why is the doctrine system so hard to fix? I'm not a programmer so I'm not sure what the big problem is here. Also, while I definitely preferred the branches, I don't know that its fundamental to the success of the game. They could still allow doctrinally unlocked units to be called-in(without buildings) and this would greatly open up potential strategies, and seems like an incredibly simple fix.
I still think if they are going to let you choose your commanders and your bulletins, that your opponents should be privy to what they are in the load up screen though. Not sure why that sort of thing isn't implemented. |
I don't really have a problem seeing in blizzards so far, but if its making combat a problem for people something should be done.
Upkeep should not simply be designed to allow the losing player to rebuild up to his opponent's standing force in no time. It is a weird choice. Maybe because blizzards can already punish a player who has lost units and been pushed off the map, relic built in a more forgiving comeback mechanism. I hope that's not the reason because that's pretty fundamental.
Because I like blizzards, and the more I play the less they slow down the action. They change the action, some of it becomes schlepping cleverly back up the field, using houses, etc. They make flanks both harder due to the risks of the cold, and easier + more rewarding due to the reduced visibility, and they add targets of opportunity. depending on your enemy's well-being, you may want to take out that fire-pit in the fit of combat. Hopefully once relic makes more changes to this mechanic, (cold reduction upgrades would be great) the player on the back-foot will be able to take better advantage of the weather.
Changes to tank crits sound sensible...one of the mitigaters of fast tanks is that these sorts of things happen, but they are really frustrating(fire damage to engines especially) Its cool that there are temporary stun crits, I agree that they should only trigger at half health.
Not convinced that bulletins will break the game in any way. They are small bonuses. If unlocked bonuses do give an edge, they give one at the expense of another edge. if one edge is more effective than others, it should be toned down. They also give you something to do when you've already beaten an opponent who isn't quite ready to quit. I suspect that all of the top competitors will have everything unlocked anyway, so I'm not sure what the problem is going to be.
I prefer the old doctrines, with the branching as well. Seems like relic could make that change easy enough though, if they thought it was advisable to go that route. Each doctrine would only really need 1 more ability created,(then a speed up of received command points..etc) |
,,,meant to edit, replied instead |
Yeah all of your suggestions are reasonable, and I kind of like the idea of allowing germans to gain cold resistance through vet, my thoughts were primarily attempting to address concerns about not enough alternative ways to spend resources, and thus play the game. As to my suggestion about a muni cost for ostheer, I never pictured that as being as effective as the russian option, because you would have to buy it individually, and the trade-off would be less shrecked squads or no flame halftrack for another couple minutes...etc. This for a single survivable squad. If you wanted to buy it for a lot of units for mid-late game, you would be cutting into your off-map abilities for the privilege.
On the other hand, I don't know that ostheer need any more munitions sinks, between their more expensive shrek buys and their expensive mine placements, at the moment. Paying 75 munis on extra cold protection for one unit might not be worth it. I'm more concerned about there being alternative fuel techs for ostheer, as currently there are no upgrades, and you addressed that with your veterancy buy suggestions.
|
Yeah, if fires have to damage tank engines at all, say for the sake of deterring people from driving around the map running over fires with glee, then the engine damage should be very temporary and repair on its own, after say 5 to 10 seconds. Its already unfortunate to have your fire-pits get run over on your side of the map when all you did was point the tank to a destination, but to also have a crippled tank is just a drag that only hurts gameplay. You shouldn't have to spend time microing tanks around fires.
ON EDIT: this is the second time i've thought of a brilliant idea that probably already existed in the game. I was playing around with my panther in one game and driving over camp fires, and taking engine damage, and then 10 to 15 seconds later, having a fully funtional uninjured tank to drive around with. The other idea was that blizzard should shrink line-of-sight...heh, how I never noticed that it did I'm not sure...but pretty embarassing.
I'd be nervous about requiring vet 1 for at guns and the mobile at(name?) to get artillery, if simply because they both really suck as AT. That could be tweaked, but I don't feel qualified to talk balance, so I'm not sure Russia needs better AT, or whether their current balance is working. Granted, a nerf to at grenades has already happened, in terms of damage, and AT guns are abysmal at taking out half-tracks currently, (though between engine damage from an at grenade and an at gun, I would hope that a flame-half-track could be brought down at this point), so maybe an at gun buff wouldn't be bad, but the artillery ability is really the more reliable ability of the two currently, and the more reliable way to get vet on the gun(unless vet works the same way for at guns as for infantry, then I'm not sure). I suggested, and think its a less drastic way of making the change, that the artillery abilities come at a fuel cost upgrade, and one of the advantages of this is that it plays into the need for more teching choices, in order to diversify play-styles. |
I think call-ins from either the command tabs or the HQ would be best as well, though I'm open to hearing why this might damage gameplay in the new system. It seems like it could only make the meta-game more flexible, and IF you include the fuel cost, it wont be quite as forgiving a mechanism. Building tank after tank out of your command points will make it impossible to tech, so it might not be advisable. On the other hand, if the game went this route, it may have to impose the limits that existed in vcoh, otherwise, the gain might exceed the loss. Whatever the case, pricing definitely needs to be reconsidered...probably a much higher manpower cost for call-ins(to truly limit the # you can expect to see on the field if you don't want to hard-cap), and a reduction, but not elimination of fuel cost, to make it so that teching post call-in doesn't take a century.
|
Why not make the russian supply yard upgrade the summer map alternative to the theoretical cold-tech upgrade, assuming manpower could remain balanced in both formats. On winter maps soviets can take advantage of small windows of opportunity to turn the tide, and on summer maps they can offset(presumably changed upkeep costs) and add more field presence.
I get what your saying about the rifle-nades now, and the scout car combat adjustment.
People complain a lot about the excess russian artillery in 2v2, though not so much in 1v1. Maybe a small upgrade that could be teched in the support building should be required to unlock the arti abilities of at guns and the mobile at platforms.
|
Interesting thread, I hope more people throw out some ideas.
Both factions need more fuel cost upgrades to offer more playstyles and to keep the meta a moving target.
I love the cold-tech upgrade for soviets. I suggested the same thing on the official forums for the same reason. I also suggested that ostheer could have expensive counterpart upgrades bought individually with munitions.
I thought that originally the vets of both factions were going to work differently from one another so I like a change that does this. It definitely rewards players for evaluating engagements differently depending on what faction they are using. Ostheer might prefer to retreat and regroup when outnumbered, and a russian player may want to stick it out and continue to eek out vet as long as possible.
I also think your idea about ostheer vetting is interesting, but sounds a little scary being an upgrade that affects every unit. Maybe break it down the same way as wehr's vet upgrades are broken up. I had a similar suggestion to mirror the old game's system, in that there would be upgrades taken among those 4 categories that exist for wehrmacht; infantry, support, light vehicles, tanks, and that buying a specific upgrade would make vetting units in that category much, much, faster. That way you wouldn't be buying cheap vetted squads in the late game, but your late-game squads would be vetting much quicker.
I agree that I would like more diverse abilities rather than giving all the ostheer units marked target upon vetting and all the russian units whatever that ability is called. This isn't a big deal, but it is a little boring currently.
Intersting idea about the riflenade, and shrek. I see the reasoning, but wonder if good players would have no problem avoiding the rifle-grenade for early scout-car flamer impunity...basicallly they could just charge up on the gren squad, because of his minimum range and he wouldn't even be able to fire it.
Giving both opponents an element of micro regarding the t34 ram ability doesn't sound like a bad thing. I'm not sure you need to damage the t34's engine on a miss. He's going to be pretty screwed anyway if he does.
Having an upkeep system that is condusive to upkeep upgrades for one faction or the other also just adds anohter way to play the game...which is a good thing. |
oops... |