Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1
Not every map is horrendous and some issues exist on all maps such as the call-in spam which is from bad commander design and has nothing to do with maps whatsoever.
Posts: 1963 | Subs: 1
Protected by another NDA. NDAception
We are excited "jazz hands" NDA
NDA is protected by NDA
Posts: 1283 | Subs: 4
Not every map is horrendous and some issues exist on all maps such as the call-in spam which is from bad commander design and has nothing to do with maps whatsoever.
Posts: 1944 | Subs: 2
But, surely it would change if the resource sectors were designed differently. If you can't afford a call in tank because for instance you were cut off... Or there were just less resources on the map, unit composition would change as well.
7 
Posts: 1664
Posts: 1153 | Subs: 1
Like Luvnest has emphasized, you are playing against the maps rather than the opponent. Allies can easily win on Angermunde if they employ a super cheese all-in tactic: Forward HQ on the Axis fuel point.
Posts: 1283 | Subs: 4
In some cases it could delay a tank from coming, but it they would still be spammed when possible. The problem is a doctrinal units are so much better than tiered units, and changing resource flow wouldn't do anything to make the tiered units more appealing because those require fuel too.
Posts: 420
But, surely it would change if the resource sectors were designed differently. If you can't afford a call in tank because for instance you were cut off... Or there were just less resources on the map, ...
I will simply lol at anyone expecting such a change to a 2 year old general use infantry.
Equally possible are pershing for USF, IS-3 for soviets or ober nerf for OKW.
Posts: 1283 | Subs: 4
Less ressources would actually promote call in spam, since it will take even more time to tech.
Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1
Like Luvnest has emphasized, you are playing against the maps rather than the opponent. Allies can easily win on Angermunde if they employ a super cheese all-in tactic: Forward HQ on the Axis fuel point.
Posts: 420
yeah, i understand your point, but i would hope for a system to be slightly more inteligent, making actual changes to how things operate instead of just changing values about. i would try and create a system forcing a player into hitting a threshold. they mightn't enjoy or want to tech, but they'd have to, or be entirely routed from the field. try and create a more gradual income climb, adjust prices to be fair within reasonable tier times or perhaps cap income to tech, like in rise of nations, there's ways around it, the most reasonable in my mind attaching certain units to certain tiers, para's to an officer, etc. etc.
the way i look at it in game is generally always a value proposition over how much i'm in need at the moment: i may get X tiered unit, or, can i hold out for CP's + resources for call in unit Y. make one of those criteria unobtainable, i'm forced into option X.
I will simply lol at anyone expecting such a change to a 2 year old general use infantry.
Equally possible are pershing for USF, IS-3 for soviets or ober nerf for OKW.
 |
|
|
22 | ||
 |
|
|
15 | ||
 |
|
|
80 | ||
 |
|
|
30 | ||
|
|
|
|
17 | ||
|
|
|
|
9 | ||
|
|
|
|
7 | ||
|
|
|
|
5 | ||
 |
|
|
3 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
