Posted this in another thread originally, but I think the map flaws are big enough to deserve their own thread aside from specific faction concerns.
What do you guys think? keep in mind that this is primarily about team games, as they are made as an afterthought to the 1v1 maps and mode.
1) 1v1 maps are used as 2v2 maps which favors units/factions that both work best head-on and prefer to move front to back rather than around - this not only due to the design of certain maps (Rails and Metal, Road to Kharkov, etc.) but also simply because two players occupy the same map space instead of one. In the second case where the map itself is not badly designed but the problem is that the map is too small for two players, this could be alleviated if it weren't for the second problem.
The solution is to incorporate more community maps for the team game modes.
2) The base locations nearly always combine the players together which makes map movement linear and less strategically dynamic even on bigger maps (which again translates down to tactics in the form of unit/commander viability) and prevents the threat of cutting off both one player off from another and bases in general from territory. Ironically, one of the maps without this problem is Rails and Metal, but it's so linear that it doesn't make a difference. I think that winter map with the town in the center is called Lierneux, and this would have been a good map if it weren't for the fact that the bases are combined right in the center, which makes the map a contest of who can first take it and control the rest of the map from there. Same for Moscow Outskirts.
The solution is to redesign player base placement (which aside from the problems I mentioned would also fix the obnoxious 2 players on one side and 1 on the other in 4v4 maps that are played as 3v3)
3) In combination with the above problems there are too few points on many maps and of the points there are they tend to be placed both too safely outside of the bases and the VPs too close to each other. This is something which again really affects many 1v1 maps used for 2v2, but also the linear 2v2 maps. Just imagine if VPs were placed like that, with one right outside of each team's base and then a single one in the center, on a linear map. That should make you understand how bad this kind of placement is for resource points (with the additional problem of there being too few resource points).
The solution is to both swap around & create more points on the maps that need it.
4) Forward retreat points screw the game up. They make it too binary: you either completely destroy his position or you get flooded off the map because his units can spend way more time on it than yours, no matter if you generally win engagements or not. And if the first 3 problems were fixed they still would, because aside from letting you place your base more forward as they do now, they would also let you place your base closer to both the center and your teammate.
The solution is to both implement the fixes to the first 3 problems and then restrict how far away from your base sector you can place a forward retreat.
If you fix these problems then I believe the problems with how disproportionately effective caches are in team games would if not wholly (because they still give a 4x return on normal investment) then at least largely be fixed because they would be easier to deal with and a bit riskier to build.
5) Lastly, and I think this is the least likely change because people would regard it as too drastic so I'm just throwing this out there compared to the 4 first points that I'm convinced are problems and have solutions. The amount of Victory Points should scale UP with player amount, with a base of 3. So 1v1 maps have 3, 2v2 have 5, 3v3 have 7 and 4v4 have 9. Or it could be 2v2=5, 3v3=9 and 4v4=13 (has to be 13 instead of 4x3=12 to maintain them unevenly), it depends on which kind of mathematical pattern you want to have for them. This would prevent players' complaints of obnoxious strategies for VP camping and it would create the same kind of dynamism in team games which is intended by having 3 victory points in 1v1s in the first place. You wouldn't be able to have a single player on a team lock down the entire map's victory points or a team concentrating everything they have around some centerpoint knowing it's gg because they have a jagdtiger/emplacements/whatever and can go make tea, but he could still take his share of them so it would still be a viable strategy.
Thank you for taking your time to read all of this and I hope it was constructive. |
Edit: put everything in a new thread. |
Stock UKF commander ain't that good either: Royal Arty is pure crap, Cancer Commander >>> Royal Engineer and Vanguard/Mobile Assault is miles ahead Royal Commando so blame Lelic for power creeping.
I would rather that they made all commanders good and made you able to unlock 3 for free, than making 3 (or more, see Soviets...) ones sub-par or garbage so the DLC ones will look better. That'd keep the DLC aspect intact, it would make them able to release all commanders at once instead of slowly over time, and it would give more variety in commanders as is intended in theory. But some DLC ones are bad too, so I don't really get it... |
AVRE may be fine even though I would argue a CP decrease to 11 may be justified, but I don't think you can tell me with a straight face that anti-building flame mortar support is anything but a filler ability in its current state.
Let me get this straight, you're suggesting fixes for commanders you don't even own or have experienced for yourself? Alright then, carry on.
I haven't experienced and don't own them for a reason (well, other than them being DLC). That being, any seasoned CoH-series player can analyse that they're not worth using just by looking at them. The Forward Observation Point offers 0 AT which isn't a problem except that it costs enough fuel to seriously detract from your tank force, arrives much later than all of its abilities normally would except the artillery, is a nigh-guaranteed loss on investment because ambient buildings that it needs to be placed on can't be repaired, and costs a ton of munitions in a doctrine which already includes plenty of munitions-intensive abilities. You don't need to actually use it to conclude that's unusable compared to calling in a crocodile, land mattress, AVRE, or whatever.
Some things I will refrain on commenting on due to lack of playing the game (Relic made me have no choice, the optimisation got so bad that it became unplayable but now it's better). One such thing is the Stug E for example, which I will need to double-check the performance of since last I remember and I wouldn't comment on it until then. But everything I've commented on here I've either used or can make direct comparisons to something I do have experience with. |
So I was gonna post this in another thread that went on about a weak UKF doctrine. When I was finished, I decided to make a new thread instead so I can cover them all. Everything is subject to fine-tuning and this is supposed to give you ideas rather than go on about specific numerical values. I like making everything worthwhile rather than picking on useful doctrines until they're as non-functional as the others, unless something is simply OP. These changes do not list the preview balance mod changes, for ease of writing.
Feel free to make your own thread about the other factions. Ima try to do it otherwise.
Tactical Support Regiment
Designate Command Vehicle
- Working
Field Recovery Operation
- The ability should call in one unit at a time and be reduced in CP cost to the time when you'd normally reach T2 to avoid calling in superfluous units, or be made a passive upgrade for normal engineers
Air Resupply Operation
- 150 munitions for a couple of weapons that come too late to use instead of making those units normally if you needed them in the first place, a small combat bonus & fairly superfluous healing because no one goes for flares on tommies... and you can't call in any one thing of the ability separately, which also affects the balancing of this ability. I would remove the redundant weapon drops, lower the munitions cost and reduce the CP cost to 3, this for the purpose of actually using it as "tactical support" for earlier engagements.
Artillery Cover
- Working. (I guess? never used it since I don't have the doctrine)
Forward Observation Post
- Make this ability an upgrade for both ambient buildings and forward assemblies. If used on a forward assembly it fortifies it somewhat. Reduce the CP cost to 0. Make the abilities unlock at certain CPs. Reduce the munitions costs of the abilities. Maybe reduce the innate fuel cost of the ability.
* I feel all these changes would add up to create a doctrine which effectively supports you throughout the game instead of the non-functional afterthought it is now.
Commando Regiment
Smoke Raid Operation
- Does this really need to come no sooner than 4 CPs? Vanguard has the same ability without any smoke, but it's cheaper and also lets vehicles capture points. And that ability comes at 1 CP. I think this ability should be reduced in CP cost. Yes, it hides your squads, but your enemy knows this because the smoke alerts him that they are hidden.
Assault
- Working
Commando Glider Insertion
- Working
Mortar Cover
- Working
Air Supremacy Operation
- Working
* Not sure what this commander would need beyond this or if it would be in a workable state that offers something other commanders don't, as every commander should. Feel free to comment.
Royal Artillery Regiment
Early Warning
- Working.
Concentration Barrage
- Up the amount of shells fired... it shouldn't be firing just 3 just because you haven't teched to T3 yet when it costs the same. Simply make it fire 6 shells always like it eventually does, and if you have both howitzers it divides the shells between them so your bonus for teching becomes a double firing rate rather than a double shell amount. Either that or halve the cost until you reach T3.
Observation Detachment Valentine
- Reduce the CP cost and look over the fuel cost to see if it's okay or needs a reduction. It should have somewhere around the same timing as an AEC, unless its combat ability makes it too strong for that (I honestly wouldn't know, because I've never seen it once and I don't remember its effect when I did use it).
Artillery Support Group
- Why does this ability come at 9 CP in an artillery doctrine, when other field howitzers come at 8? just wondering. And obviously it needs some buff.
Perimeter Overwatch
- Basically you are paying a load of munitions so your artillery can actually fire... but only in friendly territory.... without any input from you..... I would add that the ability makes the base howitzers fire faster and that they can fire on enemy territories which are directly (ie. frontline) connected to yours. And 25 pounders themselves still suck, they would need a buff too like sextons.
* This would make the doctrine workable at what it's supposed to do.
Royal Engineer Regiment
Stand Fast
- Working.
Designate Command Vehicle
- Working.
Vehicle Crew Repairs
- Working.
Anti-Building Flame Mortar Support
- I've never seen this ability do anything, not even sure if it works, and I think the concept sucks in the first place. Why should it only be able to target buildings? Make sure the ability actually works and then remove the building requirement. If it's too weak or too devastating (again, never seen it so don't know) then adjust its power.
Demolition Specialist "AVRE"
- Why does the Sturmtiger come at 11 CPs but the AVRE which has both less range and more importantly much less one-shot ability of tanks come later than it at 12? especially considering that the AVRE is the main appeal of this commander. I would lower the CP cost to 11, maybe 10 unless that's too powerful. It does have to be noted that the AVRE will receive an indirect buff against tanks when the next patch hits, as the tulip rockets will immobilize them for it, so I think with that and the CP decrease this unit will be in a great spot where it's worth getting but not OP.
* Needed changes to this doctrine that make it solid instead of not really worth getting over something else (*cough* Meta Assault Regiment/Meta Operations/Advanced Meta Regiment).
What do you guys think? |
Okay , I will try to start the maxim, as before. Thanks
but was too late t-70. Pz2 and SC earlier.
No point going t-70 against OKW anyway until schreks are removed from volks. If you're gonna make vehicles from T3 then make a halftrack. It comes earlier, helps you control his blob from long range with reinforce+suppression, and combos well with su-76s that you can start making after you have it because of maxim & halftrack suppression + su-76 barrage. I recommend going guards over or with an AT gun, because later the button will help you against tanks and they can't be circle strafed by luchs, although their high reinforce cost sucks so if you can manage without guards it's riskier but you less drain on mp.
If you want to use the doctrines that have them, then partisan tank hunters are imo better with this strat than both guards and AT gun. They have schrek, spawn instantly from ambient buildings (no getting caught by luchs and then waiting for guards to walk or AT gun to produce, or spending mp on them before his vehicle is out when you don't know when/if he's going to make it), get AT grenade if you research it which is great with their camouflage and ambushing from spawning, tanks that try to flank your su-76s can break button with smoke and circle/terrain block & chase/drive out of AT gun arc but can't escape from engine damage AT grenade, they can lay mines and wire which is both good in itself and means it helps your engineers focus on repairing, and being cheaper than guards and AT gun = you can have 2 squads easier.
If he goes stuka instead of luchs you can just push and take the map, especially if he rushed it and doesn't have medic truck because then he has no isgs and no forward retreat. To destroy them you can research AT grenade, then call in tank hunters on them if they are standing next to a building or try to sneak up on them if not. No chance that he can get away with engine damage. |
Thread: Bofors16 May 2016, 17:33 PM
Has anyone seen this cast that tightrope did? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ_axxkC0IY
Basically shows that one can have no micro and be a relatively crap player and nearly beat a top player using emplacements. Give it a watch and then try to make an argument that emplacements don't need a nerf.
I'm not a pro but...
The Ost BO was wrong against UKF. Mg > gren > gren > mg counters units that try to assault you like riflenmen and conscripts, not units like the early UKF ones that work statically at long range. This is unless you can rush beyond the midfield of the map, take buildings and backcap to take advantage of no UKF early & mobile mortar, but the Ost player evidently had no plan to take that risk. He should have gone for the anti-UKF BO which is gren > mortar and force an early engagement while your 3rd unit that he doesn't have (pios) cap, then an mg if/when you get a good position for it and/or more grens and another mortar, then get T2 for a halftrack. Against UKF, you simply need to adjust your strategy with Ost. I'm not going to comment on more than the first few minutes of the game, since the Ost player did nothing of what he was supposed to during this time.
When you have two mortars and a halftrack you force him on the offensive because a mortar pit, or whatever else he has, can't beat that by sitting back. He will lose, and that is the key - you are forcing him into a bad situation to avert that loss. But he can't win an engagement against your halftrack without an AEC, which can't chase it down because of fausts (similar to how it can't chase down a luchs against OKW due to the presence of volk schreks) and the risk of mines by a smart player, and making an AEC means he has both reduced AI power compared to what else he could've got and no bofors. Prioritise capping munitions over fuel because that will be much more useful early-mid against UKF where they are at their most vulnerable to you, and there is no way he can get a cromwell out fast enough to have a chance against a well-executed Ost strategy that prioritises munitions.
If you don't mind departing from whatever other doctrines you like, then I would suggest Osttruppen doctrine against UKF. This because the instant spawn and reduced cost makes you able to take position on the map and keep the offensive pressure right away and deploy more other units faster, which is good because you don't need your generalist infantry to be the killers against UKF in the first place but merely to guard your support units and prevent him from taking the positions he needs. The doctrine has supply drop to give munitions for mines, fausts, and whatever else you'd like such as a panzergren schrek + flammen upgrade combo for the HT you already wanted.
That should cover it. |
Never since the faction's first release has the AEC not performed against infantry in one way or another.
Like I said it does get the occasional snipe but by no means is it an AI vehicle right now. |
Kind of a side-post from the original topic so pardon me about that, but it surprises me to see Osts having problems against the UKF early and mid games. I would have thought the late game would be more challenging to deal with if anything. Speaking from a UKF point of view (and don't have the "cancer regiment" you guys are complaining about fyi):
Two mortars, which aren't a bad idea to get in the matchup anyway since UKF infantry like long range and rely on being static, will take out a mortar emplacement safely and fairly quickly when you park them next to a halftrack which likewise is a good unit to have anyway. Sappers + mortar pit cost only somewhat less manpower than 2 mortars + halftrack, and whenever he uses brace you are free to temporarily retarget one of your mortars while the other one keeps bombing to threaten a squad wipe if he tries to repair. The Ost mortar's high rof and not so high accuracy actually helps in this regard, because the sappers could be repairing from anywhere so you get a lot of shells that scatter around to catch them.
Fast aec is no big deal, it's not like getting caught by a luchs or t70 since it's almost useless against infantry. Yes it can scout and get the occasional pick-off but it costs nearly 400 manpower and some fuel to get one out so you're still fine in a strategic sense. Imo the worst thing you can do against it is make a pak, because that off-sets the resources the put into making it that he now doesn't have for weapon racks/grenades/call-ins/mortar pit/sniper.
And that's the key to dealing with the rest of that. UKF doesn't have the manpower to field everything simultaneously if you keep the game at an active pace and have a good sense of timing/game awareness. The spot to hit them at is the transition between early and mid game, when they have to choose what to make and are at their most vulnerable. |
Good post, I'd like to add that it's not only how weak they are when they actually fire. It's also the practicality of getting them to fire in the first place. Getting into a distance to throw the very short range flare is like if soviets had molotovs on only one or two conscripts and they couldn't oorah. You'd never see a molotov thrown on a machine gun. |