|
To elaborate on the problem of the maps, there was a huge flexibility to scale the size of maps without impacting resources too badly in CoH1 thanks to different sized resource sectors and "empty" strat points that provided no income. Now you have a choice of having a small number of absolutely enormous sectors, or inflating the income potential of both teams with a lot of strat points, all of which give income and can be cached. It's problematic, imo, for the ability of the game to scale up and down in map sizes.
I proposed in another thread that caches should be altered - they should give full resources to you, and half resources to your teammates. At least then, when the map is spammed with caches the resource income won't be quite as ludicrous. |
"negative zeal" is an idea that gets bandied around a lot, but sort of loses water when people start mentioning maps like Semois. if you wanted to fight in the center, you couldn't help but be punished by the system or you would never be able to bring your whole force to bear.
my opinion is: give more options to defeat it, don't limit us by systems, don't force us to play a certain way.
Oh, and welcome.
I guess I would ask myself why there are maps in automatch rotation that force you to blob just to use your units. You could also have nuances to its implementation, such as units in buildings or in green cover don't get affected by it. It's not about making guys useless when concentrated, it's more like making them not as completely overpowering. MGs and AoE weapons are the tools the game gives us to deal with blobs, but they're not really up to snuff at the moment. We've had MG domination in past metas, and I'd like to avoid that, so the idea of a group suppression debuff to make the extra squads more likely to hit the pavement (without affecting the suppression vs the actual squad being fired at) is attractive. It punishes blobs without actually making MGs more effective in their normal operation against single or flanking squads.
|
|
I was thinking about this last night.
A simple way would be to grant a debuff modifier to infantry units that are clumped together. I propose two parts to this - first is a small accuracy nerf, to represent infantry units not having a clear shot when they are all in a blob together. The second is a lowered suppression threshold (or higher "received suppression", if that makes sense) from AOE suppression. Individual squads don't suppress easier, but the squads that are not directly targeted by the MG will more easily get suppressed, and faster.
Other possibilities include improving the AOE suppression for the ISG and Pack Howi, but then also add the effect to mortars. |
|
It's irritating that everything functions at 100% yeah. It wouldn't really affect balance much but I'd be ok with making them unable to produce new units, at minimum, if the sector was decapped. If they can't keep the sector they planted it on, they deserve to have production halted. |
|
The cost is fine, but they should look at its crush ability and find a way to tone it down slightly. The doctrine it comes in as a whole is merely "ok", even in its current state. Ost teching needs looking at, as does Soviet, but the M10 itself is not really an issue. The obvious counters are infantry AT and AT guns, mines etc. Normal stuff for an AT focused tank. If you can make it work, the crushing is great, but that's highly situational. |
|
How am I supposed to punish this as USF?
This is not rhetorical, it's just of the last 5 autos I played in 1v1, 3 people were using this and I only defeated it once. It wasn't even the strafes that did me, I dodged most of that (got caught once due to pathing issues constipating my sherman; got hit a couple of times with destroyed engine or something similar but that's fair enough), but the SWARMS of LMG grens and PzShrek teams are just fucking disgusting. All that and mines everywhere too. Some players are less mines, but then compensate by spamming the crap out of rifle grenades.
Between the strafes and grenades I feel like this doctrine requires twice the micro to counter than any other doc. Like a neverending quicktime event, Press U+Click to not die. |
Making crits occur on low-HP tanks rather than on tanks that were about to die would definitely be a good idea, as scratchedpaintjob would implement. I'm not quite so sure that purely deterministic crits would be good, tehre is definitely some room for play like a front-hit is 50% chance main gun destroyed, 25% chance gunner killed, 25% chance crew shocked. Arbitrary numbers but yeah, directional crits and crits on low hp rather than death would be good.
Sides should probably have probability of immobilized (broken treads), another crew member injured/killed, crew shock etc. Rear would be engine destroyed/damaged.
The main problem is... there is no side armor in CoH2 
|
|
Steamspy is an estimate which changes over time. It will never give you exactly correct numbers but there's a good chance it's roughly in the right ballpark. |
I want to see:
- Achilles TD. Basically an M10 with a 17 pounder. Better than ANOTHER Sherman variant 
- Cromwell tank (roughly Sherman equivalent)
- Churchill tank (Like a KV1 with a bit more armor)
- POSSIBLY a Comet tank if they do Crossing-the-Rhine late-war era. Like a panther, but with not quite as much armor. Fast, good range, anti-tank focus.
- Commandos
- TOMMIES
- For the love of god don't make them campy and shit again. |
|
There is already a first layer of randomness on tanks thanks to the probability based armor system. The second layer is death criticals. What's annoying is that a tank losing it's gun isn't actually bad for the tank, it's good for the tank, because it can only happen in the place of dying.
An alternate system would be penetrating hits always have some probability of causing a critical, BUT there are no death crits and HP going to 0 always kills them.
Better? Worse? I don't know, but I would rather have no crits at all than death crits in their current state. |
0
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
