Profile of Joshua9

Thanks Eupolemos: Editing post to make it less convoluted with errors

I like the change for all of the things extra manpower opens up in the early game. I like being able to build a penal squad early without ceding all map control.

The problem though,seems to be that while it opens up other options, the mp boost supports faster, more agressive infantry spam even more than it supports the alternatives. Maybe conscripts and grens should be 250 manpower. They could also raise the manpower on the molotov upgrade by 50 or 100(if this balance change actually favors russia too much, though snf streams are suggesting that isn't too much of a problem.)

Otherwise revert the change i guess, and go for the faster tier buildings of t1 and t2 and maybe a cheaper penal squad at 300 to 320 manpower.

I like the idea

what's the big deal already( unless the issue is what you got with your collectors edition, which does seem disappointing to me).

As to DLC commanders, from my perspective, whether I get a new commander or I end up playing against one, every time relic adds them, they add content to the game for me to enjoy, even if its simply in the new challenges I have to run up against.

There is almost certainly going to be price reductions for these older commanders down the line, when there are new shinier options for the people who are most eager for new material to purchase. I'm sure relic/sega will want to maximize their returns on these, so that once the first round of buyers have had these for 6 months or so at a premium, others will be given access at a more modest price.

It could be a year before I even really start using the new commanders at the rate I"m going, but I did just buy 20 dollars worth, mostly to support the company in the mean-time. Hell, if this is the only model that gets companies to invest in the future of RTS games these days, then I'm willing to put some money towards generating confidence in the product.

And Pay-to-play arguments are balance arguments only....nobody can ever bring more than 3 commanders into any match. If things are balanced properly, whatever commanders you pick, you are restricted from using any others, so nobody in the context of a single game, will have more actual options than anybody else. You will have different access,not better access, unless something is broken, and if that is the case, it won't stay that way forever.

Regarding skins, I couldn't really care less. Because I couldn't care less, the price could be cheaper, but then I still couldn't care less. The price is set for people who want the skins enough to pay for them. Coh1 didn't have alternative skins and there wasn't a whole lot of bitching about that fact.

A small at upgrade might not hurt, but it could be pretty minor and do the job you want it to. Even an upgrade to the mg fire-rate would do it.

An m3 will beat a flame halftrack as it is now 1 on 1(although it takes a while), so it is an effective deterrent already if the fht is aggressive and unsupported, especially if you get an at-nade on it.

Disclaimer: some of this is old news to people, and has been talked about in other threads. Hopefully not all of it though.

I’ll preface this post by saying that I’m still loving COH2, and that I’m not yet of the opinion that the game lacks depth in comparison to its predecessor, but then I’m not playing in the top 200.

And even with that said, there are some things I miss that did add depth to the original game that have had to have been made up elsewhere in coh2(if at all). I also see people chime in on various threads about how coh2 is lacking in strategy compared to coh1, and I wonder what in more specific terms, people find is absent, and what simple solutions(entire overhaul isn’t a very valuable suggestion) you might offer towards remedying that.


Things I Miss:


American building flexibility versus Russian fixed 2-building rigidity. A thread was made on this topic with suggested changes to Russian costs that I think was worth looking at.


The Base-rush! Does this ever happen? Neither faction gets a garrisonable hq in their territory, so I appreciate why mg nests are everywhere and why pushing that far in with vehicles is a deadly game given engine crits, but is there a way to bring this back into the game without breaking it? I never see infantry pushes on bases, and it takes a whole element out of the game that was intense and often all-in by the aggressor. In coh2 I have been base rushed all of one time in all of my auto-matches, and it didn’t go well for my opponent.


The Forced Commander Choice: I lament that forcing a doctrine choice with a base rush or a fast vehicle may be dead, given the vast number of commanders, and the fact that other than say, vehicle smoke(which is entirely at the discretion of the user) there aren’t any “oh shit” choices for ostheer, while for Russia, the choice mostly comes down to one of many options that contain either Guards or Shocks, telling the opponent very little. I am starting to get more familiar with the commanders and what to expect once somebody has committed to a doctrine(when it is obvious anyway) and I do appreciate that some doctrine choices of your opponent are distinctive enough that they will determine how you will play against them, but I don’t know that there is that element of picking doctrine B to counter doctrine A that VCOH had, which made picking a late doctrine its own reward, even if you didn’t get the earlier benefits.


Tech options: There are no vet upgrades(this is a good thing), no bar upgrades, 76 mm upgrades, etc. Russia has all of 2 fuel upgrades and Ostheer has 0. I was still hoping for some global fuel upgrades to expand the overall strategic options that each faction has. I’ve heard some cool suggestions, including those for blizzard protection, faster vetting after upgrade, a CP acceleration upgrade for ostheer(that one sounded really cool)…etc.