variety

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[XIIcorps]

Has anyone else thought how much better this mod would be if there was more variety in the units.
As in say commandos having access to the tet and 40mm h tet from the blitz mod

Just generally having far more diverse units for the mod I feel would add to its continued success.

I'm not entirely sure on how well we have access to said units from blitz EF and etc
But I personally just feel EIR hasn't really evolved in a number of years.

[terrapinsrock]

Flammenhetzer for Tank Destroyers pl0x

[wildsolus]

i wouldn't mind bren carriers and airborne again

[AmPM]

I would prefer a balanced game to just more new units. That being said I would like to see more specialization in doctrines...

[CrazyWR]

I would prefer a balanced game to just more new units. That being said I would like to see more specialization in doctrines...

this * 1000

[NightRain]

Specialization in doctrines > New units.

[Unkn0wn]

New units are a poor man's answer to a lack of depth. I mean, we have quite a bit of 'new' units if you do the math and count reward units but the truth is that not many of those units actually add something new to the table. COH already has a rich unit variety, so there simply aren't many combat roles that are missing from the game. (And some 'gaps' are intentional as symmetric unit additions can actually have an adverse affect on gameplay , like WM not having a turreted cheap tank destroyer, etc)

Secondly, I want to point out that the largest hurdle to EIR's success has always been player accessibility. We had a HUGE amount of players try out EIR since release, but unfortunately very few of those players actually made it past their first successful game. Attracting players has never been the issue as the concept of a 'grand campaign' with persistency in a WW2 game is very appealing in itself.