|
I think i found a better way to handle mines detecting & sweeping:
For detecting:
The detection radius of any minesweeper unit should be equal to 150 % the activation radius (blast radius for boobies) of the mine being detected.
Mines or boobies still in detection range of a sweeper unit should never activated itself. (Mines bug still need to be fixed)
For sweeping :
The time to sweep a mine or booby trap should be equal to the time of placing them.
The longer it take to place a mine, the longer it should take to remove it.
Booby trap should not be able to be detonated while being swiped, but won't be removed til the full time is spent.)
Comments ?
Thanks. |
Oh, instant suppress and killing a few models you say? If it would be implemented I see HMG spam is viable strategy in 4v4 as maps are so small that you can plug all holes with HMG and slowly push opponent to their base.
What happen if you do the same (i mean you also garrison HMG) ? and then you build snipers or mortars to counter his HMG ? Who will be pushed ?
Thanks. |
Except T-70 is a vehicle, Obers are pure AI - Obers, obviously, should be countered.
HMG is infantry, Blob is AI - not so obvious matchup, depends on size of blob and its equipment.
If you would be able to deny large areas with lonely HMGs, it would made HMG spam a viable strategy for Ost, which is, obviously, not a healthy strategy.
1) HMG have less sight range than firing range, therefore it is designed to at least have another unit as spotter.
2) MG42 is a tool of crowd control. It disables squads. It is supposed to use with units, that will perform killing and soaking damage, making possible to win engagement with less resource investment than your enemy's.
I want to say that you shouldn't expect to counter 100% of enemy army with 10% of yours.
It is okay if you can't stop 3 rifles with pair of BARs and leutenant (1040 MP, 120 MU, 50 FU) with your lonely MG42 (240 MP) even in head-on attack.
I agree that MG-42 could use a little buff, but don't justify it with your wrong usage of it.
The post above is a good example of my units worth more mp so i should be able to crush you that without considering the tactical situation that the terrain can dictate.
I say that a HMG in yellow cover or more should be able to stop in it's tracks any blob of infantry coming at it within it's firing arc. HMG were made to do such thing. They still do it in real life.
If that don't happen, then something must be change to make it happen again. It's why others units exist specifically to counter them. (again : Mortars,snipers, arty, tanks, smoke..)
Intelligence, innovation and creativity must make a strong comeback in this game.
The mindless boring frontal assault (aka blob assault) must go.
Thanks. |
I think HMG should be more like Men of War HMG especially legendary german MG43 "Hitlers saw".
Besides supressions it should actually KILL infantry, as least with the first salvo killing couple of models instantly to make player to think twice before blobing into a hmg.
Exactly. The fear of HMGs or mines must be bring back asap.
Thanks for your comments. |
Umm, no, it really wasn't.
Can't recall 2nd as imbalanced and unfun to play RTS from competitive stand point like... ever.
Shiny UI and some kind of customization was all it had over coh1. Balance was out of the window, gameplay was not fun, it was horribly imbalanced, as imbalanced as all coh2 imbalances put together.
Your mine sweeping idea is really bad to say the least, have you ever tried to sweep axis mine field?
Its fine for single mines, but that minefield gets build in seconds and requires about a minute of sweeping.
Problems you try to address come from broken balance and lack of alternatives therefore stale meta. And making HMGs batshit OP is not a way to fix anything(anyone remembering MG42 of early days knows what I'm talking about, not a single person wants that or maxim spam of early days back).
People can't come up with anything new, because every attempt to break the meta ends up in severe loss streak due to completely broken balance of doctrines and playstyles not resolving about spamming heavy armor or "T4" medium armor.
Then i guess you didn't play it as much i did to the very end... We were numerous enough to like it that the servers cost where too high...
Sweeping time is important it add to the tension. But again minefield is a complex system and are not for all to luv. Only for those who did have interest with squad leader or panzer leader type of game. I mean tactically complex situation with tension. Not mindless rushing or outclicking opponents. Its rather outsmarting that we rather have...
Thanks for your comments. |
So popular it got canned due to not bringing in any money from the users, even with nearly zero development costs (a couple new menu screens, some new server code, and rearranged command trees). A high standard to try to achieve 
Allies would never win a game again if lone machineguns could stop 5 infantry units charging them.
Playing against mine spam is already boring for all parties involved, slowing down sweeping would make it twice as bad.
Maybe you like more Starcraft ? not a lot of sweeping needed... I'm sure you don't.
Let's be honest, COHO was more fun and popular the vcoh and COH2 together, yes they had a badly implemented revenue model that was way to early for it's time. But the gameplay was marvelous and fun !
I'm not preaching for a return to COHO, but for adjustments to Coh2 that would make the game more interesting and fun. So please cut the crap and help.
|
|
Now, all i see when i watch any format of game, at nearly all level of play is the use of massive infantry blobs. Blobbing is had become so rewarding that is now the «defecto» way to play the game for a lot of people...
You just have to add a mine sweeper engineer to your blob and it become impervious to mines and booby traps... With the truesight blobs can strike from the fog of war and kill any unit the meet before they have retreat. Scotts and zis and not bad, but not enough to change the gameplay habit. HMG must matter more, so scouting, flanking and combined arms tactic must return to the gameplay.
The MP value of blobs is not an argument for saying that it's normal for 5 vet double shreck inf too win versus anything because they worth more mp then their target. It's very lame.
Unit role(specialty) should matter more then number ( mp value) in certain situation.
Exemples :
The biggest at-guns should be able to (stop or kill) any (medium or smaller tanks) and slow/damage the biggest one. They were made to do that job cheaply.
HMG were made specifically to be able to hold ground versus a vastly superior number of infantry. So 240mp in green/yellow cover > 5+ x infantry's squads, no matter what.
Anything in the cone of fire of an HMG should be suppressed near instantly. It's why special units are made for. Get a sniper, get a mortar, get a tank if you can flank it e.t.c.
Mine sweeping is a slow process, so any mines sweeping unit should move at least 50% slower then normaly to be able to detect mine and remove mine. So blobs would have to move slower to avoid mines.
This game is not Starcraft, the more the game look like it, the less it's fan will like it (i really don't like Starcraft gameply).
COH2 is a game where you should have to use your brain power more then you have to now.
COH2 have the power to become as popular as COHO was. But you have to give the fans the mechanics and the gameplay complexity (more high then low) they like.
The gameplay is not rock vs paper vs scissors style anymore it more like big hammer vs nearly anything win. So lame.
Scouting and flanking gameplay must return because they are logic, fun and strategically rewarding.
While bug fixing is a step in the right direction, the gameplay need more ajustments to really shine to its greatest potential.
Thanks. |
|
In 3vs3 or 4vs4 the balance is close enough that a team of good players working together with voice chat (mumble)... will nearly always win vs a group of independent players no matter the faction.
But if both teams are on voice chat with equally good players then the Axis is be favored a bit.
Then, the only light balance changes that i suggest are:
- Reducing by 50% the range of all type of grenades when its thrower is suppressed.(for all factions)
-Increase MG42 suppression by 15% at all ranges.(HMG on tanks too.)
-Increase Maxim and US .50 HMG suppression by 5% at all ranges and increase their cone of fire 10%.
- Increase the range of bazooka by 10% and increase its penetration by 10% at the same mp cost.
-Vehicle should always get a critical movement debuff when hitting a dedicated AT-mine if it's not utterly destroyed. The severity of the critical should scale with the mine strength.
-When an infantry unit is moving, it should get a long range receive accuracy buff (def. bonus) and an equivalent long range firing accuracy debuff. (att. malus). (Firing at a moving target while moving is hard, just try it).
Balance, fun factor and realism were considered before the changes were proposed.
Thanks.
Comments ? |
|
** Reducing the throwing range of grenades by 50% when the thrower is suppressed. (All type of grenades from all factions) **
It seem a good compromise. It would reduce the frontal charge capacity of blobs vs HMG.
Thanks.
|
Hey guys. In this current patch, a lot of people feel as though Ost is underperforming in 1v1 and while there are varying theories on why that is and what to do about it, one of the things I see brought up often is that the MG-42 is not doing it's job well. I agree, and while I used to be of the mindset that a suppression buff was in order, I no longer think that.
Trying to look at this from both sides of the coin, a unit that can suppress in one burst at long range is not fun to play against and while buffing the suppression alone might make the MG-42 perform better in some regards, I don't think it would entirely solve the current issue of it having a hard time doing it's job.
I've been watching a lot of games lately using obs mode, and I've had time to more closely observe things that I may normally miss when playing due to micro demands. In specifically watching MG-42 usage in high level games, I've noticed that when the MG-42 isn't being shot at, it does just fine.
It takes a few bursts at max range to suppress, giving the player being shot a little time to react, but at far/mid and closer, squads are suppressed fairly quickly with an acceptable aoe radius. The real problem arises when the MG itself starts being shot back at from mid range or closer.
Time and time again I saw Con or rifle squads that had only managed a partial flank on an MG-42 open up with a volley from mid range and decrew the gunner, causing the MG to stop firing and obviously stop building it's suppression on the squads it was shooting at. Regardless of gren support and positioning, it is simply too easy to damage the MG-42 crew from mid range and force it to retreat or risk it's loss. This is because of the received accuracy penalty that all weapon teams share.
Many patches ago, all weapon teams got a 25% received accuracy penalty to reward flanking them. Since that time, a lot of things have changed and the dps in the game in general has gone up with the weapon profile changes and the addition of the WFA armies. The MG-42's suppression has also gone down and the days of the 10% suppression bulletin insta pin nonsense are long behind us. I'm fine with the current suppression levels on the MG-42, but as the unit is more of a direct combat unit than other support teams like AT guns and mortars (which can generally sit farther back from direct engagements), I think it's time that the received accuracy penalty for the 4 man MG crews be removed.
A small arms durability buff to the 4 man MG crews would go a long way in allowing them to remain on the field long enough to do their job without having to buff suppression and return us to a frustrating infantry experience for allied players. They would still be vulnerable to indirect fire, nades, proper flanks with close range weapons etc, but would be much less of a liability to build for the axis (and US) players.
TL;DR: Remove the received accuracy penalty from 4 man MG crews instead of buffing suppression.
I support that idea and would like to improved on it with an 15% increase suppression speed for the mg42, and both the soviet's HMG at all ranges. Blobbing is still too rewarded...
Thanks ! |
Canada
0
![VoltarDark [QC] flag](/images/replay/ostheer_flag.jpg)
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
