Recoiless jeeps

First off awesome mod! Serious high fives to the creators!

Quick question why the hell can the recoilless rifles on the SAS jeeps hit nothing? I recently tried with 3 squads with them to take out one half track.. and it took nearly 5 minutes....

RRs on the jeeps are insanely OP. 2 jeep squads can annihilate a P4 or Panther.

They will be edited and changed in a future patch devoted to fixing RMC.

Accuracy problems? I dunno. I don't have Corsix infront of me and I don't remember their accuracy while moving as opposed to while stationary. Try stopping and firing then moving again.

Firing while moving they're inaccurate...as Wizard said, fire with a static vehicle.  ;)

Just shoot and scoot as I like to say :P :D. That improves accuracy of all units basically :P

Thanks for the advice.

However I had already worked out that weapons fired from a stationary position are generally more accurate than one bouncing around at pre-school...

I will play test it again, but for the moment it seems that the jeeps seem to have a problem hitting targets accurately on elevations (a half track climbing a hill for example).

All stats will get reworked for 1.7

Awesome, In the meantime il stick to using the achilles.

I'd have to echo Cranialwizard. I've played as the RMC extensively, and I've never noticed a problem with their accuracy. What seems to be the problem with them is actually that their penetration is much higher than it should be.

Glad to hear the RMC is going to be tweaked a bit more. I really enjoy playing them as opposed to the vCoH Brits, and probably would play as them consistently if I didn't have to give up my Sherman Firefly.

You don't like the comet?

I think the Firefly is a iconic Brit unit :P. The comet just looks like a beefy Cromwell with a 17pdr :P

It's a sturdier tank though. It is less iconic than the slit trench.

The commando and the dough boy uniform are iconic though :P

And trucks.

I think Churchills are more iconic than trucks :P

The regular tommie infantry is the most iconic british unit of them all? XD

-BOBS YOUR UNCLE!

Sommarkatze wrote:
-BOBS YOUR UNCLE!

HERE WE GO!

Tankbuster wrote:
You don't like the comet?

Oh, I like the Comet well enough, it just performs a different role. The Comet seems to be more of a general purpose tank, a buffed Cromwell if you will, whereas the Firefly is a decent tank killer. Now with the Royal Marines, the M10 Achilles fills that role well, but Firefly seems to be quite a bit harder to destroy in comparison. If you're using tank destroyers right, they shouldn't come under much fire, but on the bigger maps it seems inevitable it will get a few nicks. Now I don't know the specific stats of the Achilles, but it seems like the Firefly is roughly twice as difficult to destroy. If I could pick between the Cromwell, Comet, Achilles, and Firefly all in one round it would be pretty awesome. They all fill different niches in my opinion, but there is always the vanilla brits to fall back on if you really miss it, which is what I do sometimes.

I am sure you will like our new rough draft for the design changes then.

I agree with Olorin. I miss the firefly while playing RMC and I usually play vBrits in team games just because of them.

Why do good players not like the comet?

I like the Comet. The loss of fireflies isn't enough though. They are the best AT weapon in the game.

For me it is the same thing: I miss the Firefly. What about either new AT infantry for Brits or a fourth upgrade for the standard British infantry squad? Sometimes I miss (relatively) cheap AT when playing as Brits.

I suggest Boys AT rifles :P

Hear Hear

Hmmmm...Sounds familiar

Cranialwizard wrote:
Hmmmm...Sounds familiar

I think someone else suggsted it before but I dont think anyone ever said yes or no :P

And besides isnt there already a Boys AT rifle model from tales of valor ???

I think that was used in 1.3 as a stop gap measure for the PTRD

Tankbuster wrote:
I think that was used in 1.3 as a stop gap measure for the PTRD

Correct.

Hookerhunter is correct. Whenever I play the Tiger Ace campaign I usually blow up a few squads of Brit infantry who have AT rifles.

The boys anti tank rifle could be an reward for the piat..? ( JESUS CHRIST DONT KILL ME!)

I suggest Tommies get it early on. Acts as stop gap b/w litteraly no anti (well bren carrier has AP rounds) and 17pdr + piats :P

Yeah. Instead of the bren gun they could get the boys!

Now now, while we do consider suggestions, we've yet to start making changes to the RMC but we already have some things in mind. Perhaps the Boys AT will be amongst them.

2000th post.

Welcome to the inner circle, Cranial :D

I wouldn't mind seeing a Bren Gun Carrier with a Boys Rifle in it as a mobile Vehi Hunter, make it a variable upgrade to the MMG upgrade, one or the other.

MaxiKing6 wrote:
Welcome to the inner circle, Cranial :D

LOL inner circle of Posters of SU :P

Well I'll just hold my tongue until 1.7 starts to develop :)

LOL call me crazy but I really miss the days when the PTRD sounded like the Boys AT, the one they have is fine I just prefered that one

Boys AT rifle! I have always felt that is one of the main things missing from the British. Some sort of alternative to the PIAT. Now the PIAT isn't terrible, but I often find it can really only be used to full effect when used defensively. It would probably most appropriately be an upgrade for the Tommy squad. I believe the assets for it including the model, texture, sound and animation were already in Tales of Valor. Strange relic never included it beyond an extremely minor appearance in the Tiger Ace campaign, but then again they seem to have given up on making the British into a fully featured, functional, and balanced faction. I look forward to hearing more about the RMC in 1.7, but a topic about the OP SAS jeeps probably isn't the place for it.

neosdark wrote:
I wouldn't mind seeing a Bren Gun Carrier with a Boys Rifle in it as a mobile Vehi Hunter, make it a variable upgrade to the MMG upgrade, one or the other.

The Royal Marines already have the recoilless rifle jeeps to fill this role.

Olorin wrote:
Strange relic never included it beyond an extremely minor appearance in the Tiger Ace campaign, but then again they seem to have given up on making the British into a fully featured, functional, and balanced faction.

+1 I wanna laugh but at the same time Im only laughing cause its sad and true :P.

Did jeeps actually have recoiless rifles btw? I've yet to see a real life jeep with recoiless rifles

Yes, they Did

Hookerhunterx wrote:
+1 I wanna laugh but at the same time Im only laughing cause its sad and true :P.

Did jeeps actually have recoiless rifles btw? I've yet to see a real life jeep with recoiless rifles

No idea about the Jeeps.. it seems rather unconventional, but I can see it.

Relic can make some pretty revolutionary games. Company of Heroes was their best in my opinion. It's radical take on the open and environmentally focused battlefields reenergized a normally stagnant genre. One thing that is problematic about it is that it rewards people with a very aggressive play style, which isn't a bad thing by itself, but it alienates some players that are new, or just prefer(like myself) a more conservative, defensive(not necessarily turtling) oriented play style. Dawn of War was similar in this regard, and Relic tried answering this problem with the Imperial Guard. I'm not sure if any of you have played that game as well, but the execution of the Imperial Guard was even more flawed than how Relic has done the British.

It's not a bad idea to have this option in theory, but Relic completely fucked up. Having a defensive faction shouldn't necessarily equate to being able to set up a nearly impenetrable layer of defense, which can just be frustrating. The vanilla Brits were rather OP in that regard, but in other fields they were just terrible, or had flawed execution. Their unit roster seems incomplete. The concept behind the British was that they should be able to slowly expand and hold what they have while building up an armored force to crush the enemy, but in practice it doesn't work well. The Cromwell just sucked going toe to toe against Wehrmacht higher tier vehicles, and the Firefly really is more of a support vehicle. The Comet fills a niche that the vanilla Brits REALLY needed filled. So OP defenses, poor offensive line up, and messed up mechanics result in just a broken faction in general. I'm glad that the EF team has decided to make an option for people who prefer a less dysfunctional Brit faction; it's just a damn shame we're stuck with the doctrines. Don't even let me get started on those.

Last edited January 30, 2012 at 2:35 PM by Olorin

Olorin wrote:
One thing that is problematic about it is that it rewards people with a very aggressive play style, which isn't a bad thing by itself, but it alienates some players that are new, or just prefer(like myself) a more conservative, defensive(not necessarily turtling) oriented play style.

I agree, COH can be tough for noobs :P. Even after playing the campaign (whch some ppl forgo and unfortunatley are on my automatch team ::)) its kinda tough cause they dont know all the tips and tricks and just wanna have fun, not read guides or watch replays. Its much different form ther games (where theres no cover and you charge the enemy).

And I agree with what you've said about Brits. They are like a turtle faction but just didn't seem to work (maybe its cause of their linear teching, the trucks aren't such a bad idea)

Hookerhunterx wrote:

its kinda tough cause they dont know all the tips and tricks and just wanna have fun, not read guides or watch replays

It is a game

Tankbuster wrote:

Hookerhunterx wrote:

its kinda tough cause they dont know all the tips and tricks and just wanna have fun, not read guides or watch replays

It is a game

But when you constantly lose cause you are a noob, it gets fustrating after a while and can cause ppl to go back to comp stomp (this happened to me but I went back to PvP cause I got bored :P, not saying it applies to everyone)

And its not like a simple shooter where for example you are shooting someone and they manage to kill you. You can simply say," Oh, Im gonna get back at this guy" and you manage to find and kill him by say spraying. In COH you might spend a good 20-30 min just to get stomped and its not so simple to go back and win. You need to improve you skill in order to win. Games are hardly won by luck or chance (although it can happen ;))

Hookerhunterx wrote:

Tankbuster wrote:

Hookerhunterx wrote:

its kinda tough cause they dont know all the tips and tricks and just wanna have fun, not read guides or watch replays

It is a game

But when you constantly lose cause you are a noob, it gets fustrating after a while and can cause ppl to go back to comp stomp (this happened to me but I went back to PvP cause I got bored :P, not saying it applies to everyone)

And its not like a simple shooter where for example you are shooting someone and they manage to kill you. You can simply say," Oh, Im gonna get back at this guy" and you manage to find and kill him by say spraying. In COH you might spend a good 20-30 min just to get stomped and its not so simple to go back and win. You need to improve you skill in order to win. Games are hardly won by luck or chance (although it can happen ;))

I guess competitive pvp is needed in any rts game, the question is why there's need for 'ranks' or statistics - they spoil entire gameplay. I play Men of War AS pvp from time to time, and it occures that I can't play any pvp game anymore, because I have like 7 games played ( though I'm not so bad player) while other people have 30-50 games played and they constantly kick me out from servers. In CoH we have similiar problem, and often many people who play pvp are playing only to get next 'rank' what basically gives nothing. They play hard, use tricks, watch replays and read guides to be better and better, and only fun they get is when they win. I enjoy every second of my game, and I don't care about teching, fuel conservation and stuff. Yes, I lose often, but at least I enjoy the game. Do they?

Im sorta a mix of both :P. Yeah I wanna win and winning would make me happy but I wanna have fun too. I dont wanna just stomp my enemy or get stomped myself (cause quite honestly its very boring). I wanna challenge that grants me a satisfying win and forces me to think, not just a lop sided game where you abuse something. I also dislike the idea of a build order. Its kinda boring and doesn't allow for too much creativity  :-\. I mean there are some things (4 PG IMO, Lt. for brits, CS for SU) that are essential but the rest you should decide for yourself :P.

They were havng a simlar disscussion like this on GR.org just yesturday (and probably today as well ::)) about having fun and playing a fair game versus simply abusing something thats deemed OP and unfair to simply win and destroy your enemy (in this case it was Stag and gren spam and whether or nor Brits should be allowed in SNL anymore. BTW the Gren spam won ^^). IMO a game loses meaning when your not having fun (yeah, theres MLG but seriously, wtf?). Theres a reason why its called a game. Do ppl rage? Sure, all the time. But you shouldn't let it effect you for too long (maybe an hour at most)

But back OT, are recoiless Jeeps being replaced or simply nerfed ???

Last edited January 31, 2012 at 9:53 PM by Hookerhunterx

cephalos wrote:
I guess competitive pvp is needed in any rts game, the question is why there's need for 'ranks' or statistics - they spoil entire gameplay.  In CoH we have similiar problem, and often many people who play pvp are playing only to get next 'rank' what basically gives nothing.

Well, from my own perspective, this is how it runs.  I don't play for ranks, but I do use my automatch rank so that I don't automatically get labeled as a total noob and then kicked.  I don't give a fuck how many stripes I have on the screen, that's not the point, but I do use rank and win/loss ratio as an indicator of how well I'm doing and whether I need to get my shit together and step it up.  Which brings me to my next point.

cephalos wrote:
They play hard, use tricks, watch replays and read guides to be better and better, and only fun they get is when they win. I enjoy every second of my game, and I don't care about teching, fuel conservation and stuff. Yes, I lose often, but at least I enjoy the game. Do they?

Maybe you just enjoy playing the game, regardless of how bad you are at it, and that's perfectly fine.  But for some players like myself, we get the fun from the competitiveness of the game.  Really, its just human nature.  Some of us are more competitive by nature than others.  Its just like in real life, how some people play sports with their family and friends for fun, and some people play in sports teams to win.  Both get some sort of enjoyment from a sport like, say, hockey (because it rocks), but the fun is just derived differently.  Personally, I do play to win, I'm not denying it, but I don't get my fun only when I win; I get it from the competition.  So if it was a close game without exploits, then I'll have had my fun already.

Last edited February 3, 2012 at 8:47 AM by Yauz

Agreed. A close, high level competitive game without abuse is more fun than just winning a so-so game.

I would rather play a good fun competative game and lose to a skilful player or brillant tactics than someone who is a dick/spams/uses one tactic over and over.

Yauz wrote:
So if it was a close game without exploits, then I'll have had my fun already.

Are staghounds considered exploits in vcoh?