- Reverse on vehicles is only an improvement for lazy players with low APM. I prefer manual reverse in CoH1 because it adds some mechanical challenge to a game that is otherwise very simple mechanically. Manual reverse is still superior in CoH2, though, since you can cancel forward momentum and control your path easier with it, so it's really a wash regardless.
- I'd argue that much of the information shown on the top right of the screen is superfluous, though being able to see suppression indicators at a glance is very nice. One big downside of this is you have to click an icon to collapse and expand that view, instead of simply hovering over an icon like you could do in CoH1. I personally prefer the CoH1 approach because it's less busy and provides only the information I feel I need, but I can understand why some people prefer the CoH2 approach. Still, like vehicle reverse, I feel it's a crutch that benefits mediocre players the most and provides very little benefit to players with proper situational awareness.
- This isn't really an improvement, just a minor change in game mechanics. I feel it's a quality change however, even though in practice its impact is very minor.
- Again, Truesight really isn't an improvement, just a change. And I'd actually argue that it's created a bunch of problems that never existed in CoH1, especially since there really aren't any dedicated scouting units in CoH2. For example, it makes blobs far more powerful because they're more difficult to scout, and therefore more difficult to react to. Sometimes depriving players of information isn't always the best approach. Still, I'm neutral on Truesight; I don't think it's necessarily better or worse than CoH1's vision system, just different.
- Awesome visual addition, fucking terrible gameplay addition. One of the worse design decisions for the British in CoH1 was giving Tommies reduced movement speed in enemy territory; why they thought adding that "feature" to maps would be a good idea is beyond me.
- Snipers were really only a problem in team games in CoH1; in 1v1s, snipers were used as they were intended to be used, as fragile and expensive but powerful support units. They also contributed greatly to the mechanical skill requirements of the game, since properly microing snipers took a lot of focus and a lot of actions. There isn't a unit in CoH2 that replicates the satisfaction of effectively microing CoH1 snipers.
The biggest improvements in CoH2 are in the server infrastructure and network backend. Something like the battle servers is a vast improvement over CoH1's pure peer-to-peer system, and allows for things like observing and server-side anti-cheat. In-game, the only real improvements I see are being able to issue capture commands directly on the minimap, being able to vault over cover, and being able to select which side of a building an MG sets up on. I haven't used the latter, but it would have been a very helpful feature to have in CoH1.
You can argue away every benefit. But it was interesting to watch HelpingHans last week play some COH1 (albeit team games) and while he didn't complain it was clear that he missed having the elements of COH2 (unit data and reverse) that he had got used to.
Trusight certainly adds more strategic depth (something for which you have always argued) but of course mechanics (like mud and snow) should not be incorporated if they aren't working.
As to elements of team vs 1v1s... They still matter. There are still vastly more player hours spent in team games than 1v1. And there are still plenty of players, including very good ones, who didn't like the current sniper meta, else it would not have been one of the first changes in Elite Mod. |
Do I really have to answer that? You obviously don´t want to understand me.
The USF is designed around medium tanks, yet lacks good medium tanks outside of doctrines. Before mirroring a Tiger, it would be nice to have either Hellcats, some 76mm Sherman variant (M4A1 isn´t in the game for example) or access to the 76mm as a weapons upgrade for the already existing Shermans. You could add a Jumbo as a heavy variant. Vehicles that actually played a role in the war in more than a handful engagements.
I prefer that over seeing Tiger copies in 2/3rds of the games played.
You aren't playing by the rules.
Step 1 - If an Allied fanbois says he wants a Pershing in the game, the axis fanbois must counter either that none were in combat until March or that there were no major pershing on German tank engagements therefore the lack of them is historical.
Step 2 - If Allied fanbois points out the historical issues of German armor the Axis fanbois must respond that this is a game.
Corollary is that anything ever prototyped by the Germans should be modeled as a real combat vehicle that performs to spec. (only 10 Sturms were ever finished, 100 50cm pumas, 40 ostwinds, etc.) While Allied kit is only for use if it landed in Normandy and was built in quantities greater than 10,000.
Ok, that last bit was hyperbole. There were Calliopes in the hundreds.
(As to the COH1 Bergtiger.... Possibly it never existed. |
I don't know why all the fuss. Quite simply we don't yet know how it will be implemented. And anyone who does know isn't talking.
It might be good, it might be crap, the commander might be the new P2W, or it might suck and people use it once in a while to see how the Pershing works
Maybe not recrewable? Or maybe it comes with a vet3 Ranger squad equipped with stolen LMGs and panzershreks?
We just don't know and won't until release. |
But not in the hollywood world
Hollywood has also made some very good/accurate war movies.
While some "patriotic" films are more realistic than others usually the enemy is an amorphous blob. But many are still good and tell stories we might not have otherwise known from at least one side. (Examples: Go for Broke)
The big and accurate historical films can be a bit dry because realism takes precedent over art and motivation. It is hard to properly depict the depth of the characters in The Longest Day or Gettysburg or Midway when the story tries to follow dozens of them. Band of Bros worked so well because they did this over 10 hours giving us a chance to get to know some of the characters and how they changed over the year. But The Longest Day, A Bridge Too Far, Midway and Gettysburg all try to show accurate portrayals of the enemy. And they are all still VERY Hollywood.
Also great hollywood films with realistic depictions of war: Twelve O'Clock High, Best Years of Our Lives, Battleground (best example of the Paramount Platoon ever). These were not patriotic chest beatings and yet they came in the years just after the war. In many of them you don't even see much of an enemy. Which is mostly accurate for many military of that time. |
I refered to the fact that the tiger tank made the most stupidest move by getting out of concealment. A move that was only done to give brad pitty in his tanki a chance.
IT WAS A MOVIE!
And a pretty dumb one at that. With all the hype about how much realism was incorporated about all they really did was to use (or make it look like they used) the real things.
The US soldiers did not fight that way. Waffen SS did not fight that way.
And the dumbest, stupidest, silliest part of the whole thing. The part that made me endure the rest in pure pain, was the choice by an American unit to stay and fight a desperate/lost battle in April of 1945. By that time the US knew the war was over and it was a matter of only days or weeks. No one was volunteering to possibly be the last man to die. And the reason for the hatred of the Hitler Youth and the Waffen SS was that despite the obvious upcoming loss they were endangering the lives of guys who knew they were weeks away from a surrender/conquest.
The crew would have left the tank, found some way to get back to another unit with a working radio and obliterate the whole area with an air strike or artillery. By this time the planes and guns were both well stocked and short of targets. |
You quoted me, but you didnt read. I played alpha, beta and the free weekend offers, before i finally got the game by humble bundle. Plenty of chance for the game to convinve me. I do not criticize the balance, but the design. Issues, which im afraid will not be fixed ever.
Because of these, i dont like coh2.
Please name me some improvments. Its not a troll question, im really curious.
regards
I am a huge fan of COH1 and still prefer to play it over COH2 (which I purchased).
There are certainly improvements in COH1 over COH2 though if you only play COH1 you probably feel you don't need them.
- Reverse on vehicles.
- being able to see all your units at the same time, including their status and health.
- getting increased experience for killing vetted (higher value) units.
- Trusight. You may not be into this, but here is one change that INCREASED strategic and tactical depth to the game.
- Snow/mud. This is certainly an technological improvement. But it is very dependent on how effectively it is implemented in maps. If it adds too much complexity to balancing a map, well... use less of it.
- NO SNIPER META! (Even now that I have learned much better to use these, snipers still feel like they break the flow/feel of COH1.)
Also COH2 has battle servers with some hacking detection. Currently in COH1 maphacking just isn't an issue. Partly because the game became irrelevant so no one codes them.
This is about real improvements, not the things we don't like as COH1 fans. The test is if you were playing with these features for a long while, would you then miss them if you went back to COH1. |
Fair enough, though I would just like to point out that AFAIK, Brad wasn't responsible for the balance of the kubel or anything that people got upset about, this is back when Peter did and was responsible for a lot of very very terrible changes to the game.
But but but... there is so much math in his balance articles! And; difference! |
Well sure, this ship has sailed a long time ago. But it was on the agenda.
As for the the health of the game and the playerbase, top 10 or 15% maybe more like. But this is a false dichotomy to start with. Any competitive game will inevitably produce certain people who are more skilled than others, and those are the ones who drive the evolution of the game, represent the zenith of its gameplay and ultimately keep it alive, and yes, this is why they must take precedence.
Thats the nature of the beast if you will, an antagonistic multiplayer mode does not for a casual experience make.
Problem was always that the "asymmetrical balance" via different faction concept was taken too far for the sake of more "difference". Had they been able to pull it off they would have had a brilliant game on their hands. But if the factions were less different they would STILL be different but easier to balance. The lack of target tables makes that even harder.
In COH1 Wehr and US looked downright the same as compared to faction in COH2, but the small differences made them play very differently. At various levels each had ways "mids" could play that felt unbalanced to the other team, but even at the highest levels it was really close. This took a while to achieve but at least they had something a bit closer to work with than COH2.
Small differences in units, tier placement and teching made for HUGE differences in play style, arguably even more than the gained versus bought vet model. (Look at the huge difference in use of the mgs and mortars because of some small changes in their abilities and their placement in the tiers.)
But there should really be some balance ACROSS skill levels and game modes. If there isn't you will lose the multitudes that make the game possible (as in buying and endorsing) in the first place. |
Bringin whole Allied air superiority on your opponents neck would be so unfair
Which is my point about ANY "hostorical" argument. By late 1944 the allies were advancing about as fast as logistics, natural obstacles and weather would allow. There were no successful operational defenses after the first few weeks of Normandy. (Well, Market Garden. But the British did advance all the way to Arnhem, and despite all the misconceived parts of the operation, and held the bridge for the required days, just no longer.) |
FWIW, Pershings were key to the capture of the Ludendorf Bridge (in Remgen) by the 9th Armored. Their guns had the range to take out the MG positions in the bridge's defensive towers from the other side of the river making it possible for a company of American infantry to cross and secure the bridge.
As to the "historical" nature of COH, it isn't. If it was most US Sherman's would barely encounter Wehr armor greater than a StuG and their greatest danger would be from paks and fausts.
Also all German late model tanks would destroy allied mediums in one hit but have a chance of breaking down before reaching the battlefield (though still expensive) and a chance of breaking down or running out of fuel (abandoned) in mid battle. Volks would be more like ostruppen and would gain minimal veterancy, as would OKW veterans (how much more veterancy can a veteran gain?). And US would have some button that they can push in the right situation and blow the whole enemy position to pieces with arty or an airstrike. |