This doesn't make any sense. A stone wall is going to provide just as much if not more concealment as a bush or a crater.
If anything any new CoH needs even more emphasis on cover; things like smoke or frag grenades (which should be a no-brainer anti-cover weapon - for some reason they are actually worse vs infantry in cover in CoH2) or pure numbers should be required to push out a squad in cover, not simply moving a squad of high-dps infantry into point blank range to drive them off.
I'd also like if combat ranges were longer, maps were bigger, and vehicle but especially tank combat was not so arcadey. Part the hopelessness in balancing this game is the HP pools involved with tanks and their nigh invulnerability to infantry; instead of running into enemy infantry at point blank with a tank being a danger because of 'snares', running into enemy infantry at point blank with a tank should be dangerous because a panzerfaust or a bazooka team could destroy it single-handedly.
At the same time, however, tank MGs should actually be worth a damn, and the source of most vehicle AI firepower rather than cannons.
Just more realism in general would be nice.
|
The game's already too much about who gets to the green cover first.
Assaulting positions is too punishing as it is without more camo.
It could be done so that green cover doesn’t give any camouflaged bonuses, while yellow cover does.
What makes the CoH series so appealing to me is the dynamic that cover brings to the table when compared to C&C type games where you just stand in the open and shoot each other unless someone happens to find a garrison to sit in. |
Infantry invisible system is already good in Coh2, that they have to stay in cover.
Though I agree with vehicle, "slowly" moving in open field like Jadpz4 or ATgun is stupid. For me, they have to stand still and setup Ambush position like Soviet tank hunter. As the enemy will see a bush instead of a tank until they fire.
The problem I have with the current form of infantry cloaking is how once the map has been cratered the units that can move while in cover now have pretty much free reign to move and remain in craters.
This is most apparent with stormtroopers and commandos. They should be very strong ambush units yes, but I have yet to meet the man who can sprint forward while remaining invisible like he just picked up a power up in Halo. |
To be honest you should probably try the Steel Division/Wargame series. They have exactly this implemented.
Implementing this feature would mean that vision is greatly increased as well, since all units should see further than they detect enemies. This would drastically change the core of CoH though, since much bigger maps were required.
I will definitely look into the suggested games, but I don’t think the vision changes would require larger maps. True sight would still apply, so you’d still be able to hide tanks behind hedges and buildings, and the difference between detection range and vision wouldn’t need to be very much for most units. Infantry would still be able to see about as far as they can shoot, and not see that far. Their detection of “big” units would be primarily from the negative bonuses applied to the bigger units themselves.
Th detection vs sight range could work both ways too. Big units show up even in the fog of war if they are doing highly visible things, such as a king ginger crossing a road, so in this case a unit with average sight like infantry would “see” the king tiger outside of their normal vision range but they might not see the enemy infantry hiding in the bushes inside of their nominal sight range that is revealing the fog of war. |
|
Good evening all!
I’ve been putting a lot of thought into what I’d like to see in future CoH games and how they might be implemented.
I was playing a bit of an “oldie, but a goodie” RTS, namely 2004’s Star Wars: Empire at War, and was really enjoying its take on unit vision and thought a similar system would work well in CoH3, whenever it comes out.
The idea is that unit vision is actually two things, environmental vision and unit detection. The first part is like how CoH2 works, with different units having different vision ranges and that sets how far a unit can “see” into the fog of war in the game world. The second part is how far away a unit can detect enemy units. This second part is determined by how well your unit can see, checked against how big the target is and any detection modifiers applied to it such as in cover, or moving or on a road or if the unit is set up with a camouflaged position ability.
What this means is that if a unit is very large and in an exposed position, it will show up at longer distances and be noticed sooner than units that are closer, but smaller and in cover. A good example might be a Tiger I or IS-2 parked in the middle of the road on crossing in the woods vs the infantry in the bushes in front of the tank. It’s pretty obvious that in real life that we’d all see the tank much farther away on the approach even though the tank is farther away than the infantry.
If implemented well, CoH 3 could have no silly “invisibility” abilities on units. Ambush units would simply have very small detection sizes and high detection vision compared to the units they are supposed to ambush when stationary or in cover. This applies perfectly to tank destroyers, examples being a stationary Stug III would be harder to detect than a moving Sherman, allowing the Stug to ambush it. However the Stug can’t just “go invisible” like the current JP4 or cloaked AT Guns. Additionally, as soon as the Stug starts to move around, it would be almost as easy to be spotted by the Sherman. US tank destroyers would have very good vision allowing them to detect and ambush enemy tanks thanks to having open topped turrets and long range guns, but not be as easily concealable due to being taller and being generally bigger than the smaller German TDs like the Stug and JP4.
Infantry play would also be greatly changed for the more strategic allowing players to use ambush and stealthy tactics with regular infantry just by putting them in cover and not moving them around. “Ambush” or “stealth” oriented units could still be better at this by having better detection reducing values when stationary, but no longer be able to run around while cloaked like current commandos and storm troopers. Larger ambush type units might have an activated ability to “camouflage the gun/tank” which only works while stationary, but also doesn’t make the gun actually invisible and maybe only affects detection by certain target types. A camouflaged AT gun might be hard to spot for a tank crew, but infantry could still see it at almost the same range as they normally would. By combining these modifiers you also prevent silly things like invisible AT guns in the middle of a road. |
With 20% lower DPS, infantry section models won't be worth 28 MP per model. So you either:
1. Keep this reinforce cost and accept that brens will be essential, or
2. Lower their reinforce cost
If you go with 1, using unupgunned tommies is going to feel about as bad as using 4 man tommies now because each model isn't going to have the firepower of a 28 MP model. Now instead of making tommies feel bad to use until they get bolster, you make tommies feel bad to use until they get weapon upgrades. So then players will rush brens and have (relatively) early 5 man double bren squads because they'll be getting that instead of bolser. The performance loss is then really nominal since youre only dealing with 3 nerfed enfields, and you get 5 man, double bren tommies with a (5%?) slight performance reduction for 150/35 cheaper. As you noted, then you could limit the bren to 1 and make it similar to an lmg42. At this point though, they're basically just grens with extra steps (though maybe half a step stronger). Maybe that's fine, but it seems like it'll make the matchup up far more boring.
If you go with 2, then unupgunned tommies feel fine to use, but upgunned tommies become too efficient. So then you lower LMG performance, possibly limiting it to 1 as above but making it weaker than in the previous example. Then they're even closer to grens as above, which to me would be even more boring.
In either case, it seems very likely to me that you have to limit the brens to 1. Simple, right? But what about sappers then? I guess they also get limited to 1. But what about the vickers drop, does that stay super strong? With the resources you save from not having to bolster, you almost have enough resources to buy the halftrack too. That'll probably end up being too strong. So maybe you limit the vickers to 1, but how? I'm not sure that it's possible that one vickers take up two weapon slots, so you can try working around that - instead of limiting brens to 1, you just limit infantry sections (and sappers) to 1 weapon slot. Well now you have a halftrack that can do the equivalent of giving penals/riflemen/cons two mg42s... What do you do then? I genuinely don't know. And at this point, the suggestion doesn't seem as simple as we would have thought.
And that's not even the end of it. With bolster removed, do sappers start as 5 men too? Maybe they do...except then now maybe sappers become meta. 210 manpower for a squad that has a snare and can run up against grens and win, available fairly early into the game. Do you increase their manpower cost? 230? 250? When we get as high as that, we start to come up against the OKW issue with extra repair squads becoming more and more impractical. Is this acceptable, and if it isn't, is there any work around?
.
So obviously the “solution” I pitched was an unrefined and not complete version of it.
You make many valid arguments as to why it’s not a “no-brainer” or a “I can’t believe I’m the only one who thought of this” sort of idea, but it’s not meant to be the perfect end-all, be-all solution anyways. Really it’s meant to spark discussion on possible solutions to the problem at hand. It’s a starting point.
So let’s start:
1: I don’t think 28mp is too much to pay per man to reinforce, but a slight reduction to cost down to 27mp would surely not be too much either if it found to be the case.
2: I don’t think making Infantry Sections like Grenadiers is a bad thing at all. The supporting arms play in the game would make the OST vs UKF matchup interesting even if their core infantry are similar. The proposed IS with stock 5 man size, reduced Lee-Enfield performance and a BREN gun that is more like an LMG42 would be similar to current 4 man Grens with an LMG, but slightly better, but with less utility since they don’t have a snare.
3: Royal Engineers being buffed to have stock 5 men wouldn’t be too much of a problem, in my opinion, since UKF has no current stock CQB unit or alternative to building IS as your mainline infantry, so saying that they too get a free buff is probably a good thing, or at least not too big of a problem. A slight cost increase here of maybe 10-20 manpower per squad wouldn’t break the bank either since they are currently so cheap and would help offset the saved tech cost since you no longer have to pay to unlock bolster.
4: Speaking of tech costs, the weapon racks might need adjustment to account for the saved bolster fuel, but manpower can be accounted for in the more expensive Royal Engineer squads. Saving a little manpower is something the brits rather need anyway to keep them competitive and since the problem is brits underperforming then a “second order of effect” buff to the faction such as this can be seen as a good thing.
5: the Vickers LMG could be balanced to be a very different weapon or perhaps just stay as it is as a way to still get old style double LMG Tommies by going for double Vickers Ks instead of a single BREN. Being locked to a doctrine might be enough to prevent it being used all the time since Brits have other very good doctrines to pick from as well. This is, however, something I had not thought about originally and it’s good that you mention it.
I understand that it must get annoying with people seemingly not grasping the complexities of second and third order of effects that can happen when you make any one change, but we still have to start somewhere with our ideas.
I’m sorry if my first comment came off as yet another complaint about the way the balance team is handling things, but rest assured that it was intended as constructive commentary and not meant as uninformed criticism. By and large the balance team has done a very good job that is often unappreciated, so also consider this as a thank you, as well as an apology. |
|
In my opinion, removing bolster completely is the way to go and can be done more simply than many are implying.
1. Make Infantry Sections a 5 man squad from the start.
2. Reduce the DPS of Infantry Section Rifles by 20%. Now a 5 man squad has the firepower of an old 4 man squad, but the durability of a 5 man squad. This nerfs the late game power of bolstered infantry sections but boosts early game durability slightly.
Additionally, if double BREN squads become too powerful with the above changes, then do step 3 and 4.
3. Limit BREN guns to 1 per squad.
4. Boost BREN gun stats to be more similar to LMG42, and boost cost up to 60 or 70 munitions |
|
I’d like to see more variation between uniforms of factions based on the environment and type of unit.
3 types of uniform variations per faction; tropical, temperate and cold weather.
Tropical: North Africa, Sicily and Pacific theater.
Temperate: European mainland.
Cold weather: desert night time and winter maps.
As for unit type, the current Wehrmacht faction does this extremely well. Mortar crews look significantly different from MG crews and Grenadiers and Pioneers.
Bad example is OKW where every crew member looks like a Volksgrenadier. This is especially troubling when recrewed team weapons have identical models on them, but their stats are very different. For example a Rear Echelon squad can beat an MG34 crew if they flank them, but would lose to the identical looking crew if it’s been recrewed by Volks. Same problem goes for current design of UKF where everyone is a Tommy model. USF is better but not as good as it was in CoH 1 or as good as current Wehrmacht. |
I disagree, it would add a lot of flavour to medium tank engagements as well. In the case of mediums like P4 Ausf.J or Sherman EZ8s now winning against cheaper tanks purely because of the armor advantage, with side armor they would actually have to be microed well or they could easily go down to these cheaper tanks. Even for light tanks it would make engagements more dynamic, as for example 2x 222s would stand a much better chance vs a Stuart, and AT Rifles wouldn't be as leave in cover and forget.
ATGs could probably get a lot less penetration so they'd have a good chance to bounce off even most medium tanks' front armor, only working well when positioned on the flanks. ATGs in CoH2 are arguably a bit too powerful (making stalling strats or comebacks too viable) as almost all of them are guaranteed to penetrate mediums frontally.
Micro would become absolutely vital, and it will allow cheap tanks to become very cost effective when used well. It could also help balance tank destroyers better against mediums, as for example a vehicle like the Jackson could get lower penetration so it'd have to use its superior mobility to get side shots, rather than easily shutting down both medium and heavy tanks frontally from 60 range because of high penetration. Heavy tanks wouldn't have to be gated behind artificial delays (such as high CPs) as they would be a lot more vulnerable to an overwhelming number of flanking mediums taking side shots. All this would make medium tank play a lot more viable.
I've played a lot of Wargame (and some Steel Division) and having side armor on all vehicles really helped making tank combat very diverse, dynamic and exciting. It made all strategies (going for expensive main battle tanks, or going for a lot of medium main battle tanks, or going for a healthy mix, or even going for a swarm of cheap outdated tanks) viable as long as they were microed well.
I’m a huge fan of side armor and armor angle becoming a feature of CoH3.
It poses a huge opportunity for added realism in a way that is still easily understandable to they player at a glance. It would also make for interesting historical tactics more viable and give distinct advantages to some units.
For example, Panthers have very strong frontal armor, but weak sides and rear. Tigers have strong frontal armor and good side armor, so positioning one at a 45 degree angle to incoming fire gives it an angled advantage that only works with tanks that have good side armor (real historical tactic taught to Tiger crews while Panther crews were told to never do this due to having weak side armor.)
Sherman tanks also had surprisingly good frontal armor even compared to a Tiger (3.6 vs 4.1 effective frontal armor value when you factor in slope), but they had flat sides that were quite thin by comparison.
Panzer IVs has decent front armor but weak sides and rear and, to compensate against AT rifles used by the Soviets, they added side skirts. This could translate to Panzer IVs having bonus side armor only when equipped with side skirts, because it’s frankly silly that side skirts add frontal armor, as it does in CoH2, when it is clearly only on the side of the tank. (An example of how current visual indicators in the game don’t match with bonuses and game mechanics).
Side armor also gives players a tactical choice when engaging, examples are Panther vs Sherman and Sherman vs Panzer IV.
The Sherman wants to flank the Panther to get at his side armor but to do so would expose his own side armor and so does the Panther. Meanwhile the Panzer IV with his skirts wants to flank the Sherman to get at his side armor and has stronger side armor himself so it’s a less risky maneuver for him. In this matchup the Sherman wants to keep it as a frontal engagement where his superior front armor outmatches the Panzer IV, but not the Panther.
Really it just adds a whole new level of tactical complexity that is easy to understand, but hard to master. |
|
I for one, very much appreciate all of our communities casters. I watch far more games than I play and that’s only possible due to the efforts of AE and others like him.
You are a gentleman and a scholar. Thank you.
And thanks too to blvckdream for starting this thread. |
United States
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
