Is there an axis campaign this time or is it just allies-wanking like the previous game?

Did they suddenly remeber to set fullbright=0?

>>1807235
Yes there is actually.
It's better than the allied campaign too since the allied campaign is like a terrible, 2 layers thing that's unfocused and boring to play.
But between missions you get a literal Jew crying about Rommel, just skip the cutscenes. It's very short though and not worth buying the game for.

>>1807238
dunno, but getting dumped by sega seems to have freed them up stop making retarded decisions. took them 6 months to make the game look and play literally twice as good.

>>1807257
I hope they keep up this pace. Aside from the bugs, onyx shark is a huge step in the right direction.
But besides the early game shakeup and the de facto nerf to elite infantry the meta is still the same, I hope we don't have to wait 2 more months for an actual balance patch.

Yeah, me and my mate are actually having proper sessions now. Previously we'd play one game every now and then for something different then go back to whatever else we were playing but the TTK change was massive in just making the game more rewarding.

Gameplay-wise, why exactly do people say that CoH3 is more like CoH1 than CoH2?
I played all of them and tome they all feel pretty much equally different from each other

>>1807317
it just got the mix wrong and became just like any other RTS where it's a rush to get your late game composition which rendered everything else that happened beforehand irrelevant.

1 and 3 have a much bigger mid game emphasis. light vehicles for example never stop being useful, while in 2 they were just stop gaps.

>>1807356
imo CoH3 is leaning too much into that, it has arguably the best LVs and light tanks in the franchise, couple it with some mediums being mediocre and almost every faction is better off spamming LVs.
DAK can go 8rad/marders/carros
Wehr can go wirbels and marders
US can go chaffees and M8s
Brits can go stuart spam, centaur spam or crusader AA spam (although nowadays brits seem to prefer matildas, grunts and archers)

It's not the worst thing but it needs tuning

>reinstall CoH3
>check the reproducible crash that caused me to uninstall it a year ago
>crash
>uninstall
There's no saving relic at this point.

>>1807432
did you report said crash or...?

>Playing wehr
>coastals vs aussies
>double humber into stuarts
>hold them off with mines and AT guns
>by the time I got a p4 there were 3 stuarts on the field
>ticket bleed force me to be aggressive and end up trading two P4s
>by the time I get all his stuarts and an archer I'm out of VPs and lose before I can cap again
Dang.

I gotta say coastals feel a lot shittier since the TTK chances, they always had high accuracy while in cover so improving it didn't really buff them, while simultaneously making every other squad so much better against them.
Meanwhile aussies can walk up to a stoss squad in the open and win the 1v1.

>>1807496
There are no diminishing returns on accuracy until 100% (which nothing reaches). The buff to Coastals was as much as the buff to anything else. They've typically been a little weak in 1v1s because 1s involve so much movement, you're bound to get caught out of cover a lot.

Aussies are explicitly a hard counter to low model count elite squads like Stoss. Stoss have low hp and a low model count but offset it with armour and high damage from range, so they can sit in cover at a safe distance and win shootouts. Aussies with their upgraded rifles pierce armour, and they can click an ability to delete 1/4 of the stoss squad. Beating stoss is basically why Aussies exist, it's like putting a tank up against an AT gun and being surprised it doesn't win.

Your opponent went really heavy into light vehicles because you chose coastals over grenadiers, meaning your infantry AT was much weaker. This is a sorespot for wehr in the brit matchup because your t2/3 don't have an easily accessible cheap unit to answer other light vehicles. The correct option assuming you don't already have a significant lead is to have 1-2 grenadier squads and rush out a Jagershrek, because the snare + shrek combo will easily kill a humber outright and threaten to kill a stuart. If they keep investing in light vehicles you can also grab a 221 into the AT cannon upgrade and use it to support the above and secure stuart kills while you transition into P4s.

>>1807539
Tried shrecks in a game right now and the guy went 5 stuarts then dove my base and killed my t1, t2 and t4 before I could get a P4 out.
I kept playing for a while but at that point I didn't even have fausts because luft company was dead.
The problem is that shrecks are unable to chase or outrange stuarts and any damage you do to them is meaningless, they can kite your infantry until they're low on health and then self repair without any mp cost while they bleed you out.
I suppose the correct play would have been to get the Pgren company too and use AT guns as well as shrecks instead of trying to get a P4 out asap.

>>1807571
You basically never want to go both t2 AND t3 because then you just lose to your opponent's t4.
Infantry AT are ambush units. You don't chase opposing vehicles over open ground but use the abundant line of sight blockers on all 1v1 maps to avoid max range engagements and zone them away from terrain where they can't get clear sight of you. You pair them with grenadiers because the faust snare ensures the shrek can get into range and connect multiple hits. Damage you deal to vehicles absolutely does matter even if you don't score the kill, but you should easily be able to kill overextended vehicles with this combo.

But if your opponent rolls you over with 5 stuarts then you had lost long before then. Stuarts are t2.5. They are hitting the field around the same time as you could be getting wirbelwinds or stugs. Your shrek is out well before their first stuart and your p4 should be out well before they have critical mass. If that's not the case then something went very wrong in your match long before 5 stuarts dove your base. The stuart is a loadbearing unit for brits because without it their t2 is really weak, but the stuart itself is not particularly strong and has been nerfed repeatedly. Any player spamming stuarts at you could instead have rushed and spammed Centaurs, which is a much more dangerous build that can outright end games.

>>1807317
coh1 and coh3 share a few things
- (superior) resource system
- every faction can access basic defenses
-emphasis on lv and side techs
-more diverse rosters
-better commander/battlegroup system

>>1807577
>but use the abundant line of sight blockers on all 1v1 maps
Unfortunately It was villa fiore. I tried doing that by repositioning on the left side expecting him to flank my retreat route and get ambushed but instead he just went for my base.

>fuel
I was moments away (not floating) from queueing a P4 so that 15+50+110+100 fuel for a total of 275, no heals because I had two grens.
He had 5 stuarts so that's 15 + 55 + 25 + 35*5 for a total of 270 fuel
Game wasn't even going that badly I was keeping him at bay with my 3 shreck squads but I guess he caught me out of position.
I still think there would have been some merit in going both T2 and T3 specifically because it was villa fiore but yeah brits could have simply refitted their stuart at one point so next time I'll try side teching for a couple of marders I guess?
queueing random right now so whatever I get, I get


>could instead have rushed and spammed Centaurs
CPs stop you from rushing centaurs and nerfed deflection damage means that they're worse against mediums in this patch so I don't think the guy would have won as easily if he had tried going for them
>Damage you deal to vehicles absolutely does matter even if you don't score the kill
Stuarts self repair and even if I force one away I can't stay and fight 4 more with my jagers unless they're safe in green cover.
Which they aren't because villa fiore

Patch just dropped, Mech is fixed now. No most retards capping the map in half a second

>>1807577
>>1807596
>Damage you deal to vehicles absolutely does matter even if you don't score the kill

I think the game went overboard with all the self-repairing abilities. It feels like every update adds a new button/ability that further enables you to blob vehicles without having to sacrifice any resources on logistics or engineers. vehicle blobs behave like some kind of self-regenerating fallout mutant

>>1807590
Isn't resource system the same in both 1 and 2? It's been some time since I played them.

File: CoH3 stummel bait.webm (3.79 MB, 640x358)

3.79 MB WEBM

>>1807496
if you go Pgren company I say get a stummel
With mech you get self-healing stummels that can capture points and disable vehicles.
It won't do much against 5 of them but it will force away ozzies, REs and vickers so it can give you some map control

>>1807641
pretty much. coh2 was slightly different and had most points give a small amount of every resource whereas 1 and 3 points are purely MP, fuel, muni sites which is apparently a much better system because it allows for epic and totally not cancerous strategies like paradropping falschpios on the other teams home fuel at 0 seconds and building a fighting nest on it

>>1807670
Less viable now that you take extra damage while building
It's annoying but like just rush a mortar or a half-track flamer if you're against airdropped MGs

>>1807641
no. coh1 and 3 had defined points for each resource, whereas 2 muddied them all together so casuals didn't have to think about them couldn't piss their pants about getting cut off.

even the biggest coh 2 die hard admits 2 has a worse system.

>>1807670
That strategy literally never works unless you're a retard that doesn't prioritize capping your fuel. I love when my royal engis run into fallpios taking double damage while they work at a fighting nest on my fuel. 9/10 times they get wiped before they can retreat and the other 1/10 that player is off the map for a hilariously long time and basically threw the earlygame to me.

crusader IIs are fun again with the rate of fire buff. most fun they've been since release. they're like super greyhounds that can still take on pretty much any tank at close range.

>>1807695
Are they even worth upgrading now?

>no Soviets
still not playing

Oh no

>>1807694
Nta but some maps like Taranto have garrisons that overlook your fuel so you can't really stop fallpios from getting inside and camping your fuel.

guarentee i could own any of you fools by drastic degrees
*lines up a row of 4 snipa's and executes ur whole dang squad in one hit*
,heheheh... smoked 'em fools' - quote from myself

>>1807723
I hope I never meet you in automatch... You're scaring me...

>>1807700
Not sure. I've been using them for a few games now and never felt compelled to upgun them. I could finish off a tiger with rear shots, so you never really NEED the extra pen.

All direct fire artillery is so good in this game, people underestimate the leig and the pack Howie because they think they can just get pushed away by infantry but trying to push them frontally is like trying to push a brummbar with twice the range.
The cannone 105 is good too in theory but it's not really any better than a leig call-in unless you skipped the med truck.

>>1807700
upgunned crusaders are still much better for chasing tanks down. the 2pnder is shite against other mediums unless it's at point blank range.

>>1807690
>less viable
as strong as it has ever been. prob even moreso that ttk is lower.
>build mortar
you've already lost when the enemy is dictating your build order (to being shitty) within 0 seconds of the gametime.
He gets:
>stalls your fuel
>strong 4 man engineer squad equipped with minesweeper that will be useful for the entire match
>guaranteed kills and force retreat of any unit that approaches it
>knowledge that your opponent will almost certainly now be forced to waste manpower early on a shitty fucking mortar, while you are free to buy actually good units ( things that counter the shitty ass mortar you just forced him to buy)

you get:
>a piece of shit mortar
>one less rifle/section/mg/engi/literally anything else that is more useful than a mortar this early in the game

>>1807694
it works in team games. there's enough time to drop in and fully construct the fighting position before they get there.

>>1807794
When the last time you played? Mortars are amazing now.

I want to get into this game but I will buy it only if Relic shows signs of substantial new content coming. For all I know, the game could be in maintenance mode after Relic got kicked by Sega.

>>1807794
>you've already lost when the enemy is dictating your build order
What a silly thing to say, you always want to take into consideration what the enemy has when deciding what to go for next.
You never want to rigidly follow a build order in coh, gotta adapt.

>>1807976
The game has 4 factions with 4 commanders each and at the very least there's balance patches and QoL additions coming out.
I'd say just buy it at a lower price from a key site or something, the game is in a pretty good state right now.

They going to re-do the soundtrack yet? its down right horrid compared to coh2 and always takes me out of the moment.

>>1807984
not good enough. The last game has 5 factions and ten billion commanders for each faction. I want assurance that CoH3 will have as much support as CoH2 did before committing.

>>1808005
okay - i give you assurance it'll have that much support

15 months later later, Italians are still not playable despite the game being set in both Italian theaters
when will that finally be fixed?

>>1808005
>ten billion commanders for each faction
you forgot to mention that said commanders were mostly bloat rehashes of the same units/abilities

>>1808047
omg it's John Relic

>>1808062
Italian units are incorporated well with the German factions, there really isn't any reason to make a standalone Italian faction.
I predict we'll get more Italian units as doctrinal stuff: the CV33 tankette is popular because of war thunder memes so that might get added, the Alpini mountain infantry could be added because they're tied with bersas for their "Italian troops that weren't dogshit" reputation and I also expect the partisan units to be made into a US battlegroup just because they're in the game already and it'd be fairly easy to. Or maybe a British battlegroup since one of the partisan units is a sniper and they don't have a sniper unit.

>>1808075
Name a single reason why a fully independent army with multiple weapons and vehicles, many of which were considered genuinely good, can't be a standalone faction when we get two german factions everytime
they had the perfect opportunity to NOT do that for once and they fucked up

>>1808084
Well the practical reason is that they'll probably want to add new factions in pairs and there's no allied equivalent to add in the Mediterranean front.
If they ever decide to add new factions it might just be soviets Vs osteers again. But then again DAK Vs soviets would be a weird matchup.

The historical reason is that, while Italians were technically in command, most of the fighting in north Africa was planned, executed and spearhead by Rommel. In several occasions Rommel had to phone Mussolini directly to ask to be given direct control of Italian divisions instead of having to go through the uncooperative Italian generals.
Then the Italian government capitulated shortly after the invasion of Sicily and the Italian army was either incorporated into the German army or sent to prison camps.
There's technically some space to have the RSI and the allied-aligned remnants of the Italian army as either their own factions but I doubt it'd be a smart decision purely because of marketability reasons.

>>1808084
Because that's cope and pasta equipment was dogshit. They don't even have 1 good tank except the p40 and they made a dozen of them. They made several hundred more king tigers than the inept italians made medium tanks.
Italy is the laughingstock of WW2. Even france was better.

>>1808119
They made 492 king tigers

File: IMG_5926.jpg (76 KB, 1024x576)

76 KB JPG

>>1808119
>pasta equipment was dogshit

The navy was pretty good. They had nowhere near as much time and resources as the British to make an unstoppable mass of steel that floats, but still competed early in the war before America joined in, and even had the British worried and taking losses.

I doubt an invasion of Italy would have been successful if they didn’t send hundreds of thousands of their best troops to die in the eastern front. The invasion of Italy is comparable to what and invasion of Japan would have looked like after dropping the nukes, they were already defeated.

>>1808119
>The reason why one nation did not make as many tanks as another is... ineptitude!!
Read a book on ww2, it's much more interesting than the bias-riddled surface-level understanding that gets peddled online.
>>1808138
>I doubt an invasion of Italy would have been successful if they didn’t send hundreds of thousands of their best troops to die in the eastern front.
Don't forget the allies successfully deceiving the axis into thinking that they were going to invade the Balkans first.

>>1807641
in 1 and 3, points are either small/medium/large ammo or fuel, or strategic points that usually connect them. so, it's possible in coh3 to completely choke fuel from an opponent, or completely deprive them of ammo. in coh2, every point gave fuel and ammo, aside from large fuel or large ammo. there were also less points per map, but the downriver gameplay effect was that map control in many ways mattered "less". you were always going to get some fuel/ammo as long as you had 1% of the map.

>>1808138
>The navy
Ah yes perfect fit for coh

>>1808100
>they'll probably want to add new factions in pairs and there's no allied equivalent to add in the Mediterranean front.
rubbish reason. The Brits didn't come paired with anyone back in CoH2.

>>1808005
the factions in 3 are much more distinct, with less overlap, and the battlegroup system is incomparable with the lazy ass rush job that was commanders. battlegroups are full branching trees that almost serve like micro factions.

>>1808119
doesn't matter. It's a franchise where the actual performance of real life equipment isn't reflected. Look at how the m1 garands is treated as a shitty peashooter that can't kill anyone outside of touch range in coh2, or how the g43 is treated as the uber aryan engineering rifle can be magdumbed while running without losing accuracy. Look at how the Panzer IV is treated as being sturdier than every medium tank the allies have despite the non-slopped armor making it shittier than the t34.

>>1808176
>The Brits didn't come paired with anyone back in CoH2.
Okay but that's literally the only piece of content in the franchise to do that.
Even this early in CoH3 they're already releasing new battlegroups in pairs.
It just makes sense to release DLCs as X vs Y both from a marketing standpoint and because there's people that only play or "main" one side and they might get mad and/or not buy the DLC if it doesn't have any content for their faction.
Don't get me wrong I'm all for it I just don't think it's going to happen, at least not with their first expansions.

>>1808194
>precedents don't matter because word word word
midwit

okay

Italians are goofy jobbers. Not heroic at all. Not a good fit for CoH

File: 1st win.jpg (878 KB, 1920x1080)

878 KB JPG

bros I just played my first pvp match and won and had to tell someone about it. (bought the game during steam summer sale and starting to actually practice now)
He rage quit after 2 infantry carriers got surrounded by 4 infantry sections with anti-tank rifles + an AT grenade and lost them both immediately. He was trying to chase down a retreating MG and got ambushed lol
pic related

File: 1607652630375.jpg (44 KB, 640x619)

44 KB JPG

>>1808271
Well done anon. Proud of you

>>1808220
>t. got carro spammed or L6 rushed too many times

>>1808271
nice work anon!

>>1807980
Usually true, but in this case because the strat takes place within the first 5 seconds of the game, involves blocking off and stalling your most precious resource, and the fact that the unit required to counter it is utterly useless at this stage in the game means the luftwaffe player essentially starts the game mid-snowball.

>>1808372
>trying to fight green cover/garrisoned sections while a mortar is bleeding you dry and forcing your fallpios in the open
>useless unit
Does it actually happen in your elo bracket? that meme strat has not happened to me in more than a year

>>1808379
nice gaslighting.
a mortar doesn't bleed anything dry. especially not one you were forced to buy early. they just leave the building and either walk away or rush your mortar and assrape it.

>>1808386
Go ahead try doing in a match right now

>>1808393
I do whenever I get queued as axis. No reason not to. Literally just gives urself and your team a headstart at the beginning of the game. often scouts will get wiped if not force retreated if they walk into range

>>1808271
you've taken your first steps into a larger world.

>>1808407
Are we talking 4v4s here?
I play 1v1 and it's happened to me once or twice, but it's not been particularly effective. It's very chaotic early on, but you can either go attack their cutoff instead or go for the mortar as other anon said.

>>1807702
I would comment about being sad there's no soviets to kill, but that has become too trendy and cliche in recent years.

>>1808588
I applaud your restraint

getting 2 bishops with artillery saturation is absolutely insane. if you're good with your micro I think you can have a literal non-stop barrage of artillery going at a location. it's absolutely crazy

>>1807451
Not my job, is it... or...?

>>1808932
Not anymore it isn't. You're fired.

File: fuck off.png (6 KB, 125x93)

6 KB PNG

hehe

>>1808940
lol

>>1808875
Tried this in a team game, it's good against emplacements and bunkers but after the few first shells all other targets are either dead or moved away.
I think it's more effective to fire your barrages simultaneously rather than consecutively unless you're zoning the enemy from a VP or something.

>>1808945
You could probably continually fire at their retreat point/medic tent and cause a lot of manpower bleed that way. They would be exposed if they're firing that far forward though.

On the topic of indirect fire, I've been experimenting with the US mortar pit. I remember it used to be really strong, but lately I can't see a reason to build it over the 'normal' mortar (apart from if you really want to save MP).
It takes a long time to get vet 1, and it's difficult to keep it alive since it dies pretty quick. Things like the DAK mortar/infantry gun can outrange it quite easily, so it gets barraged quickly, or they can rush in with an infantry squad+light vehicle and destroy it quickly.
Any tips, or is it just in a bad state now?

>>1808994
I think the mortar pit's strength is that it's only 100 manpower so you can spam multiple of them and by the time an opponent kills one, another one is ready.
Personally I never spammed them, nebelwerfers and bishops are more my speed, but once I saw a player using a recovery vehicle to out-repair the damage while it was getting shelled, guess that works well.

>>1809062
I was thinking of that too, only bottleneck would be the 75 muni cost to building multiple pits. I might try it one match for fun though, might be effective. 75 muni is 2.5 mines, so it's not cheap but still do-able.

>>1809088
If you really want to commit to it you could go airborne for the ammo drop and try to go full sim city.
Then maybe you can go ASC and use the dive bomb to decrew enemy nebels or destroy decrewed team weapons.
You could spend all the fuel on the ASC and only have fighting positions, engies, paradropped AT guns, and maybe paras the whole game.
Won't work on anything smaller than a 3v3 but I can see it being very annoying especially if you can place those mortar pits behind buildings.

The refit ability is so good:
Go dingo so you don't have to get the med tent until the humber is out, then you refit it before it dies, then you refit the humber and trade it for a crusader, then you send the crusader on a deep dive in the enemy base and instead of repairing it you just refit it for a matilda or churchill.