Profile of Protos Angelus

There's a huge difference in peak players versus player average patterns between the game's early life, indicating player retention was rather low. Nowadays there's a much smaller difference between peak and average, indicating higher player retention. The exact stats and reasons are unknown of course, but if I had to guess it's partly because in general people find the multiplayer much more enjoyable now.

I agree with the retention being much higher than at launch. I remember an article in bug.hr many years ago when it launched (gaming/tech magazine). Basically they gave it a 90% rating with the biggest downfall being something in the lines of < horrible optimization, horrible performance, crashes >. They did praise the gameplay/systems in place and the overall feel of the game, thus the high score. Quality of life changes have improved the game.

Regarding the influx. One may never know unless some random hackerman hacks into the space-time and extracts the sql table regarding the nationality of players.




About the "was not designed to be played as a team game RTS". I am pretty pretty sure COH2 was designed around teamgames and not 1v1s. You could say that because only one faction existed on each side that it was for 1v1s... however, the abundance of commanders and the fact that the DLCs were a given (unless the game was a big flop), says otherwise. I am pretty pretty sure, 90% or so that Relic released 2 factions at launch on purpose and had plans to milk more money from DLCs focused around other factions. Why give out 3 or more factions when you can repackage them and sell at a later date, thus higher profits. USF, Brits being 2 factions that cater to a specific audience (Americans and Brits) of casual players. OKW was marketed as "elite super units but expensive". Who doesn't like the sound of that? I too wouldn't launch all the factions at once, that was clever marketing. WFA was released about 1y after the original game. You take into consideration that the first 6 months are about polishing the game once it hits many more systems (more known bugs), you can easily see how the next 6 months are about preparing to release the other factions. British were the icing on the cake probably and were only conceptually realized at base game launch.

I just don't see how this game can be anything but 2v2+. 1v1 competitive? Sure. It takes skill and doesn't favour control groups 1-9 but it's still mostly a competitive mode. You win or you lose. You and you alone. Nobody to blame.
Games function as a source of entertainment and if some people decided to not pursue other more valuable skills at producing new goods, can extract money from it (entertainment is the biggest business)... good for them. Doesn't mean it's not a team game oriented RTS.

1v1 is mostly for diehard fans that lurk around this forum and post either complete and utter BS or constructive well-made arguments, nothing in between like the steam forum which has everything (My God.... everything).

Does Relic need to stop listening to the community? No. Community plays the game.
Relic needs to take into consideration some arguments (if they even read them here) and decide if that suits their vision of the game.
Axis biased people will always ask for pak howi nerf or jackson nerf or whatever.
Ally biased people will ask for Panther, stuka, nerferwerfer and heavy tank nerfs. A normal circle of life on the forums. Everyone knows who is ally biased and who is axis biased. Those people should not be excluded, of course, since they are part of the community but should be taken with a bigger grain of salt. There were plenty of wonderful ideas being written here that could contribute to a more fun game (that's what we all want), not a more predictable game (that's what pro players want). So again, no. The community needs to be heard.

Really? I thought with the exception of sturms they were the best nondoc engineerunits.

You are correct. Sappers are great. AT nade + ability to carry piats which, in case the AT gun or tank gets destroyed, you are not left without any pew pew against tanks. Sappers being weak is a delusional idea.

Yes. Then stop complaining about VSL, Osttroppens, fast PGs and other stuff. If you cant understand basic reason why Ost is the way it is right now and why its cheese bullshittery exists in a first place, then this is pointless discussing it with you.


I did, you should look outside the box of "long range inf" and "MG42" aurgument.

You and many others who say that grens are fine, failed to provide a single aurgument why would anyone would want to pick grendiers over all other options available.

I have never ever complained. I'm ok with both fast PGs and osttrops and VSL. In my opinion, the game is in an excellent balance state. Neither unit stands out as OP or UP.

Considering the "looking outside of the box". There is no box. You are trying to sound smart and knowledgeable by inventing new parameters to argue about grens. Nothing more. You're inventing new philosophy when none is needed.

Arguments to pick grens? Good scaling with veterancy. Good mainline infantry support for MG42 flanks. I myself would play grens and MG42 into pgrens. Seen it work plenty of times, especially in 3v3 since PGrens can easily outshoot rifles until they get 2x bar and are great flanking units. Pak is a given ofc.
Want more reasons to pick grens? Rifle nade for dislodging MGs over hedges on long range.

Now, if you want your grens to do more than that, then ask for a price increase to 270 and reinforce reduction to 28.
Last reason to get them is late game potency with faster capture etc...
I have spoken.

And here comes the main question, what are exact benifits of having them for Ostheer not counting faust? Why whould you need inf which is inferior vs both tommies\rifles early and requare MG support or 2vs1 ratio and later on they become a liability requaring constant babysitting and only giving you constant MP bleed when they are outside of cover.

And outside of early LMG advantage, later on they wont have any advantage over Tommies\Rifles.

Not to mention, that having them forcing Ost into investing more into direct AI, so it is actually what is more cost effective 1 280 squad or 1 240 squad which requares another 240+mp unit supporting it.

This is exact reason why ppl avoiding grenadiers outside of VSL. Investing into grenadiers in a long run just puts you into a disadvantage, always.

Well, speaking from 3v3 experience in rank level 16-19 I usually see ostruppen being used as flank covers and first infantry before the tank push. Give them an LMG and they can hold in cover quite well. If you go ostruppen, not only are you getting a good faust on a cheap, easy to reinforce unit, but you are also saving up space for the late game tanks to win the game. I've never ever seen good players play ostruppen against me by taking them late game and blobbing them against me. To be honest, not only is it cancerous to play against them on most of the maps where there is good early cover around crucial points, but they also pay themselves later on as a complete support unit that lives in the crates made by the stukas or werfers of lefhs.

Is it true that the stats on them are poor? Yes
Are they cheap (+ reinforce)? Also yes.
If you play ostruppen, late game you're not counting on them to do the heavy lifting but pgrens and tanks. I've seldom seen good players under-utilize Osttruppen. They are a complete niche unit that good players will know how to maximize the effect from early to late.

They are not meant to have an advantage over tommies. Why would they? Are you saying that every unit needs to stand up to every other? Ostt are dirt cheap. They should never ever be able to counter upgraded mainline from USF or UKF.
If you can't accept that then no matter what I say will change your mind so I'll leave it at that.

EDIT: To reply to the gren disadvantage sentence. Grens cost 240 and their purpose is to hold the line, not charge in. You charge in with them once you know there are no close range dangers. Vet3 grens with LMGs mow down all infantry when they are behind yellow or green cover. Long range, gren42s are brutal. Again, you're not at any disadvantage. You're using a unit wrong if you think that any unit in this game has an inherent disadvantage.
There is not a single useless unit on either side. The only thing people seem to forget or just do not care and scream "BALANCE PROBLEMS", is that the ally mainlines are more expensive and more versatile (weapon racks). Eg:
Rifles are the only fighting unit on USF (excluding officers since you only usually have one of them, lieutenant or captain) and Tommies on UKF. They both have weapon racks to allow you to specialize them.
On the other hand, OST has grens and pgrens. Grens are defensive and pgrens are offensive. Grens are only good long range (hence LMG and cover dependability), pgrens are sturdy vs small arms fire and great on short/medium range with the bundle nade (as you can see, it's used for dislodging cover infantry) that can be thrown quite far for the punch it packs.
One advantage USF has is that they can outfit their echelons with zooks but OST depends more on stugs, paks before the big bad panther comes out.
OKW has sturms which are great early on and fall off since they have lots of jobs to do.
Mainline they have volks which beat rifles long range and struggle against tommies on any range (before the upg). That's why with OKW you also get a great starting unit that can compliment volks in those early moments. Also you have kubel which can bleed like crazy outside of cover (and induces 0 MP bleed since you can repair it). For all intents and purposes, obers arrive as the elite infantry, which, until vet2 is good but once they reach vet2 they become killing machines.

See, that's what it's all about. At least in my book. Different units fitting different faction flavors needing different utilization

You completely missed my point. What is "good" about maps is mostly subjective. You think Port of Hamburg is a horrible map, and I would agree, but the majority of the playerbase obviously does not because it was (maybe still is I don't know because we don't have any more recent stats) the most popular map.

No, I didn't. I know what you're saying, I'm just saying people know sh**

Port of hamburger is an often played map in larger modes because people like to camp and spam arty. It's quite obvious that this map allows easy placement of mines, blockades and general BS to lock down parts of map. After 20 minute mark, if axis tries to push mid VP (assume top bridge is blocked off), they will run into katyusha or some other brit arty or calliope. If allies try to push, werfer, stuka and sturm will go pew pew. I know that maps I hate are generally played so my point is: People know s***!