|
I'm not a techie but at a guess I would say it is to do with the blending limit, and unless there are safe guards in place, it shouldn't matter when painting.
|
8 man maxim teams? IS THAT WHAT WE NEED?! |
I'm wondering whether the prime candidate for OH should be Mobile Defense; not because it is bad (I guess that is the basis for the other nominees), but because it is too good and will tend to overshadow other doctrines. It has consistently been among the top picks over the years.
I'm more for subtle stuff. Maybe replacing "Panzer tactician" with - uhm - say, Riegel mines would make it less attractive?
I know that there won't be many that share my opinion, but I never got why the overlap is generally disliked... Actually, I think it was done like that on purpose. This is most obvious in the SOV commanders: By default, Russians just had conscripts and weak tanks. Better infantry or late game AT options/tanks could be added via commander.
You basically have the choice to be able to upgrade the Conscripts (PPsh), or supplement with elite infantry like Guards or Shocks. When it came to late game AT, did you want to go for T-34/85s, IS-2, ISU-152 or mark Target? Since one of each is likely required, you need to offer a lot of diverse options via mix and match, so you end up with multiple tactics with guards or shocks or PPsh or T-34/85s and a lot of overlap.
This sort of emulates tech trees (although in a simplistic way) and I can see why the concept is viewed as inferior to actual tech trees of CoH1. However, given that we are stuck with the system as it is now, reducing overlap would mean you effectively would more or less end up with Guards, Shocks, T-34/85s, ML-120 being available in one or two commanders only. Good luck figuring out something that makes sense with this as premise without creating auto-pick commanders.
So, yeah, there is a lot of commander abilities that overlap. Also, there are a couple of commanders that combine the weakest version for each task from the available options or poor synergy and thus will hardly ever be picked. But how exactly would removing those make the game better?
Checking the meta of previous tournaments: Yes, there always were meta commanders and completely unused commanders, and that's how it always will be. Still, SOV players used a significant number of different commanders and even OH that had more dominant FotM commanders still sported a larger variety in picks than the "basically no overlap in commanders" factions OKW, USF and UKF.
I think there are several reasons why people dislike the overlap and why trimming could help.
I guess balancing would be easier without so many elements. New players wouldn't feel so overwhelmed by what commanders to use. Possibly easier to implement new commanders which do not overlap current ones. |
|
Instead of just revamping commanders, I think they should condense the wehr and soviet commanders first, prune out the overlapping ones and remove the abilities no one uses.
|
North Semios  |
|
Someone needs to create a montage out of that hero jeep action. |
I had no time yet to watch every single change from Luciano and wuff, but I have 2 question:
1. Did you thought about the stupid muni cutoff?
2. Is this map worth it to rework?
Like when in this mappatch 1 1vs1 map got removed, should it be this or westwall or Arnheim?
P. S. Ofc I will watch your both version later
I will do a larger pass on the weekend.
I think glider has the potential to be a good competitive map, with the right adjustments. |
I noticed that the map lacks of 2 strategic points like most standard maps, that makes comebacks really difficult and messes with the tech times. I recommend to add another 2 points where is marked with light blue and move the existing ones a little bit.
The fuel houses are too dominant in early game for factions that have access to tier 0 mgs like ostheer, you camp in one house with the mg and then you send your infantry to the other fuel to get yours and deny oponent fuel. Remove the houses, replace them with green cover or damage the houses to 20%-30% hp.
Another problem I find is that you cant get behind the northern cutoff house like you can do in south, that is one of the problems of why it is much harder to play from north.
Only the right fence stops infantry from getting behind the house and fight the garrison.
The northern cutoff house has bushes that deny infantry from getting behind it, on top of that the house is facing the base exit and you need to cross a red cover road to get to it.
The northern cutoff house also has a big green cover glide wing facing it, wich makes much easier to fight the garrison, compared to the southern house. The house being too big makes also too dominant when captured, so replacing it with the smaller houses that are almost never used will help to solve the problem, that or removing it. I would add a gap on that bush facing the church, since there is nothing similar in the south and will make new ways to flank the church.
Same with the southern house, too big, too dominant and hard to clear, replace it with the smaller house on the side that never gets used or remove it.
I would add more gaps to the base bushes to not limit the player only to go to 2 sides, that will improve retreat path and will prevent lock downs
And one of the biggest flaws this map has, the red cover roads, when you get lock down into your base, these roads make almost impossible to get out of the base, specially from the north, need to be removed.
The amount of green cover on the map and the elevations make the gameplay in this section of the map, the worst, removing the 50%-60% of the green cover in this area and flattening the are will help to fix the problem
Some good feedback.
I'd rather just remove the houses on the cut off. |
Now it truly is LOST Glider 
Is there another spot to put the glider? Maybe balled up against the center walls out of the way?
I'm sure there is. Just want to get the gameplay changes done first, worry about visuals later. |
|
|
0
Sweden
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
