Profile of Caeltos

@Caeltos and with what can germans counter early penals? With cookies+milk strat... havent rly tried that tbh
Srsly if penals were stronger+cheaper i dont see any way of countering them, sniper is 360 and has slow ROF , and dies quickly if seen by penals
Srsly soviets dont need more early strong units , how about early penals + shocks , make shocks 400mp right?

That's why I don't think they need any real combat effiency improvements. I'd prefer subtle and outside the box stuff that makes them more accessible and more viable. Penals are still afterall 360 manpower, and getting several in the early-game puts you down quite heavily on the overall "large" army composition. A MG42 can lock them down, Grenadiers with MG42s will outscale the Penals, and well, there's a good chunk of stuff that makes Penals quite easy to cope with.

If you make the investment, and let's just theorycraft on this for the sake of it, to just demonstrate the manpower cost/effiency.

2x Penals + 1 engineer (This will be a rough 5-minute unit composition or so) // 3 units
VS
1x Pioneer, 2x Grenadier + 1 MG

Grenadier, 240x3 = 720 , 2x Penals are 720 manpower. 3x units of 240 will outshine a 2x of 720 MP investment, at least in terms of overall map control. (The Pioneer/Engineer are def. ones)

Penals are more straight up skirmishers, whereas the 3x units can give you the extra unit to attend to obtaining map control, yet the Gren/MG can deal with 2x Penals. (Disregarding a flanking manuever for the sake of it) which makes maintaining map control with Penal oriented builds, quite the big obstacle for it's performance, and map control is absolutely essential to ensure your transitions do well, esp. with Soviets who have the map control as a big factor for their snowballing performance. Alof of the things I've paid notice to is that Soviets will generally have great timings for their T70s, and other misc. t3/t4 stuff that makes the Ostheer struggle. If the Ostheer is ahead, or on par - the soviet is going to have a bad time.

If Penals can just ease out some of it's issues they present when incorpating them into builds. I'm sure there might be abit of more of an influx to get them. For when I'm playing 2s/3s/4s, Penals aren't really that bad of a unit to get, but it's important that not everyone commits to them, since you're goin to lose the early map control, and you'll have have a bad time in the early-mid stage of the game, unless you're brutally lucky. But again, 2s/3s/4s have less significant impact on overall map control (To some degree), since there's less restrain on moving around the units (unless certain points need defending etc), so you have the option to commit to actual skirmishes. In 1s, the issue with the build become more clear, since the overall timing/effiency and map control all play a much bigger part, and Penals for the most part don't quite cut it.

However, with just a food for thought, if the build time is reduced for the Penals, or misc. side-note changes. You can get a faster-scout car to help out with the map control issue, just to throw some food for thought here again

* Reduce Build time on Penals from X to Y *
* Next Investment can be made to M3 Scout Car* <- You'll most likely always have the money and time to commit to this after the initial Penal Investment *

^ Global change; Penals hit the field faster , but so does the Scout Car in return. None changes are applied to the Scout Car, yet the Scout Car performance/timing has been changed due to a indirect change on a builds overall performance. Increasing the versatility of diff. army compositions.

JimRaynor was on top of this 2 years ago. He was consistent and insistent with his posts trying to warn gamers..share his concerns and all anyone in this community ever did was shoot him down. You all marked him as a "Troll" ignoring the fact that he was a well informed concerned consumer.

As THQ was going bankrupt Quinn Duffy continued to insist everything was great at Relic and this had no impact on the development of the game. Based on your reply I guess you think Raynor was correct and Duffy was being less than 100% honest.

I don't know who this JimRaynor was until like a couple of days ago when someone gave me a heads-up and that recognized him as abit of a trollbait.

Seriously, you'd have to be completely delusional to not recognize that things were not looking bright for THQ, and their future line-up when they were present HAD TO sell really well in order to for them get back on their feet, hell even then- they'd still be in a uphill battle. Despite that, I remember when several people who were responsible of the Dawn of War franchise (TASK3R) amongst alot of other good people got laid off, and it came as a surprise. Specifically TASK3R comes to mind, since I followed him on Twitter, and he was really excited about some upcoming work he was doing, the day after (or so) he got laid off. I don't know how much Relic is actually in the loop with how the financial of their Publisher/Owner has it, unless they do some research in their private time. For all what's worth, it could have been okay, and they could have the financial backup to continue on with what their doing, then the next day- they could get bad news. It's all really up for speculation, and only Relic / Their respective publisher really has the full grasp on the subject, so I don't want to speculate more then I already am. :-)

Do what you gotta do mate

I'm not just a big fan of Gorilla ignoring the very important misc. subjects on the sidenotes which are quite impactful on the overall sales. It's just speculations which are fairly loose. Depending on the overall budget they've put on the game, and what-have-you, it could still have been a profitable sale for all what's worth. Despiet low sales figures (on steam)

Unfortunately, there are even bigger issues here they need to pay attention to. Relic knows the casual player base of 3v3 and 4v4 "for fun" people, is huge.

As I see it, Soviet is now unplayable in 3v3 and 4v4 even WITH a strafe patch.

To have a chance of winning, Soviets must do far more coordination as a team than Ostheer does. This is because of how the teching system is designed. Ostheer always has a choice of support or infantry units early game, except for the oddball who skips T1 (a much rarer strat now) and thus any player can field units to counter the enemy.

This is not the case for Soviets. Some need to field support weapons, some need to use M3s and snipers to combat the German early game. This degree of coordination is not going to be found among casual players randomly playing 4v4. But it's the only way to play Soviets. It was passable before the Maxim was nerfed and the Ostheer MG given an extra crew member, which gave Soviets a strong early game presence, and if team tactics were used, nigh unbeatable by experienced teams (I happen to have one).

Maybe things will evolve so some people know to go support in certain positions, as was the case with Montargis in COH, but the game doesn't seem to make those choices obvious...

I don't want the patch reversed because I am a competitive player, and 1v1 and 2v2 are the best venues for competition. This patch has done a lot to balance the game. But I do want to see 3v3 and 4v4 remain viable.

I have only one radical suggestion...The only way to balance the game for casual, uncoordinated teams is to allow the use of both factions in automatch. I suggest automatch be reconfigured to allow for Soviet and German teams on the same side for THESE game modes only.

I don't want to be stepping on anyones toes, but I personally think that Soviets have it far better even in team games. Altho, my perspective on the matter is slightly bias, so to say- since I only play with people that I know, or are good players. But when we do, we do with a breeze, even against good competetion players. It might ultimately just boil down to good coordination & synergy with everyone, we just mesh really well together, and speak about what commanders/units we ought to get.

If there's any point to it, I would give out some friendly advice;
- Always get someone to grab an ISU-152 commander oriented doctrine. Be that from the low-level one, to the CE edition one. There's no real prefernce, the CE one is far more agressive oriented however, and can support other agressions via Mark Vehicle.

The ISU-152 is excellent at denying & applying pressure and disloding - let alone killing virtually just about anything. It's an extremely valuable asset to the team.

- Have someone get the either Guard Rifle Combined Arms // Conscript Support doctrine to be able to continous lay down the early-mid game pressure. The Conscript Support works well with another teammate that has more scaling potential towards mid-late game. The Guard Rifle is abit more flexible in overall utility, with the Howitzer in particular

- Grab someone with an IS-2 doctrine. Whilst people will argue the IS-2 is bad, it's an excellent meat-shield for the rest of your tanks. Let-alone, good spotter for your backline tanks. Not a neccasity, but a good bonus to a strengthen late-game comp.

- Katyushka for continous stalls. Let-alone, good for dealing with PaK43s and just holler down playstyle. Don't overcommit on them, and keep them sparse, you'll need the SU-85s.

I wanted to elaborate more on this, but I'll get to it later :-)

I actually noticed something like this yesterday when a buddy of mine used it, didn't seem to stun or damage several models. It could have been a fluke, but now that you're saying, it sounds weird.

You say that all evil acts are done by "antagonist" but this "antagonist" is a representative of Soviet State (moreover there is no ANY good guy among Soviet officers in the game except Isakovich) so Relic implies that it's common for Soviets to make such a bad things (executions of soldiers, civilians etc).

Do you REALLY think that there were not good Russian officers in WW2? "Good" in fighting enemy not killing their own people? Not jelly-fish like Isakovich?

Well, not all acts are done by the "Antagonist" so to say. In particular during some scenes where there are Commissars present, they are doing both good in terms of inspiring courage through their speeches, but at the same time, inspiring "fear" that retreating is not an option. It's about of a dilemma, but I would assume it would really bolster the men to fight and press on, since there's no real other alternative. I'd call it a dilemma to be put in. Besides, I guess it's more of a chain of command thing anyway. The Commissars from what I understand (Correct me if I'm wrong historically) are just carrying out orders from their superiors.

There's no clear black/white in the Eastern Front. Both Factions commited atrocities, both against innocents and their enemy alike. I would probably agree there's little lack of display on the German Side of their actions, but from the documentaries I've seen. It's suprisingly very little of the display of their actions. But however, it's mainly a Soviet-oriented campaign, so I can't blame them for putting the empthasize on the soviet perspective. Much alike the comparison that Panzer Elite was focused on the german ones, and not the displaying of the other factions actions. And so on forth, every campaign previously focuses on the faction you're playing, not the ones you're not controlling.

I mean, in many games, not just this one. You're not getting a clear grasp or a good overview on the whole scenario. But that's partially just time-restriction + budget taking into consideration. If they had all the budget & time in the world, I'm sure you'll get a real good overview from all factions and a really indepth & historical accurate display of the World War 2 on the Eastern Front, but that's not being very realistic about it. So you've got to cut corners and make work with what you've got.

Besides, I'm sure there were actually good commanding officers. There was just no empthasize on it in the campaign more likely. It was more about the actual common-soldier like I've said. When they go back to get the "Protangist" when he is pinned down. He was afterall, a good officer that worth keeping around- and he was disgusted by the actions of the superior officer when he executed the ones that saved the main characters live. That was the point afterall, where he decided to go into journalist-route. So it's a 1 for 1 exchange in display of officers, showcasing that not everyone agreed with what they were doing. But like the "Antagonist" said, it was more a case of "Kill or be Killed" scenario, and every inch of terror and inspire they could instill to their foes & comrades to stop them from taking Moscow, then it was worth it. The morale of their actions catches up to them in the end (As shown in the last segment of the game)

The point is, constructing a game on the Eastern Front is probably not the easiest task (RTS + Story wise). Relic obviously wanted to pay tribute to the fallen, as shown again- by the ending segment of the game. But also showcase the questionable actions that was done by the Commissars. Our Protanogist was no grunt, he had some say in the matters. The Antagonist is the "Evil" side of the spectrum. The Soviets were no saints, nor were the germans (But again, the empthasize on the campaign is the Soviets, not the Germans, much like previous campaigns and others genres alike, they're putting empthasize on the ones you're playing) but that doesn't mean there were no good people. Our Protagonist had strong bonds with his men, he was a good officer during his time. He questioned the actions of his superiors. The normal-soldiers were also portrayed with a good heart. (Again, goes to show when they rescue our Protagonist)

Also the hospital scene is also another good scene with getting connected with another individual from the War. But there wasn't that much of him, so I assume it just got left in the dark for most people.

But again, we come back to the point of time + budget and deadline. If they had compressing (a particular scene that focused on the good-will of our protagonist) for the sake of showing a "Good" Commissar. There's a risk of losing one thing, for the trait of another. And "Good" + Commissar for the average joe, probably doesn't go hand-in-hand. (Movies, media & alike) have put alot of empthasize on the Commissar evil deeds. So trying to skew around that perspective is treading on thin ice, and you'd probably have forums complaining about inaccurate portration of the Commissars from World War 2.

I actually really enjoyed the campaign. I take it for what it is, and what they had to work with. It's not as easy to just tip in & throw in scenes. First off, you'll need to orchestrate the scenery, what characters are present, animate, voice it. Get the sounds in, make sure it doesn't bug out. The list just goes on and on. And at the end of the day, it's important that the scene reaches out and actually tells the audience something. It's alot of resources & time to ensure it gets done, and I'm happy with what we've got in the campaign.

Now, I'm not saying the campaign is flawless, there's always room for improvement. The scenes could probably have been abit longer and added more narrative dialogue to strengthen the story furthermore. I wouldn't mind views on the Partisans to get a clear grasp on them. But overall, I would give it a solid 8ish.


Multiplayer on another hand, is another thing. Theatre of War is another awesome addition and I can't wait for the continued additions they'll add. The co-op stuff in particular has drawn alot of my friends to play it, and I think that's really a strong selling point.