Profile of ZombiFrancis

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 2742

General Information


Thread: Performance and cost efficiency of massed SU76s vs SU8528 Mar 2018, 00:08 AM Jump back to quoted post27 Mar 2018, 22:43 PMelchino7 BTW, when did we scapped out having the SU76 barrage having a munition cost ? Was it on the first failed community patch ? I don't think it even lasted an iteration of testing. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: no Counter for OKW and Wehrmacht Tank destroyers24 Mar 2018, 15:45 PM Jump back to quoted post23 Mar 2018, 17:38 PMelchino7 Su76 has always been a meme unit till they buff it (like 3 years). HT got at some point to be a strong unit, but i'm not sure if that was after the rework on the tiers. I don't think the HT changed itself, but the change in tiers made it come incredibly faster than it ever had in the past. That timing was what warranted the Quad HT to lose reinforcement, (and by extension the flameHT, which made sense, but was mostly a retroactive punishment for the unit being so prominent in the early days. A lot of units have been buffed or nerfed on those grounds unfortunately.) In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Possible map 1v1 removal24 Mar 2018, 15:36 PM Jump back to quoted post24 Mar 2018, 10:07 AMSturmpanther I don't play main focused 1vs1. But in teamgames from 2vs2-4vs4 I like to see different maps. I would get bored to play every single day the same 5 maps tbh. I think this is a testament to the quality and variety of gameplay that CoH2 provides. Those few automatch CoH1 maps still are fun in CoH1. I mean, I've been playing on this same goddamned 8x8 board for chess... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: How would you change coh 2?23 Mar 2018, 13:47 PM Global fuel upgrades. Mapmaking assets that provide more territory point options (low, high resources, etc.) Those alone would rectify a great deal of CoH2's balance problems. The latter is the reason 3v3+ maps are so horrendous. The first has been necessary since launch. I'm talking upgrades like CoH1 Supply Yard upgrades, even the Sherman upgun and rifleman BARs. Even purchased Wehrmacht vet could make a comeback by upgrading the vet bonuses, rather than just giving the units vet. So upgrading for better vet 1 bonuses for infantry, etc. Stuff like that. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: no Counter for OKW and Wehrmacht Tank destroyers22 Mar 2018, 23:44 PM Jump back to quoted post22 Mar 2018, 21:24 PMSweetrollNearTheDoor If memory serves back in the day when T34 was in T3 it was really bad, penetration was worse and it didn't have the huge hull mg buffs so anti inf damage relied on lucky shots from the main gun. Best use was for ramming things. The reason people went t3 was for the T70 mostly which was extremely potent squad wiping machine and the goal was to close out the game quickly before late game axis armor started to pile up. (or rely on call- in meta after t3) Also the T4 didn't require T3 and all the units T4 had were very situational/weak. T3 had all the AI (HT, T70, T34), and T4 had the AT and arti. (SU-85, SU-76, Katyusha) This made the SU-76 hilariously stupid to get, and the HT and T70 arriving typically too late compared to the usefulness of an actual piece of armor. But the t70 could also crush for a period at this time, so that was a major advantage. And as it was already stated, calling in the T34/85 battlegroup was almost always a better choice than going T4 for unturreted AT options. Hence T4 wasn't really used for except for luxury rocket artillery. Kinda like Ostheer T4 nowadays (still.) Current tech system and unit selection is way superior. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: pzgren should be wehr's dedicated tank hunters22 Mar 2018, 16:10 PM FFS there needs to be a specific forum where people can compare girth since it is rarely, if ever, relevant to virtually any balance or gameplay discussion. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: pzgren should be wehr's dedicated tank hunters22 Mar 2018, 14:36 PM Jump back to quoted post22 Mar 2018, 04:13 AMFiresparks that's just a very roundabout way to say wehr only get strong if the USF and sov let it. the only allied faction that would actually use passive and static play is the british. I felt it was rather direct. And soviet T2 on garrison heavy maps is often rather passive. And I see players of all factions play too passively against ostheer regardless. The inverse of it is that ostheer has to be pressured all game. And yes, British emplacements are very much in the vein of what ostheer can actually punish. And really that's been where ostheer has always considered to retain an advantage:against brits. But my point was less about faction fundamentals and more about player choice and gameplay. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: What are your ideas of coh 3 commander system?22 Mar 2018, 03:24 AM Jump back to quoted post21 Mar 2018, 16:38 PMKatitof And remind me, how often did it prevented any of these single pass recon runs and strafes? Only PE had an actual airstrike that mattered. But if you want to have AA at that point, place a single 222 next to it, there, AT and AA. I don't see Pak43s autoaiming 360 noscope infantry kills though. In: Lobby
Thread: pzgren should be wehr's dedicated tank hunters22 Mar 2018, 03:06 AM The only thing Wehr/Ostheer can punish is passive and static play. They cannot, however, rush this punishment. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: What are your ideas of coh 3 commander system?20 Mar 2018, 16:15 PM Jump back to quoted post20 Mar 2018, 02:38 AMmiragefla I think for the Commmander System for Company of Heroes 3, it should be customisable, but also contain limits and balances. I've created a set of handy images below that I likely plan to make a video of. Rather than simply selecting one commander, you automatically go into game with your full roster of three. These commanders cannot be switched in-game, all of that is done pre-game and is visible for your opponent to see in-game and in the loading/set-up screen. Any commander can be slotted out for another with each one having a unique set of abilities. Players would gain Command Points as they fight, tech, build which they can use to spend on their Commander trees in any order. You can either choose to save points to buy a higher costing choice or choose to buy multiple cheaper options. Players would have a maximum amount of Command Points that they can gain that, once again, can be spent in any format; this is under the assumption vehicles and infantry would no longer be call-ins or call-in units in require tech. You can choose lots of small items that accumulate, or higher CP requirement items if you want to focus on end game, or you could just balance everything out. Yes, it might be a balancing nightmare, but you get freedom of choice and if done right, there is no set-in-stone way to pick commander and every commander brings something unique. And going for just pure end game or just lots of minor options, means you're sacrificing other assests. It also reduces commander redundancy as now you only need one commander with say a Tiger or ISU, rather than 3-4. Note I'd also be open to the idea that it could be linear and you can pick from any tree, but once selected you lock out everything else in that row, horizontally. This is exactly what I thought should have been done with the CoH2 commander system. Alternatively/additionally I've thought commanders could be sorted into a few different categories to aid in balancing. So for instance youd havr offensive, defensive, and support commanders. Or infantry, armor, and logistics or something. You'd be able to pick one from each category. Most existing coh2 commanders fall under some common themes or have considerable overlap. This method could help constrain redundant/imbalanced options as well. In: Lobby