I was always wishing soviet T1 had and upgrade simular to AEC\Bof chosing between guards or shocks making them stock, and T3 requiring both T1 and T2, so T1 would be a part of your tech always.
Sadly never gonna happen.
Me too, honestly. A rework like that would be really nice for Soviet, but it isnt likely to happen, as it would be a MASSIVE undertaking. |
Disabling building while capping could result in a buff for the Kubel and a stronger nerf for tommies since they really need that cover to fight at full strength.
Eh, any cover will do for Sections. They beat equivalent-covered axis mainlines either way, they don't necessarily need /green/ cover. |
This is a point I did not address. People like WhiteFlash and AE have complained for years about the Coh2 resource system. vCOH had low, medium, and high fuels for example. If we had those options, then NorthWeapons idea would be viable. You could have 4 sectors that each have a low fuel with a VP between them. Done.
I think there are some positives to the CoH2 system over the CoH1 one, a map is a lot more "Readable" thanks to there being only four types of rather specialised points, and ostensibly they should be "easier" to balance... though it does create some other issues, as you've stated.
I think it mostly breaks down in the larger modes, 1v1 (and 2v2, I think?) Arent hurt by the way points are designed in CoH2, right? |
Snip
Random thought, but perhaps 3/4v3/4 maps simply shouldn't HAVE Fuel Points? (Perhaps Munitions points, too). There are already the VPs to fight over, and you've outlined some of the issues the current design causes.
There were experiments with the healing/repair points in the past, what made them abandon those? They're less "static" than Muni/fuel points, with your units having to actually visit them to gain a benefit... but they're similarly valuable, without contributing to the resource inflation of those modes.
Alternately; would it be out of the question to reduce the impact of each fuel (and/or munition point), while increasing the number on the map? |
I agree with Katitof. The PTRS is fine and is much worse compared to all other infantry AT options. People are just so used to steam rolling Soviet infantry that any form of competency hurts their feelings.
It has a different use, geared far more heavily to fighting Lights than mediums and Heavies (Though I'm not really sure why).
As I've said before, I think the Guards implementation of PTRS is far better than the Penals one. Guards supplement the lower damage/alpha strike power of their PTRS (relative to other factions' handheld AT) with strong utility abilites (Button), and of course their AI performance.
Penals are being pushed in a direction of trying to force their PTRS to compete with Zooks, Shrecks, and PIATs in terms of "brute force", which doesn't overly suit the weapon's design. I think trying to design an interesting utility ability for PTRS Penals would have been better than just giving them another rifle.
Either that, or give them lend-leased Zooks instead of their PTRS, if you want them to more closely parallel other factions' AT squads.
I still wish Guards were Nondoc and Penals had some other role than trying to be an AT squad, but this is extremely unlikely to happen. |
Sorry, that's what I meant, bundles as getting multiple units at once. I was more agreeing with Crecer and elchino.
Ah, fair enough, my mistake too, then. I definitely agree with the three of you on that front, there isnt a single Bundle Callin in the game that shouldn't be reworked into separate abilities, you're forced to buy things you really don't want in order to access something you do... this is most aggravating when part of the bundle is something you can build nondoctrinally. |
Imo this needs removing Fromm the game its just a joke heavy damage is enough surely!?
As it stands the M8 mine gives the opposing player no chance to recover which is just not fun or competitive imo. Yes use sweepers blah blah but its not always that easy especially as OKW where you usually only have one strum pio.
Cant remember if ostheer riegal mine works the same but if so same for this as well although I don't think I have ever seen anyone use it ever. Same point stands as above.
The Riegel literally immobilises vehicles that drive over it until they're healed Repaired. The M8 and Riegel are balanced by the fact you need to use a vehicle to plant them, and in the case of the Riegel; Being doctrinal.
The solution to fighting them really is to have a sweeper, though both also have the fairly obvious tell that the enemy is driving around with particular vehicles. |
Bundles are bad, I thought we learned this back in 2015/16 when dual t34/85s were nerfed?
Assault guards should be a normal call in infantry squad, with an upgrade that provides them with 1/2 bazookas. I would also like to see them get a special ability to make them more than just boring shocks. (maybe suppressive fire or tactical advance)
Bundles in the sense of "Getting (Or, rather, being forced to get) multiple units with a single purchase" are bad, yes. Bundles in the sense of multiple "passive" commander abilities sharing the same slot is fine, though, and that's what's being suggested. |
Kek
Let's give Sturms Panzerfausts and incendiary grenades too. Oh, and give them 5 men, and make the Feuersturm flamethrower upgrade compatible with the minesweeper.
What is it you're trying to get at here? Simply changing the way Sandbags are assigned significantly changes the availability of Sandbags, rather than making them equally similar to access by each faction. This would be fine, but for two of those factions they go from having the (UKF and OKW, joint with SOV) best access, to having the worst.
Currently SOV, OKW, and UKF have the widest access to Sandbags, with them being on their mainline infantry. UKF even starts with their Mainline, rather than an engineer.
If only, and all, engineers have sandbags, OST and SOV have equal access, having cheap Engineer units (That must sometimes be used for teching), USF has "better" access, as their Engineer isnt needed for teching. UKF has worse initial access, but still has cheap engineers they can build from their base, whereas OKW's engineer unit is significantly more expensive, and costs more population than the others, and generally cannot be justified to be "doubled up" on. Unless OKW badly needs to have the worst access to sandbags for some reason, they need to be able to (viably) have a second unit to build them, to at least be on par with the other four factions.
What exactly are you trying to say with your stupid non-sequitur? |
I believe there are several reasons for that:
1. It was in that way in vCoH
2. 0.30 HMG are moslty the same (maybe Maxim is the only excetion).
Some years ago Mr.Someguy suggested to add wheel on the symbol of soviet HMG to separate them from others. but this idea didn't go anywhere.
1: Just because it was like that in vCoH doesnt really mean it should still be that way now, honestly. I don't think it was a good thing there, either.
2: I dunno, I think they're different enough to warrant their having different icons. They've all got disparate suppression characteristics, and quite different abilities on top of that
Because mortars are mostly the same in terms of range, damage and etc. Exceptions:
120-mm PM-38 (has it's own symbol for about 3-4 years)
M1 81-mm Mortar (HE barrage has smaller range, than others)
Don't thing anything should be done here.
They do have different abilities though, and it's still one of those things that's got 0 downside other than the time investment to make new icons. Even if they're fairly similar, lets say you have the option to kill an OST mortar, US mortar, or a Soviet mortar, (But only one of the three) and steal it. Are they all equally valuable and interchangeable to you, or might you prefer one over the other in a particular circumstance?
It's working and in general is fine. Perhaps some issues can be seen with M1 57-mm/6 pounder and M4A3(76)W/M4A3E8.
It's "Working", sure, but it'd be a fairly easy change, and make the game look rather more professional, I think... Not to mention being much more instantly readable. They'd also fit better with the Infantry (And Mortar/MG) icons, which are abstract representations, not silhouettes.
They already exist and offered to balance team.
Perfect, exactly the sort of thing I mean! I'm really rather surprised the Balance Team haven't implemented them... but perhaps they'd be more willing with a "comprehensive" icon rework?
You are welcome to leave your ideas and feedback here
https://www.coh2.org/topic/93861/feedback-on-ui-changes-of-the-game
I'll see what I can do, thanks for the link! (It may take some time, I'm often fairly busy working) |