Profile of bämbabäm

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 246

General Information


Thread: Why Ostheer is in a bad spot3 Aug 2014, 15:29 PM sigh Katitof, if you could for once try to read everyting people write, this forum would be a better place... Jump back to quoted post3 Aug 2014, 09:16 AMbämbabäm You simply do not have enough vetos to veto maps which favor at least one of your opponents. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Why Ostheer is in a bad spot3 Aug 2014, 12:23 PM Jump back to quoted post3 Aug 2014, 10:25 AMVindicareX As a note: the balance with Soviets isn't that bad - it's mostly vs. Americans where the Ostheer player needs a Pak ~7 min in the game to effectively contend with AA halftrack. Well I think you wouldn't disagree that Stalingrad is just plain stupid and Minsk / Kharkov vs ISU without an Elephant... MVGame. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Why Ostheer is in a bad spot3 Aug 2014, 12:17 PM Jump back to quoted post3 Aug 2014, 09:35 AMlanciano from all the games i played USF against OSF, OST are super strong. [...] I did not say that OH is weak, because I don't think that OH is weak in general. There are just too many maps, which heavily favor your enemies. Jump back to quoted post3 Aug 2014, 09:35 AMlanciano 1: LMG Grens wipe the Floor LMG Grens in Stalingrad won't help you much, as this is CQC. Jump back to quoted post3 Aug 2014, 09:35 AMlanciano 2: Ost Mortar Is a Machine Gun Mortar with pin Point accuracy It's definitely great, but it will not compensate for OHs weaknesses on certain maps (if you're being overrun on CQC maps). Jump back to quoted post3 Aug 2014, 09:35 AMlanciano 3: Mg42 can denies large areas and is easily assessable be in T1 It can only deny areas on maps where you won't be flanked all the time like Stalingrad / La Gleize by rifles. Jump back to quoted post3 Aug 2014, 09:35 AMlanciano 4: i admit that Ost T3 doesn't do as well against USF due to the M36 TD I think OH T3 is fine, you just need to support with PaK40 & PzGrens with Schrecks. Jump back to quoted post3 Aug 2014, 09:35 AMlanciano 5: the pak is awesome with its long range and fast fire rate Will die to flanks in CQC maps like La Gleize / Stalingrad etc. in no time. Jump back to quoted post3 Aug 2014, 09:35 AMlanciano 6: the tiger is awesome against Usf, as usf armour are mad of cardboard lol Indeed, it is probably OHs best anti-US weapon. But the game is probably already decided before it hits the field if automatch chose the wrong map. This is not a "OH weak, buff plz" thread, but about the maps that in too many cases favor the other side in OH matches and thus force the same lame gameplay over and over again. Jump back to quoted post3 Aug 2014, 10:27 AMCelticsREP I wouldnt really blame the maps. If you think that you can create a strategy that works for every map, then the chances of the opponent abusing weaknesses is high. Also, it seems you are confining yourself to using commanders, dont do this, ive taken on ISU's without elephants before. Your commander complements your strategy, so if you want long range AT damage get an elephant, if not then dont. Part of this game is changing your strategy and being flexible, focusing on this will help alot of players. I don't think that there exists a single strategy that is successful on every map and I did not state this in OP. And I also don't try to rely on commanders that much, but you can't tell me that on certain maps you can deal with your enemy without certain doctrinal units. Stalingrad without Assgrens against an enemy on your level is basically gg, no matter if it's Sov or US. And concerning ISU: I once managed to kill a full health ISU with a Stug3G 1v1, but guess what: the other player did not play well. You can't tell me that an enemy of equal skill with an ISU on Minsk can be beaten without an Elephant roughly half of the times. In most cases the ISU will bleed you, while pois mine the few choke points and other untis protect the ISU. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Why Ostheer is in a bad spot3 Aug 2014, 09:16 AM First of all, this is about 1v1 with equally skilled players. IMO, Ostheer is really in a bad spot, for three reasons: 1. Map pool 2. Commanders 3. Playstyle 1: You simply do not have enough vetos to veto maps which favor at least one of your opponents. The worst maps are: - Stalingrad: No need to say anything more. - La Gleize: It's again a map with close quarter combat (CQC) everywhere you will fight. Vs Sovs you are fucked because they are best at CQC. Vs US you simply can't use your MG42 which are vital, as you will be flanked easily. Builings are also a bad idea, as riflemen can just beat you garrison vs garrison. And don't you ever think of a sniper on this map. - Kholodny winter: Not vetoing blizzard maps is stupid, as CQC experts will just storm the fuck out of you. - Minsk Pocket / Road to Kharkov: Who ever thought it would be fun to have such narrow maps with 3 "tunnels"? Su85 & ISU rule supreme on this map. Altough I guess Kharkov is not as bad as Minsk. 2: You almost have no choice which commanders to take with you. - On some maps you have no chance at all to counter an ISU without an elephant, so slot 1 goes to one of these two. Even if it's a different map, going against this one-shot-wonder without an elephant is risky. - Some of the CQC-favored maps get better, if you have Assgrens with you. Still they don't scale well into late game and are mainly useful vs US. Plus, you need to own them at first because they are paid DLC (don't hope for warspoils). But in case you own them (sadly you should), commander slot 2 goes to Assgrens. This leaves you with one commander you can choose on your own - yay! 3: Due to points 1 and 2 and the fact the enemy can field light vehicles as their first unit (in case you see that US doc in his selection), you basically are unable to choose a build order to pressure your enemy. All Ostheer is doing in the early game is react. While the other 3 factions can try to put pressure on their enemy and force them to play their game, Ostheer must stick to play safe & defensively, keep their units togehter and hope they survive long enough. I don't know if these points can be adressed without a massive redesign of OH, which will surely not happen, so honestly I don't know if things will ever get better for OH. A step in the right direction would be to remove Stalingrad forever, but that would be a small step and not adress the most glaring issues. Also, redesigning a big amount of the maps might help a lot, but this won't happen either. And again (to at least prevent a part of the flaming / hating): this is my opinion, based on my experience with and versus OH. Now discuss! In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Rework artillery - an idea1 Aug 2014, 11:28 AM Jump back to quoted post1 Aug 2014, 11:16 AMArclyte [..] I like the idea of bigger AoE with less damage, but I think a stun element (like from stun grenades) fits better than suppression. Infantry would take damage, and be stunned, but wouldn't 100% force a retreat or guarantee losing a fight. Yes, it's not like it is supposed insta pin (is that the "red" one?! not playing english version) units. The exact effect can be discussed, but that's the general direction I'd like it to be changed (edit: Arty should be a combined arms support tool and not an untouchable killing machine in your base imo). In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Rework artillery - an idea1 Aug 2014, 11:21 AM Jump back to quoted post1 Aug 2014, 08:04 AMBurts I would also like this idea, mines, mortars , rocket ary, howitzers should all do suppresion. I'd also like for the very big guns on tanks (IS-2, isu-152 - to also do suppresion to infantry) Great addition, this should really apply to all weapons potentially wiping full squads. I'd rather like to see e.g. the ISU supressing rather than just wiping stuff. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Rework artillery - an idea1 Aug 2014, 10:32 AM Jump back to quoted post1 Aug 2014, 08:28 AMnordkind [...] On the other hand the arty should still remain its oneshot ability in the center of the explosion. Wouldnt just be really fun to watch an artillery shell landing on a soldier without killing him [...] You could try to make a higher inner AoE damage, but it would have to be very small. But thanks to gangbang-unit-AI, even this might not work (trying to prevent high health squad wipes). And.... Jump back to quoted post1 Aug 2014, 08:07 AMCabreza Do we really want to play a game where a direct hit from a 152mm howitzer round or 300mm rocket doesn't turn infantry into blood mist? ... it's not like CoH2 is really realistic anyways. Pumas surviving a IS2 shell / Shermans surviving a Jagdtiger shell at these distances etc.? In a game where you have so few units and thus unit preservation is of such importance, you should not loose squads to RNG imo. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Rework artillery - an idea1 Aug 2014, 06:23 AM First of all: maybe this is a bad idea, but I'd like to throw it here so people can discuss. Artillery is needed to prevent campy gameplay, but with its current design it's either hardly doing anything or insta wiping squads (or at least that's what relic made it to be in the past). So here is my proposal: give all artillery a rather big AoE with reduced damage, so it can't wipe squads (at least not 2 or 3 rockets) but give it supression / crew shock. This way arty wouldn't be a "oh you're capping one of my sectors - WIPE THAT SQUAD!"-tool but be helpful at supporting an assault at defensive positions, as you could damage and suppress the defending troops so your assaulting troops have an easier time. If this change leads to arty not beeing able to handle bunkers / units in buildings etc., maybe give it an ability to shoot higher damage shells with massively reduced AoE so it can't be used to easily wipe squads and maybe require some munitions to use it. So, what do you think? Edit: Like Burts mentioned, the game would probably benefit if other long range weapons like mortars, ISU, etc. (all those AoR weapons capable of wiping squads) and mines would be changed accordingly. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Patch: July 31st31 Jul 2014, 16:37 PM Haha a classic relic again! Everybody agreed that the squad wipe potential is too big, but they intentionally keep it. I'd be laughing if their "balance" team would not make decisions like this again and again... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Comparison of Kat & Stuka after heavy usage30 Jul 2014, 13:24 PM Jump back to quoted post30 Jul 2014, 13:20 PMArclyte its so you can skip the t3 building and get t4 for less fuel So you mean make every BP cheaper and increase the according Tx accordingly and not only BP3/T4? That would indeed help a lot. In: COH2 Balance