Profile of HS King

i dont understand this, how is ost losing to usf. usf are still the weakest faction in the game, rifles are more or less equal to grens. mg42 shuts them down hard, grens can maintain range to win firefights and focus fire to beat remaining rifles up close. snipers can also bleed rifles at a very good rate. once lmg pops in, grens will beat rifles pretty handily.

if usf hunkers down, mht/mortars are going to wreck them without fear unless packhowie. aa ht is a bitch but can be countered by paks.

then late game, there's tigers to push usf at its weakest, the trick is just to avoid jacksons/AT guns while having a pak around to prevent jacksons from kiting tigers.

i think ost still have an upperhand in this matchup, they only need to watch out for midgame when its most dangerous with aa ht and dodging nades. else they can bleed usf pretty efficiently.

Scott mobile howie is great, pack howy and preist all do a good job of countering mortar. RIfle blobs are not stopped evenif they walk right into the mg42 and rifles are like grens but are more versitile

Sherman is almost likst p4 but kills infantry better - usa has flak HT which decimates infantry early game and the usa at gun is great too... then it comes to having cheaper but better tank hunters in shape of jackson.. the only thing ost has going for it against usa is that shreks are super stong.. but the platform for them is super squishy.

All in all usa isnt weakest faction in game - vs ost they have a very good chance and IMO they are slightly op against ost.

what the hell does that have anything to do with this topic

Because people are lumping in ost with OKW - I don't own OKW and I can tell you that as OST you are at a disadvantage against USA - maybe not by a super huge amount but its definitely that ost is somehow stronger or has some super strong late game that USA cant counter.

When people say USA is weak late game they mostly refer vs. OKW match up which is a army I don't and wont own and making the USA any stronger ( as a lot of people are suggesting) will just make ost even more irrelevant.

The thing is, Coh1 is still running and maintains a decent player base. So it's perfectly viable to just keep playing that.

I suspect the vast majority of Coh2 players prefer the Coh2 way, but who knows, maybe we're just here for the war spoils

Yeah thats true - the problem is for me anyway, no matter how much i like COH its an old game, and iv played it hundreds if not thousands of times. I love the eastern front, and I love true sight ect and you cant just play the same game over and over again.

You may be right, but I think that the majority of players simply don't think about how much better the game would be if you put in the underlying mechanics of the original into this game. In fact some of the players probably wouldn't even notice, or if they did tey would just think the game is "running better" without being able to put a finger on it.

you give a long speech about how relic should fix the game but with one example, which is also a bad one. because of this, your essay boils down to "fix coh2/ make it more like coh"

your example(t70 v. pak) is bad because as the game stands right now, the pak will almost always get the a second shot off at any vehicle that does not reverse right away( and i do mean literally right away) as soon as they get into the pak's range.

and unlike you suggest, the t70 can and will die many times instantly from the pak's second shot. it won't always have that sliver of health left.

so i do not think there is anything wrong with that. but you do. but instead of presenting it as a possible issue, you declare it as an issue that need fixing, which does not bolster your stance... for me at least.

In a simplistic sentence that is exactly my point - it should be like COH, and thats not a bad thing.

Ill give you another example for instance - mortars.

In COH they are simply deadly, they can wipe a whole squad if they are bunched up on a direct hit, and thats fantastic in my eyes as in real life the same can happen, but they have a critical flaw.

They are support weapons and a simple flank will wipe then out in seconds so if you rely on a mortar spam tactic you get punished well before they do enough damage to pay for themselves.

In COH2 its not like that, it takes soo long to wipe out support squads that you can spam mortars and be completely rewarded - especially as soviets. I do this myself, I tend to build 2-3 mortars if I can get away with it as with 6 man squads you can nearly always escape.

There is a rock, paper scissors gameplay in COH that was amazing - the game was flexible enough to enable great battles and maneouvres but allowed for quick, desive and crippling engagements when the time needed.

In COH 2 its the opposite instead of being rewarded for flanking your enemies camping position with mortar /mg spam, they get to run away with little damage.

As for the pak example thats complete BS - as the game stands right now ( and for the longest time) if a vehicle drives past the pak laterally, it swivels sooo slowly that its lucky to get a second shot at a vehicle, then it has to go through the horrible dice roll of weather it hits or not, or if it hits some grass, fence or trees. If you do the same thing in COH the at gun instantly locks on to tanks and "jumps" into position instantly, totally punishing any vehicle dumb enough to start driving in its fifiring range. ( basically the at gun had one job to do, and it did that job well, in COH2 the at gun has one job to do, and it does so horribly - this goes for nearly every unit in the game, and if not that then they do their job so effectively that its just plain stupid - isu152 one shot squad wipes, grenades either doing nothing or killing half a squad even after they moved out of a reasonable range of grenade ect)

There was a randomness element in coh that made guns miss but it was rare enough, and worked in such a way that it added to the game instead of detracted.

Basically if a vehicle fucked with a AT gun it was bye bye time for the vehicle - its not like that now.

IN a sentence COH had it shits together and COH2 is a sloppy mess and its painful to watch and play if you are more than just a casual player.

I am not going to speculate about what is possible inside a game development company, but if relic is serious about actually fixing the game then they are going to have to make quite a few changes behind the game code.

My recommendation would be to go back to behind the scenes in COH and look at how certain things work, and engineer them back into COH2.

I'm talking about how explosions work ( right now its all or nothing and its game breaking), how infantry move, tank combat ( damage tables and armour classes), how small arms fire works ( at this stage some weapons simply melt infantry and its game breaking - iv seen instances of units retreating almost instantly and being wiped out - terrible design im looking at lmg for grens for starters)

Simply put there is absolutely now way to "balance" or fix the game as it stands in current design, simply too many issues to deal with and its not possible. The game does not have enough variables play around with and then you see the sledgehammer balance approach - basically the team does not have enough factors to use finesse when it comes to certain units.

The more variables a game has to tinker with the easier it becomes to buff or nerf a unit subtly to make it useful and then the better the game will play in the end.

For example think about how engine criticals use to work and how they effected the game for the better (in COH) take a unit like the t70, say it takes a hit from the pak gets damaged, then the player is too slow to react and takes another hit on the way out. It is now left with minimal health - in coh there would be a huge chance of engine damage and it would probably slow to a crawl and get killed but in COH2 it simply gets away, even though the player overextended and should have lost his unit - now it comes back to the game in 3 mins, with veterancy due to taking damage. Now engine damage its a on/off switch from t0-t1 units using and "ability" - this in itself is completely against everything COH was, not too mention being completely a game breaking design.

This one tiny scenario shows everything that is wrong with the game - no one that ever played coh for more than a few casual games would say the above scenario is how it should work.

Add another 50 small issues which all compound and then you get the game in its current state.


So either go back to the drawing board and come up with a substantial patch that adds a lot more variables into how things work - then play around with those until the game sits at a better spot or change focus completely on the game because the online play wont get any better than it is , will just shift what works and what doesn't from patch to patch.


I believe this to be the feedback relic got right from the beginning from pro players but for whatever reason it never took them up on it - be it money, time or other issues.

Either way to anyone involved in the game ( developer or otherwise) its now clearly obvious to be a huge issue and has to be addressed if there is any hope of the game growing.

The community is large enough and passionate enough that relic could do this and weather the storm and still make a lot more money at the end of it - or they can slowly kill off its fanbase and face god awful sales from any of their other games from now on.

I paid more for COH2 because I use to love relic and wanted to support them, now like many others I would never pay for a relic product again unless I was completely sure that it was up to quality. I have not paid for a single DLC, the expansions or anything else in COH2 even though I owned 3 copies of COH, 2 copies of Opposing Fronts and a copy of tales of valour.