I really appreciate this system too as it makes your units less predictable and gives you way more options.
However, these can be hard to balance. For example, I love the Bazooka team abilities (especially the destroy cover; who would have thought of that? IT'S GENIUS!) and absolutely love the choice between Sprint WP Rocket as both are meaningful; However, the Whizbang's Jettison Launcher ability is... far more niche to say the least.
I'm still hopeful as its just a pre-alpha preview after all. I think it has great potential, just needs a lot of thought put into it and some more refining in order to achieve it.
Chaffee, Archer and StG44 also don't fit the setting. But everyone fine with it because "We already had ostwind, JT,ST and so on".
While I have a strong opinion about the Black Prince, I am ultimately fine with the inclusion of certain weapon systems that are technically anachronistic for the setting, like the StG44, in Italy, as it existed in earlier configurations (MKb42H, MP43) and would eventually see plenty of service in Italy, very much unlike the Black Prince.
I am similarly fine with Archer, Wirbelwind, and to a lesser extent Chaffee as because they all saw combat in Italy eventually and would make sense as part of a larger picture (again, unlike the Black Prince). I think instead of removing them from the game, Relic should take them out of the campaign (or have them appear late in the campaign) and leave them in the game as multiplayer goodies. To illustrate, the Axis don't need the Wirbelwind in that campaign mission; they have the Flak gun team weapon that can take its place, and the US Chaffee could be replaced by the existing Stuart the British have - it is still a US tank after all. This preserves the historicity of the campaign while still having the rare but not technically incorrect vehicles for multiplayer, as part of CoH's special snowflake tradition.
That said, I love the Firefly and I'd love to see it come back and potentially replace the Archer.
I also agree that it's bad to follow the rabbit hole and make excuses for inappropriate units because of existing mistakes. However, unlike the complete fantasy that is Black Prince, the rare Archer, Wirbelwind, and Chaffee can have a potential place in the game somewhere.
I think the point people are trying to make is that there's a difference between historical realism in terms of aesthetics and in terms gameplay, and that you can have the former without the later.
CoH isn't a "realistic" game in terms of gameplay; it's based on reality, sure - but it's in no way a simulation. Units are "stylized" to fit the mechanics (ranges are reduced, HP and armor is increased, etc.), but they do remain true to their source material; the Tiger has a lot of HP/Armor, a big cannon, and is slow and expensive. The T-34 is pretty cheap, but not that great, etc. When you look at those units, though, you can say "yea, that's pretty much a [Tiger/T-34/etc.]", and more importantly, the interaction between the units makes sense. The JT doesn't tend to bounce off mediums, air-attacks do a ton of damage to slow/immobilized heavies, and so on.
When you look at CoH1 and CoH2, every single unit and ability is at least plausible. Railway artillery existed and was used - probably not on the battlefield - but if the situation arose there's no reason it couldn't have. The same can be said of the "tactical V1"; it doesn't make a lot of sense historically, but V1s were real, and could be aimed to some degree. There's nothing (at least that I can think of) that immediately jumps out as 'impossible' in either games; there's no Maus or E100, Panther 2, T28/T95 (US), IS3, Tortoise, or any other "slightly too late" late-war or 'never produced paper prototype' in the game.
The BP however, is exactly that; there's simply no reality in which it could've appeared in Italy. The design started in 1943 and the first 6 prototypes were delivered in May 1945 - after the war ended. No commander, no matter how persuasive or powerful, could have summoned these vehicles to Italy, and no incredible chain of events or coincidences could resulted in them appearing, because they simply didn't exist - there was nothing to send.
It opens up the door to other units of this type, which some people (myself included) just don't want.
What's stranger is that most of this could be avoided by simply switching the model to CoH2's "Comet". While it didn't historically serve in Italy, it did first see action in December 1944 in Belgium, during which the Italian campaign was still ongoing. The "ahistorical, but available to the army" idea would actually work with it.
There doesn't need
to be an Allied mirror to the Tiger, especially with the new side armor mechanics that will make flanking far more reliable. Ultimately, I'd much prefer an asymmetrically balanced CoH3, as long as each unit has an accessible non-doctrinal counter; asymmetric balance and faction design does far more for the game's variety than introducing units with mirrored stats, however novel the unit aesthetics may be. Replace the BP with one of many thematically appropriate alternative and let the tank destroyers do their jobs.
I think another huge point that we need to address is this:
CoH3 is looking very promising so far and Relic has done an outstanding job.
The Black Prince is not going to make or break the game; I for one am going to buy and play the game either way. I'd just prefer if CoH3 did not open Pandora's box and risk devolving into fantasy with the Black Prince.
I always excused Relic for historical inaccuracies in the past because I always assumed that they didn't have the money for enough research. But now they have more money and also asked the community to help them.
To me it always seemd like they tried to be Historical accurate but simply ended up failing often. For instance in the Singeplayer in CoH2 you are often limited to Anti Tank rifles and Short barrel Panzer 4 as the germans, which is (more) historical accurate (than Panzerschreck and Panther in 1942). They even went as far as giving Grens a AT-Riflegrenade (with a special icon that was never used again) instead of Panzerfaust in the Singleplayer missions
The things you mentioned are mostly caused by it being a game. I doubt Commanders in WW2 had birdseye view and radio connection to units too (although one could of course argue in favor of more realitisc goliaths (especially regarding the self spotting part), which was done by several people already, I think there is even a mod for that)
A spot that does not need to be filled. Why would Brits need a Strong AT tank with Strong armor if they already have Archer and can have 17 pdr M10 and will face no Tiger IIs or Jagdtigers?
And why not simply give Brits 6 pdr Churchill with Tungsten rounds? Could fill the same role as Bp if really needed
+1. Even though Relic have had some serious blunders in the historical accuracy department in the past, they can and should learn and grow from their mistakes. We shouldn't hold them to negative standards the same way we do with positive ones.
It's already in the game, or at least the files.
There is an upgrade called the NA 75mm for the Churchill in the British Armor company in the campaign that is unavailable in the pre-alpha.
If they already have plans for the NA75, as others have mentioned before, a Churchill VI or VII would be fine as a replacement to Black Prince too. There are plenty of historically plausible and thematic units available, so no need to force a post-war tank into the game.
|Agree wholeheartedly that the Black Prince does not belong in CoH3.
It sets a bad precedent and leads down a dangerous rabbit hole. What's next? Maus? Panther II? There are plenty of other interesting Churchill upgrades that are far more thematic and more historically plausible/authentic.
Many people have already suggested a Churchill VI or VII with the British 75mm gun. However, to keep the novelty, the NA75 conversion of the Churchill
(Churchill IV with Sherman gun and better turret armor specifically made for Italy) would be an appropriately thematic and interesting alternative to consider.
I love the autovault functionality; its intuitive and requires less hand-holding, but the biggest upside is the retreat paths. I suppose I'd be okay with manual vaulting as long as the squads still autovault while retreating.
I'm in agreement that there should be some RA penalty or similar incurred while vaulting if its possible.
Is there a chance any of this actually gets to live?
We're still working on some legal issues with Relic and SEGA who are very busy atm. Perhaps some of these may make it in next patch.
As many have already suggested, B4 feels like a straight up better ML20.
I think the old single shot barrage w/suppression coupled with the new direct fire is the way to go, and ML-20 be designed around slower firing but larger aoe (not necessarily as strong as new B4 barrage).
I second the notion that ML-20 be reworked to function similarly to new B4, although without suppression and a smaller fx/aoe to keep it distinct from LeFH and B4.
The ML20 smoke feels unnecessary and underwhelming. As far as historical theming goes, the B4 was actually forbidden to be used in the direct fire role (soldiers famously did it anyway). However, in Soviet military terminology, "Gun-Howitzers" (like ML-20) were howitzers that were also deemed suitable for direct fire roles. A weaker ISU-like direct fire (maybe 240dmg without worldpierce) would be awesome as new vet ability.
To add to the argument: Why do you think Soviets don't need AT infantry? Because they have snares and AT gun? Every other faction has snares and an AT gun in addition to infantry AT options such as PIAT, Zook, or Schreck.