Profile of TheGentlemenTroll

Also I forgot about a couple points

5) Maps that are wide with short distance between opposing bases are needed desperately. Tunnel maps.., not so much and theres plenty of those.

6) The less oppressive cut offs, the better.

7) Also remake Point du Hoc

I’m assuming 5 means stuff like vaux and hill 400? I agree those types of maps are interesting.


I hope the map pool for coh3 is much better than the map pool from coh2. The map pool got skimmed of a lot of awful ones but it would be nice to have a good variety of fun maps to play on from the geico.

Majority is too strong of a word here. I honestly haven't even heard of anybody being so angry at the game to turn it off when he gets the side he doesn't like on a map.

Also, maps don't have to be symmetrical to be ballanced. Just like assymetrical factions are ballanced by having different strenghts and weakneses that players try to use or overcome maps can give different sides/teams/players different bonuses and initial goals. When a map feels different to play depending on the side, it is almost as if you had twice the number of maps! And in games like coh2 where players play the same game mode for many hours it is important to let the game change from one match to another or the game gets boring quite quickly.

I do agree maps don't always have to be symmetrical to be good/balanced. Its just easier to balance a more symmetrical type map. Some of the symmetrical maps have been pretty bad also (Sittard Summer/winter is the biggest example I can think of). Sometimes though I feel the asymmetry of maps in coh2 does more bad than good, being from a competitive gaming background for most of my life, however, I might be a little bias towards the more competitive symmetrical maps we see in other games.

I feel like asymmetry can work as long as they do not mess with certain "must have" map attributes (IE: Same timings to center of map, no game-changing one-sided buildings, single-sided cutoffs, unfair or uneven cover that favors one side.) The biggest complaint I have is maps like Moscow which have a brutal cutoff for north for the north favored fuel while having no equivalent for the south side which is unfair.

I havent alt f4ed a match bc of a map so yeah an exaggeration my bad on that. It is still pretty upsetting to get some bad map spawns though and I can say I have quit the game after some matches after getting screwed over and over by map choice (Use to happen after getting Sittard Summer after vetoing it and going through a painful hour-long artillery fest.)

The faction listing definitely goes UKF<USF<OKW<OST=SOV imo But I do agree with some points that you made.

As it is now the stg44 would always be picked instead of the mg34 upgrade if implemented. The stg44 is a direct buff to at all ranges and therefore a dps steroid at all ranges. It also allows you to dps while on the move so the mg34 wouldnt have a place if the stgs were kept as is.

As for obers they are in a bit of a weird spot. If they came out after first truck they would be really op and would require stats nerfs for sure. But now they come out pretty late and have trouble racking up the super important vet to fight the scaling allied infantry squads.

Elite Riflemen nearly arriving with vet3 was something else.

Old elite troops vet up in which you could get almost immediate vet 3 grens.

I use to abuse the fuck outta that ability.

Well, i guess that i have to try it to see.

MG is better 90% of the time IMO, its only good to go flamer when there are a lot of buildings. MG comes out earlier and IMO is better.