Profile of CombatMuffin

What would you guys say, if OP's worked as miniature Supply Yards? Do you think it might work?

I'm not too familiar with the upkeep system in CoH, only the basics, but now that sectors can be used to requisition further resources, this would promote further guerrilla tactics against OP's.

Then you could in theory:

-Destroy the enemy OP's: you don't deny them the sector or the population, but they'll have to invest in an OP if their army is too large, or suffer the upkeep increase. One OP shouldn't be bad, but get several at once, and you've got yourself a good enough penalty.

-Capture the territory. IMHO, OP'ed territories should take a little longer to cap, in order to increase their viability. An OP'ed territory also represents a higher benefit in resources if you capture it, so it should also be harder to get. You'd not only be getting the extra resource free of charge if connected to your own, but also gain the upkeep benefits.

This would promote mobile gameplay, constant scouting to see if your opponent has rebuilt OP's, and alternative tactical choices. Its not simple to implement, since map design would have to accomodate this, but CoH map design is intricate as it is, and as patches roll in, it can be perfected.

@CombatMuffin - if the Soviet has a number of weapon teams you can probably invest in a mortar without losing too much capping power.

This is true, but one can only make such a decision if the enemy has overinvested in weapons teams. Capping power in CoH2 is, of course, relative: Weapon teams can capture points without problems, now that passive capping is possible, but you still lose mobility.

MG's die easily? if they manage to lock down in one of the horribly chokey maps, you can't snipe them off in time, no grenades to kill em (riflenades only "weaken"). You can only resort to mortars or vehicles.

Now granted, you can rush vehicles and mortars very easily, but IF they fix the early game, you won't have easy access to those without sacrificing capping power (IMHO, axis mortar needs to go T2).

Also if you reduce their number to 4, or less, you defeat the point of conscript merging.

Only problem is, I don't know if merged units use the same stats as the conscripts merging in them. I uses a "joker" conscript squad in one game to quickly reinforce guard squad retreating to my base, and I noticed they lost men quicker than usual (since these new men had conscript armor).

Kolaris prolly knows this better though. I haven't checked the game files yet

Completely agreed.

Most strategy games follow a pattern where, once a player gains more than 50% of the battle advantage (territory, resources, army size, etc), the game begins geometrically tilting against the loser by design. CoH was no different: less territories meant not only less resources, but also less population, and this meant that your chances of a comeback were inherently reduced.

What was the difference between CoH and most other RTS games, though? That upkeep truly played a role in army composition. Having less soldiers in the field meant less resources penalties, so you could try and bring that special unit or call in to attempt to regain your stance. This, coupled with the randomness and dynamism of the gameplay, made comebacks possible even in the face of overwhelming odds, sometimes due to a lucky mortar shell or 5% bug, but most of the times because of pure player skill.

Without the dynamic population cap, all of this is out. Upkeep becomes deadly to the winner, and risking a push deep into enemy territory to cut off his resources becomes much more risky than beneficial.

Other people, such as Inverse have already stated their opinion about Blizzards, but there's no thread specifically focused on them.

I think the mechanic isn't "bad", but it needs a ton of work, both visually and mechanically.

Visibility- Near zero. Grnades and mines(even your own) are hard to spot as it is, blizzards just downright make them invisible.

Random Duration- Im not sure if anyone has experienced this, but some Blizzards last a LONG time, others much less. This is not necessarily bad (see below), but it can hurt a competitive game enormously, because it reduces the margin of skill, and leaves it to luck.

Warning-60 seconds. Most of the opinions by more experienced players have agreed its too short. I personally don't mind the 60 seconds, but wouldn't mind them being longer, either.

Movement Rate- Movement rate is diminished to such an extent, that reaction speed becomes useless. Mortars become geoncide machines, and vehicles can chase down infantry to the ends of the map with ease. Unless you retreat, or have a VERY good defensive position set up, you are doomed.
VP Drain
We also have the competitive aspect of Blizzards: VP's drain so fast as it stands right now, that if a Blizzard hits, and you are trying to regain a lost VP, all odds are against you. Not because the enemy is defending it, but because your troops might simply not make it on time. Having a halftrack simply isn't enough. You are then forced to frustratingly watch how you lose the game, as you struggle to regain a point.

Unpredictable: I've had Blizzards hitting in a very short span of time, or sometimes taking way longer. I haven't detected a pattern yet, and it is very very ugly, because even if you try to pull a perfect flank, a Blizzard can simply come and ruin both of your days.

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS:

Visual elements need to change. That's a fact. I think giving the game screen a slight blueish hue and other visual hints is enough, instead of going for the michael bay approach and just having the feeling that General Winter is having a bad case of Montezuma's Revenge on the battlefield.

Predictability

I think Blizzards should be predictable. Games in CoH generally last around 15 minutes for a very short game, to 40 minutes in a very long, very close game.

If players knew Blizzards came at a fixed point in matches, or maybe within a close time range (say, every 7 to 10 minutes), then the entire metagame has to progress with this in mind. Players would have no excuse to be caught unprepared, but they can then be given short warnings: you already know when they hit, its your responsibility to keep track of environmental factors, such as attacking VPs right before a Blizzard to keep them longer under your control. This is similar to Runes, Creeps and Roshan's respawn rate in DoTA, and make up part of a grander strategy, a similar philosophy can work in CoH 2.

Finally, Blizzards are supposed to work as battlefield resets: footprints get erased, melted snow becomes deep snow again, water becomes ice, etc.(hell if artificial craters could be covered in snow again, that would be awesome). So then, a player knows every 7 to 10 minutes, he has to adapt his strategy, or reset it: broken ice has become a viable pathway again, shallow snow has become deep and cumbersome. You have to keep your eyes out in the battlefield for these changes/resets, either to use them to your advantage, or prevent them being used against you. This encourages the mobile warfare/scouting of vCoH, while promoting smart map design.