|
LVs should do what you describe they do: the whole point of them is to get a quick response force that is enough to hold against typical early-mid game flank, but not enough against combined force or real tank.
The real problem is that tech coming after the LV tend to be so expensive it is always better to delay tech and go LV. It should be strategic choice, but for that we need further teching to be viable. Becouse the LV part of game is so long they win games, not only engagements, but this is a matter of time, not their strenght. Making them weak will couse that part of game to be not only lenghtening but also boring.
Remember when relic delayed tech of all factions to "promote LV play"? Thats when they screw that up. And they have done that without a single buff to said vehicles. |
|
Okw already has 2 non doctrinal healing options. Every other faction has only one. I don't count ost healing ability as its useless. |
Not sure if intended: There's also a weird bug that if a tank rolls over the unit that is currently playing the animation to shoot an AT grenade (e.g. Faust), the animation is cancelled as the unit dies, but the AT grenade instantly hits the tank, even if the animation wasn't finished yet.
It's intended, the whole idea of homing snares is to punish a player that drives into snare range in a deterministic way. That means snare squads create no go zones for tanks, just like mgs create such zones for infantry (in both cases it intentionally doesn't work if you are outnumbered). If you could just drive over the soldier to avoid the snare it would mean the zone this soldier created doesn't work against crushing vehicles.
In fact it's a win-win situation, one side kills one or more soldiers, the other snares a vehicle. Or you could say that who wins here depends on support and position where it happened. |
|
I would say that tommies are the least useful unit in brit arsenal. If you can't counter this unit, don't even try against others. I hate vetting up units that become worse with highest vet level...
Also, brits would love to have cheap to reinforce engineer as their first unit. They would be able to repair their UC, too. |
Relic was just extremely efficient in CoH2 to the point, where they have finished 5 year plan in just 3.
Stalin would be proud.
They "finished" their plan by getting rid of all the hard work it contained Kappa |
|
The stat should probably be labeled "xp gained by damaging" rather than "damage". It would be also cool to see xp that you gain by getting damaged in post match stats. |
The retreat rarely helps it survive though since most things will oneshot it anyway.
And also, the crewing buildings function is utterly useless.
If you got flanked by AI tank then not much can help you, no matter what kind of gun you have. If you want to put your gun in extended position to support troops and it can be flanked by infantry, then it is the only gun that survives such occurence. Not to mention that cloak gives ability to place your gun behind enemy lines, if it didn't have retreat, this wouldn't be possible and the cloak ability would be close to useless. If you need an example, how often do you see zis using cloak? Yes, it has doctrinal cloak in some of the best soviet commanders. Still not many people use it since you cant really save it once enemy spots it. |
The issue is the clipping of terrain. This is a serious problem for the rakenten which is so low to the ground. I actually think the unit is fine, but if we got rid of clipping it would need to go on all AT. The real issue is the hills on maps. Topography, since units ignore it, should not be in the game. It should only be in the game if units took it into account when firing.
I have no idea what your video is supposed to show.
+1 The unit itself is ok, I would even say it's more useful than other at guns thanks to cloak. It lacks the range, but retreat makes up for it big time.
Unitl relic changes something in elevation of raketens weapon, the workaround is to place it in buildings, it has perfect accurancy from there, it even snipes snipers much more often than normal at gun - but only if it is in building. |
It's true but what moving units are not microintensive? It's kinda same for all. You still have to pay close attention to your hmg and I don't think, for example, a King Tiger is micro-unintensive. The KT is slow and a high value target. With this sluggishness in mind you need to be fast with microing it for that very reason and driving the KT is not just driving the KT, it's also managing all the supporting units around it, or it will die.
I say (and you do as well) that micro-intensiveness is foremost a function of number of troops and all movable troops are micro-intensive, so I don't think pinpointing certain units and labelling them micro-intensive is a fair representation.
I labeled them micro intensive mainly becouse they are cheap late game units, so they obviously appear in higher numbers. For jackson kiting is another factor, it not only has to kite infantry like any other tank, but also tanks, to keep range advantage. Without it jackson is either useless or already dead. Low armor also doesn't help - you can drive into newly repositioned at-gun, or even two and drive away for repairs. With jackson horde, at least one is going to die at such occurence.
Same goes for axis factions: keeping your ele in position and avoiding being flanked at the same time is micro intensive, at least in higher level matches. Still it is nothing compared to microing 3 stugs at the same time and they cost same amount of fuel and roughly manpower. |
Wrong. First of all RTS games are defined as a strategy game that progresses in real time rather than turns. That is all. The basebuilding and resource gathering mechanics are the norm, but not qualifiers. RTS games with base building and resource gathering (eg. CoH and Starcraft) are not RTT games because they have those features, but RTT games like Total War and Wargame are still RTS games minus typical but unrequired elements of the genre. Second, your very post contradicts itself. If group B is a subcategory of group A, by definition it is A. What you're saying is essentially "Mustangs are Fords, but they are not Fords" which is the most unintellectual thing I've seen on this site in a long time.
The problem and misunderstanding here lies in the definition of strategy or strategy game as it is the term used in the definition of RTS. If you belive that tactics is subcategory of strategy, then RTTs are subgategory of RTSes. But there has to be a limit somewhere, there is also strategy involved in many multiplayer FPSes and in MOBAs, does it mean they are RTSes too?
The belief that RTS must contain resource management and unit building comes from the fact that out of two typical parts of RTS gameplay: micro and macro, macro is the one that involves strategy, thus making the whole game a strategy game that progresses in real time. |
Poland
0
Rudon
ferwiner
ferwiner
ferwiner
ferwiner
Relic Entertainment
