From a campaign perspectrive?
We get to pick what our fictional commanders send on fictional missions for fictional generals in fictional operations. That's fine for the bar of historical platitudes, apparently.
We can choose to request planes that never landed at X airfield or did Y raid over Z location, and that's fine for desired standard of historical accuracy. We can ship more of a vehicle than existed, never mind served. We can mix and match gear and manpower and hardware and send it to places where literally nobody foguht for brutal slug fests with enormous axis or allied armies.
But a commander requests a vehicle that's sat in the mainland UK to be shipped to the front line, and suddenly that's where the line in the sand emerges... that's the step too far. Now it's a problem?
You're already accepting that none of the battles you do in the campaign are true to reality, using hardware and material and locations that's ahisoirical but available to the army in question.
The BP... is ahistorical, but available to the army in question.
I think the point people are trying to make is that there's a difference between historical realism in terms of aesthetics and in terms gameplay, and that you can have the former without the later.
CoH isn't a "realistic" game in terms of gameplay; it's based on reality, sure - but it's in no way a simulation. Units are "stylized" to fit the mechanics (ranges are reduced, HP and armor is increased, etc.), but they do remain true to their source material; the Tiger has a lot of HP/Armor, a big cannon, and is slow and expensive. The T-34 is pretty cheap, but not that great, etc. When you look at those units, though, you can say "yea, that's pretty much a [Tiger/T-34/etc.]", and more importantly, the interaction between
the units makes sense. The JT doesn't tend to bounce off mediums, air-attacks do a ton
of damage to slow/immobilized heavies, and so on.
When you look at CoH1 and CoH2, every single unit and ability is at least plausible. Railway artillery existed and was used - probably not on the battlefield - but if the situation arose there's no reason it couldn't have. The same can be said of the "tactical V1"; it doesn't make a lot of sense historically, but V1s were real, and could be aimed to some degree. There's nothing (at least that I can think of) that immediately jumps out as 'impossible' in either games; there's no Maus or E100, Panther 2, T28/T95 (US), IS3, Tortoise, or any other "slightly too late" late-war or 'never produced paper prototype' in the game.
The BP however, is exactly that; there's simply no reality in which it could've appeared in Italy. The design started
in 1943 and the first 6 prototypes
were delivered in May 1945 - after the war ended. No commander, no matter how persuasive or powerful, could have summoned these vehicles to Italy, and no incredible chain of events or coincidences could resulted in them appearing, because they simply didn't exist - there was nothing to send.
It opens up the door to other units of this type, which some people (myself included) just don't want.
What's stranger is that most of this could be avoided by simply switching the model to CoH2's "Comet". While it didn't historically serve in Italy, it did first see action in December 1944 in Belgium, during which the Italian campaign was still ongoing. The "ahistorical, but available to the army" idea would actually work with it.
I kind of have to agree with this sentiment; the "black prince" tank really doesn't fit in the game, and opens up a lot of really strange things to be added.
Wikipedia claims that there were 6 prototypes built, with the earliest completed in May 1945; definitely after the Italian campaign, and also just after the end of the war. The problem is, historically, the project was cancelled because of the success of the Centurion tank, which again according to wiki:
Six prototypes arrived in Belgium less than a month after the war in Europe ended in May 1945
That's quite a coincidence; the same number of prototypes built, completion within the same month, and even being shipped to Belgium (which is further than the BP got). So does that mean the Centurion is a valid tank to add? I wouldn't say so - it was far
better than any other WW2-era tank (that served, anyway), and continued to serve until 1972, at which point every vehicle in the game was severely outdated.
Then there's other tanks as well, that existed to some degree or another:
- Maus (2 prototypes in 1944)
- possibly the E-100 (incomplete chassis in 1944)
- the Panther F (several turrets made in 1944, none tanks actually completed)
- IS-3 (reportedly saw combat, was present in the Sept '45 victory parade)
- possibly the T28/T95 heavy TD (aug '45 might be too late)
- possibly the Tortoise A39 (post-war, '45)
My preference would be to stick with vehicles that existed and saw combat, even if they were incredibly rare.
Well, this is certainly exciting. Time for some speculation based on very little:
1. It's CoH3. IGN said it's a "highly anticipated new game", and it's far too late to be releasing DLC for CoH2 (UKF was nearly 6 years ago).
2. "July 13th". On that day in 1943, the German Kursk Offensive was ended (which would make an interesting transition from CoH2). In 1944 the allied raid on Symi began (from Wiki), but that was in eastern Greece, which isn't visible on the map. It's also right in the middle of the Allied invasion of Sicily (July 9th - 17th, 1943), which was right at the start of the Italian Campaign.
3. The video footage we've seen so far (or at least, that I've seen) has mentioned North Africa, Montgomery (UK) , Rommel (Ger), Italian, US and Canadian forces. It has also mentioned Dakar (Senegal), which while it was involved in WW2, isn't on the map we're looking at. As a result, I don't think the footage is covering events that will be in the game, but is instead a 'prelude' to the invasion of Italy, which will end up being the focus of the game.
4. The focus of the map (in the video) seem to be on southern Italy. The location of the timer is actually interesting, as it's covering both Tunisia and Algeria, which were both large theaters in the Africa Campaign. To me that indicates we won't actually be playing there. Additionally, the edges of northern Italy are far too close to the top of the screen, which also takes focus away from it. Based on Wiki's Atlas of the world battle fronts
map (scroll down slightly), only the areas up until July or September 1944 are really part of the focal point, so I'm guessing the game "ends" in July-Sept 1944. This would match the Allies advance towards the "Gothic Line", and their halt in August 1944 when 'Operation Olive' (late Aug 1944) didn't succeed.
TL;DR - CoH3, Italian Campaign, July 1943 to Sept 1944.
I gave this one some time as artillery can take a fair number of games to figure out; however, after a few games I can say for certain the current B4 is far too strong. It's not so much the damage or suppression (which is annoying), it's that the cooldown on barrages is so short. A pair of them in a team game can essentially be firing constantly.
Here are the numbers; a barrage lasts 24 seconds followed by an 80 second cooldown. Since we have two B4s, that means 80s cooldown minus the 24s barrage time leaves us with 56s of waiting. However, since we want to stagger the barrages, we only need to wait for half of that: 28 seconds. That means if you have two B4s, you can have a shell hitting at most 28 seconds apart constantly. For the amount of damage it's doing, that's way too frequent.
With the current stats, I would increase the cooldown to around 110-120s.
It's a pretty boring meta, but I really don't see an easy fix that doesn't also seriously impact the game. The price probably can't change, as it will make getting the first ATG harder/slower, which can ruin certain factions (OST), and adding a fuel cost is also a huge problem as it would impact tech timings quite heavily as it's effectively a mandatory unit for most factions.
Mobility is also pretty key, as making them slower makes them even easier to flank than they are now, and is a pretty big nerf to "single ATG builds" and would only encourage getting two. Even changing the reinforce time or cost wouldn't change much, as most of the time you just end up recrewing them with your cheapest infantry since they're behind your infantry line (you do lose vet).
The only change I've seen so far that's viable would be a pop increase to 9 or 10 as that wouldn't change the early or mid-game phase very much, but would impact the later stages. However, by that point arty is pretty common, so double ATGs aren't really a threat.
This is a pretty strange issue; it's a boring meta that isn't really "overpowered" - it's just dull playing against it over and over again. How do you approach "fixing" that, and does it even need to be fixed?
So let's say, I started a random game, someone rang the doorbell, so I quit the game dealing with real life things first, you want me getting ban on this?
I don't think (or at least hope) that anyone is advocating for "drop = perma ban"; however, most modern games do have a "cooldown" period for leaving that increases the more games you leave.
For example, this is CSGO's system:
First cooldown (level 1) - lasts 30 minutes
Second cooldown (level 2) - lasts 2 hours
Third cooldown (level 3) - lasts 24 hours
Fourth cooldown (level 4) - lasts 1 week
A week of clean play will reduce an account's cooldown level by one.
In your example (if you were playing CSGO) you'd receive a 30 minute ban from competitive play. However, if you DC'd again within a 1 week period, you'd receive a 2 hour ban the 2nd time and so on. A week of not DC'ing (or just not playing) would then lower your "ban level" by 1.
Personally, I think the above system would work with CoH2 if it were approximately 1/4th as severe. So the first ban is around 10 minutes, the next 30 minutes, the 3rd 6hrs, and the 4th being 2 days, with it decreasing by 1 level for 2 days of "clean" play.
has anyone else noticed this in team games ? Are longer strategies dead ? Are combined arms strategies now the province of elite players, ie: those that can make them work properly ?
Yes, I made a thread about it a few months ago; Link
. My suggestions weren't too popular, judging by the polls at least, but the discussion was good. The one thing that did (barely) win out was making upgrades more "exclusive", so you couldn't stack so many abilities/weapons on a single squad.
Over-all, I find it pretty disappointing. CoH2's gameplay is really good when it's focusing on the tactical use of units; cover, flanking, grenades, smoke, that sort of thing. Blobbing isn't that, but it's incredibly effective. Yes, there are ways of punishing it, but my preference would be that it's just not viable in the first place.
blobbed infantry should be taking more damage and more suppression, but I don't think shoving some sort of "negative zeal aura" thing (from CoH1) that increases damage and suppression taken when near other units is going to happen.
Wow. For a moment I thought current UKF is having 65%+ WR so we were discussing how to nerf IS.
This is the exact reason UKF is not getting proper buffs for more than a year.
Any slight chance of suggesting buffs on UKF; comes back with "Oh no that will ruin the balance!"
As if it the balance is so good right now.
I say it again, UKF is not "playable" at the moment. Just go coh2stats.com and see it's WR & pick rate.
I never said UKF is OP - I said that UKF needs a complete, extensive, overhaul to become a reasonable faction, and for it to be a faction that can
be balanced. My very first post in this thread was "UKF is missing many core functions (snares on mainlines, mobile indirect fire, etc.) which results in them swinging from "OP" to "UP" as single units are buffed or nerfed.
" and I still stand by that.
That's why IS can't be buffed; they're already over-stretched (i.e. way too many roles), and arguably the most powerful mainline infantry unit in the game. Except for AT-snares, is there a single thing they can't do? Their long range AI power is best-in-class, they have access to AT (although it's not an optimal choice), they have the best grenade, a secondary grenade, AoE healing, "off-map" smoke and artillery, sandbags, caches, and can be given emplacements and trenches via a doc. Giving them an AT grenade on top of all of that removes every single combat weakness an infantry squad can have.
UKF does need buffs, but to get them, the faction needs to be redesigned. IS need to be infantry
, not "do-everything" squads with a bizarre cover mechanic. UKF needs a normal mortar and non-doc rocket arty (as does USF). They need a non-gimmicky MG. But all of these changes can't happen without other units changing as well. That's why - again - they need a massive overhaul; and until then, they can never be good. The only choice is to toggle between "awful" and "OP", and if given the choice between a "game-breaking OP UKF" and "bad UKF but Sov/USF/Ost/OKW are good", I'll pick the later every time.
Why is everyone talking always about LARGE reworks that take years to complete? What's to say that the "new" brits would not be poorly made? Most people want reworks just for the sake of reworking. Brits can easily be fixed by adjusting a couple of things like the 5man upgrade, giving them proper blob controls, making units unique that does not require some gimmicky ability (like the vickers getting an ability instead of vet range) and things like that.
Because UKF is an incredibly broken faction with a few really strong units covering the holes in its roster.
Let's start with the "5 man upgrade" (i.e. bolster). How do we adjust it, and what's the goal of the change? Some people think that it makes IS blobs too powerful, since it gives them a 400hp pool on top of being 5 models with zero downsides, so what downsides to do we give it? Does it take a weapon slot similar to OST's VSL? Doing that means it needs to become a 'per-squad' upgrade since it can't be applied to squads holding 2 weapons. If it does become a per-squad upgrade, what is the cost? We could make it 60 muni as it's effectively a "weapon slot" upgrade, but that'll impact the early-mid game muni eco, since it's currently not designed around dumping 180-240muni into non-DPS upgrades or abilities; so that sort of change would mean much less use of grenades and artillery, which UKF needs since they have no mobile indirect fire (i.e. mortars). Is it just free? Does it cost MP instead? What about accessing the upgrade cost itself? If the upgrade costs 60muni + 28mp (VSL), is the cost to unlock it (150mp/35f) still justified? If it's not, does removing the MP cost alone make it valid? If that's not enough, we start impacting the timing of other techs, as over-all fuel investments have changed.
Additionally, if it does cost, how does it work with future squads? Right now squads built after the upgrade arrive at 5-man strength; bolster doesn't just give another model, it's actually making the squad cheaper per model
when it arrives after the upgrade has been unlocked. If we need to buy the extra model after getting the upgrade, it means new squads after about 10 minutes will cost an additional 28mp (plus the bolster upgrade cost), putting the squad at 298mp. It's not a huge change, but that does impact balance.
Additionally, let's say it does take a weapon slot; consider the amount of "utility" that has been piled onto IS' over the years. This is the current list of upgrades:
- 2x Brens
- 2x Piats
- Gammon Bomb Grenade
- Mills Bomb Grenade
- Pyrotechnics Supplies Upgrade (artillery call-in) – Blocks Medic upgrade
- Medical Supplies Upgrade (healing) – Blocks Pyro upgrade
- Bolster (+1 model)
- Build Sandbags
- Build Fuel/Muni Caches
- Additional abilities from doctrines
Having double upgrades on 4 models means a much higher chance to drop upgrades, and it also means much less 'effective HP' per squad; which can be quite a problem late-game.
This is just what I can think of - I'm sure actual pro players could think of even more issues. As a result, I think it would be much simpler to just redesign the squad around having 4 models at all time, just like every other mainline infantry squad (until the 'recent' 7man cons), and less upgrades and abilities (moving them to other units). Having less variables will make it much easier to balance them.
As for the rest; what kind of blob controls do UKF need? They already have the vickers (which is decent), the centaur, the Cromwell (surprisingly decent), IS' "best in class" DPS when fully upgraded, the mortar pit and bofors (not mobile, but effective on some maps), artillery on their infantry
, and of course everything in docs.
How do we make units "unique"? I agree that the vicker's range-vet-ability isn't great, but what do we replace it with? Every MG is currently on a scale going from high damage and low suppression (Vickers) to low damage and high suppression (MG42). That's about it in terms of "unique" abilities for MGs (AP rounds aren't unique), so I'm not sure what else could be added or changed.
Everyone always talking about some huge reworks in a game with more variables than an average american can count. Does anyone really think they can balance it out? Create some perfect balance paradise by completely reworking everything? It's not really hard and the only reason it's not being done is because Sander and his lackeys won't be bothered. Relic is probably also limiting them but if they are doing it for free (I assume that they are not getting payed), why would anyone invest a braincell to do a good job. Especially when those you have are quite precious.
So, no. A rework is not needed, just a little bit of brainstorming and a decisive balance team.
If you think it's easy, and the balance team just lacks the will, pitch an idea; how do
we fix UKF (specifically, as in with stats, costs, etc.)? And you are correct, they are limited (at least, to my understanding); some changes have been blocked because they change the "design flavor" too much, despite them being good ideas (at least on paper).
1. Give tommies anti-tank grenade (It's not like they are uncountably good at inf. fight now)
IS' currently have so many abilities they're running out of UI space to put the buttons. If we start removing some existing abilities, sure, but as-is, they can do far, far too much for a single squad to be giving them even more abilities (see list above).
While the stats are interesting for USF/SOV, I think people need to accept that balancing UKF isn't possible at this point:
Honestly, with the balance restrictions the patch team has been given, UKF isn't fixable. The core faction design is missing too much, especially when compared to the current state of the other factions (lots of utility, build options, indirect fire, etc.).
UKF is missing many core functions (snares on mainlines, mobile indirect fire, etc.) which results in them swinging from "OP" to "UP" as single units are buffed or nerfed. Meanwhile, the few reliable mainline units they do have are each burdened with so many different tasks and abilities that they simply can't be good in any of them.
Given the opportunity, and provided they're willing, the balance team could fix UKF - but it would require a redesign larger than any before. Basically every unit needs a pretty big overhaul, some units need to be completely removed, and others need to be added. It would require a ton of work, probably take half a year (or more), and chances are a lot of players wouldn't like it as UKF would basically be a new faction; but that's basically the only way I can see UKF being 'fixed'.
Until then, UKF isn't really going to be viable in terms of game design.
imo allies are very strong in late game 4v4.
it's the early game where the extra micro needed for allies factions that is tripping non-top 200 players.
in my rando 4v4 top 400 matchup, you will hard press to say German are easier
This. At "top levels" in team games, on the whole, allies have it easier once they're in late-game.
The important part to note is that this is specifically at top levels
- i.e. top 200 (or maybe lower), using meta commanders, and with good teamwork. Outside of that, yes, axis has an easier time with it's more rounded our roster of units, generally stronger "jack of all trades" docs, and a few obnoxious units/abilities (super heavy TDs, stuka, etc.).
However, if you have the ability to utilize their abilities, units, and good teamwork, allies get handed an absurd
amount of power mid-late game.