This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - LCH98
1
« on: September 15, 2014, 10:43:50 PM »
As there seems to be no interest in my proposal, I hereby apologize for the waste of time I have created
2
« on: September 15, 2014, 07:48:42 AM »
As you say, the Katyusha is excellent, but this would add a bit more diversity, which i consider to be good, especially since this has now become the Soviets' only artillery following the removement of the 122mm Howitzer.
....The SU-76 and KV-2 would like to have a word with you 
The SU-76 artillery is, to my opinion, no better than a mortar. It costs you 100 munition to upgrade and then has a longer reload time and a way smaller splash/AoE than the 107mm mortar, for just a bit more range. KV-2 isn't bad but it's very inaccurate and you can only have one at a time, with a reload so long you could send the KV-2 to drive out there and direct-fire it instead. Besides, the KV-2 and SU-76 aren't purpose-built indirect-fire artillery
3
« on: September 14, 2014, 06:24:26 PM »
And what is the advantage of such an upgrade  More damage? I think Katjusha is excellent and dont need an upgrade or ingame buff by upgrade.
A lot more damage, the BM-13's warhead is 5 kg, the BM-31-2's warhead is 28 kg.
As you say, the Katyusha is excellent, but this would add a bit more diversity, which i consider to be good, especially since this has now become the Soviets' only artillery following the removement of the 122mm Howitzer.
It would mean trading in a lot more firepower for a lot shorter range (historically about half the range of the BM-13), slower katyuhsa's, a longer reload time and upgrade costs.
the current Katyusha model is from the very early stages of EF. At the moment a new one is on the way which will fit better into the late-war-period.
Good to hear  Will it be like the T-34/85 and Su-100 upgrades, so you can choose between the 'old' katyusha with less firepower but more range or the new one, or will it replace the 'old' katyusha alltogether?
4
« on: September 14, 2014, 02:16:18 PM »
And what is the advantage of such an upgrade More damage? I think Katjusha is excellent and dont need an upgrade or ingame buff by upgrade.
A lot more damage, the BM-13's warhead is 5 kg, the BM-31-2's warhead is 28 kg. As you say, the Katyusha is excellent, but this would add a bit more diversity, which i consider to be good, especially since this has now become the Soviets' only artillery following the removement of the 122mm Howitzer. It would mean trading in a lot more firepower for a lot shorter range (historically about half the range of the BM-13), slower katyuhsa's, a longer reload time and upgrade costs.
5
« on: September 14, 2014, 01:13:54 PM »
Just wondering, shouldn't there be a way to upgrade the katyusha's, similar to the t-34/85 and su-100 upgrade?
The currently used katyusha's are the ones used in the early years of the way, but by '44-'45 they had way larger warheads.
Right now there's the BM-13, firing 16x 132mm rockets.
Making it's combat debut in 1944 and proving highly effective in Budapest and Berlin, the BM-31-12 (firing 12 300 mm rockets) had a shorter range than the BM-13 but had a warhead more than five times heavier.
They were mounted on the Studebaker, just as the current BM-13, so only the rockets and the launcher would have to be modeled.
I have a few in-detail suggestions, but i'd rather wait to see if the devs agree with this or not.
6
« on: September 09, 2014, 03:00:15 PM »
Hey, cool new patch guys, i really like the way the ostheer got cleaned up.
A few bugs/strange things i noticed from playing the first few games:
- [german version] Tooltip for IG-barrage missing
- [german version] Tooltip for Elite-Doctrine Arty-strike missing
- [german version] Outdated tooltip for Landsers
- [german version] Left and Right Tree for fortress doctrine dont have names
- medic vet seems to be gone (assuming that the thing with a crane as a symbol and the medic tooltip is logistic. Else medic does not give medikits)
- [german version] Logistic vet uses tooltip for medic vet
- Panzerfussilers cant dig holes anymore?
- Landsers dont seem to get a Mkb42 from the update, as stated in the update tooltip
-Army Support Doctrine Luchs call-in still has the Pz 38t / wespe description in the doctrine tree -Army Support Doctrine JU-87D-5 bombing run still has the JU-87G-2 (twin 37mm cannon run instead of the bombing run) description in the call-in menu All I've really encountered in my first two matches EDIT: The Ju-87D-5 bombing run constantly spawned from the enemy spawn point, and got shot down by T-90s every time i called it in and negated the use of it in-game entirely.
7
« on: September 09, 2014, 01:45:39 PM »
I wanted to try this new version, but the game cannot be lanuched. I've got an error which says that my CoH product cannot be recognized and try to lanuch the game from Steam. Any ideas how to fix it? The game is installed in fine location.
I just noticed that when I want to play EF, in Steam it writes I'm playing TGW 1918 mod. I tried to uninstall it and it still writes that I'm playing TGW when I want to try EF.
I had exactly the same problem. Solved it by deleting all the coh1 files in steamapps and then reinstalling both the game and mod. Would seem the mod files conflict?
8
« on: September 08, 2014, 04:43:06 PM »
Not compatible with steam?
Is of many sad
It is
Also, Im gonna create a better version of the changelog with more clear changes, and see if I missed anything
It is? I downloaded and installed, when i try to start from launcher i get an error message telling me: "Game is not being run as a known Company of Heroes product. Try again by launching game from Steam"
9
« on: September 08, 2014, 04:09:08 PM »
Not compatible with steam?
Is of many sad
10
« on: April 18, 2014, 09:21:35 PM »
Sounds interesting, but at the moment it is impossible to use the WB of Classic CoH.
The annoying height mapping issue wasn´t solved yet.
Mine works, I can't say why though
My worldbuilder works as well, i've started making a pre-alpha idea of this map, though my mapping skills aren't even close to good. I'm using the steam version by the way.
11
« on: April 17, 2014, 07:08:28 PM »
Hello,
I have been thinking about a map for a little while.
Sadly, my mapmaking skills are non-existant, and i don't really have the time or patience to learn how to properly make maps.
I have worked out the idea a bit, and made a drawing (i put it in the attachments as a JPEG)
Basically, it's a combination map, designed around 3 area's of combat:
-River crossing Combat
-Urban Combat
-Open ground
As you can see on the picture (Sorry about my drawing skills, they're about as good as my mapping), the left and right sides of the map are open with a 'island' in the middle, on which is a town. (I only drew two buildings, but i meant to have more on the map)
Bases A and B are connected with a road, meaning a speed up for AFVs, but negative cover for infantry, which can give advantages to both attacker and defender.
Bases C and D are connected with grassland (maybe a dirtroad), with a hill in the middle, which is surrounded by a small creek, giving negative cover to anyone who tries to cross. Obviously, this means that the flag in between C and D is on top of the hill.
This might seem OP to defenders, but it also means that if the hill is captured by infiltrating units (Paratroopers, Fällschirmjagers, Partisans, etc) players A and B can seriously disrupt players C and D.
Bases A and C are connected with a road, with a small hill in the middle, with the VP on top. Controlling the Hill can be game-changing, of course.
Bases B and D are connected with mainly grasslands, maybe a dirt road. This area can be easily taken, as it has few obstacles preventing tank movement, but it is as easily turned into a killing zone by MGs and AT-guns.
The City is where the fun comes to life. The High-resource points and a VP mean that controlling this City-Island is vital to Victory. However, the enemy knows this, too.
I'm doubting between making all the bridges destroyable, or just the East and West bridge.
The main point of this map is to make the battle as hard and as dangerous as can be. Taking all the VPs, and maybe even the South Hill are to be very costly in men and material.
The layout causes the players to make a difficult choice:
-Either you have to go through the sides, but risk a lot of losses, and even the possibility of a full stalemate
-Or go through the city, which can be a long and bloody process
I drew it as a 2v2, though of course a larger variation would be possible for 4v4.
Thank you for reading all of this and please comment.
Sincerely,
LCH98.
12
« on: March 28, 2014, 06:55:45 PM »
No, Ostheer is not going to have new defensive structures.
So no PaK 36 "Doorknocker" emplacement, as had been mentioned earlier?
13
« on: March 23, 2014, 08:41:19 PM »
It will be changed in the next Patch
That's good to hear, it always seemed illogical to me. Thank you for informing me about that.
14
« on: March 23, 2014, 08:12:04 PM »
Duke is right,
Landers have their standard Kar98 rifles, but they can now upgraded with Mp40 or with Panzerbüchse (AT).
The Panzerfüsiliers are now more defensive, they can be upgraded with LMG 34 and G41.
I'm sorry, but wouldn't that make the Landers a OP early-game SMG-squad?
Or does the MP40 upgrade require a expensive research, like the Mkb42 (H) in the current version?
Yup, unlocking mp40/pzb requires teching of course.
1)
Damn you react fast.
2)
Thank you for clearing that up.
3)
Just a slight idea, but shouldn't the PaK 40 75mm AT gun be support doctrine, as it's slow and can't really be used offensivly, and the Marder in the offence pool, as it can keep up with other tanks and provide extremely mobile, yet effective AT support?
Edit: removed typo
It works like that.
Might be me, but with support pool, i get the Marder and the Pz3, with assualt pool i get the luchs and PaK 40
15
« on: March 23, 2014, 06:52:23 PM »
Duke is right,
Landers have their standard Kar98 rifles, but they can now upgraded with Mp40 or with Panzerbüchse (AT).
The Panzerfüsiliers are now more defensive, they can be upgraded with LMG 34 and G41.
I'm sorry, but wouldn't that make the Landers a OP early-game SMG-squad?
Or does the MP40 upgrade require a expensive research, like the Mkb42 (H) in the current version?
Yup, unlocking mp40/pzb requires teching of course.
1) Damn you react fast. 2) Thank you for clearing that up. 3) Just a slight idea, but shouldn't the PaK 40 75mm AT gun be support doctrine, as it's slow and can't really be used offensivly, and the Marder in the offence pool, as it can keep up with other tanks and provide extremely mobile, yet effective AT support? Edit: removed typo
|
Show Posts
