|
I did not vote as there is no middle ground. But will say for the most part its too one dimensional. Just rifles into M20 and on to Shermans basically some of this because certain units kinda sucking rest is just bad design.
What I cant stand is Relics insistence to try to create SUPER UNIQUE factions in a game BUILT AROUND REAL WORLD ARMIES THAT ALL USED COMBINED ARMS In the end we just always end with gimmicky factions that always seem to encourage blobbing. This idea that factions should lack important weapon systems like mortars or getting MGs late is horrible!
I'd love to see both WFA get reworks so that they both have support early and good support weapons with weaker infantry so as to encourage blobbing.
USF Should get heavy Tanks
OKW SHOULD have medium tanks!
Soviet stock armor Should be viable!
ETC ETC ETC.......
Inb4 "want all factions to be the same" |
When there's four of them able to do that at once, it's definitely difficult.
Nice to see im not alone, IMO by itself the Rifle Grenade is fine but the Vet 2 range+lots of going on makes it borderline impossible to see it coming before its too late! |
|
Am I alone in the belief its extreme hard to spot vet 2 grenadiers preparing a rifle grenade in a big fight with a bunch going on? |
You played vCoh? ...Just wonderin'...
yep I did admittedly only 3v3/4v4 but yes I did. As far as I remember in BTB(big team battle thats what Im going to call 3v3/4v4 for now on) it was an arty magnet or worse the enemy team would simply snipe the 3 man crew and leave it open to capture often requiring you to scuttle it. never was much of a 1v1 or 2v2 player, but I never saw competent players build or even go defensive doctrine at all since it was arguably whermacts weakest doctrine especially in 1v1/2v2(i need a neat acronym for these two) |
Good question - both existed in vCoH, as you know.
and it was completely useless in vCOH.... |
Interesting read but it does seem to speak to my point.
The M26 was designed as a medium tank (american classification) and then redesignated as a heavy in order to boost morale. Then it was returned as a medium post war.
To quote your article "the M26 was built as a medium tank(that could still do heavy tank things), was used as a medium tank, and was called a medium tank before and after its stint as a heavy."
I would argue that the classification of a tank should come from the nation that produced it, within reason. Someone mentioned that the panther was classified as a heavy by the US (I have no idea if that is true or not) but it is now known to be a medium tank as it was designated by the germans.
Why I posted it. Although im pretty at least a portion of the pershing development is around the m6 heavy tank but I need more info. Sure it more or less ended up as a medium tank however in regards to coh 2 and WWII as a whole it was basically a heavy tank and shouldnt be treated as anything less than a Tiger I. |
Pershing was actually designed as a medium tank, it was reclassified as a heavy during the war as a propaganda tool.
http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/08/18/m26-pershing-medium-or-heavy-plus-other-stuff/
Tank classification is not standard across nations. Within the context of WW II m26 Pershing was a heavy tank by all acounts. By the time they made it to the front there really werent any Heavy Tank things to do anymore.
Pershing is a straight equal to the IS-1/Tiger I during WW2, but then competes with
Centurion/T44/T-54 post war. Had the T-44 and centurion seen action(T-44 saw barely any) the same argument would be used against them. |
Maybe I'm just being pessimistic, I mean it could work, its just I wouldnt know how to find the sweet spot of performance, cost, and historical authenticity for it to be balanced. Because lets be honest It would need to perform well at almost all roles. Only downsides being perhaps cost, can't shoot through walls, its an emplacement.
Nah im with you 100% on that one. I guess if they put it in the defensive commander it wouldnt be bad since it has nothing else going for it. But man they would really need to test it before hand. |
Give the 88 lower damage and penetration, but allow it to fire like an artillery piece as well. Also the B4's direct fire ability is still broken so assuming they fix it soon enough it will be worth it.
If you tie it to a commander then people will still get the Pak43.
uhhhhhhhh
What do you mean by lower penetration? it will still guaranteed penetrate every allied vehicle. Not too fond of the idea of Artillery guns doubling as long range AT guns has broken written all over it. |
The 88 could swivel in place much faster, while the Pak43 has to be rotated by the crew. Also the barrel on the Pak43 is longer.
The 88 in game could just be like an Axis B4, doubling as artillery and an anti armor direct fire emplacement.
This does not translate at all in a practical manner in coh2, namely without making the pak 43 pointless also as far I know no one uses the b4 in direct fire mode. |
0
AssaultPlazma
sq
Anarkhand
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
