Profile of astro_zombie

Personally I think it's a design flaw.

Maybe for 1v1 it is okay, but what is "early" in 1v1 is not the same as what is "early" in 2v2 and above. The early game goes away much quicker in team games, which makes the late game units come out faster and become more prominent. Thus, the "early" advantage largely goes out the window. A victory point match even in a 1v1 with equal players is always going to have a longer "late" game period. It is a time based match by definition, unlike starcraft which is elimination. Why would you want to have any kind of early advantage when that window of time will almost always be smaller than the late game window?

I mean Relic even balances the game by tweaking the CP cost for things because they feel a unit comes out too early or late. Well, this is a linear function and obviously this is not going to translate well in team games.

I suppose it boils down to whether you like 1v1 or team games the best. I think 1v1s are boring as hell personally. I also don't like knowing that I have to win in this tiny timeframe and if I don't I'm in for a long battle of frustration. Why would anyone want to fight the longer late game uphill battle?

Like I said, for me it's a flaw in that I don't find this concept to be enjoyable nor do I think the game can really be balanced in this way that will be amenable for 1v1 and team players.

Not to say that I don't love this game, I certainly do, but there are simply things I don't agree with that they didn't learn their lessons from COH1.

In my opinion, the single biggest design failure in this game was not adding real "side armor." For those of you who do not know, the tank is cut in half, the front half, including sides, gets "front armor", the back half, again including sides, gets "rear." That is why they will probably not nerf rear armor, because it's also the faux "side" armor and the consequences of doing it are large. I said it in beta, they have their excuses for not implementing it, none of which swayed my opinion.

Now they are limited their in balancing to only two armor variables as opposed to at least 3 (sides, front, fear) that it should have. It's the main reason why flanking is not rewarded for the effort you put into it.

IMHO, them gutting the doctrine concept and not implementing this are two really unfortunate flaws in this game.

Does the ISU-152 cost you all remaining fuel and 25% of your manpower? Does it have 75 range and the ability to spot to the near full extent of the range by itself? Does it's AOE basically insta kill any infantry? Does it combine full AI with full AT?

The answer to all of those questions is no.

The Tiger Ace is totally fine for what it does: a final death blow to an already beaten opponent or an all in against an impending loss.

The ISU-152 completely reverses the course of games due to its absurd effectiveness vs everything. Surely even someone as dense as yourself can see that there is overwhelming evidence that it needs a look?

Late game those vet 3 infantry are very important, and having them wiped instantly from across the screen is just BS. I would say the same of any unit but this one has almost 0 counters so it's a serious problem for gameplay.

What? The answer is "no"? Did you make a fool out of yourself and then have the nerve to call me "dense"?

The Tiger Ace now is not the same as it was costwise, but it still is capable of one shotting a squad and so is the KT. The concept at the time was idiotic when first released. Notice how I said "in history" before your blood pressure shot through the roof.

And yes, I said ALL of the "supertanks" are absurd and never did I defend any one. You are a waste of time. I am trying to take the middleground and be reasonable here. Some supertanks are turretless, some are better against tanks or infantry, some have more HP/Armor than others. Not everything is so god damned black and white.

Saw Siberian do it on stream and it made my blood boil. Here are 2 Axis players who actually put an effort into outplaying their opponent and ISU's come along and wipe everything. I've had it done to me several times in 2v2s, and it's infuriating how complete noobs turn games in their favor by abusing a ridiculous unit. I hope Relic is considering a nerf to this abomination.


+1

Here's a harsh dose of reality for all of you:

SUPERTANKS ARE ALL OVERPOWERED

ISU, Elefant was for all of vCOH2, Tiger Ace (probably the biggest joke in the game's history)


You can all keep deluding yourself with your obvious faction biases, but the King Tiger and Jagd from COH1 were all scrub weapons that threw the entire game's balance out of the window. They allowed any idiot to pull a win out of their ass. Tiger 1 and Pershing were fine - strong, but not absurd.

This game is not Command and Conquer. Superweapons/units have no place in this game in my opinion, so if you don't like it for soviets, keep in mind the fact that the Germans have more of them.

You know it's true, so stop pretending like one side is magically more noble than the other. Everyone has had their shit instagibbed by a ridiculous tank or unit. I swear to god the delusion is amazing. It just stops all intelligent discussion, it's like american politics ffs.

Yeah they seem to rely more on raw numbers than feedback, which is good for the most part, except when they go and nerf a unit that's already not great. And buff one that is (fucking M15 AAHT).

They nerfed the M15, what are you talking about?