Profile of theblitz6794

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 395

General Information

Signature

I bought vCoH on January 3rd, 2007.
Still missing the days of vCoH 1.71. It had it's issues, like paks sniping 57s, and the strafe didn't work, but overall, it was probably the most balanced time in CoH history.

OF ruined that. CoH 2 is....balanced in a nasty way. Everyone has an equal stockpile of gamebreaking bullshit. USA is full of early game BS while the OKW doesn't get its BS until late game. It's just a question of how badly you exploit the faction's shit and how quickly, after a patch, you discover the gaping holes of bullshit Relic leaves. But either way, it's all BS. The only "BS" in vCoH that was gamechanging was the fast m8 vs a bunker.

Show Latest Posts


Thread: I Feel Soviets Failed Thematically.30 Oct 2015, 21:16 PM Jump back to quoted post30 Oct 2015, 20:05 PMMarkedRaptor DeafMutes, it's fine if they went for more of the "Realistic" approach. Where Soviets were well equipped and could go toe to toe with whatever is thrown at them. However, they aren't even that. The only units Soviets have that can are heavy tanks(IS-2) and the T34-85. So we have this weird mish mash that doesn't fit either the sterotypical theme or the "realistic" theme. It doesn't fit any, which is my point. It's almost like they struck a balance between the realistic theme and stereotypical theme or something insanely stupid :kappa: like that! In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: I Feel Soviets Failed Thematically.30 Oct 2015, 05:40 AM Oh God this myth again. This isn't the Red Army of 1941 or 1942. It's the Red Army of 1943 and later 44. That Red Army was NOT zerg rush-waste all your men palooza. Was it relatively less professional and relatively greater in numbers? Duh. But it was a mechanized and trained army like all others! The Soviets in CoH 2 reflect this. Their units are relatively cheaper and more expendable; relatively more spammy; and relatively weaker. Keyword is relative! In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: M26 Pershing/Calliope Debate16 Oct 2015, 18:09 PM Jump back to quoted post28 Jul 2015, 23:03 PMSierra Sorry to be a dick here, but it's not even a "debate" Relic has said straight up that the USF won't be getting the Pershing. Pretty sure they said they won't be getting the Calliope either, but don't quote me on that. In: Lobby
Thread: PERSHING-- IN YOUR FACE I TOLD YA SO16 Oct 2015, 18:08 PM People didn't believe me. I've been saying they'll add the Pershing. "Nah bro design philosophy" and I'm like "that's why it's on a special commander" and they're like "NO!!!!" and I'm like "Just wait " This cancerous thread should be promptly locked but I need this GLOAT. IN YOUR FACE DANK PERSHING 420 REKT IT FGT!!!!1111!1!11 In: Lobby
Thread: Remapping keys25 Sep 2015, 21:51 PM Is there anyway to remap keys, and since I'm presuming not without the help of 3rd party software, why the fuck is this the case in a 2015 RTS game? In: Lobby
Thread: Battlefield Awareness Issues21 Sep 2015, 06:27 AM Jump back to quoted post11 Sep 2015, 17:39 PMvan Voort Most, but not all 4v4 battles fall into clear sides. City 17 being a good example of that, as it often turns into 2 x 2v2. Helping and cooperating on 'your' side is generally better than spreading around. As you get better "reading" what is happening in the game and keeping track of what your teammates are up to becomes more important and easier. It might be that the reason you are your teammate have won where you are is because you were only up against one player, in which case you need to make sure your teammates elsewhere don't get overwhelmed because they might be facing 3 v 2 I might add that, in lieu of battlefield conditions that are always diverse, breaking into asymmetrical sides in a 4v4 usually means one side has an advantage, usually the side with the margin advantage See, when there's a 2v1 and a 2v3 going on, the margin of the 2v1 is 100%. But the 3v2 is 50%. That means that, generally, 2 players can hold 3 longer than 1 player can hold two. And it just makes sense when you think about it. Moving indirect fire and support weapons dynamically around a center point or two can hold on for awhile if you're only outnumbered 3-2. But 2-1 you simply cannot win any engagement sans a royal fuckup. So create 2v1s! In: Strategy Desk
Thread: 240mm USF needs urgent rework21 Sep 2015, 06:10 AM Historically, wasn't artillery RNG anyway? And air power for that matter In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Vickers LMG vs Bren LMG?18 Sep 2015, 21:32 PM Jump back to quoted post18 Sep 2015, 21:15 PMAlexzandvar The Vickers K is the same no matter who holds it, the Bren's DPS changes based on who picks it up. In power from least effective to most it goes Tommies < Sappers < Commandos when it comes Brens. It's disappointing how ineffective Tommies are compared to sappers Anyhow, is the Bren worth getting on commandos? And where does the air landing officer fit into this? Finally, how about piats on different units? In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Vickers LMG vs Bren LMG?18 Sep 2015, 21:31 PM oops In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Vickers LMG vs Bren LMG?18 Sep 2015, 21:05 PM Okay if the Bren and Vickers K are about the same, what's the point of the vickers k? In: COH2 Gameplay