Poor commander design.

#1
4 years ago
WunderKatzeWunderKat… Posts: 731
edited July 2016 in Commander Feedback

The main issue that I find with commander's is that the abilities almost NEVER mesh well together:

I find that the few commanders that strong commanders have:

1. Abilities that augment each other.
Abilities must have incentives to use. If abilities don't augment each other then a select few abilities will take precedent over the others.
2. Abilities with Munition and abilities with Manpower costs and varied costs.
Commanders that mostly have manpower or munition costs tend to prevent abilities from being used in combination.
3. Abilities that support an overall consistent playstyle.
Commanders generally encourage a certain strategy. Abilities that run counter to the theme of a commander distract from the play-style of the commander and thus subtract from the commanders value as a whole.

Other commanders rely on single obtusely strong abilities due to the lack of incentive and reward for using abilities in combination or to complement each other.

An example of good commander design is USF Heavy Calvary:

.

This commander is aggressive focused commander on hard hitting units.

0CP: RM field defenses: Allows for early game focus on Riflemen, who can know thanks to this ability build FPs and Mines which help prevent USF get outflanked during a involved flank of their own.

1CP: Off map smoke: Cheap MU ability that calls in smoke. Meshes well with Rangers who don't have smoke grenades. Also it's cheap so it doesn't interfere with the use of Combined Arms.

3CP: Rangers: Strong infantry units. Augmented by the off map smoke (which they lack) and also by Combined Arms which benefits vehicles and infantry. They lack AT but hey you can count on a late game Pershing to help with AT in fact. Even better. Thanks to Combined Arms your Rangers can help your Pershing by sticking close by. Pretty cool if you ask me.

4CP: Combined Arms: augments vehicles, it comes at CP4 you can use it with light vehicles like the Stuart and you can also use it with your Rangers. This ability is more expense but thanks to the cheap price of the smoke barrage ability you'll be able to use both of them during a flank.

13CP: Pershing: Normally USF flanks lose potency late game, this unit augments the existing aggressive style, doesn't have smoke but hey, look you already have a off map smoke barrage. Also augmented by Combined arms.

This commander has good design. A combination of cheap and expensive abilities that augment each other and encourage an over all aggressive play-style.

.

The Following is a few examples of what I believe are poorly designed commanders:

Example 1: Airborne Company's paradrop abilities.

They all cost manpower and the weapon's need crew members making them more expensive then their tech tree counterparts.

Dropping a squad and a weapon means you pay 600 MP for one support weapon and a 3 man squad (after crewing the weapon) which is useless and outrageously expensive.

Dropping a weapon alone while you have the required tech means you are paying more to drop and crew it then you could be by just building it normally.

This kind of anti-synergy discourages (and sometimes punishes) players from making use of all the abilities in Airborne company.

Suggestions: Change the weapon drop abilities to munition costs, speed up the research rate on paratrooper weapons, allow paratrooper weapon crews to reinforce from the Pathfinder beacons, allow Pathfinder beacons to call down cheap arty of some sort.

Example 2: Tactical Support Company's P47 call-ins/M1919/M5 quad upgrade.

All of these abilities have huge munitions costs.

The recon costs 80, the M1919s cost 70 each, strafing run costs 125MU and the M5 upgrade costs 120.These abilities constantly have to be weighed against each other for usage because they all have huge MU price tags that will run a player dry who actively tries to use all of the different abilities.

Because of these costs the abilities don't synergize well. There's no real benefit to using them in combination. They are just competing choices that cannot be used in combination considering the regular MU costs present in the USF faction.

Suggestions: relax the costs of the strafing run and recon loiter. Allow troops to pick up M1919's from the M5 halftrack to add incentives to using the halftrack.

Example 3: Recon: all the abilities.

The abilities in this commander don't encourage a certain playstyle. The Greyhound is quick attack unit while the I and Rs are a slow ambush unit.

The Recon Run has no off map arty to compliment it. And the Paradrop combat group's random weapon assortment and uncrewed AT gun make it dangerous to use as a flanking group.

The Paradrop combat group is expensive and comes with random weapons making it operationally awkward.

Suggestions: Redesign units in commander to either encourage flanking (cheaper paradrop ability, faster units, MU off map support call in) or ambush (stealth, surprise type units).

Example 4: Royal Artillery: Valentine and Sexton

This commander relies on units that are pop heavy, expensive and under preforming. None of the cooperative play between these units comes to fruition due to there under performance and relative costs.

Also I find it ironic that of all the commanders this commander has far less potent artillery (when compared to Commando's Operation Air Superiority or Tactical Support's Artillery Cover and Mobile Assault's Land Mattress.)

.
.

In summary:

Commanders with abilities that complement each other and encourage a overall play-style are well designed. Those commanders are always stronger. Commanders that don't should be redesigned.

These are just a few examples of an issue that I believe plagues most of the commanders in the game.

What do you think? Do most commanders need a rework? Do you think the new commanders have better design then the old ones?

Comments

  • #2
    4 years ago
    Stryfe025Stryfe025 Posts: 11

    I 10000% agree with you on this one. I don't know if the other factions have the same issue. Personally I don't think so but at least they have like 15 commanders to choose from. I think the issue really sticks out with the US faction though because of the style of play US needs to maintain. The US faction is all about versatility and tactics because they don't have the strongest tanks available. This means you need to make the most out of units and their abilities to make up for raw firepower.

    You mentioned the Airborne and Tactical Support:

    The Recon Support suffers from the same issue as well.

    CP 2: I&R Pathfinders - This unit would be pretty cool if it was the same as the regular pathfinders with added abilities but instead its basically only there for the call ins. 140 munitions and you have to be so close that you'll be lucky not to lose the pathfinders in the process.

    CP 3: Greyhound - Comes out late, Firepower is lacking a bit, But the to the point its 70 munitions for armor skirts, and 60 munitions for canister shot (which got nerfed hard).

    CP 4? or is it 6? - Recon Sweep - Aside from the fact this should be a loiter (RECON company and all you get is a recon sweep?) It's MORE munitions for a 3 second peak at the enemies actions.

    CP7: Paradrop: This is easily the worst call in in the game. It's been said since day one and still no changes.

    Basically the US commanders have a huge issue with call ins not working well together. There are only 6-8 commanders for the faction and that's three that are pretty busted and I'm sure a few others have the same issues.

  • #3
    4 years ago
    omar_empomar_emp United Arab EmiratesPosts: 532

    @WunderKatze said:
    Commanders have the potential to encourage many playstyles within a single faction and ensure that a player never has the same experience between two matches. Right now I don't feel like commanders achieve that aim.

    I'll talk primarily about USF commanders who I am the most familiar with.

    .
    .

    The main issue that I find with commander's is that the abilities NEVER mesh well together:

    Example 1: Airborne Company's paradrop abilities.

    They all cost manpower and the weapon's need crew members making them more expensive then their tech tree counterparts.

    Dropping a squad and a weapon means you pay 600 MP for one support weapon and a 3 man squad (after crewing the weapon) which is useless and outrageously expensive.

    Dropping a weapon alone while you have the required tech means you are paying more to drop and crew it then you could be by just building it normally.

    This kind of anti-synergy discourages (and sometimes punishes) players from making use of all the abilities in Airborne company.

    Example 2: Tactical Support Company's P47 call-ins/M1919/M5 quad upgrade.

    All of these abilities have huge munitions costs.

    The recon costs 80, the M1919s cost 70 each, strafing run costs 125MU and the M5 upgrade costs 120.These abilities constantly have to be weighed against each other for usage because they all have huge MU price tags that will run a player dry who actively tries to use all of the different abilities.

    Because of these costs the abilities don't synergize well. There's no real benefit to using them in combination. They are just competing choices that cannot be used in combination considering the regular MU costs present in the USF faction.

    .
    .

    These are just two examples of an issue that I believe plagues most of the commanders in the game.

    What do you think? Do most commanders need a rework? Do you think the new commanders have better design then the old ones?

    tactical support commander is good but i see replacing the recon better as USF dont need recon while you got a major , adding a recon ability better for example: USF riflemen flares or beacons

  • #4
    4 years ago
    captainjordycaptainjo… Posts: 498

    @omar_emp said:
    tactical support commander is good but i see replacing the recon better as USF dont need recon while you got a major , adding a recon ability better for example: USF riflemen flares or beacons

    O ya Major does have a recon run. Well that's all the more proof that US commanders are just whack.

  • #5
    4 years ago
    comrade_daelincomrade_d… Posts: 2,948

    @WunderKatze said:
    Example 1: Airborne Company's paradrop abilities.

    They all cost manpower and the weapon's need crew members making them more expensive then their tech tree counterparts.

    The commander design is that if you can skip tech, then you have to pay more per usage of an ability. Dropping AT gun instead in of spending 60 fuel and waiting for Captain is a viable alternative, if not always available when needed. The only drawback is you trade more manpower for the benefit, plus the enemy might end up stealing the drop. That's pretty good design, and forces players to develop and follow suitable strategies.
    So I believe that commander abilities costing more manpower to use than if you went the conventional way, is the entire point of most abilities. They can come sooner, they offer different firepower options, and they all deploy immediately once unlocked and out of cooldown. In terms of paradrops, they have the added advantage of not requiring time to move from edge of the map to arrive: they take like several seconds to arrive, wherever you choose to deploy them. That advantage alone is well worth the additional manpower cost.
    Also, dropping uncrewed weapons to help an ally is what I consider fun, fun that is removed and will be missed if crewed weapons are droppable for, well, no discernible reason other than to satisfy COH1 nostalgia.

    @WunderKatze said:
    Dropping a squad and a weapon means you pay 600 MP for one support weapon and a 3 man squad (after crewing the weapon) which is useless and outrageously expensive.

    Dropping a weapon alone while you have the required tech means you are paying more to drop and crew it then you could be by just building it normally.

    I think I understand what you mean by synergy and mesh well for commanders.

    Some commanders are meant to have their abilities used in conjunction: Soviet commanders are pretty much designed this way, since they are designed to rely more on them than other factions. Another good example of intended (though I think unsuccessful) synergy is UKF's Royal Artillery Regiment, where you call in a Valentine tank and its vet1 ability require you to already have deployed Sextons to work: naturally this means that the ability is useless unless you've already got Sextons in the field.
    With regard to Airborne Company, I think you misunderstand the idea behind the abilities: while it is entirely possible to use the abilities together, such as paradropping AT Gun alongside a paratrooper squad, they are not meant to be used together at any common frequency. As call-in abilities that inherently compete with stock units, they require additional manpower to justify being an option in the first place. In order to "mesh well" these abilities together, it would require making the commander overpowered, as well as reducing versatility. Paratroopers are expensive to get and reinforce, and naturally using other units like RETs are a good alternative. If the ability always drops with a crew, then players cannot even have the ability to choose between paratroopers and other units that might reduce cost. Given how the abilities work, the increased manpower cost is not only intended, it is justified. The only way to solve this (which, really, is just deploy paratrooper AT gun at a low cost) is to ignore balance considerations, and no one, much less Relic, will do that. It is no surprise that you haven't come up with a suitable solution, because there really isn't one.
    And before you refer to CoH1, well this isn't CoH1. How paratroopers work here is very different from the first game.

    As for Tactical Support and munitions-based doctrinal abilities, I don't see why not being able to use them all at once is a problem. Maybe because you're not supposed to constantly use them all in conjunction unless you hoard munitions? Are you suggesting that they cost much less, or should cost nothing to use?
    There isn't much benefit to using them in combination....maybe because that's not the reason why commanders have certain abilities together and they are meant to be competing due to the nature of being munitions abilities. ANY munitions abilities in commanders compete with any munitions abilities you'd normally have when playing a particular faction.
    Your idea of commander ability synergy, to my mind, seems way too narrow that it compromises consideration of balance and intended game design.

  • #6
    4 years ago
    WunderKatzeWunderKat… Posts: 731
    @comrade_daelin

    I'm not misunderstanding the point behind the ability. You can read it in the in game tooltip it's written there clear as day.

    The premise of not wanting a crew of paratroopers because they cost more is an entirely void consideration because _they cost the same to reinforce as riflemen_ 28 manpower. You obviously don't know much about this commander.

    The ability to drop weapons is usable but no matter which tech path you choose you end up with an ability that is an more expensive version of a unit you already have.

    How would making this 'mesh well' make it overpowered? How could you possibly know that? On what basis can you make that assumption?

    The reality is Airborne is a commander with 4 ~300mp call-ins and a decent airstrike. There are a number of commanders with far better design, that are honestly just better.

    And I have no idea why you would ever refrence Royal Artillery Support when talking about synergy. That commander is built upon expensive trash call-ins and subpar off map artillery. And then it has that one really broken recon flares ability. Royal Artillery is a prime example of the issue my post identifies.

    Tactical supports abilities are just more expensive versions of Werh abilities. There is no reason for them to be so expensive.
  • #7
    4 years ago
    comrade_daelincomrade_d… Posts: 2,948

    @WunderKatze said:
    I'm not misunderstanding the point behind the ability. You can read it in the in game tooltip it's written there clear as day.

    Yes you are. You have a problem with how it works and you want Relic to do something about it.
    WHAT that problem is you have never actually stated, because you don't even know what you want.

    @WunderKatze said:
    How would making this 'mesh well' make it overpowered? How could you possibly know that? On what basis can you make that assumption?

    Don't spin it around and make me define "meshing well together" for you?
    You're the one claiming they don't mesh well together, but so far avoiding the burden of defining what that means. I'm not going to do the thinking for you, you're the one complaining about it.
    Until you elaborate on what that means, I can response in any way I want. You do not make half an argument and then try to pin the blame on people who have the minimum decency to try to find out the other half. I know your game.

    @WunderKatze said:
    The reality is Airborne is a commander with 4 ~300mp call-ins and a decent airstrike. There are a number of commanders with far better design, that are honestly just better.

    If you honestly think certain designs are better, then play those commanders if you want to win. Airborne is designed in a certain way, you just don't like it. Beyond a ague statement you've never explained yourself, neither have you really stated what would fix that. And you still haven't, go figure.
    End of the day you expect all commanders to revolve around a single type of design, well that's not how it works. If Airborne is so poorly designed, then no one would use it and it wouldn't be effective. Can you prove this?

    @WunderKatze said:
    And I have no idea why you would ever refrence Royal Artillery Support when talking about synergy. That commander is built upon expensive trash call-ins and subpar off map artillery. And then it has that one really broken recon flares ability. Royal Artillery is a prime example of the issue my post identifies.

    Royal Artillery is an excellent example of good design gone wrong because of specific nuances in their abilities.
    Units that help other units, and abilities that combine the capabilities of multiple units, like Sexton's Creeping Barrage, are great ideas, but it all falls apart because of the abilities and units themselves aren't great to begin with, and any attempts to synergize result in both mediocre results and very specific conditions, so no one ends up using them.
    What are the problems with this commander? The units themselves suck so even when trying to synergize, the result is not worth the effort. But the solution is simple: buff Sexton in general, and the Valentine's vet1 ability includes base howitzers and/or mortar emplacements.
    Airborne does not have this problem for two reasons: one, you can still drop paratroopers alongside weapons, second, the point isn't to drop paratroopers along HMG and AT Gun at significant manpower cost, because that's just an alternative to the far more common method of using existing troops.

    Airborne synergizes well, you simply don't like it, for unstated reasons.

    @WunderKatze said:
    Tactical supports abilities are just more expensive versions of Werh abilities. There is no reason for them to be so expensive.

    Because you don't reference another faction's ability costs and compare it with the economic conditions of another. The same reaon why you won't try to state that Piats cost only 40 munitions, so Bazookas and panzerschrecks should as well.
    And again, you haven't stated a solution to the high expense, so I'll just take it you want them to be free and come at 0CP. In that case no, learn to play.

    Summary:
    Your argument is that these commander abilities don't mesh well together; what would you consider the conditions that solve this?

  • #8
    4 years ago
    WunderKatzeWunderKat… Posts: 731
    edited July 2016

    @comrade_daelin I've been very clear about what I want. You're the one who has no idea what you want, I cannot glean for the life of me what on earth you think you are accomplishing here.

    I have made a very explicit argument and supported it with two examples. You have latched on hard to one of the examples (Airborne) and then went haywire in a way that I have no fucking idea what you are trying to argue. You just incidentally supported my main argument (provided below, for those who didn't catch it the first time) with your own example (Royal Artillery).

    Here is a example of a well designed and fully functional commander.

    .

    USF Heavy Calvary:

    This commander is aggressive focused commander on hard hitting units.

    0CP: RM field defenses: Allows for early game focus on Riflemen, who can know thanks to this ability build FPs and Mines which help prevent USF get outflanked during a involved flank of their own.

    1CP: Off map smoke: Cheap MU ability that calls in smoke. Meshes well with Rangers who don't have smoke grenades. Also it's cheap so it doesn't interfere with the use of Combined Arms.

    3CP: Rangers: Strong infantry units. Augmented by the off map smoke (which they lack) and also by Combined Arms which benefits vehicles and infantry. They lack AT but hey you can count on a late game Pershing to help with AT in fact. Even better. Thanks to Combined Arms your Rangers can help your Pershing by sticking close by. Pretty cool if you ask me.

    4CP: Combined Arms: augments vehicles, it comes at CP4 you can use it with light vehicles like the Stuart and you can also use it with your Rangers. This ability is more expense but thanks to the cheap price of the smoke barrage ability you'll be able to use both of them during a flank.

    13CP: Pershing: Normally USF flanks lose potency late game, this unit augments the existing aggressive style, doesn't have smoke but hey, look you already have a off map smoke barrage. Also augmented by Combined arms.

    This commander has good design. A combination of cheap and expensive abilities that augment each other and encourage an over all aggressive play-style.

    .

    This is my argument. Read closely. Most people got this the first time they read my post.

    Commanders with abilities that complement each other and encourage a overall play-style are well designed. Those commanders are always stronger. Commanders that don't should be redesigned.

    Before you say anything else that has no bearing whatsoever on my argument please refer to this statement. Also thanks for the additional example (Royal Artillery) that supports my overall argument.

    You are arguing that abilities that conflict with each other and that are overly expensive are a feature of design. I'm saying that it's not. It's just simply bad design that leads to a commander that is only used if it has one obtusely strong ability that justifies putting up with 4 other subpar abilities. Like Airborne because it has P47 air support.

    I have provided reasons I don't like Airborne you disagree. You have failed to explain what kind of synergy Airborne has. In fact due to your lack of knowledge of the specifics of the commander you have proven that you have rarely, if ever, used Airborne Company. You have no idea what you are talking about.

    I have not specified any replacement abilities for Airborne (I have done that for commanders in my other post in this section of the forum) because this is not the wishlist section of the forum. This is a proof of point thread.

    .

    I'll be editing the OP to make it more clear.

  • #9
    4 years ago
    comrade_daelincomrade_d… Posts: 2,948

    Your argument is basically this:

    Some commanders are designed a specific way, while others are not. You consider the latter as flawed, basing the methods of the former. Presumably, you want them changed to be like the former.

    But since when did commanders need to mesh well with their set of abilities to be considered good? Airborne Company is an excellent example of meshing well with the rest of USF army, at the expense of not meshing well if you tried using them in conjunction with eachother. Airborne works way better when you start using specific abilities to assist your regular units, not attempt to use them all together like they're meant to. That's not poor design, that's just design you don't like. That is your main problem. You expect to use paratroopers alongside paradrops all the time; that you can't always do that you find it a problem that Relic needs to fix. They're not even meant to operate that way.

    A commander ability not augmenting well with another commander ability is not bad design. That's just learn to play issue.

  • #10
    4 years ago
    WunderKatzeWunderKat… Posts: 731
    edited July 2016

    @comrade_daelin said:
    A commander ability not augmenting well with another commander ability is not bad design. That's just learn to play issue.

    Tell me. What's your ranking with USF? How many times have you played Airborne Company? How many guides have you read by the top fucking ranked USF players? I'm going to take a guess.

    You are unranked as a USF player.

    You rarely if ever have actually played the fucking commander you are so intent on debating.

    And you've never cared to actually fucking read what the good players (those who win tournaments) have to say.

    Trust me. You're the one who could learn to play.

    I have an 81% win ratio on 2v2 as USF.

    I am ranked sub 100 as USF in team games.

    I also play 1v1.

    You never even fucking play USF.

    I regularly use all USF commanders with the exception of Recon. Because Recon is just not fun.

    @comrade_daelin said:
    Your argument is basically this:

    Some commanders are designed a specific way, while others are not. You consider the latter as flawed, basing the methods of the former. Presumably, you want them changed to be like the former.

    No. This is my argument.

    Commanders with abilities that complement each other and encourage a overall play-style are well designed. Those commanders are always stronger. Commanders that don't should be redesigned.

    It's EXTREMELY EXPLICIT it doesn't need a restatement.

    I don't know why you say 'presumably.' I literally fucking wrote COMMANDERS THAT DON'T SHOULD BE REDESIGNED. I've been very fucking clear. I literally COULD NOT be more fucking clear about that.

    @comrade_daelin said:
    They're not even meant to operate that way.

    Read the fucking tool tip. You are objectively wrong. Like you couldn't be more wrong. It's fucking written by relic. It's how they were intended to be used!

    You know I usually enjoy your comments. But when you talk about USF it's painfully obvious that you have no experience playing USF.

    @comrade_daelin said:
    A commander ability not augmenting well with another commander ability is not bad design.

    Except it is.

    If you pick a commander called fucking "ATTACK COMMANDER" it better be a commander with units and abilities that enable players to make a well supported attack. Synergy. The abilities augment each other and the culmination of this synergy is a nice, textbook attack!

    Their is no culmination for Airborne Company.

    It advertises flanking but the troopers have carbines and take 3 minutes to upgrade their good flanking weapons. It advertises dropping weapons to support paratroopers but they aren't manned so you have to turn your 6 man squads into useless 3 man squads to man the guns. The weapons have expensive MP costs so you choose Weapons or Paratroopers.

    There is no congruent play-style. It literally cannot bring the play-style it advertises to bear. Relic had an objective with the commander stated in the tooltips and commander description and it FAILED. There is NO gray area there.

  • #11
    4 years ago
    comrade_daelincomrade_d… Posts: 2,948

    @WunderKatze said:
    Tell me. What's your ranking with USF?

    Ah, the ad hominems. I expected more even from you.

    @WunderKatze said:
    I regularly use all USF commanders with the exception of Recon. Because Recon is just not fun.

    Now THAT's a commander that fails even your criteria of a good commander. If you wanted a better argument you should have stuck with that one. But I'm guessing you don't play that commander so you got no knowledge or experience from it. Just a fanboy, nothing more.

    @WunderKatze said:
    Commanders with abilities that complement each other and encourage a overall play-style are well designed. Those commanders are always stronger. Commanders that don't should be redesigned.

    Technically you changed your argument. Moving the goalpost that you yourself establish, is a hallmark of dishonest people.

    Anyways your argument is not only invalid but also just your own opinion, because that's not the intended design of commanders. If you design a commander around too specific a play style, then that commander is stale, because what happens is that the ONLY way to play that commander has to focus around that specific play style. At least with paradropping uncrewed weapons you have many options. Again, you just don't like it.

    I've won my fair share of USF as Airborne. That might be because I don't try to keep using paratroopers alongside my paradrops.

    @WunderKatze said:
    Read the fucking tool tip. You are objectively wrong. Like you couldn't be more wrong. It's fucking written by relic. It's how they were intended to be used!

    Tooltips do not dictate strategy, they are used for marketing. You are basing how that commander should work entirely around one sentence meant to advertise. Come now, even you're not that dumb, are you?

    @WunderKatze said:
    If you pick a commander called fucking "ATTACK COMMANDER" it better be a commander with units and abilities that enable players to make a well supported attack. Synergy. The abilities augment each other and the culmination of this synergy is a nice, textbook attack!

    That's why there are no "attack commanders" in this game, only commanders whose combination of abilities suit an offensive style of gameplay more than defensive. But it is not like you cannot do one or the other by choice of commander, THAT's poor commander design. If you design a commander to gear for the offensive, then it dictates your strategy and leave you open to hardcounters. It is not like Elefant can't ever be used offensively.

    If anything, a commander designed around a very specific style of gameplay actually makes for poor commanders.

    @WunderKatze said:
    It advertises flanking but the troopers have carbines and take 3 minutes to upgrade their good flanking weapons. It advertises dropping weapons to support paratroopers but they aren't manned so you have to turn your 6 man squads into useless 3 man squads to man the guns. The weapons have expensive MP costs so you choose Weapons or Paratroopers.

    There is no congruent play-style. It literally cannot bring the play-style it advertises to bear. Relic had an objective with the commander stated in the tooltips and commander description and it FAILED. There is NO gray area there.

    Did it ever occur to you that the advertising is there to advertise, not to actually explain how to properly use that commander? Why are you even considering the tooltip as a basis for how the commander should be played? At least half of the tooltips in this game aren't accurate or are misleading, or just plain vague. Learn to play, just don't learn by reading tooltips and expecting units to perform the way you interpret them.

  • #12
    4 years ago
    WunderKatzeWunderKat… Posts: 731
    edited July 2016
    I'm done arguing with you it's fruitless.

    Just for the record. I did not commit ad hominem.

    Ad hominem is an attack on personal character. I never insulted your character.

    You said I need to learn to play. I told you my ranking. It becomes relevant when you accuse a player of needing to learn to play. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.
  • #13
    4 years ago
    comrade_daelincomrade_d… Posts: 2,948
    edited July 2016

    lol, next you'll say the paradrops should only be available to allied infantry, since the tooltips say so. You don't need to argue, as long as you read and think.

    You should just admit that taking guidance form tooltips is wrong, if not stupid. Your entire argument revolves around what the tooltips say.

  • #14
    4 years ago

    But the tooltips tell you how that commander was designed and what it is intended to do..

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

  • © SEGA. SEGA, the SEGA logo, Relic Entertainment, the Relic Entertainment logo, Company of Heroes and the Company of Heroes logo are either trademarks or registered trademarks of SEGA Holdings Co., Ltd. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. SEGA is registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

DeutschEnglishEspañolFrançaisItalianoРусский