|
I guess even in my old age I am really naive... But I am really surprised by two things... how easy it was to find hacks online and how many people were so happy to use them.
I mean it's A GAME! What are you getting by winning through cheating? You aren't getting anything except some pixels forming a higher number on one side vs. another than you could have managed on your own. There are no $'s involved, no prizes, no DLC, no buffs, etc.
There isn't even a sense of accomplishment. You won because you CHEATED!
|
There are so many great posts in this thread. I think OP has hit on a number of issues but I also think other people have raised some excellent additional points. I wish Relic could go back to the drawing board and produce a new COH game now, although I think it too late.
For me the interesting thing I would add is that after just 1.5 years I am getting extremely tired of this game. I tend to play one game at a time and have found myself less and less interested in playing. I never had this feeling with COH1.
Relic please take note, you should identify what was good about COH1 and build that. Please do not take each individual problem on and create a solution by building a new unit (e.g., shreks should be purchased one at a time but should also not dominate tanks, also tank killing squads are too small. Relic solution: make volks 5 man, cheap, and buy a single expensive shrek).
COH3 - Make COH1 with essentially the same units, colors, tech trees, etc. but add tru-sight and maybe maybe some elements from cold-tech. You probably don't even need better graphics.
Edit: But please fix the m10 bug. |
You really got a point but I rather tend to disagree because I like the "innovation" even if it is a step back sometimes. Innovation can be really cool but you have to accept criticism and this is something Relic fails to do. The whole snowstorm thing could have been really cool if they had changed the things the community proposed but Relic mostly is like a 3-year-old child: "I made it! So like it how it is or hate it!!"
Innovations in factions and balance are REALLY hard to pull off. And they aren't really necessary. However you make the rock-paper-scissors blance it will work so long as it is designed well though the more different the design the harder it is to pull off.
But you could keep the factions the same and still have a different game through innovation. Tru-sight is innovation, and a darned good one, with all sorts of strategic and tactical implications that are equal for both sides. Blizzards and cold-tech (and mud) are also innovations. Technically they are awesome. Who of us didn't watch the descriptions of snow/ice/blizzards in previews and not respond "Woooaaw, that is coll!". It's implementation was less popular, but it was certainly innovative and affects both side equally.
tl;dr You can have plenty of innovation without making different factions for difference's sake. |
If you guys want to argue historical points about a tanks build quality please start quoting your sources.
Here is another good write up:
http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/chieftains-hatch-french-panthers/
|
If you guys want to argue historical points about a tanks build quality please start quoting your sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank
yes yes, it is Wikipedia, but there are a lot of sources in the bibliography. |
pretty good at all, vids where funny to see too, but that with the decrewing of vehicles.. It actually happened pretty often that especially the germans used enemy armour. I would just say that its not completely random (if it is) but depends on the vehicle itself and the thing that is shooting at it. A bombing strike shouldnt leave anything behind. but if a small gun can take out the last bit of a tank then why not? that together with the side armour thing should encourage people engaging heavier tanks with lighter ones and makes it maybe planable to capture an enemy vehicle. Also it forces people to support their vehicles more by infantry. havent thought of it that much, just some initial ideas.
Actually it happened a lot to both sides. Many MANY panthers and Tigers were captured because they broke down or ran out of gas. The engine on a Panther (considered much more reliable than either Tiger) still only had an average life of 1000 km, and its final drive gear, made of steel much below the required standard, had an operational life of only 150km (93 miles).
The difference is that the allies, unlike Germany, were not desperate for any tank they could get their hands on, and were moving so fast in the summer of '44 that they weren't stopping to learn how to repair someone elses' new and overly complicated designs, particularly with their industrial infrastructure being an ocean away. |
As far as I can tell this is exactly the effect they tried to achieve in CoH1 with the two hit box approach.
Otherwise the exact hit angle would need to be taken into account and this might be very difficult to imprement concidering the number of entities and shots involved.
For CoH1 I allways found the hit box system very elegant and it worked well and satisfying. So my conclusion is not that the system as such is wrong but the changes they made to it.
I agree that it felt right in COH1. Perhaps not 100% but close enough. Which is a great trick considering how they modeled it and shows that a more rudimentary design, nicely balanced, can do wonders.
Making most, or even half, of a Panther the "front" hitbox makes for a very flawed model both by historical and game-play standards. If you are going to give Panthers super front armor (which is also historical) and give them super speed (for an almost-heavy) you need to also model their weakness which was that their side armor was almost as weak as the rear armor (40-58mm depending on location). They were very vulnerable when outmaneuvered and hit in the side. As a gameplay element this means that a Panther can still be super effective but would have vulnerabilities that required more skill in their use.
(BTW, needing skill in a Panther's use would also be historical, since inexperienced Panther crews took great losses in France in the summer of '44.) |
Im still waiting for someone to explain me how should I chase almost dead heavy tank to finish it with my Jackson if its retreating behind schrecks, paks and stuff like that 
IS2, ISU, Panther, Ele, JT, KT, Tiger don't have such problem in most cases. Just go forward, shoot 2 times, get few shots at front and reverse.
US Forces tanks are like go forward, shoot once (bounced), get 2 shots and die.
The fact that even the usual Axis trolls don't chime in with an answer IS in fact your answer to that question (birds chirping). |
You know, COH one had a funny tech for their riflemen. Can't remember if it reduced their upkeep or just the population per squad.
Might be worth while to implement a similar solution.
There were two upgrades to the Supply Yard. The SY itself reduced the upkeep costs of US units, unlocked T's 3 and 4, but gave no buffs. Each upgrade increased the rate at which rifles (did other units too?) received veterancy and further reduced the mp upkeep costs.
I like the idea of reducing pop a lot. It would have no effect on the game so long as the pop limit isn't achieved. But as stated, not just does USF have to fight the increased veterancy of OKW (and the super units) but is hamstrung in how much of a force they can wield to take on all of that power.
(Though M36 still needs a penetration buff.) |
USF needs M18 hellcat (commander)
The gun was almost identical to the EZ8
The Ez8 reliably penetrates
lightly armoured, high fired rate, high pentration, average damage, 50 range, .50 cal upgrade, and same cost and vet as m10,
The m18 was also super fast. 97kph-on-road fast. And yes, it had the same gun as the m10.
The m36 was based on the Sherman chassis with the 90mm gun. But it was much lighter than the sherman (thinner and open topped turret among other things) and was faster than a Sherman with better acceleration as well. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
