Maybe more planes during a match, but not more over the game. Remember that CoH1 only 1 doctrine had planes, once you knew he took that, you could build against it, thus you had the impression of shooting down more planes.
It was more during a game against airborne I was thinking about. It felt like the AA shot down a bigger % of the planes. But maybe its just a flawed memory. Also a huge sidenote.
On topic, since the planes now loiter alot over the battlefield, actually already make them alot more vounerable to AA. Increasing any AA efficiency will most likely shut down air-based abilities entirely. |
Imo, generally speaking, onfield AA units should have a very strong capacity to negate aircraft. A) Because I believe units>Commanders, is a better balance principle. Since Commanders are situational, whereas native units are the games baseline. B) AA unit cost is very high imo, on both Ostwind and M5 Quad, for only AI capacity. I want to see that equity fully returned vs situational AA. B) Because it also requires positioning of the landbased AA unit in order to counter the aircraft, and I believe that should be rewarded in spades. Its easy to point and click, fire and forget an Aircraft ability, but having your AA covering that, should have a very high success rate of countering it.
Know what I mean? I would like to see AA action/commitment trump indiscriminate Aircraft use. It should be that if you havent checked their is no AA overwatching your target zone for the Aircraft, you fucking fail when your planes arrive and find an AA barrel pointed right at them. I try not to refer to IRL, but there, airstrikes are absolutely out of the question until it is ensures there is nothing in the target zone that can shoot back. No recon to ensure there is no AA? No fking way you are getting air support.
Strongly agree to this! Just hope relic gives this a thought. I kind of remember shooting down more planes in CoH1 with AA. Not entirely sure though. |
|
Also, as far as I know, there is only front and rear armor, not even side. So landing a hit on "top" doesnt really matter because there is no top. Same goes for mines, there is no bottom armor. |
But if you have an arranged team, wouldn't they automatically get a higher ELO because they are winning with their teamwork?
This |
|
As my sig says more or less only play 2v2s. Searchtimes for me are really good. Never really counted though, but dont think I have been waiting more than 2 minutes for a long time. Sweden, Europe. Weekends I play varied hours, weekdays I play 18.00-21.00 (GMT+1) |
|
The lobby in CoH1 wasnt all that great even for arranged teams in my opinion. Getting kicked for no reason. Tons of US teams wanting to play one map, tons of Wehr on another. Etc etc. Also, since there is no visible ladder-rank or ELO, decent matchups in CoH2 would be harder to get. Not to mention the split in playerbase deluting the automatchsystem. |
IMO the changes should be made on the german side instead. Their building and teching cost is ridiculously cheap for the number of units it opens up.
I disagree. I do however agree on the part that they should not be similar. But the german tech makes very good sense as is. The fact that you tech up at a cost seems to be forgotten by many, or not accounted for. It takes a long time and also costs. The buildings themselves are fast yes. This somewhat leaves the ostheer the ability to tech up and wait a while before building until its more or less needed, building is so fast anyways. The teching doesnt lock up a pioneer squad either, meaning sov will have a slight disadvantage on cap/mines/repairs etc.
Also the soviet buildings make alot of sense considering what they bring. Its just to expensive to go through both t1 and t2 and then further to t3 or 4. If there was a way to slightlu weigh up what you loose from not building a tier with upgrades (at a decent cost) I think a greater variety of sov builds would be viable. |
|
I agree that arranged teams should be grouped together as far as possible. But as Pontes pointed out it might also add alot of time and complexity.
If two arranged teams have a huge diffrence in ELO, should the matchmaking system still put theese two teams together, or prioritize a closer matched team that is not arranged? |
But I think the most fundamental problem, is the unit division between Sovs parallel t2 and 3. I dont agree with T1 being a problem, nor T0 (exceot possibly regarsing the Osttruppen anomaly, which is an independant issue and not related to universal balance). To be even more specific, its not even the unit division between the parallel tiers, its the unit ability spectrum. Both tier options fall just a little short of offering enough versatility to respond to or initiate AI and AT respectively.
I think a solution to this, taking a page from Blovskis book, might be implementing 1-2 fuel based upgrades that are unique to either t2 or 3, that allow for the units from those buildings to upgrade their versatility for better AI or AT, respectively.
I do not totally agree on t1 not being a problem. It either provide extremely expensive early game units (and with this long buildtime) or a very cheap, but then very flimsy unit. I would argue making penals cheaper (and perhaps making stachels as upgrades to compensate).
But I do agree with Nullist on the upgrades. Fuelbased upgrades to t2 and t3 sounds like a good idea. Still, it chould be quite the balance issue if it scales to well with other tiers and or doctrinal call-ins. |
|
+1 |
Sweden
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
