Profile of Nosliw

i bet siddolio will quote this reply and say "it is"

Oops

I agree, but if they would change the booby traps from Urban Defense doc like that, they would become completely overpriced and useless.

Once you know that your opponent chose this doc, just get 1 or 2 sweepers and keep them nearby your troops or use them for capping directly. It becomes completely harmless and your opponent just lost 100 ammo. Unlike demo traps, you cannot "accidentally" walk into a booby trap once it got spotted, and the positions you can plant them on are fixed.

Agreed. Yes they are good, but they're expensive, counterable, and behind an otherwise useless commander.

Didn't vCoh have a warning sound when you triggered a booby trap on a point?

It had both a sound and also an event, so you could press spacebar and dodge it.

In my opinion, this is what CoH1's USA and Wehrmacht factions did well:

First, the factions had important underlying similarities

• both had access to front line infantry who could be upgraded in various ways (veterancy, bars, MP40, LMG42, etc.)
  
• both had access to MG teams, mortars, snipers, AT guns, medium tanks, tank destroyers, anti-infantry tanks, light vehicles
  
• both had engineers who could plant mines, sand bags, tank traps,barbed wire, MG nests, medic stations
  
• both had access to various artillery options, both units and off map abilities
  
• both had call in units
  

Secondly, even though there were many similar qualities shared between the factions, there were also many differences which is what made the game fun and unique:

• Infantry were better at different ranges, and capped at different speeds
  
• MG teams had different DPS, range, arcs, abilities
  
• Veterancy was obtained in two different ways, and Wehrmacht's focused on defensive upgrades and USA's on offensive
  
• Although they had units with similar roles, the units were vastly different (ostwind vs croc, M10s being fast, cheap, weak, vs panthers who were slower, stronger, healthier, and cost exactly 2x more)
  
• The differences of the factions played well with the factions strengths and weaknesses - Wehrmacht's factions helped its already potent late game, and helped stay alive early game (zeal, for the fatherland, propoganda war, bunker reinforce, etc), while USA's abilities often helped it counter this (strong artillery, strong early game support units)
  

I also feel that CoH1's call in mechanics were better for the following reasons:

• the cost only manpower, thus allowing the units to be integrated into strategies, rather than defining them (i.e., by replacing the need to tech)
  
• CoH1's call in units had strengths but obvious weaknesses that made using them a trade off, more so than say spamming M4C shermans
  

Some of these differences are:

• StuH: strong anti infantry tank, but it's relatively slow, no turret, and dies quickly to AT guns. It's also expensive (500 mp), forcing players to often continually play defensively as they sacrifice MP on the StuH rather than teching or purchasing more infantry units.
  
• Stormtroopers: in many ways a replacement for the grenadier. However, it is more expensive to buy, feeds more veterancy when it drops models, and costs TWICE as much population (8 population), which combined with CoH1's population system is a big deal
  
• Late game call ins: were potent, but important were expensive, and would always COMPLIMENT any strategy. Often in CoH2 these late game tanks must be carefully saved for in advance, sacrificing teching and late game units.
  

I think what CoH1 did better is that the call in units (specifically tanks) were specialized units. The StuH and Hetzers had 1 role, and no turrets. Many of the previously broken CoH2 call ins are all purpose units, like M4C, T34/85, or EZ8 shermans. In CoH2, I have seen many games where Soviets depend on M4C to win the game because the unit is so strong - in CoH1 however, a StuH is merely a support unit. Sure, it can win some games outright, but these are games that have already been won. While CoH2s units often allow players to skip tech entirely (why build T4 when you can spam call in EZ8s (I know this was fixed, just making a point)), where as in CoH1 the logic is more like: I will get a StuH so I can skip T3 and Pumas and go for more vet or T4. I will get a Hetzer to skip marder tech to get more infantry upgrades or panthers. The call in units fill the roles of units already in the tech of the army, but in different ways, allowing for the player to focus on different tech. In CoH2, the call ins define the tech, and replace the need for it.

Infantry call ins are too very situational and supportive, and spamming them is a no-no. Rangers are often a panic unit - if the enemy gets a Puma you may have to get rangers if you can't access AT. However, rangers are so expensive to reinforce, and can get out microed, that they are very situational, and therefore often rare. Same points apply to Airborne and Stormtroopers - the squads fill gaps in army composition to buy time for more teching possibilites. Compares this to CoH2, where units like Guards are so potent against all unit types that making several of them in any game is often a no-brainer. This unit doesn't compliment the army composition as much as it defines it. There are no inherent draw backs to them like high reinforcement cost or the like, and getting many of them allows for more aggressive play. The unit.

I think heavy tanks costing only manpower is good too. You can fit them into any late game composition. Important though, these tanks are slower than their CoH2 counterparts, and less lethal. In CoH2, a King Tiger often wipes 6 man squads, but this is unheard of in CoH1. Simply toning down the speed and lethal capabilities of these tanks allows them to be fuel-free in my opinion.

What CoH1 did well also: doctrine systems - highly different, highly complimentary to the armies, unique, and require decision making since they're non-linear.