And ISU stays the same as always, nice one. Why would you even bring that up? This isn't a regular patch. This was a emergency revert of changes because the balance was completely skewed in team games in favor of OKW. I'm sure the stats where pretty bad for relic to have to make these changes early.
Isu is a normal balance issue and needs proper testing to make changes, it won't get special treatment just because you feel like it. |
|
Only a stopgap measure, but necessary non the less. I'm sure this isn't the last time we will see the kubel jumbled around. |
|
4v4 issues aren't just in 4v4, though. It is just an accumulation of problems that are very much present in 1v1 and 2v2 as well. It's not like the US have a good late game in those modes either. |
|
It's not like the capability to make up up for the lack of rocket artillery isn't there. It's that all those things suck, atleast the non-doctrinal ones. |
|
US are supposed to be versatile, but they lack so many necessary things that other factions have.
As for the barrage role, this is supposed to be somewhat made up by major arty and the pack howitzer. Both of which are terribly under-performing, especially in filling that role.
The only unit that successfully fills it is the priest, which is only in one commander. |
|
Penalizing players for leaving is the wrong way to go. Being forced to play a game you don't want to play is just infuriating, more so then people leaving.
What needs to be done is incentivising players to stay is a way better way to go about it. Which is what war spoils is meant to do. Wait for them to be fixed and things will get better, but relic will never FORCE players to play. |
This wasn't a bad idea in and of itself, the bad part comes from the fact that our dedicated Tank Destroyer (M10) was unable to reliably take out Panthers and Tigers. We were okay with that because we thought the Panther was a rare Heavy Tank like the Tiger, and were shocked when we encounter large numbers of them. We still managed to get through okay due to our air forces owning the western skies and being a massive help in killing off heavy tanks. The arrival of the M36 Jackson helped as well, because it could take out Panthers and Tigers.
It was also compounded by the fact that american commanders felt no need to follow doctrine. If there where spare M10 available they would simply use them in place of shermans. You could hardly blame them, any armored support is better then no armor support. |
|
Soviets have three major design issues:
1. Conscript scaling: Although good enough in the early game, conscripts lose any sort of substantial role as the game continues. Not being durable enough to be meatshields or powerful enough to be damage dealers, conscripts only serve to get quickly cut down by upgraded or elite infantry. It doesn't help that too be able to do anything to support other squads they need a manpower and fuel investments for abilities that are inferior to their counterparts.
2. Penals- The best non-doctrinal infantry soviets can muster. They simply don't stand a chance compared to other elite infantry. Their flamethrower upgrade seems redundant to help them in their role of anti-garrison since satchels provide the same benefit and flamethrowers are an inconsistent tool for infantry battles.
They also have too much overlap with cons considering cons have molotovs for anti-garrison and also excel at mid to close range.
Overall they are ineffective for allowing soviets to play more infantry heavy and compete with other upgraded or elite infantry.
3. T3 and T4 lack of tier cohesion: While I agree that soviet tiers should be somewhat restrictive that leaves no reason why the late tiers have no cohesion within themselves. The T-70 is redundant when paired with T34s who are also anti-infantry, while being far more durable for a little higher price. While the SU-76 also is outclassed by either the Su-85 and Katyusha. Switching them would allow for more cohesion and variable play without messing with the generalist and specialist roles of T3 and T4.
The only other issue is that they have no late game without any doctrines, but that is more of a game wide problem then just the soviets. |
|
That too. If this game was like that I would have stopped playing a year ago. This kind of thing only appeals to the competitive crowd, and that alone won't sell the game enough for it to be successful and profitable. The only reason I stick around is because when I get tired of playing one way there's like 100 more ways to try. |
|
Absolutely not!
As much as some people hate to admit it, spam is a perfectly viable way to play that naturally exacerbates weaknesses for the opposing player to exploit. Creating artificial limitations only serves to limit variety.
There are a few minor cases where spamming a certain unit creates a critical mass effect where it's counters and weaknesses cease to exist, but these can be handled on a case to case basis and are usually caused by minor over-performances or poor design decisions.
Not only that, but your idea isn't even a good artificial limiter since it would penalize the USF for building multiple rifles even though they can't build anything else or penalize the multi-conscript start that has been a staple of soviets since the start of COH2.
I'm sorry, but this isn't a very good idea. |
Omega_Warrior
Freedom.Kite(?)
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
