Login

russian armor

[Feedback requested] - balancing issues in large team games

PAGES (7)down
18 Apr 2015, 16:41 PM
#101
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Apr 2015, 02:20 AMacosn
Its mind boggling that the only good artillery the US gets isn't even artillery- it's a strafing run. Maybe it's the same sort of "We wanted to make an authentic game so we did all our research from the History Channel" bullshit that has the Germans getting every toy in the cabinet, but the US and the Soviets get bread scraps, but this is a serious issue- artillery was the hallmark of the US armed forces from Normandy to VE day and for it to be so poorly represented in the game is irritating.

I would have been satisfied if the Major's arty wasn't garbage.

Unfortunately, it's pretty goddamn garbage.
19 Apr 2015, 00:49 AM
#102
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Apr 2015, 16:24 PMatouba
WHY katyusha comes out so early and counter infantry blobs so well but ostheer have no artillery to use to counter the allies infantry blobs? Werfer is so expensive and so usless.


because ostheer has mg42 from the get go? russians have no such counterpart, 'cept maybe dshk, which i think has some aoe suppression.
19 Apr 2015, 00:54 AM
#103
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Apr 2015, 00:49 AMpigsoup


because ostheer has mg42 from the get go? russians have no such counterpart, 'cept maybe dshk, which i think has some aoe suppression.

Maxim has AoE suppression, it just takes ten years for it to work (that is actually, six seconds without vet in my testing. Apparently even the stupidest blobbers ain't that stupid because I've actually seen it AoE suppress in a game like once).
19 Apr 2015, 01:35 AM
#104
avatar of atouba

Posts: 482

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Apr 2015, 00:49 AMpigsoup


because ostheer has mg42 from the get go? russians have no such counterpart, 'cept maybe dshk, which i think has some aoe suppression.


If the ost players go to MG42/Mortars/Pak40 compined army, not infantry blobs, then they will also suffer from Katyusha which hits the field even earlier than a T34/76.

But when the soviet players go to Maxim/Mortars/Zis3 compined army, they will not be afraid of poor ost army. Because the werfer is so late and usless, high tech cost and high scatter. And the rocket artilley is the best killer for weapon crews.

Ofc I'm not talking about OKW walking stuka, I'm talking about ost. Ost lacks something to counter blobs and weapon crews. They lacks usefull artillery.

In some teamgame cases, as you know, there will be more ost players, they have no way to beat the soviet compined army. The game will be even before Katyushas come out, then the balance breaks, the ost front line breaks so quickly.
19 Apr 2015, 02:06 AM
#105
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Apr 2015, 01:35 AMatouba


If the ost players go to MG42/Mortars/Pak40 compined army, not infantry blobs, then they will also suffer from Katyusha which hits the field even earlier than a T34/76.

But when the soviet players go to Maxim/Mortars/Zis3 compined army, they will not be afraid of poor ost army. Because the werfer is so late and usless, high tech cost and high scatter. And the rocket artilley is the best killer for weapon crews.

Ofc I'm not talking about OKW walking stuka, I'm talking about ost. Ost lacks something to counter blobs and weapon crews. They lacks usefull artillery.

In some teamgame cases, as you know, there will be more ost players, they have no way to beat the soviet compined army. The game will be even before Katyushas come out, then the balance breaks, the ost front line breaks so quickly.


two armies arent mirrored. werfer is garbage, period. no need to talk about katyusha especially when the only thing you are trying to do is to set up a ostheer pity party bs.

i go combined arms ostheer but i dont get demolished by katyusha.maxim relatively becomes absolute shit after early game.

werfer, most of the time, is not worth it. katyusha, on the other hand, very useful. no denying that. now that was 2v2 perspective. now seeing how this thread is about 3v3+, me nad my team made it work many times. is it still weak? i think so. but axis 3v3+ is easy mode anyway. although i think the 3v3 balance is better than ever.

19 Apr 2015, 06:36 AM
#106
avatar of Rooster Illusion

Posts: 28

I echo the sentiments made about more time for light/medium vehicles to shine; whatever changes, be they mapping, caching, etc. that need to be made to make that happen are cool with me. Not the most eloquent statement, but I'd love to have a Luchs whipping around being relevant for awhile. Or a T70, aside from using it for LoS.

As much as it hurts me to say, I can also get on board with the 1 heavy quota per player at any one time.
19 Apr 2015, 06:52 AM
#107
avatar of NinjaWJ

Posts: 2070

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Apr 2015, 14:37 PMpigsoup


it is not about when the first tank comes out. i agree with jadame that cache does add some depth in quickening the pace in exchange for a price of part of a unit. but it still does not change the fact that it is offensively cheap even from 2v2+ and helps teams shit fuel out of their ass. what happens when you see a jagdtiger/KT/ISU/IS2 wielded by a good team. you make a move on it. but by the time you are able to make a move on it, which takes time, the user would have enough saved to just call in another one most of the time. i personally do not like that.


But im saying that the units remain the same. Axis still have stronger armor. Delaying their entry into battle doesn't really help balance. More game time with medium tanks should be good though.

I think the problem you are describing is more of a faction design/ call-in system issue. Most of the tank call-ins are much more potent that non-doctrinal options. If all factions were like USA or Ostheer (they can win with their non-doctrinal stuff), then we wouldn't see such spam of heavy tanks (KT non-doc though :/ )
19 Apr 2015, 07:03 AM
#108
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Apr 2015, 06:52 AMNinjaWJ


But im saying that the units remain the same. Axis still have stronger armor. Delaying their entry into battle doesn't really help balance. More game time with medium tanks should be good though.

I think the problem you are describing is more of a faction design/ call-in system issue. Most of the tank call-ins are much more potent that non-doctrinal options. If all factions were like USA or Ostheer (they can win with their non-doctrinal stuff), then we wouldn't see such spam of heavy tanks (KT non-doc though :/ )


its not just about isu/jt or any other vehicles that i mentioned. when game goes long in 3v3+, the map gets filled with caches usually. then you get overflown with once mattered resources like munitions and fuels. deciding where to spend your limited resources add depth, but caches in the long term destroys that.
19 Apr 2015, 10:00 AM
#109
avatar of kamk
Donator 11

Posts: 764

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Apr 2015, 01:35 AMatouba
.... I'm talking about ost. Ost lacks something to counter blobs and weapon crews. They lacks usefull artillery.

Same goes for USF.
You can always counter weapon teams and blobs like you would in 1v1 / 2v2 - mortars, flanking, or even just use proper commanders to tackle that kind of stuff with offmaps.

Anyways, team games aren't about you countering something, it's about a synergy and team effort to hard counter everything.

The garbage PWerfer has to be changed, no argue about that, Luftwaffe supply drops shouldn't yield 100% to an OKW player, etc... but that's also a problem in 2v2s.




But there's things you can't overcome no matter what:
- screwed up match making - seriously wtf often
- too large maps that grant a decisive advantage towards the WFA factions and their forward retreat point, and / or early forward reinforcement availability
(- too high ressource float > lose heavy, banked enough to get two more)

So IMO i would work on that, and balance 1v1s / 2v2s further.
19 Apr 2015, 11:24 AM
#110
avatar of dpfarce

Posts: 308

Goodie Goodie, making a post after everyone else has had their opinions.


There appears to be the following trend of gameplay in 3v3/4v4s;

- No mid-game; nobody techs, everyone rushes heavy tanks.
- Axis Heavies being almost unassailable except with
- Artillery Spam
- Cheese strategies such as luftwaffe supply, one guy building 4x caches


Almost none of these problems exist in DOW2.
- DOW2 has FASTER power (fuel) income than COH2, AND their super-units are usually cheaper. Compare: 800/200 for a Baneblade, 760(?)/260 for a KT

Simple reason: by the time you save up for a Baneblade, you're down to 10vps.
(more complex reason: extremely powerful off-map artillery, numerous hard counters, melee units)

I feel honestly that 90% of the problems in 4v4 games can be solved by increasing the rate of VP ticking.
19 Apr 2015, 11:32 AM
#111
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Apr 2015, 11:24 AMdpfarce
Goodie Goodie, making a post after everyone else has had their opinions.


There appears to be the following trend of gameplay in 3v3/4v4s;

- No mid-game; nobody techs, everyone rushes heavy tanks.
- Axis Heavies being almost unassailable except with
- Artillery Spam
- Cheese strategies such as luftwaffe supply, one guy building 4x caches


Almost none of these problems exist in DOW2.
- DOW2 has FASTER power (fuel) income than COH2, AND their super-units are usually cheaper. Compare: 800/200 for a Baneblade, 760(?)/260 for a KT

Simple reason: by the time you save up for a Baneblade, you're down to 10vps.
(more complex reason: extremely powerful off-map artillery, numerous hard counters, melee units)

I feel honestly that 90% of the problems in 4v4 games can be solved by increasing the rate of VP ticking.

DoW2 also have power income scaled down for 2v2 and even more for 3v3 to prevent resource inflation and super fast teching.

Just saying.
19 Apr 2015, 11:40 AM
#112
avatar of Necrophagist

Posts: 125

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Apr 2015, 11:24 AMdpfarce
Goodie Goodie, making a post after everyone else has had their opinions.


There appears to be the following trend of gameplay in 3v3/4v4s;

- No mid-game; nobody techs, everyone rushes heavy tanks.
- Axis Heavies being almost unassailable except with
- Artillery Spam
- Cheese strategies such as luftwaffe supply, one guy building 4x caches


Almost none of these problems exist in DOW2.
- DOW2 has FASTER power (fuel) income than COH2, AND their super-units are usually cheaper. Compare: 800/200 for a Baneblade, 760(?)/260 for a KT

Simple reason: by the time you save up for a Baneblade, you're down to 10vps.
(more complex reason: extremely powerful off-map artillery, numerous hard counters, melee units)

I feel honestly that 90% of the problems in 4v4 games can be solved by increasing the rate of VP ticking.


Additionally, in DoW2 requisition (aka manpower) comes from territories, while in CoH2 it's a fixed income.
19 Apr 2015, 19:34 PM
#113
avatar of daspoulos

Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1

Permanently Banned
jump backJump back to quoted post19 Apr 2015, 11:32 AMKatitof

DoW2 also have power income scaled down for 2v2 and even more for 3v3 to prevent resource inflation and super fast teching.

Just saying.
People play 4v4s for action and big battles though. I think those game modes would lose a lot of appeal if everyone had reduced incomes.
19 Apr 2015, 22:00 PM
#114
avatar of dpfarce

Posts: 308

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Apr 2015, 11:32 AMKatitof

DoW2 also have power income scaled down for 2v2 and even more for 3v3 to prevent resource inflation and super fast teching.

Just saying.


Power income per node is scaled down, but you get 2x as many nodes on the map

= no/little net difference
19 Apr 2015, 22:28 PM
#115
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Apr 2015, 11:24 AMdpfarce
Goodie Goodie, making a post after everyone else has had their opinions.


There appears to be the following trend of gameplay in 3v3/4v4s;

- No mid-game; nobody techs, everyone rushes heavy tanks.
...


who is this everybody? not me and my friends for sure. and good opponents we met. tiger cannot replace panther, isu 152 cannot replace su85 and there are clear advantage of having two t34s or two p4s than one is2 or tiger. just like it is vice versa.

imo, in 3v3+, allies have one clearly advantageous stage, mid game. where their tanks come out slightly faster.
19 Apr 2015, 22:29 PM
#116
avatar of Napalm

Posts: 1595 | Subs: 2

I like where this is headed. Maybe something can be learned from the past. I'm unsure if we can compare DoWII directly with CoHII but we could get some similarities.
19 Apr 2015, 22:38 PM
#117
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Apr 2015, 22:00 PMdpfarce


Power income per node is scaled down, but you get 2x as many nodes on the map

= no/little net difference

Exactly.

Players need to spend 2 to 3x as much requisition to get same power income as they would in 1v1.
What does that mean?

NO RESOURCE INFLATION as all players need to invest just as much in 3v3 as in 1v1 per player.

Same resource spent, no boosted income, no late game imbalance.
19 Apr 2015, 22:43 PM
#118
avatar of Leodot

Posts: 254

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Apr 2015, 07:32 AMCabreza


If there were no caches or reduced resource income I would expect a few things to happen:

1.) More infantry: First and foremost the manpower spent on caches would almost assuredly be spent on an extra infantry squad. Later in the game less fuel would mean less manpower spent on tanks. This in turn would allow for more manpower to be invested into infantry and support weapons.

2.) A longer early game: Less fuel income would directly translate into slower teching and a larger window for light vehicles, light tanks, and even medium tanks.

3.) Heavies will carry a greater opportunity cost: Currently it is possible to tech, build a number of medium tanks, and still have enough fuel to call in a heavy tank when the CPs are met. Without caches heavies will arrive at the same time but players will have to make a conscious choice to forgo or limit teching if they want to be able to afford a heavy tank the moment the CPs are available.

4.) Tank losses will hurt: Since tanks don't bleed fuel like infantry bleed manpower it is possible for teams to acquire enormous stores of fuel once pop cap is reached. This in turn allows players to near instantly replace any lost heavy tank. With less fuel available loosing a tank will be a much larger blow.

5.) There will be less explosions: Without munitions caches there will be fewer off map artillery abilities and plane strikes in 4v4 games and players will be inclined to use these strikes somewhat more tactically. The same will also be true of grenades and other munitions abilities. This will also mean that infantry upgrades will compete to a larger degree with off-map arty for munitions use and in turn make killing upgraded infantry squads that much more rewarding.



Best meta in my opinion! +1
19 Apr 2015, 23:21 PM
#119
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Apr 2015, 22:38 PMKatitof

Exactly.

Players need to spend 2 to 3x as much requisition to get same power income as they would in 1v1.
What does that mean?

NO RESOURCE INFLATION as all players need to invest just as much in 3v3 as in 1v1 per player.

Same resource spent, no boosted income, no late game imbalance.


lol somebody never played 3v3 with triple Imperial Guard. Nothing could ever touch the Baneblade in late game power.
19 Apr 2015, 23:30 PM
#120
avatar of dpfarce

Posts: 308

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Apr 2015, 22:38 PMKatitof

Exactly.

Players need to spend 2 to 3x as much requisition to get same power income as they would in 1v1.
What does that mean?

NO RESOURCE INFLATION as all players need to invest just as much in 3v3 as in 1v1 per player.

Same resource spent, no boosted income, no late game imbalance.


The team needs to spend 2x as much to buy generators

But there are three members per team.

So 600 requisition between 3 players = 200 each
300 requisition per player in a 1v1 = 300 req

so actually people in 3v3s invest less per person than in a 1v1
PAGES (7)down
0 user is browsing this thread:

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

928 users are online: 928 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
38 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49082
Welcome our newest member, 23winlocker
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM