Profile of Retief

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 28

General Information


Thread: Opinion on the "new" USF mortar?10 Apr 2017, 17:26 PM Enemy hmg is in building. You build mortar and click barrage on building. Enemy hmg moves or dies. You can also force hmgs to pack up when they aren't in a building, but it is a bit more rng dependent. In practice, I think the mortar is in roughly the right spot. I could see a further cost reduction or 80 range barrages, but it is basically correct. If your opponent is camping in buildings, you can force him out without a specific doctrine or spamming munitions on grenades. If your opponent is mostly mobile infantry, don't build the mortar at all. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Comet at 20!?! population10 Apr 2017, 00:47 AM Heavy tanks shouldn´t cripple your population in my opinion. Any limits to strategies are hurting the game. Not having the possiblity to field a heavy vehicle and a variety of sufficient support (including other vehicles as well) makes the game boring. Panthers and Comets should remain at the pop they cost atm. The problem is that heavies (particularly heavy tank destroyers) really do need to cripple your pop cap. Late game, heavy td + serious indirect fire + infantry support is damn near impossible for allies to beat in big team games. A supported heavy td is insanely hard for allied tanks to kill without heavy losses, and lots of indirect fire keeps allied team weapons off the field. What can allies do? Their options boil down to "try and fail to kill an elefant with bazookas" or "abuse broken offmap callins". If they don't have those offmap callins, they basically just lose. Increasing the pop cap on heavy tds would force axis players to make a decision. You can't hard counter all allied vehicles, hard counter all allied team weapons, and cap points at the same time, so you have to sacrifice power in some way. This is still a better deal than the allies get -- they don't even get the option of calling in a heavy td. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: GCS Balance Preview7 Apr 2017, 23:46 PM My worry with the m10 changes is the m10's crushing is a major part of it's value. Nerf it or take it away and the m10 becomes a lot weaker. I agree that the m10 really shouldn't be a crushing vehicle first and a td second, but if you take away half of it's value, you should probably compensate it in some way. In: Lobby
Thread: Unfair garrisons on cut-offs or important resource points5 Apr 2017, 19:17 PM I wouldn't be sad if all garrisons suddenly disappeared. However, if a cutoff garrison does exist, it should be on the defending side of the point (so defenders can cap the cutoff and retreat to the garrison if attackers show up, but if an attacking squad is capping the point, a defending squad can get into the garrison before the attacking sqaud sees them. Ideally, the defender's side of the garrison would be a blind spot as well. The same should hold true for important resource points that are clearly on one side or the other (as opposed to the points that are roughly on the centerline). In: COH2 Balance
Thread: USF Commander Tweaks Suggestions4 Apr 2017, 05:17 AM If you are going to change the airborne team weapon call ins, reduce their mp cost instead of making them cost munitions. USF in general tends to be extremely short on munis. Reducing the cost by 100mp instead makes them competitive mp-wise with "real" built mgs/at guns while not using munitions that are needed elsewhere. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Airborne company4 Apr 2017, 05:03 AM The simplest way to buff airborne is to just drop the manpower cost of the at gun and mg by 100. Suddenly, they are actually cost efficient. I also like the idea of pathfinder mines + smoke + cp0 -- at that point, they would be a nice complement to paras. Mines are nice utility, and they can smoke mgs for your paras without needing to research rifle grenades or relying on the nerfed and sometimes buggy mortar. You can also get them in place of a rifle squad early, which avoids the "I already have enough infantry" issue that pathfinders + paras currently run into. They'd probably need more changes to make their new form balanced, but I think the idea has merit. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Conscript scaling18 Mar 2016, 05:46 AM Fair point on the mines, though I'd argue that av-only mines on a light vehicle isn't on par with the other mine options. Also, brits lack both at snares and flamers (unless you really want to count a 120 munition upgrade on one of the squishiest vehicles in the game), and they don't have nearly as much compensation as usf/okw. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Conscript scaling18 Mar 2016, 03:15 AM Yeah, it would be really terrible if factions were missing core abilities like mines, flamers, rocket artillery, at snares, or hmgs. Oh wait ... Every faction has holes in its lineup. That's how the game is designed. In: COH2 Balance