Coming from CoH1 I understand your sentiment, OP. If you made swift and good decisions in CoH1 you could avoid a lot of damage from infantry.
For the people saying that it's a learn to play issue, I'd say that's kind of true. I think it's a learn to play CoH2 issue. The exact same good tactical decisions in CoH1 will have a different result in CoH2. In the case of weapon lethality, infantry will take more damage than someone like me is used to.
It can make a major difference too. For example, 4 rifle squads in CoH1 making sound tactical decisions and avoiding taking damage may be critical in arriving at a surround / flank of the enemy wehrmacht position. While in CoH2, I don't think I can expect my squads to skirt around the battlefield, manipulating the enemy position while searching for the opening.
Sooo, while I would agree that higher weapons lethality may punish bad tactical movement, I would also conclude that it rewards lackluster tactical movement.
Perfectly said man |
Just when I thought you weren't going to compare it to vCoH rofl
How is vCoH's small arms system any more complex than CoH2's? Well, besides the target table shit, but that wouldn't even matter here.
Well for starters, infantry had different armour classes which determined how certain weapons will effect them - on top of range, weapon class, accuracy etc.
Target tables did influence how certain weapons dd more damage to some armour classes as well as different unit types - so yes it did have a huge effect on this situation.
I'm not expert on this but I do know just by seeing the game how simplistic ( and failed) the COH2 system is. It only takes 20 mins in each game to see huge differences. |
Most tanks had and still have multiple HMG's. The only thing that keeps soldier from getting killed by tank in 200-300 meter radius is if he is not seen. (in real life)
Also tanks don't go anywhere without infantry support except in video games and movies.
German tanks weren't designed a lot better nor were superior weapons to allied armor.
Blitzkrieg tactic was deciding factor. P.S. Blitzkrieg push through France/Soviet Union still had a lot infantry, artillery etc.
Most Blitzkrieg vehicles weren't tanks, but halftrucks,trucks, bikes, etc......
Anyway, RTS game is impossible to make being very historically accurate.
Yes I understand that - but its a game, so they should be represented in a way that makes sense.
In most ww2 armies, tanks were not the direct "counter" for lack of better word, to fighting infantry that was not dug in - they had other roles.
SO in the game tanks should not be the direct counter to infantry either - for instance in the ost army that role should be with the stug. It was so good at that role it basically became the main battle tank for the german army later in the war for many reasons.
So they way Id envisage COH2 working is that the stug is the go to vehicle from t3 and, and the p4 or ost being a bit more situational, not the other way around.
Thats how it basically worked in COh and it was fine ( even though p4 was t4). FOr the soviets they would have the t34 as their safe option which would beat the stug, if used properly and be slightly outmatched by the p4 ( if it was called to battle) but then ost would be lacking in its anti inf capability that the stug would bring.
And since soviets are not the USA of COH - they have big, bad viable tanks then an ost player would need to outplay their opponent if they just built p4 as they would start to be outmatched by su85s, is2, t34 85's and isu152 or kv1.
Anyway back to my point - a game of this sort is a simplified version of reality.
So the simple version of it is that tanks are not the best way to counter infantry - in fact in the scenarios of the game they would find themselves in danger a lot of the time. Therefore the game should not try to make them the be-all-and-end-all of infantry counters - which is what they are, right now.
|
I'm sorry but you are speaking pure nonsense. The entire purpose of tanks is to fight infantry. That's why tanks always had more HE rounds than AP rounds. IRL EVERY tank in ww2 had HE rounds, no matter if it was a tank destroyer or anything. 95% of a tank does is fight infantry. That is the entire purpose of tanks. Kill and destroy infantry, fortifications, while being immune from infantry themselves. Tanks were developed solely for the purpose of being infantry killing machines and being immune from infantry themselves.
Valnuarable to infantry attacks? Most anti infantry weapons were only effective from 50 meters or so. It's practically impossible to get so close to a tank in a combat situation , especially SINCE tanks are usually supported by infantry.
Oh, and in WW2 tanks also had something called a HATCH, that they could peek out for good 360 degrees vision.
Oh ok - you go to a buit up area in the middle of a warzone in a ww2 tank, open up your "hatch" and see how long you last. Can you imagine the size of the roads in towns in the 1940's and imagine driving a slow, cumbersome and almost blind vehicle in the middle of a warzone.
Sure tanks can engage infantry, but from a distance and in the open field. Most maps in Coh and COH2 are not open fields at all, they are CQB all within range of most AT weapons.
Early tank designs were meant to be anti infantry weapons - but how did they perform against new blitzkreig doctrine where tanks were used to breakthrough a line, go behind and encircle. They used maneuverability and range to overwhelm forces. They were not used like some WW1 style moveable fortress that was meant to engage infantry.
If you don't believe me have a read up on french battle-tanks which were all bigger, more Armour and mroe sophisticated than German counterparts and tell me how well they performed against the nazi invasion.
Tanks however were good against static positions, like bunkers, some dug in positions, mgs, etc but not against mobile squads of men that did not just stand around in the open - like the infantary that is represented in the COH franchise.
|
I think you are talking about VCOH. I am talking about early days of COH2 when it took 5 minutes to de-crew HMG. And you could have 2 sips of coffee before retreating without losing single model.
BTW, in COH units died quite quickly too but there was far less squad wipes from mortars, tanks, etc. And all these medium ranged rocket launchers (Zis etc) do a lot of squad wipes that didn't exist in COH, pretty much.
Maybe I am wrong, but I think your problem might be there. Not infantry wiping infantry late game.
Thats what I really dislike about infantry survaivability.
I remember the early COH2 days too - they were terrible, but even more so due to the secondary fire ability where molatove could burn 3 men in half a second, and rifle nade dide the same. Combine that with inf units barely doing any damage and there be no real pressing need for munis, every single engagement ended up in molotovs being thrown and ost running back to base.
In COH the units can indeed die quickly ( getting cught up close to mg fire, non fighitng units getting focus fired, being out in the open with more than one squad shooting or a powerful squad engeging them at their optimal range etc but it was good that way.
As it stands now, a combat engineer unit can take on a gren unit in the beginning of the game and win - and its not some rarity. Its reproducible and happens a lot.
I totally agree with your other points too - just adding in clarification. |
because target tables are a dumb way to represent weapons. having a cannon do 70 damage to infantry and 160 damage to a tank is just fucking stupid.
Actually it's ingenious - as a tank was never developed to be an anti infantry weapon in the ranges and scales thats represented in the game.
In ww2 tank crews basically looked out of small slits in a massive shaking, smoking tin can, they didn't have the sophisticated cameras or protection that today's tanks have and therefore a lone tank in CQB was extremely vulnerable to infantry attack.
Shooting AP rounds at infantry from a main cannon would only be effective at a direct hit and near miss scenario - sure it would be extremely frightening but in the scope of a battle not that effective, also a tank could not engage their main gun properly from close range, nor could they keep up with infantry hiding in ruins and landscape.
This is represented perfectly in the first game where a lone tank, unless it was a heavy tank with a larger cannon , pershing, tiger, KT, and Sherman with non ap rounds would do more than singe unit kills to infantry.
In this game as soon as any tank comes out a whole infantry army has to run and hide.
From a game perspective target tables enable the developer to properly balance any unit in the game, make them strong vs this one and weak vs that one - it made the game thoroughly better, more balanced, more fun and in some ways more realistic.
Removing them well ... you see what happens, the game is a huge disappointment, with huge sections of units being useless / OP and the game being a shadow of what it could have been. |
Eh. You CAN do it, but it would require so much .scar coding for each individual unit that it would be a useless gesture.
Fair enough - sort of goes over my head as I'm not skilled in the arts of development.. but in your opinion, why has this been changed from COH to COH2?
It's obvious to my eyes the stripped the game bare from all the important variables and left a empty shell of a game in the form of COH2.
Why would a developer go back to a game, then remove all the hard work from it and make it worse? |
|
I see there are mixed opinions - I agree with the COH arty - it was fantastic. The arty in COH 2 is not so good.
I'm for small arms being able to kill ( not like original COH2 release) but its over the top now.
You literally lose 1-2 guys just moving from cover to cover - thats why there are not soft retreats in this game, no real maneuvers or jostling for positions.
It's not "realistic" because firefights can last hours in real life, its not fun, because the only strat that works is stop and fire ( on the move you die cos your enemy might stop and you lose a guy or two instantly) and it does not improve the game.
There are many things they can do to improve it - but the outcome I'd like is a more linear and slower progression when it comes to small inf combat - so you could scout enemies, soft peddle away, out maneuver the enemy without instantly losing half your squad in one second - even builder units can wipe out one model in a single volley. |
Just no. Your units should die, its war. Mistakes should be punished and good work rewarded.
I for one don't want to go back to time where one could get flanked, make mistake and just press 'R' with almost no consequence or none at all
You see in the good old days when you just pressed R there were consequences. You lost map control, you struggled to get it back, you lost pop cap and you slowed down tech.
None of that matters in COH2 - but its still better to have infantry battles that progress in a more linear fashion than an on/off switch live or die. In my opinion that is |
Right now I feel infantry combat is too RNG favored, Anne frankly, i dont think its the lethality thats the problem, but more of the current infantry combat system at fault.
Why is it RNG favored?
Because its always whichever squad can get the lucky 1st volley that has the advantage. Ever had a gren take a nasty volley and drop to 3 men instantly? Thats what I mean. There's no skill involved, just RNG.
I feel like if rates of fire were to increase and overall accuracy decreased, we would get more consistent performance for more troops across the board. This would also be an indirect buffage to the COVER SYSTEM as more consistency = longer engagements (also a small side help to the blobbing issue due to less burst).
Lol but knowing relic, not gonna happen.
P.S. Does anyone else feel rifle weapons should perform better at long range than short? Personally, I think most of the rifle profiles should be reworked, especially fire on the move
Hmm yeah that happens too. I think its just an overly simplistic mechanism that translates into too much rng, and too little consistency across the whole game.
This is what happens when Relic reduces the very complex but excellent mechanics of COH into the basic and impossible to balance mechanics of COH2. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
