|
Rangers are pretty awful in 1v1 but can be nice in team games. I find the hardest thing about Rangers is their timing. As USF you will already have 3x RIfles, an officer and a rear echelon. So getting a 6th Squad, the Rangers, ends up being enormous manpower bleed. So I usually only get Rangers if I lose a squad and need to replace it (or in team games where you can get an early mortar and not just lose all map control). With other factions you can more build HMG's earlier on, so getting elite infantry later on is stronger and easier. |
|
Comparisons to Combat Engineers seem pretty unfair. Combat Engineers get Flamers and can be merged which is so much better, not to mention are cheaper. Echelon can get BARs but are a waste of munitions compared to putting double bars on Riflemen & officers. Likewise, Pioneers can get Flamethrowers. Echelon also have the worst mines. Echelon have some benefits like fighting positions and volley fire but it's definitely worse compared to other engineer units. I would like to see them have more carbine damage, at least early on, but with worse weapon scaling somehow.
|
|
Yeah Rear Echelon carbine DPS is pretty bad. There's a lot of RNG with it though, unlike Pioneers which are quite consistent. |
|
I remember it being possible on Coh2's launch, but then later due to anti-cheat changes, it was no longer possible. |
|
I'm glad AOE4 sold a lot and that it's well-received but that doesn't necessarily mean it was successful. It's pretty clear the budget was enormous, even the marketing budget alone was clearly huge. So it's hard to say if it was a financial success or not because game budgets aren't public. |
I'd rather see auto-reinforce available wherever one can reinforce, and then merge becomes the combat version of reinforce. Maybe it should take twice as long to reinforce outside HQ.
I think slower reinforcing speed from forward reinforce means such as halftracks or forward HQ's is a very nice solution that is intuitive, elegant and effective at minimising cheese. |
|
This is really good feedback. I agree with basically all of it except for the grenade scatter. Thanks for writing up all this insightful feedback.
I like how grenades scatter, it means they are less ultra-precise mini squadwipe nukes to punish squads that are clumped. The Coh2 implementation of grenades encourages blobbing and punishes multitasking because if you look away for 2 seconds your squad might get instagibbed. Especially regarding Rifle grenades. Grenades in CoH3 seem to be much harder to get squad wipes with, with I appreciate. |
I agree with pornoke, choice is better than restriction. If you think it is too zoomed out, you can literally zoom in, you have the option to do so. If the max zoom is too close, then you have restricted the player to zoom out any further. The zoom level is fine, if anything further options should be given to players in the settings menu where they can decide to have their "default" zoom and angle, this way everyone gets happy.
I don't think the choice argument works. Players are incentivized to zoom out because it gives them a gameplay advantage since they can see more and control more simultaneously. People aren't going to sacrifice their playability for improved visuals. But if the zoom is lower for everyone, then everyone can appreciate the better scale it can deliver, without anyone being punished for it. |
|
I'm not sure if it's the Zoom level that's the main problem, or if it's just the size of tanks being small. The power fantasy of controlling tanks is ruined when they look tiny compared to the massive buildings and environments. I think they need to scale up vehicles by 15% or so.
But I also would like to see the zoom level reduced a bit as it will help. There's other oddities that look really bad, like how low to the ground planes look since you can zoom out above them. CoH2 planes have the illusion of being high up because the camera zoom level is stuck below them. |
|
The IS-2 definitely seems weak compared to other Heavy Tanks and completely inferior to T-34/85's or the ISU. I think the main thing letting it down is its anti-infantry just doesn't cut out unless you get good RNG. Even a single T-34/85 seems to be better against infantry. I don't know why there's such a disparity between anti-infantry firepower for heavy tanks. At least the Pershing has good damage now, the Is-2 feels like the pre-buff Pershing but slower in exchange for more health/armor. It's not unusable, but I don't see any use case for the IS-2 over other stronger options. |
0
GGTheMachine
Khan
GGTheMachine
Quicksilver
~TAB~ Cacheman
Relic Entertainment
