If these "features/exploits" could be fixed, would you want them to?

[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

[anthony210]

Well, the thing is your vote is limited to what people think about tanks running over infantry.  Which IMO is fine atm, I would rather have infantry getting run over than start having infantry block tanks.

However, I still think some things are abused, such as jeeps and bikes blocking tanks.

[Jazzlizard]

Most are basically saying what I am; that it's not likely to get changed unless fldash has changed his mind on this matter, which judging by the content of this thread, I doubt has happened.

What I'm trying to say is, the way it works is stupid, if you want tanks to crush troops then make it consistent. As of right now it's a bit tricky the way it works, although there are things you can do to help it happen (or to avoid it). Even so the way it works right now is dumb imo, and it's easier to just turn it off, than to fix the AI/Engine.

As far as balance goes I think tanks are fine against infantry as is, they don't need the quirky crush ability to help them out.

Note, I'm not proposing infantry block tanks, that's just silly, the engine already has a method to move them out of the way without being crushed.

Finally, I don't mean to make this more then it is, it's just one of those 'features' that I think is done poorly and would like to see redone.

[Aggamemnon]

Blocking is a bit iffy.
But running people over is fine, it works for both sides, it's just the axis don't have a nimble tank that can do it so well as the M10's.

Personally, if the infantry chose to dodge tanks etc as they retreated then I would say retreating troops too. Personally I feel that if tanks/support weapons don't get a "run out of shit" free card men shouldn't either, I think a lot more people would be a LOT more careful with their troops if they didn't get the retreat buff's to get out with.

[BradAnderson]

its fine units retreating barley get blokced by tanks mind you people have dont it to me its gay but hey its a game also crushing units is good if it wasnt for crush my m10's really would be worthless

[Kolath]

This has been done to death, or the past year.

That is the answer.  For better or for worse, none of these items are going to change.

[salan]

I run down troops all the time, block tanks, and have more accidently blocked retreaters then intentionaly,  but I have done that as well when I have lost a high vet unit and need retribution!

The poll is like 33 against any change, and 6 for, obviously the numbers speak for themselves... sadly could be multiple accounts voting but its not like 1 person will vote with 12 accounts so its still very numerically sound.

In the end people don't like losing units, I would prefer a much higher turn around then we see now myself.  remove retreat out of the game

[Kolath]

Hmm... now that would be interesting.  No retreat?

[Leafedge]

No Retreat would give AB and Ranger spam a huge advantage. Fire up already works as a secondary, non sacrificial EiR retreat as it is.

Anyway I'm not too annoyed with the infantry crushing. It doesn't happen too often if you know what you're doing and you should atleast be able to retreat the remaining men in the squad off the field.

Vehicle blocking is something that I really find dumb. It usually just gets me another free vehicle kill but I still find it really dumb, unrealistic, and abusive.

[salan]

No Retreat would give AB and Ranger spam a huge advantage. Fire up already works as a secondary, non sacrificial EiR retreat as it is.

why stop there?  what about the blitzkreig lesser suppression modifier and the ones in vet.. I watched blitz units walk through 2 mgs firing at them without a problem.

Most people miss-use their fireup ability on rangers/airborn, luckily.  And those units price would probably be redone to directly reflect any retreat changes, or so I would think.

also, rangers are the only INFANTRY squad in the game that have recieved a population increase, at 7 and their price, they are pretty balanced compared to how they perform.

Vehicle blocking is something that I really find dumb. It usually just gets me another free vehicle kill but I still find it really dumb, unrealistic, and abusive.

using an intentional game function is not abuse.

ABUSE is when someone gets assault in blitzkreig and never spends a munition on actually buying them and uses the free ones.

ABUSE is drop hacking to try and save your vet or to make someone else get a lag box so you can kick them.

huge differences in the actual implimentation of that words use.

and yes, if i have 2 jeeps on the field darn right i'll box in a KT so my rr's/57s can finish it.  Its the way the game is designed by relic, they have infantry crush for a reason, imagine if tanks couldn't crush infantry, you could swarm ANY tank and it would be absolutely stuck.  They never put it on vehicles because then it would be like FOW all you would have to do is run into something to overcome it, forget tactics.

[[AB]RikiRude]

Note, I'm not proposing infantry block tanks, that's just silly, the engine already has a method to move them out of the way without being crushed.

I agree and I hope no one thinks that's an idea I'm trying to push.

I also am very interested in the whole idea of getting rid of the retreat button. Make infantry retreat like vehicles do. I think that could be a turn for good.

[salan]

Note, I'm not proposing infantry block tanks, that's just silly, the engine already has a method to move them out of the way without being crushed.

I agree and I hope no one thinks that's an idea I'm trying to push.

I also am very interested in the whole idea of getting rid of the retreat button. Make infantry retreat like vehicles do. I think that could be a turn for good.

It would be hell, and resisted ENDLESSLY *aka retreat off map* but damn tactically speaking it could be the best thing to change this from its Vcoh roots.

[Wraith547]

I personally think it is a terrible idea.

The gameplay was already slowed a ton with the removal of on-map retreat and the general reduction in the size of companies.

If I wanted to play a game that slow, I have Close Combat. I think the solution to these problems isn't the removal of retreat, but rather much harsher vet loss penalties for losing.

[BradAnderson]

no, retreat is fine tbh if it aint broken dont fix it

[Leafedge]

Personally I would say neither needs adjustment. Some units just couldn't get vet 3 if you did that, and there's no reason someone shouldn't be able to get any unit up to vet 3 if they focus on it. No, things are fine as is, and so far as retreat removal - it would unbalance the game (again?). You might think retreat is equally important for both factions but its not. AB and Rangers would dominate the field with the only viable retreat function.

[BradAnderson]

why remember there fireup has been nerfed stupid and you only get it like every 7mins i think

[salan]

Personally I would say neither needs adjustment. Some units just couldn't get vet 3 if you did that, and there's no reason someone shouldn't be able to get any unit up to vet 3 if they focus on it. No, things are fine as is, and so far as retreat removal - it would unbalance the game (again?). You might think retreat is equally important for both factions but its not. AB and Rangers would dominate the field with the only viable retreat function.

and axis bonus to suppression, and resistance to suppression would do what?

I suppress airborn and rangers constantly, usually after they have used their fireup.  Your view is way to narrow to truly offer an argument.

[Aggamemnon]

The recharge on fire-up is quite a long one.

The thing with losing the retreat button (not that I am saying do that, I'd prefer to simply remove the buff's *IF* men dodged tanks properly) is that it would accomplish the spirit of the mod imo, which is the vicious fighting for ground. (not resources like in vcoh).

I've said it before, sometimes I prefer to simply lose a squad than to wait for them to run all the way off the field before I can bring in another squad.

Tanks would never get a speed bonus and heavy crush to get them off the field faster/safer, I don't see why men still get the ability to run faster, become un-suppressible, uncrushable and less prone to damage and sniping in this type of mod.

Retreat is a game mechanic that works in Vanilla CoH because you build and pay for troops on the field, then are allowed to re-inforce in the same fight, but if you pin a guy in his base, they lose the buff and can be killed properly. If a squad is pinned you should have to remove the MG/suppression or take heavy losses getting that squad out, not press a button and 9/10 times lose no men in the retreat.

The main problem I could see in losing it (or the buffs) is that people would have tanks in the retreat path and they would run into it and die. Or if they are already being run over by a tank, half the squad would be killed when trying to get out.

[salan]

I really don't know why people are worried about retreaters getting crushed by tanks... even if they remove the buffs that is one they really would have no reason to remove, unless coding was an issue.

who knows, ucross has the power, its in his hands eitherway, with whatever process he uses to decide.

[demoner]

Theres a difference between 'run behind that machine gun' and 'RUN FROM THAT MACHINE GUN.'

I'd be filled with the spirit of the devil to run away and get away, and sure as hell wouldn't stop cause hes shooting at me.

Also, machine guns are already under costed in pop (3 pop... 5 for a infantry squad?) Making them the ultimate vet killers would completely demoralize people from trying to use infantry. MG ahead, oh he shot you, and you lose... YOUR ENTIRE SQUAD cause you couldn't break supression.

GG Sturmtruppen who break it after like 2 minutes.

[Aggamemnon]

I didn't say don't break suppression.
I just don't think they should be able to dodge bullets simply because they are running away, have to cover the same ground they used to get in that position after all, and he is sighted already.