Profile of Joshua9

Oh sorry,

didn't mean that the t-70 would need a cost decrease, but that if the t-70 took a nerf t-34 would definitely need some added improvement, either to strength or cost. Still, that might revert to the standard of building the t-34 over the t-70 in most scenarios, so that should probably be done delicately.

I'm not a great player, so my 2 cents are wooden at this point:

One thing I would like changed is sniper versus garrisoned units, and since russian snipers are already so awesome, maybe just change the ratio for the ostheer sniper, who has to deal with 6 people in a building. I'd like to keep the russian sniper to the 40% anti building accuracy, but boost the ostheer to 60%, slightly more hits than misses. Right now, a unit can just camp in there, while the sniper stays in one place way too long.

Not sure why the speed decrease of the ostheer mortar, given that the things it counters, mass conscript spam, hit-the-dirt, 6-man maxims, etc. are community complaints.

No mention of hit the dirt or straff. Both are being dealt with already though, so I guess no need, though with hit-the-dirt, I think they should just lower its overall effectiveness and allow it to stack with cover as it does anyway so that in green cover the ability is as powerful as intended, and outside of it, less so.

I'm not opposed in principle to the single shrek buy, because that will definitely allow for more munitions flexibility for ostheer without really letting it get out of hand(they usually seem strapped for munis in the early and mid game). Just wonder how much more effective that will make pgrens, and if its a balance concern to protect shreks from dropping and to spread out the at power while not compromising as much anti infantry strength. I actually think they could stand to get a slight boost given their cost, so maybe not a bad idea.

I must not be playing at a high enough level. I saw golradier's post, and some high level players definitely think the t-34 needs some help, but I find it a pretty good buy, if a slightly too expensive. A cost reduction or strength boost is definitely in order if the t-70 gets nerfed though. That thing helps to contain ostheer, drain a lot of manpower and make the later tank presence less menacing, allowing t-34's and t-34 85s, or at guns, or lots of guards to take care of them, in lieu of tier 4.

Maybe make guards rifles less likely to drop if you also tone down button. I think it should slightly reduce a tank's speed while immediately fucking up visibility, so that a tank might pay for being in a shooting match when the other guy is supported by guards, but so that 3 guards can't catch a p4 out easily and put it down without taking any damage in the process. You would still be able to get the same effect if you just added one conscript with an at grenade, but at least you'd need combined forces.

Soviet mines are brutal, just not sure if they are a problem, in-spite of the mayhem. Ostheer mine patches suck though. Vehicles shouldn't trigger them(this may make no practical sense, I don't know how mines work, but they can be pressure specific can't they?). What a waste of 80 munitions for somewhat lackluster mines that can be swept without incident by a t-70. The fields could also stand to be 10 to 20 munitions cheaper. conversely, maybe allow ostheer the ability to place single anti-infantry specific mines for 25-munis.

I haven't been having too much difficulty with SU-85s, but I will say their extended sight range could do with a slight decrease. For that matter I found the elephant with sight scopes and extended range hilarious(though I've only used that once).

Somebody mentioned stugs...they do kind of blow, but they are cheaper than the pIV so are a good quick answer to follow up the typical t-70 window. Later, they aren't bad if you have to field a couple of them against t34's, or as added damage support for your pIV's for when you go in for the flank against SU-85's. If nothing else they shoot fast, so have to be killed before the PIV's are dealt with. Given their rate of fire, more range might be a problem. Maybe a very slight fuel decrease instead?

Hey guys,

had the exact same problem. This is what I did. Figured I needed a full reinstall, but bungled that. I did however dump all of the coh2 information in my games folder, company of heroes 2. After doing that, steam just updated the game and all was good again.


See if that works.

can somebody explain why button actually damages the game, or quality of play? I'm not following why, sans balance issues that can be fixed if they exist, the inclusion of this ability is actually harmful to the game. What it does is give you reason to prioritize different targets during combat, depending on the biggest threat at the moment, which may just be the squad that can or is buttoning.

If its a matter of taste, you just plain don't like it, that's not an overly compelling argument in my opinion. From my perspective at the moment, its an additional dynamic that has to be taken into consideration. What are the true cons?

Same for scout car play. If the issue isn't balance, then what is it? I'd rather face different strategies when I'm playing ostheer then always see the same couple things, and while scout car spam is tough to deal with, I like that there is variety to the game. Maybe one of the Pros can do a better job than i've seen in the past, explaining how more ways to play hurts the game, just because some of those ways to play don't reflect "good play," whatever that is.

Would be better if they could make it so that you received vet for getting shot rather than taking damage, then have the total value of vet received dialed waaaay down. This would advantage a player who kept his unit in the fight longer, rather than just getting vet for taking a shot that kills 3 out of 4 men in a squad and then retreating it.

Maybe every unit that dies should be a small loss in xp, against the accruing total. It would make more sense, given that a squad member who dies in a certain fight doesn't really carry over a whole lot of knowledge in the experience.