Reducing Random Events

After around 400 hours of game time since beta a few things stick out to me like a sore thumb.

1. Early Game infantry combat.

What the perceived issue is - Random Model loss and potential engagement loss in superior or equal cover.

What the Solution is - Decreasing Rifle Damage and increasing rate of fire.

Why this Solution would work - Each rifle bullet fired by each model is an independent instance, this leads to a plausible misinterpretation of the percentages allocated to hit. Take for example a 50% chance to hit, each round fired is a coin flip this means that the likelihood of streaks of heads or tails is highly plausible. Say i flip a coin ten times it is entirely reasonable that I could get 9 heads and 1 tails, however the more i flip the coin the more likely I will approach 50% which is what one would expect. This solution would also improve the effectiveness of cover against enemies with a similar rate of fire lets say conscripts and grenadiers. Any slight reduction in hit chance like yellow cover would yield more consistent results.

2. Pio/Enigneer BBQ Banaza!

What the perceived issue is - Random Model loss results in huge loss of resources and potentially the loss of my squad!!!! (Due to flamethrower ignition)

What the Solution is - Eliminate the ability for SAF(Small Arms Fire) to detonate the Flamethrower.

Why this Solution would work - Since SAF does not cause the detonation of any other explosive in the game logically the flamethrower should not go up in smoke in this manner. Additionally Explosives could have an increased chance of detonation since this daisy chain precedence also exists. This would prevent the colossal early game loss to the first Conscript round without producing flame squads of doom. Since an explosive would be required to cause detonation the loss of a flame squad in this manner would be the result of a deliberate action on the enemies part requiring them to allocate resources (Mines, Grenades) or relying on fortunate hits (Mortars, Tanks). While I personally would like to see it go away all together this is a way to incorporate this cinematic effect, without rewarding pure luck early game. It would be a calculated risk to send a pio into an area that is being shelled or to ignore them while they engage a pgren squad.

3. Engine Damage and Blitzkrieg

What the perceived issue is - The enemies AT grenade/Faust always causes heavy engine Damage to my tank!!!

What the Solution is - When an AT grenade or Faust penetrates it causes light engine damage. Soviet Mine medium engine damage. Teller Mine heavy engine damage. Blitzkrieg operates while the engine is damaged following the ability the tank degrades its engine status down to the next level of damage. Light/Medium Medium/Heavy.

Why this Solution would work - Consistent performance of abilities is crucial and knowing somewhat what to expect is important for both players in a match. A shot at light engine damage on a heavy tank for the cheap price of 15 munitions is amazing and if it can be achieved it should be! (assuming you have the units to follow up) This however is not the case for heavy engine damage from 1 AT grenade or Faust can often result in a loss if even slightly well executed. Rewarding favorable scenarios for a common action is acceptable to me however rewarding game winning conditions for the same action is not. This is why i suggest that the mines be the sources of medium and heavy engine damage. These items require foresight, tactical positioning, and battlefield knowledge, in addition to a direct counter at the same price or 1/2 the price of the mine itself. Because of the differing cost of the mines the engine damage should be correspondingly more lethal to the larger investment. Lastly Blitzkrieg is a veteran ability and one that is gained through combat. I do believe that the other changes listed would address the use of this ability as an oh shit button however if the speed while damaged with blitzkrieg is active is to stay as it is in live I would suggest that following the duration of the ability the tanks engine status would degrade to the next level of damage. This will promote the use of the ability following a mine hit to be a plausible defensive maneuver at a cost.

well thought out and interesting ideas

Well written. I´ve to say i agree fully with 2 and 3. Should molotovs/RG should act equal to cause a crit on flamer?

Regarding N1 i can´t think of the complications on changing values. Shouldnt this mean it would also affect other troops such as team weapons or snipers? What about pios vs engineers?

Agree on all three points. Well presented and thought out!

+1

Like this suggestion.

I'm not qualified to really weigh in on #1 but they all mostly sound good to me. Regarding heavy engine damage though, I'm amenable to tanks with say 3/4 to 2/3 life having a chance of taking heavy engine damage. On fully healthy tanks it is particularly distressing.

+1, well presented.

And a fix for borderline-randomly collapsing houses would be a godsend for my bloodpressure.

3. Engine Damage and Blitzkrieg

What the perceived issue is - The enemies AT grenade/Faust always causes heavy engine Damage to my tank!!!

What the Solution is - When an AT grenade or Faust penetrates it causes light engine damage. Soviet Mine medium engine damage. Teller Mine heavy engine damage. Blitzkrieg operates while the engine is damaged following the ability the tank degrades its engine status down to the next level of damage. Light/Medium Medium/Heavy.

Why this Solution would work - Consistent performance of abilities is crucial and knowing somewhat what to expect is important for both players in a match. A shot at light engine damage on a heavy tank for the cheap price of 15 munitions is amazing and if it can be achieved it should be! (assuming you have the units to follow up) This however is not the case for heavy engine damage from 1 AT grenade or Faust can often result in a loss if even slightly well executed. Rewarding favorable scenarios for a common action is acceptable to me however rewarding game winning conditions for the same action is not. This is why i suggest that the mines be the sources of medium and heavy engine damage. These items require foresight, tactical positioning, and battlefield knowledge, in addition to a direct counter at the same price or 1/2 the price of the mine itself. Because of the differing cost of the mines the engine damage should be correspondingly more lethal to the larger investment. Lastly Blitzkrieg is a veteran ability and one that is gained through combat. I do believe that the other changes listed would address the use of this ability as an oh shit button however if the speed while damaged with blitzkrieg is active is to stay as it is in live I would suggest that following the duration of the ability the tanks engine status would degrade to the next level of damage. This will promote the use of the ability following a mine hit to be a plausible defensive maneuver at a cost.

What about if 2 at-nades are needed to light damage engine on heavy tanks ?

I don't like the idea of 1 at-nade damaging the engine of a heavy tank 100% of the time.

I personally don't mind the RNG in general.

Well written. I´ve to say i agree fully with 2 and 3. Should molotovs/RG should act equal to cause a crit on flamer?

Regarding N1 i can´t think of the complications on changing values. Shouldn't this mean it would also affect other troops such as team weapons or snipers? What about pios vs engineers?

I do not feel that fire begets fire, to put it simply no detonation should occur in my perfect bubble from Molotov, flame half-tracks, or KV-8s.

What about if 2 at-nades are needed to light damage engine on heavy tanks ?

I don't like the idea of 1 at-nade damaging the engine of a heavy tank 100% of the time.

I personally don't mind the RNG in general.

I apologize if I did a poor job addressing this in my OP I did not intend to change the actual penetration amount of AT Nades. I merely meant that when it does penetrate it does light engine damage so on a Tiger lets say the chance of penetrating would still be low and possibly require several grenades.

+1, well presented.

And a fix for borderline-randomly collapsing houses would be a godsend for my bloodpressure.

Thank you, I completely forgot about houses I must have been tired last night!

I think the primary issue is not the collapse itself but the complete loss of life. Perhaps if it worked like buildings that go up in flames. Implement a 50% squad loss to a building collapse but certainly some of your guys would pile out the door. This would be for mid/large buildings, if you are in a small building shame on you lol.

I'm not qualified to really weigh in on #1 but they all mostly sound good to me. Regarding heavy engine damage though, I'm amenable to tanks with say 3/4 to 2/3 life having a chance of taking heavy engine damage. On fully healthy tanks it is particularly distressing.

I can absolutely see your perspective that hitting a mine if you were to be playing soviets could really punish you. Remember though if sweepers are moving with the tank and even spot the mine you can safely drive over it. (This safety ends when you lose LOS of the mine with the sweepers or they are killed.)

Oh Right definitely! mines aren't so prevalent that I shouldn't pay for hitting a mine. I was actually suggesting that I don't mind fausts and at grenades having a chance to do heavy engine damage if the tank has taken a certain amount of abuse previously. This at least would be a condition that a player could weigh the risks of to some extent.

Oh Right definitely! mines aren't so prevalent that I shouldn't pay for hitting a mine. I was actually suggesting that I don't mind fausts and at grenades having a chance to do heavy engine damage if the tank has taken a certain amount of abuse previously. This at least would be a condition that a player could weigh the risks of to some extent.

That would be acceptable I could deal with a medium tank under lets say 50% health having a takes medium engine damage and one under 25% receives heavy engine damage. I don't think that I can honestly say that an AT grenade should ever cause it to heavy tanks but I do appreciate in input and that would certainly be better than the current system.

+1, well presented.

And a fix for borderline-randomly collapsing houses would be a godsend for my bloodpressure.

If buildings remain the impenetrable forces that they are against small arms fire, then I kind of like the risk/reward dynamic of somewhat random collapses.

really well written, nicely structured - gets some really valid points across. +1

I love all the suggestions. Well argued.

Great post.

I feel there should be a hard left and right to major RNG actions, aka damage on a squad from stepping on a mine. Every few games I will lose an entire 4 man grenadier squad to a single 30 munition mine, which if it happens early on, can be extra crippling. I've had it happen to my 2nd built gren squad in a match 3 minutes in

Therefore I would like to see hard coded restraints on what an individual action can or cant do with RNG determining how effective the action was within those constraints.

In the above example a soviet mine would never kill more than the number of squad members minus 1, so a max of 3 grenadiers in a 4 man squad or 2 in a 3 man squad. The rng would determine whether 1, 2, or 3 grens are casualties and to what extent their health is damaged. In the case that a 1 man squad triggers the mine, he will of course die.

The result is consistent gameplay for both factions:

1. The soviet player knows he will cause at least 1 casualty with a mine, and reliably kill off 1 man squads.
2. The german player knows although his squad could be crippled and forced to retreat, he will have the ability to retreat instead of lol instantly dying when you arent looking.

In a more prevalent example, buildings should never be collapsed by any munition short of a railway artillery strike until the health of the building is less than say 30%? The lower the health of the building, the greater the chance that it will fall apart. A 10% health building should reliably be destroyed while a 50% health building should reliably stand strong. No more rifle nades into a 80% health building killing your entire guards squad.

Although I didn't save the replay because I rage quit, I have lost my first MG squad in kholdny ferma winter by putting it in the church and the church self destructing from the very first 82mm mortar landing on top. That was unbelievable to me and just bad gameplay from the engine

EDIT: buffing building reliability is an important fix, but it will subsequently buff the early game power of conscript spam and building rushing in general. Off topic I still also desperately want to see tweaking of building locations near important cutoffs, especially in semois, in conjunction with the RNG tweak.

If the game already has hard coded limits, they need to be adjusted for less variability. I like RNG instead of stat based fights (marine shoots zergling for 40 damage every time, zergling will always tank 5 shots = meh), but I don't like RNG detracting from good gameplay and micro. If I place a 60 mun teller mine, bait a kv-8 onto it, and it triggers for no engine damage at all... welp there goes my entire plan.

After around 400 hours of game time since beta a few things stick out to me like a sore thumb.

1. Early Game infantry combat.

What the perceived issue is - Random Model loss and potential engagement loss in superior or equal cover.

What the Solution is - Decreasing Rifle Damage and increasing rate of fire.

Why this Solution would work - Each rifle bullet fired by each model is an independent instance, this leads to a plausible misinterpretation of the percentages allocated to hit. Take for example a 50% chance to hit, each round fired is a coin flip this means that the likelihood of streaks of heads or tails is highly plausible. Say i flip a coin ten times it is entirely reasonable that I could get 9 heads and 1 tails, however the more i flip the coin the more likely I will approach 50% which is what one would expect. This solution would also improve the effectiveness of cover against enemies with a similar rate of fire lets say conscripts and grenadiers. Any slight reduction in hit chance like yellow cover would yield more consistent results.

I kind of think this isn't a hugely common issue right now. Making units keep in cover better (like, say, DOW 2) would probably have a bigger effect.

2. Pio/Enigneer BBQ Banaza!

What the perceived issue is - Random Model loss results in huge loss of resources and potentially the loss of my squad!!!! (Due to flamethrower ignition)

What the Solution is - Eliminate the ability for SAF(Small Arms Fire) to detonate the Flamethrower.

Why this Solution would work - Since SAF does not cause the detonation of any other explosive in the game logically the flamethrower should not go up in smoke in this manner. Additionally Explosives could have an increased chance of detonation since this daisy chain precedence also exists. This would prevent the colossal early game loss to the first Conscript round without producing flame squads of doom. Since an explosive would be required to cause detonation the loss of a flame squad in this manner would be the result of a deliberate action on the enemies part requiring them to allocate resources (Mines, Grenades) or relying on fortunate hits (Mortars, Tanks). While I personally would like to see it go away all together this is a way to incorporate this cinematic effect, without rewarding pure luck early game. It would be a calculated risk to send a pio into an area that is being shelled or to ignore them while they engage a pgren squad.

My personal preference is to make an engi flamethrower only destructible if the squad is reduced to one or no models by the loss (meaning, a responsible retreat can reliably protect you from the gamble) but I absolutely agree this is one of the most egregious RNG things.

3. Engine Damage and Blitzkrieg

What the perceived issue is - The enemies AT grenade/Faust always causes heavy engine Damage to my tank!!!

What the Solution is - When an AT grenade or Faust penetrates it causes light engine damage. Soviet Mine medium engine damage. Teller Mine heavy engine damage. Blitzkrieg operates while the engine is damaged following the ability the tank degrades its engine status down to the next level of damage. Light/Medium Medium/Heavy.

Why this Solution would work - Consistent performance of abilities is crucial and knowing somewhat what to expect is important for both players in a match. A shot at light engine damage on a heavy tank for the cheap price of 15 munitions is amazing and if it can be achieved it should be! (assuming you have the units to follow up) This however is not the case for heavy engine damage from 1 AT grenade or Faust can often result in a loss if even slightly well executed. Rewarding favorable scenarios for a common action is acceptable to me however rewarding game winning conditions for the same action is not. This is why i suggest that the mines be the sources of medium and heavy engine damage. These items require foresight, tactical positioning, and battlefield knowledge, in addition to a direct counter at the same price or 1/2 the price of the mine itself. Because of the differing cost of the mines the engine damage should be correspondingly more lethal to the larger investment. Lastly Blitzkrieg is a veteran ability and one that is gained through combat. I do believe that the other changes listed would address the use of this ability as an oh shit button however if the speed while damaged with blitzkrieg is active is to stay as it is in live I would suggest that following the duration of the ability the tanks engine status would degrade to the next level of damage. This will promote the use of the ability following a mine hit to be a plausible defensive maneuver at a cost.

Heavy engine damage from AT nades and fausts just needs to go. Otherwise I'm not too fussed about making mines that much more consistent... they already seem to work for me. And cut engine damaged blitzkrieg as well. That's just silly.

The biggest RNG thing I want to see addressed right now is the building crits and health operating very strangely.

I feel there should be a hard left and right to major RNG actions, aka damage on a squad from stepping on a mine. Every few games I will lose an entire 4 man grenadier squad to a single 30 munition mine, which if it happens early on, can be extra crippling. I've had it happen to my 2nd built gren squad in a match 3 minutes in

Therefore I would like to see hard coded restraints on what an individual action can or cant do with RNG determining how effective the action was within those constraints.

In the above example a soviet mine would never kill more than the number of squad members minus 1, so a max of 3 grenadiers in a 4 man squad or 2 in a 3 man squad. The rng would determine whether 1, 2, or 3 grens are casualties and to what extent their health is damaged. In the case that a 1 man squad triggers the mine, he will of course die.

I can understand how this would be frustrating and I am sorry so you are losing gren squads to mines. While this is not the preferred method of losing enemy units the same frustration can be caused by losing a unit to any action that early in the game. Personally after having this happen to me in games I often simply purchase sweepers and am set back slightly however players that tend to plant a mine this early will not just have one mine on the map so the detection granted will often yield a gain in munitions for me.

I think that this issue is more due to pathing in certain areas and could be fixed in that manner but i do understand your frustration with this mechanic.

The result is consistent gameplay for both factions:

1. The soviet player knows he will cause at least 1 casualty with a mine, and reliably kill off 1 man squads.
2. The german player knows although his squad could be crippled and forced to retreat, he will have the ability to retreat instead of lol instantly dying when you arent looking.

This would be an undesirable affect because there would be no need for sweepers if i suspect a mine i would just walk my pios out in front of the tank and take 1 casualty to the pios consistently and trade the manpower for days. This problem would be compounded by ostruppen.

In a more prevalent example, buildings should never be collapsed by any munition short of a railway artillery strike until the health of the building is less than say 30%? The lower the health of the building, the greater the chance that it will fall apart. A 10% health building should reliably be destroyed while a 50% health building should reliably stand strong. No more rifle nades into a 80% health building killing your entire guards squad.

Although I didn't save the replay because I rage quit, I have lost my first MG squad in kholdny ferma winter by putting it in the church and the church self destructing from the very first 82mm mortar landing on top. That was unbelievable to me and just bad gameplay from the engine

If you refer to my post above and to what relic has stated about buildings, there is little change in the works for buildings. I do believe that if they are to stay as is the destruction of a building should cause half of the remaining squad to abandon the building much as if you have squad present in a building that is set aflame. It sucks to lose 3 guards, or 2 mg crew men but at least the squad could be retreated and preserved if you are unlucky.

I kind of think this isn't a hugely common issue right now. Making units keep in cover better (like, say, DOW 2) would probably have a bigger effect.



My personal preference is to make an engi flamethrower only destructible if the squad is reduced to one or no models by the loss (meaning, a responsible retreat can reliably protect you from the gamble) but I absolutely agree this is one of the most egregious RNG things.

I appreciate the input and you could be entirely correct I just worry about the cover modifiers in regards to support weapon teams and durability but that is certainly a plausible fix.

Heavy engine damage from AT nades and fausts just needs to go. Otherwise I'm not too fussed about making mines that much more consistent... they already seem to work for me. And cut engine damaged blitzkrieg as well. That's just silly.

The biggest RNG thing I want to see addressed right now is the building crits and health operating very strangely.

I can understand the frustration that damaged engine blitzkrieg can cause but I am purely trying to approach this from a neutral setting and if following the duration the engine is in a worse state than before the ability was activated (assuming it had taken engine damage prior) this would allow you to still exploit your advantage potentially to an even greater degree without removing a veteran ability based on light engine damage.