I don't understand why people are comparing other mediums to this. There are FAR larger changes between for example, the snub nose p4 and long barrel p4. The command p4 not only has 1/4 the length of the barrel but also a different icon that is much easier identified. The t34 differences are far less obvious as seen in OP. The barrel is slightly longer and the chasis is slightly different. It is easily the most similar 2 tanks you can field simultainiously.
I didn't mean command p4. It is obviously different, just as t-34 variants are obviously different. I ment ost/okw p4 and ost/okw/command panther that differ only in camo visually but have different stats. Of course it doesn't matter in 1v1.
As for t-34, what really is too similar in its variants is the unit icon. |
|
They look completely different for me. A quick glance on a gun is enough to distinguish them.
The real problem is P4 and panther that come in a few different variants that differ visually only in available camos. There are also some units that share unit icon like for example JLI and JLI commander. That should not be the case as well.
But t-34 variants? its as easy as sherman variants. |
Among 1vs1 Arnhem Checkpoint does the cut off balance very well
What is the actual difference in favour of arnhem? Both agnoville and arnhem have 2 cutoffs. On both maps one of the cutoffs is guarded by a building. Actually, on agnoville both cutoffs have equal building advantage on cutoffs, while arnhem top cutoff can be capped out of the building range and the south one hugs a church. So IMO agnoville is doing cutoffs slightly better. |
|
I understand that OP is playing at the highest level and slight map adjustments may make a difference there. But out of top 100, there are no bad maps, at least not in the current map pool. There are only maps that play in different ways. I would like everybody to keep that in mind as this thread continues.
I hear lots of rumbling about the 1v1 map pool in coh2. Even the maps that were used in design process of the game (kholodny) or whole franchise (agnoville) are being complained about.
Every time it happens, there seems to be somebody trying to force a removal of the map under discussion. Yet it seems that every map has its own group of haters.
So my proposal is as follows: let us first decide which maps are actually good, as right now we are going into the direction of playing one or two maps all the time. And I really think that making the game as boring as it sounds is not worth the slight improval of fairness.
So, before complaining on a map, please give me an example of map that does things right, especially the thing you complain about right now. |
|
Yeah, I think 150mp is a valid price for a buildable garrison that can be used only by one side. I wouldn't mind it having more shooting spots though, as right now the only unit that is useful inside is mg team. |
It is 100% certain they are going to do ww2. How would they fall back from a fancy front to ww2 western front if they choose a different time period? 
Not sure how you would handle vehicle warfare, specially since most of them are kinda ugly or clunky to use. You could take liberties but most tanks would be JT slow.
As for vehicles, try playing Battlefield 1. All the vehicles in this game move as fast and agile as if they were modern tanks and cars It is totally not historically accurate but I guess most people fail to even imagine how slow these things actually were so this "version" of history would suit coh better, just like it suits battlefield better. |
Well, the main issue there is indirect fire. Indirect fire/long range weapons arent an issue in other games because you just blob up to them and take them out. But HMGs/suppression are meant to discourage blobbing and give the defender an advantage, so they facilitate indirect fire to an extreme degree. Just imagine if any of the games where indirect was 100% accurate had suppression. Even if that problem were ironed out and indirect fire projectiles landed where the unit used to be and didnt track targets, then countering indirect fire just becomes as simple as moving your unit. This means that hmgs and team weapons get screwed over because they can't move at will, and it becomes all core infantry...which is essentially how all other RTS games play...
Overall, my point is that basically every interesting mechanic that coh2 has is entangled with the existence of rng.
You are right. Coh and DoW franchises are pretty much a whole new generation of RTS genre and that is mainly due to introduction and clever usage of rng.
Btw, I wonder how they will solve the question of rng usage in AoE4. Are we going to see typical catapults/guns firing into old position of the troops, or are they going to make it a little more immersive with a pinch of rng? |
That sounds nice, except for the fact that guns can't just half penetrate and half hit 
I guess you could just multiply a weapons damage by its accuracy and penetration and by the target's RA, then divide by the target's armor. But then you have stuff like luchses doing consistent, albeit very low, damage against pershings. Also, what about moving accuracy multipliers. Do you just turn them into moving damage multipliers?
Also, what do you do about...literally every tank and indirect fire weapon in the game. They rely on scatter for impact. Returning the "average" scatter roll every single time means they're completley worthless. The no rng approach simply doesn't work for indirect fire either. If mortars did consistent damage, they would be utterly busted. Get enough MGs to lockdown an area, then spam mortars and reliably dps things from a range at which they can't do anything in retaliation.
Returning the exact midpoint of the possible range just doesn't work. RNG is added in order to avoid that kind of thing. RNG allows you to model things that a strict midpoint value doesn't accurately or even intuitively emulate. Mid point values and/or no rng approaches are actually a strict step back in terms of the gameplay that coh2 seeks to provide and the concepts it tries to model.
Also, I know you were just explaining what his argument was and that its not your own.
I agree that RNG adds a lot to this game and is a great feature. It adds risk management as a needed skill and makes the matches look much more realistic.
On the other hand what you describe is certainly doable. In fact that is what most old rts games do. You always hit with direct fire. You always hit the ground where enemy was positioned with indirect. You can take down a building with a sword if you wait long enough. Yes, this is totally stupid, but this is how the games we've been brought up worked when you think of it 
Of course, adding such a mode to coh2 makes no sense. The rng based model is just as fair, OP simply needs a 10 minute statistic course to understand why... |
Correct me if I'm wrong please, but I thought USF mortar has a high rate of fire/accuracy that, say, the soviet mortar doesn't have. Also, the USF mortar just had its ranged BUFFED since last patch. How exactly is it the worse mortar??
Before the patch it was just an ostheer mortar with less AoE, less range and faster setup/tear down. So in some ways it was better than soviet mortar but it was worse where it mattered.
After last patch it got its setup/tear down nerfed and its range improved. On the other hand usf and ostheer mortars are now much more similar to soviet one in rate of fire. And it still hase worse AoE, so in my opinion it is right now plainly the worst mortar. Especially as it doesn't have the unique setup advantage that made it so hard to kill last patch. |
|
The reason is that it is in a faction that was not supposed to have a stock mg in the first place. For the same reason usf mortar is worse than any other mortar. |
Poland
Rudon
ferwiner
ferwiner
ferwiner
ferwiner
Relic Entertainment
