Official Selection and Voting Discussion

2

Comments

  • #32
    7 months ago
    DarjeelingMK7Darjeelin… Posts: 244
    For UKF "lend least assault tactic", if come truth, i suggest change name to "lend lease equipment regiment".
  • #33
    7 months ago
    MartevallMartevall Posts: 108
    > @SomeguyfromIdaho said:
    > OKW Anti-Tank Tactics/ Panzerjäger doctrine
    > I really like idea of Panzerfussiliers to having exclusive anti-tank and anti-infantry paths.
    >
    > However if Grand Offensive is the victor I have a suggestion, along with the mp-40s for volks could we get something for the strum pioneers maybe something that increased squad size or something that makes them more durable like the UKF Heavy Engineers?
    >
    > UKF Lend Lead Assault Tactics
    >
    > USF Special Support Company
    >
    > Wehrmacht Counterattack Tactics
    > on improving Assault Grenadiers I have a suggestion:
    >
    > Assault Grenadiers STG packages
    >
    > Battle phase 1 unlocks 2XSTG upgrade (60 munitions)
    > Battle phase 3 unlocks 2XSTG upgrade (60 munitions)
    >
    > Soviet Airborne
    > sounds fun

    I vote completely same :)
  • #34
    7 months ago
    BloodygoodBloodygood Posts: 74

    For the UKF lend lease, I would love the see the Thompsons as an upgradeable package on the unit, in the field

  • #35
    7 months ago
    im_behind_youim_behind… Posts: 14

    All of these seem kinda meh, but the Soviet paratroopers seem neat and new which is weird because I thought we weren't suppose to submit anything new unless I'm missing something. I do look forward to the end results regardless as this is just my opinion on what is shown currently.

    I think the next time they want to use the community to make new commanders, they should allow us to build our own commanders in the game with one custom built commander per faction. Name the doctrine, select a profile picture (or go even deeper and create a profile picture: select face, headgear, uniform, and eyes (glasses, eyepatch, nothing)). Then select five abilities and categorized with early game, mid game, and late game abilities so that people just don't select all the late game stuff. Example: 2 early game abilities, 2 mid game abilities, 1 late game abilities. This is just my suggestion for next time if there is a next time.

  • #36
    7 months ago
    SomeguyfromIdahoSomeguyfr… Posts: 86
    edited March 5

    OKW Anti-Tank Tactics/ Panzerjäger doctrine

    Slot 1: Speical anti-tank equipment [0CP]

    Heavy Pioneer package (60 muni):
    Strumpioneers gain Mg-42, Increase repair, and increase durable, but suffer movement speed penalty in combat
    can lay Riegel mine 43 (Riegel take longer to plant then Schu-mine)

    Requires 1 half-track deployed

    Pak 40

    Pak 40 now buildable at Headquarters.
    Same stats / cost as Ostheer version.
    Same veterancy as Ostheer version, but spread out over 5 levels of veterancy.
    Veterancy requirements - for vet 5 same number as Ostheer version's vet 3.

    Requires 1 half-track deployed

    Slot 2: Panzerfüsiliers (reworked) [2cp]

    Panzerfüsiliers now have two exclusive upgrade: G43s or Panzerjäger

    Panzerjäger: squad gains two Panzerschrecks (100 Muni) removes snare

    Slot 3: HEAT ammunition [7cp]

    It debatable if the Pak-40 should benefit from HEAT

    Slot 4: Stuka AT-strafe [10cp]

    this is not to be confused with Stuka Close Air Support which an area of effect ability. the Stuka AT-strafe is a precision ability and if used incorrectly will often miss, should used be with Riegel 43 mines to finish off immobilized tanks

    Slot 5: Tiger I Ausf. E. [13 CP]

    Late war variant of Ostheer's Tiger. Same model.
    Comes equiped with Panzer Tactician and Panzer Commander as standard.
    Cost ~660MP and 245FU.
    If Tiger I Ausf. E is on the field, the King Tiger can not be called in.
    Veterancy 1-3 is the same as Ostheer Tiger I. Vet 4: turret rotation +20%. Vet 5: damage from 160 to 200.

    This is my own take on the potential OKW Anti-Tank Tactics/ Panzerjäger doctrine which takes from Sander93 and aerafield original ideas with a few of my own added

  • #37
    7 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346
    edited March 5

    @SomeguyfromIdaho I don't believe we'll see a lot of Ostheer equipment being added to the OKW arsenal so, I don't expect to see the PaK 40 or the Tiger. If they add anything from the Ostheer arsenal, it will probably just be mines. Based on what's in the submissions, my guess is it will look something like this:

    1. AT Mines (probably Teller mines because they're the easiest to do)
    2. Panzerfusiliers (reworked to have an AT upgrade)
    3. HEAT Shells
    4. PaK 43
    5. Off-map Strike (any existing OKW strike will do but, some are more AT than others)

    It's not a particularly flashy doctrine, like some of the suggestions, but it's the easiest version to do while still giving players something new. It's a balanced (with early, mid and late game items) and consistent doctrine, which isn't OP and doesn't change the game significantly.

    Maybe I'm wrong but, when I read between the lines, this is the doctrine I see.

  • #38
    7 months ago
    MartevallMartevall Posts: 108
    edited March 7
    Presenting an idea how that doctrine can look like

    USF Urban Assault Commander

    Theme: use full potencial of US Assault units specialized in fighting on Urban terrain. Assault engineers and combined arms abillity supported by early armor-destroyer M10 'Wolverine' are great pushing force. Cluster mines are very effective against enemy defensive positions while a great support for the mid-late gamę brings you 'Fury' - an unique weteran Sherman.

    0CP- Assault engineers
    0CP- M10 'Wolverine'
    4CP- Combined arms
    7CP- Cluster mines
    10CP- 'Fury' M3A4e8 / standard "easy eight" but with some buffs : +15% turret rotation , +5% shoot range , +10% sight range / cost 480MP , 160Fuel
    Abillities:
    Like normal "easy8" but with one additional:
    -call in a 150mm small artillery barrage / cost 80 munitions

    Hope you enjoy :)
  • #39
    7 months ago

    First of all - I want to give thanks to all guys participating in creating process.
    On the second place - I have a feeling that all this (all but "Soviet Paratroopers" and "Ground Operations Regiment") doctrines was created to fix current balance issues. I think that its a bad way of creating doctrines and it will don`t get us anywhere. Balance should be fixed by patches, not by doctrinal abilities.

  • #40
    7 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346

    My preference for a US Urban Assault commander looks like this:

    (0 CP) M2 Flamethrower
    (3 CP) Paratroopers (excellent close-quarters unit with upgrades & demolitions)
    (4 CP) Combined Arms
    (8 CP) Time-on-target Artillery (a tightly-grouped heavy barrage)
    (11 CP) 105 mm Bulldozer Sherman

    To my mind, these doctrinal items are the best fit for the "Urban Assault" theme.

    The US has other infantry which work well in this role: Assault Engineers, Rangers and even Cavalry Riflemen are all equipped to fight well in urban combat; it's really a matter of personal taste regarding which one works best. I like the Paratroopers because they can upgrade with either Thompson's or M1919's, they have demolitions and they're a larger squad.

    I like the Time-on-target barrage for its precision, which is important in close-quarters battles. The 105 Sherman also offers a more precise attack than either a Calliope or a Priest, plus its ability to build obstructions and knock them down has a lot of value in an urban environment.

    Unfortunately, we still have no idea what this commander will actually look like if it manages to win. At this point, it's pure speculation regarding what we'll finally get.

  • #41
    7 months ago
    BloodygoodBloodygood Posts: 74

    I have a suggestion which might be able to be worked into the USF commander: vehicle crews able to lay mines. I think that with the Sherman's reputation as a "jack of all trades, master of none," giving one more ability to have just slightly more of a fighting chance against medium armor-- let alone heavier-- makes a lot of sense.

  • #42
    7 months ago
    MartevallMartevall Posts: 108
    My second idea for Urban Assault doctrine for USF

    0CP- M10 'Wolverine'
    2CP- fire up!
    3CP- Paratroopers
    8CP- "barrage from Fox company 4abillity
    11CP- 'FURY' - from my first commander idea
  • #43
    7 months ago
    BloodygoodBloodygood Posts: 74

    Was looking in my Weapons of World War 2 book, and I was reminded that Shermans were frequently fitted with flamethrowers, and I think a flamethrower package for Shermans would help usf balance quite a bit.

  • #44
    7 months ago
    MartevallMartevall Posts: 108
    edited March 12
    > @Bloodygood said:
    > Was looking in my Weapons of World War 2 book, and I was reminded that Shermans were frequently fitted with flamethrowers, and I think a flamethrower package for Shermans would help usf balance quite a bit.

    Here we go:

    Urban Assault doctrine

    0CP- Sherman crocodile (76)
    2CP-fire up!
    3CP- Ranger squad
    7CP-Cluster mines
    11CP-105mm Sherman buldozer

    Hope you enjoy :)
  • #45
    7 months ago
    Andy_REAndy_RE Posts: 270 admin
  • #46
    7 months ago

    @Andy_RE dissapointed that the anti-tank doctrine lost in OKW. was really looking forward to seeing how the panzerfusiliers might be reworked. Perhaps you could look into it even if its not part of a new doctrine?

  • #47
    7 months ago
    MartevallMartevall Posts: 108
    Nice! Anyway when it may be update?
  • #48
    7 months ago
    SlayerSlayer Posts: 132
    Well, results are in.

    Congrats to Relic for making an impossible poll where you have to choose between

    Commander A
    and
    Commander B, or maybe C or maybe even D if we switch out this for that.


    How can you seriously cast a vote that way?


    And congrats to part of the community to actually vote for something of which you don't know what's it gonna be like.


    I'm sorry, but if this is what you mean by "community participation", then next time pls invent a bunch of commanders yourselves. At least it would save many community members time and effort which now seems quite lost.
  • #49
    7 months ago
    MartevallMartevall Posts: 108
    edited March 13
    > @Slayer said:
    > Well, results are in.
    >
    > Congrats to Relic for making an impossible poll where you have to choose between
    >
    > Commander A
    > and
    > Commander B, or maybe C or maybe even D if we switch out this for that.
    >
    >
    > How can you seriously cast a vote that way?
    >
    >
    > And congrats to part of the community to actually vote for something of which you don't know what's it gonna be like.
    >
    >
    > I'm sorry, but if this is what you mean by "community participation", then next time pls invent a bunch of commanders yourselves. At least it would save many community members time and effort which now seems quite lost.

    I can't agree with you cause relic Has ready commander from every category and you can only choose between them .Do you think they will add sth unbalanced ? I so sorry for your interpretation anyway look on previews pages and you will also see that this brings a lot of fun . Additional for example me and my squad.
    Ps. You make commander - relic makes him more usefull and balanced
  • #50
    7 months ago
    freejones12freejones… Posts: 57
    edited March 13

    @Martevall I think he's getting at the fact that for some commanders, take the OKW commander for example, we were given one very clear and defined commander where we know exactly what we're getting, but the other option is a vague mix of choices from 3 different submissions. Who is to say that what you're voting for is what you're gonna get? With Mass Assault, we knew exactly what to expect, but with the loose conglomeration of Anti-Tank Tactics, there is no defined parameters. Did they mean they wanted some from one and others from another submission? Is it going to include HEAT rounds or is that not in consideration. What about the PaK 40? Its not guaranteed so why risk voting for something that could easily not have what you voted for. It's an unfair bias towards something we know for sure, and something that only has a vague theme. We STILL dont even know that whatever was voted for is going to be the same. Imagine not getting a command tiger when that was what most people voted for. It's a poor way to vote. They should have had the two commanders finalized for each and said "These are your two options. What you vote for is exactly what you're gonna get." Not vague themes.

  • #51
    7 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346
    edited March 14

    @freejones12 They should have had the two commanders finalized for each and said "These are your two options. What you vote for is exactly what you're gonna get."

    I agree with this 100%. However, as I stated above (post #37), I think it's pretty obvious what Anti-tank Tactics would be, if you read between the lines. I voted for it because I don't believe the developers are going to include a Command Tiger in the Grand Offensive doctrine. To me, it will most likely look like this:

    1. Assault Package
    2. Panzerfusiliers (with an AT upgrade added if we're lucky)
    3. Stuka Smoke Recon
    4. HEAT Shells(maybe, but possibly Valiant Assault)
    5. Panther Command Tank

    How many people who voted for Grand Offensive are going to be satisfied if that's what they get?

    If the developers are going to create a Command Tiger, it's more likely to be in the Wehrmacht Strategic Tank Reserves doctrine. Unfortunately for us, what form this doctrine will finally take is possibly the most difficult to ascertain of all the choices. The development team has consistently demonstrated an unwillingness to transfer items from one faction to another so, that rules out 2 of Smartie's items (Radio Intercept & Combined Arms). The other 3 items flirt with the "no new units or abilities" rule so, it's hard to tell whether any of them will make it into the doctrine.

    The design team stated pretty clearly that they have their own version in mind for this doctrine ("The balance team independently discussed the potential of an “Elite Reserves Doctrine”) so, my guess is their version is what we'll actually get. Plus, we know from what they said that it's going to include Assault Grenadiers ("we would consider reworking Assault Grenadiers as part of the commander") so, at least one item from Smartie's version will have to go to accommodate them. Reading between the lines, the only thing I'm sure will be in this doctrine is the Assault Grenadiers.

    Everything else about the Strategic Tank Reserves doctrine is extremely vague, which is why I didn't vote for it. However, now that it has won, I hope the design team at least has the decency to include a Command Tiger in it. I'd be very interested to see what abilities it has because, I have been pondering that question for quite some time now (probably along with just about everyone else).

  • #52
    7 months ago
    MartevallMartevall Posts: 108
    Nice idea to first make commanders and later by showing them make voting
  • #53
    7 months ago
    iA3 - HHiA3 - HH IRANPosts: 284

    oh i see voting post right now and i cant vote or suggest a commander anymore but why there is no a flak 88mm ??? :(

  • #54
    7 months ago
    MartevallMartevall Posts: 108
    > @iA3 - HH said:
    > oh i see voting post right now and i cant vote or suggest a commander anymore but why there is no a flak 88mm ??? :(

    You mean in game as a solo unit?
  • #55
    7 months ago

    @PanzerFutz yes, I agree completely. Should relic ever do this again, I sincerely hope that they are much better about communicating what the choices are. I was already on guard when they mentioned that we're only voting on ideas and that their own team would be evaluating for balance. I guarantee most of the Mass Assault the majority of votes were because people wanted that command tiger, but with how already powerful the OKW is with armor, I would not be surprised in the least if that is dropped. As a result, people who voted for it under the impression that they would get that have effectively wasted their vote. I myself only voted for Anti-Tank because it was specifically mentioned a few times that one of the features would likely be reworked fusiliers to get an anti-tank path, perhaps not Schrecks but Panzerbusche instead. I still hope they do this, but thats besides the point. If the community is supposed to choose what they want, then they should be told exactly what they'll get.

  • #56
    7 months ago

    @iA3 - HH The FlaK 88 was from CoH 1. Relic has stated many times they are not creating new units for this game anymore. They would have to create the emplacement from scratch, ergo we won't get it. Perhaps it will return in the sequel.

  • #57
    7 months ago
    Dangminh25Dangminh25 Posts: 66

    blow torch animation for Sov and Wehr tank pls

  • #58
    7 months ago
    iA3 - HHiA3 - HH IRANPosts: 284

    @freejones12 said:
    @iA3 - HH The FlaK 88 was from CoH 1. Relic has stated many times they are not creating new units for this game anymore. They would have to create the emplacement from scratch, ergo we won't get it. Perhaps it will return in the sequel.

    its just a little unit :)
    hmm... in the sequel... i hope

  • #59
    7 months ago
    SlayerSlayer Posts: 132
    @freejones12 yeah, that's exactly what I meant. The "community participation" is quite fake in this case, we got to vote but the commanders might turn out being totally different.

    So I'd rather have Relic proposing some commanders themselves, instead of making players believe their time and effort is gonna lead to something actually new in the game. I really don't like to be tricked like that, and if I had spent time thinking about new commanders, I'd be really pissed right now.
  • #60
    7 months ago
    Andy_REAndy_RE Posts: 270 admin
    edited March 15

    In a perfect world, it would be great to have 10 fully tested commanders with confirmed rosters that could be put to the community for final voting. However honestly speaking, that wasn't realistic for a few reasons.

    Firstly, that is easily 3-4 times the amount of work for the balance team pre-voting, which is more than a volunteer team that already works very hard can realistically commit to at this stage in the game's lifecycle.

    Even were we able to accommodate this workload, the same complaint would arise should we change any units abilities post voting (people taking issue that they don't know exactly what they are voting for/ things they wanted got changed).

    We reserved the right to make changes to proposals, quite clearly, from the beginning. Given that development is an iterative process, and that creating commanders/ making balance changes is very nuanced, this is a necessity. Case in point; even after 10+ test mods, loads of feedback, and weeks of being in the live game, units/ abilities needed to be adjusted numerous times post the previous patch.

    Finally, if we had two commanders per faction at the level of sophistication where no further changes were going to be made/ a final vote was viable, we would probably just put them both into the game, hence making the voting/ participation redundant in the first place.

    Hopefully, most people have enjoyed being able to participate.

  • #61
    7 months ago

    @Andy_RE I understand that its a lot of work to fully playtest 10 commanders, but I don't think anyone was asking you to fully balance and create them. What we wanted was to have better communication about what the two options were. When you listed a single entry as what you were basing one commander off vs an amalgamation of three entries for the other, it creates an unfair advantage for the former because it is more concisely known what we are voting for.

    As for changing abilities post voting, yes that was understood, but I believe without a formal acknowledgement of what will likely be kept and what will likely be cut, we can only go off of what is listed and have to assume that is what we will have. I think the whole process would go smoother for everyone if we could get as close to the final product as possible.

    Nevertheless, I want to thank you for involving the community. It would be easy to just do everything yourselves as the developers, especially for a 5 year old game. I hope in the future that interaction can continue to improve and occur for the benefit of everyone.

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.