Profile of Bulgakov

You made this thread and distinctly said it's about gameplay and not balance. It's entirely up to you to define both terms. SHould I honestly ask everyone except you what those two mean in relation to eachother?

You're spending an awful lot of time talking about how people should know the answer, rather than providing the answer. This all sounds like ultimately you don't even know the distinctions between the two in the first place. If that's the case, you should just say it.

I know why now: you expect people to know the answer to a question you know nothing about.
Let's try it simply now: do you know the difference between the two terms?
If yes why aren't you saying it? Are you not then purposing ducking the question?
If not, then why aren't you just saying that either? Perhaps now you understand why I might think you're avoiding it throughout the thread.

Soooo, is that supposed to mean that you're just too proud to admit it just meant fighting in general? Sheesh that wasn't so hard on your ego, wasn't it? Gameplay meaning mechanics and power level meaning balance, is that what you wanted to mean?

And like I have stated, FRP comes along with many things, and I think people are just looking at FRP as if it's the only reason why unfair advantage exists.
I can also make the exact same argument on removing suppression altogether because since COH2 is all about engagements, lulls, manoeuvres and retreats and that suppression negatively influences it. This can also be use to support keeping blizzards in winter maps.
But then again Relic just had everyone gain access to HMGs instead, so maybe as precedent giving FRP to everyone might be the better idea? Not that I agreed with MG34 being non-doctrinal.


Sigh don't be too confident on that snippet. Relic has taken up miragefla and other unofficial (are they really?) mods' ideas into live game in the past. I suspect much of the opposition to the mod ideas come from the perception of the group having undue influence on Relic and their decisions on making patches.

There wouldn't be any arguments like these at all if that weren't the case, because we'd know its just going to stay as a mod. But of course we all know what happened before: that mod became live game.

Ughhhhh...



Nee, it's about gameplay more than balance. p makes a lot of sense. FRP really spoils a couple of great CoH2 features. Instead of insta-arguing whatever point is made and being aggressive nd offensive, why not actually think about the suggestions.


BALANCE: making sure power is evenly distributed across all factions, taking into account the times that units appear, how much they cost, etc.
EG a Raketen that kills inf models and fires 1 round a second is unbalanced. It would bleed too much manpower at range and be difficult to kill. It would provide an unfair advantage for OKW vs other armies.

GAMEPLAY: Options available to players for strategic and tactical decisions. Game mechanics, ie suppression, retreat, AoE, garrisons, firing arcs, flanking, etc.
EG Raketen can penetrate armour but small arms can't (compare to original Command and Conquer where any unit can kill any unit)

I hope that's clear now. You should listen to pigsoup. He's more experienced and better versed in the game. I mean, if you a 1000 forum posts but don't know the difference between gameplay and balance, you should stop talking and start listening.

but you should be happy with my suggestion or with ferwiner, our suggestions will add a limitation for FRP, with this limitations you will see:

Suppression is more effective + very less blobbing + ostheer and soviets can use a temporary FRP for better Balance.

my wish is removing Brace but i am sure British players dont like this idea so we need another way: adding a cost (for example 50 munition) for Brace and then i think there is no problem with this.

You said "Remove them all completely ?!! why ? because you dont like FRP ? nice reason"

Then you said "but i am sure British players dont like this so we need another way"

So If Brits don't like it - that's a good enough reason but if Anyone else "doesn't like it" it isn't? Shame. Shame. Shame.

In any case I gave you the reasons based on gameplay quality. You have not explained why those arguments are invalid.

"but you should be happy with my suggestion" lol. Wow. Basically "You must like my ideas but I will ridicule yours!!1!"

No, I am not happy with your suggestion. Or with your concept of how to discuss ideas. Flat denial and demanding everyone agree with you automatically does not a discussion make.

Remove them all completely. Problems solved.

But dude... Double leig near FRP protected by Schwer... Isn't it the same?

it's similar sure. But not like ISG can brace during barrages and Allies have tons of indirect fire options.

USF not so much, they're mainly doctrinal.


Compare though to stuka vs mortar pit. 100 fuel investment only to see brace spammed.



Katyusha vs ISG > Stuka vs mortar pit.


The only reliable counter is the howitzer, which is doctrinal and comes at 8CP. Until then, good luck get hit by a double mortar that can just brace if you even manage to push of IS and get near it.

But sure, I see the similarity. Camping playstyles should not be so viable.

First off, this is not a rant thread, I would really like to hear a discussion on this unit from high level players (my OKW rank is fairly low, so feel free to take that into consideration when telling me why I'm wrong!).

At the moment, it seems Volks are just in control of this game, either when I use them or when they are against me. They are cheap and spammable, as is their flame nade, which can shift pretty much any engagement in their favour - it basically denies cover and garrison use to the other team. Their StG upgrade is cheap and effective, and the on-the-field timing means that upgraded Volks often face unupgraded enemies, and can easily push more expensive units off the field in many situations (Rifles, Tommies, and sometimes even Penals, depending on the map). Their faust does not require either vet or side-teching, and so once a few Volks are on the field, OKW has fausts everywhere.

I do admit that Volks are not the best infantry in the game and there are other problems in other factions (USF also blob, emplacements, etc. etc.). However I am surprised nobody is talking about them. At my automatch level OKW win pretty easily by spamming Volks supported with some other units, and lose pretty easily with most other strategies. Playing against them, even if you wipe say 2 squads early, due to the OKW resource situation they will just be rebuilt and come right back, supported by even more SPios, PFusils, or Jagers. That's why I think Volks may be the key to why OKW seems a bit OP in this patch, and I would like to hear some opinions on them! (Just to be clear, I'm talking mostly about 1v1 and I'm not asking how to counter a blob.)

TL,DR: when the OKW early game somehow has more and better infantry than other factions (even USF), and later can support them with their powerful support units, I feel that OKW has been left in a strange place due to the previous sequence of patches.

Possible changes I can think of:

• Cost increase to 280mp (straight nerf but IMO this is the correct price for Volks)
  
• Replace 2 x StG with 5 x mp40 (so that they don't get a no-brainer all-range upgrade)
  
• Give the flame nade a long fuse (this is what the balance team did in their mod)
  
• Add a tech or vet cost for their abilities (c.f. cons / rifles)
  

Every allied faction has superior infantry available. Penals, Riflemen, IS

Riflemen and IS can be upgraded with BARs and Bren. Double Bren > Volks + STGs


Allies have the early game advantage, this is undeniable. Why do you want to take away the balancing concept of Axis having a late-game advantage. They only beat Penals, not BAR rifles and Bren IS.