Profile of Hux

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 505

General Information


Thread: KAABOM!!!! - Good Places To Put A Mine.14 Sep 2013, 19:36 PM I personally like to put my mines on the ground. In: Red Army Strategies
Thread: Siezing an enemy weapon as Axis is too hard14 Sep 2013, 17:55 PM Jump back to quoted post14 Sep 2013, 16:53 PMTivook Don't mistake symmetry for balance. If one faction often needs to lose 240 mp to capture an enemy weapon while the other faction often can do the same for a mere 60 ish mp and still keep the original squad then there's a huge balance issue because this action is something that both sides can do no matter if they are crewing a German mg or a Soviet mg. Please do explain why it HAS to be a disadvantage to crew a lost weapon on the field. I didn't say it had to BE a disadvantage I argued that disadvantages should be part of the decision whether to crew or not. by crewing the weapon I gain it on the field instantly. If I use a full squad to crew I also retain my original unit (it has to be reinforced, but if I have a HT nearby this is not a huge problem) therefore I now have two units; let's say a Gren squad as well as an MG - without having to build the MG and then wait until it gets into position. To counter this advantage I propose that there must be at least some tactical disadvantage that comes with making the decision to crew weapons on the field which, in this case, is the need to retreat your original unit back to base if needs be + the cost to reinforce. As an Ostheer player I would only ever crew with Pios (cost: 200 Mp, dunno the cost to reinforce per man) and as soviets you mainly recrew with combat engis or Conscript (240 Mp each, again cost per man to reinforce?) so I'm not sure if the gulf between the two factions is as big a problem as is implied. If you can illustrate using figures a scenario that proves otherwise then I'm all ears. Jump back to quoted post14 Sep 2013, 16:53 PMTivook You mad bro? ^ I'm all for having a constructive discussion but please. let's not have any more of this type of unnecessary bullshit. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Siezing an enemy weapon as Axis is too hard14 Sep 2013, 15:59 PM Jump back to quoted post14 Sep 2013, 11:36 AMTivook So to capture an enemy weapon an Axis player needs to get tier 2, build a certain building and then build a certain vehicle in order to safely capture an enemy weapon when the enemy can build a 6 man squad from their main building and steal it right away? Not to mention that it requires 80 fuel to do so. I'm fine with the "3 men is converted" if you capture a weapon with the soviets but it should only be 2 with the Axis because of the smaller squads. Not. I'm not saying an Axis player needs to do anything. Hell, you could flank an MG with your first squad of pios before you've even gone into T2 and crew that. Or not. But what I am saying is that an Axis player needs to consider the implications of crewing a weapon if they so choose. There has to be some disadvantage to crewing a weapon for the Ostheer - which in this case is that it effectively removes the original squad from the field until it is reinforced unless you have a HT. Personally I think the number of units it costs Ostheer units is fine. It adds an element of asymmetry to the factions that I like. When playing as the Soviets it's so much fun to just steal everyone's shit and use it against them. I don't believe symmetry in this case is necessary for balance. Crewing weapons means you are willing (or sometimes forced) to transform a mobile force into a stationary one, and this comes with it's own set of advantages and disadvantages. What you have to remember is that you are crewing enemy weapons (which unless you had some shit hot planning) did not factor into your original strat and if you want to annex these into your force then you must be willing to make the sacrifice in order to do so. And the price is 3 infantry units! In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Vehicles losing target14 Sep 2013, 13:18 PM I agree with OP. Couple of times I've had panthers actively target infantry instead of the Soviet tanks bearing down on them, and when I've subsequently tried to chase the heavily damaged tanks to finish them off as soon as the move order is issued the turret begins to traverse in order to continue engaging the infantry. That should be sorted out. Tanks should continue to engage a target that the player selects - regardless of whether a move order is made afterwards or not. This should continue until the player issues the vehicle to engage a different target or the target moves out of the tanks LOS Kiting/ baiting is a legitimate tactic but when the AI arbitrarily overrides your commands and compromises your micro, well that is something completely different. In: COH2 Bugs
Thread: Siezing an enemy weapon as Axis is too hard14 Sep 2013, 11:31 AM Build Halftrack, 1 squad of Pios. Problem solved. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Rome 2 total war12 Sep 2013, 07:32 AM I Agree. I do have to disagree on one point though, simply that Medieval was my favourite of the bunch (which is merely personal preference) However, I have played Rome II myself and found it to be mediocre at the moment. That isn't to say they can't improve on it over time -which I am more than confident they will - and hopefully it will realise it's potential. The big problem for me is that there had been so much material focused on how brilliant X new feature was or how they'd completely revamped Y for months on end. And when the finished product finally arrived it failed to deliver on a lot of what it promised. It's not like they're trying out a completely new formula either. Granted, there may actually be some new features implemented but for the most part the core design has not changed significantly enough to merit such a poor quality release. For me, marketing has permeated too deep into big gaming franchises (and studios now) and hey, why not?, it is a business right? The problem for me though is that more and more effort is going into selling you the game before they've even made it and as soon as you've parted with your money - its a pleasure doing business with you and then they move onto the next person. Then when a game is released sans-new features or lacking certain aspects it's buyer beware! or at best we get an apology. I think we need to take a step back, push DLC's to the bottom of the to-do list, and start letting finished products do the talking. In: Other Games
Thread: @ Relic why was Tiger nerfed ????10 Sep 2013, 21:19 PM Jump back to quoted post10 Sep 2013, 21:02 PMCptEend An IS-2 isn't meant to counter a Tiger though (or at least that's how I understood it). An IS-2 is far better at killing infantry, and a little worse at killing tanks. Seems fair to me, I might actually build the IS-2 sometime now. Agreed. The IS2 is always used as a soviet approximation for an equivalent of a tiger. But it's role is infantry support and should be used as a breakthrough tanks at the centre of an attack. As it stands now (Thank you for the info UGBEAR) I think the two units are pretty close to where they should be.. at least in relation to each other. I look forward to using both of them In: COH2 Balance
Thread: @ Relic why was Tiger nerfed ????10 Sep 2013, 18:48 PM ^ I agree. And that 50 reduction cost of fuel means it hits the field a bit earlier, meaning it's value as a shock unit also increases. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Semoskiy Tomorrow! - Best Winter Map ?9 Sep 2013, 21:30 PM Summer version is by far the most enjoyable map yet. Hoping the winter version is just as good (Ice should open up some room to manoeuvre) In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: STUG III, worth it? Situational?9 Sep 2013, 11:16 AM ^ In: Ostheer Strategies