Profile of elchino7

Stopping snowballing (just build a bigger army than your opponent) and turtling (if you sit on troops doing nothing, your opponent can recover through the difference in pop cap mp drain).

This aligns with what I thought was the case, if true. The only two things that seem to be different from what I originally believed is that A: The targeting of random models can spread to other squads, not just the one originally targeted, and B: That it's a weapon property, not a squad property.

In any case, this is really quite interesting. I wonder what the radius for checks is? (And I also wonder if it allows a model to damage another that is otherwise "out of range")

Probable easy to test by hiding a squad behind a shotblocker and targeting a squad which is in sight nearby.

There are a few objects though that catch accuracy rolls even though they shouldn't. JJJ managed to find some (some barrels on Nexus iirc) and they got fixed but there may be more.

I guess i should clarify that what i meant by terrain is basically the default GROUND.

Not that I didn't trust your test, but how did you set it up? I am pretty sure that in the editor there is a value that allows a projectile to travel a certain distance without collision. At least in the case of the terrain it could be an explanation, and depending on the setup of the "vehicle block" test it could be as well.

My take on this was that I sometimes try to save a damaged vehicle by parking a healthy one in front of it and it works surprisingly well. Therefore I thought that all ballistic projectiles have collision checks.
Second, in the case of ATGs (most notoriously the Raketenwerfer) but also some other vehicles I see regular collisions with world objects as well as terrain (for example, in rails and metal a bunker or OKW HQ that is placed at the sloped hillside is near indestructable by ATGs because they will just fire into the hill). So that in turn would mean that either ATG projectiles are handled differently from tank ones or that fences etc are differently handled than all other objects (which seems to be the case as posted by Vipper).

Obviously I might have just been lucky plus there probably is subconscious confirmation bias, but overall I had the impression that ballistic objects can be somewhat reliably "intercepted" (more so than those ~20% chance of intercepting a scatter shot).

Note: this was not a recent test but something i did couple of months ago.

The JPIV with 0.04 ACC vs 26 size of JT, means that it can never miss while stationary. I basically park several JT perpendicular in front of the JPIV and targeted the JT at 60ish range. You could see the shell going through the vehicles while an attack ground would collide with the first vehicle in sight.

A different batch of testing was done by destroying a copy pasted HQ so the terrain was deformed and moving the JPIV so it's cannon was basically parallel to and barely above the ground. Same thing happened. Same with making the JPIV basically have it's gun aiming towards the sky or having the JPIV been below ground.

Actually, the part that any weapon can suppress is something that was mentioned by Relic a few years ago in one of their streams when they were showing off the new factions of the Western Front Armies DLC. The example was done with Volks suppressing single targets of a Riflesquad without Volks using any ability or vet unlock. This particular gamedesign idea was dropped in subsequent versions of the game, but it left a longlasting impression that that any weapons inflict some suppression. There are probably still some left-overs of that somewhere in the code.

UKF weapon crew, Obers Kar, Osttruppen and USF carbines (non RET), with only the first 2 having the property to suppress. The other 2 have suppression 0 but they still have some modifiers other than 0 on their profile.

...

I think you are confusing strategy vs tactics. All those games you listed with exception of CC (cause my little knowledge only goes as far as how the old Tiberium Wars played) are heavier on the strategy side than COH. COH is mostly a TACTICS games.

As you mentioned before, build order, technologies, adapting to enemy unit composition. COH2 drops most of it and focuses on HOW YOU FIGHT with your units.


I'm curious why you talk about games you don't know nothing about. WC3/SC2/CC/AOE has nothing to do with each other.

WC3 for starters is the middle ground between strategy games and tactical RTS games like COH2. It has heavy RNG elements, the dmg is done in variables and there's less emphasis on resource gathering outside of base expansions (worker line is way more safe and automatised, compared to the harassment done in AOE/SC). Unit preservation is a thing, because you don't want to give XP to enemy heroes (who level up).

AOE2 is the epitome of 90s RTS titles. But it's a golden standard for a reason. I think the beauty is how easy is to understand how to play vs how many things can be learned, optimised and improved.
It's way heavier on the economy micro management compared to other titles but in the same way i think it rewards long thought planning in regards to strategy and resource fighting/positioning.
If i have to describe the game with one word is "ADAPT".

SC2:

And it's only when two players build at a similar speed, in relation to their respective races, that then strategy and tactics come into play.

(IN COH) There's more mind games a low level player can participate with. Where as skills like this in Starcraft are reserved more for very high levels of play where simply building faster and more units no longer cuts it

That's right on point. The biggest problem with SC2 is that if you don't have extensive knowledge about it, it's pretty much impossible to enjoy the intricacies of it. More so when playing, when you have to balance between fighting/economy.