Killing tanks is better value than killing infantry. A full HP comparison is useless, any good player will use the loiter after the fight has already started or as they are about to push. And that goes for all factions
I'm not gonna argue that killing tank\vehicles is more important. What I was saying that UKF loiters tend to kill inf no matter what, unless you insta retreat there is always a chance to get your squads wiped. No matter if they are in cover, full HP or wounded. Overwatch AT while being strong, it cant kill tank in a one strafing run, unless tank is already almost dead. It cant kill inf, unless its almost dead.
As I was saying, that if we imagine there is AA unit and that the plane will be down after its first strafe, single UKF planes have bigger impact then the ones presented in overwatch. Main advantage why Sector Assault is over-all better ability, comes from the fact that meta commander has it, unlike UKF ones.
But if you only compare those two abilities, side by side in the same conditions, UKF are imo have better ones.
On top of that OKW will have AA no matter what, UKF needs to devote popspace to it. Sector Assault is by far the best in any realistic scenario.
Schwerer and MGs are not the AA counter, its RNG soft counter, they might insta gib or might not do anything. If you are facing opponent who always use either recon or any other air based abilities and you want to properly counter them, even as axis you need Ostwinds\AA HT, everything else wont give you great results.
P47s are wildly unreliable, might get you a KT kill, might miss every single rocket. Also has collision issues on a large number of maps
Its unreliable, but as I was saying its by far the hardest one to counter with AA, thats why I've mentioned it. |
allied strafes are not countered by AA as hard? two planes somehow survive longer than the four planes that have the exact same attack moves? all plane loiters have to move away from the front and start a strafe, or they circle around the circle
Cmon axisbros....
Stuka AT strafe will never kill full HP tank, UKF AI strafes will wipe full HP squad if it land its hit properly. If both planes will be killed by AA after they deliver only 1 attack, UKF planes have better value then overwatch planes, IF there are proper AA counters around. And I've pointed it out.
P47 fly off the map almost always, its not constantly circling around, therefor its harder to kill.
Cmon alliesbros. |
As the sheer value, overwatch is the strongest one.
In reality P47 or UKF Strafing support\Hold the line.
Sector assault is hard-countered by the AA units, super badly. Almost pointless to use it, if there is AA around.
P47 tends to fly all over the map, instead of circling around the area, making hitting it down way harder.
UKF (especially AI planes) just delete inf, its like IL-2 strafing run, but with auto-aim and multiple hits. Tho they are also very susceptible to AA. But unlike overwatch\stuka-AT run, even if there is AA gun, UKF AI planes still might be able to wipe a squad or two before being killed, while Stuka AT runs only will be able to finish almost dead tank anyway.
And soviets are garbage ![:romeoHairDay: :romeoHairDay:](/images/Smileys/romeo/romeoHairDay.png) |
I'm not any kind of engineer but this stuff seems to be a lot of work and looks not very realistic. I'm not sure how designing any of this works but it would seem to make more sense to just adapt the coh1/coh2 method of building destruction to make it look more realistic. Having building destruction injure nearby units is going to cause a headache to competitive players IMO and from what they're showing us now it doesn't look nearly ready for a live game launch. They really could use more of that dust they're happy they removed ![:( :(](/images/Smileys/sad.gif)
If there will be option to disable this idiotic debris flying left and right, then its actually more or less bearable.
Also, unit being damaged by building collapsing is imo fine, its not nesesery but not a day changer. You would just look for buildings which nearly destroyed, but visually it should be a problem to see that building is about to collapse. On the other hand, if there is say a church with a huge tower (like in trailer) and you can make tower collapse just by dealing enough damage directly to it, then it might be a problem, because huge buildings will most likely damage units in larger areas. But if its a small radius around the building it should be fine. |
We play every other week as an arranged team. We lose to better players in arranged teams, and we lose to better players in random teams. Stop trying to make matchmaking take longer than it already does.
And I play in arranged team as allies, with casual mates, who A move blobs and dont use cover. We win against better arranged and random teams, because in discord I can tell them what to do, where to go and what to build.
Your point?
I really enjoy part of the community, who states AT arent a big deal. This argumentation is probably fully backed, by the fact that almost all games competitive games with MM are trying to match AT teams against other AT teams.
But hurr durr I am casual boomer, who just wants to play some WW2 RTS and move squads around, I have a car to fix and loan to pay, I dont want to wait additional 5 mins to get into fair game.
CoH2 already lost god knows how many players, simply because, aside from some masochists who dont mind, being put in unfair games is no fun for normal people. |
Why so many volks tho? Its an overkill 5 main line squads.
Considering sov had 3 penals + 2 shocktroops + mortar, his single mortar could have coased a lot of damage during engagements.
But in any rate 2 oberst + 5 volks (if they had StGs) should be able to win against his inf.
As for army, you could have got an MG34, aswell IGs near your Schwerer, since IGs is very strong on crossing.
You dont need P4J per say, if you feel that you was able to stale and you would be able to force enemy armor away, if they get one. If its 50\50 match up, without one side clearly dominating the other, P4J is a possibility. Especially against penals+shocks since soviet is lacking AT gun.
Stalling for KT (any heavy armor) only works when you are ahead of your enemy by quite a big margin. |
Rifle+Rears are 480 MP combo. 280 if you consider that its your starting rear.
x2 Pios are 400 MP combo. 200 considering that you use one starting pio.
I assume, in your test you mimic Pios getting almost instantly into close range, from behind sight blocker.
So whats the problem here? Why pretty much 80 MP difference, should grantee a win against x2 pios, who successfully managed to get into close range without taking damage on approach?
Not to mention even if they did flank you like that, just back off and spread your units utilising range, pios have literally almost 0 damage at ranges. Garands are cool and all, but SMG is the SMG. |
Axis factions are easier to micro, because they have less units on the field. The current mix of cost/population and performance is very well on point for most units in CoH2 thanks to the community patches, but having to take care of more squads means every unit will be managed less efficiently, and that's were late game Axis shines a bit brighter than late game Allies.
Honestly its not the case, especially considering that pretty much everything, besides armor has more or less same pop-cap.
Axis inf is easier to micro, simply because besides sturmpios\ass.grens\pios axis squad can and should engage from mid\long distance. Meaning that you just need to be in cover, you dont have to push taking losses doing so and considering your movement carefully. This is main difference which makes Allies inf play harder, because you are not only preferably should be at close\mid range, but you should also understand each engagement, when to push\stay\flank\back off, its much easier for axis inf, especially in teamgames, where its generally hard to avoid face to face firefights at long ranges.
On top of that we should remember that Ost mainline and OKW mid\late game main AI unit are LMG based units, and LMGs are kinda OP in CoH2 because they focus fire models.
As for armour, only pretty much Panther\Brummbar require less micro then other stock tanks, because their armour\HP allowing them to take more beating. Could be applied to P4J, but P4J is badly designed RNG machine, it could be cosplaying panther armour or be an overpriced P4. Imo its should have been a T34\85 clone - slightly more armour and 800 HP to make in consistent. |
The main bad thing about lelic in particular and RTS games in general is the fact that they need to be able to keep the players engaged even while the games themselves may be hard to play or hard to master or maybe both. That's why a good MM system is in order.
CoH objectively, is one of the easiest, alive RTS series to get into, period. If a player has at least minimal desire to improve, he can do it. Its not old fashion starcraft or AOE where you need 100+ RPM to actually be somewhat competitive. And this is why CoH in general is very appealing for many players.
All relic has to do - not disappoint the fans in first place, in second place they need to create solid game foundation, not like the one CoH2 had.
CoH2 being objectively questionable quality game survived for 8 years, dispute its retarded game decisions, relic policy, fked up balance and P2W DLC (which I honestly believe was a total stupidity rather then intentions to milk player base) and love-hate relations 90% of the player base have towards this game.
Point being, no-one asks anything groundbreaking from CoH3 and people who do, objectively wont stick with the game for long. Its actually quite opposite, the least relic can change with their sweaty hands, the best.
And so far CoH3 looks almost perfect from a gameplay perspective. I honestly dont give a two cents about graphics, about same factions, about Italy, same mechanics and even if there will be commanders for sale, its all secondary. If they create good base game, with good core decisions, noone can change later on, CoH3 will be a good game, better then the CoH2.
vCoH was a better game from a gameplay perspective, with some decisions that didn't age well.
CoH2 was a testing ground, changing some core elements which were proven to be inferior to the ones vCoH had, but at the same time CoH2 fixed some questionable gameplay aspects of vCoH.
CoH3 just need to take best from both and learn from mistakes, thats the recipe for a successful game. And at least relic now officially acknowledged this and judging by the alpha its not just words. |
...
You really shouldn't compare CoH3 and AoE4 because the subject cant be even more different then it is.
AoE4 failure (if it is indeed so) honestly has nothing to do with either Relic\Sega, objectively. AoE in general is an old school RTS game, with insane amount of content, insane fanbase and gameplay being perfected though years.
It was a bold move to even try to create AoE4, because is no way it was even possible to create something which will please fans of old AoE games, let alone have more content\be more appealing then older games.
The same way we never see Warcraft 4 (besides the fact that Blizzard is a shitfest) they understand that unless you create something which is significantly better then its predecessor, has all the content + more, there is no way in a world people will drop their old RTS in favour of a new one.
As for CoH2\DoW3 Relic pushes their ideas, trying to either base their decisions by sheet papers created by some generic game designers and managers. And it was clear, even if we look at how they balanced their game openly mocking the community and people, by saying that "we think its not a problem". And the manifestation of this approach was DoW3, which wasnt liked by either DoW1\DoW2 fans.
Point is being: Dont invent a bicycle with RTS, if you want it to be successful look at your player base, add more content and improvements of working foundation without destroying it. Not questionable changes, like CoH2 did, but improvements.
So far, I honestly don't give a damn if Relic gonna sell us commanders\skins again. If game is generally good, if content is balanced and a new one, there is objectively nothing wrong with it. And as for game itself, who cares if relic is a corporation which just wants out money. They fucked up with DoW3 and now, their idea is to please the fans by not inventing the bicycle again, which is good, because they have less space for generic retarded game-designers to fuck up series a lot of people like.
At least so far we didnt saw "unit replacement", "bulletins" and other crap for potential monetisation, so unless relic do a gut-punch on release with something they didnt announce, it will be inf\vehicle skins and commanders ones again, which is completely fine.
Even CoH2 monetisation in its essence is completely fine. Sure we have a huge amount of commanders you pretty much have to buy, if you are newcomer, but come on. Even if we bring game like PayDay2, if someone played it from the start, and bought DLC when they came out, then its fine throwing 5-10$ every couple of months for the game you spent a lot of time in. Its infair to judge coh2 monetisation, since you have almost 8 years of DLC content, sure its might be a lot to buy. |