Radical T0-T1 Restructure Proposal:
Posts: 2425
Permanently BannedIts always struck me as retarded that one faction has to build something right off the bat, whereas the other, does not.
But the problem does not end there. The most serious repercussion, is what it does to Penals. Their timing is off, as a result of this split. Whereas Ost can laterally tech to LMGs, through Muni, Sov is hampered at this early point by sheer MP costs.
My radical proposal:
-Move Grens to T0.
-Increase Ost T1 cost/buildtime to roughly the same as as Sov T1.
-Attach LMG to T1. No T1, no LMG. G43 should be largely unaffected due to CP2 timing.
Result?
-Grens and Cons are largely unaffected. Grens and Cons still hit the field at the same rate, and cost, in relstion to each other.
-Penals hit the field at around the same time as Grens get LMG upgrade.
(Afterthought here, Small problem here, may lead to Penal spamming...)
This because this doesnt change the Muni income rate, so LMG upgrade is still timed by Munis, as it is now.
BUT, and here is the genius, it does mean Sov is not hampered by an immediate MP deficit, in relation to Osts current cheaper T1. Meaning onfield unit capacity is roughly equal, at any given point.
Thats it. Simple, eh?
Problems though:
-Makes the factions "the same" in terms of immediate builds. But as I already stated, the "difference" we currently have, in Ost having to build immediately (albeit at lesser cost) is a retarded and artifical one to begin with. And is largely simply a result of Grens not being T0, as Cons are.
-The relative extra cost to Ost for a more expensive T1, needs to be deducted from future tiers, in some shape or form, so that atleast the total overall cost of building all 4 tiers, remains roughly equal.
-Ost and Sov starting resources would have to be adjusted, preferably, equalised.
TLDR: Problem is in the T0-T1 faction split.
What do you guys think?
Please try to refrain from personal attacks and overt negativity, as even though there may he something absolutely centrally flawed in my proposal that Ive overlooked, that is glaringly obvious, that makes me look like a complete tard, Im only trying to help and do what I can to improve the game.
------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPORTANT ADDITIONS
- LMG now attached to T1.
Posts: 35
This is a very odd notion. Or perhaps I'm just missing something here.
Seems to me, you just don't like Ostheer having to build a building at game start when the Soviets do not and really has nothing to do with Penals.
Posts: 95
Grens at T1 are fine. Penals need some work I believe, primarily reinforcement cost if Relic doesn't want to mess with the stats.
Edit: Maybe I misread or you updated while I was typing but you now have pioneers listed. My bad.
Posts: 409
Ost player can ignore tier 1 building costs (and time) and this is supposed to help out penals? That doesn't make any sense to me. Or are you saying early Penals has been a problem and they need to be pushed back in relation to the gren spam? If that's what you're saying, well, I'm confused. Penals are hardly used in this game as is. Making them come (relatively speaking) later isn't going to help anything.
This is a very odd notion. Or perhaps I'm just missing something here.
Seems to me, you just don't like Ostheer having to build a building at game start when the Soviets do not and really has nothing to do with Penals.
He's saying that the Ostheer will now only be getting their first MG/Mortar/Sniper at the same time your first Penal squad would hit the field. Since Penal squads win against (unsupported) Grenadiers hands down, it gives them an actual use early game.
If you're suggesting the German player would bypass the proposed slow T1 and tech straight to T2, nothing in there really counters Penal squads very well with the exception of the Flame Halftrack which would then get countered by Guards.
The above is what is being proposed; I'm not sure if it will work out that well in practice as it does on paper.
Posts: 2425
Permanently BannedOnly after that, can he half tier with Battlephases to "skip" tier buildings.
But after that, full tier costs are very si ilar for both factions. Its only the T0-T1 split that stands out.
With the caveat, that Pios can continue onfield action during BP, after T1.
Posts: 409
Posts: 2425
Permanently BannedIn conjunction with my proposal, LMG needs to be attached to T1.
Overlooked that otherwise Ost can skip T1, build LMGs, and Penals are still in the shitter, because Ost went directly T2, past them, and past the T1 increased cost.
Posts: 95
I would love to be able to modify and play some games out with this adjusted algorithm and see how it plays out because it would certainly give some interesting dynamics. I personally like to see out of the box solutions like this because while it does get rid of a bit of the asymmetry I don't think the factions would be similar enough to take away from the feel of the game.
Posts: 598
i had proposed having one tech upgrade in which the soviet have to purchase one tech upgrade to get access to build their t3 and t4 buildings. what if when the soviet player purchase that tech, he will get access to ppshs!
what happens to the ppsh in the doctrines then? replace them with penals! make penals a doctrine unit!
what should we put in the empty slot in t1? put in the guards! what should we put in the missing doctrine ability? remove oorah from conscripts and make it an doctrine ability ( and make oorah cheaper as a result)
just a thought.
even though this post didn't help with yours, it does move the penals somewhere else to a point where it may become more useful. besides, putting grenadiers in t0 would usually end up with infantry spam since it would be less risky quick teching to t2 or t3
Posts: 813 | Subs: 1
I dont think that the problem is penals. I think it is t1 overall. Some players really do execute T1-T3/T4 strats very well. StephenJF does this very well. But the thing is that alot of players want a non doctrinal AT solution. This rules out T1 totally. Because if you build T1 for snipers and penals, then T2 for AT, you will find yourself without fuel for a long while to build tanks. Why the heck would anyone go t2 then? Well, becasue it is a mp based AT unit. And there is only one non doctrinal availeble. In T2. Low on fuel? No T2? Shocks on the field? Soz, you are in deep sh*t. Ostheer can more or less always backtech since the building is so cheap (and the teching up with battlephase already took the biggest blow). Getting out a PGrensquad or a Pak is almost always possible. Soviet dont have any non doctrinal AT inf, and even the doctrinal AT inf is kind of sadface.
Another way to make t1 for soviet more viable would be to add the mini ATG available in one of the DLC commanders, but at a much more hefty pricetag. Say 300 mp. Its very fragile and can more or less only reliably deal with light vehicles, but it would be there. Yet another option is to add PTRS as a purchaseable upgrade (fuel and mp? or ammo?) for penals, giving T1 atleast soft AT. My thoughts on the matter.
Posts: 2425
Permanently BannedOstheer can more or less always backtech since the building is so cheap (and the teching up with battlephase already took the biggest blow).
This proposal equalises tier cost though.
All tiers cost roughly the same, for both factions.
(with the caveat that Ost can buy them in stages, with less bulk cost at a time, as offset by not being able to skip a tier, without paying, which Sov can)
Posts: 299
Another way to make t1 for soviet more viable would be to add the mini ATG available in one of the DLC commanders, but at a much more hefty pricetag. Say 300 mp. Its very fragile and can more or less only reliably deal with light vehicles, but it would be there. Yet another option is to add PTRS as a purchaseable upgrade (fuel and mp? or ammo?) for penals, giving T1 atleast soft AT. My thoughts on the matter.
There already is a mini at gun in a doc. It is in urban defense and it costs 200 mp.
Posts: 324 | Subs: 2
Proposed solution: Make everything else except grenadiers come later.
I don't get it. That is only encouraging grenadier spam. Is it a problem to make the buildtime for soviet T1 and/or penals shorter? Hell, let penals be build instantly and see what happens.
LMG grens won't be as prevelant once you see penals viable.
Problem 2: No light AT options in soviet T1, total reliance on Guards call in.
Solution: Give penals some sort of at capability. Let them be upgraded with svt-40 OR PTRS/Bazooka (no unit should be good against both AI and AT). Or make satchel charges funktion like uber-stickies (sticks to vehicles, ~240 damage, no splash, no engine damage) if you fear they will be to similar to guards. Make one guy run up and suicide instead of throwing it, that would be cool.
Posts: 324 | Subs: 2
Another way to make t1 for soviet more viable would be to add the mini ATG available
That could work too, i like that.
Posts: 187
Problem 1: Penals come out to late.
Proposed solution: Make everything else except grenadiers come later.
I don't get it. That is only encouraging grenadier spam. Is it a problem to make the buildtime for soviet T1 and/or penals shorter? Hell, let penals be build instantly and see what happens.
LMG grens won't be as prevelant once you see penals viable.
I agree with this. A small reduction (say 25%) in Soviet T1 build time and a small reduction in the reinforce cost for Penals, so they remain a viable strategy in longer games. That's a good place to start.
Posts: 813 | Subs: 1
There already is a mini at gun in a doc. It is in urban defense and it costs 200 mp.
You missed my point, it was the one I ment. Just for a higher amount of mp. Why more mp? Not to interfere with this commander in question. This way, even if you go this commander, you will have the same ATG but cheaper, instantly on map when needed and without need to tech. Also, with this higher mp cost it would have significant buildtime and wouldnt be all that spammable.
Edit: It would require balancing still, but the model and all stats (apart from a new cost) is already in the game. Dont think requires a ton of work apart from balancework.
Posts: 177
I have to say certainly an interesting take on revamping the tiers and gren unit placement. The only concern I have is that it would be a t0 infantry spam fest however if the game were to follow a natural progression it would certainly allow for penals to get some use because they are excellent flanking units.
I would love to be able to modify and play some games out with this adjusted algorithm and see how it plays out because it would certainly give some interesting dynamics. I personally like to see out of the box solutions like this because while it does get rid of a bit of the asymmetry I don't think the factions would be similar enough to take away from the feel of the game.
You mean there would actually be a strat for the unupgraded riflemen of each faction to fight each other, using cover etc? Sounds very good to me. The early game phase in this game is too short as it is.
Posts: 523
I agree with this. A small reduction (say 25%) in Soviet T1 build time and a small reduction in the reinforce cost for Penals, so they remain a viable strategy in longer games. That's a good place to start.
Some amateur developer decided that it would be a good idea to hardcode build time with cost.
Posts: 2425
Permanently BannedProblem 1: Penals come out to late.
Proposed solution: Make everything else except grenadiers come later.
No LMGs unless T1 though, in my proposal.
Posts: 783 | Subs: 3
Livestreams
24 | |||||
18 | |||||
16 | |||||
6 | |||||
92 | |||||
31 | |||||
9 | |||||
9 | |||||
6 | |||||
3 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.655231.739+15
- 2.842223.791+5
- 3.939410.696+5
- 4.35459.857-1
- 5.599234.719+7
- 6.278108.720+29
- 7.307114.729+3
- 8.645.928+5
- 9.10629.785+7
- 10.527.881+18
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
9 posts in the last week
27 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, swimmingpoolsofflori
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM