I think the concrete bunker could be reworked to be similar to brit trenches, but only axis can enter it, there is no invincible mg crew inside and it costs like 100MP with a long building time of 40s or sth. This way it serves as garrison only and its high HP or accessibility are not as much of a problem due to flamethrowers, snipers and mortars being able to force the garrisoned troops to leave. It's just a tough building that only axis can enter, but it takes some MP and long time to build.
Tbh. I hate current implementation of bunkers with single immortal MG gunner that can only be killed if the whole bunker is leveled. |
each line is 5 range ........
Each yellow line is actually 10 range afaik. |
I mean, Russian, English and German is localized. So if you'd find the actual audio files of the voicelines you should be able to rename them and swap them
If so, does anyone know where to find them? |
Afaik no
rip dreams |
I am pretty sure this type of question might have been asked in the past...
Do you know if it's possible to have your units speak in different languages based on which faction you're playing? If so, can someone give me a hint how to mod my files so that only brits speak english etc.? |
Teamgame perspective
Why do we have such high moving accuracy values on semi-auto rifles? It dumbs down the gameplay with every PF squad running and gunning. Contrary to SMGs, G43s maintain good moving DPS even at mid to long ranges. Add to that low MP reinforce cost and 6 models per squad. This promotes mobile blobs, especially with quick 40MU recon/smoke screen that can save such player from well positioned MG.
Grand Offensive OKW commander is currently a boring meta in 2v2 with PF blobs and Tiger every game. Let me know if I'm missing something... |
2v2 player here as well, I have been through similar thought process as you, using my sniper to bleed MP and force enemy MG to leave. A lot of 2v2 maps are narrow, which makes MG effective at holding ground. Most common ways to force MG off as SOV is via a sniper, mortar, zis gun and vehicles. I will now explain how and when to use which:
- mortar is only good when the enemy has 1xMG, if the enemy has more than 1 MG on his side, you can't smoke or barrage them both quickly enough. SOV mortar is generally a good investment vs OST due to the flare which gives you vision and allows to make the right plays. Mortar also works well vs MG in garrison.
- zis gun can barrage with the HE shells landing rapidly around the target and this will most likely force the mg to retreat, it's recommended that you first send sweeper-CE to draw MG fire, start the barrage and lead an assault if you are trying to recover lost territory. Just don't start the combat with zis barrage or the enemy might react too early and reposition too quickly. First get some tax on enemy micro, then hit him with indirect fire.
- as a gimmick you can also try attacking enemy MG with a Maxim. Maxim continues to fire long bursts even if pinned, it also has longer firing range than infantry. Once axis MG is suppressed or pinned, it hardly does its work. I find it hillarious, only use this if both your and enemy MG are in equal cover.
- M3 with flamer is especially useful if the map is open enough to allow to attack where the enemy is not present. If you can redirect enemy infantry to react and move to a different location where you attacked, some axis players leave MG to protect the other position. Lone MG is very vulnerable to M3 attacks. If you catch the enemy MG in a building you have a good chance to wipe it on retreat and potentially steal it.
- sniper WM has a lot of methods to counter the sniper play: sprinting stormtroopers while in camo (to kill sniper), 222 suicidal push, upgrading regular troops and MG with doctrinal camo, using smoke bombs recon (cheap) + OST sniper for countersnipe. In 2v2 before you decide to go sniper I highly recommend to check the doctrines of the opponents. If OST player has recon plane / smoke bombs, camo or stromtroopers it will be significantly easier for him to kill your sniper than for you to kill his. Additionally, by going sniper first you risk facing Assgren OST player and you risk being pushed off the field from the start. It is more difficult to re-take the territory than to hold it, this is why I don't recommend building sniper as the 1st unit in 2v2 (or other slow start), even though I like playing sniper a lot. If you really want to play sniper, make sure your doctrine has recon plane, using it you can reveal or check for enemy sniper and he has to either retreat or risk being shot (if he doesn't know the position of your sniper). SOV recon planes are CP4 which means that you can only be safe using sniper from CP4 onwards. In the early game you can use Radio intercept, however knowledge of enemy vehicle/sniper presence doesn't necessarily help you deal with it later. Additionally there is no SOV doctrine to have both radio intercept and recon plane so while you are more or less informed with radio in the early game, you are vulnerable once the enemy builds his sniper, opposite is true for the recon plane ability.
My tip of the day for you is to use the soviet advantage over WM of not having to build any building at the beginning of the match. In 2v2 just take your CE and build cons and 90% of the time grab your fuel point (or adequate) and get cons behind green cover, once you're there. You will be there before WM (unless he uses call in inf). You will be fighting for at least 10 minutes for that point over and over. It's good to have it while the fight continues. Enemy can't just stand in the open of the capping point in the middle of a firefight, because his models will die quickly without cover. You can connect this point using your next squads being built, while they are on their way to the frontline. Recently I've been playing with 3xCons and 2xCE (flamer + sweeper later). CE with a flamer is an excellent choice when you use conscripts because of the merge ability allowing CE to stay on the frontline and deny the enemy cover/buildings for longer.
Later you can decide which tier you think you should go. You can build a sniper and have AA HT to protect it from 222 and also to suppress any charging infantry. Cons with the new, cheaper AT nade cost and sprint are also a good choice to protect your sniper from enemy vehicles. You will most likely play your inf like shit as they will be outnumbered because you sunk a huge chunk of MP into T1 and a sniper so cons will be just as useful as penals for being punching bags. You just want to drag engagement for your sniper to bleed the enemy. In the past WM had less MP available to it than it has now due to the lowered T2 cost. In the past you could potentially bleed OST enough for it not to have resources to buy early 222 or flame HT with good infantry roster. With the lowered OST T2 cost performing early bleed with a sniper to this level of harm is no longer possible I think.
T2 is often very useful and I highly recommend having at least 1 zis gun, so I don't often find it worth to build T1 and a sniper. I usually just go T2 to T3 and get myself a T70 or sth. A well played vehicle can give you similar benefits as a well played sniper but is less risky and doesn't sacrifice early map control. Use your vetos well, ban maps you don't enjoy and rails and metal for being narrow and crossing in the woods for being too small for 2v2. On both of these maps you can close entire side with just 1 MG with very limited attack options.
If you want to play sniper like there is nothing else in the world, you can play it as Brits vs OST or OST vs USF. Brits commando commander is pretty good with the occasional recon plane and camo infantry to ambush enemy sniper and air supremacy to bully OKW. Other commanders with command vehicle are also very good because it's CP2 ability that allows you to send out a recon plane circling around the vehicle (50MU). You can use it to check for or reveal the enemy sniper. Also the AEC is a great counter to 222 that could harm your sniper as Tommies don't have snares. You also have no additional tech cost for the sniper. It's in the main tech route.
TL;DR play on good maps, reach your fuel first, don't let go. |
I'm afraid snipers are incredibly likely to stay as they are (with the exception of minor changes), even if a very large part of the community (myself included) thinks they are horribly designed units.
Adjusting the way they work is a huge change, and would change a large part of the game, and would lean towards being a band-aid fix that's likely to have non-foreseeable far reaching consequences. Not something that is desirable at this point in the game's life cycle. Changing snipers is something that would have to be done from the ground up with the rest of the game being designed around it with the sniper mechanics in mind, in essence something that should have been done for CoH2 and now could only be done for a new game.
That being said, if I could change them, I would make them high utility force multiplier units (expanding on Pathfinders and JLI concepts) that have a wide range of supporting abilities (mark target, flares, sight range, etc.) and either have crit snipers or a snipe for munitions ability.
I believe people blame snipers while it's mostly faction design that is responsible for unfun experience. Sniper lifecycle is related to enemy LV, camo, sniper, recon, reinforcements. Some factions have doctrines that can help them camo their MGs or ATGs or infantry or they have early mobile LVs or their top doctrines are rich with recon planes or radio intercept etc. Some factions have snipers in their main tech and some don't have snipers available to them at all. With snipers being a strong bleed tool, they are high risk, high reward type of unit that I enjoy watching in top level games and I wouldn't want them to be changed too much, but I agree that they are not equally fun to play as or against different factions.
If some players don't enjoy playing vs MGs, we are not removing MGs from the game or changing their core role, instead we allow to counter heavy MG play with indirect fire, vehicles, flanking, green cover, snipers etc. If a player decides not to counter MG play, it's his fault. In case of snipers the counters are not available to everyone in equal measure which can create frustration. Current game design is asymmetrical and as such, not everyone has access to the same tools. This also leads to 60 range TD frustration among some wehrmacht players, especially in teamgames when the critical TD mass can be reached.
If your opponent dislikes using sniper because he is bad with it, loses it often or else, it might be a good idea to build your own sniper and have some snare nearby or mines in good spots. Forcing your enemy to play on your conditions is part of a strategy game, but it is not fair when the opponent can't counter it. OKW has doctrinal access to JLI who can ambush a sniper and with their 50% accy ambush bonus and 75% crit they kill snipers very reliably. They are doctrinal unit however and I think doctrines should supplement you and not give you the tools that you should have stock. Having stock JLI is out of question though as that would be OP. I'd give every faction a sniper, bump the cost up to 400 and give more doctrines recon pass/planes. They are extremely useful when trying to kill enemy sniper which would increase the risk of using such a potent unit and give more room to counterplay. Meanwhile recon planes become less efficient in lategame when there is more AA on the battlefield so it wouldn't powercreep recon into lategame.
Some maps in 2v2 like alliance of defiance are pretty narrow and allow for easy sniper play for example as OST vs USF. I have seen top games with single OST sniper reaching 87 kills before being accidentally killed by Scott barrage. Such narrow maps make it difficult to flank or gain other territory as you usually fight around 1 area. In 1v1 you can harass different points more efficiently than in teamgames which makes snipers even stronger bleed tool in 2v2+ but easier to countersnipe, with the countersnipe not being equally available to everyone. |
The Panther can hold back the IS-2 decently, but it doesn't counter it as well as Allied TDs counter a Tiger because of lower penetration, lower range, lower ROF and higher cost. Once the IS-2 gets 50 range at vet 2, the Panther struggles quite hard.
When it comes to AT however, the Tiger is a much more reliable matchup to the IS-2, because it has similar penetration, but significantly higher DPM, has higher armor and health to tank return fire, and isn't too far behind on mobility.
At a max range engagement, The Tiger has a significantly lower TTK versus the IS-2 (~47,25s) than the Panther (~59,85s) while also being much more durable. Speed isn't very relevant here as both are faster than the IS-2 (and flanking to get rear armor hits is nearly impossible anyway).
Thank you for clarification. While I agree that Tiger would be better because ROF difference offsets the marginal penetration delta, the initial 10 range advantage of Panther over IS2 makes it easier during the early part of the IS2 presence to damage it enough to discourage IS2 from advancing. While TTK is useful when you consider an engagement between units of the same range and mobility, I don't think that it is fair to compare Panther and Tiger based on TTK as the vehicles initially take time to vet and in this time Panther can engage IS2 without putting itself in the harm's way. Even after IS2 vets, the far accuracy of IS2 is significantly worse than that of Panther. But based on your message, I see how much better Tiger would scale than a Panther in this scenario.
I believe that picking the commander with HEAT rounds would have higher impact vs IS2 than building a Tiger, especially that JP4 that could be built to fight the enemy TD could also be made useful to fight IS2 with the HEAT round ability. Having the scope of AT covered, P4/Obers would have to do the bulk of the AI work. |
I'm not sure the Panther does counter the IS-2.
If you build a Puma to counter a T-70, the Puma's probably going to kill the T-70. It doesn't matter that the Puma's got barely any anti-infantry power because the smoking husk that used to be a T-70 has none.
A Panther can stand up to an IS-2 but it doesn't reliably kill it. You get the same standoff as you get with IS-2 and Tiger, except the Panther isn't obliterating models at the same time.
By contrast, the Tiger can hold off the IS-2 and keep pace with it in manpower bleed.
I don't think you fully grasped what I wanted to say. I don't think Tiger is that much better than Panther at fighting IS2 that what Sander said was true: "One other observation is that the OKW Tiger seemed to be a mandatory response to the IS-2 when facing Soviets, as there wasn't much else that could reliably counter it". On the other hand I do think that Tiger is significantly better tool than Panther due to its AI capabilities. I was just mentioning that AT wise it was not a mandatory response in my opinion and one could maintain the doctrine flexibility and not lock into Tiger due to enemy IS2 presence.
Imho, Heavy tanks are too good atm. With the ease of micro, the great firepower and the survivability of the unit in a game about unit preservation, the heavy tanks as they are are too rewarding. |