Profile of TheDGN

Jump back to quoted post29 Jul 2013, 07:34 AMDoomlord52

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.

Tiger I vs. IS-2
Health:
1280 vs 960


Armor:
350/250 vs 375/225


GunDamage(alpha)
160 vs 160


Penetration:
154 vs 140


Reload
6.25 vs 9(?LOL?)


Scatter Max
6.8 vs 7.5


AOE
1.25 vs 2.5


Costs:
600/250 vs 680/300

Aimstrong: While watching the games I could see that the game seemed very close. While playing it, I never felt I was completely on the back foot. When you play the same opponent for so many matches, you realize some of his habits. Sepha made a very good attempt to handle my Soviets in G5.

I think the turning point was his attempt to checkmate me by driving the flamer half-track inside my base. With the way AT nades work, it was a very risky move but with high rewards. It was doomed to fail since I had called in a second Guards squad to replace a lost Conscript squad. I never felt the half-track stood a change against 2 Guards and AT nades.

Although I was off the field, my unit composition was intact. With the Soviet snipers, this means that I could take the map back with relative ease. All his teching options would eventually be countered by my SU-85, so it was only a question of time. Thus I don't feel it was possible for him to use his map control advantage that much.

Jump back to quoted post8 Jul 2013, 13:28 PMHissy

Again though, it is possible to use for example T2/3 and Ram any PIVs that enroach into your territory supporting with Zis. There is no "Need" for T3 to be built for the purposes of AI, Soviets have more than enough AI. Be glad you have so many AT options at your disposal.

- Cheap Mines
- At Nades
- Guards
- T34
- Zis
- SU-85s

Any mix of these will deal with Axis armour if used correctly.

I highly recommend playing a few games of 2v2 and you will see the stupidly powerful SU-85 in action.

Jump back to quoted post8 Jul 2013, 17:13 PMCombatMuffin

The problem with the SU-85 is not its power. It is its cost. Right now, the SU-85 costs less manpower and fuel than a PIV, and it is vastly stronger than a PIV (circling it is hard, because the SU-85 has a very big sight radius, especially once vetted and using its vet ability).

If you increase its cost to be between a Panzer IV and a Panther, then the Soviet army will actually hurt, if it loses an SU-85.

The ZiS barrage ability is not OP, itself. The problem is also resource-centric. Since the Soviet army doesn't need to spend than many munitions to be effective, the ZiS barrage ability costing 45 munitions is not really a restriction to their gameplay. If oorah and other abilities were a little more expensive or less effective, then the Soviet army would be starved a little closer to the German army, and they wouldn't be able to use some abilities as liberally as they do now.

A Soviet player can literally neglect munitions points in the early game, and they will not suffer much of a setback compared to what the Germans will suffer if scout flamers arrive, and there are little munitions for fausts.