Profile of DanielD

Console games don't have that annoying habit, implemented by PC devs, of promising more features post-launch via DLC. When you buy a product, you get a complete package.

True. They usually just release shit games with no promise of further features.

What you're talking about isn't content that would be included on launch if it were a console game, it's stuff that they wouldn't tell you about and then charge you for as DLC.

This shit is old.

LoS is more important for defending than attacking, since the attackers are the ones who have to leave cover, so blizzard dont' favor the defender.

Tycho was talking about mechanics that are player vs environment rather than player vs player. Anything that isn't unit on unit fighting qualifies.

Chillty: Grow/man the fuck up. Talking garbage on the internet and then saying "come say it to my face" is the epitome of childishness.

Also your casts suck, COME AT ME.

Yeah it can work I suppose but its still destroying the early game to much. 300 manpower base income is absolutely way to much and drowns out the strategic early infantry play of the game. Reinforcing prior to 30 population barely inhibits you from getting a new squad. For example, as America if you had to reinforce a rifleman by 4-5 men without having inflicted any damage to Axis it would hurt you in the early game a lot more. Early game in CoH2 just feels like who can get the most fuel, the manpower war is literally non-exsitant at this stage of the game and this annoys me extremely!

CoH1 early game = Fight for mapcontrol and manpower.
CoH2 early game = Fight for mapcontrol.

This is simply how I see. One extra thing to worry about in CoH1 early game is so much better for enjoyment and competativeness. They have made it fast paced early game I believe because they think the masses find this period boring. If this is their reasoning I am very angered.

As Kolaris pointed out in another thread a bit ago, having the first 25 pop be untaxed actually punishes you MORE for losing squads in the early game, because you don't get a MP increase from it.

@raz: I don't really think I'm "shouting how people are afraid of change". The better player is rewarded for his good decision and the worse player is punished for his mistakes, you win this game by holding VPs, and winning engagements nets you Vps. I also am not "complaining" about how it used to work, I am making a statement of preference in favor of comebacks. It never fails to amaze me how people project their strong feelings onto others. And as far as "At the moment we are at the extreme where loosing player is giving him such advantages that despite his skill he is kept alive by the game design." Maybe it gives the losing player too much of a chance, I dunno yet, but the worse player will still always lose, and that's what counts.

@cr4wler: A strawman is where you create a weak position that you pretend is what your opponent is arguing, and then attack that. He was saying CoH 2 was a different game and using that as a point in his argument for why it should be different. Not that I agree with that logic.