|
Hob_Gadling posted:While I agree with the terrain problem, it's more than that. Is it fair to guess that the area you show tends to get repeatedly hit with cluster artillery, ATGM planes and other stuff meant to destroy or demoralize tanks? And that it actually works so well, neither side can make headway until they've infiltrated the tiny patch of forest with infantry and can push through that? Honestly I'm not sure what game you play but infiltrating the tiny forest patch with infantry hasnt been a thing in a long time, and repeatedly cluster and artillery barrages are only a problem if your staging area is literally the front line. Big tank assaults are a Real Thing but need careful planning and local superiority. But in any open ground situation right now, you're going to rely on a tank assault with infantry, fire support and bombs as needed.
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 17:56 |
|
|
RangerPL posted:I don't really see what there is to strip out aside from the garbage tanks which aren't exactly hurting anybody with their presence. Support tabs aren't that bloated. The problem with the garbage tanks is that they eat up a bunch of cost slots that should probably be reserved for less garbage tanks. Because a better tank has to be more expensive than a garbage one, the garbage one inflates the price of the better one at that tier. Unfortunately the super-crowded 5-30 point zone is one of the major flaws in Eugen's balancing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Shanakin posted:Lately I've been thinking that I kind of want to take uralmod and just strip out half the units from the game. Especially in the support tab. I think some of the light autocannons that nobody would ever take might be a lot more useful if and pretty much only if support tabs were more costly, brought fewer units and they were stuffed in the vehicles section. Otherwise there's a bunch of suboptimal stuff that only really exists to be a trap option.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:I think some of the light autocannons that nobody would ever take might be a lot more useful if and pretty much only if support tabs were more costly, brought fewer units and they were stuffed in the vehicles section. Otherwise there's a bunch of suboptimal stuff that only really exists to be a trap option. That was always the problem with the French tank balance in uralmod, btw- there were a bunch of absolute poo poo tanks that ate up the low point slots so the Brennus ended up having to be overpriced as gently caress for what it was.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
5 point pricing multiplier or gobs of near indistinguishable crap, you can only really have one, and preferably neither.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Elukka posted:My disconnect with this discussion is that while I basically agree on all of it, as I see it RD is the closest of the three games to what we want. Tanks are far more useful and games more mobile than they were in either EE or ALB. Link replay poza
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:That was always the problem with the French tank balance in uralmod, btw- there were a bunch of absolute poo poo tanks that ate up the low point slots so the Brennus ended up having to be overpriced as gently caress for what it was.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Link replay poza  I could dig up a bunch of them if you want me to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
Y
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Looking back, did Eugen really jam planes in to the preexisting price structure for AA where it was that thing you dragged two of along to keep safe from helicopters without re-evaluating anything?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:5 point pricing multiplier or gobs of near indistinguishable crap, you can only really have one, and preferably neither. You could do two point increments below a certain level if you really wanted. All you'd have to do is adjust anything at the *5p price level up or down by one point. This might be particularly helpful for transports and infantry, the two categories where the squeeze is particularly strong and small point increments do add up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 09:14
|
|
|
Shanakin posted:Lately I've been thinking that I kind of want to take uralmod and just strip out half the units from the game. Especially in the support tab.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
I'd honestly be fine if some units were just carbon copies of other units but for a different nation, especially for infantry. Not every unit needs to be ~special and unique~ when they're just dudes with guns. That way people can just pick whatever nationality they want for the sake of flavor without worrying about whether it's optimal or not. e: Actually homogenizing infantry, support units, and low end vehicles across nations would probably help a lot with balance because you can make all your interesting balance decisions on medium and high cost units on the front line. Control Volume fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Dec 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
There is a problem with pricing on the low end, but blaming the 5pt system is a trap.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Shanakin posted:There is a problem with pricing on the low end, but blaming the 5pt system is a trap. Right, it just serves to multiply the problems hugely. However I would say that especially for infantry, which needs to be cheap and can run into two significant rounding errors on one unit's price, that it is also contributing to problems just like the absolute gobs of largely indistinguishable trash units.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Right, it just serves to multiply the problems hugely. However I would say that especially for infantry, which needs to be cheap and can run into two significant rounding errors on one unit's price, that it is also contributing to problems just like the absolute gobs of largely indistinguishable trash units. Well to be fair, a lot of the low tier trash probably doesn't even need to exist at all outside of designated roles. Fixing pricing really won't make a huge difference there, since most decks won't even use more then the most efficient pick down there. Like every nation needs 1 line, 1 shock, 1 elite infantry. The addition of the 90s versions of everything mostly just cluttered up the UI since nobody gives a poo poo about the pre-90 infantry in most cases outside of needing to fill a specific hole or they're underpriced. Same with a lot of low tier tanks, we don't need 4 variants of T-55/62/Chieftain/etc that are barely different. The only time those units are taken is for a specific gimmick (gimmick decks wouldn't suffer if you just provided enough cards of a single T-55 type), or they are above the norm on price or efficiency. Mazz fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Dec 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Well to be fair, a lot of the low tier trash probably doesn't even need to exist at all outside of designated roles. Fixing pricing really won't make a huge difference there, since most decks won't even use more then the most efficient pick down there. Like every nation needs 1 line, 1 shock, 1 elite infantry. The addition of the 90s versions of everything mostly just cluttered up the UI since almost nobody gives a poo poo about the pre-90 infantry in most cases outside of needing to fill a specific hole or they are underpriced. Yeah, if you specifically balance a standard generic universal troop quality statline into the 5 point brackets that'd work just fine. The problem is that is exactly backwards from eugen's methods.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
Even if you did swap to a 1pt pricing resolution, there would still be heaps of overlap on the low end simply because of how many lovely obsolete units are in the game. The bigger problem however is, a sub 5pt change in value isn't really enough to make it worth taking the clear winner in a price range, which would largely be the same things that are taken already. Making it a fruitless endeavour.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Shanakin posted:Even if you did swap to a 1pt pricing resolution, there would still be heaps of overlap on the low end simply because of how many lovely obsolete units are in the game. Overlap is a lot less bad than eugen style any upgrade gets a price increase. And no I don't think it's the worst part of the problem in the slightest, it's just something that multiplies the already existing problems.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Limiting some cards to older decks would at least cut down on the number of options players have to compare at once. Change the cutoff dates to allow for modernized variants of the older stuff while disallowing them for the newer decks. Also make it just two eras. So you might be able to use T-55/T-62/T-64 or T-72/T-80 without this bizarre idea that the former fell out of a time machine from the year 1980.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
One way of solving the problem is an end date. Then you could have the cheap crap in era decks without it disturbing modern decks. Maybe one more wish for the next game. There is a certain set of expectations on how things work and interact with each other. Infantry rules in closed terrain but loses mobility under fire, rocket artillery delivers a lot of firepower in short amount of time but is out of fight for a long time afterwards while reloading, that sort of stuff. Maybe check that the game plays along these expectations before releasing it, so we don't have to wait years for a semi-retarded patch process to deliver a reasonable game. Or like someone else said: if you have an ACW game where charging down the hill works, everything is fine. If you have a game where charging up the hill works, you may have a problem. Along that line of thought, what if APCs were designed for a conflict that worked just like Wargame? You'd have: - something wheeled with little to no armor, very cheap price and great big target signature for AT weapons (didn't we have something like this back in the day?) - BTR-60 chassis with a grenade launcher and RPO, RPG or Strela - BTR-60 chassis with two grenade launchers - BTR-60 chassis with 120mm mortar and 6 rounds for it - BMP-1 chassis with 122mm gun and no missile - BMP-3 scout vehicle for recon infantry - tank riders (ATGM and MANPADS teams only plz)
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
I really think that the main issue with Wargame in general, and the source of much of my and i think Hob's frustration with it is that the game seems to have been designed as a, well, wargame. And it was so close to actually being that, but the very first moment it started to have balance and design issues Eugen just reverted full steam back into bog standard RTS design. That's my real frustration with it, it feels like once EE was released and people started breaking poo poo the devs just completely lost faith in the concept. It still really shows in the basic designs assumptions like the map size per player ratio, as it is often pretty bonkers for something as micro-heavy as Wargame as it is now, but seems about right for a zoomed out company level game. Or the fact that vehicular platoons are a thing at all. Or that more or less all of the micro is borne out of edge cases in the simulation approach instead of purposely designed in as in everything since Warcraft 3. But then there is the issue that a whole lot of people seem to like to micromanage a handful of tanks in a hedgeline, so Eugen caters to them. It's just kinda disheartening because it's not exactly likely anyone else will take a shot at the original concept, and it could have been so much more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Better said than I ever could, and God knows I've tried. Unfortunately many of the French players liked to micromanage. The game they looked up to was World in Conflict, which is a completely different game. Collisions were unavoidable when some of us Marshals wanted Close Combat/Steel Panthers and others wanted Act of War/World in Conflict. You can't have both games as a model, and unfortunately Eugen didn't clearly pick one above the other. Nor did they mention to us which sort of game they wanted, which would've helped a lot. Another sore point was a more clearly defined rock - paper - scissors relationship between units. I loathed the idea and wanted units performance to depend more on terrain, range, positioning and numbers than intrinsic unit stats (ie. you can always outsmart a technically better but worse lead unit). This is probably the reason I dislike infantry in it's current incarnation so much. "Glorified Excel comparison simulator" is the harshest review of it I've heard, but it seems apt. I know it's irrational to hate how RPGs without fail wipe out escorting APCs inside a forest, but it would be nice for once to see a HMG-armed shitbox wipe the floor with an entire squad. Lastly, and even I realized this was a losing battle, was the deck system. If it's a RTS who cares how stupid the decks can become? The patch that broke my mental back was when you could get something like 30 Cat C 30 point bomber planes in ALB. Cue entire games being about sending massive waves of bombers and fending them off. But once again, since there was no clear distinction between wargame and RTS, no reasonable fixes were implemented. People love to build their decks, and that's the end of that discussion. I'm still looking for a game to replace the 90's era tactics games, by the way. Anyone know anything nice?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Are alot of us underestimating how powerful modern artillery is using proper rounds? Or is it just the reaction time of it and the tendency to use it as a finger of god smashing bugs rather than as a support asset for offense/defense that irks people?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
I never liked it because it's too effortless. It's too point and click with no real thought involved. I agree modern artillery is loving terrifying but it makes for bad gameplay when it's too effective at killing things. I was very happy where it was in ALB for the most part. I always had at least one card of mortars or tubes in my decks, and rocket artillery in 10v10s. You could snipe spotted AA or HVTs well enough, but it wasn't busting up an entire attack or defensive line. Solving the men in houses problem could've been fixed at least a few other ways we've discussed before, like less HE suppression from building cover and greater detection distance. Mazz fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Dec 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
I disliked the ability to keep firing continuously thanks to almost instant resupplying, relative invulnerability, a few pieces always being massively more efficient than anything else (AUF1 anyone?) and the inverse power curve. One or two pieces are very efficient, six pieces are worthless. In a perfect world, artillery would have been something: - you have to think before using instead of hitting the first visible target due to expense involved (supplies, time until next barrage becomes available) - is something you need to mass before it's useful - is vulnerable to at least some systems (counter-battery, planes) Of course, a lot of other things would have to have been different.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Artillery is loved and hated in games like Wargame and Men of War for the same reason snipers in FPS games are loved / hated. It's basically one thing making GBS threads on everything else with very little you can do about it when it's being done properly, or completely ineffectual and a drag on the team when it's not. It also is expensive, and requires a lot of attention to get the most bang for your buck, which means the person using it is generally less likely to be doing things in game that are enjoyable, like actively attacking. When it's being done well, there isn't much recourse except to touch the poop yourself. Honestly If we are just spitballing, I'd like everything over 81mm to be off map like WIC, and for RUSE style cards to come back. Things like Fire Finder Radar / Counter Battery / Fighter Sweep / AWACS that block or give advance warning of incoming off map / planes. Infidelicious fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Dec 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Artillery is fine when it applies debuffs instead of killing things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Artillery is fine when it applies debuffs instead of killing things. As far as gameplay goes, this is pretty much right. Making it easier to attack is good, doing the destruction itself encourages turtling.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
It's been years, but watch this and tell me it doesn't raise the hairs in the back of your neck. Then I'll let this game be a RTS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPyWhf0VQbs
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Hypothetical, but how would games play out if artillery was inflexible to the point that it cannot be used to stop a mobile force (having a long aim time and cooldown for example) but so destructive that static defensive positions are unviable (a literal grid square remover)? Would we see more defense in depth?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 09:19
|
|
|
I don't trust Eugen to make maps complex enough for defense in depth
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 09:30
|
|
|
RangerPL posted:Hypothetical, but how would games play out if artillery was inflexible to the point that it cannot be used to stop a mobile force (having a long aim time and cooldown for example) but so destructive that static defensive positions are unviable (a literal grid square remover)? Would we see more defense in depth? That's what MRLS systems should be like. Anything soft in the area it all lands is going to be dead or very suppressed but it takes a lot of time and effort to get a second shot towards the next area.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 10:07
|
|
|
RangerPL posted:Hypothetical, but how would games play out if artillery was inflexible to the point that it cannot be used to stop a mobile force (having a long aim time and cooldown for example) but so destructive that static defensive positions are unviable (a literal grid square remover)? Would we see more defense in depth? Triple A posted:That's what MRLS systems should be like. Anything soft in the area it all lands is going to be dead or very suppressed but it takes a lot of time and effort to get a second shot towards the next area. My problem with any form of lethal artillery is people always figure out how to game it. What happens if you have a pair of grid-square-remover MLRS accurately fired at your starting point, or the only place on a conquest map you can reasonably defend from? There are too many problems I trust Eugen even less to fix. IMO artillery in ALB was in a better place than people think, Mens in Houses just need to not have a 70% reduction to HE damage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
They need to make the Counter battery radar and the ability to auto link arty to that radar so they fire the minute they see something fire. Which is how its done in real life. Also the ability to program some Tac AI such as a rally point to retreat too if certain conditions were met would be very nice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
Lockmart Lawndart posted:They need to make the Counter battery radar and the ability to auto link arty to that radar so they fire the minute they see something fire. Also how it was done in Act of War High Treason. Which Eugen made a long time ago. Counterbattery was a toggle ability for artillery - if it's on it would automatically fire on enemy artillery that was also firing. DatonKallandor fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Dec 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:Also how it was done in Act of War High Treason. Which Eugen a long time ago. Counterbattery was a toggle ability for artillery - if it's on it would automatically fire on enemy artillery that was also firing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
I think Wargame is half the game we all actually want and that's what slightly maddening about it. European Escalation started out with great potential for improvement which never came. It got worse through balance patching, if anything, suggesting that the devs had a poor grasp of what it was that was working well in the first place. ALB's planes were a successful addition but masked the lack of any "core" improvements to the game. RD's botes were meant to do the same thing, but failed for the obvious reason that they couldn't be organically bolted onto the gameplay in the way planes were. So we've got RD, which after a couple of balance patches is a well balanced and intricate game of tactics, but which has gone nowhere since ALB and it seems like the devs lack the vision to take it to the next level. It doesn't help that the community encourages their worst excesses. I find it disappointing that there's been a bunch of more "traditional" RTS games coming out recently (including Act of War from Eugen) even though the gameplay is inevitably very dated. There's been multiple base-building RTS games, one coming out soon that's like Supreme Commander, but nothing like Wargame. I've love to see another developer give something like Wargame a go because I think Eugen has peaked in what they are capable of. Mukip fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
When I first played EE, the very first tutorial map, all I could think about was that if Eugen ever released a full set of modding tools, Steel Panthers might finally be obsoleted. The bones are there to make an absolutely awe-inspiring company to maybe battalion sized war game, but Eugen hasn't released tools, and can't seem to actually grasp what they have.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 17:56 |
|
|
MrYenko posted:When I first played EE, the very first tutorial map, all I could think about was that if Eugen ever released a full set of modding tools, Steel Panthers might finally be obsoleted. The bones are there to make an absolutely awe-inspiring company to maybe battalion sized war game, but Eugen hasn't released tools, and can't seem to actually grasp what they have. The lack of modding tools is a loving travesty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 00:53
|
|