you made it sound as if i choose ostruppen commander at the start so i can build my whole army composition around the commander from to get go is shallower in strategy then just simply choosing the puma commander in mid game because you are pushed into it.
but this "insta choice" problem you are referring to really is a balance problem. don't you think?
Yeah bad commander imbalance is a big part of the problem. But its all compounded by the overlap with the Soviet and Ostheer commanders, all the new content, and having more than 3 per faction. If you don't know which of the 5+ shocktroop commanders some guy chose, you won't know how to counterpick his late game perks. If some guy is a using a commander you are unfamiliar with, you can't counterpick. If someone is using a howitzer but you don't have a dive bomber in your selection, you can't counterpick him.
In COH2 usually the stars must align just right to effective counter the other guys doctrine with your own, so its just better to immediately get something that helps early and late game 99% of the time. Ranger company for example; you wanna pick it early to make use mines plus the Pershing is a safe choice late game.
Oh really? 'Cos I thought we were talking about "strategy". That's certainly what I was talking about. And whatever way you slice it, commander choice is certainly a part of strategy.
I don't really know what it is that you are trying to communicate, only that trying to pin whatever it is on the concept of "strategy" doesn't seem to be helping you at all.
Actually we were talking about whether running in from off map hurts the game strategy. Then for some reason you looked in a dictionary and misquoted strategy, particularly to how it was being used in the context of the discussion. Chess is strategic, playing rock paper scissors and picking scissors because the other guy went paper half a second earlier isn't. Not everything that involves some sort of choice is strategic. I can choose not to stick my ballsack in a toaster oven, not strategy.
going Osttruppen is not really a no-brainer choice but rather a selection that grants unique opportunnities but also disadvantages. It's not a permanent solution and can work out or backfire depending on what your opponent does and how you play it.
It can have pros and cons, that doesn't really make it a super strategical choice. Its like hitting on 12 in blackjack. You could bust, but you're going to do it anyway. I choose flamethrowers on Arnhem because of the buildings I miss out on getting a Pershing, but its still an immediate decision.
You appear to be using this word in a rather unusual manner. The core part of any definition of 'strategy' that you care to look up is the making of decisions to achieve particular ends. Choosing which set of commanders to play certainly qualifies.
The question of whether a particular problem is an easy one to solve or a difficult one is not directly pertinent to whether it falls into the purview of strategy.
Conventionally strategy means an operational level battle battle plan ex. Overlord. But we aren't talking about the invasion of Europe, we're talking about the choices you make inside of the match. For COH this means economy based decisions, whether preemptive or reactive with some calculated risk.
Theres two types of strategy in the game. The first is based on experience, this is the knowledge you take with you heading in to the match. Examples are playing the strongest faction, using the best commander, different early game plans for certain maps, always getting rocket artillery in response to massive infantry blobs, etc. These are the decisions you make without much thought. The other type of strategy is the type people mean when they say "strategic depth." These are the decisions that vary more from one game to another where you outwit the other guy by picking a certain doctrine or tech path. I'm talking about the latter.
he means it's a strategy he does not appreciate. hes just so used to saying whatever it takes to slag off coh2 quasi objectively.
The same can be said for COH1 to some extent. If I choose defensive doctrine campy MG play on Wrecked Train that is an experience based decision. The difference is the game is more balanced, has more fuel upgrades, and isn't dominated by the P2W commander of the month that dictates play, giving more free reign w/ the choices you make mid and late game. Your going pretty off-topic though.
I wasn't taking a piss at COH2, all I said was making an insta choice doctrine slightly weaker isn't really detracting that much from strategy. This is really off-topic and no need to discuss further.
You keep saying that a decision can't be strategic if it's the first thing you do but that doesn't make any sense. Strategic just means it's bigger picture rather than more situationally focused (tactical). When I develop a marketing campaign coming up with a strategy is the very first thing I do and it would be boneheaded not to for reasons I can explain if that would be interesting to anyone.
Also the irony of this is that tier placement for the most part happens just as early as commander selection.
The only reason its strategical at all is you've played the same guy several times recently and you have a pretty good idea what hes going to do, and you pick a commander right of the bat because it counters him well. Thats sort of strategical, but in a rock paper scissors way because he might throw a curve ball and do something different. Even then, once you've played enough games in the current meta and you figure out some formula (ex. if this map pick X if that map pick Y), the strategy is pretty much gone. Its like solving a rubiks cube. Its something that makes you think a lot when you first try it, but once you figure out the secret way to solve it 100% of the time its a contest of how quickly you can go through the motions.
I never said that placing your buildings is strategic, I said its annoying not being able to control units when they finish producing.
Selecting which commanders to take with you is a strategic decision.
Thats even less strategical to the point that there isn't really any strategy whatsoever. At least picking at the start of the game you can see which ones the other guy has and what map you're on to influence your decision. Choosing the 3 to take with you is a crap shoot, all you can do is follow basic common sense rules like not using 3 different IS2 commanders.
I just wanted to see if you played the game at all in the last 5ever.
All I see you post is whining about how bad CoH2 is and how great CoH1 is.
As to address what you actually said: Picking a commander is a strategic move even if you do it at the start of the game when you either use it immediately or your gameplan revolves around using it. Pretending that reactionary picking is the only strategic option is ridiculous. Someone picking Ostruppen doctrine isn't just getting their pay2cap capping power, their army composition, army scaling and tech path is going to be very different.
For example, the reason Ostruppen is chosen against Brits so often for example is because it takes advantage of brits less mobile and lesser squad count to gain an early game map control advantage and transition into a much faster T2 with 2-3 222's that UKF struggles to deal with. The downsides being that ostruppen start to perform very poorly against veteran and upgraded squads in the midgame and either need additional support (halftrack reinforcement) or to be replaced by elite infantry like panzer grenadiers.
You're obviously in favour of CoH1-esque mechanics because you prefer CoH1 as a game, to the point where you say stupid shit like "[Blah blah] does not strip any strategy from the game, not that there was a hell of a lot to begin with. Its mostly a micro and positioning contest." It's ironic to say something like this while singing the praises of CoH1, a game that received this very same criticism from more traditional RTS fanbases.
Not sure what you're on about. I'll I've said about the game lately is mines wipe units too much and its good they finally changed an annoying feature where you can't control your unit for the first 10 seconds. When it comes to commanders, even if you have reasons for picking a certain one it doesn't really make it a strategic decision if its the very first thing you do. Sometimes I immediately pick rifle company for flamethrowers instead of Pershing if its a building dominant map. But I figured this out through experience and already know which maps to go flamers on, its not a decision I make while playing. Its the same concept as playing Brits back when the centaur was absurd. You have a reason for choosing Briits, easier wins, but it was a predetermined decision.
The game definitely could use some more strategic options, but even if the game had it I highly doubt it would matter right now. Every patch since as far back as I can remember has favored one or two clearly superior ways to play each faction
Now its emplacements for Brits, before it was double leigs for OKW or partisans for soviets. Until the game gets more balanced and less flooded with new op content, more strategic choices won't make a hell of a difference as long as factions consistently have the definitive way to play them.
You trade early game capping for late game firepower, since many osts eat pop cap but can't get LMGs.
I didn't say there wasn't any tradeoff. Doesn't change the fact that picking a commander when the game starts isn't a very strategic decision. A very minute downgrade to Ostruppen does not strip any strategy from the game, not that there was a hell of a lot to begin with. Its mostly a micro and positioning contest.
I care! Part of what makes them unique is you can cap more early game. Now they won't have that and a strategic option has actually been cut from the game.
You still have a twice as many squads in the early game, that by itself is a capping advantage. Plus there isn't really anything super strategical about it, you pick that doctrine and get early game capping bonus and pass up on something else like a late game tank or air ability. When you make the choice you aren't thinking "well it could back fire on me and I won't have access to Elephant if he spams Fireflys." You blindly pick Ostruppen at the beginning of a match, its not a thought out reactionary decision. Should I use my "pay to cap" commander if I want early map control is like asking if I should turn my monitor brightness down if my eyes are getting watery.
Another design issue - some call in infantry are designed to flood the map faster than normal infantry. Osttruppen will now, however, will lose some of their speedier deployment relative to grens. You can put Osttruppen in tier 1, but that will also delay them relative to before.
With the exception of Ostruppen call-in infantry are typically more expensive but stronger, or have some unique quality. The whole concept of Ostruppen, a 2 for 1 infantry unit that sucks but comes cheap, is retarded. Reason being even if you are matched in net infantry strength the Ostruppen player gets double capping/harass power while being more or less equal in terms of investment and combat power. I'm not saying they break the game, but they aren't some poor mistreated step child either. Having double the number of units early on is its own advantage, nobody cares if they have to enter the map like usual.
if you are gonna stroke Inverse so thoroughly, while you are at it remember that (please correct me if i am wrong but i am 99% sure) it was Inverse who said something like 'balance discussion belongs to pro players and gameplay mechanics discussions belongs to normal gamers'. here's the quote :
Am I totally out of line to think that this change is a DESIGN change that will affect balance? A Design change that will not improve the game objectively. the most convincing argument is 'it will speed up the early game'. does early game need speeding up? i don't think so.
This is a SUBJECTIVE DESIGN change that WILL affect BALANCE. Maybe it will somehow fix all the problems. Probably not since you know... logic. Yes, I should not have quoted thunderhun's quote fully, i only agree with partially so my position might not be as clear but all I am saying is that:
This is a SUBJECTIVE DESIGN change that WILL affect BALANCE most likely negatively.
If this was a change something that of implementing acceleration (removing instant acceleration), I think that would be more objective change that will add more depth and second to second tactic to the game, I would be all for it.
And I can't just sit on a sideline while old has been elites with heads the size of both Dakotas tell me, who according to one of them have valid concerns about this and do not understand why it has to change, that I am a short-sided kid.
This is pretty long and I did not proof read so please poke holes in it if you want to. I am up for changing my mind if actual valid arguments crop up.
I've been saying long term design >>> current balance since the very beginning. And instead of saying "Inverse thats my line" I just posted in solidarity. But since you brought it up I did some digging in my own ancient threads, for your viewing pleasure. Those are only in my threads too, I must've said something similar a dozen times in other peoples topics but I can't be bothered to spend an hour searching through my 1700 post history
The main pro is instantly giving orders to your new units when they enter the field instead of waiting around for them to cross the magic line. I'm not going to get in to the nitty gritty about the early game implications of changing the spawn system, which will probably be minor to nil. Overall this isn't a huge deal one way or the other, the point is they finally budged on an annoying design choice that they refused to change since alpha.
We're not talking about past stages of coh, we're talking about its current stage. Your comparison would be accurate if we were talking about 2.301 CoH1 or something.
Building spawns used to be a thing in this franchise, therefore we are talking about previous stages of coh.
My comment was a general statement, not one aimed only at this discussion. People are obsessed with the potential balance implications of design changes instead of discussing the merits of those changes from a pure design perspective, which necessitates taking a long-term view of the game.
What Inverse says is right. This isn't just about changing the spawn system. Even though it was better in vcoh, it isn't one of COH2s major issues. They are finally changing something that was backwards from the beginning that they refused to budge on. Maybe next they bring in left and right side doctrine choices, suppression for mines (instead of insta wipes), and other things.
United States
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
