|
Yeah Pgrens USED TO BE epic game winners. I hated them every tme I played sovs in 2013. Now they're so weak they're not worth the build.
Increase in cost is no issue if they can play a specific role other than delivery boys for shreks to the soviets. |
Thanks for bringing this up, Daniel. I think most of us agree that there are a number of things that could be addressed as far as map balance goes.
Regarding 2v2:
Semoisky, Crossing, and Kharkov feel too small, maybe not in terms of total map size, but maneuverability between points of interest. Semoisky stands out as a map that frequently leads to stalemates if one side decides to go heavy support weapons. This eventually leads to the long range killing machines(starting with the ISU, which forces the ost to counter w/ elefant). I think the issues with these long range units could be alleviated to an extent with bigger maps that allow for more fluid late game armor movement, similar to what Steppes provides in 4v4 settings.
Moscow - The north side base exits are extremely congested and easily pressured. The concentration of buildings, espicially near the cutoff, make it extremely easy to get pinned if the opposing player can gain position here. The south side buildings seemed to be positioned with a defensive advantage. For example, the set of buildings directly to the north of the base are protected by a high fence that blocks LOS to the base from the buildings behind it.
Regarding 1v1:
Many of the issues I see here have been brought up plenty of times, specifically by porygon in the thread you mentioned. I'll just go over some of the really obvious ones and we maybe we can break down the specifics as the discussion opens up.
Langres - The north side cutoff is easier to cut off than the south side, and as pory pointed out, strongly favors soviet T1-T4 gameplay, to an extent that it is almost uncounterable in the hands of a good player.
Kholodny - East side is brutal. The cutoff is much easier to access and hold, and the cover on the north munition point favors the west side.
Kharkov - South side is great, your native fuel is positioned well, the cutoff is placed fairly and can be harassed, but gives the south side a reasonable chance of defending. I love south side kharkov. The north side just feels terrible to play on. A huge chunk of the cutoffs LOS is blocked by a giant block of foilage, and there is a durable building with many windows sitting right on top of it. This makes it extremely hard to defend with MGs, and germans players, who don't have easy access to flames early in the game, can get punished extremely hard in the first few minutes simply by a conscript hopping in the house.
+ 9001 |
|
I dunno,,, I don't like Soviets or Shermans but here the Tiger exposed its rear armour to a sherman... Fair kill imo. |
Look at the Soviet unit roster, not a single AT unit,normally PZ IV + Pak kills KV in no time, posting images from one-sided match does not prove anything.
The point was the speed it killed. Supporting units wouldn't have had time to kill it. And if the grens should have 2 paks nearby, then the KV should also have had 2 extra units nearby too. In which case it definitely escapes but the grens die anyway.
The punishment for capping with unsupported troops should be - you have to retreat or die - and then you lose field presence. Good punishment.
It shouldn't be - UNSUPPORTED!? THEN YOU DIE! - |
... oh ... you mean the Tiger ace....
Sure. Tone that down too. |
I think south rails and metal is bad. That house makes that fuel very easy to attack (LOS, cover, etc) and there is cover from the trench and tank wrecks.
The top fuel is an open field, the trench isn't so near the fuel and easier to defend with wire+MGs.
 the North hate the south. Anyone else find this? |
Maybe it is just random situation but so is the underlying example. It's not every map where KV8 can just drive straight chasing the retreating units. If KV8 have to move even inch on some other way, most likely retreating units can get away.
Actually German half-track is even deadlier in these retreating situations.
But these are really rare examples. Can you honestly say that this is so big of an issue that something needs to be changed? E.g. KV8 is doctrinal unit.
I agree about KV's low maneuverability and about German HT. I don't like that thing speeding around chasing down retreating squads either.
I think the benefit of flame vehicles should be to have a long-range durable flamer for clearing out buildings/cover or punishing blobbing. To also give it squad-wipe powers is giving it too much.
About the KV8 - Yes, it's slow but in the example we saw that it didn't need much time to destroy the squad. and doctrinal or not - if a unit is too squad-wipey, it should be toned down.
I'm not asking for super-low damage, I'm just saying that the ability to ignore cover with a splash damage weapon is already a great ability. I don't see why it needs such damage output too.
(Imagine a Nazi super-science laser tank which kills any unit in 2/3 seconds regardless how quickly they retreat - would you say it is a good unit?) |
Oha, German player needs to micro? Better nurf sovs!!! Dis unit must be OP if I can't run straight into it with ma terminatorz Pgren - Squad! Suddenly I have to use Combined Arms like da sovs, I wunt to roflstump evrything with mah well balanced Tanks!! Only sovs have to micro hard, otherwhise my 10$ 1337-keyboard would hurt mah fingaz!!
This is your post in thread "What the .... is up with the germans ?"
"But I don't get why I should destroy my fingers trying in keeping up with 1000 APM just to stay alive!"
If you don't like being forced to do 1000cpm, why do you feel other players should? |
Oha, German player needs to micro? Better nurf sovs!!! Dis unit must be OP if I can't run straight into it with ma terminatorz Pgren - Squad! Suddenly I have to use Combined Arms like da sovs, I wunt to roflstump evrything with mah well balanced Tanks!! Only sovs have to micro hard, otherwhise my 10$ 1337-keyboard would hurt mah fingaz!!
The point is not that a player has to micro. It's that one army requires considerably more micro than the other. I think since no-one is spamming mg42s while a lot of players are spamming Maxims, we can conclude that the Maxim has a considerable advantage over the MG42. If there was an OP issue with the MG42, I'd be calling for that to be nerfed too.
The power of MGs should be offset by low maneuverability, limited cone of fire, set-up time, etc. The maxim has a very limited cone of fire but a rapid set-up time. Effectively it can fire in any direction 360 degrees within the same time it takes for the MG42 to swivel from one side of its 160 degree cone to the other.
MG42:
benefits:
suppression
large cone
Downsides:
low damage
very slow set-up time
slow swivel time
small squad - sniperable
Maxim:
benefits:
suppression
good damage
fast set-up
less sniperable
downsides:
Very narrow cone
The fast set-up time negates the effect of having a narrow cone. Effectively the Maxim is all + no -.
|
Maybe some old hands know better, but I think the vCOH MG42 performed better against blobs because of the way suppression worked...It had a much larger area of effect, so you couldn't easily run a blob at an MG42 no matter how many units you have. Units far away from the unit targeted but still in the arc might escape suppression but it was still a far larger area than in COH2.
Over and over in COH2 I see blobs run at MG42 with only one or two units getting suppressed. The suppression area obviously doesn't work the same - units right next to the targeted unit may not get suppressed.
Now I have no problem with a vastly superior force of units taking out an unsupported MG42 - even head on - my issue is with the suppression. In vCOH 4 blobbed rifles might still get the MG42 with just rifle fire before being pinned, and the same thing should happen in COH2. But they should all be getting suppressed. And the pinning should probably happen quicker as well.
+1!
And to the member who said "A-move with Maxim MG" is a valid strat" - Please say who validated the use of a defensive suppressing weapon as a stand-alone offensive weapon.
There is supposed to be a trade-off. Magic suppresion powers are given but versatility should be removed. Suppression is a very powerful tool, it shouldn't be so fast and simple to spin an MG around. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
