Profile of Doomlord52

The perception that teller mines are drastically inferior to soviet mines strikes me as odd. Personally, I enjoy having a mine that is more likely to have a high rate of return. It deals 500 damage, can only trigger on high value units, and is fairly cheap when you consider the targets it can one shot.

60 munitions to outright destroy a T70/SU-76 or lower seems like a pretty good deal.

That said, I realize its overall utility early game is quite low and does reduce the number of counters available to the German player, but its late game potential far exceeds its counterparts.

What kind of damage does the Soviet mine deal, anyway? (Is there a site with this kind of info?). While the trade-off is good late game, it's still far too expensive to be useful early game.

The fact is, for about 15% more munitions, you can get two mines (2x more area covered) that can kill any type of unit. Meanwhile the German AT mine may be great (then there's the doctrine mine), but they have zero anti-infantry mine capability (Seriously the Smines suck - they don't kill); which is basically why I use mines in the first place. On top of that, the Smines actually have signs (as others have said), which makes them kind of pointless.

I'm still convinced that the best course of action would be to return to a CoH1 style of mine system, where each faction gets the SAME mine for the same cost, that can target both unit types.

TBH the whole state of mines is far too whack right now. Russians just have such a huge advantage.

German mines cost too much, and generally suck. The Anti-infantry mines take forever to plant, cost 80 muni, are so big you can rarely even place them and are generally pretty weak. The Teller mine is better, but it's vehicle only (except your rifle-nade trick), and it's still 60 muni.

Meanwhile the Russians get a 35 muni (or is it 30?) mine that is triggered by either infantry or vehicles and does the same damage (or very similar) as the tellar mine.

It would be nice if it were like vCoH; each faction has 1 mine type that is triggered by both inf and vehicles, costs the same, and does the same damage.


As for the Vet. Yea, it makes no sense; planting mines and getting kills gets you nothing, but running into them gets you stuff. Seems like the wrong way around to me.

Yea, blizzards are pretty horrible in every way. They're cool in SP/Coop, but absolutely awful in MP.

Firstly, you'd think that blizzards would make snipers better, but it doesn't. It's worse. Sniper range becomes the SAME as MG range because their view distance is the same. How does this make sense?

The view distance nerf should be percentage based, so if it's 50% off of the view distance of MGs it's the same 50% off snipers. Right now it just sets EVERY unit to the exact same view distance... which makes no sense.

Then there's the cold. Why? Seriously? It's just an across-the-board punishment to players. It doesn't 'do' anything for the game. You get a bunch of warnings, and then stuff dies extremely slowly. Almost all units can build a fire as well. Or you just put them in a building. Or a vehicle. It's not "fun", it's just annoying.

The problem with blizzards is that they solve problems that they create. Look at the gameplay involved; The blizzards nerf movement speed and view distance. As a result of this, the pace goes down - you just sit there. The game literally calls a 'time out'. To make the game interesting during these lulls in action, they imposed the whole "cold" system; you now need to focus on keeping troops warm. This system is literally just there to make the 'blizzard' periods interesting....

So to solve the lower pace in the game, they add a new mechanic to the game, which was needed because of blizzards slowing down the pace. Why? This is just circular logic. Remove blizzards and you remove the crap game play imposed by blizzards.

What made vCoH great was that it was ALWAYS full of action. You were always doing something. Right now, even at high-levels of play, you literally just sit there; "once this blizzard ends, I'll attack". It's just too risky to attack during a blizzard. Run into an MG in a blizzard? To bad. You're so far into the MG's range that you can't quickly back out. Running tanks in? Too bad. Any AT guns/SU-85s that are SLIGHTLY behind infantry can hit you without being seen, and back up before you can attack them. Want to call in recon to solve this? Nope, disabled. Want to call in arty to kill the AT/MGs/whatever? Nope. You can't do anything about it.

What's worse is that it encourages arty. Once a blizzard hits, just arty everywhere you know there's a fire. Why? Because the game FORCED the player to put his/her troops there.

Ok, so you can't attack; what if you just capped undefended points? Good luck. You'll either freeze before you get there, or you'll run into troops WHILE you're trying to get to a fire. The defender also has the advantage. He's been sitting at the fire (so heat is at 100%), while the attacker is freezing (probably 30%). Destroy the fire, and the defender has a 70% advantage (if not more), during which time he can fight 'for free' (no cold punishment). Eventually you'll force the attacker away either through firepower or cold damage, at which time the defender can rebuild the fire. And it works like this ALL the time. Going for my high fuel/muni? Good luck. I've got a squad there. Going for my cutoff? Good luck, you're behind MY lines - I've got the advantage in numbers and distance to fire (I can just destroy your fire). And guess what! You're attacking MY point, which gives me LOS on it. I'll know (roughly) where your troops are while you're attacking it, so my mortar (which is at a fire) can hit you.

ALL blizzards do is impose an excessively long 'time out' in the game. You can't attack during it, you can't cap during it, you can't do anything. Then, to try and make it not boring, they load in more, unnecessary and awful game play mechanics.

What blizzards SHOULD do is offer a good risk:reward opportunity. Reduce movement speed by a bit - that's fine - SO LONG as it's percentage based. Reduce view distance as well - SO LONG as it's percentage based. Don't impose cold damage or any of that garbage. Make blizzards shorter (should be about 30-45 seconds).

Now you've got a GOOD system. Attacking is viable, as is taking points. You don't impose any new game rules during the time period either.


The only 'good' thing about basically the entire cold system is the ice, which is admittedly a lot of fun and actually ADDS to the game.

CoH2 is CPU extensive. You literally won't benefit anything from having the game support SLI. but even you have a i7 2600k clocked at 4.5, the game is horribly optimized and you're going to have frame rate issues when katyushas fire and shit.

well, you can 'hack' the SLI to work via NvidiaInspector. It causes all of the snow to flicker to an insane degree, but it doubled my FPS....

Who the hell is "Company of Heroes 2 Stream #27" and why are people watching that instead of SNF?!?

It's the secret dev vs. SNF winner stream. Obviously.