching out into the rest of the game? If so welcome to more competitive play!
That actually sounds like an interesting strategy. I'm so bored of same ol' same ol' penal spam as soviets. |
Mostly this. Also:
Lower CP of Paras to 2 from 3 (usually have 3 rifles before 3cp)
Modify Pathfinders (no need for 2 "elite" infantry in one Commander) My suggestion:
Change initial cost to 260
Allow either infiltration or stealth like OST sniper
Change pop cap of Pathfinders to 1/model (from 2)
Allow them to plant mines and booby traps (no demos or people will whine hard)
Allow only one weapon upgrade (RIP barfinders)
You know, I do like that idea about paths. 1 pop/model (and lowering reinforce cost) is a no brained, but I like the idea of planting mines and stuff. They already do get improved camo at vet3. I don't remember if it's like the soviet sniper camo or the ost sniper camo tho.
I'm kind of on the fence about paras being 2 or 3 cp now. 2cp would definitely make them more viable, and a player who forgoes rifles will be shooting themself in the foot in the early game, and will not have smoke or snares. The weapon upgrades could, if possible be locked behind one additional cp or tech if paras are 2cp. This is considering that rangers are actually way more durable than paras too, since that means they would come a cp later. |
|
Wait actually trolling would get pretty bad. Remember in coh1 when people would try to blow to their teammates' hqs with demos or mines? Yeah...
Full friendly fire for your own units would be fine though. |
Currently yes you cannot spam them because they arrive at 3 CPs which is fairly late to rely on for backbone infantry. Also at 380MP they're expensive however only cost 28 to reinforce, same as rifles. It's like calling in an Obersoldaten squad at 2 CPs with lower reinforce cost and better durability since they have 6 men. I think the doctrine needs a little push in the right direction, mainly the p47s and the support drops but paras are pretty alright. They can even be equipped map situationally which is something obers do not have the luxury of doing without spec ops.
Have fun trying to hold out with like 2 rifles or rear echelons till 2cp. Okw can get away with it because they can either kubelspam until they hit 2cp, or mix volks and pfusies because they are both cheap and cost effective, and okw is strong late game. Nonetheless, I still believe that paras need to be 3cp, because they are on a higher tier than pfusies or jaegers. About that last point, obers are nondoc, so it's kind of an unfair comparison. |
|
Why not. |
Well like the OKW MG and USF mortar, if they add a Mobile mortar to the Brits people are gonna bitch about it not being unique, so this is one way to keep it unique and balanced.
But people all over the place are bitching about the pit in the live version, there's been like 3 separate threads in the last week about emplacements op and brits still don't have a counter to double isg, double mortar.
There will always be bitching.
I think I first saw the artillery pit idea on a thread by you btw. |
Bofors idea kinda sounds like a modified hull down with bofors. Also reminds me of command and conquer games where you could deploy and repack your MCV which is where your buildings were constructed. Not really sure about it. Sounds like there could be some real hidden cheese in there if you just sat a bofors on your opponets cutoff/fuel.
As for the mortar pit, this idea has been tossed around many times before of making a garrisonable "trench" for the now mobile UKF mortar team. 1st though, no GrW mortar, that mortar is the best for a reason and I don't think people would be happy to see it have mortar pit range, GrW accuracy, RoF buff and heavy cover on all sides. USF mortar, maybe even the soviet tin can mortar.
IMO I think there's are just some concepts that should be left out of the game. Emplacements is one of them as they're stale and don't provide good fun for either party. Similar to blizzards and cold tech. They tried it but it didn't pan out so it was scrapped.
First off, I agree that emplacements are stupid, but lelic isn't just gonna up and remove them. I don't even use them btw.
For the bofors, it would need a setup time, at least ten seconds or so, and be a lot more vulnerable to indirect fire if left that close to the enemy base. Imagine putting a fighting position on a cutoff; it would last about a minute. No brace either (or a severely neutered one).
Yeah maybe soviet mortar would be a good idea. I mean, it still works. |
An idea on emplacements
-remove them entirely
So what should brits get instead? Nondoc commandos? Because that's basically the only other option. |
|
So it seems like there's been a ton of hate on emplacements and simcities recently, and the problem with a lot of suggestions is that they are mostly just straight nerfs, without any reciprocating buffs/reworks. I want to offer an idea that I thought of that is 100% theoretical, may not even be balanced, and some parts of which may not even be doable. Having said that, my idea:
In my opinion, the role of emplacements should be support, not the keystone of your army. Along these lines of thinking, I have two proposals.
For the bofors, make it less lethal to infantry, maybe on the level of the usf flaktrack's autocannon (without the mgs for obvious reasons) or whatever is balanced, with about that much suppression as well. This would also come with a slight manpower decrease and (here's the part that may not be feasible) the ability to pack up or be packed up (logically by engineers) and repositioned, retaining veterancy and current health. This would have to be initiated (for like 4-5 seconds) out of combat, and then have a process that takes another ten seconds or so to complete were it is as vulnerable to enemy fire as when it is being constructed. If this was put in place, brace should be removed or severely nerfed ( decreased duration, effectiveness, and/or addition of muni cost) and make it unavailable while packing up. This would make it more of a supporting element of a more defensively oriented army that could still fight off flanks and help counter light vehicles, but leaving most of the work to the rest of the army.
For the pit, I think brits should get a normal old copypasta'd GrW mortar, but also have access to an "artillery pit" for say, 100-1140ish manpower that would extend the mortar's range to the same as the live mortar pit (or whatever is balanced) and give the mortar crew heavy cover on all sides and an RoF buff of like 25-50% since you are paying 380-420 for the whole thing. This would make the mortar pit less stupidly lethal, while still providing the option, as well as making it less vulnerable to counterfire and breakthroughs. This wouldn't have brace either, and is cheap enough to be somewhat expendable so doesn't need the ability to move like I proposed with the bofors. |
Bleb Feesh
LoopDloop
LoopDloop
Relic Entertainment
