Yup, I hear you man. I was sick of that 2 so I started supporting my HMG with Grens. It works well, they tear apart those crawling Cons. You should try it  You can also, pack up and reposition, while they are still crawling. Usually plenty of time to bring some reinforcements to help out.
Maybe also try not using them as first line unit. They work best when moving after Grens and backing them up
If the MG is left unsupported it should be extremely voulnerable to flanking. Leaving it voulnerable to head on assault, that it is designed to stop, seems countrrintuitive, an to me, just plain stupid.
That was, in my oppinion, the beauty in vCOH. MG were absolute beasts if you faced them head on, an totally helpless when outflanked. It encouraged, and rewarded, smart tactics, while this new system encourages reckless assaults.
In my oppinion vCOH pretty much nailed it in that regard. |
|
On thing I still find annoying is that offensive Maximspam still seems to work decent. Im not a top player, but the other day I faced a guy spamming maxims a lot, and though I could easily use truesight to outflank him, killing of the entire team takes a long time, especially as I have to micro the grens while he can just press attack, and then attack me somewhere else.
In fact, its my main tactic when playing Soviets as well. Three or four maxims, followed by an AT-gun to counter that flamerhalftrack. Even if one of my Maxims get overrun I still have a backup and if he sends another unit to flank that one as well the maxims can basicly cower each other.
I see some people saying mortars counter maxims, but early game, I have to dissagree, as the maxim is an effective assaultweapon, and a german with early mortar will be assaulted by maxims.
Playing Soviets, I really miss a vCOH style MG to establish controll, and playing germans I find the maxims frustrating to play against, because it dosent reward smart flanking and manouevering that much.
I dont see them changing it though, and I dont think the maxims should be nerfed to much, as it would make them pretty much useless. I just think the design of the unit was a mistake to begin with. |
|
I dont know what to think about the maxim. Its an extremely effective assaultunit and a decent defensive unit.
The MG42 is kind of a joke right now. I see a lot of players are happy that they can charge an MG head on with conscripts and win, but seriously, does anyone think thats how such an MG should work?
I think they were perfect in vCOH. |
I think the reason why relic made strategies so much dependent on commanders is to subsitute for having only two factions.
Anyway, i think the best solution is to just make a ton of free commanders with abilities mixed and matched( it breaks my heart when units like t34/85, 120mm, etc... are only available on two commanders). Of course they have to be balanced. And maybe you should be able to pick five commanders rather than three.
That might be, but then I dont understand why they didnt simply add some abilities to the core factions, so that they would feel more complete. There is a lot of other units and abilities that could be added. Splitting basic core abilities from vCOH between several commanders just strikes me as another way of making the original look better. |
CoH2 is actually more unpredictable tactically as your strategy is more dependent on the commanders that you have chosen. If you were given so much flexibility within the vanilla faction people could essentially opt to not utilize commanders and thus would be opting out of a key gameplay element. It simply makes more sense within the context of CoH2 to make abilities and units that sit near the extremes of the tactical spectrum (much more defensive or much more assault oriented) exclusive to certain commanders.
Sorry, I didnt quite understand this. The game is more unpredictable because you are given fewer core abilities, and have to unlock certain basic features through commanders, locking you in a certain direction?
The fact that many of these abilities were part of the faction gave you more options, thus more flexibility and less predictable strategies. Pherhaps more important, it opened up more room for changing strategies as the game progressed.
|
Personally I prefer them this way. Tank traps were very potent in Vcoh and heavily favored german players. It wasnt odd to see them trap out an entire side and then put a 88 flak or a tiger on the other denying the americans only advantage of mobility
I understand how someone would preffer this solution if they dont like defensive abilities, tanktraps in particulair, and therefore want as little of them as ossible. Regardless, this aproach limits the tactical diversity and forces you down some paths if you want to use basic COH abilities, like tanktraps or FHQ.
I, for one, enjoied the diversety end width in the vCOH factions, and am sad to see this limited as much. It will make the games more predictable, and make defensive tactics much less viable then in vCOH. I understand that a lot of people here want defensive tactics to be as unatractive as possible, but for those who enjoyes the diversity and variety basic core defenses brought its a step down. |
|
So tanktraps are being added with a commander?
Really dissapointing, and something I feared all allong. I was hoping that som of the basic features missing from vCOH would eventually be added to the factions, not only commanders, making the factions themselves more complete.
If this is true I guess it makes the excuses that were thrown arround earlier for why FHQs and tanktraps were gone look rather strange. |
|
A lobby (Incredible that they didnt include one, and even more so that Noun and Relic waited for such a long time before they finally admitted it was never planned and wouldnt be implemented anytime soon).
I would also like to see tanktraps, dragable sandbags, and forward HQs, all nondoctrinal, but I doubt that will ever happen considering how Relic are focusing on selling Commanders.
I would like to see a rework of the infantrycombat, into something more similair to vCOH in regards to small arms dammage and importance of cower, as I think vCOH favours smart tactics, while COH2 is more centered arround moving arround using abilities, infantrywise. |
|
I have to agree with a lot of the points made in the OP. The infantrycombat was fundamentally changed, in my oppinion, for the worse, as cower and tactical manouevering to a large degree was replaced with frontal assaults and throwing and dodging grenades. This dosent only make the gameplay itself less tacticly deep and diverse, but also makes the firefights look ridiciolus.
vCOH was great in so many ways, and it always fealt like the designers made a game they really wanted to play, and added features and gameplaymechanics they loved themselves. In COH2 I get the feeling that the developers didnt like the COH kind of gameplay that much, though had to use some of the elements in order to justify the name. It feels like a game mad by someonw who is way more comfortable with DOW than COH. |
|
I really dont get the argument "if you dont like it, why are you here". Those of us who think that COH2 is a step down compared to vCOH, but still voice our oppinions, obviously wants the game to be better, and contribute with our oppinions on how it hopefully will be.
Parallell to this thread we are discussing Tactical placement and manouevering vs micro, in another thread, and hopefully that is something that will be looke at as well. The flanking mechanics of MGs was, in my oppinion, broken for the first months, untill Relic made them more voulnerable to flanking, excactly like in vCOH, after massive feedback.
We are here because we see potential and wants the game to be even better than vCOH. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
