IS2 and Tigers as a unit are fine imo, my gripe is with the call in meta, allowing easy replacement and reinforcement of heavy tanks.
I feel we should leave elite troops doctrine alone for now, as there are far more pressing things to look at. However I think the tank itself was poorly implemented from the start, I would honestly rather just swap it out for a regular tiger that you can vet up yourself. |
I have to agree with IpKai, my biggest issue with these game modes is the disparity of maps. Some are far too large and almost divided into sections, so you end up with several 2v2s or 1v1s until you get to tanks like on city 17.
Distributing resources into more, but lesser points would put more emphasis on supply lines and spread some into less desirable or defensible positions putting a larger percentage of the total resources into contention than what we have now. These large team games are too easy to get a snowball rolling and deny your opponent vital territory after a single error or forced retreat.
Forward HQ and retreat points give serious advantages and can keep one army in the field while the enemy spends close to 5 mins retreating, reinforcing then returning to the lines.
My other gripe is the poor decision to amalgamate 3v3 and 4v4 maps. While similar in scope, I feel these game modes are too different for one-size-fits-all. Steppes, city 17, general mud, hill 331(though I love this map), lanzerath and the like are just far too large for 3 players, especially when it is arbitrarily decided that one player per team will be on the other side of the map by themselves.
Either remove these from the 3v3 rotation or make smaller versions similar to La Gleize |
My problem with this commander is that it is so dependent on location for it to be effective. This results in some maps and areas being horrible for the opponent and others being awful for the user.
As long as these single pass strafes are dependent on a map edge to be effective or not, this commander will be broken in my opinion. Perhaps a static timeframe for payload delivery would be sufficient to at least make these more predictable for both user and opponent.
My other suggestion is to change the fuel>munition conversion into manpower>munition(2:1 maybe?). Couple this with ostheer tech costs this would force more decision making into whether you need troops on the field or more ability use and upgrades. I'm not sure how this would affect the osttruppen commander with this ability. |
From the responses it appears to be only conscripts that provide this ghost recon, has anyone seen this from other units or factions?
now i always shoot them, had some games where one crawling cons gave a lot LoS for me
So killing the unit removes the sightlines in spite of this? |
@dasheepeh, Axis is correct, these are dead units who have crawled out and then died, but remain giving LoS for a significant amount of time. Perhaps watching the replay would enlighten you.
Another thing I noticed in this match was right when the sniper dies, the 120mm has multiple shots in the air at the same time.
@G4nd4lf, that is hilarious. Looks like he's doing the macarena. |
Hello,
I noticed a 120mm mortar shooting at units he could have no way of seeing. Replay shows the corpses of some conscripts who had crawled away and then died gave line of sight long after they had perished.
[replay] http://www.gamereplays.org/companyofheroes2/replays.php?game=83&show=details&id=302303[/replay] |
Thanks for the translation Romeo, much easier to read.
Good points all around, though I feel there is still a place for vehicle crits in certain instances. For example a frontal t34 ram breaking main weapons, and of course vehicle snares.
Perhaps a more logical approach to them could work, such as a sniper taking out a gunner on a HT or pintle mount.
When it comes to plane crashes I have nothing good to say about them. They are just too out of control and can result in some serious nonsense that neither side deserves. |
I've enjoyed the few games I have played on General Mud so far, however I must say starting in slot 2 or 6 as Wehrmacht or Soviets makes for a long walk home in the cold rain. |
I'm of the opinion LMGs are too efficient in their current forms and as a result you don't see things like Thompson Airborne, PGs(as assault units), Assault Grenadiers, Sturmpioniers, or conscript ppsh(unless in huge numbers).
This type of unit is far too susceptible to small arms fire for most usages outside of micro-intensive flanks and surprise attacks. Losing even a single model in a squad will seriously diminish the units effectiveness and force early retreats. Shocks have armour to help close the distance as well as smoke for mgs and retreat cover but these units are left out to dry once the enemy takes note of them.
These units are just too fragile to be used outside of early game and niche encounters; however, buffing their defenses I feel would necessitate a change in their effective ranges so they don't steamroll long range infantry but can still pull their weight in a wider range of encounters. |
Aside from some of the other points established in this thread, I feel like the steep learning curve and unforgiving gameplay of RTS', especially those made by Relic are the main reason most people won't stay and play.
I definitely was turned off of vCoH after only a few online matches and resigned myself to compstomps and the fantastic campaigns the first game offered. The same thing happened when DoW2 first launched, and until Chaos Rising came out and I forced myself to play through loss after loss I never fully enjoyed the online scene in RTS'.
These games take a substantial amount of trial and error to find out the nuances and techniques that are required to gain competency and confidence in your play. Your average gamer is not going to jump into multiplayer and suffer harsh losses and still have the desire to sit through 20-40minutes of games and replays, or go online to read about how to improve on their mistakes.
Having said all this, while this game has it's flaws(in design and application) I'm still happy to see it receive success both financially and in terms of increased playerbase. Most games lose players over time, but a jump of 2000 average players in it's second year is somewhat impressive considering the massive amount of flak it has received for (unfounded imo) pay to win allegations and the Russian boycott for the campaign. |