This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Wilson
1
« on: June 06, 2011, 06:46:37 PM »
I really don't like the infantry crushing in CoH. It's so arbitrary and ridiculous. I think there should only be infantry crush in special cases, like with the Sherman mine flail.
There's little skill involved when half your opponent's gren squad decides to suicide charge under your tracks instead of firing that panzerschreck.
2
« on: June 02, 2011, 10:38:47 PM »
The claim that CoH cannot handle big battles is just false. I'm not sure where that idea came from. Also when you have a lot of squads to spare, that's when you can afford to flank for more dynamic play. The idea of the Zerg thing is to have so many of these guys come from like 5 directions at once and flank the MGs. If this were implemented, it would only effect late game anyways.
I didn't say that it can't handle big battles, but that it isn't designed for it, in terms of gameplay. I'm not convinced it would be fun to play as or to play against a Zerging style enemy in CoH. Why wouldn't you just charge around the map with your huge blob, like people already do with Brits or PE (who aren't specifically designed to be zerg type sides)? I can't see a way in CoH to encourage 'proper' zerg play without ending up with blobbing. If you want to flank a machinegun from multiple sides with loads of men, you can already do that with conscripts. I agree that Soviets done well as a zerg style faction would be cool, but I think it would be really hard to balance and design in a way that's fun. And it is a shame that the Soviets can be outspammed by rifles or grens under certain circumstances, but that's because of how the original game was designed with only the western front in mind. If Relic had started by making an eastern front CoH, I expect it would have been Soviets that got the best medic stations/manpower income, but the EF devs have their hands tied a bit.
3
« on: June 02, 2011, 11:30:00 AM »
I have a rather radical idea, but I really like it so I'll put it out there:
I have always thought that Soviets lack the Zerg feel to them that they're supposed to have. USA can outspam them right now. Perhaps if global vet was lowered to 9% maximum and all Soviet abilities cost a normal amount of munitions, EF can remove all upkeep from Soviet units altogether, so they can have a higher manpower / munitions income, as represented by the real war. Soviets could then even have a USA-like supply yard upgrade to further increase their manpower income even more.
Mmm, I disagree. Soviet basic infantry already has high squad member counts, which gives enough feeling of numbers (along with the conscripts at the start). CoH isn't designed to handle large battles well. It's about micro of individual squads more than relative positioning of large numbers of squads. Because of the relatively fast pace of the game and a lack of design for it, most people can't properly control a lot of units, which leads to blobbing, which isn't fun. I think it would be extremely difficult to balance one faction having a higher income without just making all their units overpriced, or nerfing some other aspect of them (e.g. making their doctrine abilities bad) which would detract from the game rather than adding to it. But I think it's mainly that CoH isn't designed for large scale battles (certainly not on a 1v1 level).
4
« on: May 31, 2011, 05:05:00 PM »
That's a sound analysis. I'm bad for floating MPP, it's something I really need to work on. Also, I think my total lack of AT capability was a serious problem, and my doctrine choice was poor. Blitzkrieg for the stormtroopers (would have been good against snipers, sneaking up with MP44s, and providing AT firepower) would have been a far better choice I think.
5
« on: May 31, 2011, 02:25:29 PM »
^^ You can. Remember sharpshooters' artillery?
Haha! Of course, you're right. I thought it might have been done somewhere before, but wasn't sure where  EDIT: Apologies about the double post, the site has been a bit slow and I had some trouble making the post. Didn't realize it caused a double post though.
6
« on: May 31, 2011, 11:46:04 AM »
Could you deal with the satchels by making it a global cooldown, if you wanted to leave it as as free ability to fit with Soviet design?
Personally I wouldn't mind if it had a munition cost, but maybe the devs want to stick closer to the 'no munition costing abilities' idea.
I'm not sure if you can have global cooldowns on unit abilities, mind you.
7
« on: May 31, 2011, 10:34:19 AM »
I enjoyed watching the game. Nice to see Churchills in action (the second AVRE was amazing - I'm surprised it managed to blow up two full pretty healthy gren squads).
@GodlikeDennis - That's interesting about the sappers. Is there any particular design/balance reason for this do you know?
8
« on: May 31, 2011, 10:08:52 AM »
Yeah, this was the first time I played on Grodno and I liked it. The map felt good.
Hopefully the game is kind of interesting, but I haven't watched it back myself yet. Maybe it'll be one of those games that feels exciting when you're playing and looks like a series of idiotic decisions by everyone involved when you watch it back again.
9
« on: May 31, 2011, 12:43:54 AM »
A match with some interesting tank battles later on. I didn't play very well, but found it quite a fun game anyway.
10
« on: May 28, 2011, 12:18:28 PM »
It's ok like it is now. I mean PE doesn't have detectors at all  .
But their basic infantry can detect hidden items whenever they stop moving right? Unless this changed with the latest patch?
11
« on: May 27, 2011, 09:25:41 AM »
But say an panzer IV? It does pretty good damage VS that, and if you play your cards right you might even kill it.
I see what you're saying, but I think it's main cannon may be too powerful. Even on the small "1-9" scales in game, it's rated a 9 for AT, and (IIRC) a 6 for anti-building.
Just so you know, those 1-9 scales are set by devs and aren't automatically linked to the actual stats of the unit, so they aren't much good for balance discussions, because there are a ton of different stats which have subtle effects on battle outcomes. Put it another way, both a sniper and a Knights Cross unit might have high anti-infantry ratings on the 1-9 scale, but it doesn't tell you about how differently the two units work, and wouldn't be useful in a balance discussion about them.
12
« on: May 26, 2011, 10:57:26 PM »
Excellent. I've been looking forwards to this.
13
« on: May 24, 2011, 05:41:25 PM »
You gonna end up with serious recrew issues (maybe even start issues!) with 2.602 with 1.31.
1.40 should probably be released within 36 hours after 2.602 is released.
Good stuff. I'm looking forward to it! Now I just have to find time to actually play some games...
14
« on: May 24, 2011, 03:11:16 PM »
I'd rather have it as a download file instead of the in-game downloader too. I hope they do a separate download somewhere (or someone does).
It's exciting stuff though.
15
« on: April 12, 2011, 03:58:37 PM »
Different sides capture the map at different speeds, e.g. Brits take a while because most of their units only move slowly through neutral/enemy territory and it takes a while for them to get many infantry units since the tommy squads are so costly, while the Axis sides can produce more infantry early on.
Plus, if you're playing against AI, I think they tend to spam pioneers and capture the map really quickly. They also get resource bonuses, so if you are playing AI you are playing a different game than if you play against real people.
|
Show Posts