Just a foreword before anyone goes calling me inept and unfit to comment... I am ranked 5th globally(I'd rather not mention this, but people around here can be rather... Foolish).

The problem with W:EE has nothing whatsoever to do with the units, yes there are adjustments to be made here and there but these issues pale in comparison to the greater issue at hand.

The central problem with the game is the victory conditions, no doubt about it. The sole objective in any game is to kill as much of the enemy as possible, that is it. There is nothing whatsoever else to it, everything else is secondary to achieving this goal. Map control merely exists to gain more points to buy more things to kill more stuff. Flanking exists to outmaneuver your opponent so you may kill more of his units than he can yours. Supply is merely to give you the fuel, munitions and slapped on armor to keep your units functioning better than your opponents.

There is no deeper strategy to the game, what exists is putting together a unit-composition that is superior to your opponents and then out-playing him. It is sad but it is true. I wish it wasn't, I really wish that this game rewarding critical thinking and strategic maneuvering, but it does not.

What would I suggest? Take a page from the battlefield series and base the game around capturing and holding points with unit deaths being secondary. Further, when more points have been injected into the game, the points required for victory will also increase.

This serves two main functions: 1) it puts a far greater emphasis on map control and 2) it makes games last longer, the longer a game lasts, the greater the strategic depth of the game.

Building upon this main idea, fix ranked.

- Add the option to search within your ELO range; you are merely annoying and pushing away many players due to the current setup. New players fear clicking ranked and experienced players are bored of beating up on inexperienced players.

- Add observer mode and allow players to remove the H.U.D; if you care about developing a competitive scene, this is a must.

Lastly, if you do nothing, this game will die. I am not being overly-dramatic, I am speaking from experience; I have followed many games and witnessed many communities come and go and this has all the hallmarks of failure given nothing is done to change the status-quo.

Thanks for your time,

Satire~

_________________
Alias - Cpt.Fantastic

I'll admit I haven't read the whole thing, but I never had a problem at all with the victory conditions.

I've always seen it as normal, unlike in any other game, that you actually have to take care of your units; If your units die in droves, but you destroyed the enemy.... it's basically absurd. This game represents this in a very good way.

The fact that you have to kill the enemy to earn points is also pretty normal. The thing is that it is (was) interesting to find the means to do it. Controlling ground never was a goal of it's own, but a very important tool for a final victory, but if you didn't feel like it, and were more interested in actually clearing the enemy before securing, you could just do that!

I agree an additional victory condition would be nice. But seriously, the actual one is really good in itself, and never was my real focus in the game, it always was about out playing. Losing a big bunch of folks made me realise "Darn, I'm losing in score now, crap...".

I've had really great games losing and where my only though was "bleed them, make them pay for every inch, you can get the draw!" and those were epic.

A victory isn't one when you lose too many units.

_________________
"Rocks are OP. Paper is fine" signed: Scissors

My Youtube Channel

You should tell that to the Soviet Union... They lost how many men to each German... Or to the Vietnamese.

Regardless, if you played at a high level you would quickly realize that the current meta-game is bad and severely flawed. There is extremely little to gain from attacking, the only time I attack is when I am up against a bad player and want to finish the game. Other than that, I have everything to lose and nothing to gain. The safest option is digging in and buying a lot of artillery.

How dull, how can you advocate for that? If I have map control and I am earning three times the income as my opponent... Why should I be at a disadvantage(unless I want to buy artillery)? What use is all that income if all it means is that I have more units to lose. The only way to really spend that money properly is to invest heavily in artillery, that or gamble with an offensive.

p.s if you're going to argue with me you should read my entire post, I read yours Xo

_________________
Alias - Cpt.Fantastic

I agree with absolutely everything you say in your post except one thing.
The core objective of the victory condition doesn't seem to be "Kill more of his units than he kills your units" but rather "Get lesser of your units killed under any given circumstance".
Now if you look at it how I am looking you would see that the current victory condition also leads to a heck load of camping and arty spamming.


And this was exactly what I was saying. You beat me to it.

Killing more of his units than your own implies losing less of your own

Now, don't get me wrong, this should heavily factor into the victory conditions, but alone its overly-simplistic and detracts from creating a deep and meaningful meta-game.

_________________
Alias - Cpt.Fantastic

make every reinforcement point you get deduct one point score from your opponent, or something in that fashion.

Another way of achieving the same thing is to make it like RUSE - low points start, but fast income from sectors.

Taking ground in W:EE is not important enough, because you can hold off a large force with a fairly cheap defence. If it was changed to be like RUSE, you would be forced to take ground, or within 15 minutes your opponent would have 50 artillery pieces!

bravo satire

Actually there is a reason I made the losing less point of mine.
In this game even if I capture reinforcement points and make a 3000 point army the enemy still has to kill 1500 points of mine instead of 3000 which just pathetic. I mean how can he win defeating just half my army?
What makes it worse is that when you bring in more commands on the field you have to make arrangements for their defense. Leave an undefended command and the enemy just made 300 points.
Bringing in commands is actually pathetically risky because it is not practically possible to flawlessly defend all of them. So capturing sectors even puts you at a loss at times.

I actually thought about how this game would change if it was made like RUSE. Then we would start almost broke with enough points to only take 2 sectors and mild defense for points.
The only problem with this is that rushes are quite powerful. Remember how in RUSE an opponent could totally screw you before you even put out a single unit. (I am totally fine with this. I liked how every rush in the game was practically counterable spending lesser points than were taken in the rush itself)
But all things considered I am full on ready for this.
Low point start and a focus on economy building before army building.
This game also doesn't have any admin building equivalent of RUSE so it can be absolutely fun.