|
+1 This could work! If someone made a mod implementing this, it could be tested. |
Thread: OKW OP?4 Dec 2015, 09:39 AM
Won 4 out of 5 1v1 matches with soviets against okw. I think they are in a good spot |
|
Just commenting here to keep this thread visible. Optimization patch is needed! Badly!
+1 |
|
I like the idea(even though it has some problems), but i doubt that Relic would even consider making changes as drastic as these. They've been unwilling to make structural changes to the game, despite of communitys demand since the beginning(except the recent soviet tech overhaul, that nobody even tough about).
+ people less dependent on commander call ins = less money for Sega/Relic |
Unpredictable how?
Unit in better cover wins.
If not, unit with better weapon/armor wins.
If not, unit that hit with nade wins.
Rifles win over SMG at long range, loose at short range.
Scripts equal grenadiers in same cover, grenadiers got advantage in heavy cover when both squads are in one.
No rocket science here, no randomness.
Except super one hitting random critical headshots.... |
|
+100 |
Strelkovy battalion(soviets)
1CP Strelkovy troops(in my opinion could be nondoctrinal) - Conscripts in base territory can be trained to Strelkovy troops for 75munitions. Carrying 2 svt-40s and 4 regular rifles and have slightly increased effects on veterancy. Merge ability disabled, but other abilities stay intact. Unit icon and apparel changed.
2CP Radio interception
2CP Ambulance truck - relatively weak casualty clearing vehicle that spawns field medics who gather wounded friendly infantry from its its radius(basically a mobile casualty clearing station). Has to be setup to operate and has relatively long setup time.
4CP 152mm artillery barrage - 6 rounds of Good ol'vCoH style regular offmap arty for 150munitions 
4CP Single t-34/85 call in
|
Thread: T34/8519 Oct 2013, 13:16 PM
The whole "call-in without requiring building thing" is pretty cool, and slots the Commanders into the tier structure in an interesting way.
I dont think its really been optimised yet though, especially for Sov, for whom tech progression is different, more costly and time intensive, and where, from my perspective (and as evidenced by the relatively larger call-in pool diversity Sov has), is where it really steps into the meta and asymmetric design.
I mean imagine if you could really, validly, skip t1 as Sov, and rely on infantry call-ins?
That would flatten the tech structure in a way that the current t2-t3 unit split wouldnt be so severe, because youd have saved the fuel and time from T1 for that.
Call me crazy, but thats how I see the potential of call-ins really stepping into its own, on Sov, whereas on Ost, tech progression is hardwired linear, but also provides a comprehensive versatility in every step.
T4 is fairly rare on Ost play, in my perception. People rather invest that cost/time into a single strong call-in piece of armor, such as Tiger or Elephant, rsther than opting for the t4s more versatile base structure.
Know what I mean?
I think call-ins have enormous potential for diversifying the game, laterally, from a Commander specific perspective. BUT, Sov tier structure has to start relying on this already at a t1 infantry level, whereas for Ost, its not even an issue (discounting OstT/Assgren recent commanders), and is usually onky a way to squeeze out a t4 equivalent unit, without actually going t4 (which I think is fine).
TLDR: I think utilisatiin of the Commander specific Call-in potential for making this a really great and diverse game, needs some serious attention on Sov side.
It could, potentially, fix Sov tier structure (different as it is) almost entirely.
So wat da problem?
Problem is related to the non-Commander pool of diversity.
Meaning Sov non-callin options should be more reliable for certain roles, on a generalised level, and the Callins provide specialisation and the key to skipping tiers
I suggest more lateral upgrades for existing baseline units, that spring from the baseline non-Commander options.
Specifically, but not limited to:
-PTSR upgrade for Penals for baseline AT, rather than Flamer. So Guard reliance is reduced. Penals bring the DPS, Guard bring armor, ready AT, and DP uograde, so it doesnt overshadow them.
-Reduced buildtime/cost for Penals to reduce the reliance on Shocks for hard AI.
PPSH Commanders already have this capacity. Any bsseline improvement/upgrade for Cons will just fk the existance of Penals even further. Penals NEED to step into the non-commander AI infantry role. Improving Cons is NOT the option.
-T34 should have an upgun option to face stat superior PIVs, at equivslent cost. The 2xT34/85 Commanders can be adjusted accordingly thereafter, to be cheaper (ie:dont require the upgrade, as weighed against also not requiring the T3 building to produce, meaning T2 builds are opened in a viable way to these Commanders)
I havent gotten to theorising about T4 equivalency, as their impact is comparatively ,marginal in 1v1, owing to the difficulty of amassing that amount of resources.
BUT, there is a noted disparity in AI and AT impetus of these units between the factions.
Ost T4/Callins are very strong AT, Sov are very strong AI, but what does that help, when Osts equivalents will outlcass Sov options in terms of AT? Armor , especially t4 heavies, are already fundamentally a strong AI counter, not because of AI specifically, but because of Crush and even more importantly, the lack of infantry AT options!
So as Sov you can kill all the Ost Infantry at t4. So what? His ewuivalents will KILL your Infantry killing armor! Thereby negating that advantage. It could be argued that at that point, map control is more imoortant than at any other stage, and that simoly killing off Ost infantry will cripple their capping to where its no longer capavle of winning the match (a position supported by the capscity of vetted Sov armor to cap points), but is that really happening?
Anyways, theres some thoughts of mine, in no particularly structured sense. Just poking some holes to see where some light might shine through.
+1 good thoughts |
|
Hey
What really bugs me is that CoH2 seems to be turning to fast paced clicker race for fuel(being pointed out in several threads in forum already). Who ever gets both of the fuels basically wins. Of course this was the case in vCoH too, but all armies still had a reliable Mp or Munition based counter to fuel based units like tanks, which is not the case in Coh2 except with the germans... But i wont start ranting about it since there's already enough threads dealing with it.
In my opinion, removing separate fuel, munition and strategic points from the game by blending them together was a serious mistake from Relic. Im still giving you guys some credit for trying to create something new to the gameplay instead of just copying it from the vCoH, but honestly in this case i think there was nothing that was needed to be changed from vCoHs resource and pop cap system. In vCoH there was three different values of fuel and munition points and separate strategic points that provided minor(still significant) amount of manpover. Furthermore all strategic points gave population cap and some manpover, which made harrassing and cutoffs way more effective and important. Cutoff points also appeared more(not just one huge cutoff that isolates the base from the rest of the map).
Anyway, removing separate fuel and munition points(except the two high muni/fuel points), strategic points effect on Mp income, and dynamic pop cap, removed a HUGE amount of strategy and depth from the game. Now, especially in team games, the case is often that closest(safest) points are build with fuel caches. This favors the germans hugely, since their main medium tank P4 is relatively cheap, spammable, superior to all soviet nondoctrinal armor and increasingly affordable by fuel caches. Of course this system could be abused by soviets too, like spamming su 85s... its just not by far as effective on them.
Since te old system can't be entirely brought back, i think some compromises could still be done.
1) Bringing different value points back for example: low(3f,5m) & medium(5f,7m). High ones are not needed since they exist already.
2) Bringing back the dynamic pop cap(would require complete reawork on unit pop cost though...)
3) give some manpover from territory points.
Your thoughts and criticism are welcome. |
m5 should be t2.
And zis gun should be moved to t3 in return.
I find the m5 MUST when facing german strafe and recon |
Finland
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
