It is currently Tue 14 May 2013 23:26

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 113 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon 28 Jan 2013 12:41 
Offline
Private First-Class

Joined: Mon 28 Jan 2013 11:40
Posts: 6
ChrisJ wrote:
VasFURY wrote:
Well done Spawnfarkal. So, i guess you are right, developers should have blocked such tactics from the game, since they are more harmful to balanced tourney conditions and to the player base. 12 games in under 3 minutes is kinna saying it all - thank you for this test.


Helicopter spam is more dangerous because of how quickly it arrives, but the main factor is and will always be the fact that most people deploy a wide and spread out army too early and have no capability to deal with a concentrated force. This is the same for ANY push, but again, the hasty arrival of the helicopters makes it harder to counter.

There should be no rule disallowing a strategy. If there is a problem, it has to be fixed with gameplay changes or metagame changes. Not all of us agree that the game should be über-realistic, and I frankly don't care how cheesy a strategy feels if it can be dealt with appropriately. I see this as a strategy game primarily. Whether or not you think rushing is too effective currently does not mean something should be disallowed.


I'm agree with you.
When I've started the ranked, I've lost many times cause of helorush.
Now I take care, I use a lot of reco helo and I dont spread to fast my army at the start of the game.

But now, by playing like this, each time I fall against a "fast expand" player who take lot of income, I'm up...
Cause I have too much useless AA and a lake of map control.

So, I mean, the problem with helorush is also the fear it inflict to you.
Cause it make you weak against player who rush map control and money.........


Last edited by OpusTheFowl on Mon 28 Jan 2013 19:32, edited 1 time in total.
Language


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 28 Jan 2013 12:58 
Offline
Sergeant First-Class

Joined: Tue 21 Feb 2012 21:37
Posts: 137
Lioness_68 wrote:
ChrisJ wrote:
VasFURY wrote:
Well done Spawnfarkal. So, i guess you are right, developers should have blocked such tactics from the game, since they are more harmful to balanced tourney conditions and to the player base. 12 games in under 3 minutes is kinna saying it all - thank you for this test.


Helicopter spam is more dangerous because of how quickly it arrives, but the main factor is and will always be the fact that most people deploy a wide and spread out army too early and have no capability to deal with a concentrated force. This is the same for ANY push, but again, the hasty arrival of the helicopters makes it harder to counter.

There should be no rule disallowing a strategy. If there is a problem, it has to be fixed with gameplay changes or metagame changes. Not all of us agree that the game should be über-realistic, and I frankly don't care how cheesy a strategy feels if it can be dealt with appropriately. I see this as a strategy game primarily. Whether or not you think rushing is too effective currently does not mean something should be disallowed.


I'm agree with you.
When I've started the ranked, I've lost many times cause of helorush.
Now I take care, I use a lot of reco helo and I dont spread to fast my army at the start of the game.

But now, by playing like this, each time I fall against a "fast expand" player who take lot of income, I'm up...
Cause I have too much useless AA and a lake of map control.

So, I mean, the problem with helorush is also the fear it inflict to you.
Cause it make you weak against player who rush map control and money.........


My opinion is that there needs to be some changes, but I don't know which. I liked the idea of a prep-time on the AT for infantry as they dismount.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 28 Jan 2013 13:01 
Offline
Private First-Class

Joined: Mon 28 Jan 2013 11:40
Posts: 6
ChrisJ wrote:
My opinion is that there needs to be some changes, but I don't know which. I liked the idea of a prep-time on the AT for infantry as they dismount.


In a way, I hope they wont nerf helorush, cause it help a lot then you match up against a very low level Elo player and you dont want to waste 20 minutes of your day...

But I'm agree with this feature.
When I've started to play, I was thinking chasseur famas were OP.
But a friend teach me the difference between 5.5 and 7.6 weapon, and the fact its better to spam infantery near the ennemy vehicle instead of only having a few infantery with a good AT gun.
So now I spam Chasseur........


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 28 Jan 2013 16:53 
Offline
Sergeant First-Class
User avatar

Joined: Wed 3 Oct 2012 19:52
Posts: 133
Lioness_68 wrote:
So now I spam Chasseur........


:lol:

VasFury

the guy, who beats me used a lot of gun-AA and as soon as he saw my rush coming, he ordered all his troops back and collapsed near his last cv.
I have to admit, that i am not a heli rush expert, maybe someone else would have done better then me, maybe my timing was bad or the routes i have chosen was not the best, but i think with a ROLAND2 and at least 6 Flakpanzer or 4 Vulcan you are pretty save... :)

_________________
VasFURY wrote:
Spwanfarkal was pretty chill, because he is a cool dude!

:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 28 Jan 2013 18:52 
Offline
Staff Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Wed 19 Sep 2012 17:35
Posts: 97
Location: Central NY, USA.
Thanks to all of you for the compliments. In many ways I feel as though I've merely stated the obvious. If you think it appropriate, feel free to quote me where you like. On a personal note, I personally belong more in the crowd of simulationists because of my history, experience and preferences. Even though I personally do not like "spamming" per se, it is difficult to get an accurate definition of "spamming" as opposed to a perfectly reasonable and realistic 'concentration of force' tactical maneuver, even though almost ALL of us know it when we see it. This difficulty in achieving a clear definition, the duality of viewpoints concerning this and the highly artificial means that Eugen/Focus would need to insert into the game engine and design to counter this leads me to believe that such efforts may worsen or even wreck the design of an otherwise, very good and enjoyable game. That is why I don't think that Eugen/Focus should attempt to alter the design to prevent this tactic.

I personally, feel that there are much better and more interesting fixes. The first that I intend to adopt, now or when I become good enough to be invited into a clan or group, is to practice and train myself to react appropriately to a 'mass of forces' attack. I would actually be surprised if the more dedicated clans and groups don't already make this kind of training part of a 'qualification process' for membership. In fact, it doesn't really matter which ideological end of things you are on. Knowing the likelihood of meeting such a force almost requires you to learn how to deal with that whether you use such forces yourself or not. (What happens when 'spammers' collide?)

In addition, I see a number of ways to actually enrich the game because of the ideological differences. For RTS gamers, things pretty much work as they are. If I'm wrong about that, please feel free to point out what I may have missed. For the 'simulationist' crowd, W:EE does not yet but could easily include situation based engagements or scenarios with preselected forces, very defined objectives and a highly limited number of points and/or units available as a reinforcement pool. This kind of game would play much more like traditional wargames that many of us have cut our teeth on. A date range and TO+E would tell you both the size and type of initial forces and show you what specific unit types a player would be limited to for reinforcements as an example. The objective could be as simple as a "clear this path" or "control this area" description with specifics that define an area or path as being cleared or controlled. An additional benefit is that such engagements could be smaller, therefor, more amenable to newer players that don't have all the skills necessary to control a Battalion sized force or larger. Multiple scenarios of this type could actually be linked to form a campaign of sorts. There would be no need for modifying the game itself.

Sorry for the length but the current circumstances are affecting our community and many people's ability to enjoy the game, not to mention the tournament. If I've wandered too far off topic, I hope the moderators will let me know where they've moved this lol. Mostly, I'd like to hear other people's feelings and ideas about this as well.

_________________
"We don't stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 28 Jan 2013 18:57 
Offline
Sergeant First-Class

Joined: Tue 21 Feb 2012 21:37
Posts: 137
The thing I don't understand about the (let's call it) simulationist argument is that it seems they do not want there to be the freedom to do whatever you want with your army, rather than simply altering the game to a point where certain strategies are not be as effective as they are now. The dangerous thing about doing the latter is that for example, all of a sudden attacking may become impossible.

Even if you play this for simulation, surely your opponent must have the freedom to do the dumbest and cheesiest of things. I think what you should be focusing on is that you're not content with how powerful certain strategies are, and while arguing for this it needs to be considered how powerful they really are when the correct counter is applied.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 28 Jan 2013 20:11 
Online
Second-Lieutenant

Joined: Mon 13 Feb 2012 23:15
Posts: 954
ChrisJ wrote:
The thing I don't understand about the (let's call it) simulationist argument is that it seems they do not want there to be the freedom to do whatever you want with your army, rather than simply altering the game to a point where certain strategies are not be as effective as they are now.


You'll still have the freedom to do whatever you want with it. You just shouldn't expect some things to work consistently. The hard part of trying to explain the simulationist model is that it is almost infinitely complex, based on combined arms and co-ordination between different arms. Teamwork is mandatory for success. It's roughly as big a leap from Wargame as it currently is to the model we'd like to have as it is from Starcraft to Wargame. I'll give it a shot anyway.

The "typical" battle (whatever that is) would flow something like this:

Recon elements from both sides meet and airborne troops reach their objectives. Tanks and other heavy elements of the army are moving to support. There's a brief skirmish phase between the recon units as they joust for information supremacy; whoever destroys or drives off the opposing recon has an advantage in the upcoming fight. Airborne may have to fight to clear their objective. Tanks reach the main battle and deploy to attack/counter-attack. Front line, such as there ever was, is subject to artillery bombardment; finding and destroying the concentration of enemy reserve with artillery is a primary goal.

While this is going on, light elements and airborne try to hold strategically valuable areas and hit targets of opportunity. Gunships constantly run missions against enemy armor while their losses mount. Artillery has to divide attention between too many fire missions at front and counter-battery task while relocating every now and then to avoid enemy attention. Infantry digs in to hold the ground gained. All this beats in the rhythm of clogged roadways and supply units trying to support every combat arm. And then there's the enemy and his plans, of course.

To answer your worries about difficulty of attacking, it should be as easy as anything else (ie. not easy at all). Large concentrations of units fall prey to overwhelming fire support, so the front line must by necessity be lightly manned. Pushing through light screen of recon elements with armored battalions is not hard. The problems only start when the defender sees your main axis of advance and starts his counter-attack to drive you back. Essentially it's two sides attacking each other at once.

Quote:
Even if you play this for simulation, surely your opponent must have the freedom to do the dumbest and cheesiest of things.


Yes. But should they work consistently? Anything can work once, I'll give you that.

_________________
Wargame: Disco Edition

http://i.imgur.com/KwSCdxW.png


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 28 Jan 2013 20:34 
Offline
Sergeant First-Class

Joined: Tue 21 Feb 2012 21:37
Posts: 137
Hob, my post is a response to many of the arguments used in this thread, and I agree with what you said to a large extent.

Judging from your response, you seem to think I like how fast and easily helicopter spam beats you, and how fast and easily an early push of light units arrive and roll right on through. But I am not. I am not happy with how Wargame is currently, but disallowing "cheap" tactics is not the answer. Especially not blocking strategies that work for the tournament. The changes need to be made to the game. I do think that certain things are too effective based on road speed and air speed. I'm sure there are other problems (like the veterancy stabilizer on cheap units) and many possible solutions. Something needs to change, but I just don't know what.

Hob_Gadling wrote:
To answer your worries about difficulty of attacking, it should be as easy as anything else (ie. not easy at all). Large concentrations of units fall prey to overwhelming fire support, so the front line must by necessity be lightly manned. Pushing through light screen of recon elements with armored battalions is not hard. The problems only start when the defender sees your main axis of advance and starts his counter-attack to drive you back. Essentially it's two sides attacking each other at once.


Of course it shouldn't be easy. My worry isn't that. My worry is that the game turns into what it can be considered now, but to another extreme. Thin defensive lines that can hold anything with artillery being used as the main weapon, rather than as support.

Hob_Gadling wrote:
Yes. But should they work consistently? Anything can work once, I'll give you that.


No, but it should if it isn't countered. A lot of the reference matches for rushing and "cheap" tactics are poorly played, including my own!

For example, I think that anti-air is far too weak. Air for the same amount of money can focus on what is designed to destroy it and win under too many circumstances. Do you have any ideas on what can be done to fix some of these issues? (the anti-air one being pretty obvious)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 28 Jan 2013 21:14 
Online
Second-Lieutenant

Joined: Mon 13 Feb 2012 23:15
Posts: 954
A few ideas, yes.

For anti-air I'd make the following changes:

- reduce AAA range by one bracket for every system (except ZSU-57-2 which should be dropped by a kilometer or so)
- give AAA HE 2-3
- drop WP transport helo HP to 5 except for Mi-17 which gets a price increase
- slightly change SAM statistics so their role would be to cover long ranges but be less effective in sheer firepower than AAA
- change most expensive gunships so they wouldn't die to any single missile in the game. There's effectively no helicopter AI in the game, helos can't do pop-up attacks or fly NOE. The only way to increase their survivability is by increasing their hitpoints (which we can't do), give them armor (another no-go) or make long-range SAM systems worse. They'll still die if they fly into a bad spot, just not quite so quickly.

Desired endstate:

- AAA shreds helicopters at close range so quickly that blundering into their range is suicidal
- AAA doesn't become overpowering against ground forces (especially infantry)
- SAMs can do area denial but are less good against massed helicopters
- helicopters in general outrange AAA but have to risk getting shot at by SAMs
- cheap helos die quickly to AA
- expensive helos die quickly to AAA but have chances against SAMs

For artillery, rocket arty has already been changed quite a bit in the test patch. We'll see what sticks. For tubes I'd like to see all artillery made as accurate. Older pieces should have larger aiming times, low ROF and cheap prices. Newer pieces should have smaller aiming times, high ROF, expensive prices, relatively low availability and higher reload times between every 10 round salvo. If accuracy is dropped somewhat in general, supply costs can be slightly dropped also. Rockets should be used against "point" targets (for variable values of point), tubes against area targets.

For missiles I'd divide stuff into 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation stuff and give them roughly corresponding stats. Only 3rd generation tandem warheads should have AP 13 or higher: everything else should be 12 or less. Since there are no countermeasures for tanks, I'd drop accuracy for most of the platforms as well as ranges for some of them (notably Fagot, Dragon and Milan).

For tanks I'd give biggest tanks -1 AP. Their longer range compensates as they close in; the change would only be meaningful at maximum range. There are some minor changes for some tanks (Leo 1, T-62M) that would also get done. Tanks are surprisingly balanced against each other.

APCs get their armor changed from 1 to 0,5. This means every gun with AP 5 or more will kill the APC in one hit while it's still somewhat resistant against artillery and light weapons.

I'd drop .50 cal range to 900 meters and NATO autocannons on selected vehicles to 1250 meters. This is mostly a buff for Soviet 14,5mm machine gun which is in an unfortunate place right now.

There's a whole big bunch of other stuff that most likely will get implemented. We'll see what sticks.

Note that the above list is what I'd do and might not represent what is actually done.

_________________
Wargame: Disco Edition

http://i.imgur.com/KwSCdxW.png


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 28 Jan 2013 21:23 
Offline
Sergeant First-Class

Joined: Tue 21 Feb 2012 21:37
Posts: 137
I like your ideas. My friends and I have discussed some of those in the past.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 113 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group