Profile of HoverBacon

As gross and spammy as this thread is XD Here's my input:

There is more axis infantry with snares than those that do not and those that don't have panzershreks. I understand that axis don't have weapon racks so need something but everything having snares breaks the game if you ask me, especially volksgrenadiers if you ask me. When you list it, it sounds ridiculous, USF have Riflemen at vet 1, russia have conscripts and penals, Brits have nothing except for regimental locked tank hunters.

I've said this before on another thread but...

Axis: Grenadiers, Volksgrenadiers, Panzerfusiliers, Fallschirmjaegers, Osttruppen all have fausts. Panzergrenadiers, sturmpioneers and stormtroopers have panzerschreks, the only axis infantry you can actually run over without expecting a faust in the arse are obersoldaten, jaegers(rare) and assault grenadiers. On top of this, PaK42s and stuGs get stuns.

I understand genadiers need a snare, The Universal carrier with a vickers shreds most infantry early game, but it really is every axis infantry.

I honestly preferred it when volks had panzerschreks. A panzerschrek is better anti tank yes but especially at the time british tanks could shrug off most panzerschrek hits like they were tennisballs anyway and they're just extra damage, a snare is an almost guaranteed loss of a tank if the person you are playing against isn't totally incompetent. If people were running around with a volks anti tank blob, you could just run at them with commandos or rangers and watch them dissolve, not to mention throwing a calliope or avre at them, now with stg44s they can really bleed you hard considering how many volks you have to kill just to break even if you lose even 2 men fighting them and with the snares it means allies cannot run over infantry anymore, they nerfed the cromwell for this especially a few patches ago.

It doesn't surprise me at all that this meta is entirely artillery dominated because with Axis infantry and penal snaring satchels its the only thing you can use without getting snared.

^^^^ can confirm Ostheer and Soviets most balanced and probably most enjoyable to play rn. And that's from a Brit main. Although I feel soviets are strong against all at the moment whereas I think Ostheer, depite being well balanced, can suffer against the Asymmetrical balancing of allies without OKW Teammates (in team games anyway).

I think it's likely that certain aspects of allies perform better than they perhaps should against OST rather than Ost themselves performing worse than soviets in that regard, I really enjoy Ostheer atm but I definitely find OKW to be easy mode.

@thedarkarmadillo Hahahah XD I don't mean listen to every idiot who whines on the forums about <Insert unit that you think is horrendously OP here> I mean take a balanced view on what's best for the players they have and what will keep people playing, and perhaps design their patches and games like they did 10 years ago as that's what won them their fans to begin with anyway. Who knows? they might collect a few more. Wouldn't turn down that job at relic though

Maybe I'm going off topic here a bit but my point was more, in my opinion, if relic stopped aspiring to be what they're not (Blizzard with starcraft) and trying to hopelessly streamline their games so that people will watch it on twitch. They'd see what their community actually wants.

As is totally evident with the failure of Dawn of War 3. They probably lost half the potential playerbase with the DoW3 Beta because people reacted accordingly to what they saw. People wanted DoW2 on a bigger scale like DoW1 with better graphics but they gave us something totally evident that they do not care about what their playerbase thinks or wants. If Age of Empires 4 isn't AMAZING relic could well go bust I imagine, (2 flops in a row for a small studio?) something I think relic were probably foolish to take on, or they're desperate, as the hype behind that game means it will almost certainly fall short of expectation. Rant over, just sad watching my favourite studio do this to themselves.

Honestly, I understand the logic of relic, a competitive scene/decent matchmaking and multiplayer are what gives a game longevity, more people playing means more in game purchases and dlc purchases which makes them more money, a lot of people slate them for that forgetting that the player base of rts games is tiny relative to fps etc, so if people want more games/better games the studio needs to make as much money from each game as it can, which i think relic have done acceptably without it being a cash cow or pay to win.

The issue is coh2 has a tiny competitive scene but actually a half decent matchmaking playerbase, especially after each steam sale/humble bundle etc. I feel relic could do better to see where their money-making potential is and try and cling on to some of these players. The game is never going to become the next Star craft but company of heroes is still hugely famous because of its casual scene. Command and conquer failed because they desperately tried to make it an e-sport at the expense of what it’s players actually wanted.

I would normally say it’s essential to balance games for the competitive scene to keep people playing but I just can’t say that that is particularly relevant for CoH2 and it’s qualtity of life issues like this mortar pit thing that killed command and conquer.

That's a good point and definitely an issue, is once Brits get a mobile mortar team, it's possible that most people just won't bother building a pit so if relic want to keep the pit, which I like the idea of but don't think it works well at the moment, It's gonna need to do something special or people will just build regular mortar teams. Cos as A. Soldier said, mobility is key, if it can be mobile, people WILL prefer it that way.