Profile of AvNY

They couldn't.

Sealion could never have worked. There is no "blitzkrieg" when you have to tow barges at 5-6 knots across 30-100 miles of open water and then have troops with no amphibious doctrine or training embark on contested beachheads. The British had lost much of their Army, but their Navy and Air Force was completely intact and after Norway was even stronger than that of the Germans. (The Battle of Britain was never a close thing.)

Invasion of Russia could not have worked. The whole plan rested on wholesale defeat of the Red army in the first 5-6 weeks and the first 500-700 kilometers of advance. They executed that brilliantly but never considered winning in an environment where the Russians could rebuild an army at a rate of half a million men a month. Remember the whole "kick the door in and the whole hose comes down" concept. it was wrong.

Dunkirk would not have made a difference. Of the 330,000 men rescued almost half were Belgian and French and returned to their countries. No material was saved. But it really wasn't needed when there was no way the Germans could effectively land, reinforce and supply an expeditionary force let alone a real invasion force.

I believe the US would definitely have entered the war. after a long period of isolationism the sentiments were moving strongly against Germany. The growing knowledge of the nature of the Nazi occupations were starting to get out. They were just looking for an excuse. Pearl Harbor didn't mean they had to go to war against Germany as w3ell as Japan, and Hitlers declaration of war was not what tipped the scale. The US was already gearing for war. Practically every major weapon system used by the US (including the B-29) was already on the drawing board or being prototyped by Dec. of 1941 and the armed forces were already building their numbers, though not at the same rate yet.

The problem with team games in RTS is the fact that they're just too difficult to watch and follow. They're fun to play, sure, but they make for crappy spectating, especially because if you're interested in team games, why wouldn't you watch one of the many popular team-based competitive games out there that were specifically designed for that sort of thing?

Team RTS games, especially 3v3/4v4, are impossible to follow from a spectating perspective because there's just too much shit happening. The unfortunate truth is RTS is a 1v1 genre in a time when people would much rather watch proper, focused team play that they can follow easily. Dota and CS are very tight, focused team games that were specifically designed for that style of play. RTS games are by their nature extremely unfocused, which makes them interesting to watch 1v1 but a complete chore to watch 4v4.

I think COH2 could be more viewable if the right tools existed. (Zooming out and shading the FoW that each team sees are just two examples I can think of.)

All right this is a can of worms saying this here but I'm going to go ahead and say it. Changing a games core mechanics to make it E-Sports friendly is not going to make a game and E-Sports success. In fact it hurts the player base and drives people away. The amount of threads I've seen demanding that core mechanics like infantry crushing, rng chances of missing and fun things like demo traps be removed is insane.

Those people who have the belief that E-Sports has to all operate the same. That players don't want to watch those moments are totally deluded. As a content creator I can tell you the things I get the most views for a those moments. People don't care in any way about the boring and dull play and counter play system they want awesome game changing moments. They attract views. They attract people who don't fully understand all the game mechanics but when they see that they clearly know who's winning. RNG missing critical shots makes viewers emotionally attacked cheering for the player who they go for or cursing the heavens if their player gets screwed over.

If you don't like that as a player understand that that's one of the most interesting moments in the game. That's what gets eyeballs. That's what gets viewers attention on you so that they either get involved or donate to tourneys directly or to casters who contribute to tournaments anyway.

In the end changing the game to fit some arbitrary opinion of what an E-Sports game looks like will only harm CoH 2 and ruin what is unique about it. Remember that making Battlefield play more like CoD didn't make it more popular. MAKING CoH 2 resemble Starcraft won't improve it's chances of becoming an E-Sports game.

I agree with a LOT of what is in this. Drama sells. CaptainSprice's whacky strats are certainly very viewable by many and are very much loved/hated. a train of m10s speeding over the horizon to rescue a losing game is probably more exciting than watching the Axis uber-grind to victory as the game gets longer

To make a game eSports ready is more about making it non-expert accessible.

I think what is needed are tools that make it easier to cast in a way that is viewable, understandable and exciting. A casting mode that allows you to pull back farther or show the tac map in an enlargeable screen. Shade the viewable area by each respective player in a reddish or bluish tone so it is clear what the FoW looks like to each player.

(Edit:
Most gamers get the basic rock-paper-scissors of armor, infantry, MGs, mortars, arty, etc. So that part is all accessible to them. In fact it is the subtleties of "balance" that aren't and about which they don't care. And WW2 gives them a natural way to empathize with one side or the other and have a stake in who they want to win.)

But some COH2 game design makes newbie viewing a bit difficult. Every aspect of "difference" in faction design makes it more difficult for a newb to access the game. Describing different tech design (let alone diff structures) makes it hard to explain in seconds to a newb what is happening. OKW trucks? US officers? Wehr battle phases? British Hammer/Anvil? And while they gamers might get that shreks don't equal zooks, how come the Panzer IV of one faction is different than that of another?

To that end, even 3v3's and 4v4s could actually be MORE accessible, so long as you can show more of what is happening. They had always been hard to cast because with the given tools they are hard to follow, but it is easier for a newb to watch different players specialize in armor or infantry or are holding the line while others try to mass a penetration or flank. Lot of things getting blowed up good makes for good viewing (as all those popular vids on COH2 mainpage prove).

How much more popular might COH2 be if there was a casting/tourney scene for team games? Team games have the most hours played on COH2 even though no one casts them or has tourneys for them.

We must first nerf/rework all Snipers,then move that power to other units (grenadiers,UC,Penals),as for late game a simple solution would be to give vehicles side armour.

While side armor would be a lovely design that allows for more intricacies in gameplay (Panthers had at best mediocre side armor on both body and turrets - only 40-45mm, whereas a tiger had great armor on the sides and only weak in back), you have to consider the software.

Side armor entails not only redesigning the game, but then also rebalancing the game, practically from scratch.

Likewise I am not sure tech trees in place of linear commanders can be easily coded. Certainly they would look like a different game.

CoH1 AT was separate and it was fucking awful, at off-peak times you'd be waiting literally an hour or more to play. I remember practicing for a 2v2 tournament with Peacekeeper and literally waiting 2 hours to play a 10-minute stomp. Not to mention 3v3AT and 4v4AT would never in a million years work as separate queues because there wouldn't be enough teams searching.

Combining the AT and random pools is the best thing CoH2 has done for the multiplayer community. Separating them again would hurt 2v2AT and kill 3v3/4v4AT.

I played a 4v4AT game once (we were the first one in years. I think now there is a record of 3 having been played). But it was proof of how messed up automatch can be.

The guys in my clan "arranged" a 4v4 AT but couldn't decide who would play axis/allies, so both teams queued as "random" factions. Automatch showed 8 players matching as Allies for some 5-10 minuts. So to get a game we quit and separated into axis/allies. Auto is not well designed.