The guy wearing the cape looks black, and blacks fought in French units (assuming he is American).
He is a Harlem hellfighter from the 15th New York National Guard Regiment fighting within the USA Expeditionary Corps. Not French.
See, my question is: If he's french/american/whatever, why does he have a Mauser C96, an MP-28 and a German trench club (a German soldier had it in the trailer)? That seems like a German loadout, not an American, French or British loadout.
So.... German campaign? That would be different.
|
OKW blob spam is going to better than ever.
Now the main AI infantry has an upgrade to be even better against infantry, the shreks go on the squads that can already defend themselves well, it's all supported by fausts (can't escape the shreks!) and the raketten has more arc.
Calling it now: All this gets reverted, and we go back to volk spam. Only way to fix this is by having a separate squad in T1 that's 3man with 2 shreks.
Seriously though, this looks pretty good. Still waiting on Royal Engie reduced cost vet and Rifle double upgrade (or Vet 3) changes.
|
Thread: Bofors2 May 2016, 22:23 PM
I wouldn't say remove them completely. But the efficiency of the Axis emplacements should at least mirror that of the british. The Flak emplacment comes to mind or better yet let them be unmanned to allow a level of risk for the british player.
This would be an interesting test. Take the Ost Pak43 and OKW Flak and mirror their stats (and cost) to that of the brits (17lb and Bofors), and see what happens. That means give them brace and make them impossible to decrew.
Could be fun or it could be horrible. Not really sure.
Even so, barrage still needs to go. |
Thread: Bofors2 May 2016, 20:49 PM
Honestly, the best counter I know of right now is an MHT + a stug. Yea, you need to stall out for 4min+ after a rushed bofors, but it works quite well.
Working around it
Doesn't really work on small maps like Kharkov, where direct fire can cover half the map width, and barrage covers 2/3rds...
Panther, P4, Jagdpanzer, Tiger, Sturmtiger, King Tiger, Jagdtiger,
These are all T4 and later via doc. Not really sure how useful that is when Bofors can show up at ~8min.
Mortar Halftrack, Flame HT, Inc. nades+schrecks.
You need two MHTs for it to work by itself, since you need to keep constant fire on it. Also requires either a very rare doc, or one of the most useless docs in the game.
Flame HT is made of paper, but works. However you need to get to it and take it out during a single 'brace' period, hope there's no AT... it's very risky.
Nades and Shrecks require support to force it into breace. So you're looking at multiple squads with 120m upgrades, support weapons... not sure how it's fair to counter a single 280/30 building with 1000mp+ and 300muni+.
So considering Brits always build a mortar pit to accompany their Bofors, now whats the counter? As Ost? lol
Pretty much this. OKW has a pretty easy time countering this stuff, Ost, not so much.
|
Voted 16pop.
The main reason (IMO) for the massive pop difference is that the 17lb can't be decrewed (and can brace, on top of that). That's a massive advantage that I would take over anything the Pak43 has right now. However 20 pop is far too high, even for what it does.
I think 16 is about right, since any lower than that and you're almost competing with single squads in terms of pop usage, and I really don't want to see the game devolve into "do I want a squad or an incredibly resilient building". |
I advocated an idea like what he is suggesting a while ago. That idea, though, was that the British trenches would get a 150 MP upgrade (or so) for a single mortar team inside of it (which would fill the trench slot). Same range as the pit but still static, and easier to take down. It would reward good placement and make Trenches much more present.
Would really depend on how the trench works. I would consider that alright, provided the trench worked correctly - i.e. super susceptible to fire and explosives (directly in it). Also not sure if you're implying that the trench would increase the range to that of the mortar pit, or if the mortar should have the same range all the time. I'm not really in favor of the trench increasing range.
The point in general of this change would be to remove the 'campy' nature of the mortar pit, and replace it with a more mobile (but resistant) mortar.
Doesn't really fit with the faction otherwise doesn't it? If we're going to lose an emplacement, I'd prefer for the Mortar to stay defensively-themed.
The point, however, is to get rid of the theme; it's really not a good theme for CoH in general (camping, defensive play). In particular, the idea is to remove the "set and forget" theme of the mortar pit, which really doesn't fit well at all with the game (micro and mobility heavy game play).
I'm pretty sure ostheer mortar can go instead ostheer trenches...
Honestly, not sure; I haven't use Ost trenches in a long time. I seem to remember it only taking infantry and MGs, though.
|
I could agree to this, if the Mortar can set up in a British Trench.
No. Why? No other indirect-fire support weapons can garrison, why should the brit mortar?
|
Oh yeah, but I'm assuming the power was designed to be justified by the immobility, ergo, a mobile half-price half-power version would be overperforming.
Really? I'd figure at ~240-260mp (ok, so not half) a mortar that performed roughly equal to the Ost mortar would be alright. |
Let's remove even the slightest counter to blobs for brits.
Not seeing how that would happen. You'd still have a mortar.
Well, I guess it is fairly powerful with the two mortars firing at once and it definitely wouldn't be justified to have a single mobile mortar match that power?
Yes, but the mobile mortar would be about half the price... and also mobile, which means it wouldn't need brace since it could retreat. I actually like this idea a lot.
Because you need to micro
Yea I have a feeling that's what most complaints would be about. |
See, that's what I'm saying, I don't think the issue is the bonus conceptually, it's that the bonus'/RoyEs value is just absolutely ridiculous.
Compare to Rears where their 200 cost selves are pretty much completely screwed against Grenadiers at all ranges, which is fine because Rears are engineer units with other purposes than combat. So I believe it should be quite possible to make a cost reduction veterancy bonus balanced - but I will not disagree that RoyEs are gawddamn joke right now.
Possibly. I just don't want it to become some slippery slope of it being applied to units which are "too weak", and then suddenly making units insanely cost effective late game. IMO it's just too "risky" of a bonus. Too low and it's a wasted perk, too high and everything becomes amazing due to cost efficiency. Keeping it at a "sane" level would reduce vet 3 (or whatever vet level) from being an amazing "wow that squad hit vet 3" to an almost pointless "huh... vet 3". I'd rather mess around with received accuracy, RoF, etc. which seem to be much better suited for vet bonuses. |