I'd say that while CoH1 definetly allowed for more diverse strategies, the gameplay itself and the UI feel so much more fluid in CoH2. Its just much more enjoyable to look at and to manage things.
Id say that CoH1 was a giant cube filled with a shitload of strategical depth. CoH2 is more like a giant ball with (obviously) way smoother edges but a little bit less depth in it.
Saying it from a gameplay perspective, i find CoH2 to be more enjoyable.
Other than that, we dont need more nostalgic "coh1 is so much bettar :3" threads. As already said, kthxbai. |
It's not worth the immense cost currently. Get a teammate to go elefant doctrine to perform the same role.
Dude, its a mobile Pak43 with giant armor and health values. And you say its not worth it? It denies all armor |
Jagdtiger? If anything I think it needs a buff but only in the area of AI. For such an expensive vehicle (435 fuel adjusted) that could break one's game if they save up for it, it should have the AI of the Is-2.
X,D |
Yep. Thats why i also like Sov the most, even with the release of WFA. I consider them to be the most agressive faction and i like that kind of play. I just tend to overextend as soon as i lick blood. But its still great fun, and i feel more rewarded than any faction when winning a very long game. |
MOAR MEN! WE NEED MOAR MEN!!!!!!!!!!!!1
my impression upon seeing the no step back doctrine.
Who needs PTRS on Conscripts??
my impression upon seeing the tank hunter doctrine.
The tank hunter one is rather underwhelming and it appears that its specifically designed to hunt those lonely sad scout cars and not providing any actual solid AT. The no step back doctrine looks very interesting tho. I would play without a doctrine till i could get T3 vehicles out, then pop the doctrine and spam Manpowerblitz. That way i could both spam infantry and Tanks with the hopefully ridiculous resource income, and lolwtf - like beat my opponent. |
The game offers both 3v3 en 4v4. Its not a good argument to just say yeah right teamgames are fucked up so hey lets not talk about it or lets not play these modes.
But these modes cannot be properly balanced. When you look at 1v1's for example, you can balance things easily because its just two players with two faction.
The factors add up the bigger gamemode you play. 4v4's has so many factors and possibilites that its not possible to properly balance it. Its just how it is. Dont expect 3v3's or 4v4's to be as fair and competetive as lets say 1v1's or even 2v2's. |
A hefty pack up time is a terrible idea for the maxim. It's gunner is easily killed by long range german units (ever more so with OKW) and you will just end up with a dead maxim even when retreating at 6 men with full health. Not to mention trying to retreat after getting hit by a long range rifle nade. Other HMGs don't have this issue thanks to them being shoulder-carried.
A better solution would be a wider arc + increased set up time. This makes the unit less A-moveable without increasing the occurrence of the gunner killed loop.
This would make it more like a mirrored unit to the US mg... |
In a 3 v 3 the Axis can yield 3 Jagdtiger's without a strain. Add a narrow nap, or a map with few channels for flanking and a stand off occurring. Take Lazur Factory for example. Through attrition, additional Jagdtigers are called to the field as everything is at a stand still. OKW still has anti tank weapons that are effective in these circumstances. Timing plays a critical factor as well, the IS2 gets dispatched at 11CP and the Jagdtiger at 13CP. 2CP to turn the battle is a bit rushed, don't you think?
Exactly, in a 3v3 / 4v4 , dont play these modes while expecting them to be properly balanced. Balance is done for 1v1 / 2v2 and thats perfectly fine. 3v3 or 4v4 are just a mess. |
Worth coming back to? Jawohl! |
wow you have a high winning streak!!
Here comes an ignorant knows-it-all soviet fanboy.
So, your math class tells you that, winning 9 out of 10 games makes you an expert 90% win rate?
What about sampling size?
Are you fine with me calling you a german fanboi for no reason? No? |