One could simply remove the repair emplacements aspect and make it work like Soviet industry ones...
Repair for F.Assemblies/A.Assemblies really needs to go.
Definetly, it is just stupid that you can repair your stuff without any risk of losing engeneers or other units in the process. You dont get punished for receiving damage, just brace and let it be auto-repaired.
As many people here have pointed out, there are counters (like Fortification or the 105mm Scavenge arty). The problem is that your hands are pretty much tied, plus you still have to focus all your efforts on a god-damn emplacement that just doesnt seem to die. If you finally remove it, it isnt even so much of a loss to the Brit (compared to Flak-HQ for example). While all your indirect fire is shooting at the emplacements, thus not threatening enemy infantry, you still have to micro all your units so that they dont get hit by the enemy mortars. As some people here pointed out, the micro that you have to invest to counter it is not even comparable to the easiness of just building one bofors/mortar after another and then drinking a tea, or reading a newspaper or whatever you feel like - dont really have to use any micro except the occasional brace and counter-battery. |
The introduction of this commander brought about the decline of this game imo. It's just now recovering but this commander I still loathe with a passion.
I agree, this commander represents almost everything thats wrong with the game. Very noob friendly, hard to counter, plus it is forcing you to play a certain way, or you instant lose. Auto repair makes for little risks of losing engeneers (that you effectively dont need); enemy annoys you with ISG? Just activate 1-click counter-battery. Enemy has tanks? Well, you still have OP-Comet and/or Fireflies... |
Interesting thoughts, but there is a second thread with exactly the same topic just below yours. Why didnt you participate in that debate? |
The biggest problem I see in 2v2s is that the Brit can easily hold territory with little effort and risk. So his mate can build an aggressive force (like with USF, some nice freedom blob) and attack. Usually, when you force off the blob, its your time to take map control, that's why blobbing is not very effective in the long run. But the problem is that even after beating the one player, the map control still remains uncontested because of the Sim City. So then you have to focus all your units on the emplacements until the other player returns to the field... |
I just did a "reset" cause it seemed further posting was blocked.
Ontopic: you won't ever seen a commander been removed so forget about that.
Also i think that stand fast is just better. Advance emplacements is heavily mp wise, can be countered through constant pressure or completely ignored if on 3v3+ and map dependant (arty depends heavily on spawn position).
Design wise, it's just cancer design
I agree it wont be removed unfortunately. But I dont agree that the commander is heavily mp wise, since the bofors costs as much as one unit. Plus, they dont mp bleed and you dont even need engeneers as IS can do the job too (and auto-repair of course). Something with this doctrine has to change, in small 2v2 maps, this commander can completely destroy the game and ruin the fun for everyone.
I think this commander shouldnt have an easy counter to indirect fire and maybe the auto-repair has to be nerfed... |
Yes, I am sorry for the title. I was still a bit triggered by that commander. But even when you think about it with a clear head, it makes no sense, doesnt it? Like what is the justification behind it? |
Can this commander get removed from team games/the game? It has literally no purpose except invincible emplacement spam. And then you get the counter to the counter inclusive, doesnt it sound like fun? Even if you win against it, which can be hard on some 2v2 maps, it is no fun at all. The most noob-friendly doctrine ever created probably... |
The infiltration mechanic is one of the most stupid ideas Relic has ever come up with (and there have been quite a few). I mean, it completely breaks down the flow of the game and can cause a mass retreat, even though your army was set up perfectly to hold the frontline. It negates the core of the game.
I'm actually surprised people are suggesting changes and tweaks to this mechanic. I think it should be out of the game completely.
Make all of these units just come off map like the rest?
This mechanic already existed in CoH 1, but there was only one unit that could be spawned in buildings. And the Falls in vCoH were not as strong by far compared to some of the units in CoH 2 - unless you actually invested ammo to upgrade them, which took some time (what a lot of people suggested here). In CoH 2 you have a wide range of units spawning in buildings that are perfectly fine to kill retreating squads with a modest amount of health and models left, to wipe and steal crew weapons or even to destroy vehicles. Just the amount of those units paired with the fact that most of them are meta commanders (especially the commandos) makes them so stupid. |
I play 3vs3 and 4vs4 because compared to 1vs1 and 2vs2, it matters more the strategy than the tactics.Sure in smaller mode you can flank more, but you can also lose if you just don't pay attention to a vet 3 grens,rifleman squad.I like tactics but if i really want only tactics i would play Battlefield.I play bigger game for the strategy cause you need to know what to expect,build and so one,if you don't build what you need at that right moment,then you lose.Also even if the games are more trench warfare, it let you think where you can flank,if is ok to lose 2 panthers to 2-3 jackons or firefly +some anti tanks.It's all about logic and a great plan,rather than just move some units and expect that guy to don't pay attention
Well, if you like to play those game modes, then I wont stop you. But the reasons you mention for them requiring more tactics seem to be pretty bullocks if you ask me. As if you wouldnt need to know when and what to build and expect at a certain time in a 1v1 or 2v2 (probably even more so, since you cannot rely on your mates to bail you out of the misery).
And I dont agree with your statement about flanks, usually its not about clever flanks but about your pack of tanks attacking another pack of tanks, nothing about flanks. There are simply too many units on the field to succesfully penetrate the enemy defense and to surpise them from the flank.
And lastly, the point about losing units: that's exactly what CoH is about, unit presevation distinguishes this game from many other strategy games. You even get rewarded for keeping your units alive. Losing two Panthers should always be a big deal, but not in those game modes, hence the "noob" image. You dont get punished for your mistakes. |
A problem with all the resource ideas is that games would probably go on longer and longer. Vehicles help speed up action on the large maps. Getting 8 people to stick around for 60 - 120 minutes is problematic
Thats why there are VPs, even though I think 4v4s (and maybe 3v3s) shouldnt have 500 VPs, because they run down so quickly... |