Login

russian armor

COH2 Connundrum

6 Oct 2014, 15:50 PM
#41
avatar of _underscore
Donator 33

Posts: 322


Seriously go play some coh and see what I mean - as for the physics they were phenomenal. Maybe the men flying was exaggerated but everything in that game was destructible and effected by physics - it is a masterpiece.

Just wondering if you know of any good videos that illustrate the physics? Admittedly I was never much of a Coh1 fan, but coming back to it now I find it so hard to see many of the things that people continue to praise. On the other hand, physics in Coh2 is one of the things that impressed me the most.... still I definitely try to keep an open mind to new information, and the history of the franchise is really interesting to me.

I think you're dismissing a few things unfairly: indirect fire accuracy is definitely still a thing; unit reactions are also a thing but IIRC this was put on a timer in a patch last year because there was too much loss of infantry responsiveness under heavy fire; not sure what you mean by individual vehicle components as the same front/rear armour thing is still used.
6 Oct 2014, 16:14 PM
#42
avatar of HS King

Posts: 331

Just wondering if you know of any good videos that illustrate the physics? Admittedly I was never much of a Coh1 fan, but coming back to it now I find it so hard to see many of the things that people continue to praise. On the other hand, physics in Coh2 is one of the things that impressed me the most.... still I definitely try to keep an open mind to new information, and the history of the franchise is really interesting to me.

I think you're dismissing a few things unfairly: indirect fire accuracy is definitely still a thing; unit reactions are also a thing but IIRC this was put on a timer in a patch last year because there was too much loss of infantry responsiveness under heavy fire; not sure what you mean by individual vehicle components as the same front/rear armour thing is still used.


its late here so wont go into details but look at thishttp://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g2TTDkrSYqQ

This http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zht5zJaOIH0 and look up frontline network any cast from season 2 and ull see what an awesome game coh is and many other physics effects
6 Oct 2014, 16:22 PM
#43
6 Oct 2014, 16:40 PM
#44
avatar of BeltFedWombat
Patrion 14

Posts: 951

vCoH

Man I love vCoH

But it's all mines / snipers / mines / snipers. Yawn.
6 Oct 2014, 18:41 PM
#45
avatar of MajorBloodnok
Admin Red  Badge
Patrion 314

Posts: 10665 | Subs: 9

vCoH

Man I love vCoH

But it's all mines / snipers / mines / snipers. Yawn.


I have to disagree with you here.

The first game on the vid "Company of Heroes1.Hey did you retire from playing COH2?" does not reflect your criticism - neither faction has a sniper, apart from Britz (occasionally)



To get to the vid: just press one of the images at the bottom, and the vid list will come up

6 Oct 2014, 19:55 PM
#46
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

Basically if a vehicle fucked with a AT gun it was bye bye time for the vehicle - its not like that now.

It took about 2 hits to kill a light tank and 4 to kill a medium tank. It's the same in CoH2.

I agree with that and hence the whole rant wrote up ( its about issues like you state above, and many many more) - im sure if you looked into it squads in coh had less HP and weak armour class that made it easy for units to kill them, and thats simply not possible in COH2 due to the lack of variables that the developers can control.

Differing health values are easily possible, Relic just doesn't want it that way, instead that use accuracy modifiers.

What was wrong with tank battles of COH? and how explosions worked? How infantry battles worked? What is the improvement to the new system?

Tank battles in CoH1 were just slugfests because Tanks did low damage to each other, compared to Tanks in CoH2 that do (on average) the same damage as regular AT Gun.
6 Oct 2014, 20:13 PM
#47
avatar of BeltFedWombat
Patrion 14

Posts: 951



I have to disagree with you here.

The first game on the vid "Company of Heroes1.Hey did you retire from playing COH2?" does not reflect your criticism - neither faction has a sniper, apart from Britz (occasionally)



To get to the vid: just press one of the images at the bottom, and the vid list will come up



Perhaps a new meta has evolved since vCoH went into deep-space mode. But at the end of the golden age it was much as I describe.
6 Oct 2014, 21:20 PM
#48
avatar of Zupadupadude

Posts: 618



Mate I just played both games back to back 2 days ago - have a try you will see what I mean. Pathing maybe wasnt perfect but vehicle response was, they reacted instantly to your clicks just not always in the way you wanted.

Seriously go play some coh and see what I mean - as for the physics they were phenomenal. Maybe the men flying was exaggerated but everything in that game was destructible and effected by physics - it is a masterpiece.



Were you playing singleplayer or multiplayer?


As for physics, nothing has changed except that they made the gravitational pull on objects more realistic. Everything is as destructable as in vCoH. The craters aren't as deep as in vCoH, but that was done for the sake of performance + it's more realistic. And it wasn't just bodies flying 1000+ metres in the air, EVERYTHING could fly thousands of metres into the air. I remember when wrecks blew up sometimes parts would launch into outer space.
7 Oct 2014, 00:02 AM
#49
avatar of The_Courier

Posts: 665



What was wrong with tank battles of COH? and how explosions worked? How infantry battles worked? What is the improvement to the new system?



The tank battles of CoH1 had the stupid 5% bug, random engine damage, the M10 misfire bug that Relic never fixed, and heavies only cost MP so fuel became a useles ressource late game. On the other hand, infantry snare was less useful and tanks came later. AT guns were just as effective, in CoH2 even Tigers and the like cannot loiter in their arc of fire without sustaining heavy damage (save maybe Jagdtiger and KT, but those units are stupidly designed), and a vet 3 PaK tears anything on tracks to shreds in seconds.

Explosions did work better back then. But that might be because we had nothing like the ISU-152. The big thing is inconsistency; sometimes my grenades will do a lot of damage, other times the same grenade, on the same target, in a similar position, barely dents them. Riflenades and US nades are especially prone to this.

Infantry battle is give or take. They were more lethal in CoH1, support weapons were fragile and we didn't have the ridiculous LMG dominance of today. On the other hand, no Truesight made ambushes impossible, there were several retarded abilities like Fire Up! (to say nothing of the OF bullshit) and snipers utterly dominated the meta thanks to how broken their cloak was.

Personally, the vCoH inspired changes I would (wishfully) see;

-delay all teching. Vehicles arrive way too early in CoH2, hell you can get superheavies at the 20 minute mark in a normal game, in 14-15 if you beeline in a team game. This is due to teching costs being similar to vCoH but in that game, normal points didn't hand out fuel and you didn't have fuel caches, and most maps didn't have high fuel points so even if you had a good chunk of the map you had, what, 20 fuel income? In CoH2 having a decent hold of the map + a handful of caches means a 30ish fuel income, that's much higher.

-Make all support teams more vulnerable. Maxims, MG42s, mortars, AT guns, this shit should die if it's got rifles pointed at it. A big part of the Maximspam problem is that even if grenadiers flank it, they take way too long to kill the crew with their rifles.

-Redesign stuff like the ISU-152. Long range. Good against infantry. Good against vehicles. Pick two. Having all three when you're not artillery is a no-no. And no fire through walls bullshit like the Jagdtiger, unless you're an immobile support weapon.

-Make all explosives, and especially grenades, more consistent. Have them have an ''always kill'' radius and a ''deals good damage'' radius or somesuch.

As for physics, I prefer the CoH2 ones. It was a bit silly seeing an armored car hit by a bazooka launch its parts all over the screen, and sometimes into deep spess. Tanks imploding from within looks better to me. And I like the death animation that leaves the vehicle's paint intact with a fire coming out of the top hatch.
7 Oct 2014, 01:08 AM
#50
avatar of sluzbenik

Posts: 878

In vCOH they have what are called target tables - basically a massive database where units attacks could be modified not just generally using penetration, rate of fire, and so on, but versus particular types of units. A basic example is jeeps and bikes vs snipers - they had huge bonuses vs snipers, but were not particularly good vs. anything else.

It was massive and unwieldy, but it made balancing the game a lot easier. Things could be tweaked on a unit vs. unit basis. COH2 doesn't have that. That's why well microed light tanks can do absurd damage to heavy tanks, mortars can do significant damage to light armor and so on. It's just rate of fire and penetration vs an armor value. vCOH also had three different types of infantry armor, which was one of the main ways you created counters to difficult units (flame damage vs PE and Brits for instance) and created elite units that had better survivability late game (oh the days of the elite Ranger spam!). This sometimes created as many problems as it solved, but in the end, you got a pretty balanced game.

COH2 tried to get away from all that, but it's naturally more cartoony. This is one of those basic design decisions that has destroyed the franchise. You really couldn't improve on what had been done design-wise for a WWII game. Relic clearly thought the commander system would give the game the long-term interest and complexity everyone desired, but that has failed to happen, as it just creates another level of balance problems.

7 Oct 2014, 01:20 AM
#51
avatar of Lucas Troy

Posts: 508

jump backJump back to quoted post6 Oct 2014, 13:31 PMsteel
What do you mean the AT gun would DPS your tank to death?:huhsign: If you flanked them, it's still rewarding in vcoh.



Not really. You could basically run a US AT gun over with a Panther and the AT gun would still win in the end.
7 Oct 2014, 01:26 AM
#52
avatar of Basilone

Posts: 1944 | Subs: 2

heavies only cost MP so fuel became a useles ressource late game

That is only the case in PE games where they tech to Panther battle group and spam them for the rest of the game. In CoH1 you only get one heavy and any competent US player will supplement his Pershing/Calliope with Shermans and tank destroyers and Wehrmacht players will get more T3/T4 vehicles and/or veterancy to go with the Tiger or KT.
7 Oct 2014, 02:14 AM
#53
avatar of GiaA

Posts: 712 | Subs: 2


That is only the case in PE games where they tech to Panther battle group and spam them for the rest of the game. In CoH1 you only get one heavy and any competent US player will supplement his Pershing/Calliope with Shermans and tank destroyers and Wehrmacht players will get more T3/T4 vehicles and/or veterancy to go with the Tiger or KT.


Just checked some SNF 4 casts on youtube that featured late game matches and like 50 % of them show that the players have tons of fuel at the 30 minute mark but no manpower which means that fuel is completely irrelevant.
7 Oct 2014, 02:44 AM
#54
avatar of Inverse
Coder Red Badge

Posts: 1678 | Subs: 5

Fuel is valuable earlygame, manpower is valuable lategame. You invest in fuel-based units and upgrades in order to give you an advantage in the manpower war. There are far more things to spend fuel on in CoH1 than in CoH2, units are just more expensive in CoH2 because it's a lot more difficult to control your opponent's fuel income. And I don't know about you, but I'd take a dozen cheaper options over three or four expensive ones any day.

Fuel only becomes irrelevant in CoH1 in ridiculously long (1h+) or one-sided games.
7 Oct 2014, 03:56 AM
#55
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2

In vCOH they have what are called target tables - basically a massive database where units attacks could be modified not just generally using penetration, rate of fire, and so on, but versus particular types of units. A basic example is jeeps and bikes vs snipers - they had huge bonuses vs snipers, but were not particularly good vs. anything else.

It was massive and unwieldy, but it made balancing the game a lot easier. Things could be tweaked on a unit vs. unit basis. COH2 doesn't have that. That's why well microed light tanks can do absurd damage to heavy tanks, mortars can do significant damage to light armor and so on. It's just rate of fire and penetration vs an armor value. vCOH also had three different types of infantry armor, which was one of the main ways you created counters to difficult units (flame damage vs PE and Brits for instance) and created elite units that had better survivability late game (oh the days of the elite Ranger spam!). This sometimes created as many problems as it solved, but in the end, you got a pretty balanced game.

COH2 tried to get away from all that, but it's naturally more cartoony. This is one of those basic design decisions that has destroyed the franchise. You really couldn't improve on what had been done design-wise for a WWII game. Relic clearly thought the commander system would give the game the long-term interest and complexity everyone desired, but that has failed to happen, as it just creates another level of balance problems.



unit to unit balancing seems nice but i don't want one unit to only perform better against one another unit and so on. it's too complicated.

i don't get what light tanks in coh2 can do absurdly large damage to what heavy tanks. or were you talking about coh1?

i would actually like to be able to swarm a tiger with 5 t-70s and have a chance of winning though.
7 Oct 2014, 04:43 AM
#56
avatar of _underscore
Donator 33

Posts: 322

Yes having a universal set of values certainly seems more elegant than fudging (balancing) individually using target tables. I guess the ultimate litmus test though is whether everything reaches a satisfactory state of balance.

Physics - I still just don't see it. Coh2 adds an impressive sense of weight, but everything does still ragdoll. Coh1 seems to have a linear floatiness on the ragdolls which I guess appeals because it's a bit silly therefore entertaining.
7 Oct 2014, 04:47 AM
#57
avatar of The_Courier

Posts: 665

In vCOH they have what are called target tables - basically a massive database where units attacks could be modified not just generally using penetration, rate of fire, and so on, but versus particular types of units. A basic example is jeeps and bikes vs snipers - they had huge bonuses vs snipers, but were not particularly good vs. anything else.

It was massive and unwieldy, but it made balancing the game a lot easier. Things could be tweaked on a unit vs. unit basis. COH2 doesn't have that. That's why well microed light tanks can do absurd damage to heavy tanks, mortars can do significant damage to light armor and so on. It's just rate of fire and penetration vs an armor value. vCOH also had three different types of infantry armor, which was one of the main ways you created counters to difficult units (flame damage vs PE and Brits for instance) and created elite units that had better survivability late game (oh the days of the elite Ranger spam!). This sometimes created as many problems as it solved, but in the end, you got a pretty balanced game.

COH2 tried to get away from all that, but it's naturally more cartoony. This is one of those basic design decisions that has destroyed the franchise. You really couldn't improve on what had been done design-wise for a WWII game. Relic clearly thought the commander system would give the game the long-term interest and complexity everyone desired, but that has failed to happen, as it just creates another level of balance problems.



Ye gods, no, no target tables please. That was an awful thing about CoH, sometimes it worked (jeep vs snipers, not like it actually makes the latter any less broken) most of the time it created a system that was too arbitrary and overcomplicated. The armor vs penetration value of CoH2 works just fine, and if you micro your heavy tank horribly you deserve to have a light tank damage it.

To be quite honest, the WM vs US match-up was the only one that was ever balanced in CoH. It OK was just before OF, and mostly stayed relatively balanced. But let's take off the rose-tinted glasses and remember CoH1 had a lot of bullshit: medic bunkers, superhuman snipers, Fire Up!, piospam for a time, very cheap King Tiger, to name the biggest ones. And that's just in the vanilla matchup, the OF factions had 1) even more bullshit, especially the brits, and 2) never achieved balance. OK, PE vs US became relatively enjoyable once the AC got nerfed, so long as US didn't build snipers. But that's it.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed CoH1 immensely, but it has more than its fair share of big problems, and I myself prefer CoH2 + WFA to CoH1 + OF, and think the former is better balanced except for the vanilla matchup. At least I don't have to deal with the godawful brits if I play Axis.
7 Oct 2014, 18:51 PM
#58
avatar of Basilone

Posts: 1944 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Oct 2014, 02:14 AMGiaA


Just checked some SNF 4 casts on youtube that featured late game matches and like 50 % of them show that the players have tons of fuel at the 30 minute mark but no manpower which means that fuel is completely irrelevant.

Are you trying to make an absolute stance on something based on what you observed happening 50% of the time? Lulz :facepalm:

PS: just because in some games people opted not to use a lot of fuel doesn't mean it is usless either. If I prefer X beer over Y beer it doesn't mean that Y beer doesn't contain alcohol in it.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

372 users are online: 372 guests
0 post in the last 24h
30 posts in the last week
142 posts in the last month
Registered members: 44954
Welcome our newest member, Mtbgbans
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM