I don't expect much of anything. I hope I made that clear. The way the game is right now, I am very much enjoying it and am more interested in how the players will evolve their strategies than how the game itself will evolve.
I didn't know that Nullist, thanks. I guess that means that my original observation is false with flame weapons, but not other damage types. I guess that explains why Soviet flamethrower engineers are so good.
Cyridius, Now I understand why I don't lose squads as much in this game as I used to in COH1. Standard infantry damage is lower in this game which allows players more reaction time to retreat their squads. I think that is what they are going for with such low damage trying to make the game more about strategy than reaction time. Flanking is a difficult thing to balance to be sure.
I believe flamers, mortars (maybe snipers, I'm not sure) and tanks all ignore armour. I.e. I think it only affects small arms fire. Yeah, I agree about the point of the slightly lower standard infantry damage. |
|
Specifics on
MGs - Soviet snipers might just be the best thing in the game right now. I still find MG-42s easier to flank than a maxim right now.
Molotovs - also deny cover and buildings (to an extent, there's a problem with big buildings being basically grenade proof at the moment), so even against an Ostheer player who's really on point with micro they can be valuable.
Grenadiers - German infantry have identical health with Soviet infantry, which is part of the reason T-34s are much better AI than a P-IV, flamers and mortars are more effective vs Ostheer etc etc.
SU-85s - the problem isn't the strength so much as the bluesmobile speed and the vision range. StuGs can't tangle with them because of the reversing speed, P-IV flanks are incredibly risky even if they come off well because of the same. Shreks and Paks have a very hard time doing anything more than area denial because of the reverse speed.
Flammenwerfer - it's 120 munitions very early, usually comes out at the same time as the guards + M3 or ZiS can, is definitely less effective AI than the T-70 or the Ostwind and is the only real German hard counter to a maximspam start. It used to be way too good (I think in one of the campaign missions there's still a beta-stats FHT that will just *melt* your soldiers). Right now it's less strong at retreat killing than the M3 with flamer and is in a pretty good place.
Strafing Run - Is ridiculous and is being patched.
T-34 - it probably needs some kind of penetration buff to increase its reliability but until the SU-85 becomes a bit more vulnerable to its counters or a good flank it's never going to see much field time (likewise the SU-76). |
|
Snipers, scripts, guards, SU-85s, Katyusha. The best combined arms in the game, really. |
|
It's a silly war film style campaign, and at least it's a little more memorable than the characters in the first game. It definitely does show some acts of Soviet heroism, though it doesn't spend time reiterating that the Nazis are evil for people too lazy to fill in the blanks (and what's the need for it). My objection if anything to the way the campaign is done so far is that they haven't really implicated me as a player in any of the awfulness aside from order 223 being tricksy... I'd kind of like to see a few levels where you can do nasty things as a non-necessary shortcut/easy mode so that being the heroic upstanding argumentative type that our main character is becomes a matter of sacrifice and challenge rather than de rigueur.
Anyone who goes from this to say that Relic are somehow pro-nazi or insulting their Russian playerbase or something like that... ugh... EDL types... |
Doctrinal indirect fire options are fine, and are not the issue of discussion.
Howwver since this does not yet seem evident and obvious enough in and of itself, I will elaborate as to "why" they are not relevant.
Both factions carry 2 indirect fire doctrinal options. They are asymetrically balanced, and quantitavely and qualitatively asymetrically balanced:
Ost MHT vs Sov 120mm Mortar:
Asymetrically balanced as a CP2-CP1 indirect fire choice.
The MHT balanced for mobility and the 120mm for AoE/Dmg.
Ost Howitzer vs Sov Howitzer:
Asymetrically balanced as purchaseable without a tier building at CP4.
The Ost variant fires more frequently with lower damage as balanced against the Sov variant firing less frequently with more damage.
Costwise there is no significant disparity.
Now I have demonstrated why doctrinal indirect fire options are not the point of contention, issue, or disparity.
The issue is non-doctrinal indirect fire option availability for both factiosn, respectively, by T3.
Until T4, Ost has only one indirect fire option.
-81mm Mortar
Until T4, Sov has a choice of 3 indirect fire options.
-82mm Mortar
-ZiS Barrage
-SU76 Barrage.
Sov can, however, also get Katyushas within 3 tier purchases.
The grand total of overall, regardless of tier, indirect fire options for Ost and Sov, is:
-Sov= 4 (+2 Doctrinal)
-Ost= 2 (+2 Doctrinal)
This disparity is made worse by the timing requirements.
Ost NEEDS indirect fire in the T3 bracket, which is where Sov has 3 options, whereas Ost has only 1.
This is a blantant, systemic and indisputable disparity in options for indirect fire between the factions.
As to how this can be resolved, the obvious solution is returning Panzerwerfer to T3.
Causal and subsequent issues with Ostwind are not relevant to the primary and over-reaching issue of Ost lack of indirect fire options at this timing/tier.
Ostwind is not the issue of debate. Lack of indirect fire options on Ost, is.
Proposals to move the Ostwind to Tier 4 (as you supported earlier) *obviously* require attention to whether that affects the usefulness of the Ostwind. Proposals to move a unit from Tier 4 obviously require attention to the impact of that change on the usefulness of Tier 4. The doctrinal options don't just balance or cancel one another out, they slot into the general gameplay of the faction - if your concern is the Ostheer need to spend more fuel to have access to better/mobile indirect fire, the Ostheer can compensate for that with a doctrine choice instead of teching up. The ZiS barrage is short range, costs a fair chunk of munitions and has a low angle of fire (so, it's not really an indirect fire unit, if you're honest). The SU-76 and the Katyusha both come from the same building, and require that the Soviets have no serious anti-infantry vehicle or in-field reinforcement available.
I don't really see why the Ostheer *need* T-3 non-doctrinal artillery to deal with that. |
@Shephard: None of that refutes a massive imbalance in indirect fire options (no matter how you semantically define that term) between Ost and Sov at equivalent tier and timing.
@Marxist: Ost has to tech linearly. The correct comparison of tierage is number of buildings invested + Osts battlephase cost/time. Even if Ost skips buildings to Panzerwerfer, it still has 2 less indirect fire options in the interim. This is a substantial enough disparity to need attention. I do not disregard the existance of Bunkers, but your implication that the disparity exists to counter Bunkers, is flawed. A) Because nobody builds bunkers in 1v1 B) Because its comparing apples and oranges, as you typically do. You try to derail relevant and founded concerns on one issue by, falsely, implying they are somehow counteracted by something entirely unrelated. Using your logic, I could say that:Bunkers are fine because Pios cant Demopack, therefore Ost indirect fire options are too few. See? Makes no goddam sense. Try again, fanboi.
@Blovski: Doctrine indirect fire options are included in the second updated list. You must have missed that before you clung to that as if it where relevant. Which it isnt. Because as the updated list clearly indicates, both Factions have two Doctrinal indirect fire options, meaning there is no balance disparity in terms of doctrinal indirect fire options, meaning you either deliberstely or accidentally failed to grasp that the issue is non-doctrinal indirect fire option disparity. I would have thought this distinction was obvious and elementary. You furthermore try to somehow extend the discussion to SU85s, Ostwinds or T4s usefulness, which are, again, all irrelevant to the main argument/issue, whixh is that Sov/Ost indirect fire options at T3 are in imbalanced disparity.
Nothing any of you have said has refuted, explained or resolved the objective disparity in indirect fire options between the factions at T3 and timing. Youve tried to argue the semantics of the term "indirect fire", argue that Bunkers have anything to do with it, irrelevantly bring SU85 into the discussion and other assorted derailing and nonsensical waffle.
Fact remains that at T3 timing, Ost has 3 (THREE) less indirect fire options, than Sov.
Until T4, Ost has 1 (ONE) indirect fire option.
Doctrinals are fine, balanced and equal. 2 for both factions. This is about non-doctrinal indirect fire options at T3.
I expect replies to restrict themselves to the issue at hand, as outlined above.
The point you're wilfully missing on doctrinal options by your numeric equivalency stuff is that Ostheer players can get mobile or heavy artillery without teching to T-4.
If you suggest changing the Ostwind and German T-4 to fix the perceived problem of a lack of German T-3 artillery, then the effect of changing that on the usefulness of those units is obviously pertinent to the discussion.
As you know perfectly well, the people mentioning other things are suggesting that the nature of the asymmetrically balanced game is such that the disparity in indirect fire options at Tier 3 isn't a big enough deal to merit the changes you argue for. |
|
Also, it's *so* chokey with mines. |
All your options are doctrinal and therefore irrelevant, since they have counterparts also in Sov doctrines (equalled out both quantitatively and qualitatively by 120mm Mortar and Sov Howitzer).
Ost indirect fire is limited to ONE unit, upto and including T3:
-81mm Mortar.
Thats it.
Doctrines are obviously relevant. If you have a problem with the lack of indirect fire you *can* pick a doctrine to give you more indirect fire staying in T-3. Hence, you don't need to wreck Ostwinds and T-4's usefulness to solve a problem that isn't really the one Ostheer players are having (that one being the SU-85 of doom). |
Ost indirect fire upto and including T3 is
-81mm Mortar.
Thats it.
This is a ridiculous discussion.
Go for the MHT if you want earlier mobile indirect fire or the Howitzer if you want to add indirect fire to T-3 without teching up. Not a big enough problem to merit screwing over the Ostwind and the usefulness of Ostheer T-4 for. |
Ost T3 indirect fire is inadequate.
Period.
As a largely Ostheer player I'd rather have Ostwinds be in a useful place and Tier 4 actually be a useful choice because it adds a new element. The problem with German T-3 vs. Soviet T-4 is obviously the Blues Brothers SU-85 rather than not having indirect fire you can make up with doctrine choices if you're so inclined. |
Caillou
rndorian
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
