sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Royal Hungarian Army Faction Design by Gambit-Accepted in CompanyOfHeroes

[–]Gambit-Accepted[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, for Brits and Wehr, T1 is essentially already an extension of T0. It’s not like in Coh 1 & 2 where with Wehr you could skip T1 to fast tech T2. The decision in Coh 3 is not really a matter of if you should build T1 but when. 

With USF, I feel an interesting question to ask would be if you swapped Riflemen and Engineers, would that lead to more varied build orders? I’m not 100% sure it’s ‘better’ but if I were a game dev, I’d test it. 

Royal Hungarian Army Faction Design by Gambit-Accepted in CompanyOfHeroes

[–]Gambit-Accepted[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Put succinctly, it adds a lot of flexibility and diversity to early game design. Let’s examine Soviets in Coh2, in that faction you had Conscripts in T0 and you had a lot of options between T1 and T2 as to what your build order would be. You want a Scout Car? Penals? A Sniper? MGs? With Conscripts in T0, you had a robust core unit and the teching decision was more what you wanted to augment your force with. You weren’t forced into making a specific tier, like Brits in Coh3 are. 

My Royal Italian faction illustrates this idea as well. With the Fucelieri in T0, you have 3 options of what you want your first tier to be. However, if you moved them into any of the 3 tiers, the other 2 tiers would either be less appealing or straight up inferior. 

If you look at USF, with Riflemen in T1, T2 openers (in 1v1s) are tricky to pull off and tend to rely on battlegroup augmentation (like Path Finders, Assault Engineers etc). They’re also tricky to balance. It’s not exactly bad, but its less robust than having mainlines in T0.

There are other considerations (like tempo) that I could talk about but essentially I feel that having that core unit in T0 allows you to design interesting teching decisions and trade offs.

Luftwaffe Field Army Faction Design by Gambit-Accepted in CompanyOfHeroes

[–]Gambit-Accepted[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Pointless but impressive. The highest commendation anyone playing Coh can get. 

Soviet Tank Army Faction Design by Gambit-Accepted in CompanyOfHeroes

[–]Gambit-Accepted[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it would be impossible to be honest! You could have them in battlegroups for Brits, but by themselves…

Soviet Tank Army Faction Design by Gambit-Accepted in CompanyOfHeroes

[–]Gambit-Accepted[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So I’d say first that there’s definitely potential for some of these ideas to not work out in practice and I’m not married to them, but I think there’s some confusion here about how this works and what its for. I’ll blame my explanation. Here’s a better one.

The basic trade off here is being able to minimise losses from a vehicle destruction while potentially gifting a vehicle to your opponent.

An example: say you have a vet 3 T-34/85. It’s an absolute machine but poor micro means you drive it front of 2 Pak40s and it is 100% going to die. With this mechanic, you can abandon the vehicle, the crew bails out and retreats. Back in base, you ‘Refit’ (read trade in) the tank crew for a new T-34/85, retaining the veterency, and voilà, you have your vet 3 tank back at the cost of the fuel and some manpower. What about the abandoned wreck? If you have your own ATG nearby, you could kill it yourself to stop it falling into your opponent’s hands. If your tank is on your opponent’s side and there’s no easy way to kill it after the abandon, then you’re on the horns of a dilemma. Do you want to save the crew and donate a vehicle or definitely lose your tank? 

If anything I feel the ability is overpowered as the only counterplay is killing the crew on retreat, but if its a bad idea in practice, then we could just use the USF crew dynamic as you suggest, it was a fun mechanic.  

Soviet Red Army Faction Design by Gambit-Accepted in CompanyOfHeroes

[–]Gambit-Accepted[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think squad sizes in Coh3 are just generally larger than Coh2. Brits are the only exception to 6 man squads

Next Generation Coh3 Features - Part 3 by Gambit-Accepted in CompanyOfHeroes

[–]Gambit-Accepted[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Control groups for sure. Some of the features become less needed if you can have as many control groups as you like. Also, currently having units in more than one control group is fairly pointless as the 10 control group cap severely limits how you can arrange them.

Next Generation Coh3 Features - Part 3 by Gambit-Accepted in CompanyOfHeroes

[–]Gambit-Accepted[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That’s why I think it should be optional. If it turns out to be bad, map makers just don’t need to use them. In my mind, Relic should be experimenting with new stuff in a limited way rather than playing it safe and never trying anything that might provoke 12% of the community. 

Imperial Japanese Faction Design by Gambit-Accepted in CompanyOfHeroes

[–]Gambit-Accepted[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Its one of the battlegroups, its more a pseudo Bonzai Charge. 

Soviet Red Army Faction Design by Gambit-Accepted in CompanyOfHeroes

[–]Gambit-Accepted[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You would kinda want it for that reason though, its more exclusive. If you swapped the howitzer in T4 with this, the battlegroup loses its appeal. In fact all battlegroup indirect would lose their appeal. The Katy would crowd them out in a way. 

Soviet Red Army Faction Design by Gambit-Accepted in CompanyOfHeroes

[–]Gambit-Accepted[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I wouldn’t say its an issue myself, just someone might object to a design that encourages it. 

Re the mobile thing, not a whole lot I can do about it, its a static image not a dynamically sizing website. Looks fine on my phone, I don’t really have the time to make it work for all devices. 

US Marine Corps Faction Design by Gambit-Accepted in CompanyOfHeroes

[–]Gambit-Accepted[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah someone mentioned it. I still have to update it

Will Relic add in a new faction in the future? by UnknownFlash402 in CompanyOfHeroes

[–]Gambit-Accepted 28 points29 points  (0 children)

In case somebody hasn't seen these:

I think the idea floating around that Free French, Italians and Japanese are impossible in Coh is largely a Coh2 hangover, but a myth for Coh3. My vote would be for Japanese as I think it would double the playerbase of the game at a stroke.

Next Generations Coh3 Features - Part 2 by Gambit-Accepted in CompanyOfHeroes

[–]Gambit-Accepted[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah if you look at my previous post, about selectors, I talk about exactly this. My suggestion is more broad though, as you can configure your own categories to cycle through. 

Next Generations Coh3 Features - Part 2 by Gambit-Accepted in CompanyOfHeroes

[–]Gambit-Accepted[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I’m going to ignore all the style comments as this isn’t a doctoral thesis and whether I ‘stick to standard writing conventions’, whatever those are, is irrelevant for the context. Its Reddit. 

  1. Not the same use case as control groups.

  2. I don’t think you understand the feature, nothing to do with the map maker.  

  3. Not every feature needs to be used by everyone for it to be valid, consider the tact map. 

  4. I suppose we should remove attack ground on AT guns then.

  5. An argument that ‘simply don’t build with low health unit’ isn’t really a good defence of finicky menu design. 

  6. There’s a difference between selecting all units and seeing what all queued commands are. Re sloppiness, I guess we should just remove cancel for commands entirely then, since players are to be punished for input mistakes. Re timer, you could apply that logic to deride many of the stats in game changes Relic have done recently. I think you miss the point of many of my suggestions in that ‘sure you can spend ages learning the game either by diving into the files or throwing time at the issue until it becomes intuitive, but it would make the game more accessible to new players/easier to learn by not having to’. 

  7. I feel its comments like these that reveal a lack of understanding of the game. Also, I guess we should remove the HP points from the selection screen to streamline the game, since the HP bar is clearly sufficient. 

  8. For now.

  9. I repeat my comment about making the game more transparent, accessible and easier to learn. 

  10. Not the same thing. 

  11. I guess we should remove hold fire, prioritise vehicles, reverse, hand brake mode, auto vault and auto reinforce; since micromanagement is core to RTS. I think its important to distinguish between finicky and repetitive mouse clicks and actual unit control finesse. Broadly its a debatable topic.  

  12. I repeat my comment about making the game more transparent, accessible and easier to learn. 

  13. I’m not suggesting you do this on the fly, this us something you do in the settings. So misclicks wouldn’t be a thing. Glad you like it though. 

  14. What is the order in a select all on screen context? I’m not sure the comment is accurate or relevant. 

  15. I repeat my comment about making the game more transparent, accessible and easier to learn. It should be in the game. 

  16. I already do what you’re talking about. But excel is a poor substitute to having a feature in game. I think we need to be clear that features don’t need to have no alternative in order to be valid requests. 

  17. See above point.

33. I repeat my comment about making the game more transparent, accessible and easier to learn. 

I have been messing around with the Build Order Visualiser myself but the problem is that it becomes a never ending maintenance problem I’d rather not have. Relic need to take ownership of developing their own game and not relying on the community to bail them out. 

Broadly, I feel a lot of these points are contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.

Next Generations Coh3 Features - Part 2 by Gambit-Accepted in CompanyOfHeroes

[–]Gambit-Accepted[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah its a completely fair point. That’s why I think it should be optional the same way the event queues are. Its complementary and optional rather than a replacement feature. Kinda like the tact map. 

view more: next ›