Profile of Serrith

You are simply wrong.

This kind of RNG is exactly what makes the coh series unique. Take stuff like this away and it will become a streamline clone of whatever rts you like.

So boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooorrriiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnngggg!

If you think taking away main gun crits and similar mechanics would make coh too similar to other rts, I have to question if you've played other rts at all.

....

Accuracy is a foundational aspect of the game while main gun crits aren't. Accuracy is also something that can be to an extent controlled through player action (stopping to fire, moving closer, using buffs etc.) While main gun crits cannot be.
The two really aren't comparable.

A better mechanic to compare to would be the old chance to crit with flame weapons for an instant model kill. That was removed for a reason.

Strategically it was a a war of attrition because on the tactical level massed attacks were devastated by artillery. There's no reason not to commit stand-off attacks like shelling entrenched positions if you have the resources to spare, but that doesn't mean that it's effective.

Again, WWI was trench warefare up until the very end. If artillery were the counter to entrenched positions they wouldn't have bothered with entrenched positions.

Artillery killed open terrain mass attacks. It counters them. Tactics switched to trenches to counter the artillery until they could come up with a new way of attacking.

E: Why blitz through the benelux if you could just shell the Maginot line?

Tactics switched to trenches to counter direct fire small arms, not to counter artillery. By the end of the American Civil War, trenches and field works were becoming far more common then ever before, but this was not due to advancements in artillery-in fact field artillery saw little improvement up until this point. Small arms however became dramatically more potent due to inventions like the mini ball and the advent of widespread army issue rifled firearms.
In napoleonic era the hit rate of a soldier at 50-100 yards would be unlikely to reach 10% even against an enemy formation which allowed massed formations to thrive. Attempting those same formations against rifled firearms resulted in tremendous casualties and are one of the major contributing factors(if not the single largest contributing) to the increased lethality of civil war combat.

As mentioned above, artillery and formation warfare coexisted for hundreds of years prior to world War 1. The portable mortar was designed specifically with the intent of combating trenches by essentially extending the range a soldier could throw a grenade.

Glad to see that we agree about the XP value. Their DPS is enough to make vet very fast (more so for IR Pathfinders).

We do not agree. I feel their xp is fine given their current stock combat capability to cost ratio.

For a dedicated combat infantry squad of ~290mp like penals, the exp value would be way too low. But for the combat capability of the pathfinders given their cost, I'm ok with it.

I do not see how a misrepresented you (and even if I did it was not intentional).

I used a questions mark exactly because I was unsure if you post was questioning weather the Pathfinder XP value is not too low. From this response I have to guess that you agree that it is to low (or at least you do not disagree) which is the point of the original post.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume english is not your first language.

Are you seriously going to compare the combat efficiency of pioneers and Pathfinders?

Your question isn't a real request for clarification otherwise it would be stated like this: "What do you mean by(insert statement I made)?" or "Could you explain the relevance of(insert statement I made)?"

Instead your question implies a taken action, that being "comparing the combat efficiency of pioneers and Pathfinders" and "are you seriously" is an indicator of this. Adding that "seriously" qualification indicates that the person asking understands what has been said, and is only asking for confirmation the other party isn't joking.

If the full question itself is VALID, then the response should either be
"Yes, I am SERIOUSLY comparing the combat efficiency of pioneers and pathfinders." or
"No, I am only JOKINGLY comparing the combat efficiency of pioneers and pathfinders.
Neither of which is what I did.


You could easily have re-framed the question like this:
"So how would you compare the overall combat efficiency of pios and PFs then?"

The XP value of Pathfinder is simply too low.

Nowhere in my post did I mention xp values, there is no point in bringing it up in a direct response to me unless it relates to your actual criticism of my post. For example.


"Even though pioneers have an advantage at close range, at most relevant ranges pathfinders beat them. This, coupled with the fact that pathfinders have a very low exp value and weapon racks, allows them to vet up quite a bit faster."