Thread: mines5 Jul 2013, 13:10 PM
For me this is the biggest mystery of CoH2, atm. Those minefields are practically useless as it takes ages to build. In an intense game there will never be time to place those minefields. Giving Ostheer "normal" mines would make much more sense and counter the M3 strategy quite well as well.. |
From my experience it all comes down to the middle vp. Whoever gets the upper hand there is in a really advantegous position. The sides are quite easy to harrass due to limited access from the middle and the narrow paths are perfect for MGs.
I would prefer it to be a bit more open in terms of terrain, to get more flanking paths. Right now it is too easy to lockdown a quite large portion of the map with just MGs. |
It happens when the call-in would set you over the pop cap, so over 100.
At least it happened to me twice, while it worked when I was staying below pop cap |
brilliant! |
I don't see the problem with most of your points. German Paks seem very weak, yeah, but the soviet one does not do any better, imo. The only real problem is the clown car.
For me, pure Grenspam worked quite well against that, tho. Get 4 or 5 or even 6 of them and never send one squad out alone. Only build MGs when you actually see that your opponent is having 3 or more conscripts. Did not lose with that so far, the thing is, I did not play anyone good, yet..
Everything else seems totally fine, atm. It is hard to deal with MGs and Mortars, but you can do some crazy flanks with PGs (recon run thingy ftw) |
Kay, good to know. |
Is it me or do you also have much more manpower available compared to fuel and to some extend ammo?
So far I feel like I am always limited by the fuel cost, not by manpower (which I tend to have 500 or so of) |
Statistically they are balanced out to have no advantage at close or long range. Other factors like abilities or squad plans likely skew this to some degree.
i.e. molotovs are close range weapons whereas rifle-grenades are long range.
That makes me sad. I was really hoping to see some depth in the "unit vs unit" design, especially early game. And the differences between the units strength depending on range was one of the best ways to achieve a dynamic early game.
While we are at it. Pios vs Engis? |
The UI has some major problems. Mainly, it is hard to gain the necessary information (ressources, points getting captured, difference between certain units and the fact that a lot of units have different minimap symbols). So, either I have to look at least twice to see if a sector is captured or not, to see if I have enough ressources or not and so on. Or it is so hard to keep track of all the things that are shown in the minimap. It is not necessary to have extra symbols for MGs, for example. CoH1 just showed if there are vehicles or infantry, which was very easy to keep track of.
Then the contrast of the minimap is generally very bad. It actually takes a bit of time to realize what is going on on the minimap. Again, the solid and plain version of CoH1 made it very easy to gain the necessary information in a blink of an eye.
Furthermore, the big unit picture as well as the unit description (or at least the box where the unit description is placed in) are too striking, while the important things are too small and unremarkable. Make the unit avatar smaller and the box as plain as it was in CoH. Keep it open for a small description that is not as striking as it is right now.
Last but not least, what I really miss is this small number that shows how effective unit x is against infatnry/vehicles/tanks/buildings. Not that those numbers were any accurate, but it at least showed you possible upgrades on those units (shreks or stuff). I am often not realizing that a unit picked up a shrek, because there was already another weapon icon above the unit. |
well written! Nice to have a guide up, now |