Company of Heroes 5 star Kubelwagen |
- 5 star Kubelwagen
- Talk about a return on investment
- R.I.P Grand Offensive, I'll miss you alot :( . we actually need a [MEME] flair btw.
- Yay or Nay? 5 man grenadiers when you buy the heavy panzer korps, BUT the fifth model is an osttruppen.
- Conceptualizing the Early Game Part 1: Introduction to Some Basic Approaches
- Hello all!
- Is this halftrack a hero or not?
- Current state of balance
- How do you play against the UK?
- Long story short, we lost the point
- Blobbing plus poor reaction equal fantastic footage.
- Which is the better doctrine german infantry or jeager infantry?
- RIP blobs
- How inefficient are top players?
- Soviet Defensive Tactics.
- Need help with 1v1s.
- When your random teammates leave you alone against 2-3 enemies again
- Helping Penals Scale
- Best clown car?
- My connection is fine but I keep getting disconnected then reconnected constantly every 10 - 20 seconds, I can't even load the store. The problem only occurs on CoH2 and its website, I think it's packet loss but yet to find a solution.
- Do AP HMG rounds and PTRS upgrades do more damage to infantry in cover/buildings?
- Developers visit this subreddit?
| Posted: 29 Apr 2020 05:00 PM PDT
| ||
| Talk about a return on investment Posted: 29 Apr 2020 09:03 AM PDT
| ||
| R.I.P Grand Offensive, I'll miss you alot :( . we actually need a [MEME] flair btw. Posted: 29 Apr 2020 03:21 AM PDT
| ||
| Posted: 30 Apr 2020 02:17 AM PDT The thing about the grenadiers vs conscript matchup is that the grenadier squad has 2 less models, but it has significantly less received accuracy, balancing the core combatants of the eastern front factions. However, the main thing about received accuracy is that it doesn't apply to cannons/rockets/grenades, thus the 4 man squads have the inherent tendency to be wiped out by said explosives. Sure they can be replaced if those squads perish if the player has enough manpower, but the veterancy is lost, making the new squad difficult in infantry vs infantry matchups. Solution? What I'd propose is that grenadiers get a 5th man when a heavy panzer korps is built, but the 5th man is an osttruppen model with the same stats. The reason behind it is that 5 man grenadiers with an lmg could be extremely broken. With that osttruppen model, the squad is less likely to be wiped out by explosives, giving a better chance for them to survive in the long run like the other mainline infantry squads. Alternatively, minicking the mobilize reserves upgrade added to conscripts last year, when the heavy panzer korps is built, upgrade option is popped that adds a grenadier model which could cost 60 manpower, just like conscript squads. [link] [comments] | ||
| Conceptualizing the Early Game Part 1: Introduction to Some Basic Approaches Posted: 29 Apr 2020 04:31 PM PDT I wanted to write some early game guides for two main reasons: 1) they are often requested by new players, and 2) because improving your early game is one of the best things you can do to climb, even if you already have a somewhat high rank like top 200. I'm going to offer some specific build order advice in later posts, but what I really want to do is provide conceptual frameworks for evaluating and approaching the early game. The aim is to provide a useful and widely applicable set of tools for new players (that will not be as faction/patch dependent) while hopefully sparking some discussion among more experienced players about the best way to approach the game. Do note that these guides, like everything else I write on this subreddit, is aimed squarely at 1v1s as that is the only game mode I have experience with. Why should I care about my early game? First of all, it is absolutely possible to do moderately well on the ladder while having a poor or inconsistent early game. If you are significantly better than other people of your rank at things like squad preservation, vehicle control, or microing big, chaotic fights, then you may able to maintain a solid rank. However, you will lose games to players who are otherwise significantly weaker than you, and will struggle unnecessarily in general. Nailing the fundamentals of the early game will set you up to have an easier time at every other stage of the game. You will have more resources, more VPs, better map control, and possibly more units. You will also limit your opponents resources, VPs, and map control, which will limit all future decisions they can make. You will rarely outright win or lose a match in the early game, but a consistently strong early game will improve your win rate over an inconsistent or consistently poor early game. Basic Early Game Strategies In this first part, I want to lay out a couple of very basic strategic frameworks that one might consciously or subconsciously use to make decisions in game. These are "basic" not in the sense that they are bad, but in the sense that they elemental or emergent and therefore can usefully be used to describe and talk about a wide range of more specific and complex strategies. 1) VPs Win Games You win the game by depleting your opponent's VPs, so this should be your overriding and first concern at every stage of the game. As an early game philosophy, this means rushing two or three of the VPs with your units and either ignoring or at least de-prioritizing capturing resource points. 2) Fuel Wins Games A fuel advantage means earlier/more tanks, which can be used to overrun your opponent, get squad wipes, or simply more effectively hold the VPs. Early game, this philosophy manifests in rushing to capture and connect your own fuel with some combination of: A) harassing your opponent's fuel, B) harassing their cut off, or C) building fuel caches. Players with this mindset can ignore or de-prioritize VPs early and focus on capping more territory points to accelerate their fuel income. 3) Blobs Win Games More squads or vehicles concentrated in a smaller area will be able to output more DPS than more spread out squads will, allowing you to trade well and quickly win fights with a higher chance of getting wipes. As your blob out-trades your opponent and gets more wipes than it suffers, its dominance becomes unstoppable. Early game, this philosophical approach manifests as prioritizing keeping your units close together (if not literally blobbed up) over capping either resources or VPs. Those three cover probably the most common approaches to the game and are the most "basic" in the philosophical sense. The next three approaches are a bit more complex, and have plenty of conceptual overlap. 4) Manpower Economy Wins Game You need units to capture points and to fight other units. The total manpower cost of an army roughly reflects its overall relative power compared to another army, and the total number of capping squads (so usually not vehicles or team weapons) corresponds to its overall ability to control territory, assuming roughly even trading. Therefore, the better manpower economy will win, either through brute force or better VP control. This approach emphasizes the importance of making manpower efficient trades, wiping enemy squads, and unit preservation. Fuel and munitions are valuable, but only insofar as they allow your manpower to be spent more efficiently: vehicles don't bleed, so they are good manpower economy, while weapon upgrades and grenades/off maps allow for better trading or wipes, therefore bolstering your manpower economy. Early game, a manpower centric player will probably prioritize efficient trading, squad preservation, and resource control, while likely neglecting VPs or at least de-prioritizing them. 5) Cut-offs Win Game Resource control is relative, not absolute: having income from half or less of the map while your opponent has income from none of it is much better than having 51% of the map or even double fuel. Two sub strategies arise: 1) take and camp your opponent's cut-off, and 2) harass the cut-off whenever possible. More resources means either armor dominance in the Get Fuel, Win Game sense or just better manpower economy in the More Manpower, Win Game sense. Either go for the jugular with a game ending vehicle push or, if you're not able to fully camp the cut-off, just have more resources to trade better all game. Early game, this philosophy suggests immediately pushing your opponent's cut-off, or at least doing so very quickly. Whether you end up camping it or just keep pressuring is contextual. 6) Map Control Wins Game The middle of the map (on most maps) provides several massive advantages to whoever holds it: 1) it provides a forward position at which to position team weapons, allowing them to safely be involved in combat on either side of the map, 2) it allows an army stationed in mid to very quickly and safely rotate to either side of the map, while forcing your opponent into slower and/or more risky rotations. This means that control of mid provides both defensive and offensive benefits, including putting the bulk of your forces closer to your opponent's cut-off (and with a much safer retreat path) than they will be to yours. Control of the center of the map will, therefore, translate into more VPs, more resources, and more offensive squad wipes and fewer squad loses. Which is the right approach? This might sound like a cop-out, but the truth is that they are all useful to at least some extent. The value of talking about these approaches conceptually is to isolate them and understand both what value they might have and what disadvantages or limitations they have. I personally subscribe to a combination of Manpower Economy Wins Games and Map Control Wins Games. My approach to CoH, and one I think that can be very helpful in encouraging strategic thinking, is to try to figure out how to decisively break my opponent in every game. Each of these approaches offers a way to break your opponent. How effective they will be will depend on the map, how well you execute your strategy, and how well your opponent executes their strategy. You may start off trying to execute one strategy only to have things devolve into mutual MG camping of the VPs as neither you nor your opponent is able to get a sufficiently decisive edge in tech or units to force a surrender. That is fine, because VPs Win Games is true in that situation. However, conceptualizing your path to victory from the start of the game onward will help improve your decision making throughout. This is why Fuel Wins Games is such a common approach: it is an effective and very straightforward way to try to gain a decisive edge. But Blobbing is Bad Aesthetically? I completely agree. On some level, I would probably prefer CoH to be a game where blobbing is not a viable tactic. However, compared to most RTS games, blobbing is a lot more limited in its applicability. But it is still a very important tool, and one that is best treated the same as choosing whether or not to build a light vehicle. I'm not saying you should always be moving around your infantry in a single A-moved control group. However, the logic of Blobs Win Games is not wrong: force concentration is a very effective military tactic and one that you shouldn't deny yourself for aesthetic reasons. Moving two or more infantry units in close formation can be a great way to quickly win a fight against a lone squad and gain a numerical squad advantage on the field. As a community, it would probably be good to de-stigmatize blobbing. It would help people improve their play, both with and against blobs, and better understand when, where, and why to blob. Feedback/Future Interest? So this is a pretty big departure from both the typical content of this sub-reddit and also my own stupidly long posts. The goal here is to improve how people think about the game by, hopefully, being thought provoking. I am, as always, very much open to discussion and feedback. Was any of this helpful or interesting? Do you think I got anything totally wrong, or missed out on a common, basic approach to understanding the game? If people have interest in me continuing this more conceptual guide to the early game, then my next post will be on determining whether or not to be aggressive early. [link] [comments] | ||
| Posted: 30 Apr 2020 02:38 AM PDT I was wondering if you guys knew any good synergies between commanders? Or what your thoughts are on this? Thanks all. [link] [comments] | ||
| Is this halftrack a hero or not? Posted: 30 Apr 2020 05:25 AM PDT | ||
| Posted: 29 Apr 2020 08:24 PM PDT I don't think we will be getting any new balance patch after the last one anytime soon (if ever). So how is the current multiplayer balance so far? Would you be happy if we leave the game at the current state without any new patch? [link] [comments] | ||
| How do you play against the UK? Posted: 29 Apr 2020 07:25 PM PDT I always have problems facing them, so I want to see what do you do to beat them. [link] [comments] | ||
| Long story short, we lost the point Posted: 29 Apr 2020 05:04 AM PDT
| ||
| Blobbing plus poor reaction equal fantastic footage. Posted: 29 Apr 2020 07:37 AM PDT
| ||
| Which is the better doctrine german infantry or jeager infantry? Posted: 29 Apr 2020 02:04 PM PDT Base this solely off the troops here, german infantry has the veteran squad leaders which get 5 man squads and better pgs plus stormtroopers, while the jeager infantry gets the 5 man jeager command squad and g43s for grens and pgs which are very powerful plus camo. So which is truly better? [link] [comments] | ||
| Posted: 29 Apr 2020 02:13 AM PDT | ||
| How inefficient are top players? Posted: 29 Apr 2020 12:55 PM PDT Hello all, I love to watch coh2 competitive play... however, I've been watching VODS lately and some streamers. They don't use control groups and they use suboptimal hotkeys. This means the players aren't being as effective with their actions per minute as they could be. They are moving the camera and drag-selecting when they could be single clicking, triple clicking when they could be double clicking, moving further from HOME than needed, moving and selecting when they could simply be selecting, etc. So there are two metrics we use to analyze how efficient a player is being, E(a)PM and APM. APM has been historically low in CoH2, but thats fine, because this game is more about strategy than button mashing. That being said, at the highest levels, there will always be micro/macro opportunities for players, so this inefficiency directly translates into their competitiveness. What we are more interested in would be their EaPM, effective actions per minute, which would increase if they improved their efficiency by using control groups and rebinding hotkeys closer to their HOME keys. This has me wondering... what would the game look like if the top players played most efficiently? And is this a trend among all the top players, or just the ones I've seen? I've never seen VODS of luvnest or Nogonna or Asiamint (but being S. korean, he should have efficiency beat into him from the sc2 pros) -- do they also share these inefficiencies or are they playing with high efficiency? Thanks guys/gals! Note: This is not to knock top players. They are better than I am and likely ever will be and they work incredibly hard to master this game. [link] [comments] | ||
| Posted: 29 Apr 2020 07:55 AM PDT While i would never use this commander in a 1v1 or 2v2. This commander is probably the most fun to play in big team games. Mainly because I can tier skip and spamtank traps early game. It Isn't good by any means, but it is just as memeable as our spicy B4 Boi's. For example The flame werfer can't get you if it's stuck behind steel teeth, but that derpy little AT Gun will definitely get the flamewerfer. Speaking of the little AT gun that could, does the 45mm have a higer pen value than other guns? because I'm finding at vet 3, both of my guns are penning the front armor of a king tiger. I will submit a replay the next time it happens as it happens quite frequently [link] [comments] | ||
| Posted: 29 Apr 2020 06:29 AM PDT After around 400 hours playing all game modes except 1v1s i decieded that i will try them and so i did. I play mainly usf and ostheer so i choose them to play as. In the early game i am always doing well but in the midgame i am just loosing almost always. Their armor comes out faster than mine no matter wich side i play and i just can't get a wipe as even 1 man prostruppen run away between 3 of my riflemen while my units just get wiped from 3 man all the time. In 2v2s, 3v3s and 4v4s i am always doing really well and most of the time i make the most damage and kills in my team and there are rarely games where i am doing badly. I honestly tought about not even playing 1v1s beacouse even when i am winning i am fustrated and not having fun while in the other modes i am really chill. I know that i must be doing something really wrong as even people who i know are worse than me beat me. [link] [comments] | ||
| When your random teammates leave you alone against 2-3 enemies again Posted: 29 Apr 2020 07:54 AM PDT
| ||
| Posted: 29 Apr 2020 01:39 PM PDT Hey everyone. So Penals are fine. Somewhat. They are powerful early game infantry, lose little if cheaply merged to, and get massive accuracy bonuses through veterancy. However, they have no upgrades, and over the years, they ended up being the only Soviet squad that doesn't scale well into the late game at all. The old Flamethrower gave them a niche at being just really good at clearing buildings and killing infantry in cover, but that becomes less and less relevant as the game drags on with explosives and long range firepower taking a larger and larger role. On top of this, Conscripts got the vaunted 7-man upgrade, which, I believe, leaves little room for Penals in the lategame. The old flamethrower made them a little too good in the early game, especially since they could be taken inside the scout car, which made for a squad that was a bit too good at getting wipes. That was removed and we got the somewhat better balanced PTRS upgrade, which is on the weak side, but its cheap and more importantly, it gives the powerful AT satchel, giving the squad some sort of late game utility. However, there isn't any anti-infantry upgrade for them right now, so I'd like to suggest a return of the flamethrower, in a bit different form. Give them x2 Flamethrowers for 100 munitions at T4. This is a fairly late game upgrade that preserves their role as building/cover clearing units, and would make them possibly the best at it. I'd also like to see a munitions-based ability, something like Tactical Assault, that gives Penals a much longer burst duration at the expense of survivability. This would make them that much better at clearing garrisons and covered infantry, but it would obviously only affect the flamethrowers since the SVT-40 rifles don't fire in bursts. What do you think? [link] [comments] | ||
| Posted: 29 Apr 2020 12:41 PM PDT | ||
| Posted: 29 Apr 2020 03:28 AM PDT On streaming services, browsing, and other games I do not experience any lag or it being slow, once I hop onto CoH everything just goes to shit as said in the title. I've done 'ping www.companyofheroes.com' in the cmd prompt, it says I'm losing 100% of my packets. On every other website I tried including community.companyofheroes.com it says I'm not losing any packets at all. Also, my ping is fine in all of those websites. I know that it's pretty vague just to check the ping and packet loss for the CoH website, as that's not where all the CoH2 servers are going to be, but it seems to me like it adds up. My hardware and software are fine, and it's running well, I've tried methods online and I've tried most of them before already (except cable connection because I'm on the second floor), there's also nothing on how to fix packet loss on specifically CoH2. [link] [comments] | ||
| Do AP HMG rounds and PTRS upgrades do more damage to infantry in cover/buildings? Posted: 29 Apr 2020 01:23 AM PDT Just curious. These always say 'increased penetration' so I've always wondered if that logic applies to hitting units through cover. I'm not talking about the axis IAP rounds since I already know that they do more damage. [link] [comments] | ||
| Developers visit this subreddit? Posted: 29 Apr 2020 06:12 AM PDT Do they even exist in this subreddit? Like taking note or ideas from here? [link] [comments] |
![R.I.P Grand Offensive, I'll miss you alot :( . we actually need a [MEME] flair btw.](https://b.thumbs.redditmedia.com/3_87H6WkvIHXCnev4yqJwswyRaBwLPuKV6VWgihxQGc.jpg "R.I.P Grand Offensive, I'll miss you alot :( . we actually need a [MEME] flair btw.")
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/6jtrtcnwiuv41.jpg){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/l7tg75iq5sv41.png){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/rjocg5aggqv41.png){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/t6av4id2zqv41.jpg){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/9g473ij9trv41.png){kind=link}
| You are subscribed to email updates from Company of Heroes - the highly acclaimed Second World War RTS series.. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
No comments:
Post a Comment