Feedback - Commander Revamp

1235713

Comments

  • #122
    1 year ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346
    edited September 2018

    @Comrad When in doubt, use historical facts as a basis.

    Ferdinand/Elephant - 88mm(71 Length caliber*) Muzzle Velocity= 3340 ft/sec [Best gun in the game]
    JagdTiger - 128mm(55 Length caliber) Muzzle Velocity=3020 ft/sec [Heavier but not as fast]
    ISU-152 - 152mm(32 Length caliber) Muzzle Velocity=1900 ft/sec [Heaviest but also slowest]

    {*Length of barrel = Length caliber x Bore caliber [longer barrel = faster muzzle velocity]}

    The ISU-152 used the ML-20 gun, a heavy artillery piece. It had a shorter barrel, a lower muzzle velocity and frequently destroyed enemy tanks with HE rounds. Its anti-tank performance wasn't that good, which is why the ISU-122 [equipped with the A-19 gun (L/45 MV 2640 ft/sec)] and the SU-100 [equipped with the D-10 gun (L/53.5 MV 3281 ft/sec)] were preferred for the anti-tank role. The simple fact is the ISU-152 was nowhere near as good in the AT role as the German tank destroyers, whose guns were based on long anti-aircraft guns instead of artillery pieces.

    Unfortunately, the true Soviet "beast killers" were left out of the game and we're probably never going to see them. Whether or not that's because of an anti-Soviet bias or not, you can decide for yourself.

  • #123
    1 year ago
    ComradComrad Posts: 122

    @PanzerFutz написал:
    @Comrad When in doubt, use historical facts as a basis.

    Ferdinand/Elephant - 88mm(71 Length caliber*) Muzzle Velocity= 3340 ft/sec [Best gun in the game]
    JagdTiger - 128mm(55 Length caliber) Muzzle Velocity=3020 ft/sec [Heavier but not as fast]
    ISU-152 - 152mm(32 Length caliber) Muzzle Velocity=1900 ft/sec [Heaviest but also slowest]

    {*Length of barrel = Length caliber x Bore caliber [longer barrel = faster muzzle velocity]}

    The ISU-152 used the ML-20 gun, a heavy artillery piece. It had a shorter barrel, a lower muzzle velocity and frequently destroyed enemy tanks with HE rounds. Its anti-tank performance wasn't that good, which is why the ISU-122 [equipped with the A-19 gun (L/45 MV 2640 ft/sec)] and the Su-100 [equipped with the D-10 gun (L/53.5 MV 3281 ft/sec)] were preferred for the anti-tank role. The simple fact is the ISU-152 was nowhere near as good in the AT role as the German tank destroyers, whose guns were based on long anti-aircraft guns instead of artillery pieces.

    Unfortunately, the true Soviet "beast killers" were left out of the game and we're probably never going to see them. Whether or not that's because of an anti-Soviet bias or not, you can decide for yourself.

    No. ISU-152 was the best anti-tank self-propelled gun of the USSR, it tore off pieces of metal to tanks for this reason it had a nickname " Zveroboy"

  • #124
    1 year ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346

    @Comrad Facts say the SU-100 was the best SP AT gun of the USSR for WW2. However, the SU-152 was the first Soviet vehicle capable of defeating the Tiger on its own, which is why it got the nickname "Zveroboy". It first saw action during the summer of 1943 but, it was replaced by the ISU-152 from the start of 1944. The nickname got passed on to the new version.

  • #125
    1 year ago
    > @Comrad said:
    > Increasingly, I wonder "what's the use of ISU-152?". The firing range is almost 2 times less than Jagdtiger and Ferdinand, the damage is 240 instead of 300, armor penetration is very small. If you compare them, the Jagdtiger and Ferdinand are much better than the ISU-152. It should be noted that the German machines installed 128 mm gun, but the Soviet machine, which should be the most powerful anti-tank unit of the Allies, 152 mm gun. No, DShK doesn't help against tanks, concrete-blasting projectile does not make sense, and the change to high-explosive projectile has no effect when the Germans have a great many Panthers, tigers, or just 1 Jagdtiger or Ferdinand. Explain why the huge fly, 152 mm shell has to put so little? Why am I not sane ? Why is everyone saying that this is a good technique, although in fact it is terrible, oblique, with a small penetration and damage technique is referred to in the game as "Zveroboy" - "beast killer". There must be justice and common sense. If you see it in comparison ISU-152, Jagdtiger and Ferdinand, let me know.

    All of this is wrong or misguided.
    The elefant and isu have the same range. A range of 70. The Jagdtiger if I recall is 80, but might be 85, but it has plenty of drawbacks of its own to allow for that.
    Yes the isu deals 60 damage less, but if you would kindly post a video of an elefant wiping a I'll advocate for a damage increase.
    This is a game. It's not reality. The 152mm gun in this game deals 240 damage, unless lobbed up by a howitzer, then it deals 160 damage same as the 105 of the lefh and the 105 of the priest as well as the 76 of the sexton. In this game the 128mm deals the same damage as the 88mm, but only the 88mm that's in the elefant not in the tiger, that 88mm deals the same damage as the 122mm of the is-2 which is also the same damage as the 76mm, but not all 76mm, as the 76mm on the su76 despite being the same gun as the zis only deals 120 damage which is the same as the 88mm panzershrek! It's a game loosely based on reality.
  • #126
    1 year ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346

    @thedarkarmadillo It's very loosely based in reality, which is the problem, in my opinion. It's hard to argue with the decision if it's based on facts. Not so much if they make it up as they go along, just to keep the loudest whingers happy.

    For instance, the 152 firing as a howitzer should do more damage than a 105 because it fired a bigger projectile with a larger warhead. For High Explosives, it is all about the weight of the explosives in the warhead.

    The 128 and the long 88 do the same damage because one is faster but, the other has more mass. The 88 of the Elephant and the King Tiger is an L/71, while the Tiger only had an L/56. Its muzzle velocity was almost identical to the Soviet 85 mm gun.

    Not all 76's are the same because, it depends on the length of their barrels and the mass of their projectiles. Look at the projectiles of the 17-pdr or the long 75 of the Panther in comparison to the projectiles of the ZiS-3 or the US M1; the differences are immediately obvious. Combine that with the higher muzzle velocities produced by their longer barrels and it should be obvious the guns are of different classes altogether. Here's a picture to illustrate what I mean (note the three different 75mm shells):

    It is difficult to compare kinetic rounds from guns with shaped-charges from rocket-propelled weapons such as the Shrek because, they work on completely different principles.

    The 25-pdr in the Sexton was an 87mm gun and it did considerably less damage than a 105 in real life. The British used it for logistical reasons, even though it wasn't as good as the 105.

    Finally, this entire discussion really belongs in a Historical Discussion thread so, sorry to the mods for taking up so much space in this thread.

  • #127
    1 year ago
    Naya_TyanNaya_Tyan Russia Posts: 129

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    > @Comrad said:
    > Increasingly, I wonder "what's the use of ISU-152?". The firing range is almost 2 times less than Jagdtiger and Ferdinand, the damage is 240 instead of 300, armor penetration is very small. If you compare them, the Jagdtiger and Ferdinand are much better than the ISU-152. It should be noted that the German machines installed 128 mm gun, but the Soviet machine, which should be the most powerful anti-tank unit of the Allies, 152 mm gun. No, DShK doesn't help against tanks, concrete-blasting projectile does not make sense, and the change to high-explosive projectile has no effect when the Germans have a great many Panthers, tigers, or just 1 Jagdtiger or Ferdinand. Explain why the huge fly, 152 mm shell has to put so little? Why am I not sane ? Why is everyone saying that this is a good technique, although in fact it is terrible, oblique, with a small penetration and damage technique is referred to in the game as "Zveroboy" - "beast killer". There must be justice and common sense. If you see it in comparison ISU-152, Jagdtiger and Ferdinand, let me know.

    All of this is wrong or misguided.
    The elefant and isu have the same range. A range of 70. The Jagdtiger if I recall is 80, but might be 85, but it has plenty of drawbacks of its own to allow for that.
    Yes the isu deals 60 damage less, but if you would kindly post a video of an elefant wiping a I'll advocate for a damage increase.
    This is a game. It's not reality. The 152mm gun in this game deals 240 damage, unless lobbed up by a howitzer, then it deals 160 damage same as the 105 of the lefh and the 105 of the priest as well as the 76 of the sexton. In this game the 128mm deals the same damage as the 88mm, but only the 88mm that's in the elefant not in the tiger, that 88mm deals the same damage as the 122mm of the is-2 which is also the same damage as the 76mm, but not all 76mm, as the 76mm on the su76 despite being the same gun as the zis only deals 120 damage which is the same as the 88mm panzershrek! It's a game loosely based on reality.

    I read your opinion with "Comrade".
    Yes, the ISU-152 is less effective against technology, but Elefant and ISU-152 have the same range of fire.

    I sent a video. Comparison of three tanks.
    1) ISU-152:.
    Damage: 240.
    Distance range of the same as for Elephant.

    2) Elefant:
    Damage: 300.
    Distance range of the same as for ISU-152.

    3) JagdTiger.
    Damage: 300.
    Range: slightly more.

    On this video, I show how far the shooting range from Tanks to Conscripts.
    1) We see that the ISU-152 and Elephant have the same distance, but the YadType is larger.
    2) ISU-152 and Elefant accelerate almost the same, but YagdTirre is slow.
    3) JagdTiger: the size of the cannon = 128mm
    ISU-152: the size of the gun = 152mm
    Elephant: the size of the gun = 88mm
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=cW_MkZ1RdY4&t=9s

  • #128
    1 year ago
    Naya_TyanNaya_Tyan Russia Posts: 129

    and finally.
    Previously, the developers of Relik in 2013 changed the characteristics of Heavy equipment.
    Tiger, IS-2, Elephant and ISU-152.
    What is being changed?

    • Damage
    • Cost
    • Range of fire
    • Reservation
    • and etc.

    Here to you from 2013 change ISU-152, IS-2, Tiger and Elephant.

  • #129
    1 year ago
    ComradComrad Posts: 122

    Why, of all the special anti-tank self-propelled units, 240 damage should only have an ISU? Not the Ferdinand 88mm, no 128 mm Jagdtiger, but 152 mm ISU?

  • #130
    1 year ago

    I think you should make another thread about ISU-152 instead of talking about it in the Commander revamp feedback.

    @Comrad said:
    Why, of all the special anti-tank self-propelled units, 240 damage should only have an ISU? Not the Ferdinand 88mm, no 128 mm Jagdtiger, but 152 mm ISU?

    It's because it's also good aganist infantry and fortifications, unlike ferdinand or jadtiger

  • #131
    1 year ago
    @PanzerFutz Historical arguments are a waste of time here. They're not relevant to the balance of this game, as Relic has said numerous times. I find the history of the war to be interesting as hell, but there's no reason to bring it up in this thread.
  • #132
    1 year ago

    @Comrad said:
    Why, of all the special anti-tank self-propelled units, 240 damage should only have an ISU? Not the Ferdinand 88mm, no 128 mm Jagdtiger, but 152 mm ISU?

    Micro it well and back it up properly and you have the most annoying infantry-killer in the game that drain health of enemy inf from a safe distant. That its able to take on tanks as well its a plus.

  • #133
    1 year ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346

    @SkysTheLimit Yup, they're just making it up as they go to keep those who complain the loudest happy. They're aiming to balance the volume of complaining about different factions until it's all equal. But, that will never happen.

    Right now the Russians are the ones complaining the loudest so, we'll probably see a tweak to the ISU-152 to quiet them down. However, then the other factions will arc up so, other tweaks will have to be made. And so on and so forth until the end of time.

    If you don't base it on reality, it's not really a historical simulation. It's just a circle-jerk. :/

  • #134
    1 year ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,271
    edited September 2018
    @PanzerFutz Its not a historical simulation. Its a WW2 video game. You can't talk about how important it is to be historically accurate in a game where it takes 7 shots to kill a Tiger even if you're parked right behind it. The physical mechanics of the game itself aren't accurate, so talking about real-life performance of tanks is just silly.

    Being inaccurate is not about appeasing the community it's about making the game entertaining. And I have no idea what you're talking about with "Russians are complaining the most". The Soviets are probably the strongest faction right now
  • #135
    1 year ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346
    edited September 2018

    @SkysTheLimit Making the game entertaining is appeasing the community by definition; the players are the ones being entertained. But that's not really my point.

    To me, it's about the relational mechanics of various units in the game, not whether they are totally accurate to real life. What are the differences between units based on if not their real life characteristics?

    In this instance, why is an Elephant a better tank-destroyer than an ISU-152? Some Russian players are complaining that the ISU-152 should be comparable to the Elephant because, they see them filling the same role for their respective factions. How do you defend their differences in the game if not by referring to their differences in real life?

    This same perspective applies to all the "tanks" in the game. The differences have to be based on something and reality is the best place to start. That way, when someone complains that a "tank" with a low-velocity artillery gun should perform the same as a "tank" with a high-velocity anti-aircraft gun, it's possible to explain to them why it shouldn't be so (even if they have difficulty understanding it).

    If there's no basis to the relational mechanics of the units, then the Russian player has a valid point - two units filling the same role for their respective factions should have the same values. However, I wouldn't want to see that happen and I suspect neither would you nor a lot of other players. It would take a lot of the fun out of playing this game.

    As for who is complaining the most, I was merely describing what has been written on this thread. There are plenty of other threads where other factions are complaining just as loudly about one thing or another. The Balance Feedback threads are devoted to that activity.

    It's where the discussion of the ISU-152 really belongs. I just got sucked into the fool's game of trying to bring some sense to the discussion. Shoulda kept my mouth shut (a lesson I always struggle to remember).

  • #136
    1 year ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,271
    edited September 2018
    > @PanzerFutz said:
    > I just got sucked into the fool's game of trying to bring some sense to the discussion.

    There's plenty of sense to be had without the historical points you're trying to make. You don't seem to understand that.

    > @PanzerFutz said:
    > In this instance, why is an Elephant a better tank-destroyer than an ISU-152? Some Russian players are complaining that the ISU-152 should be comparable to the Elephant because, they see them filling the same role for their respective factions. How do you defend their differences in the game if not by referring to their differences in real life?

    Very very easily. The elefant is a better TD because the ISU is also a massive threat to infantry. Their cost is about the same, so it would be far beyond absurd if their Anti-tank performance was equal while the ISU can also smack infantry around. You are claiming they fill the same role when they obviously do not.

    Then there's the fact that the soviets have plenty of stock AT options to begin with. They already have 2 anti-tank assault guns (su76+85). Making the game entertaining is not appeasing the community, it's making the game marketable so a community will buy it in the first place....
  • #138
    1 year ago

    From the first overview it looks very decent, now the axis get some more love after the allies got most attention last patch.

    Stormtroopers should be very potent assault and infiltration troopers (nice to see my proposal for smoke and incindiary grenades implemented), but the real kicker for them must be the camouflage buff.
    I am not too on board with the 250 changes. i am all for buffing the unit, but i do not see how it fits an infantry focussed commander more than an officer who can directly lead and support infantry. perhaps if the 250 came with panzergrenadiers, lmg grens or some new specialized panzer pioneers it may be worth more, but an empty halftrack probably is not. the defensive positioning vet 1 ability seems rather silly aswell, a complete immobilization is absolutely inacceptable, maybe it should move at half speed and be named "infantry support mode" instead .

    as for OKW, the new bunker for the defensive doctrine could overlap too much with the volks bunker, other than that a thematically fitting unit that could be quite useful in the late game as means to repair your heavy tanks or cover remote points and flanks.
    the 221/223 (which is the antenna equipped car from ardennes assault i presume) is definately a stepup from radio relays,but i'm still not sure if that makes the commander worth it. frankly, i am at a loss of ideas for elite armor at this point.

  • #139
    1 year ago
    Really don't like the direction of the commisar squad at all. Passive aoe healing and retreat point? So it's going to be a major/ambulance combo but more durable AND better at fighting (even though it'll never be used as a combat unit because AOE heals on a 6man faction and a retreat point.....)
    Don't like it one bit and that's from someone who bitches all the time about Soviet healing...
  • #140
    1 year ago
    WilhelmIXWilhelmIX Posts: 18
    edited September 2018

    I like new Axis, USF and UKF changes, but I really do not like Soviet changes. I agree that commissar now becomes major/ambulanco combo instead of a battle support. But especially I do not like urban defense changes. 2cp for the FHQ is way too much, bring it back to 0 or at least 1 cp. I don't think FHQ needs any changes

  • #141
    1 year ago
    > @Romanov said:
    > From the first overview it looks very decent, now the axis get some more love after the allies got most attention last patch.
    >
    > Stormtroopers should be very potent assault and infiltration troopers (nice to see my proposal for smoke and incindiary grenades implemented), but the real kicker for them must be the camouflage buff.
    > I am not too on board with the 250 changes. i am all for buffing the unit, but i do not see how it fits an infantry focussed commander more than an officer who can directly lead and support infantry. perhaps if the 250 came with panzergrenadiers, lmg grens or some new specialized panzer pioneers it may be worth more, but an empty halftrack probably is not. the defensive positioning vet 1 ability seems rather silly aswell, a complete immobilization is absolutely inacceptable, maybe it should move at half speed and be named "infantry support mode" instead .
    >
    > as for OKW, the new bunker for the defensive doctrine could overlap too much with the volks bunker, other than that a thematically fitting unit that could be quite useful in the late game as means to repair your heavy tanks or cover remote points and flanks.
    > the 221/223 (which is the antenna equipped car from ardennes assault i presume) is definately a stepup from radio relays,but i'm still not sure if that makes the commander worth it. frankly, i am at a loss of ideas for elite armor at this point.

    250 halftrack with arty officer in it! Boom!
  • #142
    1 year ago
    Sgt_SchultzSgt_Schul… Heidelberg, Baden-Württemberg, GermanyPosts: 57

    @Romanov said:

    as for OKW, the new bunker for the defensive doctrine could overlap too much with the volks bunker, other than that a thematically fitting unit that could be quite useful in the late game as means to repair your heavy tanks or cover remote points and flanks.

    The Defensive Doctrine is in the Wehrmacht. I believe you've mixed him up with the Fortifications Doctrine in the OKW.

  • #143
    1 year ago

    @Sgt_Schultz said:
    The Defensive Doctrine is in the Wehrmacht. I believe you've mixed him up with the Fortifications Doctrine in the OKW.

    Right,right, but you know what i mean. the defensive commander.

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    250 halftrack with arty officer in it! Boom!

    Not a bad idea actually.

  • #144
    1 year ago
    SwireksterSwirekster Posts: 11
    edited September 2018

    There is very annoying oversight with stormtroopers and encirclement doctrine, both sprint and flame nade have Z shortcut thus preventing the player from using sprint with the key button.

    The flame and smoke nade is very good change, it makes them universal for several commanders, while not being 1 hit wipe (aka bundle nade). It makes them actually new nice unit and not just panzergren clone. The damage they make is okay for their role and thanks for health regeneration they can stay behind enemy line as they supposed to. New stealth mechanic is also very good change, now they can remain stealthy for short time after leaving the cover, thus not destroying whole sneaky flanking juz 'coz one of them went a little bit too far from the wall. I would leave them as they are now.

    Another idea is: Upgrading them with panzershrek would change their tactics, to more sneaky explosive related unit, replacing flame grenade/boobytrap with mines.

  • #145
    1 year ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346

    My 2 cents worth on version 1.5:

    Nicely done, Relic, nicely done. [Golf Clap]

  • #146
    1 year ago

    Absolutely lovely changes! I really like the direction this patch is going to. To see this game still beeing supported after so many years, is just fantastic. And this patch brings so many changes the cummunity did ask for. I can't await this update with all its new commanders!

  • #147
    1 year ago

    German Infantry doctrine:

    Stormtroopers
    they just keep getting better, and I think @Swirekster is on to something once stromtroopers receive their panzerschreck they be able to plant "Improvised anti tank mines" these mines are cheap and stun the crew but do little damage to give them enough time to get a hit or two in before the tank can try to fight back or flee.

    250 Half-track
    its a great infantry support vehicle, but the "dig in" ability is a bit weird its great when fighting blobs. However, we are giving up the mobility that this unit is offering perhaps replace it with an ability that reduces vehicle speed, but Increases the accuracy of the Passengers.

    Minor Aesthetic request
    could the Veteran Squad leader model for the grenadiers be replace with an Obersoldaten? It would make the VSLS more recognizable at a glance, and i just like the model.

    Defensive Doctrine:

    Concrete Bunker
    I found it to be more useful in team games for a tactic I call "Repair Town" which building 2-4 Repair bunkers close together for fast repair, and I didn't find the MG Cbunkers to be more useful than the normal Mg bunker. how about "Panther Ostwallturm" upgrade the bunker gains a Panther turret but with a slow rotation since its hand cranked and can no longer be garrisoned.

    Other idea for DD
    trenches absorbed into osttruppen meaning DD osttruppen can auto build trench after Battle phase one, and trenches replaced with heavy mortar emplacement which will have a single 120mm mortar.

    Elite armor

    221/223
    This thing is a good early game infantry support/counter sniper vehicle, and late game resource farm. Tho I think the vet 1 smoke should be replaced with a weaker version of mg42's Incendiary Armor Piercing Rounds.

  • #148
    1 year ago

    After playing some matches with my friends with 1.5 commander revamp I'm gonna to tell our opinion about it.

    Wehrmacht:

    • We really like the direction of the stormtroopers, they are great!
    • 250 Half-track is interesting addition to the infantry focused commander, but I agree with the @SomeguyfromIdaho that dig-in ability feels bit out of place.
    • We also really like concrete bunkers, especially ability to change them to the repair stations, which is good in the team games.

    OKW:

    • We also love all changes to the Elite armor commander, those new light vehicles are great addition!
    • Still, we think that would be good idea to make panzer commander more similiar to the USF elite crews or the british one.

    USF:
    -I really like HVAP rounds for the 76mm sherman, before that I really didn't know why you should make 76mm sherman instead of normal, bulldozer sherman.
    - We really like how you want to give USF stronger early-game commanders, but is sticky satchel for the cavarly rifleman really necessary?

    Soviets:

    • I'm using Urban Defense quite a lot, and I really can't understand the point of making FHQ 2 cp. Currently it's fuel expensive early game ability, making single FHQ will make getting tanks (especially t70) much harder, also, you can make it only on your territory. Maybe make it 1 cp but more expensive? Or make it unable to reinforce if FHQ is on the enemy territory? Because 2cp FHQ just comes way too late.
    • Commissar, I also don't like the direction of the comissar, I agree with the @thedarkarmadillo because currently it's just really strange unit for honest.
  • #149
    1 year ago
    ValkyrieValkyrie Posts: 2,132
    edited September 2018

    So I tried the revamp in a 2v2 with some friends last night. Everyone's a competent player with a relatively equal skill level.

    My god it was a slaughter - The Stormtroopers are easily the most powerful infantry in the game. I dropped some of these guys out of a building as a few USF squads was flanking one of my MG42s - I had 16 kills in less than a minute and I lost not a single model. The biggest thing here is the DPS to survivability, and the worst of all - Self healing. These guys need to be expensive to put on the field, and with the self healing they end up being so self sustaining that the manpower bleed that is needed for them to be anywhere near balanced really has to go.

    By comparison the new Cavarly Riflemen are a complete and utter joke. They have nothing going for them - No damage, no surviability. Their satchels were cool, but with the overall performance being in the bottom of the bucket they were just a joke on the field. It's like seeing release Penals again, but worse.

  • #150
    1 year ago
    ComradComrad Posts: 122

    It happened! Now the Commissar Squad has become much better and he is useful. Only his abilities (including grenades), he doesn't need them have no sense. If you think that the Commissar's treatment is "too strong for the USSR", then make a Soviet ambulance car. Otherwise, from the point of retreat will not make any sense.
    I, of course, can say, that Pak 43 shoots through texture buildings, but think not worth.

  • #151
    1 year ago

    First of the all good job. Allies are in good spot except commisar. You still should do some work on him. I dont like him as better major. I like him more before, when he supported units on battefield i would make him more like OKW officer but its my opinion.

    Half-track need more care. hand weapons take care of him too easily and the new ability its weird. Give it pernament low suppresion and change the ability for some sort of time buff (combine arms)

    Finally! some soft of buffing OKW economy NO cache or economy buff since mecha. "changing system" (at least something)

    Little bit more work and i think its done

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.