Not sure what you're on about. I'll I've said about the game lately is mines wipe units too much and its good they finally changed an annoying feature where you can't control your unit for the first 10 seconds. When it comes to commanders, even if you have reasons for picking a certain one it doesn't really make it a strategic decision if its the very first thing you do. Sometimes I immediately pick rifle company for flamethrowers instead of Pershing if its a building dominant map. But I figured this out through experience and already know which maps to go flamers on, its not a decision I make while playing. Its the same concept as playing Brits back when the centaur was absurd. You have a reason for choosing Briits, easier wins, but it was a predetermined decision.
The game definitely could use some more strategic options, but even if the game had it I highly doubt it would matter right now. Every patch since as far back as I can remember has favored one or two clearly superior ways to play each faction
Now its emplacements for Brits, before it was double leigs for OKW or partisans for soviets. Until the game gets more balanced and less flooded with new op content, more strategic choices won't make a hell of a difference as long as factions consistently have the definitive way to play them.
You keep saying that a decision can't be strategic if it's the first thing you do but that doesn't make any sense. Strategic just means it's bigger picture rather than more situationally focused (tactical). When I develop a marketing campaign coming up with a strategy is the very first thing I do and it would be boneheaded not to for reasons I can explain if that would be interesting to anyone.
Also the irony of this is that tier placement for the most part happens just as early as commander selection. |
You still have a twice as many squads in the early game, that by itself is a capping advantage. Plus there isn't really anything super strategical about it, you pick that doctrine and get early game capping bonus and pass up on something else like a late game tank or air ability. When you make the choice you aren't thinking "well it could back fire on me and I won't have access to Elephant if he spams Fireflys." You blindly pick Ostruppen at the beginning of a match, its not a thought out reactionary decision. Should I use my "pay to cap" commander if I want early map control is like asking if I should turn my monitor brightness down if my eyes are getting watery.
You trade early game capping for late game firepower, since many osts eat pop cap but can't get LMGs. |
With the exception of Ostruppen call-in infantry are typically more expensive but stronger, or have some unique quality. The whole concept of Ostruppen, a 2 for 1 infantry unit that sucks but comes cheap, is retarded. Reason being even if you are matched in net infantry strength the Ostruppen player gets double capping/harass power while being more or less equal in terms of investment and combat power. I'm not saying they break the game, but they aren't some poor mistreated step child either. Having double the number of units early on is its own advantage, nobody cares if they have to enter the map like usual.
I care! Part of what makes them unique is you can cap more early game. Now they won't have that and a strategic option has actually been cut from the game. |
|
Another design issue - some call in infantry are designed to flood the map faster than normal infantry. Osttruppen will now, however, will lose some of their speedier deployment relative to grens. You can put Osttruppen in tier 1, but that will also delay them relative to before. |
|
Well actually nevermind my previous questions - after all, this change is going into a preview mod. So we can all look how it plays out and see if it makes things more interesting or not. Maybe it will lead to more interesting strategic dynamics and base sniping / Quicker deployment will become part of the game. |
|
How is it "innovative" to copy the way it was done in CoH1? Why does it make sense to make major design changes, that will in turn require other major design changes, such as completely redoing the Brit and USF bases, 3 years into the life of the game? Is there really no easier way to add more strategic choices to the game? Is there even any trade-off to building your shit at the front of your base? I've yet to see much base sniping in any game I've played or in high level streams, even with buildings built at the front of the base for reinforcement purposes.
I'm actually not opposed to this change, but even after playing CoH1, reading patch notes, and reading this thread, I guess I'm just not really convinced there's any point to it.
If anyone has a replay where sniping buildings at the forward part of a base played an interesting role in the game,I'd be all for it. I've just never seen that happen.
|
|
What if buying the schreck reduced the squad to 4 men? The idea being that there is a trade off and the squad doesn't get too durable. What do you guys think?
Maybe even a global upgrade that makes every folks squad 4 men but unlocks schrecks. That would be a meaningful choice? Right? Or maybe not. I dunno.
Plus also volks lose their nades when given schrecks?
I just feel like there's gotta be a more creative way to deal with this than cutting things out of the game.
The logic is that the schrecks are being brought in to make up for manpower problems.
|
|
I don't really feel qualified to judge the wisdom of this change. But there was one observation I wanted to make that relates to this change. With every patch lately, two things happen:
1. The factions become homogenous
2. The game gets more similar to CoH1.
I'm a big fan of both mirrored RTS games and the original CoH, but changes like this can't help but make me feel that something unique is slowly being lost.
|
the scale, pace,degree of detail, sound and optics are perfect. not much to do here. true sight must ve been ultra hard to implement and is an insane cool feature.
the only thing i wish for the future is being able to control units and fight inside houses
I'm also happy with CoH2 but given that it seems Relic is running out of things to improve it with, I'd like to see a new series. I dunno, just really feels like it's time for that. |
Innovations for the sake of innovations are never the way.
If formula proves to be good, you should perfect it, not try to push more shit on it.
There can be innovations, but they need to be spot on and if the setting of the game doesn't require more innovations, why do it?
Prove?
Every single MOBA that failed.
Plus, anyone even remembers cold tech?
I agree to an extent, but if we get too conservative, we'll end up playing AoE2 forever but with different balance and graphics. Once upon a time retreating squads and a focus on squad preservation in an RTS was a big innovation. What if there's something else just as cool,but we're too afraid to try it?
I agree with you on Cold Tech but I'd argue that the problem is not innovation itself but rather trying to add minor new things to a game design that needs to stay mostly the same - I mean CoH2 had to be designed so that blizzards weren't even there half the time. If blizzards were a core part of the game maybe they could have been incorporated in a way that made them fun.
Also I thought the game was better with cold tech, for whatever it's worth |
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
