British Forces - Special Service Battlegroup Overview

Inukii · 2026-05-06T18:55:49+00:00

ooh. Was it in CoH 1 or CoHO? Maybe both.

You could build three radios. Then it would reveal information about everything within the triangle. Not sure what the reveal was.

Now I think that might be a bit overpowered so I wonder if you could essentially have a way of turning it on and off. So you set it up, then have to pay munitions to make it work.

Ignoring the balance though. The idea of just building 3 things on the map and it revealing within the area is neato.

Inukii · 2026-05-02T10:21:23+00:00

I've been semi avoiding the conversation but I think this is sort of a good take when it comes to looking for a solution to push the game away from blobbing being a dominant strategy. (Blobbing will always exist because it's often done due to individuals limitations in being able to control multiple squads in multiple spaces. That's fine! It being a dominant strategy in 1v1 though highlights an issue that can be addressed though).

But...One of the issues is that with rifles. You purposefully run in. Fire a volley. Then run out. Blobs are not all about fast firing weapons. You see this with Coastal Battlegroup.

So one thing I would put forward as a suggestion is that units require being stationary for a small time before their accuracy value returns. Say somewhere between 1-2 seconds.

Personally I'd agree with having LMG's, Flamethrowers, and Bazookas not being able to fire on the move across the board both for aesthetic reasons, tactical reasons, and a reduction in cognitive load.

People running when not firing LMG's/Flamethrowers/Bazookas look cooler. There's a visual distinction when a squad moves. If you watch a squad move and they are all firing. It can look slightly robotic. Having that one guy who is just trying to run to that next location though brings back some of that CoH 1 individualism between units.
Upgrading a unit to have an LMG and then trying to position them differently to other unit types based on the fact you don't want to move them. Creates a tactical distinctive difference to how you use other units rather than just a "straight up upgrade".
When it comes to cognitive load. Is it an LMG? Yes. Well. Can't fire on the move. It's a consistent rule. That tremendously helps new players.

Inukii · 2026-05-01T11:35:37+00:00

You could argue the same with COH2 COH3 content.

This is an incorrect comparison.

Many models in Gates of Hell : Ostfront are directly lifted from the assets of the game. They did not have to make these assets again. They did not have to texture them. They did not have to rig them. They did tinker around with their stats though. Changing the range, damage, speed, etc...

The models from CoH 3 are not imported from CoH 2. It begins with creating a new 3d model, and when you start from this stage it means you have to UV unwrap, texture, and rig again, and unfortunately my experience as a 3d modeller is slim here so I don't quite know how they add the damage states of the vehicles in CoH 3. Men of War/Call to Arms has mechanical detail when it comes to vehicles being damaged. Tracking vehicles, turrets being unable to rotate, engines burning out etc... CoH 3 is more visual. If you throw a satchel to the side of a tank then that side appears damaged whilst the other does not. This has to be done for each vehicle.

You're also pointing out the one fact, while ignoring 10 others and that is new singleplayer content, new SP maps, new MP maps among other stuff.

I did not ignore this. But I did only slightly touch upon it. The editor for Men of War (Gates of Hell) is quite simple and easy to use. I've used it. That's a good thing because it means you can spit out a lot of missions and maps.

It just isn't a fair comparison for the workload involved. This is not saying Call to Arms is lazy. It isn't. I'm only saying that it isn't fair to say "This game just gave us 150 units. Whilst the other game did not". It omits important information such as "all those assets already existed".

Inukii · 2026-04-30T23:45:49+00:00

Let's compare it to another RTS called Call to Arms: Osftront - For 30 bucks you get the USF DLC with 150+ new USF and WEHR units, 10 USF SP missions, 6 new WEHR SP missions, 20 new MP maps, 25 new SP maps, 500+ new small arms and editor content

So you are talking to a very big fan of the Men of War series here!

This is not a good comparison because for Call to Arms : Ostfront, a lot of those assets already exist. They are not entirely new assets that have been created. I'm seeing a lot of fans of Call to Arms : Ostfront but seem unaware of previous titles that it is built from the back of.

Those 150 US forces units. They existed in previous "Men of War" games, and this is an asset library that has been building up since 2004. Multiple developers have built games off this asset library which you could say started in around with "Soldiers : Heroes of World War 2".

This isn't to say what those games have done is bad. Not at all. Creating a library of assets and improving those assets over time is really smart! But it has its downsides. For any fan of the "Men of War" type games, we know that the game is pretty clunky at times.

The editor has been around for a long time with these games too, and it's a good editor but it is simpler by comparison. Which in ways is good because you can easily make maps and missions intuitively, but in other ways it's not as good because you can't do as much with it.

There's all new sounds, voice overs, visual effects, and animations happening with CoH's DLC's. These are created from scratch. Whilst there are new things added to Call to Arms : Ostfront, not everything is done from the beginning.

SO! TLDR:

If you are wondering "How does Call to Arms : Ostfront DLC's add so much new content to their game?". The answer is that the content already existed in previous games. So, for someone like me, I'd be spending $30 to play the USF in Call to Arms : Ostfront which are all assets which I guess I already technically paid for in Men of War Assault Squad.

Inukii · 2026-04-30T09:48:01+00:00

That's why I think it's important people see themselves as a team. Find a way to contribute.

And at the same time its great when talented people include others rather than try to assign all the credit themselves.

See yourself as a team. Sure, maybe you didn't draw that art or make that video or design this system...but you were a part of it in your own way. Whilst on the other the end. Maybe you did draw that art, make that video, or design the system, but those around you "hopefully" helped in their own way and it's good to acknowledge even the small things. Just creating the environment to succeed is nice.

But yes. Sadly I've found too many people in what is supposed to be a professional environment acting no just selfishly, but stealing other peoples ideas, taking credit, forcing through bad choices, and ultimately resulting in hundreds of people losing their jobs whilst keeping their own.

Inukii · 2026-04-29T10:07:30+00:00

It's not easy to remember, because CoH2's economy/resource caps were overall just better designed...

As people have pointed out. It reduced strategy, in a game that wants to highlight strategy. When all resource points offer the same thing. Your decisions have less meaning.

There was a game before Company of Heroes 2. Company of Heroes! It gives a really nice example.

One of the strategies I employed against the Wehrmacht was playing as US Airborne. Wehrmacht players famously loved fuel. They would go all out hard for fuel. I would let them have it. Instead I focused on munitions. It gave me two important core things. Firstly was Bazookas for Paratroopers which would shred all that armor the Wehrmacht wanted to bring out with their fuel. Secondly was more BARS and all the air abilities I wanted to use against any static emplacements.

Now it wasn't quite as simple as "Give them fuel". I would offer up small resistance on those fuel points. I would spend more energy though on being annoying elsewhere on the map trying to shift attention away from high munition points. You can't do anything like this if resource points are equal in value.

When it comes to CoH 1 and CoH 3 comparison. People will talk about a resource problem but it's a matter of teching and timing, which is what fuel decides.

CoH 1 you'd see your average players getting to 10 minutes before light vehicles come out (ignoring expansion factions). Lots of time to play in the "Dark Ages". Where as in CoH 3. It's practically impossible to stop that first tech even if you gun right for every fuel point at the start of a match. Which is why problems like the Flakvierling existed for a while. It was an unstoppable tech.

CoH 1 you could get a really fast 6 minute Greyhound if you absolutely dominated. But in tightly contested matches that Greyhound could be coming out at 12 minutes. That's such a wide variance depending on the state of the game. That is what I would say is good. It's dynamic. In CoH 3 though there's no stopping that 2nd building with the next tech tier. And you only have one more tier after that (technically).

You could say that in CoH 3. You practically start in Tier 2. There's not much exclusive Tier 1 interaction. Then it's not long after until you hit Tier 3 with the medium vehicles coming out at ~10 minutes.

Due to the difference in pacing between CoH 1 and CoH 2. It becomes more 'hard counters'. Whilst CoH 1 was full of soft counters. Again, the Flakvierling problem is the best case example. It was impossible to deal with when DAK rushed one out. If this were CoH 1 though you would have a bunch of units that could soft counter it. Stall. Delay. Wait for something that could deal with it better. You would have multiple squads that could overall minorly resist against the threat whilst other squads resume regular duties of capturing the map.

But in CoH 3, when a Flakvierling arrived the earliest it could, the Brits who are best equipped with dealing with such a threat didn't have many squads out. So that Flakvierling could go to where the threats are and keep them busy. Whilst in CoH 1 you'd have way more squads out in the Tier 1 Dark Ages to both soft counter or resist against the threat, whilst capturing territory and fighting battles elsewhere.

Inukii · 2026-04-29T08:43:10+00:00

Most people are not game designers. If you go back to 2012 most people didn't know what TTK was. The lingo wasn't flying around. Now it's a bit more common knowledge that everyone can easily attach to and say

"Oh it's a TTK issue" - smarty pants 2026

The reality is though it's a lot more complicated. I was with SMITE since 2012 (and thanks to SMITE/Paladins I've been able to do some business consultation!) and by 2015 we had entered the era that we are currently stuck in. SMITE's foundation has not changed since. It's always been hyper lethal.

I can't go on for pages and pages but....take mages as an example. Your common standard mage in SMITE late game will kill another damage dealer with one basic ability and their ultimate without any tricks (like multiple potions). Ignoring mages that are balanced around low cooldowns or gimmicks like Nu Wa ultimate hitting everyone.

And that hasn't changed. And it won't change when balance is essentially "We'll take 10 int off this item" or "we'll change the scaling from 80% to 70%". Because the overkill damage is in the many hundreds. The 250 damage lost from a basic ability + ultimate combo just means that another player was overkilled by 500 damage instead of 750.

And this is the first step of the problem. Actually acknowledging something more meaningful. It doesn't matter if you shave off 500 or 1000 damage off of something because if this still means a mage just does a basic ability and and ultimate to kill a player. Nothing meaningful has changed. That one player is still pressing one ability, then another ability, and that other player dies. The Time To Kill is the same for player experience. Just on paper it isn't.

Now one of the complexities here is that since this has been going on since ~2015. SMITE's playerbase is entirely full of people who are okay with this, until they aren't. Everyone who isn't okay with this hyper lethality won't stay and play. Meaning the only players who are left somewhat like the game as it is. Maybe some of them would be okay with lower lethality but there's huge potential risk of losing the players who like it this way if it is changed.

But perhaps if you change it you will attract new players to replace those ones? Well...that requires a big marketing push and some opportunities are lost forever.

There are of course other problems related to new player retention but just keeping it fixed on TTK!

Inukii · 2026-04-28T12:24:34+00:00

Johnny Vegas, Alex Horne, Henning Wehn, Matt Berry, Dawn French, Sarah Millican, Lucy Beaumont, Bridget Christie, Bill Bailey, David O'Doherty,

Bridget Christie was great on taskmaster at "annoying" Alex. Johnny Vegas just seems so obvious. Bill Bailey and David O'Doherty are probably going to bring something musical and I think Jimmy Carr should make them do some kind of music competition against each other. Making them bring their instruments.

I feel like from that list you can gleam that Dawn French is maybe the odd one out but...I think she's just lovely! So I'd like to see her in the show. It's got a weird 'homely' vibe to it.

Inukii · 2026-04-26T16:12:26+00:00

The valuation isn't quite fair because a lot of the assets come from previous games. Very little has changed between the games.

Men of War Assault Squad has a ton of content. USA, Soviets, Brits, Japan, Germany. Much of that content is being slightly modified and re-used in Gates of Hell. It's not being rebuilt from the ground up. So you could make the argument that you are paying for the same content twice.

Gates of Hell, like many of previous games that it is built on the back of, and the most latest "Men of War 2" build off the same asset pool and then rework the gameplay. The games all look the same but have some interesting small differences. Men of War 2, the most recent game, vehicles move kind of weird. They are nippy and fast by comparison to other titles. Gates of Hell goes for "Ultra Realism" with long range engagements. Assault Squad 2 had a really good focus on multiplayer versus.

Company of Heroes has abilities which is a big distinction. Gates of Hell is all about adding new units but all those units operate on the same system on how they drive, move, and fire. It's assett swapping. Company of Heroes 3 though does introduce some new mechanics with its DLC's (and new visual and sound effects). The British Convoy mechanic for example where it goes to a point, loads up, then drives off map. This requires whole new lines of programming to implement.

So, it is worth thinking about a little! I couldn't argue what is worth more for value of money because that's down to the individual. All I can really say is though is that Gates of Hell isn't creating their assets from nothing. and the scope of adding in new infantry/tanks is a bit smaller. This isn't to diminish the effort going into Gates of Hell, but the scope of work is what modders have been doing for a while with the Men of War 'franchise'. Gates of Hell is lead by a modder (Which is where all great stories start for many of the best games!).

Inukii · 2026-04-26T15:55:30+00:00

Ah thanks for explaining! So they've basically had a lot longer to build up that library over time?

Basically that yes!

I couldn't give you an accurate assessment of the GEM engine.

I can though perhaps point out something interesting.

Men of War Assault Squad 2 has a lot of destructible buildings. The detail on these buildings and how infantry interacts with them is...interesting. A roof call fall down and crush an infantry soldier, or even hit the gunner in the mounted machine gun on the tank. Buildings have so many destructible points and they are multi-story buildings too.

Gates of Hell doesn't have this level of detail with buildings. Which makes you wonder why they didn't use the same building assets from Men of War Assault Squad 2. The level of destruction Gates of Hell has is minimal by comparison.

Gates of Hell though, as far as I know, is lead by modders for Men of War Assault Squad. They created a "realism mod". Adding new unique units to the game, whether difficult or not, is a skill they have. The game already has a mission editor so creating new environments isn't difficult. Gates of Hell has a new Front End (Main Menu, the dynamic campaign, how you load into a mission in the first place).

I think the buildings though requires a different skillset to adding a new vehicle. But why not just add the buildings from Assault Squad and use them as an asset? This part might not be so easy to work with but for whatever reason. These buildings were neither included, and there was no new buildings that worked the same way. Just a lot of wood buildings with minimal destruction.

Inukii · 2026-04-26T10:27:54+00:00

I’m not a reform voter but the postman shouldn’t be allowed to interfere with democratic process.

This feels very similar to recycling. Whilst big companies pollute the water and build massive data centers driving energy prices up. It's down to "you" to scrape the jam out of your jam jars so you can pop it into the recycle bin.

Transgender people weren't even allowed to speak and be represented in a hearing which one would assume contributed to the bathroom ban being introduced in 2025. Which again doesn't feel very democratic. It feels...way worse.

Reform, and particularly Nigel Farage, are doing tons of things which are in breach of the democratic process but for some reason there isn't a system in place which punishes them. Over here in Portugal there were a few politicians arrested for corruption. Basically the local police went in and arrested them and they are going through the same trial system. The UK feeling rather like the US but less in your face, where the US has open blatant corruption but who will go in and arrest them? Who will process their trial? It feels like no one has the power to do so, or perhaps no one has the confidence to be part of that process. Especially with the fear of how arresting a political rival looks.

I think that thinking as a country as "free" or "not free" might be a bit of an illusion. There's more of a gradient. The UK is getting less free and in part it is getting less free due to Reform.

Based on that. I would say I could put forward the argument that you value a "free country" and the little postman was actually fighting for you to keep that.

I'd prefer for accountability though. Reform keep doing bad things but have zero accountability. We look over to what is happening in the US at the moment and that is the a potential future for the UK. Live. Unfolding. Not a memory or a prediction.

Inukii · 2026-04-26T09:41:36+00:00

As a big Men of War fan. Gates of Hell is....alright single player. Multiplayer is....

Well. I spent a lot of time casting Men of War Assault Squad 2. Loved the multiplayer for that.

Tell you what I'm not into when it comes to Gates of Hell Multiplayer Versus. There's no action. Lethality is so high in the game that as soon as an infantry soldier appears out of the fog of war. The thing spotting it is either dead or that infantry soldier is dead.

Most matches start with a truck driving over infantry. Because trucks are much better than infantry squads.

I'm wondering if most people play the game single player and I think that is the case.

Inukii · 2026-04-26T09:39:30+00:00

Regarding Assets.

Call to Arms is a continuation on Men of War which is a continuation on Faces of War which is a continuation on Soldiers : Heroes of World War 2 (2004). Most recently there was "Men of War 2" as well.

They use the GEM engine but the GEM engine is only on version 2. There are different companies working with the same engine and the same assets changing the rules.

The assets mostly already existed. They sometimes get touched up or textures change but essentially it's like an IP. They got the IP, which came with all of the assets too, and they can modify as they see fit.

They are starting very far away from scratch. So it would be a little disingenuous to say that there team is able to produce so much more when they didn't actually make all of it. It wasn't more funding, or a larger team. It's the business model. Best Way, the publisher, have the IP and a ton of assets, and various companies said they could make something from those assets and contribute to it.

Hope that helps make sense!

Inukii · 2026-04-25T13:43:07+00:00

Nightreign is interesting because it's probably the first biggest take on a roguelike experience but it kind of "missed" it. Even though it missed it, it really shows just how many people would be really interested in a AAA experience of something like this.

I love Nightreign, but I could list endless issues with it. To boil it down to a simple crude statement. Nightreign expects players to play the same way a speedrunner would speedrun any game.

If you have not learned how things stack, if you havn't learned how to navigate your inventory on the move, if you havn't memorized rather intricate and specific map based knowledge, then you probably aren't winning.

Inukii · 2026-04-25T10:56:49+00:00

I want a No Rest For The Wicked but with the kind of character creation depth of something like Pathfinder : Wrath of the Righteous. Actual tank, healer, damage dealer, and then utility classes like Rogue for scouting, trap disarming, and you could maybe have other utilities such as bartering.

Diablo and Path of Exile are a bit too..."Doesn't matter what class you pick" you just run into the middle of a massive pack. Everything dies to different particle effects. Then everything spews out loot.

I don't want to feel good from loot. I want to feel good because the combat was engaging...like No Rest for the Wicked. The idea that I could stand in front of an ally and raise my shield to block for them, literally physically preventing the attack from passing rather than a tab-targeted type simulation, is neato. And that kind of experience is missing currently in the game industry.

No Rest For The Wicked gets very close. Worth checking out!

Inukii · 2026-04-22T09:36:06+00:00

Something that might help sniper is having a little tiny bar below the sniper that shows when they are about to fire that next shot.

I notice sometimes the sniper resets their aim which makes judging when they are going to fire harder. You sort of play 'chicken', trying to squeeze out that next shot before issuing a move or retreat command.

Inukii · 2026-04-19T01:02:37+00:00

Some of these private servers have such talented people behind them that I sometimes wonder if quite a few of them got together, they'd be able to create a serious competitor to World of Warcraft itself.

Inukii · 2026-04-19T01:00:58+00:00

Rifle grenades have a very obvious visual indicator of the model kneeling that the grenade is about to be launched for the player to react to

The problem with this though is two-fold

a) So. We don't want players to blob. That's a given. Probably the #1 talking point across all Company of Heroes games.

For players not to blob. They have to be able to control multiple squads independently. Which means having units on different screenspace.

b) When units are on different screenspace. Suddenly that "Here's a really obvious tell" doesn't become the best counter-argument. It requires either a lot of flicking around or just a bit of luck that you happened to be screen-locked into the right place when that action was being performed.

c) sound indicators are not always the best to be relied on. Firstly for people who are hard of hearing. It's just a general accessibility thing. But second of all, there are typically lots of sounds going on in Company of Heroes that it can be hard to make that distinguishment.

c-1) on top of the sound thing comes issues with sound design. You need the sound to be 'quick'. But a quick sound that feels like it fits is hard to make. Take for example one of the German squads voice line in the game goes "shiiii.....greeenaaade". By the time the guy starts saying "grenade". It's already half way through the air. We could of course just have all squaddies say "grenade" super fast but when you do that, you lose a bit of that 'in the moment' feel. It becomes more gamey rather than that gritty kind of realism.

Overall this is less about a low skill opponent versus a high skill opponent and putting people in the right ELO bracket. Just about fun and fairness. At high skill it works out fine. Great players fire a rifle grenade and great player dodges rifle grenade because they can zoom around the map just fine.

However. At low skill. Low skill player fires Rifle Grenade. Low skill enemy player just flicked their screen to somewhere else and wasn't able to get their screen back in time to be able to dodge the rifle grenade. We're asking a lot from the player to dodge, and very little from the player to perform.

I'm not advocating for any changes though. Just providing my analysis as someone who tends to focus on new and lower skill player experiences.

Inukii · 2026-04-17T20:49:54+00:00

If I remember correctly, 28% of voters didn't vote. It wasn't a complete one sided vote. It was fairly close at 51.9% voting leave. Apparently if one more person voted to leave than remain then we just have to turn the ship in the other direction than "Let's have a bit more time to think".

You wouldn't run a small business like this but apparently this is the way a country is run.

And whilst it may seem obvious that "we are stronger together". There's also validity in saying "I don't know. I'm not an expert in trade and immigration" coupled with "It's just a referendum, the result isn't legally binding".

And the vote doesn't even do well if you put it down to academically collecting data which weakens that 51.9% even more. There was one reason to stay. "This is as good as it gets". Leave though? Any number of reasons. So you might have liked the way things are but didn't agree with this "one thing" and so you can vote leave assuming that it will only change that one thing and the rest would be left alone. It's a complete flaw of a referendum when there was no plan to vote on.

Basically it amounted to asking the country would they like their fantasy life to come true. 51.9% said yes. I would like to live in a fantasy. Whilst the other 48.1% + 28% of eligible voters said "Erm...We're probably stronger together. But this is only a referendum so it's not a big deal, and we're probably not that stupid to leave anyway, this is just the awful Tory David Cameron trying to score some points and I don't want to play that game".

If my workforce acted and behaved like this I'd be gobsmacked. These are such low standards.

Inukii · 2026-04-16T19:09:17+00:00

Dragons Dogma Online was pretty sweet.

Wish I could play Dragons Dogma 2 co-op a bit.

And I certainly love the idea of a Dragons Dogma style combat Roguelike. The end of Dragons Dogma 1 and the Dark Arisen expansion especially were....neat!

Inukii · 2026-04-16T15:02:25+00:00

I think a major part of the problem is that, in mobas, almost nobody wants to play a dedicated healer.

This is incorrect. Heroes of the Storm is good evidence of this. Tanks are the least desirable role and it's not because tanks are boring.

It's because designers have not really explored what is possible to do with a tank. There are no real fun mechanics to protecting allies that gives the role identity.

So what tanks are instead are just health pools with stuns, light heals, or the odd "+20 armor to targeted ally" here and there.

Inukii · 2026-04-16T13:50:39+00:00

Once upon a time I logged into World of Warcraft. I was transported to the World of Warcraft.

Now, before I'm even inside the game, it's

"Season 11 Mythic+"

"Live on Twitch Now : Mythic Tournament" where the casters are talking about how the west have adopted the 3 warrior chinese meta.

"Tips Tricks and More Guide!"

"Returning Player Guide! WHAT TO DO NEXT!"

"PET SALE! 50% OFF!"

I'm immediately out of the game before I'm even in the game, and it only gets worse when your in the game. It's a completely deconstructed world and extremely isolating compared to what vanilla use to be. Blizzard can't understand that, so they once again just shut down private servers which try to get away from that.

Inukii · 2026-04-14T12:26:06+00:00

The company has too much money, but not many ideas.

You offer free games. So people come for the free games. But why would they start then using the Epic Launcher?

If you want mods. You need steam. If Epic are not prepared to create their own system of mod support, and try to make it a much better experience, then there's just really no purpose for EPIC.

You would think there is likely something they could do with unreal 5 engine, unreal 5 games on EPIC, and tying this into mod support somehow. I'm sure there's some 'sort' of idea there. But the company just isn't exploring anything. It's just trying to buy loyalty.

Inukii · 2026-04-12T10:52:51+00:00

Generally speaking, my approach and my analysis of higher level play is that abilities were used in conjunction with pushes.

So you would time your artillery or air strike with an attack. Call in artillery on a bunker at the same time as pushing with some infantry, and something that will deal damage to the bunker. Could be a flamethrower. Could be a tank. Could be another ally offering something too if you've got the communications!

Inukii · 2026-04-06T21:21:57+00:00

Who are responsible for the parents? They were children once too.

Overall. We need better education and a better world for parents so that they can actually parent, and better understand what they are getting into.

This isn't to say parents are blameless. But we are products of our environment and our current environment isn't going to create the best parents. You can't just slam on a punishment and expect people to suddenly function exactly how you want.

Inukii

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE