What I noticed was that the pinned guard squad in fron of me started taking more damage as well once they loaded the rounds |
Anyone else noticed that activating the incendary/ap rounds seem to make them deal more damage to infantry? Or is it just a fluke observation I had from trying it? |
If you don't kill the sov snipers early, let's say they are doing reasonable well with their other units even when retreating snipers early and repeateadly vs german t2 scoutcars, what units are people wiping sov snipes with in the phase after guards are out and both sides have good support for their units? |
Ha! Still, competitive format is 1v1.
That's not what I said.
I find this somewhat ignorant since coh 1 had a lot of issues tied to 2v2s and up what with resource sharing etc. (post OF) |
already pactched away, confirm? |
The zis is great at imo. It's just not mobile. |
Or you could be a bit inventive. If the 2 man sniper thing is what makes it so horribly OP, why not just have the same support weapon mechanic work? If the "sniper" part of the 2 man team gets killed, the binocular guy just runs off the map. Then you still have some flavour and the odd chance of the bino guy being killed leaving the 2 man sensible... |
I find penals great as well, and i'm also going fast penal after 2-3 conscripts in 2v2s.
Satchel + button is prettty sick |
Coming from playing a coh mod like 3 years that had a doctrine system equal to bulletins, I'll reveal a big secret about this type of system. Free improvements of a unit type causes spam of that unit type. It's not a very good idea for gameplay unless it's pointless, and that makes it you know.. pointless. 2% more health for conscripts ain worth shit.
The reason the supression bulletin gets hated on is because it actually visibly improves the unit, probably too much.
I'll reveal another gem, one of the lead balance developers Pq also played this mod a long time and had extensive experience with the nature of how free buffs for a unit type affects player choice and gameplay.
The thing is that creating a complex RTS working the way COH works is super hard. It requires tons of talent, understanding of how multiplayer environments tend to turn out.. and a systematic mind.
COH1 was a fluke much like Mass Effect 1. It just was extremely interesting to play and well rounded. It had annoyances and it had some core gameplay which a lot of players found obsessively rewarding which is why it had the following and the type of following that it did. I doubt they realized how good it was and the teams following of to coh 2 just didn't understand what made the game good.
COH2 can still objectively be fixed. But there's no way to reach consensus in a reasonably fast matter, and games like these (niche) need to get off to a good start or have a resistent community.
I found the game fresh and it's fun at times, but it's:
- way more spammy / too many units
- hello mainstream purchasable DLC
- they made tanks/vehicles too important
- there's just not that "cowboy" feel
- grinding
- early game units get demolished by late game units, in coh 1 vetted early tier units could still participate late game against whatever they soft or hard countered
Its sort of the like the retarded game where one human slaps the hand on top of the other, guess what it runs out at 4 hands (normally).
You have sniper? I have SC. You have guards? I have flammen. You have su-85? I have elephant.
Then again COH1 had a lot of units that didn't see much action in competetive play for a looong time.
|
Infantry dance too much |