View Full Version : Less close combat, more costly retreats.
9th May 05, 7:09 PM
In DoW many good shooting units are easily nullified by a cheap unit that can CC them, this is the way of the 40k universe and I use that tactic constantly in DoW to good effect, but I'd not like to see it in CoH. In fact I've had enough close combat for one game, nice feature though it be.
I think if you engage your army in a battle, move your units into forward positions and begin a firefight with the enemy, then moveing away from this battle you engaged in should cost you, where in DoW you can escape easily with most of your force intact much of the time. I don't want the game to be decided on one battle though, I think there should be no uber units like commanders in the beginning (mistake I feel) and plenty of room for comeback if you play well enough and the enemy lapses, but you should be wary about committing your entire force to one place in case you begin to lose and take heavy casualties.
I'm also tired of "lets throw everything we've got into that street and duke it out!". IF CoH uses strategic points:
Don't put them all in the players base!
If the points are well spread out, and by having your whole army in one place you would not be able to cover many locations and end up facing a superior enemy force anyway, then you would have to commit forces to several fronts, encourage combined arms. I don't believe DoW suceeded here because there are too many resources in the player starting area, and too few in no-mands land.
9th May 05, 8:01 PM
You could, of course, fix your dilemma by simply creating your own maps. You DO know that, don't you?
Plus, I don't recall charging into melee being an often-used tactic in WW2. Seems mildly suicidal to me.
Oh, wait. The Russians did that sort of thing, didn't they?
Well, anyways, I don't think CC will be too big of a problem in CoH. It's just not that viable of a strategy unless you're running out of ammunition and your opponent still has a massive stockpile. :D'
10th May 05, 12:54 PM
I have one quote which should answer yoru question the lone knight
In Russia it takes more courage to charge the enemy then retreat
- Joseph Stalin
10th May 05, 2:37 PM
I thought the quote was "In Russia, It takes more courage to retreat than to charge the enemy"
I could very easily be mistaken.
Either way, fights were done at range in WW2, so CC is little worry. Except for the tanks that run up and tag you at point blank range... that always sucked...
10th May 05, 3:22 PM
"In the Soviet army it takes more courage to retreat than advance."
But at least Da_Humie didn't get the meaning completely backwards.
10th May 05, 9:51 PM
It's referring to the presence of NKVD killer squads if I'm not mistaken.
10th May 05, 10:01 PM
On another note; must retreats be incredibly costly? I mean, isn't the general idea of a retreat to -avoid- losing many more troops?
If retreating will always be equivalent to being butchered then it seems to me that we've lost another viable strategy. I dunno. I'd like to see retreat still being a relatively viable option, even if it's not massively realistic. :p
10th May 05, 10:12 PM
You'd have to use tactics. Say sacrificing a squad to withdraw the rest of your army. Or bombarding the enemy with artillery while you withdraw. Or in fine Anzac tradition setting up a bunch or rifles set to fire automatically after a few minutes, then just wanderinng off.
10th May 05, 10:16 PM
..How do you set up rifles to fire automatically after a few minutes?
..And who are the Anzac?
11th May 05, 4:30 AM
When I say costly I mean along noz3's lines, your ultimately saving troops but the enemy gets to kill some stuff while your doing it.
And I was never much of a mapmaker.
11th May 05, 5:03 AM
..How do you set up rifles to fire automatically after a few minutes?
..And who are the Anzac?ANZAC = Australia and New Zealand Army Corps. The blokes who were at Gallipolli, among other places.
Basically in the retreat from Gallipolli the Anzacs waited until night, lined up rifles set up with a rather ingenious system so that after a short delay they would fire (I think they had water slowly dripping into a container that when full enough would dislodge something heavy, which pulled the trigger). Anyway they set these up, and then got on their ships and left, while the Turks kept hearing rifle fire and assumed they were still there. It was ultimately the most successful part of the Gallipolli campaign.
11th May 05, 5:28 AM
Close combat was quite common in WWII. Although it was more fighting up close with grenades and sharp shovels than actuall swords or bayonetes. Infact, it's almost impossible to dislodge entrenched infantry with anything other than other infantry in CC.
11th May 05, 5:42 AM
Infact, it's almost impossible to dislodge entrenched infantry with anything other than other infantry in CC.Tanks. Thats why they built them in the first place afterall.
Aircraft too for that matter.
11th May 05, 7:45 AM
well, in any case, should hand to hand fighting be in (and it really should be, IMO), we'd expect it to be gritty. no, not spraying blood, what i mean is we don't want units to stand there and take turns hitting each other with whatever. make it realistic, with far more 'involved' CC animations (should be easier this time, shouldn't it? since you don't have to worry about all the vastly different models interacting; there's really only one type of soldier here. little human blokes. no big frills and sticky out bits that clip all the time.)
so by 'involved', i specifically mean that the units should appear to be struggling, y'know, more trying to pin down the other person than actually handing out blows. that'd be way better than watching them stand there thwacking each other untill someone falls down and doesn't get up.
...but perhaps i'm expecting too much. who knows. i have this great picture in my head, so i'll probably end up dissapointed :p
11th May 05, 1:16 PM
That would be awesome, actually. I can picture it now.. American Soldiers leaping like insane monkeys into the German trenches, grappling, shouting, spitting, getting kneed in the groin, all in order to get the upper hand. :D
That and goosestepping. I want. I WANT.
11th May 05, 5:57 PM
Noze Killer: Tanks are almost useless against infantry in urban terrain when not supported by infantry. Armour is an advantage but it's also a limitation because angles of sight, elevation and depression are all limited on a tank.
11th May 05, 9:20 PM
Please, for god sakes stop arguing about the balance of game thats in pre alpha...
Further more we have no idea in hell about the pace, etc of this game, don't assume it will even resemble DoW.
/me votes for a lock on this thread
12th May 05, 6:46 PM
Heh, i was tired, thats my excuse for my moment of stupidity but anyways, I just want a nice flame thrower.
14th May 05, 9:39 PM
Noze Killer: Tanks are almost useless against infantry in urban terrain when not supported by infantry. Armour is an advantage but it's also a limitation because angles of sight, elevation and depression are all limited on a tank.In an urban environment you traditionally use artillery until there isn't an urban environment anymore ;)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.