CoH: Modern Combat

The 25-Pounder Gun Howitzer pit - it's pretty good, although I wish they'd use the Bofors pit.

Its an 10000 tr plus emplacement... to secure a point that way is to triangle\poly intense. fps drop in a 3v3 will be noticeable, if 3 or 4 points are secured. The emplacement used should be 5-6000 tris max if it happens. And tbh its an encouragement to static defensive play.....

I don't think it's an active encouragement to static or defensive gameplay. What it does do is give a US player the option of going down that route. In my opinion the whole point of the different doctrines is to give players different ways to play, different approaches. It stands to reason that someone choosing the CQB doctrine on heavily built up maps is going to get bogged down against the the waves of Chinese so having an ability to dig in and fortify their control points gives them a different tactic to use.

I don't know what tris are by the way...

Tris (or polys) are how detailed the model is, out simply. Us modelers here tend to not use polys because they're kind of decieving.

But nonetheless, the Americans can already build MG nests quite cheaply. Although I wish it didn't have such a high fuel cost (20 fuel? Really?), it can still be garrisoned with infantry and they can shoot out.

Keep in mind that MG nests don't take any popcap, and they're relatively difficult to dislodge early game in a short amount of time. A 6 combat engineer start as U.S. is viable, and caps the map extremely quickly. Having no (or lesser) fuel costs on an MG nest means PLA players may find themselves base-pinned pretty quickly and easily by overlapping, garrisoned MG nests.

JDCSR wrote:I don't think it's an active encouragement to static or defensive gameplay. What it does do is give a US player the option of going down that route. In my opinion the whole point of the different doctrines is to give players different ways to play, different approaches. It stands to reason that someone choosing the CQB doctrine on heavily built up maps is going to get bogged down against the the waves of Chinese so having an ability to dig in and fortify their control points gives them a different tactic to use.

I don't know what tris are by the way...

If an option is strong enough it becomes a valid choice. Playing defensively is easier than playing aggressively and that will lead to boring games. Like a Brit going for encampments....

Campaigner wrote:

JDCSR wrote:I don't think it's an active encouragement to static or defensive gameplay. What it does do is give a US player the option of going down that route. In my opinion the whole point of the different doctrines is to give players different ways to play, different approaches. It stands to reason that someone choosing the CQB doctrine on heavily built up maps is going to get bogged down against the the waves of Chinese so having an ability to dig in and fortify their control points gives them a different tactic to use.

I don't know what tris are by the way...

If an option is strong enough it becomes a valid choice. Playing defensively is easier than playing aggressively and that will lead to boring games. Like a Brit going for encampments....

Yep...when playing maps with crossing rivers, the battle usually becomes battle between artilleries.

Unit: M119A2 howitzer
Place in tech tree: Tier 2 or Tier 3
Reason of the unit: Marine faction don't have much direct-fire cannon like T59 and Stryker MGS, so I think a howitzer works like StuH 42 in vCoH will be fine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M119A2_howitzer

I don't think a howitzer would fit "direct fire" very much. lol. And it's not mobile at all, unless you want it to be pushed by elbow grease, then be my guest.

The Soldier wrote:I don't think a howitzer would fit "direct fire" very much. lol. And it's not mobile at all, unless you want it to be pushed by elbow grease, then be my guest.

Type 86 AT Gun is not mobile either..In fact, real PLA would fit it on an Type 92 APC chassis (PTL-02) rather than use it as a towed gun.