Company of Heroes Grand Offensive Nerf Suggestion |
- Grand Offensive Nerf Suggestion
- Pro tip for sextons
- Cold Weather Tech
- Shock troops vs Conscript Assault package, which one is better and under what circumstances?
- USF Officer Suggestion
- USF Late Game
- COH 2 and APM
- Pioneer Flamethrower Upgrade?
- Is there a way to increase the clicking responsiveness?
| Grand Offensive Nerf Suggestion Posted: 30 Apr 2020 08:44 PM PDT
| ||
| Posted: 30 Apr 2020 03:43 PM PDT After firing a barrage, use the Valentine's tank supercharged barrage ability for a second barrage ( which uses all available sextons). [link] [comments] | ||
| Posted: 30 Apr 2020 09:50 AM PDT I miss cold weather tech. Yea it was annoying when a whole squad would get wiped due to negligence, but it was cool. Moving around the blizzard for a quick sneak attack was so rewarding especially since line of sight was greatly reduced the enemy had no idea until it was to later. It also gave a break in the fighting. Both teams could stock back up on units and get their men in position for once the blizzard clears. They should still make it a multiplayer option that can be turned on or off. What do you guys think? [link] [comments] | ||
| Shock troops vs Conscript Assault package, which one is better and under what circumstances? Posted: 01 May 2020 01:24 AM PDT I think Shock troops are better at first glance, but the ability to "hit the dirt" and 1v1 MGs is priceless with or without the assault package. The only real thing you lose by going Conscript assault package seems to be grenades, which Soviet grenades are bad because of AoE damage anyways. Shock troops are meant for blobs, or to overcome anti-infantry, but they never seem worth it. They are prohibitively expensive for what they are, and you pay up front a lot to reinforce them. While they have an added "shock" factor. Conscripts PPSH are less expected than them, and can actually fool opponents, confusing them with regular conscripts when they can shred infantry to bits. I wanted to say the Conscript Assault Package is better outright, however I feel there's something I'd miss with that assessment. Under which circumstances is one better than the other? If shock troops are just extra armor, so more distance closing when shot by Panzerfusiliers. PPSH conscripts can still sprint, and be more effective in that regard. Additionally if the map is open you should always go for guards anyways. [link] [comments] | ||
| Posted: 01 May 2020 03:22 AM PDT (I've tagged this post as 2v2 simply because it's the gamemode I play most often, otherwise it's irrelevant) Something that has irked me about the USF's tech structure is how officers are foisted upon the player regardless of whether or not the player wants/needs another squad on the field. This usually becomes a problem when backteching to the forgone command post in the mid/lategame, by which point another squad on the field is a drain on manpower; even if it is better for the player to have both officers on top of x number of rifle squads, it is out of line with every faction design to force units on the player. This practice should also be contrasted with the USF's relatively new ability to purchase one unit from a tent (after purchasing the officer) before purchasing access to the remaining units from each the same tent (I will call this half-teching, I am unaware of any other names for it). Similarly, the UKF may purchase access to the AEC/Bofors and later on Anvil/Hammer without being forced to purchase any units from these categories. In no other case besides the USF are units forced upon the player without player input. Strictly speaking, no, neither the Lieutenant/Captain are necessary to win the game. You could win by only using riflemen, but practically speaking, light vehicles, support weapons, and endgame vehicles are essential to winning. Note how my gripe is mainly with the two aforementioned officers and not the Major. The Lieutenant/Captain are more or less riflemen squads that lack a snare and have access to a smoke grenade if grenades are unlocked. Unless replacement squads are needed later in the game, they add little to the lineup (if the player already has a full line). The Major offers a retreat point, artillery, and recon; it is clearly a utility unit and offers great boons to the USF in the lategame. That being said, if the player doesn't want the Major, they shouldn't be forced to use the Major. To go about fixing this without upsetting game balance, it is important that costs are maintained and tech times are unchanged. Settling costs isn't cut and dry with the officers, as purchasing them gives the player the respective squad, access to other unit, and the ability to fully tech up the tent. For the Major, the cost is only between the Major unit and access to medium armor. As I find the Major to be unique, I will only propose solutions for the Lieutenant/Captain, though changes to the Major may be based off of these:
Proposal 1 is the strongest in my view and keeps in line with the rest of the factions. It changes the officer squads to strictly cost manpower, as all other infantry does in the game, while relegating the fuel cost along with a small manpower cost to half-teching. Though the call-in ability is uncommon, it has precedence in the King Tiger and emergency engineer squads as being a non-doctrinal call in. The player isn't forced to purchase another squad but is otherwise subject to current tech-times and may purchase the squad immediately if they so desire, maintaining current balance. Proposal 2 locks the officers behind the full cost of half-teching but still gives the player the choice of putting the squad on the field. My initial complaint was with back-teching in the late game, and in my view the cost of putting the squad on the fuel far outweighs the sum necessary to half-tech, justifying this proposal in the late game. Either way, the choice is still with the player. I'd appreciate feedback on these proposals, this is the first long post I've made on this sub! [link] [comments] | ||
| Posted: 30 Apr 2020 10:39 PM PDT I've been actively been trying to improve at USF in 1 vs 1s, and have been having the utmost difficulty closing games. I would generally attribute it to late war german armor pushing in one flank and me having to rotate my M36s around to counter them, only to get blown to smithereens by anti-tank infantry and their sheer firepower. I've even had an instance of an Veteran Tiger running amok in my HQ with my Jackson and Sherman sitting helpless by as they were too lit. Are there any tips as to how I could position and/or counter these pushes? Should I switch to some other faction? Any help would be appreciated. [link] [comments] | ||
| Posted: 30 Apr 2020 06:50 AM PDT I am longtime RTS player and played lots of C&C, Warcraft 3, Stronghold, AoE, Rise of Nations etc. I played single player campaigns and skirmishes against AI only however, and steered away from multiplayer because of how APM/multi tasking dependant they were. I don't like how "pro" players move around with their screens every split second and doing mundane tasks such as telling harvesters they retreated to go back to mining again or tell every single soldier in their army to heal itself then jumping backing to managing their bases and pumping out buildings and queuing more units. With CoH it is different with the simplified resource system and base managment and this is where it really shines Imo. Now, you can spend your time actually playing the game instead of jumping back and forth between your army and base. I also like 3vs3 and 4vs4 because it further restricts scope/range of battlefield and instead of jumping back and forth and managing 3 victory points with every route and flank to these points, you could focus down on a single VP and still keep an eye on your closest ally for any possibility you could jump to his aid in. I am wondering if community here shares the same sentiment and appreciation for CoH 2 decreased APM requirements and multi tasking. It almost feels (and please dont get upset of me for doing this comparison) that 3vs3 and 4vs4 matches are MOBA-like? I am not saying that CoH == MOBA nor do I want CoH to turn into a MOBA by any means but I really like reduced amount of multi tasking and focused down type of gameplay. Also what would you think if in CoH 3 took the step of further reducing "needless" APM and implemented things like auto reinforcing retreated squads, squads automatically seeking nearest cover, AT guns pirotizing vehicles by default and etc.. [link] [comments] | ||
| Posted: 30 Apr 2020 08:07 AM PDT Hi, I'm new to COH on iOs, and I'm trying play as the Germans in a skirmish. I can't figure out how to upgrade the pioneers so that they have flamethrowers. When I play as the Americans, the AI seems to have flamethrowers from the start. What am I missing? [link] [comments] | ||
| Is there a way to increase the clicking responsiveness? Posted: 30 Apr 2020 07:46 AM PDT In coh1 the clicking of abilities and units was much more responsive and fast ,not at all glitchy like when I select a different unit after a different one ,the game does not register it. Countless times I've retreated the wrong unit or my tank would reverse into the enemy. Coh1 registered units when you press down on mouse button 1 on the first click,while in coh 2 it registers on the second click (when the button ascends from the depressed state). Why did they make this change? Is there a way to make it like coh1? That my click is registered as soon as I depress the button? [link] [comments] |
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/ekzvjh3jr2w41.jpg){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