As USF your rifles are technically better then DAKs PGs. Especially with build time increase for them.
Your main enemy is flameHT early, if you go for rifle build, if you manage to deal with it, you will have an upper hand for a sold amount of time.
But you dont have option to fuck up, because you will be punished badly.
1) You pick airbone, its the must
a) You either go for path spam into airborn + T2
b) You go for rifles + 50cal drop
Variant A is pretty self explanatory, and but its harder to execute, because PGs can bully Paths, and you pretty much have no means to support them besides investing into MGs\mortars and so on.
Variant B is more interesting, since I was saying rifles trade very well with PGs, you just need to use cover smart and push smart.
1) You go x3 rifles, and when the fighting start you try your best to focus fire SturmPios. And you fit paradroped 50 cal into it. You can get it earlier or a bit later, depending of situation\map.
2) If you see DAK player getting 250 instead of third PG, be ready for clowncar, if you see third PG you have a bit of time window. In any case you need to research nades for stickies, just know your timing.
3) You go for mech company (because come on its the best) and go for quad mount.
4) By that time you probably already killed clown car or it never came, and you play normally.
Also:
1) You can also consider rushing paradrop reinforcements, because this ability is super strong
2) You can also try going path spam + jeeps if maps allows it, because jeeps are very good at killing 250.
3) Worst way to play against DAK, be passive. You need to bleed his MP in one way or another, otherwise he will be teched and buffed like crazy.
Why do I think its a good change? The Simple answer is the pacing of the matches, with the emphasis more on Infantry, Light tank/vehicle play as well as larger windows in both early and medium gameplay with large unit rosters I hope it cuts down on the late game cheese.
But what is late game exactly? In 3 right now, every one pretty much has access to some sort of armor (besides UKF), relatively early compared to 1 and 2. Thing is in vCoH and CoH2, besides few light tanks there was no armor awaible early\mid game what so ever, while in 3 there are plenty of it relatively early. So it should be clarified what is a late game to begin with.
If the game is not completely one sided in 3, you always reach its late game anyway, with a difference being that in other games lategame comes at around ~20 min mark and in 3 its around ~15 mins.
CoH3 is not about late game tank spams and slugfests like 2nd was.
If you want to turtle, do it on VPs.
I've already covered it. Its pretty much oblivious why 2 was about slugfests. Because 99% of the time, outside 1v1 and 2v2 to some extend, if was impossible to harass enemy economy. Starting from the fact that every statigic point could be turned into fuel\muni ending up with the fact that all map income is spread thro 4 points.
CoH3 has no such problem, you can harrass economy and flank in 4v4 just like in 1v1.
CoH3 doesn't have any retreat points (besides USF using inf company), meaning that retreat is a retreat. Another reason why 2 was a slugfest.
You are looking at the problem from a wrong angle, look at it not from a perspective of a CoH2 but from a gameplay one.
For instance in CoH2, retreating from the middle of the map 2v2, takes around 10 seconds, in 3v3\4v4 it might take around 15+ seconds. Plus time to get back. Sure, we could say "play smart, if you retreated you've lost" sure, legit point. But it still takes a lot of time from an already short games.
It takes 8 mins to win game if you have 3VPs, what is this 8 mins? You basically have like chance to attack 2-3 times, if you failed you've lost the game. On top of the already much faster gameplay, this is an over-kill.
Since there wasn't any decent thread about VPs, decided to create one, besides recently found Marco post about VPs.
Basically we don't need to speculate on how long games will last, since we pretty much got official expected timing of the games from relic.
Speaking for myself, I am not a fan of a new 3 seconds VP drain. Wasn't a fan when I learned about the change, was disappointed even more after tech test. Here is my reasoning.
1) With the new VP drain, emphasis of the good early game engagements is even bigger. Because you basically over-all have smaller window to recover.
2) Whole game phasing forced to be extremely fast, where every bit of resources have to spend with extra caution. For instance, getting one more inf squad before your AT weaponry, might cost you the game, because you simply wont have enough time\res to respond to enemy armor if it arrives.
3) Because of the point 2 game is super punishing towards the players who lost his unit. Since you dont have enough time to sit back a little and rebuild it, without being in danger of not having counter measure to the possible new enemy units.
4) Unlike CoH2, CoH3 maps have a similar size of vCoH maps, meaning that retreating from the centre of the map, might take up to 10+ seconds, on 3v3\4v4 maps it might take even longer. Making retreating, even more punishing then it was before time wise
5) With such fast timings, the whole concept of stronger "early\mid\late" game factions sounds fishy. We dont know what the meta will be and how the game will be played when people learn it, but it might end up being problematic.
6) Promotes static gameplay, because why would you want to push, if you can just end game in a 15-16 min mark
Why I dont agree with Marcos reasoning.
1) More emphasis VPs over territory argument. This was pure CoH2 problem, because of the map design. In vCoH it was just as important to hold VPs or more territory. In vCoH by having more territory you basically had bigger army due to increased army limit. So game forced you to maintain balance of VPs\terr captured. It was a chose to make. Games in 1 concluded usually not only by VPs, but also by economy\territory collapse of one player, pretty much ending the game.
In CoH2, you basically only had to control 4 points, to have all fuel\muni income and with the emphasis of late game, VPs fall short as less important objective. In gamemodes larger then 2v2, res points are either located in super safe areas, which almost impossible to contest or near VPs resulting in one side controlling both VP and income points at the same time. Both situations led to super long games.
In CoH3 we pretty much have vCoH model (minus pop-cap changes), which already rewards players for capping and harassing enemy territory, because you can actually cripple enemy economy, but this change is fully denied by the fact that, now players who sit on VPs will be able to end game faster, making the whole CoH2 situation ones again, but in reverse. In 2 it was fuel\muni point which win the game, in 3 now its pure VP.
2) Closing game faster if one team is dominating. Solid point. But what about the games where no-one is dominating the other and one team just had a bad start? Now players, have much less time to recover, much less time to prepare and comeback. Dominating team most likely will have tripple cap anyway, so why not just make 3 seconds drain only with tripple cap?
On top of that CoH3 fixed plenty of 1 and 2 problems, be it super strong garrisons, forward retreating, factions with essential tools, gimmics and so on. All of them and more, lead to undesirable results in previous titles, so I see zero reason of 3 seconds VP drain, because major side problems were fixed, while this change still applied makes no sense to me.
I remember your post, it was a pretty interesting read, but quite a while ago.
Did you find anything regarding battlegroups or other gameplay content? What you list up there seems to be cosmetics only.
Hard to say really. There are signs of them, but they are very vague. We for sure know that there are at least 2 units missing from the game being Noshorn and Archer TDs.
We also know that having more then 3 battlegroups are also planned, since there were signs of battlegroup loadouts. On top of that, dispute a lot of concepts of battlegroups, have changed since previous tests. Most of the abilities were still in use in tech tests.
Meaning that we are still missing multiple units\weapons\abilities in battlegroups tech test had (and relic pretty much said that on release there will be only 3 battlegroups). Not to mention that WM and US had 4 commanders in the files.
So its safe to assume, that relic will release new battlegroups.
My personal opinion is that they are most likely then not, will be locked behind both in-game and real money, since Relic got a lot of hate before about commanders being unobtainable without real life money.
As for gameplay content. Pretty much mini-gamemodes similar to the ones in vCoH ToW, will be returning to some extend, there were a lot of signs of them.
And since there is no bulletin filler here, we will likely have no way to earn then in-game, not without something being hard-monetization.
I've made a post after digging tech test files, which had connections to montization.
Pretty much what will be monetisation
1) Separate\bundled skins for tanks\captured points\inf units. Pretty much every aspect of army will be customisation
2) Things like player avatars, titles, player cards
3) There will be 3 types of item rarity similar to common\rare\epic
4) And I believe game would have 2 types of currency one being free and the other one will be paid one.
Also again, for those who think "skins aren't sufficient enough", there are passive income, to generate more $ proper game-developers\publishers use expansions, the same way Total War did.
I mean sure, big companies always trying to milk you dry, but lets be honest "EA\Ubisoft style" is not the single one here on the market.
1) Yeah, no-one cares about the visuals if they are seriously playing the game. Visuals are fine, if some-one don't like it, you have build-in GPU post-processing or programs like re-shade to make the game look like you want it to be. You know what makes CoH3 stand out? The fact that it runs like knife though butter in terms of how good this game runs even on shit PCs, unlike CoH1\2 this is more important.
2) For some CoH3 is slow for some too fast. For me it due to VP drain it feels too fast.
3) Yeah ... except we already had examples of F2P RTS games, all of which were a flop in the end. CoH is never gonna have enough of a player base to sustain cash flow. Not to mention that idea of "Make game F2P if you want to have more players", is honestly so childish its not even funny.
4) Sorry, no-one wants to live in a "elitish game" bubble. What is the problem if game is actually friendly for a casual players? Tactical pause for SP is bothering you? Or maybe leader boards against AI?
Whats wrong with the game being on consoles? A lot of people, have both console and PC. Chances are, that people will play on consoles and then buy it for PC are actually kinda big, its a regular practice. At least they are aiming at a huge portion of a market, instead of making it for Mac\Linux
5) How is CoH2 interface is small? Its huge AF, with isane amount of un-used space. Its like Warcraft 3, but at least in it, Blizzard intentionally made it like this, to optimise the game, since nothing is rendering behind the UI.
6) You care about soul via interface and visuals, I care about souls and passion in gameplay. And CoH3 took best parts of CoH1\2 and combined them. This is where soul lies.
But over-all complains like this only proves that CoH3 is a great game already. Because besides broken audio, subjective opinions about UI and graphics, there are literally no other complains floating around, besides few debatable gameplay changes like VP drain.
Back when CoH2 was new, players from vCOH complained, that "Hey, new capture system is garbage", despite its being better, just because of the fact that it wasn't as abusable as in vCoH.
On a side note, no-one liked base building in CoH2, besides "Super-pro efficient players, who count every second". And the ones who liked it, most likely then not, liked it because of how garbage UKF\USF bases were in comparison.
In CoH3, if you want to be efficient with your buildings, sure, build it as you want. Don't like base building? Double click it and forget about it.
Same with auto-reinforcing. Don't like it? Want to manually click it, sure, disable it.
And Katitof nailed it, CoH was never about macro and RPM for the most part. It was actually about counter-measures, strategy and unit positioning.
Thx but most of the players had enough of this in CoH2, where "briliant e-sports competitive decisions" made a game into macrowing your x4 mainlines and x2 AT guns until tanks arrive.
The only some what reasonable complain is auto-forward reinforce, but its more of a balance issue, since forward-reinforce and especially during combat, shouldn't be as fast as normal one.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
