As a further example, Volksgrenadiers could well have their uniforms tinted from the current Feldgrau to Luftwaffe Blue (Feldblau? I'm not sure what it's designated as), if one were to wish to create a "Luftwaffe Ground Forces" unit for a doctrine. (simple model edits would even allow you to, for example, use Osttruppen Feldmütze to make them even more visually distinct. Both of these operations are quite simple, but provide a massive improvement to visuals, out of scale with the effort expended.
Interestingly, the Volksgrenadier model in CoH2 seem to be inspired by the uniforms of the elite Panzer Lehr Division, who wore the grey, double-breasted panzer wraps of StuG crews. They are however missing the the Lehr Panzergrenadier's iconic splinter camo helmet, perhaps an oversight by Relic.
Please post all general feedback from the Commander Update beta here. Each faction has its own thread for specific feedback related to their commanders, units, etc.
I agree with the majority of these changes, but I have some major issues regarding the arbitrary limit on cross-faction units. As many have pointed out, a King Tiger for Ostheer could be very interesting and reuse the current Tiger voice lines (as it was officially just Tiger Ausf B by army regulations). There are also plenty of German skins we can 'force' onto the vehicle, like how the 221/223, Command Tiger, or Tiger Ace handles it.
I think the decision to avoid cross-faction units really hurts this time. The .50 cal for Soviets is the exception, probably justified by it not needing skins, but I really dislike this change as not only is it historically innacurate, but it also doesn't add anything new or interesting - its just a token buff to the firing arc. A Universal Carrier would have been more thematic and far more interesting. Like how the 221/223 is forced to use Panzergrau, the Universal Carrier can be forced to use Olive Drab or something. Many photographs of Soviet Universal Carriers show minimal paint or no paint at all, so the lack of faction camo skins shouldn't be a big deal.
More in-depth explanation for Soviet UC:
I really suggest a reconsideration of using cross-faction vehicles, especially for Soviet Lend-Lease. As it stands, this limitation will set the precedent that there will never be any cross-faction vehicles for future patches, severely limiting the capability of the balance team to make interesting units/doctrines in the future, especially to the German factions.
I don't agree with M2HB for Soviet Lend Lease. Both DShK and M2 HMGs perform similarly, and thus this feels like a change for the sake of change, with the only tangible difference being the arc of the MG. Historically, the M2.50cals given to the Soviets were those mounted on vehicles, not the man-portable one for infantry use. While there are plenty of anachronisms already present in CoH2, if we can help it, we should avoid creating more to respect historical authenticity.
Instead, I suggest a new Soviet LV: Lend-Lease Universal Carrier. The US weren't the only ones to send equipment to the USSR, after all.
A Soviet Universal Carrier offers a new LV choice, allowing for interesting alternative to the standard M3 vs 222 matchup. While it doesn't allow passengers to fire out, it may have additional utility such as a PTRS-41 drop (sometimes Soviet carriers replaced their hull MGs with AT rifles; you can see this in the pictures above) or a mine laying ability. Of course, there's also the pintle upgrade...
However, instead of a DP-28 or PTRS (which are unfortunately not possible in-game due to lack of pintle animation states), you mount the good ol DShK, unlocking Suppressive Fire similar to Vickers K (potency can be adjusted to suit) and perhaps AP Rounds.
The DShK modification was not only historical, but it's entirely possible to implement in-game via the same method used to give the 250 halftrack the MG42. Additionally, it offers a new Soviet LV, allowing for interesting alternative to the M3 vs 222 matchup. It also retains both the HMG and the troop carrier LV within the commander. Finally, the Soviets did not really paint camouflage over their Universal Carriers, so the lack of a skin is not a significant drawback in a historical perspective.
All we need is the addition of Italy and the African front.
In a game about unit preservation, why include the Japanese? They have an even worse reputation than the Soviets!
They also couldn't really match other modern armies on land. They will be even more special snowflake-y than OKW if you count their experimental units (which were still worse compared to other nations for the most part) that never saw combat. Their army, navy, and airforce were all eventually outclassed by the Americans, so what would their strength even be?
Finally, I don't think naval would translate well into CoH. Does anyone else like swimming Sturmtigers that can hit half the map? Because that's exactly what a battleship might be. That sounds unfun to play against - howitizers are frustrating enough.
Now, if it was China vs Japan, that would be a much more interesting matchup.
To clarify: Soviet armored skirts do exist, but not really on the T-34/76. Very late in the war, when the Soviets were deep in German territory, they tried using (rather ineffective) mesh screens on the sides of both hull and turrets of their T-34/85s and their IS-2 tanks. "Solid" skirts were used with on the experimental T-44, but they never saw action.
My guess is that the in-game model is a vet 2 bonus intended for abandoned T-34s that were recrewed by the Germans, but scrapped later. It's a shame, since we already have different veterancies for the same unit between faction (such as any recrewed OKW teamweapon/vehicle). I don't think it's too far fetched for it to have been included, although it's admittedly not CoH2's most pressing issue.
I tried doing something similar for my personal mod, but the biggest issue with the implementation is the AI's inability to use the snare effectively. The AI will attempt to cast the snares at infantry or non-vehicle targets, or completely miss the vehicle since it targets a position.
Guys, Maxim spam is never coming back. The reason why Maxim spam was so popular were as follows:
Cons were terrible and unreliable while Maxims had the same cost.
Maxim had almost instant setup.
Maxim had much better suppression.
Maxim had a narrow arc, so multiple Maxims were needed anyway to cover an area.
Since then, all of these points have been addressed:
Cons rifles are more consistent, 7-man upgrade.
Maxim received cost and build time increases.
Maxim setup is now 3s, just like all other HMGs.
Maxim's suppression was more than halved.
Maxim's arc was improved to succ less.
Imo, buffing suppression to a middling number, a formation adjustment to reduce deathloop, and then reducing the cost by 10mp to match MG34 would be sufficient.
It would still have longer setup than old spammy Maxim.
It would still have less suppression than old spammy Maxim.
It would still be less competitive with cons than old spammy Maxim.
There's no rational reason to fear a return of Maxim spam with proposed Maxim buffs.
I like Stormjager's Combined Arms, although I think the Command T-34-85 could maybe be a 75mm Sherman which gives other tanks the unique Radio Net ability.
My personal take on Lend Lease doc:
2CP: Conscript PPSh, in case you need ghetto Assault Guards. Has synergy with Repair Kit too.
3CP: Universal Carrier, comes with Assault Guards at a cheaper cost than the OG M5 bundle. The UC can upgrade for a pintle DShK which gives it similar functionality to one with a Vickers K, but with better DPS/pen (this is entirely possible via the same trick used to give the 250 HT a pintle gun).
EDIT: Of course, to keep Adv Warfare relevant, a replacement of the IL-2 with the Rocket Run would suit IMO. That would also make it less of a worse version of Armored Assault.
Another edit: Honestly, I think Airborne Guards should get stealth with their PPSh upgrade, and it would have been cool to see camo for AT guns or vehicles, but I don't know what to really get rid of. Maybe the Rally Point can be bundled into the build menu for Airborne Guards?
Wikipedia gives a vague description on whether scripting is cheating. It says it may or may not be... Who decides? And what do they mean by replicable? Autohotkey just sends a series of keys and mouseclicks. That is replicable by a human. It can also read information from the screen, this is also replicable by a human. Nothing in my script does anything a human couldn't replicate.
Also Wikipedia, Cheating in online games:
My AHK script is doing neither of those. I would say AHK is not considered cheating as long as Relic says it's okay to use.
But I do agree it can give people an unfair advantage. But so does having a faster internet connection, a smoother gaming mouse, gaming keyboard, etc..etc... or just a faster human brain
Bruh, you asked when people think AHK is considered cheating. Someone gives you a reply that implies what you're doing may be cheating, and you say "that's not cheating, its only an unfair advantage." There's the law, and then there's the spirit of the law. It should be common sense that anything conferring unfair advantages is cheating. If all you want to do is defend your use of AHK, what's the point of opening this thread?