Login

russian armor

@Relic: Maps Maps Maps

16 Mar 2015, 04:12 AM
#41
avatar of Alexzandvar

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.


The vast majority of maps in the current rotation make it stupid easy to win based on your spawn. Mostly due to the fact that many of said maps revolve around who rushes the buildings first.
16 Mar 2015, 05:04 AM
#42
avatar of steel

Posts: 1963 | Subs: 1



We are excited "jazz hands" NDA

NDA is protected by NDA :snfPeter:
Protected by another NDA. NDAception
16 Mar 2015, 06:19 AM
#43
avatar of turbotortoise

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.


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.

also, ndazis

i'll say as well, as i think a touch harder about this. the map structure should also influence my army composition. i shouldn't want an elefant in a city, or any other instance one can come up with. The state of, and i'll say this especially for 4v4's, i presume 3's as well, is that these maps favour tactics vaguely reminiscent of human waves and therefore we see blobs and heavy armour, it's simply the most effective way to win, no matter how the units are balanced, plop them in an open field they're going to be forced to behave a certain way.

environmental determinism is bullshit as an evolutionary construct, but i think i agree with it at a low level.
16 Mar 2015, 06:56 AM
#44
avatar of Basilone

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.

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.
16 Mar 2015, 07:01 AM
#45
avatar of What Doth Life?!
Patrion 27

Posts: 1664

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.
16 Mar 2015, 07:05 AM
#46
avatar of Gbpirate
Senior Editor Badge

Posts: 1150

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.


Doth Life, were you playing with Moo and I a few nights ago?

We played two games in a row, on Lienne Forest and Lanzerath as allies with FHQ.
Victory in 15 minutes, 13 minutes, respectively.

Fucking great.
16 Mar 2015, 07:25 AM
#47
avatar of turbotortoise

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.


Attractiveness wouldn't matter if it became a necessity, because you couldn't afford other arguably more effective units. In my opinion, I think it would make tech tiers at least more defined, whether or not it would affect the effectiveness of the units, would remain to be seen.
16 Mar 2015, 10:30 AM
#48
avatar of ofield

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, ...


Less ressources would actually promote call in spam, since it will take even more time to tech.
16 Mar 2015, 11:59 AM
#49
avatar of turbotortoise

Posts: 1283 | Subs: 4

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Mar 2015, 10:30 AMofield


Less ressources would actually promote call in spam, since it will take even more time to tech.


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.
16 Mar 2015, 12:32 PM
#50
avatar of Alexzandvar

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.


Honestly it doesn't matter what side your own, you rush the building on the top right and you win, if I'm Axis and on top I always rush sturms over there to prevent any shenanigans. It's not nearly as bad as Hill 331 or Rostov.

The worst offender is maybe Ettlebruck building wise, because the southern spawn allows you to get into the buildings quicker and if you get a FHQ on one of the top buildings it's GG.
16 Mar 2015, 13:23 PM
#51
avatar of ofield

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.


offtopic

I am not against call in meta at all cost, it is a strategical option. The problem however is that it totally overperforms in comparison to normal teching, because of the double economical advantage:

1. You don't invest manpower in tech -> field more infantry -> more pressure -> deny the enemy resources.
2. You don't invest fuel in tech -> outnumber the enemy with vehicles.

another thing: many call in commander also provide very strong abilites and additional units. Mark vhicle, 120mm mortar, stug3 e, stuka at support, il2 bombing run, incendiary arty etc.. which let u rofl stomp at defense like the pak43 or just rape the enemy's tanks (mark vehicle)
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

Offline

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

296 users are online: 296 guests
4 posts in the last 24h
30 posts in the last week
84 posts in the last month
Registered members: 44637
Welcome our newest member, tridevambulance
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM