|
"Your counters to German almost fantasy kit weren't actually ever produced!" (HISTORY!)
"Well they weren't produced because that almost-fantasy kit barely ever appeared on a battlefield, in almost no numbers, and they didn't work!" (HISTORY!)
"But then it isn't historical to have kit that wasn't ever on the battlefield!" (HISTORY!)
"It wasn't on the battlefield because they had dozens of mediums for every German cat they encountered, at tleast those that actually ran! You can have your KTs, give me a dozen shermans for each." (HISTORY!)
"You can't make it historical or the game wouldn't be balanced!" |
|
I know the right answer!!
The right answer is there will never be a right answer. People here will argue because they love to argue. They love to argue balance, historicalness, game play, "what if"s, etc.
The answer you will get (whether you think it is "right" or not) will be what Relic thinks is the best choice for them at the time. Probably what they think the players want. And they may get it wrong with regards to what current (and potential) players might want.
It isn't about historical. Or realistic. It is about marketing and sales. And maybe balance ... maybe.
If it has to have been in the world to be historical, lots of units fit. If it has to have been at the front, there are lots of units. They probably aren't even the ones that country used as the counter.
The US didn't use Calliopes for indirect fire, they massed more and heavier artillery than anyone else.
Sure the Luftwaffe had airstrikes, and many were effective, but they were almost completely missing on the western front.
And units didn't have unlimited supply and fuel. They had to retreat if running out, or have it brought to them at the front.
And it can't be balanced historically. The Tiger and KT and panthers galore are included because a large part of the games fanbase include wehraboos. They want their super kit. And because every game devolves to heavy tanks the allied players cry for heavies that weren't really needed in real life because so few encountered the German heavies. The whole "heavy" meta is mostly fantasy excused by only a handful of historical engagements.
So we will get what Relic thinks will make them the most money. Hopefully it will also be balanced, though they have an incentive to not make it so for a while so they can squeeze $ out of the P2W folks.
And other than that there will be no "right" answer. |
|
Oh geez, just give it up already!
You want the fantasy of being able to call in one of the fanciful units? (and it is a fantasy). You will have to deal with the fact that Allied counters will have to also become commonplace.
What I am saying is if the Axis get the fancy kit the wehraboos want to fap over, and if that fancy kit actually works in the game as it did in the designers mind rather than on the battlefield, then the Allies will have to get a counter.
Your choice... do you want it to be an equally fanciful working allied heavy tank design or 4-5x the mediums. or do you want to have a 10% die roll at the start of an engagement to even see if you get to call in a heavy at all?
|
|
[Damn this site for timing out. I wrote a long response and it disappeared.]
Kangaroos and Achilles are a good example of why you shouldn't look for "historicalness" in this game. So many more of them were produced than any Tiger II, ostwind or Puma, and they were designed better and were more reliable.
Allied heavy tank counters are added because Axis heavy tanks appear in every battle. The counters were designed on the possibility or fear that they would be needed, but in truth they weren't. They weren't needed in real life because Axis heavy tanks were rare, poorly conceived in design, and unreliable.
But if you are going to use the excuse of "but they at least existed" to explain why every battle in COH has Tigers and panthers in every engagement, then it makes sense for the Allied players to get the counters to those tanks that were designed. Even the PIV was more limited than any medium tank, and arguably its design very deficient in its late war design. The chassis and powerplant were just never up to supporting what was being asked of it by that stage.
Another good example are FG42s. Sure you can find the proof that it was a superior squad automatic weapon to the BAR, but you can't win a war making 7,000 FG42s (the first few thousand of which were flawed) against an enemy that makes 1 million BARs. That only counts if somehow the US player happens on the engagement that somehow has Tigers, Tiger IIs, ostwinds, FG42s, Pumas, stg43s, stg44s and sturmtigers. (to just write that out shows how ridiculous is this whole argument).
* yes, I know there weren't 1 million BARs. "Only" 350,000. |
... You have much more possibilities and Strategic options. In teamgames those qualities multiplay even more. You need more skill because you have to micro more units
You kind of answered your own question. Most people don't like effort. |
|
I knew it was a pretend Tiger. The road wheels looked all wrong. I just couldn't identify the suspension.
Spotted on the George Washington Bridge about to cross into NYC.
I am glad it came out. Snapping photos while driving 30mph in traffic isn't the best condition for photography. |
Saw this on my commute home yesterday. |
The same could be done in CoH, all Armies could be given the same basic tools and then branched out from there with different abilities, structures, units, stats and so forth, hell I have even suggested many such ideas before that incorporate all basic tools needed for a practical design yet being very different to another Army.
To some extent this was true in COH1. (I will leave vet aside.) Mixing up the tiers, and changing a little here and there the effectiveness changed US/Wehr matchup A LOT. So Axis had a mortar when they got an AT, while US didn't. The tank destroyers were different, M10 vs Stug. The Mortars and MGs had different characters as did the "riflemen" (volks/grens vs rifles)
One could argue they were more different even than they needed to be. Mix the tiers, change some things, and they WILL NOT feel the same as much as they seem to be the same. |
Shermans and open top TD's like Jackson were easiest tanks to escape in the entire war, while US and british tank losses were high the crew usually got out safe. Vehicles like the Hetzer or Jagdpanzer were suicide wagons in comparison, so it makes sense US got emergency crew disembark and not OKW.
If anything crew safety got worse for the Germans latewar with all these weird and cramped assault gun varieties making up the bulk of their armour.
The"get-out-of-the-tank" mechanic wasn't about abandoning. It was about a crew repairing their own equipment.
The Germans abandoned a lot of their tanks. There was little choice since the tanks were quite unreliable AND they were short of parts and fuel.
(This is why the Allied tanks were superior. They were complete weapons systems, not sexy, sometimes working, individual pieces of equipment. Read of all the US tank developments that never made it past the prototype stage... If it couldn't be built easily, repaired easily, run reliably, and also do the job, they just didn't put it into production. On top of that, a Sherman could be transported, would run, and could be maintained anywhere in the world even though the source of parts was half a world and weeks if not months of transport away.)
|
king tiger was rare so why isnt it doctrinal. why isnt half of axis roster doctrinal? historical accuracy yeeeee boi
Rare is still a comparitive statement.
492 KTs were built.
vs.
40 Ostwinds
200 Pumas
100 Pumas with the 50mm
(Of course this is a game, so you can do anything you want. And one must satisfy the Axis playing players who all want to play with the Nazi uber-kit. But in truth, it would have been super rare for any allies to have faced any of these.)
|
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
