i wonder if the guys craving for authenticity also want Italian and Japanese faction
Italian - yes, they have enough units for the faction. Japan - no. Their best tanks were waiting for the invasion of the Home Islands, the best anti-tank used by Japan during the war was the Type 1 Ho-Ni I which is equivalent to the Soviet SU-76. Even if Relic wanted to do the Eastern Front again and put the T-44 or IS-3 into the game which were great tanks and which I really like, I would be just as completely against it as against the Black Prince, it breaks immersion and authenticity. |
I have fully enjoyed the tactical pause to stop the game and give orders whilst playing the game on the SteamDeck.
Well, that's a really good argument if the game supports SteamDeck. But then in the trailer it was necessary to talk about it together. |
It was originally part of the flexible nature of soviets vs more rigid OST, Soviets had 2 play styles available non-doc were OST needed to pick a doc to get Osstruppen/AssG. OST had PG stock where doctrines were needed for Soviet elites.
Cons and Penals play completely different for most of the game, the choice between two different play styles is actually good for the game. The main issue arises from how much better Cons got after their 7man upgrade. Cons went from a throwaway squad to one of the best mainlines that also happened to get amazing vet. Hell, they even get exp boost along with cooldown bonus in cover while getting an extra man and MP reduction. The "drawback" was that it was the latest hitting upgrade however losing a Cons squad is similar to losing a VG squad in that the faction was originally designed around them being throwaways.
A possible solution for Penals would be the ability to stow away the PTRS guns. The overhead would still show them with PTRS guns but maybe grey them out so that the opponent knows when they are stashed vs when they are not. IT would allow Penals to keep their aggressive nature vs now where one unit becomes useless once upgraded.
If we take the original design, then the Penals is the place holders for the elite troops. If you take a commander with Shock Troops or Guards, then these units replaced Penals in T1 (Then these units were 0 CP). Penals are a pointless unit from the start, an anachronism of the original design. It should have been removed from the game a long time ago.
I think the main purpose of the Penalties is a single player campaign: with a ridiculous plot and retreat mechanics when your conscripts grow in veterancy and instead of the usual fresh conscripts they become veterans and the highest rank of veterancy according to Relic was the Penals. In multiplayer, their design was pointless. |
|
The concept of two starting infantry units was very poor from the very beginning. It was a long time ago to remove the Penals into doctrine abilities, give them a merge and make them something like Osttruppen. |
Again, as I said in the OP, it is a good feature. At least as long as the game is still designed to be played without it (which it will be, since there is no pause in multiplayer).
It is good to get people into the game which find CoH otherwise too hectic or help people with disabilities to keep up with what is happening. There is no detriment to adding it. Otherwise, CoH is not the game for making highly timed movements on all fronts. Orders such as "Move up squad A, once squad A is in position to secure the flanking road, squad B on the other part of the map throws a grenade into the house so that squad C can charge into it" or something alike. The feature is for campaign and bot matches. The Bots aren't challenging/smart enough so that the average player would need to pause, and judging from the "Mission Alpha", the missions are also not designed in a way that would need this much cohesion. Being a bit out of sync matters at the top level multiplayer at best, but not for 99% of the player base and surely not for single player. On the other hand, the few occasions where quick reactions are actually needed like dodging a grenade can be completely negated.
So overall, unless the player for whatever reason (lack of RTS practice, age or health) is generally slow, there is likely no need to use the pause and might even be detrimental to the game design. The "average Joe" won't really need it, that's what I am saying.
That's where my complaint is: solely about the marketing. TP is a good feature, they should mention it so that the above mentioned players know that the game accommodates them. But it is not the huge step forward that it should be when just looking at how they sell it. That's why I wrote "Relic either misjudges the impact or doesn't have anything more interesting to show." in the end of the opening post. Other features such as even side armor on tanks will have more impact on the game for the majority of the players than TP.
It's like looking at this question. Side armor is great, but it will be of interest to people who are already familiar with the franchise or fans, who already know that side armor was not in the game before. The tactical pause, I think, is aimed at making more people buy the game, namely those who prefer slower gameplay or people from the "Men of War" series in the campaign that also had a pause. |
|
Perhaps this is necessary to attract people to the game who prefer slower gameplay. They are not very good at multiplayer or they need slow multiplayer like in World of Tanks. It is possible for them to also create a skirmish mode. |
What the hell is square vs soft? Is this like a Final Fantasy reference?
this is a variant of the phrase "compare warm and soft" which is the English equivalent of "compare apples and oranges". |
But the planes behave like they are from the future. I'm just not sure why the existence of the BP bothers you so much more than planes being able to win games by killing tanks
And....you're again comparing square and soft. You have an answer why authenticity and mechanics are not equal and you continue nonsense, I see no point in talking. |
I understand that's your opinion. But you still haven't given a reason for it
Once again, if the units don't behave at all like they did in real life, that matters to authenticity. Airplanes almost never recorded tank kills in ww2, yet it happens all the time in coh2
That's not authentic. Plain and simple. Just because the planes are named correctly doesn't make it authentic
Because the conventions of the game, the Company of Heroes are not Iron Hearts, there are no mechanical breakdowns, shitty metal that cracks from the projectile and all the huge fact that was present in reality. This is a simplified mechanic plus game balance, but it was authentic until the third part, it did not have fictional weapons / prototypes or weapons from the future. |
You mean you can't answer my question. Why aren't they related? Go ahead, try to explain
You're just arbitrarily picking and choosing what matters to authenticity and what doesn't. You don't care about the actual performance of the units as long as they are named correctly. That's an extremely bizarre choice, but you do you
No, I explained this to you a long time ago. Authenticity is not equal to game mechanics, authenticity is not equal to hardcore or 100% reality. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
