Profile of S0_L337_1T_HURTS

Panzerwerfer and Ostwind should swap places and this is why:

(1) The Ostwind requires just as much fuel as the P4 for less utility. By the time you field an Ostwind it will meet T34's or an SU-85, the first is a problem but the last totally prevents you from using the Ostwind in any meaningful way. Same fuel, more risk, for less utility than a P4. By every calculation a P4 makes more sense.

(2) German indirect fire options are meager and it got markedly worse after the Panzerwerfer was moved from T3. That's when we starting seeing the MG and sniper spam tactics rule. They still do to some degree. MG spam is still a huge thorn especially in maps with houses. Snipers still almost have no counter. Especially if there's one Su-85 on the field preventing an ostwind or P4 from getting to them. German mortar, despite the changes, aren't doing anti-sniper duty. Panzerwerfer is the balance here, for both. Again, these tactics were always in check before the Panzerwerfer move to T4.

(3) Swapping these units causes no imbalance for the soviet player considering they have the OPTION to build T4 anytime they want, they have no HQ upgrade's to go through. It's a tactical decision for them. So moving our T4 unit to T3 is not a balance issue on the Soviet side. And besides, they build direct T4 now anyway every time and have since early beta.

(4) This needs repeating: The P4 and Ostwind are redundant in the same building. T3 comes at a time when T34 or Su-85 are already on the field, forcing the decision to a P4 every time.

The more I think about this the more I feel it's strongly needed.

There are two outstanding issues with the Panzerwerfer:

Firstly, the sound for this unit... In early beta the Panzerwerfer sound had lots of 'oomph' ... it was distinct and fearsome and when you heard an ally firing it, or the enemy firing it, it was psychologically impactful. It echoed throughout the battlefield in a way that was loud and proper.

The Kytusha sounded similar but was, in the end, a totally different sound. And I feel that if anyone got the two confused on the battlefield, that is OK. That it's part of the fog-of-war and I think that is allowable... since they were distinct. Similar perhaps, but different.

At one point at the end of beta the entire sound file for the Panzerwerfer was removed, and due to an oversight took two whole patch cycles (about a full month) to be reinstated. When it finally returned it was a shallow, hallow form of its old self.

Can we get official comment on this (either way)? It feels 'whimpy' now, at least compared to it's screaming confident terrifying old self. We miss these sounds of war. It was great immersion.

The second issue, and this is a larger balance discussion, on Panzerwerfer being now a T4 unit. I feel it was moved there only because the elephant or tiger became doctrinal and German T4 would then have only two units....so it was more 'filler' than making true balance sense.

How or why is less important. I have mixed feelings on the move into T4. And I'm not sure how things can be reshuffled or if they should. Maybe where things stand now is perfectly appropriate. I'm just bringing this up for discussion. But right now it's irritating Soviets can field theirs so much earlier. I think if left as is then possibly the Soviet T4 building and unit costs need a second overall look (they do anyway for a number of reasons, in my opinion).

But that T4 issue aside.... we really care about the sound. Really. Can we get a comment on how it got like it is and the reasoning behind it?

Thanks for replying. No one here is unsympathetic with regards to the process and amount of work required of the Dev team & the other parties involved. Having said that:

We're exceptionally happy with it's performance so far, and with how it's been received. ... We've very happy with how the game launched. In a day when the largest publishers are fumbling launches like Diablo III and Sim City, we had remarkably few issues.

Granted, COH2 did not have issues at launch like Diablo III and Sim City. And given the fact that those titles sold millions more, were under 1000x more load, and are/were not in any way similar to COH2 doesn't engender confidence in how your measuring success.

Speaking on a 'relative' basis.... I guess there were no meltdowns. So, that's good. Congratulations on not blowing-up at launch? We weren't expecting that were we?

As for performance, I personally don't have any major issues running on my machine so I can't speak to that, I only know from posts that others here disagree.

As you say it's 2013, and not 2008. As such it's even more important to have a rational and thoughtful process of deploying game updates. ... We'd much rather take our time and deploy something we have faith in than rush.

I'm extremely happy to hear the common sense notion of taking ones time, being methodical, and not rushing into changes. We agree. Any rational person will agree. But frankly, given what I've seen I feel the team is hiding behind this excuse. For reasons I do not know or understand, and I wont speculate here, but the fixes just aren't coming fast enough. The clown car is a perfect example...it was known for weeks and the fixes that were pushed through were proposed very very early on (even during beta). I agree there are types of changes that require a lot of testing and time, and others that are blatantly obvious and don't need to wait 3 weeks before being addressed.

The community had to suffer through that failure.

It's almost as if you don't play your own game. In fact, a Dev commented on twitch they didn't play much after launch. And from other dev statements there seems to be an over reliance on internal metrics & statistical data that in no way gives an accurate picture of real play. So it appears there's a disconnect between what the Dev team sees as 'the current state of play' and what the actual 'current game play' is that the community experiences.

I'm not claiming the Dev team doesn't play. We know you do. Of course you do. But for a whole month to go by (longer, actually, if you add beta) before glaring problems are addressed then it raises a fair question. And this is a Dev team who seems to have trouble getting accurate patch notes.

We believe in open communication with the community. However that's never going to mean you guys get to know everything that's happening at all times.

We don't need to know everything.... nor want to, but what do we actually know currently? Where's the "Roadmap" sticky on the official message board? When can we expect new commanders? New Maps? New skins? Is there a DLC in the works? Where is this game going?

For all the 'community engagement by the Dev team' you tout--we do not know much.

If you consider those to be unreasonable questions that can't be answered then we have to assume there is no answer... and that this game is basically set aside in terms of development or worse, DOA.

About the Elephants sight range... it's great but its accuracy is poor beyond range 60. Combine that with a slow firing rate and... well... you get the picture. Not that I'm advocating it should be laser accurate out to 100 or necessarily shoot faster, but something to keep in mind when we weigh all factors.

However at Vet 1 the accuracy at extremely long range improves significantly. Even against moving targets. It's impressive. But realistically & practically.... how often does an Elephant reach Vet 1? It's moot.

The bottom line is this: Whether the Elephant is on the front line or behind the line or somewhere in-between, nor how well defended it is, it makes no difference because a single micro'ed T34 can successfully zerg and ram and render the Elephant useless.

A microed T34 will make its way to your Elephant before your faust animation even begins, assuming you were even in range to get one off to begin with (probably not). It honestly doesn't take much effort, skill, nor luck to do this.