Profile of ferwiner

I'd never state something so blatantly like "you are wrong" when it comes to opinions. Was noganno wrong when his command panther took an overshoot from Helpinghans cromwell and sank it that ultimatly ended the game? Hans got lucky and he took home real world money for that RNG. I don't doubt Hans skill in the slightest and noganno knew well the dangers of ice. But still RNG decided something that came down to real money. How does main gun crit not reward a lucky player? It's 100% RNG dependant and when it occurs and rends that tank useless against opposing armor/infantry. People seem to be missing the point. No one goes into a situation thinking, "hmmm if i dive I could recieve main gun destroyed and lose my tank" No one goes in and think their tank is going to get abandoned. The only thing people think is if their are AT weapons, snares and mines. If those are all checked off as not there or maneuverable around then people will dive for kills. Every top player thinks in this form.

In case of noggano the risk was unnecessery and huge, it was as risky as diving your tank way behind enemy lines. The chances of loosing tank in this situation were so high it was simply a mistake. And in fact it was most probably shift order bug that lost him this panther as nobody sane would take that risk in this particular situation.

As for crits I'm glad you mentioned abandon as this is the perfect example of what I'm talking about. If you well manage the risk, you always have additional tank, TD or AT-gun that can kill abandoned tank, yours or enemy, if it is not possible to recrew by your forces. This is what almost all good players do in tank engagements, especially the big ones where the chance for abandon are much higher.

The same applies to main gun crit - you need to be close enough to your forces, so that you can escape with your tank in case it gets the main gun crit, or even worse, the engine crit, that is much more popular thanks to mines and snares. Otherwise the manouver you are trying to pull off can be labeled only as very risky - it may be benefitial in the end, but you shouldn't try it unless you absolutely have to.

The crit simply changes the situation you are in from trying to trade effectively in an engagement to trying to save your vehicle. The ability to disengage without losses in an event that suddenly changes the course of action is exactly what differs good players from bad ones. No matter if this ability comes from cautios preparation or brilliant micro.

Mech Assault looks pretty Blitzkrieg to me.

You can't change core design of a faction just becouse one doctrine doesn't fit so well into it. If you do, there are going to be many other odd looking doctrines. The fact is that core design of ostheer is defensive and that the case of mechanised assault is justified just becouse doctrines are ment to supplement and alter the army, so not all of them must exactly fit into core army design.

I like many things but what I like the most is detailed infantry combat, modelled better in this game than in any fps I know of. The infantry is powerful, it needs micro and there are lots of mechanics around it. In most rts games infantry either doesn't exist, is modelled in exactly same way as vehicles or is horribly useless.

If somebody want to take a part in creating patch - he can do it already! Many community members already take a part in this work. Mr. Smith and other members of balance team are open to communicating. Just check the merged patchnote - some bug solved by other people, some QoL suggestion have been suggested by other people.
If balance team need help from cruzz for example, they will contack with him :-)

Exactly, plus many ideas for changes were provided by other community members whose names were not included in patch notes. Its all about willing to help, instead of creating a huge, clumsy and slow
commitee.

Firstly this is for sure not a ballance issue. Secondly, if you think that there are too many crits in coh2, try coh1