The idea is nice, but I think the whole "return fire" mechanic from MoW has the ultra micromanage atmosphere all over it. Its something that I don't think CoH would benefit from (CoH is pretty straightforward in design, MoW is intricate and complex in that sense).
There's a lot of things that MoW has that CoH could benefit from, or at least could be inspired by: Things like very limited range sights for vehicles would be a good thing, shot blocking as well (so that units can only open fire on units they have range and sight to).
There's other stuff, that simply doesn't belong in CoH, imho: towing AT guns, cooking grenades, storming buildings (unless it cost munitions  ), high MG lethality, etc.
Both games are very different: one is an arcade game(CoH), flavored by WW2, the other is a light wargame (MoW), at company level tactics.
|
Me neither, thats why I didn't dwell deeper
I want to guesstimate that it shoots at the center of the squad formation as well, and any off shots are due to scatter/miss. |
Want to create a high risk scenario during blizzards?
Increase the capping speed of all infantry units, during blizzards alone.
Your tracks have been erased, your positions concealed, the ice has frozen. If you advance successfully, you gain territorial control, risking being ambushed or freeze in the process.
The game is giving you two very distinct choices, for two very different outcomes. Hell, this would also help shorten games. If you already sent your enemy back to base during a blizzard, you can take even more parts of the map, before upkeep comes back around and kicks you in the arse. |
Attacker doesn't necessarily get first shot. In fact because the attacker is maneuvering rather than holding steady, it's harder for them to get the first shot because when a tank in CoH moves, its turret turns to shoot whatever it wants instead of what you want it to shoot. The defender, meanwhile, could just target the attacker because the defender doesn't have to move. Whoever gets the first shot pretty much depends on whose gun has the longer range, though.
This is true. There's tons of different possible scenarios. Attacker is moving while positioning, too so it gets penalties. Defender turret could be aiming elsewhere and not respond by the time the enemy landed two. Defender could have vision and range to attacker, while attacker only has vision but no range, etc. The only way to prove how true this is, is in an actual battle with the system in. :/
A crappy image to illustrate the point:
Wouldn't this interfere with the way tanks aim at infantry?
|
|
I personally think Relic has not exploited Coldtech to its true potential. Blizzards themselves are not my issue, deep snow is.
I was under the idea(during previews) that tanks passing over deep snow would compact that snow, and allow for troops to pass unimpeded,until a Blizzard rolled in and reset that snow once more. Right now, as far as I know, it only deletes tracks and footprints and freezes ice.
Deep snow had a lot of potential. For example:
-Mines planted in deep snow are harder to detect (closer proximity). You'd see the footprints there, but if a Blizzard rolled in, you'd be clueless and would have to risk it or run a minesweeper.
-Hiding particular units in snow such as snipers, PG's (with jaeger ambush upgrade?) and Guards. Pros: First Strike bonus, relative invisibility (can be detected just not at normal range). Cons: Freeze faster and reduced line of sight.
-If snow could be compacted, you could spray the map with more deep snow, tactics could promote driving a vehicle first to create a path (risking a nasty AT shot).
some of this stuff is hard to implement: dynamic pathways could mess up pathfinding and stuff, but its those elaborate mechanics that create deep strategic value.
|
Too much? No? DLC? |
But the attacker only gets to choose positioning if they know which direction the defender is facing and if they can approach from some other direction head on. But of course that's often very difficult to do because coming from any direction other than "the front" means driving around near enemy lines and thus getting spotted, giving the defender tank time to swivel around and face its front armor, or more likely the defender either backs up or just starts maneuvering. And for any of that to work you have to know what direction the defender is facing already, which is very hard unless it's obvious which direction you'll attack from, in which case you have no choice and you're going to hit the front armor.
The thing is that most CoH tank engagements either happen at long/max range for both tanks - they approach each other and start shooting - or both players are maneuvering and both players (or the one with the better micro) get side shots.
Pathfinding tends to be so terrible, that proper positioning of tanks will be a pain in the ass. Attacker still gets first shot, defender could still have turret facing another direction altogether. All I need to know the enemy tanks position is to walk some fleshies and force a shot, reveal enemy tank in all of its positioned glory.
It would still be interesting to test, nevertheless. Maybe they did (doubt it) and it didn't work. |
But this applies equally to the attacker...
It doesn't. The attacker has first strike capability, and as such, gets to choose positioning in engagements, the only exception being an offensive that has been revealed to the defender (proper recon).
This would all be negated by shot angle calculation, but it takes time to implement, and it affects things around it (like a butterfly effect).
Alternate solution? If the rear hitbox is hit, increase the chances of engine damage/critical. Its not side armor, per se, but hitting the rear has an additional bonus.
Edit: of course, I don't know how the code works right now, so this might not be viable.
|
|
Anyone here a veteran military officer? If you are not, then being armchair generals won't help you pull your point across.
Everyone here is speaking in facts, when in reality you are making assumptions. Here's the facts:
**BoB, the series, is made for entertainment. As such, it won't be 100% accurate.
**BoB, the book, is a personal account, not a historical document. It could have inaccuracies.
**All armies set up guards, since the beginning of time. Humans have been making mistakes and getting careless even before that.
**All conflicts are full of example of force multiplication. In fact, unconventional warfare has force multiplication as one of its tenets. It is entirely possible for a small group of soldiers to take on opposing forces two, three, ten times their size, given the right circumstances, variables(luck) and/or preparation.
Everything else we might try to say, is just screaming like we know stuff that we actually don't. Even Generals have little opinion compared to the men whose boots ar eon the ground. Our boots were not on that ground, so we are speaking out of our asses here.
|
|
I can perhaps explain what he meant.
There are no angle calculations in CoH2. In a realistic scenario, if the defender exposes his side armor at an angle, it becomes the equivalent of sloped armor: it is harder to penetrate.
However, since there is no angle of attack calculation in CoH2, even exposing a tiny bit of the side armor, will count as though you had gotten hit straight on, for full effect. This is a disadvantage to the defending player, because it means he must painfully position the tank so the hitbox used to calculate the hits, faces exactly towards the enemy opponent.
That's how I understood the problem at hand, and it is an understandable position, since adding angles of impact affects other stuff. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
