General Information
Register Time: 20 Jan 2014, 06:00 AM
Last Visit Time: Yesterday, 07:47 AM
Broadcast: https://www.twitch.tv/gbpirate
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCON2ubiyRfjP0HY9AGAuXIw
Steam: 76561198035726839
Residence: Canada
Nationality: United States
Timezone: America/Toronto
Game Name: GBPirate
I see some shit suggestions here.
Some "ostheer needs tech cost for grenades"
-that's the cost of T2 tech in the HQ.
I for one don't appreciate the suggestion that Ostheer is just weaker in the early game and that's the way they should be. It's rather shitty to have to stare at my screen for the first fifteen minutes clenching my butthole so I don't shit myself and microing at 200 apm just to stay alive against an aggressive USF or Soviet opponent. Sure, I can do it, but I don't want to die of a heart attack at my young age.
Katitof(Dullahan?) said that Ostheer relies on their support weapons to win. While that may be true for strats that Hans uses where he gets 3 PaK guns, 2 Stug Es and waits for a tiger, it isn't always the case. If Ostheer "relied" on their support weapons you'd see no more than two grens followed by 2-3 MG42s, a couple of mortars, and four PaK guns. Like all factions and strategies (except noobs who spam MGs in 300popcap games with no VPs), support weapons are there for support. Your MG42 supports your grenadiers. Your grenadiers don't support the MG42.
Are Grenadiers worth their 30mp reinforcement cost? With four men they are. The problem against hyper aggressive USF play is that, often times, you don't have munitions to spend on LMG42s. You've got to put down a teller mine, get a med bunker up, and have enough muni in the bank for a faust or two. You've got to keep a grenadier close to your sniper so the M20 or T70 doesn't chase it down and kill it. The Grenadier - conscript matchup is balanced. The issue against Riflemen is that grenadiers always lose in equal cover/health situations above a range of 24m.
The short answer is that the 30mp cost is fine, it's just difficult to justify their performance w/out LMG42s. Adding a 5th man at T3 or T4 won't really help the struggle in the early/mid game; that's a wider issue based on faction design and the abilities of the allied factions.
It think it has more implications for map design than anything. The 'cap zone' mechanic really eliminates much of the reason territory points exist in the first place. In vCoH infantry had to actively 'use' the point to capture it. It was a physical object with which entities interacted, which necessitated the visualization.
But that's not how CoH2 works. If territory points completely disappeared and were invisible, and caches could be freely built (only inside cap zone, limit one per) and you'd have a result that is more in line with how CoH2 works.
It would be cool to see the return of actively capturing the territory point object. It should infer the similar penalties to building or repairing, while perhaps speed up the capture rate, or even override enemy units stalling capture.
It'd open up a whole new and dynamic world of gameplay AND map design.
But that said, I'd rather see more diversity in territory points. I miss real cutoff/strategy points and variable resources.
There were ups and downs. Having standard points helped w/ manpower income and variable popcap. I prefer the current system with a capture area. I think it adds a certain degree of authenticity because there wouldn't really be a bunch of flagpoles that make fuel and munitions appear in your territory at a constant rate that you can then us for things
I like how there's fighting over capture points. In vCoh you would have to sacrifice a squad to decap a point, like a VP if it's real close. The current mechanic allows for prolonged engagements that can often seesaw in one direction or the other.
Certain units could be buffed
Resource income should be reduced in 3v3/4v4s from each point.
USF should have some way to access MG/AT gun after getting tech. Maybe even small fuel side tech for .50 cal in captain, slightly more expensive side tech (in terms of fuel) for AT gun in LT tech.
Soviets need to have T34/76 available sometime before T4. Like...side tech in T3?
I like (Inverse's...Budwise's?) dissatisfaction with no side tech. Could be great with a P3 in Wehrmacht's T2 but we know that would never happen. Could be possible with T34/76 in T3.
There aren't any real glaring balance issues. Satchel charge/nades should do damage to houses (can't they just give damage to buildings a .1 or .05 modifier to have it due SOMETHING?????).
/endrant
Use conscripts to place sandbags for your maxims. You will now no longer die to rifle grenades.
According to Tightrope's video on cover, the half damage only applies to units on the opposite side of the cover. If your squad flanks the cover and throws the grenade, you still get 100% damage.
As of maxim i just dont understand how players use them.
Vs oh not viable cuz of snipers and grenades. So i never get single 1.
Vs okw 90% of the games i get 0-1. If i get 2 amxims i wouldnt have enough units not to let luchs annihilete late my squads. There is 80 fuel diff betw luchs and t70. So there is big window when you have to keep it inactive
They're easier to use at lower ranks. I had quite a lot of success around the 300s/400s with Soviets. There's a good way to use Maxims that takes a bit of a while learning but once you've got it down it becomes a lot easier and less stressful to use. I'd usually get 2-3, but no more than three. Couple conscripts, shock troops. If I was able to get both fuels or deny my opponent fuel, I could just skip to T3 and get T70. w/ AT nades Luchs isn't an issue. ZiS is required if the game is about even. Sometimes Su76 is required instead of T70.
Maxims are good support units but there's a reason why you never really see more than two in any single game of Europe's ESL.
TAB Australian Magic
0
Canada
United States
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
