Profile of MadeMan

Avatar Area

Offline unknown
Posts: 304

General Information
Steam: 76561197969082743


Thread: The current state of assault guns1 Apr 2014, 19:34 PM I actually kind of like the SU-76. They are so dirt cheap you can build loads of them and once you've got 3 or more you can actually take on armor pretty well (in conjunction with AT grenades/mines/guards etc) and their barrage makes it easy to lock down parts of the map or put the hurt on infantry as well. You can alternate fire to keep a constant bombardment or have them simultaneously cover a larger area. But yeah, they have armor you can wrap sandwiches in, so you need to babysit them pretty well. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Standalone America + Germany DLC28 Mar 2014, 18:21 PM Jump back to quoted post28 Mar 2014, 17:23 PMAerohank I define a competitive game as a game where the winner is decided by skill, and one that has plenty of room to express the skills of the player. This game has many features that simply don't allow me to consider this a competitive game. Let me explain them. I'll use Starcraft as a 'golden standard'. - Terrible map balance. Compare the maps of SC2 with the maps in COH2, what's the first thing you notice? The maps are not symmetrical! In this game you can start with a disadvantage simply by the role of a dice. - RNG. Need I really explain this one? In starcraft, players can predict outcomes and base their actions on this knowledge. In this game a player can't. For example, a tiger beats an IS-2 on paper. But a player can't rely on a tiger to beat an IS-2. I can perform the same action 10 times in a row in starcraft and I will get the same result 10 times. In this game I get 10 different results, based on dice rolls. - Overly simplistic gameplay. This game has barely any ways to express ones skill. The micro is simplistic and macro skills are not required at all. - As you said before, there are no mirror matches. There were none in vCOH and there are none in this game. I'm pretty sure some developer also once stated in an interview that they saw COH2 more as a 'cinematical' RTS rather than a competitive RTS. Hence the RNG, map balance, no mirror matches etc. Edit: I forgot to go into the balance patches. Here is my opinion of them: Patching the game and making the game more balanced and enjoyable for the players does not automatically mean that the game is intended to be highly competitive. It just means they want to make the game more balanced and enjoyable. Thanks for the detailed reply I have to agree with you that CoH is lacking in competitive merit on a lot of fronts, and something I have to remind myself often when playing to not take things too seriously when a lucky mortar squad-wipes me. While I will say some of those I felt were not by design (map balance for example), something like RNG seems to lend weight to the idea that this game's main goal isn't 'balance' above everything. It is interesting though that so many people do play it as such (I think it is balanced enough and competitive enough to allow the better player to win in most cases without coin flips being a factor to ruin that), evidenced by MNF and Propagandacast etc. It's players like that, who put the game into a tournament setting that make me feel like there's a strange contradiction between wanting the game to be as competitive and balanced as possible but still historically accurate. I think I'm going to just continue being a scrub online and try not to get too butthurt when I lose repeatedly. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Standalone America + Germany DLC28 Mar 2014, 16:31 PM Jump back to quoted post28 Mar 2014, 16:13 PMAerohank This is not a competitive RTS by any stretch of the imagination. Genuine question, how do you define 'competitive'? I figured it was considered competitive, or at least played as such because it does feature tournaments, has multiplayer that focuses on player vs player etc. Maybe I'm just using the wrong words. Also, and this is genuine not being a dick (I hope I'm not coming off as abrasive, because it's not my intention) but how do you consider things like balance patches? Would you rather have the two factions slightly unbalanced if it meant historical accuracy? I haven't been able to read every response, but I can see this strikes a nerve. I want to say that to me I like CoH2 either way, I just enjoy the way it plays (or used to, I haven't played in months, I wanted to get back into it recently so I'll see if it still sticks). I'll play it regardless of mirror match options and the like, and I can also appreciate that some people like the limits imposed on matchups. Just saying, it seems like a very strange concept to me, for a game that seems to be primarily played in a player vs player basis. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Standalone America + Germany DLC28 Mar 2014, 15:57 PM Jump back to quoted post28 Mar 2014, 15:46 PMBurts go play starcraft II, this is a WW2 rts for a reason. If they really enable sovs+ US matches in one game i will quit the game. Retarded. go play with miniatures or read a history book, this is a competitive rts for a reason. If they really don't enable sovs+US matches i will quit the game. Retarded. See? There are two sides to the argument. I'm not really calling you retarded btw, just mirroring your statement. I can appreciate that it's a WW2 game, and I would want the single player to be accurate, but if you want CoH to be regarded as a true competitive game, then limiting options for matches seems counter-intuitive. I dunno, I find it fun either way but this is the first community for a competitive game I've ever seen want to limit options to the player to benefit 'historical realism'. It's like if I was playing King of Fighters and demanded SNK not allow Terry to fight Andy because they are brothers in the storyline and it wouldn't make sense. Or my opponent can't pick the same character as me because it wouldn't work like that in real life. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Standalone America + Germany DLC28 Mar 2014, 15:42 PM It still boggles my mind how people play this game in a multi-player/competitive capacity and still oppose having things like mixed allies and mirror matches. I really don't get it at all, to me, historical accuracy doesn't count for much at all once I enter multi-player. I guess it would be nice to introduce an option to have only 'historical' online matches, but tha would really cut the community. Personally I would have liked to see the ability to have any combination of factions vs any other combination. Having said all that, I am looking forward to seeing what the new units will be. I wonder how different the Wermacht will play to Ostheer though? Panzer Elite were a big departure, I wonder how they will handle this expansion? In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: American Speculation Thread 28 Mar 2014, 15:22 PM I'm not watching anything (at work) did they just announce Wermacht and US for an expansion? I was hoping for some more variety with maybe Italy and an African Theatre of War, but this could be nice too. Edit: Just read the post below lawls. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: So, the new patch sure did some rebalancing27 Mar 2014, 17:05 PM I played again yesterday for the first game in months, but rustyness aside I found myself stumped against a few things as well. I had an issue with the enemy just spamming loads of MG42s backed up by some pioneers. Usually I would build T2, then go T3 and get out a T-70 or something to deal with it, but I found myself completely without vehicles since I couldn't afford to get to T3 before I had lost far too much map control. I did try to use mortars to counter, but they were too unreliable to stop him. I think I could have used smoke from mortars to get in closer with cons, since oo-rah doesn't seem to be as effective as it used to be. Is it now mandatory/much better to build both T1 and T2 as soviets and delay your T3 even further? I just find that support weapons are tough to deal with without any sort of vehicle to avoid them/have that mobility. In: Strategy Desk
Thread: SU 76 isn't that bad23 Jan 2014, 14:07 PM I played a game recently where I made use of absurd amounts of SU76s. I started by building two of them and bombarding known enemy mortar/AT gun positions as well as any points that were getting capped. I had the Defensive Commander and used the little AT guns to protect them from light vehicles/help against T3 which worked well and eventually got an SU85 to help. I think I ended up with about 5-7 SU76s, I used them everywhere. Whenever infantry would start chasing it down with Schrecks I would just lay barrages in their pathing while retreating the one that was being chased. Then when they retreated I would try to COVER their base with barrages. Just having that sheer volume of 76s +1 or 2 85s meant that tanks weren't able to break through either. In: Red Army Strategies
Thread: Avoiding Squad Wipes22 Jan 2014, 18:27 PM ^Thanks for the tip! I was considering going to T4, but was cautious and thought I would be better served getting more T3 vehicles out. I didn't realise that the 85s were such powerhouses. In general when there are things on the field like the mortar, should I be retreating squads when they lose even one man to avoid/lessen the potential of a squad wipe? In: Ostheer Strategies
Thread: Avoiding Squad Wipes22 Jan 2014, 13:38 PM I don't mean to imply that RNG is the reason I lost, just that I find it supremely annoying. The example I pointed out about T34s for example is so inconsistent. In any event, I think 1[][] had a point about the tank race, I think my biggest weakness was not preparing for tanks early enough. I always find it difficult to time/place my AT guns onto the field. Too aggressive and they get mobbed quickly, too defensive and they can't do any real damage. I also should learn to use mines better as Germans. In: Ostheer Strategies