Profile of Dullahan

If Relic added wild animals and made it so you were attacked by a squad of bears in a forest unless you constructed bear traps, that would also add more "strategical" play into the game.

Why not add diseases too? You know, the majority of deaths from WW2 weren't caused by bullets or tanks. Most of the Allies and Axis were killed by diseases.

Oh look, we can add elements of strategy into the game where you have to keep your troops fed and healthy. Better keep them out of those waters so they don't contract trench foot. MORE strategical play right there folks.

The winter mechanics both fit narratively (Eastern front), Aesthetically (winter!) and gameplay wise (CoH is all about controlling territory and supply and fighting from cover.)

They also blended well with the existing terrain mechanics. We already have water, so why is deep snow a suddenly a sin? It does pretty much the same thing. (water is actually worse since it's negative cover) Why is keeping your troops warm during a short ~3 minute blizzard so fucking terribly difficult? If you're turtling through the entire blizzard you're doing it wrong.

That's nice, except there was so much deep snow that it actually affects both attacker and defender equally most of the time.

WHOA JUST LIKE NEGATIVE COVER ROADS. WHOA JUST LIKE AVAILABLE GARRISONS AND HEAVY COVER. It's almost like it was a tactical component of the map or something.

It was relevant all the time on kholodny's vp's, winter langreskaya and pripyat's central forest. Also possibly in team games but I didn't play much of them.

Back to deeps snow retreats: since you can't really avoid deep snow on most winter maps, it essentially turns into punishment for flanking and capping the more distant points. This leads to more static play, less valid strategies, more high stakes play.
.

Retreat earlier? Kite your opponent without retreating? Use soviet sniper (unimpaired by snow) to do such things? Hide in the snow instead of retreating?

I think you're a little quick in branding people as incompetent for disliking 'coldtech'. The simplest way I can put it is that it is little more than a micro tax. The strategic additions that cold tech brings to the table are minimal.

Game mechanics are interesting if players can take advantage of a situation to gain a strategic advantage over another player. For example green cover around a map can be used for protection or with a well placed mine / demo charge, it can be used as a trap. Green cover can be created and destroyed for the most part. The interaction with players is deep and satisfying to exploit.

The problem with cold tech is it's too much of a handicap to everyone and no one can really take advantage of a situation except for hunting down retreating squads in deep snow. And there's often little the retreating player could have done to properly predict the path. Besides, once the retreat is triggered, there's no more counterplay involved. So you can lose a squad and it's completely out of a player's control.

The fact that you think that cold tech doesn't provide strategic advantages kind of demonstrates the incompetent thing. There's DOZENS of ways to use cold tech to your advantage.

For example, one thing I used to do when I built an early sniper vs Soviets was screen him with deep snow. This meant if they popped Hoorah to try and rush him down they would get bogged down in the snow and the sniper could be quite safe.

https://youtu.be/gsHLH7ZOe5A?t=56

There's dozens of ways to use cold tech like this. Det packs on frozen water, using garrisoned vehicles or flares to get vision over your opponent during blizzards, camoflauging your units in deep snow for an unexpected ambush. (Very useful at the top left kholodny VP) etc etc. It's not my fault this playerbase doesn't think of their own ideas and just copies the same build orders as everyone else.

Also, A squad won't freeze to death retreating through deep snow unless it is ALREADY FROZEN BEFORE RETREATING. It takes like a minute of being frozen for a squad to lose one member. The fact that it is being brought up so much in this thread really demonstrates my point that people didn't keep their troops warm. I don't understand, how is building a firepit any more microintensive than building sandbags?


I think it's fair for people to dislike it, but it grates on me that people deny it added tactical depth to the game. It absolutely added meaningful tactical depth for those willing to utilize it and it's a shame it is gone from the game. As I've suggested, there's no reason it couldn't be tweaked to satisfy players here while still retaining some flavour. It's a shame for it to be gone completely from the game.

Commandos are too good I think. Shouldn't be so easy to wipe squads.

Doesn't need to be anything radical, just tone down their effectiveness a bit to be more inline with sturmpios or grenadiers. 5 man SMG squad with cloak, grenades, det packs etc is already pretty good.

So shield and lead your attacks with stugs? What.....

Basically, yeah.

Put cheap vehicles in front of your bigger vehicles. The tulip will hit the vehicle in front.

Haphazard? Cold tech added undue complexity while taxing the APM.....

Ah yes, building a few firepits near cover and making sure you periodically keep your infantry warm is just too intense. I guess it is because I won dozens of games simply by killing my opponents firepits and he was too dumb to build new ones so he froze to death. The glowing blinking blue skull was too easy to miss, you know. Lets remove swathes of tactical and mechanical depth of the game because we want to play on semois and angoville and langres again and we don't want to have to think about too much while we afk our machine guns in buildings. Lets just forget about the whole eastern front thing and keep replacing new maps with remakes of old maps like sturzdorf.