Login

russian armor

artillery and late game squadwipes

PAGES (11)down
21 Dec 2014, 03:43 AM
#101
avatar of Rupert

Posts: 186



What about lg 18? It has lowe AoE, true, but also lower scatter.
I would change pack howizter for lg18 any day.
Keep in mind that it costs 480 and it's high risk - high reward unit.


You obviously have never used lg18 much before. You do know that Lg18 costs 420mp - it's a high risk - low reward unit.


Scott shares AoE with lg 18 and has higer scatter so lg 18 should wipe more often than Scott.


I've had lg18 auto-fire for 40 minutes to have 20 kills. Scotts get better kills due their ability to quickly reposition themselves for a shot and move out. And when I use scotts it feels like they magically track moving units too. I've won a totally outplayed match against OKW when my 2 scotts roflwiped 2 vet4 obers upgraded with IR scoped stgs.

21 Dec 2014, 04:55 AM
#102
avatar of Volsky

Posts: 344

jump backJump back to quoted post20 Dec 2014, 11:11 AMHS King


That is depressing - because I was waiting out hoping for a mod to coh2 to makde it close to VCOH in how weapons work - no silly random squad wipes etc.

So there is no hope for this game to have the same level of control over explosions, small arms and tank combat like COH had?


Eh. You CAN do it, but it would require so much .scar coding for each individual unit that it would be a useless gesture.
21 Dec 2014, 04:58 AM
#103
avatar of Hon3ynuts

Posts: 818

I think its important to differentiate The consistent fire weapons such as mortars and pack howies and tanks from the barrage style of Katushas and artilery pieces.

The prior doesn't need to kill models that badly b/c they can keep shooting but the latter would be useless if it didn't 1 shot models, i recall the Katusha of a few months ago was super useless b/c it just did hp damage and never killed stuff. Also the latter seems much harder to balance since its gonna kill something and be useful or not kill something so it heals later and be useless.
21 Dec 2014, 05:56 AM
#104
avatar of LemonJuice

Posts: 1144 | Subs: 7

honestly im fine with the barrage style pieces since theyre severely restricted thanks to their long cool downs, and do a pretty good job at what their supposed to do.
21 Dec 2014, 07:23 AM
#105
avatar of Chiro
Donator 11

Posts: 90

OP here

I should have made it more clear in my opening post that I don't blob and I try to combine my arms (also with the overpriced Le.IG 18 and the raketenwerfer that's not that easy)
I always try to attack on a wide front and I almost never have more than 1 squad in the same cover. (only if i desperately defend my hq)
I control all my squads separate and try to flank
this post is mostly "against" Allies because they have a much wider arsenal of long range squad wiping units
or mostly for Axis because their 4 man squads are easier to wipe with explosives.

RnG is a very nice feature of coh and should never be removed but maybe it should not take extreme forms like zero damage and than a full squad wiped but rather a constant damage to inf from 20-80%.

OKW inf blops should be addressed in a different thread (one broken unit/mechanic does not permit another one)

arty should punish blobs but with combined play. Arty right now punishes blops as much as single units. I argue that sending a huge blop of inf and firing arty take roughly the same amount of skill.
arty should soften up the enemy lines and than you attack, focus down his squads and achieve glorious victory with combined arms or your enemy falls back and you capture.
Healing a huge amount of inf takes time.

right now a katyusha fired at a "blob" made up of 1 full health inf-squad has a good chance killing it with the first few rockets.

The B4 mortar is a save bet if you know your enemy doctrine lacks stucka bombs(who plays railway arty anyway).
Popping smoke for precision strikes with an increased delay would let them be useful against buildings or crippled tanks but not 1-hitting a panther or tiger without warning.

demo charges work wonders against blobs but also against single units and they are a guaranteed wipe in some positions.
-maybe a cable should be placed(with regular walking speed) by a squad from the charge to the hq and cutting this line with minesweepers disable (not remove) them?
-Make them visible to all squads so the are only useful against emplacements and houses with increased building speed?

They over perform greatly for only 90mun at a faction that does not need any ammo for inf upgrades (save the guard rifles)

Stucka is another unit that like the B4 and katyusha that should be changed somehow (firing in a random pattern and adjusted damage with the current line as a vet ability?).

P47/"Stucka at strafing run" instantly kills light vehicles and sometimes medium tanks without any chance of counterplay (even with flak units).
Both abilities are bullshit op and need an overhaul.

Tanks:
In general tanks are not like the above.
You almost always know the risk sending a unit against a tank unlike artillery which kills without warning anywhere on the map.

Kingtiger, IS2, Tiger, Brumbär and the Sherman105 probably should deal less splash damage but over a bigger area so they soften up inf and kill 1 or 2 models but not the whole squad.
Any inf squad should easily force the remaining squad off.

Sturmtiger is actual the only unit who is allowed to instant kill anything (but base buildings).
It's slow takes half a year to fire and has shitty range and any tank is able to destroy it.
The B4 deals more damage (less splash??) than the Sturmtiger but can be fired safely from your base and has no warning


Arguing that 100kg He (203 mm mortar) should kill anything or "in real life the katyusha killed anything in a much bigger area" are not helpful.
If you like realistic games I strongly recommend you play Men of War assault squad 2.
Coh 2 is not realistic and it will never be (imagine shreck 1 hitting any tank or mg's mowing down any blop without green cover, Sturmtiger killing a whole village with a single shot)


I don't want Allies to be helpless against blops or emplacements. Finding the golden mean between being useless and wiping squads on a daily basis must be found.


My suggestions for He and arty in general are:

Decreasing the AoE near range but increasing the AoE far range may help so artillery would still one-shot models but not whole squads.
Like I stated in the beginning arty should involve more skill and timing combined with a counter attack.

Rocket Arty:
After firing at a blop you should be able to force it of and press forward with an equal force minus the price for your arty.
Firing at a front-line should damage most units and enable you to break through not wipe some squads and ignore the rest.

Howitzer should fire for a rather long time (not slower but more shells) and forcing the enemy to leave the bombarded area with minor casualties unless he does not react in time.
Emplacements should be severely damages so any push breaks through.

Artillery should not be the main killing force! (I know most casualties in ww2 where because of arty but in general I think this would make coh boring)
Artillery is a support weapon to win engagements with the rest of your army.
Arguing that blops are bad (mmkay) but arty should wipe squads and win the day (more or less alone) are on the same level of bad play.


21 Dec 2014, 08:03 AM
#106
avatar of HS King

Posts: 331

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Dec 2014, 04:55 AMVolsky


Eh. You CAN do it, but it would require so much .scar coding for each individual unit that it would be a useless gesture.



Fair enough - sort of goes over my head as I'm not skilled in the arts of development.. but in your opinion, why has this been changed from COH to COH2?

It's obvious to my eyes the stripped the game bare from all the important variables and left a empty shell of a game in the form of COH2.

Why would a developer go back to a game, then remove all the hard work from it and make it worse?
21 Dec 2014, 09:07 AM
#107
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470

because target tables are a dumb way to represent weapons. having a cannon do 70 damage to infantry and 160 damage to a tank is just fucking stupid.
21 Dec 2014, 09:30 AM
#108
avatar of HS King

Posts: 331

because target tables are a dumb way to represent weapons. having a cannon do 70 damage to infantry and 160 damage to a tank is just fucking stupid.


Actually it's ingenious - as a tank was never developed to be an anti infantry weapon in the ranges and scales thats represented in the game.

In ww2 tank crews basically looked out of small slits in a massive shaking, smoking tin can, they didn't have the sophisticated cameras or protection that today's tanks have and therefore a lone tank in CQB was extremely vulnerable to infantry attack.

Shooting AP rounds at infantry from a main cannon would only be effective at a direct hit and near miss scenario - sure it would be extremely frightening but in the scope of a battle not that effective, also a tank could not engage their main gun properly from close range, nor could they keep up with infantry hiding in ruins and landscape.

This is represented perfectly in the first game where a lone tank, unless it was a heavy tank with a larger cannon , pershing, tiger, KT, and Sherman with non ap rounds would do more than singe unit kills to infantry.

In this game as soon as any tank comes out a whole infantry army has to run and hide.

From a game perspective target tables enable the developer to properly balance any unit in the game, make them strong vs this one and weak vs that one - it made the game thoroughly better, more balanced, more fun and in some ways more realistic.

Removing them well ... you see what happens, the game is a huge disappointment, with huge sections of units being useless / OP and the game being a shadow of what it could have been.
21 Dec 2014, 09:35 AM
#109
avatar of Burts

Posts: 1702

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Dec 2014, 09:30 AMHS King


Actually it's ingenious - as a tank was never developed to be an anti infantry weapon in the ranges and scales thats represented in the game.

In ww2 tank crews basically looked out of small slits in a massive shaking, smoking tin can, they didn't have the sophisticated cameras or protection that today's tanks have and therefore a lone tank in CQB was extremely vulnerable to infantry attack.

Shooting AP rounds at infantry from a main cannon would only be effective at a direct hit and near miss scenario - sure it would be extremely frightening but in the scope of a battle not that effective, also a tank could not engage their main gun properly from close range, nor could they keep up with infantry hiding in ruins and landscape.

This is represented perfectly in the first game where a lone tank, unless it was a heavy tank with a larger cannon , pershing, tiger, KT, and Sherman with non ap rounds would do more than singe unit kills to infantry.

In this game as soon as any tank comes out a whole infantry army has to run and hide.

From a game perspective target tables enable the developer to properly balance any unit in the game, make them strong vs this one and weak vs that one - it made the game thoroughly better, more balanced, more fun and in some ways more realistic.

Removing them well ... you see what happens, the game is a huge disappointment, with huge sections of units being useless / OP and the game being a shadow of what it could have been.




I'm sorry but you are speaking pure nonsense. The entire purpose of tanks is to fight infantry. That's why tanks always had more HE rounds than AP rounds. IRL EVERY tank in ww2 had HE rounds, no matter if it was a tank destroyer or anything. 95% of a tank does is fight infantry. That is the entire purpose of tanks. Kill and destroy infantry, fortifications, while being immune from infantry themselves. Tanks were developed solely for the purpose of being infantry killing machines and being immune from infantry themselves.


Valnuarable to infantry attacks? Most anti infantry weapons were only effective from 50 meters or so. It's practically impossible to get so close to a tank in a combat situation , especially SINCE tanks are usually supported by infantry.


Oh, and in WW2 tanks also had something called a HATCH, that they could peek out for good 360 degrees vision.
21 Dec 2014, 09:37 AM
#110
21 Dec 2014, 09:58 AM
#111
avatar of HS King

Posts: 331

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Dec 2014, 09:35 AMBurts




I'm sorry but you are speaking pure nonsense. The entire purpose of tanks is to fight infantry. That's why tanks always had more HE rounds than AP rounds. IRL EVERY tank in ww2 had HE rounds, no matter if it was a tank destroyer or anything. 95% of a tank does is fight infantry. That is the entire purpose of tanks. Kill and destroy infantry, fortifications, while being immune from infantry themselves. Tanks were developed solely for the purpose of being infantry killing machines and being immune from infantry themselves.


Valnuarable to infantry attacks? Most anti infantry weapons were only effective from 50 meters or so. It's practically impossible to get so close to a tank in a combat situation , especially SINCE tanks are usually supported by infantry.


Oh, and in WW2 tanks also had something called a HATCH, that they could peek out for good 360 degrees vision.


Oh ok - you go to a buit up area in the middle of a warzone in a ww2 tank, open up your "hatch" and see how long you last. Can you imagine the size of the roads in towns in the 1940's and imagine driving a slow, cumbersome and almost blind vehicle in the middle of a warzone.

Sure tanks can engage infantry, but from a distance and in the open field. Most maps in Coh and COH2 are not open fields at all, they are CQB all within range of most AT weapons.

Early tank designs were meant to be anti infantry weapons - but how did they perform against new blitzkreig doctrine where tanks were used to breakthrough a line, go behind and encircle. They used maneuverability and range to overwhelm forces. They were not used like some WW1 style moveable fortress that was meant to engage infantry.

If you don't believe me have a read up on french battle-tanks which were all bigger, more Armour and mroe sophisticated than German counterparts and tell me how well they performed against the nazi invasion.

Tanks however were good against static positions, like bunkers, some dug in positions, mgs, etc but not against mobile squads of men that did not just stand around in the open - like the infantary that is represented in the COH franchise.

21 Dec 2014, 10:09 AM
#112
avatar of BabaRoga

Posts: 829

Most tanks had and still have multiple HMG's. The only thing that keeps soldier from getting killed by tank in 200-300 meter radius is if he is not seen. (in real life)
Also tanks don't go anywhere without infantry support except in video games and movies.

German tanks weren't designed a lot better nor were superior weapons to allied armor.
Blitzkrieg tactic was deciding factor. P.S. Blitzkrieg push through France/Soviet Union still had a lot infantry, artillery etc.
Most Blitzkrieg vehicles weren't tanks, but halftrucks,trucks, bikes, etc......

Anyway, RTS game is impossible to make being very historically accurate.
21 Dec 2014, 10:29 AM
#113
avatar of HS King

Posts: 331

Most tanks had and still have multiple HMG's. The only thing that keeps soldier from getting killed by tank in 200-300 meter radius is if he is not seen. (in real life)
Also tanks don't go anywhere without infantry support except in video games and movies.

German tanks weren't designed a lot better nor were superior weapons to allied armor.
Blitzkrieg tactic was deciding factor. P.S. Blitzkrieg push through France/Soviet Union still had a lot infantry, artillery etc.
Most Blitzkrieg vehicles weren't tanks, but halftrucks,trucks, bikes, etc......

Anyway, RTS game is impossible to make being very historically accurate.


Yes I understand that - but its a game, so they should be represented in a way that makes sense.

In most ww2 armies, tanks were not the direct "counter" for lack of better word, to fighting infantry that was not dug in - they had other roles.

SO in the game tanks should not be the direct counter to infantry either - for instance in the ost army that role should be with the stug. It was so good at that role it basically became the main battle tank for the german army later in the war for many reasons.

So they way Id envisage COH2 working is that the stug is the go to vehicle from t3 and, and the p4 or ost being a bit more situational, not the other way around.

Thats how it basically worked in COh and it was fine ( even though p4 was t4). FOr the soviets they would have the t34 as their safe option which would beat the stug, if used properly and be slightly outmatched by the p4 ( if it was called to battle) but then ost would be lacking in its anti inf capability that the stug would bring.

And since soviets are not the USA of COH - they have big, bad viable tanks then an ost player would need to outplay their opponent if they just built p4 as they would start to be outmatched by su85s, is2, t34 85's and isu152 or kv1.

Anyway back to my point - a game of this sort is a simplified version of reality.

So the simple version of it is that tanks are not the best way to counter infantry - in fact in the scenarios of the game they would find themselves in danger a lot of the time. Therefore the game should not try to make them the be-all-and-end-all of infantry counters - which is what they are, right now.
21 Dec 2014, 10:32 AM
#114
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Dec 2014, 03:43 AMRupert


You obviously have never used lg18 much before. You do know that Lg18 costs 420mp - it's a high risk - low reward unit.



I've had lg18 auto-fire for 40 minutes to have 20 kills. Scotts get better kills due their ability to quickly reposition themselves for a shot and move out. And when I use scotts it feels like they magically track moving units too. I've won a totally outplayed match against OKW when my 2 scotts roflwiped 2 vet4 obers upgraded with IR scoped stgs.



It's less mobile than mortars so it's obvious that it's harded to use but 2 lg18 covered with MGs are true pain in the ass for allies on some maps.


jump backJump back to quoted post21 Dec 2014, 03:25 AMCieZ


I think you're misunderstanding us. We're not saying to remove RNG from CoH 2. We're saying to remove RNG when, and only when, it has a negative impact on the game.



When RNG has positive impact? It's always positive for one side and negative for the other, right? I can't figure out positive rng in general, for both sides.
21 Dec 2014, 17:04 PM
#115
avatar of CieZ

Posts: 1468 | Subs: 4


When RNG has positive impact? It's always positive for one side and negative for the other, right? I can't figure out positive rng in general, for both sides.


RNG can have a positive impact on games when things are within a player's control, or at least feel as they are within a player's control. As long as the player has a chance to manipulate and/or react to the RNG based events that are going on, RNG can add positive value to the game.

For example: Let's take a look at the Grenadier versus Conscript match-up. Grenadiers have the advantage at long range, conscripts have the advantage at close range. Sure cans *could* beat Grens at max range given a long string of lucky hits but this is unlikely which is why you always see Cons trying to close the gap. Other factors that players can manipulate in this scenario to swing the fight in their favor would be - trying to throw grenades, using cover/houses, or soft retreating to better overall positioning. Basically, in a scenario such as this one the players have a lot of control over the engagement and are able to influence the RNG components in order to favor themselves. This presents a dynamic where the better player is able to out-play his opponent by influencing this RNG in a more favorable manner. Plus, even if the "worse" player gets "lucky" and his Cons happen to beat Grens at max range - one engagement between two individual infantry squads will rarely, if ever, determine or change the outcome of the entire game.

The same principles can be applied to most tank combat (mediums trying to kill heavies being an exception here which is why I'd like to see heavies lose some of their rear armor). Players are able to take advantage of the penetration values over range and/or side armor to try and influence a battle between tanks to be favorable to themselves. Panthers tend to want to stay at max range because of their 50 range and high penetration even over max distance. T34/85s want to close in on the rear armor of a tiger because they'll have a hard time penetrating the frontal armor of a tiger at max range. These sorts of dynamics are good.

Bad RNG includes - planes crashing on your army and instantly killing stuff. There is literally nothing you can do to prevent or realistically predict that this is going to happen. Sometimes a P47 flies over a 222 or 251 Flak many times before finally (or sometimes never) getting shot down. Sometimes mounted tank MGs instantly kill the P47 before the first pass is even done - and where the plane will crash is practically impossible to predict - even if you could it happens so fast that you won't be able to move your squad out of the impact zone. The 120mm is another example of this - even if your squad is moving, with the way mortar mechanics work in CoH 2 there is still a chance that that shell is going to land right on your squad and kill it... so where is the counter-play? Given enough time (not much time at all) that 120mm is just going to erase something with no way for either player to influence that chance or react to prevent that from happening. The smaller mortars are in a good spot because they are more accurate, but less deadly - if you see your half HP squad getting hit by mortar fire and you don't move it, then losing it isn't really unfair - you had a chance to react. Watching your full hp, full man squad die in one second because you're not psychic and able to predict where every 120mm shell is going to land is not fair.

As I mentioned before, vehicle death crits/heavy engine damage/destroy from AT nades and cheap mines are other bad forms of RNG. I've lost games to ISUs getting main gun crit and driving away to fight another day (that's like a 600 fuel swing). Or Katyusha's surviving stuka dive bombs with an engine destroy. Or my brand spanking new, full HP tiger taking a max range, frontal ZiS shot and randomly getting a destroyed engine. Did my opponent REALLY out-play me by that ZiS gun just happening to get ridiculously lucky and destroying the engine of my full HP tiger? No, I don't think he did.

I just want to see Relic promoting the sorts of RNG that players are able to control, the types of RNG that I feel set CoH 2 apart as an RTS. On the flip side, I'd like to see them limit the kinds of RNG that will forever keep lots of competitive players away from the franchise - the types that can swing a game in a massive (and often unfair) way.
22 Dec 2014, 00:52 AM
#116
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470

"good" RNG adds variety to the game without overpowers balance or skill. bad RNG overpowers skill and/or balance

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Dec 2014, 09:30 AMHS King

Shooting AP rounds at infantry from a main cannon would only be effective at a direct hit and near miss scenario


which is represented by accuracy and aoe, not damage. the V in game is shown as having inert rounds as it has a tiny aoe (would could be made smaller) and shit accuracy against infantry.

Also tanks don't go anywhere without infantry support except in video games and movies.


or chechnya. and then they decide the tank sucks and stop building it.
22 Dec 2014, 00:54 AM
#117
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470

hit post by accident
22 Dec 2014, 02:36 AM
#118
avatar of BabaRoga

Posts: 829



Infantry accompanied tanks in chechnya. It's actually very good example of importance of troop training and employing right tactics.

It's a case of commander blobbing fresh units and ordering attack on defensive position occupied by vet troops.

Even in COH he would be called Noob and told to L2P :loco:

P.S. those tanks are still formidable weapons and not thrown away like you imagine.
22 Dec 2014, 04:59 AM
#119
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470

i'm talking specifically about Grozny
22 Dec 2014, 05:22 AM
#120
avatar of Volsky

Posts: 344

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Dec 2014, 08:03 AMHS King



Fair enough - sort of goes over my head as I'm not skilled in the arts of development.. but in your opinion, why has this been changed from COH to COH2?

It's obvious to my eyes the stripped the game bare from all the important variables and left a empty shell of a game in the form of COH2.

Why would a developer go back to a game, then remove all the hard work from it and make it worse?


Strip the target tables/extensions/other aspects bare and its easy to copy+paste and tweak. It's perfect for releasing gobs of DLC and attempting to keep players focused on the base game, but it's terrible for modders.

Modding was available after release, but Relic pulled the plug on the grounds that it 'allowed hacking and gamechanging tweaks within normal matches' (BS--we tried). They crapped out gobs of horribad DLC, and THEN threw modding in on top once the game was close to flopping.

It's an oversimplified mess and many of the mechanics don't work the same from vCoH to CoH2--projectiles, for example, took me a !month! to get working correctly (for small arms) because Relic's targeting FX applied to each weapon had rounds landing ~20m short of the intended target, no matter the range. Parabolic arcs were also a pain to get working. The list goes on.

It's workable, but cluttered, and the game feels gutted versus vCoH. Relic went ahead and created factions and units that were meant to be useless past the X minute mark--that crap wasn't in vCoH, the units were just...there, and it ended up being the case that X unit is good at the X minute mark and is a little weaker at the Y minute mark.

I'll tell you this. If I happen to slip off in a daydream or get bored out of my head, it's not the CoH2 voice acting and FX sounds that roll through my head--that's for damn sure.
PAGES (11)down
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
  • Oberkommando West flag Oziligath
  • The British Forces flag T.R. Sidewinder
uploaded by Oziligath

Board Info

84 users are online: 1 member and 83 guests
Crecer13
41 posts in the last 24h
207 posts in the last week
812 posts in the last month
Registered members: 34926
Welcome our newest member, samkyvuong
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM