Coms/maps/expansion/etc.
It took us 3-4 years to get CoH2 into a good place, and we're just now fixing most of the last expansions problems over 2 years after it came out.
Getting CoH3 would likely put us back at square one. In addition, since it would be a new game and appeal to a very wide audience (new game player base > current player base), its likely the community would have very little influence over balance and design decisions. I'd rather work with what we have (and a smaller playerbase) and perfect it instead of jumping from a pretty good game to one that will likely take a while to get to the same level of quality.
I hope they take the blizzard route and just support CoH2 for another ~5 years, with small expansions (similar to SC2's covert ops, co-op stuff, etc.) and other add-ons.
exactly |
you have no idea about this game, there is no gameplay, no image of the UI, no information, NONE
i hate this kind of stupid hype. look at steel division and all its followers
Also the infantry animation look like shit, stupid clonetroopers and robots
I totally agree with you. We don't really know what is actually in that game.
They released a picture for UI on facebook. It looks a bit weird. Seems their UI is designed for a really small amount of units.
Steel division is just not a good game. I'd rather play wargame red dragoon.
Also I am a bit skeptical about the developers. They haven't make any RTS games before. |
I would love to see COH3 with WW1 template actually.
Close range infantry shooting with guns seems so arcade.
Let's bring new mechanics and welcome to knife fight at close range.
This is ludicrous. |
I want CoH3 to have strong bones.
The kind of bones you can build a franchise on.
I would only want commanders and maps if it advances this goal, not competes with it.
The problem is, relic tends to screw up new games. DoW3 is a good example. I'd see them taking a safer approach. |
G43s have the best moving accuracy of, I believe, any other weapon in the game. This is very useful, especially if the allied player is going heavy on indirect fire or snipers. Since ostheers t0 has the hmg42, many allied players tend to build to counter those: usually with indirect and sometimes snipers.
So, in many ways it is a very worthwhile upgrade.
Thanks for the tip. I will consider getting G43s if my opponent get a lot of support weapon/conscripts |
Which one would you like to see? I actually prefer new commanders and maps |
LMGs don't work properly on the move, and work terribly when stationary outside of buildings because of the slow turning and not firing.
In fact, G43s are the only viable upgrade for Grenadiers unless you're playing on a map that's just jam packed with garrisons.
From munitions cost to performance, the only advantage LMGs have over G43s is being able to put out solid DPS from a single window, which in the majority of cases isn't as good as having two G43s, and in the coming update, three G43s.
Yes, Grenadiers are stupidly flimsy, and that's a problem that's never been addressed (the spacing "solutions" are a farce), but that's all the more reason for why they really need to be able to fire powerful shots on the move and not lose DPS to LMG setup (not setup-setup, but pseudo-setup related to how the LMG-wielding model turns and prepares to fire, and various pauses it takes constantly).
With Grenadiers, every second counts during a firefight, and G43s allow you to capitalize on those seconds with maximum efficiency while the LMG-wielding Grenadier squads fidget around not firing and bugging out in various ways.
Good points. But I think 3 G43s only apply to panzergrenadiers and stormtroopers. |
Flame Hetzer
We want to restrict the Flame Hetzer from dominating 1v1 games (where Call-ins are already powerful), but also allow the Hetzer to arrive earlier in team games, with sufficient tech.
Now buildable from the HQ. Requires Schewere Panzer Headquarters to be built, but not active if destroyed.
Cost increased from 280/100 to 300/100
Really? I think this tank is pretty shitty already. Now I need a Panzer Headquarter? Panzer IV is better by all means I believe. |
My opinion on this is that G43s on grenadiers are totally worthless. Grenadiers are really fragile comparing to line infantries of other nations, the only advantage they have is firepower. MG42 fits them perfectly since you can't use them as frontline infantry in the mid and late game(panzergrenadiers will do that), but as second line fire support units. G43 performs better at close range, which makes grenadiers even more exposed and vulnerable during late game. Unless you are extremely conservative on munitions, I really don't think you should upgrade G43 on grenadiers.
Any other ideas? |
If he goes for emplacement, I think its actually easier to counter. Since you can just do double mortar+stug. But what if he chose blobing infantry and immediately garrison a vickers into a disgusting spot? Usually if I cannot get one fuel point firmly controlled, I will get murdered by an early AEC. |