The game won't drop you if you have any sort of connection to the router. You can literally have 1kbps connection, it will hold. Sure you will be freezing for half a minute, but you won't drop. If you in any way lose connection, even for a second, you drop. Losing connection that drops:
ipconfig /release /renew
Manually clicking on the disconnect button in Windows
Manually changing the source (eg, your router has 5GHz and 2.4GHz, and you just click to connect to the other), you drop. Tested it out.
Bad connection, or extremely slow connection, or even connection that times out, won't drop you, as long as you maintain it in any way.
That is not entirely true, at least not from my experience.
Just as OP described, you can have a stable internet connection and still drop out of the game. My friends can still hear me over any VOIP software, while CoH2 derps out and sometimes just kicks me out of a game for no good reason, sometimes it manages to reconnect after 5-10 seconds. No other game I play shows that behaviour. There must be something going on either at the Relic servers directly or the communication between my ISP/router and the Relic servers. The connection of my PC to my router does not matter, since Relic cannot sense if those two are connected. Relic can only detect that there are no incoming packages from a player for a given time. Sure, if there is even some kind of super slow connection, you might not drop. But if connection fails for a couple of seconds, you're done.
What I have noticed though is that the process is quite variable. Sometimes I got dropped almost instantly without even showing the "reconnecting" message, sometimes the game tried to reconnect for quite some time (probably 10+ seconds).
The overall connectivity of Coh2 is quite bad, but let's be real: There is nothing Relic will do. They won't waste resources on reworking net code for CoH2 servers when CoH3 is on the not so distant horizon.
There never was a reconnect feature in the first place
There is no reconnection after you dropped from the game, but if you only lose the connection for a couple of seconds (which happens to me semi-regularly after switching my ISP), CoH2 will reconnect. I think that's what Renegade means.
I agree with the vehicle vision and mobility changes as well as sniper changes; with a few differences I myself have also included something similar in my own personal mod that I've been developing off and on.
Having a lot of experience playing around with the mod tools and redesigning core mechanics, I can offer you some some ideas if you are open to suggestions.
Recently, I have finished my core Soviet faction revamp and currently working on Ostheer. I don't mean to derail the thread, though I think you may find this insightful or at the very least interesting:
I like a lot of the suggestions you made, and they sound both very thematic as well as coherent within the other changes.
I am not a modder though, my experience goes only as far as to changing simple stats. That's what I then stuck to when twiddling around in the modding tools if I had time for it.
I personally like the CoH2 overall gameplay. The balance patches over the last years removed some of the grittyness (such as reducing OHKs), which I personally liked gameplay wise. Also, I wanted to implement some changes where I felt that CoH2 feels wrong (Soviet faction teching and infantry design, snipers etc) and maybe get a slightly more authentic touch on it within an arcade strategy game. But as I said, I am not capable of implementing larger changes, so basically everything I do comes down to changing a couple of values. Which is enough for much of what I want to achieve.
I like most of your ideas like the Conscript/Penal change. It would promote mix and matching instead of pure conscript spam we have now. The only change I would do is instead of flamethrower make the close range PPSH. As a four man squad it won't hit as hard but would probably be easier to balance around merge while keeping the "elites" as better versions of the Penal squad along with better equipment such as smoke/body armor/abilities. Earlier M5 would be welcome but with improved Con/Penal synergy might be a little too much. They would be able to overrun most players with decent play of sand bags with Penal DP28. Overall I think it would be fun as hell to play.
EDIT: I would also keep DP28 squad size to 4, Airborne would then be a large upgrade on durability/long range DPS. If you went with PPSH I would change that to 5 men instead due to change in play style.
Soviet infantry is a tough nut since there is so much variety with overlapping function that you'll constantly clash into other units.
That's why I broke it down to the basics and stuck to my own rule: Commanders do not matter, it is fully about the core units:
Soviet need one short range squad and one mid-long range one to mirror the Ostheer setup. Conscripts are, well, Conscripts. They are not well trained, so they can't fill the longer range role. That's why I'd put DP28 on Penals. The flamer is more a flavour thing for added asymmetry with the added benefit of goving CEs a late game role apart from sweeping. Their flamer tends to go down in combat effectiveness quite a bit.
I am not fully sure how well 4 men Penals with DPs would turn out. I personally like the general design of having larger Soviet squads. But maybe the Conscript merge is enough to keep them on the field, although merging into 4 men squads is quite click intensive to not lose the squad...
But to be honest, this goes into specifics that need testing within the game. There is so much more to rework from price, RA, reinforcement, DP28 damage profile etc that all factor into this.
Most of this I noted down couple of months to weeks ago, since I had it lying around I thought I'd just follow up on this original post.
Ideas for the Soviet faction
These changes are supposed to be implemented with the proposals in the original post. Where they are contradictory, the “newer” proposals should be considered (e.g. I previously said all engineers should be 3 men squads, here I say Soviets should have 4 etc).
Again, I can’t write a super exhaustive list on ALL changes I can imagine, which features/abilities should be retained on every single unit and how exactly costs etc are going to change. This is already long, no one would bother to read it if it got any longer. When in doubt, please cut me some slack and view these proposals as a general design idea.
General: Late game techs:
I personally love the UKF hammer/amboss decision, although I’d like to give it a bit of a different twist. Instead of unlocking units and abilities, I’d rather go with some economy boost. Might be dangerous for balance, but I like the idea.
For example, there could be (mutually exclusive) research for +5 max population, discounts on vehicles or infantry etc. These could also be made faction specific to increase asymmetry.
Teching costs:
I don’t know why the main gate for techs fuel is only. I think it would be beneficial to include munitions cost in addition or at least for some tiers. This would prevent fuel rushes in team modes where holding double fuel is basically all you need while you can neglect the specialized munition points.
Redesigned teching:
Soviet tech is now linear, Penals move to T0 to abolish the Soviet infantry duality. I hope both units work better together in more diverse builds if they are also available together. This in turn would potentially open up commander changes for elite infantry, however they are not a concern at the moment.
Restructured Tech:
T0: Conscripts, Penals, CE
T1: M3, Sniper, Maxim (building within 3 min)
T2: ATG, Mortar, M5 (building within 5 min)
T3: SU76, T70, (Katy)
T4: T34, SU85, (Katy)
I hope this gives more proper timing to the M5 (upgrade might need tweaks) which should come at around 5 min. Maxim and mortar might be switched if necessary. Katy goes T3 or T4. All costs changed to fit timing windows.
Combat engineers:
Squad size 4
Get normal mosins
Upgrade paths:
1. Anti-tank -> gets 1 PTRS, sticky satchel, +1 model, light AT mines; MAYBE after T3/4 they could get a second one
2. Sweeper -> increased repair speed and build time
Conscripts:
Aim is to use them as “fill up” troops to fill gaps in the front line. Bad combat stats, short range weapon profile, scale through abilities. Damage scaling will probably be bad at mid-long range and see a steeper increase at very short ranges. Changes:
Start at 7 men, MR does not grant another model (need new usage for MR)
Molotov gets impact damage buff and maybe cost buff
RA nerf (about 10% nerf), maybe MR will be used to remove this nerf
Damage nerf, especially mid-long range
Penals:
Redesign intended to slightly mirror the German Gren-PGren interaction, however with slight twists. Penals are not elite infantry and rather in between line and elite infantry. Although doctrines are not taken into account yet, I think this should also create some room for Guards and Shocks. Mid range profile.
4 men
Upgrade paths:
1. flame thrower
2. 2x DP28 (increases squad size to 5)
The squad size to 4 is a slight band aid because I’d like to move the flame thrower for some asymmetry between the factions. Also, it would fit Penals’ role to do the dangerous jobs. However, 5 men flamers are often not a great idea, especially early on. I hope the merge with Conscripts will create the staying power needed.
M3
Retains its current sight radius, maybe even a slight buff. Potentially slightly lower top speed to nerf cheesy strategies of just running the M3 with a satchel squad into tanks or similar.
Maxim, ATG, mortar
All become 4 men squads with RA buffs as needed. As I said previously, I want them to be more expensive in general but more effective at the job. Especially with the changes to mortars and MGs, they might become too effective, thereby high MP cost should prevent spamming. This should make repairing team weapons more worthwhile as well as create more interesting play around defending them. Issues could come with wipes due to late game arty.
M5
Hopefully improved timing at T2. Changes as needed to fit the new timing. Slightly above average sight (~40 range). Maybe the truck should come with a “medic truck” upgrade that unlocks the reinforcement and healing, potentially healing as AoE.
SU76
No huge changes. I like the unit itself, I hope the changes to the Soviet infantry system will create enough room at this phase to get an SU76 instead of a T70. Sight changes as previously described.
T70
The backbone of the Soviet early-mid transition. No larger changes overall, maybe a tiny penetration nerf mid to long range so that a Luchs has slightly better chances.
T34, SU85, Katy
I’ll sum these up. Again no huge changes apart from the general vehicle proposals since I don’t fully know how those will turn out. If possible, the SU85 might be changed to fit better vs heavier armor, but this will require more changes on the Ostheer side of things.
Katy could go T3 or T4, depending on where it fits best.
Kind of off-topic, but since it's an emotional thread already, how do you people feel about CoH3, after the disaster of DoW3?
I have not played CoH2 in like, 4 years, maybe more and we know Relic has been having a rough time. What is the general "feel" of the community? I'm asking about the "feelings" since it's an alpha.
From what I saw in the alphas (didn't play an awful lot of actual multiplayer against humans), let's say I am somewhat hopeful for the game.
CoH3 solves quite some issues that CoH2 has either due to design or engine limitations. I think Relic really understood that they need to build on a good core rather than having just an "okay" one and add a lot of features.
I have some issues with the game regarding immersion, UI and visuals, which might be fixed in the upcoming months until release. At least I hope so.
I don't care that much about actual unit balance at the moment (in the sense of unit X is OP). These are the "easiest" changes to do regarding the actual time frame. At least quicker than implementing a whole new shader system, reworking the UI or whatnot. Also, it is safe to say that balance will change after release, while many design decision that they already made and will make in the future will last, even if we don't like them.
Point system alone is probably the biggest change so far, because CoH2 system pretty much affected littery the whole game. And every single point on the map is pretty much point of interest worth trying to capture. Problem with CoH2 system, is not even the amount of points, but rather the fact that usually in total (excluding the VP), there are only 4 points of interests and unless you just want to either delay or cut-off the enemy, there is no reason to go beyond this (unless its 1v1), since regular points are effectively pointless to the economy, making game more static and predictable.
I wouldn't say a standard point is THAT much weaker than a specialized one. It's just that the game forces you to prioritize fuel so much in the beginning that the munitions income is not that important. At the start everyone rushes fuel. Not having infantry upgrades is bad, but getting an early Luchs/AA HT/222 etc is more than compensating for that and will likely give you control over more points for mun.
Later the situation often reverses when fuel is not that important and you just want munitions to buy abilities.
I agree that the system is bad though since it makes it arbitrary which point you take. There are usually 12 standard points, of which a maximum of 4 designed as cut offs. This leaves at least 8 points with the only function of generating exactly the same amount of resources. They are for the most part interchangeable and basically all "the same".
In total, there are 3 important VPs, 4 special resource points, <4 cut offs and >8 "boring" standard points. Almost half of the points do not have decent purpose, and at least 2 are often secured next to the base anyway.
I hope CoH3's new, old system can improve that. It is more of a challenge for mappers though, since the points need to be placed in a way that you can't snowball and insta-win because you control the most important region for 5 minutes. Let's see what Relic does.
Feel free to let me know what you'd like some more detail on. I probably have the detail (certainly from my own opinion & experiences). I felt a more lightweight version would be better suited for readability & discussion.
Your list for me lacks how the game in general plays out. The points where you touch on that is gameplay and design, both of which are quite short. Another interesting point is immersion. It is an early build, yes, but somehow I had problems believing that this is an actual battlefield. The models in general lack personality.
I personally did not play too much of the MP pre-alpha since I could only play on the last weekend and found it hard to get somewhat even games, so I gave up after a couple of tries. That's why I am interested what others have to say that had the chance to play with a group of players they know with similar skill.
What is your opinion of the pacing of the game? Teching in particular? I know you said you don't want to go into full details here, but we have to assume that the current design will roughly be what we get. I had the feeling that vehicles are stronger now, especially the light ones. Units like the 222 were harder to damage with small arms, snares actually only stun all vehicles now.
Tanks on the other hard were beefier, at least that's my impression. Other specialized ideas like creating Panzergrenadiers from normal Grenadiers that are very likely to stay?
What do you think of the abilities they gave to units in general? Is there enough variety? Do the abilities make sense? Are there enough "new" abilities to freshen up the gameplay over Coh2? How does breach work in MP, which is the one ability they specifically marketed at reveal?
You touched on readability e.g. when mentioning animations. What was your impression on that part in general? To be honest I found the game very hard to read. It might be due to it being a "new", unfamiliar game and due to having lower frame rate than in CoH2, but I had serious issues really "understanding" the battlefield within 1-2 seconds of looking at it. For me it is not directly obvious what my units are doing.
And last thing I want to mention, since it is one of the few things I can actually comment on as well as probably the biggest grudge I have with CoH3 at the moment: The UI design in general. You mention a lot of stuff like text placements, highlights and readability. My interest goes more into the art/design direction. I just found it bland and boring. Everything is just boxes in a very "clean" design. This doesn't convey the feeling of neither being in WW2 nor being some type of platoon commander at all. Minimap is oddly tilted, creating empty space towards the edges of the screen. While CoH2 has this too, it filled it up with some "art", mostly metal plates. The selection menu in particular seems to float above the actual battlefield and don't stand out. For me, it all just feels so exchangeable, incoherent and not thought-through. There are ability buttons from the battlegroup on the right, other abilities on the left. VP count in CoH2 was also packaged into a decorated bar, now I got a lifeless mono-colored bar.
The fact that it barely changed from the first pre-alpha tells me that this is intended, but I hope they won't stick with this design.
Exactly. If I join and see 2 of my teammates less than level 20 and they start their build by spamming engies or mortars you bet your ass im dropping, especially if it's a map like port of hamburger or shitball express.
To be honest there are worse builds than flamers and indirect for Hamburg.
But even if it is not a player actively dropping, just having 8 players instead of 6 already increases the chance for someone to crash by one third.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
