Profile of Doomlord52

The M8 Scott used to be decent but was nerfed because Dual M8 Scott was too effective yet if you get Dual of anything it will be more effective. How come Katyusha/Panzerwerfer/Stuka weren't nerfed because getting two of those is far more effective than getting one.

Why aren't Panthers/Jacksons/Fireflys nerfed because getting two of them is more effective than just having one.

The issue with the double-scott was that it effectively deleted OST's entire stock roster with very little user input, something that 2x Tanks or 2x Rocket arty couldn't do. OST is entirely designed around static units; the MG42, LMG grens, Pak40s (ost's only 60-range AT) and so on, in addition to being designed around small squads (4 models). That faction design against two fast moving, fast auto-firing artillery units that could usually wipe 1-2 models per hit just wasn't a great experience.

That's not to say that current scott is 'good'; it could probably use some adjustments, especially to the manual barrage. However, returning it to its pre-nerf levels just isn't going to work.

That list is grasping.

From what I can tell, the list is factually accurate. It may not be optimal in terms of gameplay, but it does contain all of the non-doc upgrades and abilities available to a single IS squad, as well as one entry for "doc abilities" - at least all that I'm aware of. If this list is factually incorrect, I'd be happy to update it.

Nobody in their right mind would equip them with PIATs.

While true, it is still an option. If IS' were incapable of equipping it, I wouldn't have listed it. However, the intent was to list every ability, utility and upgrade.

Any infantry can benefit from commander buffs, for all factions, there is nothing (anymore) that specifically or permanently buffs IS.

The UKF ability "Defensive Operations" (Adv. Emplacement) grants abilities only to IS and Assault IS (and interestingly not RE's, even though the tooltip says it does), and "Advanced Cover Bonus" (Mobile Assault) buffs only IS - not even Assault IS.

Yes they can build caches, but nobody wants to sacrifice the valuable time of their mainline infantry for that.

Again, much like the Piats, while not optimal it is an option available to them.

They're also lacking one of the most important abilities of a mainline infantry, which is a snare.

I agree, but I don't think missing a snare makes up for their incredible utility in every other area. I would much prefer that their utility was brought inline with other units in exchange for a standard snare.

I'm not a fan of buffing the side tech costs either, but to state that IS have a "comically" long list of utility is simply false. Compared to other mainlines such as Volks, and with the fact in mind that they are more integral to the faction than most other mainlines, it is not that special.

Compared to Volks, I would consider their list of abilities comical.
Volks:

• StG44 Package (takes all weapon slots)
  
• Build sandbags
  
• Flame grenade
  
• Faust (snare)
  
• Salvage
  
• Additional abilities from doctrines
  

That's 6 'abilities', compare to IS' 11, and doesn't mention that some of the IS' abilities are arguably better. While yes, IS' are core to the faction, I would argue they are no more core than USF's Rifles, which have far less utility. Furthermore, many of the IS' abilities could easily be moved to other units, or could be removed due to redundancy.

Construction could be completely removed with no consequence (short of sandbags), the mills bomb could be made a squad upgrade that replaces the gammon creating a trade-off between the two, the pyro upgrade could be moved to REs and/or snipers (snipers already have coordinated fire), medical supplies could take a weapon slot (trade-off with weapon upgrades), and as I mention later, the stealth detection pyro buff could also be move elsewhere. Doing all of that cuts IS' abilities in half, without a drastic loss in IS' power, while also encouraging build diversity rather than 5x IS every match. Additionally, it would free up space to add a snare - something UKF could use.

The UC already has stealth detection, but against 18 range faust Grens it is simply not viable to use it in that role against snipers or camo Grens.

Compared to OKW's main detection unit, the Kubel, the UC is quite good (more HP, more armor). However, if the UC isn't viable in all situations, perhaps move the detection to the AEC (similar to the Luchs and 222), or possibly another infantry unit (REs?).

As-is, this massively nerfs Axis camo units such as Storms or Falls, while also allowing IS' to effectively "face check" for camo'd units, due to their high DPS.

Additionally, Axis is currently having massive issues with detecting cloaked Commandos, yet I don't think Ost T4 granting Grens/Pgrens +15 detection would be the right answer.

Construction of caches has already been added to REs.

Yes, and it's still available to IS.

And as much as we'd like to we can not overhaul Bolster, as Relic will not allow any such major changes anymore.

It doesn't need an overhaul, just a trade-off. Perhaps unlocking bolster gives a 'free' (0 resource) upgrade to IS, but it takes one weapon slot when equipped similar to OST's VSL. As-is, there is no reason to not take it every single game, preferably as soon as possible - which will be easier, now that it's less expensive.

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.

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.

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?