that is NO-NO. I had to pay 260MP/85Fuel for a cute useless auto fire light tank which is hopeless against Pz4 dive ?
50 range autofire is stupidly big nerf because eveyone forget it cant longer loop shell over shotblocker , can be kill everytinme by every AT gun at range ! New 80 dmg barrage cant scare any weapon support what so ever. Not to mention Fucking Stuka get more pen 
You're advocating for an unit to gain enough range to be untouchable by AT guns,
There's a reason units like the Katyusha, Pwerfer, and Stuka have very low armour, and very low health. If you're forced to dive to deal with them, then it should be expected that you can actually kill the thing when you dive. It takes three shots from either the P4 or Panther to take down a Scott, necessitating a trade in most cases. Coupled with the smoke you'll have a practically unkillable artillery piece, that has a comparatively low cost compared to the vehicles expected to take the risk to trade for it.
The Calliope has the same absurd strength, but is at least toned down due to its cost and the fact that it's doctrinal. (Despite this the Calliope's survivability is a point of contention)
If the Scott got more range, I really can't see why it should keep its 400 HP and 70 armour. |
These auras look nice on paper, but usually lead to blobs of doom (that's why the Sturmoffizier was reworked as well). Hard to tell how ot would be for Osttruppen though since they work very very bad as moving blobs.
I feel as though forcing Osttruppen to be close to other infantry to be able to fight correctly is a bit of a poor idea. |
If they're going to be different units with different ways of calling in at least give them different weapons and abilities like the Panzerbüsche 39 AT rifles and merge or something.
Like it doesn't at least make sense to me that basically the same unit is just being called in differently due to being in different commanders.
Make them unique and distinguishable so people know there's an actual difference.
This is just for testing purposes. One or the other version of Ostruppen will reach the final game. The idea is to see which one is better balanced. |
Adding to it, isn't it because they essentially are building 2 segments of sandbag which takes longer than the single segment all other factions use ?
As far as I can tell, Conscripts build their Sandbag Wall in pretty much the same amount of time as, say, Volks build one section of their sandbag wall.
It isnt slowed (Not noticeably, at least) by the fact it's twice the size of a "regular" sandbag section. Its a bit of a shame than UKF and OKW both use OST sandbags, incidentally. Even if it'd just be a theming change, it would be nice if they had their own "unique" sandbags. |
No you just gave your opnion and wishes nothing more.
You want not to change but outright remove what this game is best know for, what makes it stand out, unit presevation and rng based combat. Nothing logical about removing those stapels of the series.
If you would at least consider or discuss toning things down we can have a discussion. You seem to be unwilling to even try.
Why are you bringing up Unit Preservation, as though I have anything against that part of the game's design? You are outright refusing to argue honestly by trying to conflate these two things. RNG based combat is not what makes CoH stand out. Unit preservation, lack of economies, cover-based-combat, etc define CoH, not main gun crits.
There's already a compromise. Remove Main Gun Crits, other RNG in the game isnt being asked to be removed.
Also thank you, Hannibal. |
I am absolutely fine with the RNG, absolutely fine with critical strikes, with the plane crash on my infantry units. Absolutely fine as it was. And my opinion is simple, if someone doesn't like it, make custom settings - a game without all this is like a historical skin. Do not disturb others who are enjoying it fully, as it is.
Alternatively you could make your own custom settings and keep these terrible "features", if they get removed by the balance team. Don't disturb others who want the game to improve. |
If you don't like it, go play chess. There is perfect balance and no critical damage. Do not go where you are not asked, the game is fine. Critical damage has been in this game for seven years. Let's delete them because you don't like them, let's further castrate the game.
Case in point. |
But you do realize that completely not using a half health tank can often cost you the game because you're not getting the most out of it?
If you play the game you should realize that pushing a 25% medium with your 50% medium is something every player with at least half a brain would do in 90% of the situations (especially as Allies where you trade up). Still you can just suffer the main gun crit in the first shot and your tank is basically gone.
Are you seriously comparing a potentially lost engagement or losing 20-50 MP more than the enemy to losing a tank that costs >300 MP and >110 fuel??
Talking about apples and oranges mate...
Right. Is that also why all the "gunner injured" etc crits have been removed? They basically occurred in every tank shoot out in the first builds of the game. Where's your post about bringing those back?
So far all the arguments "For" main gun crits have relied on apples-to-oranges comparisons, or some strange argument that "Some people like them so you can't remove them because they'll leave the game!", as though Main Gun Crits are the only thing that makes people play CoH2.
It's a little egregious when these people are also insisting anti-MGC parties "Have no arguments". |
A main difference between COH and other RTS is the economy.
In other RTS the economy needs more attentions and battle are effect by how can how many units one can produce.
COH economy is simpler so player can focus in fights and try effect battle directly. That involves RNG so that the player need to keep an eye on the fight adapt his strategy instead of knowing from before and simply keep producing more of units A so he can beat his opponents units B.
This is one of they key differences between COH and other RTS. If fight outcomes where predetermined than the economy (or some other aspect would have to be more complicated)
The thing that makes you focus and concentrate on engagements is the various high-impact abilities that units have, such as Grenades, not the RNG involved in combat.
If encounters were "Predictable" this would not mean you were less required to micromanage engagements, it would mean you are incentivised to do so further, as you would be incentivised to put yourself into a position where you know you will win, rather than just "hoping" for good RNG. |
Coh2 is full of those events, accuracy scatter pen deflection damage, these also decide engagements quite a bit, ive had a single pgren model retreat through 3 4 model ppsh cons squads and he lived. Only dow2 and coh2 can have this. Irritating for me good for my opponent.
There is no logical reason to remove all that because you get frustrated by the core mechanics, aswell as that all the games you mentioned have all what you want in a rts. I am sorry the only logical thing is go play those if you dont want rng.
I dont go to a vegan restuarant if i want to eat steak or deer, there are other places that give me that vegans joint wont.
RNG, and particularly random criticals, are not the core design principle of COH2, no matter how much you want to pretend that they are. Logical reasons have been given to you. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
