The element I pointed out that was mainly historical was conscripts not provided all with weapons. Some were equipped while others were not. That is historical. I did not say that they engaged without weapons, only some were unequipped. That is a historical fact. In the early years since there were more men than weapons for the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union did not send unarmed soldiers into battle, in 1941 when the USSR lost a lot of people and weapons, and the formation of new infantry divisions began, even at the most critical moment these divisions were not sent to the front, they were deployed only after receiving all weapons and completion of basic training. The only thing that somehow fits your theory - the People’s Militia, they got all the outdated weapons of the First World War and foreign production, but after the battle for Moscow ended, the People’s Militia merged with the regular infantry divisions and got the standard weapon. |
|
The enemy at the gates is absolutely unhistorical, there is not a single documentary confirmation from both the Soviet and the German sides that Soviet soldiers engaged in unarmed combat, especially in Stalingrad, where rifles were taken from soldiers and given PPSH-41 for urban combat.
For me, a 7-person upgrade is useless, because it really does not help in the late game of the Soviet faction, but to have an even more free-line 8-person - no, thanks. Give me a normal 6-man with improved weapons. |
It does not necessarily need to be a trench warfare. Some elements should be based on it but not entirely. It can be similar to the infantry gameplay elements like COH2.
It was difficult in WW1 in the western front cuz France built major defenses. Eastern front however was more exposed in comparison. It was easier for the Germans on the Eastern Front to push because of no heavy fortifications.
Take Battle of Tannenberg. It was fought near a village. Just a different environment. The Western front was just more renowned.
So, it can be WW1 game. Does not have to be trench warfare. Can be urban too. Imagine a conflict in a city, could have happened. Can make lots of elements of WW1 similar to Coh WW2
Yes, the Eastern Front was less positional and СoH mechanics could be applied to it, but to sell the strategy about the First World War, people need famous events, and the Western Front is more famous or more PR focused. Even if you first create the Western Front, and then the Eastern Front as DLC, the factions of these fronts will be so different: the Western factions are static and stuck in the trenches, the Eastern factions had a long front and therefore constantly maneuvered. These sides will be very difficult to balance. |
Partially a good point
I disagree with WW1 and positional warfare being boring, especially not verdun being boring,
but CoH really is quite about somethin else
Would love a separated DLC or a different game for WW1 though
Well, unfortunately, it was a trench war. And the gameplay will be total artillery spam, in the First World War there was an Underground War on both fronts, it would be cool, but very hard fully to implement on the RTS. |
WW2 theme is what they are best at. There are hardly any proper RTS world war 1 and 2 games unlike Company of Heroes franchise which is the best I personally think you can find. There are many modern war games currently out there, so NO to modern warfare for this franchise.
If Company of Heroes wants to get better, improve the current theme instead of jumping into a new theme.
If COH3 is completely modern warfare. I guess that is a no go for me.
I think they can go for WW1 instead, that I would not mind. Better stick with WW2.
First World strategy will be very boring and limited. It is very hard to make a high-quality, interesting and accurate WW1 game: BF1 is all the same BF3 / 4 about special forces only in the pseudo WW1 theme: total automatic weapons, prototypes. Verdun - who wander fairly accurate but boring. Another problem: the Western front was very positional, to make a strategy about it is very boring. The Eastern Front could solve this, because it is less positional, but people will take over Verdun, Somme, etc. And the Western Front will be needed to sell the game to European / American gamers. |
Me too.
Its a fresh air. Much better than coh2 stale maps and gameplay.
I played Steel Division 1, and this game is not for me. Too huge scale and number of units. I, as a general, look at the icons on the map and not play. I like to see the animation of units and prefer a small but effective army. The world in Conflict is also a big map, but a small number of units of a certain military branch and cooperation with other players from a different military branch. |
I doubt that, because the Maxim's time to suppress at long range on neutral cover (~2,6s) is shorter than the time it takes for Grens to get within riflenade range and play the firing animation, and it will cancel when they become suppressed due to the reduced range it gets. Unless the Grens used sight blockers or heavy cover to get close, in which case it's okay that they can because all HMGs should lose engagements that are unfavorable to them.
Besides, the Maxim's huge crew ensures at least half of them will survive a riflenade. Unless they are all clumped up in yellow cover, but that's a player micro error.
Maxim is not a super survival as many here claim. That case which I described above happens all the time. If we compare the Soviet mortar against MG-42 and the German mortar against Maxim. In most cases, the German mortar will win, and that is with 6 people. |
As long as the deathloop isent fixed, no way in hell does it justify the crew number being lowered.
Right now its supression allows it to be naded frontaly way to often. The deathloop allows it to be wiped really easy. That is 2 problems vs 1 advantidge. Even 6 men cant keep it from being wiped less then a 4 men crew.
Not being able to be frontaly naded nearly all the time will lessen the impact from the deathloop. Reliable supression is neccesary, its dps does nit seem to high to me. Mg42 seems to have higher dps, but because it supresses faster its dps seems to be low. Not 100% sure but it seems that way to me.
What are you talking about? Maxim is so bad that the Grenadier can get close to Maxim in the front and kill him with a single rifle grenade, while the grenadiers will not be suppressed. |
Sounds like you want the PTRS to behave like the Boys AT Rifle, having minimal effect against armor except for it's Critical Shot ability.
Given that the two weapons are almost identical in real life, it's surprising how differently they behave in the game.
No, they are not the same, Soviet anti-tank rifles have the best armor penetration in anti-tank rifles (40 mm armor at a distance of 100-150 meters, Boys: about 20 mm armor at a distance of 100 meters), even 20 mm anti-tank rifles had the worst armor penetration. Plus, these were armor-piercing incendiary cartridges that can set the tank on fire when it gets into the engine, transmission, fuel tank, ammunition. |
Alternative is death of any kind of non indie RTS games.
I wish we had any kind of data on population and recurrence of Halo Wars 2.
The problem is not with the players: people want a RTS. The problem is in the developer / publisher - they want minimal costs and super profits, and this is why we see an army of unnecessary battleroyal: for some miraculous reason, this boring genre was an overhype. And only the lazy did not want to jump on the hype train. Large Publishers have come up with the concept of a game service: minimal content that will be stretched to sell season passes, microtranslation skins - RTS is not the best genre for such a concept.
RTS - on the console, it's RTS castration. I play Halo Wars and this is a very primitive strategy. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
