Diversity of effective units

Ellio_98 wrote:

Early levels maybe but final level not true:

AT lvl5 : (Att/Def)

Infantry: 1.5/3

Tanks: 6/12

TD lvl5 : (Att/Def)

Infantry: 2.3/4.1

Tanks: 8/14

Tank destroyers better in the long run.

.

Woops, i should read better. I have a tendency to skip posts

Ellio_98 wrote:

CzarHellios wrote:

Tank Destroyers are somewhat meh. Anti-Tank are better used offensively

Early levels maybe but final level not true:

AT lvl5 : (Att/Def)

Infantry: 1.5/3

Tanks: 6/12

TD lvl5 : (Att/Def)

Infantry: 2.3/4.1

Tanks: 8/14

Tank destroyers better in the long run.

Ha. Well Czar's comments seem a bit harsh to me. I think the game is pretty cool. Who cares if it is based on another game. Not complex enough? The real complexity of a game like this is basically infinite. Based on cost-efficiency? Of course, that is the foundation of the game and why shouldn't it be? If you are playing noobs of course you are gonna walk all over them and the game will seem too simple but, if up against experienced players, you got your work cut out for you. Regarding the OP's comments about changing unit abilities, that could be interesting, but frankly, despite Czar's claim that there isn't enough complexity, I find it more complex than I can really handle just using a subset of the units. I prefer a relatively simple base from which you can create your own complexity in terms of unit production, resource management, unit movement, overall war strategy and real time engagement. I don't want to get bogged down in the minutia of a dozens of units. That being said I do any way. I have complex scoring schemes for all units based on virtually all criteria in which each criteria can be weighted depending on what may be important for the current consideration.

deleted unneccessary quote // wildL

Firstly, dam Im a little late to the thread.

Tac Bombers

I dont think Tac bombers need to be nerfed, maybe so their AA values, but the unit is easy to counter, and by spamming a few AA really can turn the tide. However I see your point

Light tank

I dont really think the Light tank needs a nerf, maybe a bit off its defending value, as it is meant to be used as a assault unit, they wont really make it less useful, for those fighting blitz tactics, however will make it easier to defeat in a longer term, Can stretch you enemy a little further, and it will make it easy to counter the LT

Rockets

I think rockets are fine personally, they are slow, they are very easy to pick off as well. I just sailed a cruiser up my enemies coast, took out 10 rockets

Start bombers

At first I thought, no way increase for strat bombers, but then I read what you had to saw, and thought about it. And you mate a good point, however we all know the main reason for the strat bombers is to target infrastructure, and tac bombers are for units. My point is, the weapons used to target buildings dont always do equal or any damage to units. A lot of incendiary weapons, would be used to damage infrastructure, while not realy causing a lot of damage to units stationed there. However a small increase may be needed.

Mech Inf

Id leave them be, didnt really think about this

Motor Inf

I agree, Id like to see a tiny bump

Tank destroyer

I actually agree, thats a good idea, make it a good check on other tanks, but cut its AA and infantry,

Rocket Fighter

Range increase, ordmage increase. I dont want level 2 rockets there for it. But its range at least needs bump

Railgun

I dont see the issue with a small bump for AA, although I think the railgun is grand, maybe increase its range a bit for fun.

Just leave game alone. The devs already do balancing. Changing a bunch of stuff will break it.

Carlos Spicy-Wiener wrote:

Just leave game alone. The devs already do balancing. Changing a bunch of stuff will break it.

Thanks all for the replies, also from some of the ehm, usual suspects, I encounter in games that use tacs to great length, and highly effective as well.

Of everything I wrote, I consider tacs the biggest OP unit in the game, and since tacs are talked about the most in this topic, I will stick with those for now and forget the other units in this post.

The thing with tacs is, that though you can spam a bunch of high level AAs, its simply not enough against a dedicated tac user. I always thought it actually would - until a recent game against Wild opened my eyes and I found I was utterly wrong. Big tac stacks with figs alongside, assuming you dont have them yourselves because you picked another strategy, are simply unbeatable, period. Even the SBDE is not enough of a deterrent, because stacks are split up and still do massive damage. 9 AAs? Not a problem, ravaged within 3 hours against minimal losses.

@Czar: While I agree partially with your analysis of this game (S1914 do over, that was clear to me when I started my first game here), I think you do this game a bit short. A lot of the faults in 1914 were eliminated, and this therefore became a much better game. Sure it has issues, but what game doesnt?

What I just dont understand though, is the comment you make regarding simplicity and 'how it should be'. I'd imagine developers take pride in their product and want it to be as good as possible, as I will blatantly assume all devs at bytro are game fans. And everyone wants a good game right? That is balanced.

What use is there otherwise in having all those other units? Just remove them and save server space and lets have games with only tanks (LTs), tacs/figs and infantry/AA. Now boy thats fun!

I understand the reservations some have regarding nerfs - after all why nerf the best unit in the game that they love to use? The thing is, I dont want it to be nerfed into uselessness, I want it to be nerfed in such a way that its not a dead set strategy to go for those flying infinite bombs always and ever.

The core of the game might be a reworking of S1914. Yes, so what? Its a big upgrade. It has a lot of different units - allow players to use them and think of exiting new strategies and combos - now there is only 1 viable combo. And dont tell me there are alternatives - ive tried them all and not a single one is as powerful as the LT/tac combo.

ATs to counter lights? Oh no, its infantry class, still get raped 1 vs 1

MTs to counter lights? Sure, fine, oh wait, gone in an tac raid, there goes your expensive unit

AA to counter tacs? Sure, fine, oh wait, there are 20 LTs rampaging through your lands and AA isnt going to cut it.

Im exaggerating a bit of course to make a point.

Its not like its so much work in regard to code the different values...2 hours? tops? The way research works is fine as well, dont need to change that imo.

Oh, and I will still be stubborn enough to try and one day beat someone using this boring unimaginative tactic using something unorthodox as strategy while at other times I just want to win and use the tactic myself

@miech have you tried a Tac/LT/MT/SPAA/SPA combo?

.

.

CzarHellios wrote:

*Competitive Alliance Games(Team games on the 10/22 maps by far have the most depth in this game.

---This is a bit due to the war of manuver that exists in team matches on such a wide scale that does not exist elsewhere. As well as valid strategies that do include rushing with Armored Cars)).

The core of the problem as stated above is that we have multiple units that do the exact same job. Milita/Infantry. Their is no reason to ever build Militia. Strategics? No reason. Naval? No reason. Naval matters in this game are of a secondary concern, (Consider all the maps competitive matches are held on), and land matters are far more important.

Commandoes? Useless. Railroadguns? Useless. Rocket Fighters? The same. It' fulfills the same role as a Interceptor.

Spy Bombs

Commandos, are not useless, they are one of the most cost efficient units of the game. Lower upkeep than standard infantry. Although their infantry stands will struggle to compete with standard infantry, later in the game. Using commandos correctly, can be great. Railguns need a bump in stats against infantry and armor.

Rocket fighters, yea I guess rather useless, no range, and can be picked off easy enough...

@miech, you never mention interceptors. Like I said before, they kill tacticatl bombers with ease. AA in stacks combined with other units will do it good, too. At later game, SPAA is great also. But controlling your sky is mandatory. You will never be able to compete with others if you don't have strong airforce. It is a fact. Tactical bombers are very powerful, I agree with that. And I have shown that to many people who played against me. By I have also showed them that interceptors are even better. So, it is my opinion, tactical bombers are not overpowered like most people say. They are just units that works very good in combination with interceptors. As for countering them, I already said what are their enemies. If those enemies are present, one who rellies on tactical bombers can't just ignore them, he must either find other target or abort and get to plan B. And plan B is where diversity appears. You can try artillery, you can try rushing. Yes, that returns us to light tanks who are criticized by you, but as you can see, tactical bombers can be countered, but you can't just play without good airforce or allow enemy to have just too much units. Tactical bombers are probably the primary weapon of destruction in this game, but they are definitelly not good for every situation and are not impossible to stop if you plan well and early.

Thanks for all the comments guys, I dont know if it ever reaches the devs, I understand there is a tension between 'a good game' and 'making money' more then most. Ive been on both sides in life, but since I am a player here and not an employee, I will focus on the 'good game' part. For those who know the show Sillicon Valley, it almost seems like 'the Box' discussion

@Czar, dont worry, im not easily insulted. When I look at your argument, your core thoughts, seem to me, are that 'the game is as it is', with a simple core mechanic stolen/upgraded/copied from another game. Yes, thats true, but I guess that can be said for every game in the history of gaming. All games have a 'red thread' in story/mechanics/gameplay, you name it. I disagree with you, however, because though the mechanics are all the same, the enviroment in which they are activated and work (or not) are all different (though still all a numbers game). Defensive vs offensive, terrain (I agree it could have better impact, being more diverse) or stack variety (or lack of).

I dont want tacs to be useless, I want them to be viable, 'just right'. Just like all the other units. Thats my core point I want to make in fact. How it is done is up for discussion. Gladly even, I dont know everything either. So be it in reducing SBDE for tacs, lower their values, raise upkeep, whatever. Look at it like those sliders from S1914 - just tweaking a bit here and there so there is encouragement, not force, to use variation, et voila, everything is in the green. Surely you tac spammers out there, all capable players (I know, Ive played you ) would like a more diverse challenge? Who can possibly be against that? Unless people are fine having 'discovered' the ideal tactic and just want to stick to it, resisting change and novelties. I cant argue against that very human emotion.

In an ideal situation, you have a stack consisting of all land units, with the limit of SBDE in mind per unit. To take a small detour towards what @Paramunac is saying, that is also the reason why fighter spam is ineffective against a combo fig/tac/sometimes even naval or strat as damage tankers. Because those other units have A: HP themselves B: surprisingly able to do a bit of damage towards fighters. So as defensive player, you are ALWAYS forced to have tacs yourself, because mono-fighter stacks will still lose against combo airstacks. Yes, its cheaper, so what. We are forgetting that fighters can only do 1 thing, while the combo air stack can do multiple things - like retreating, attacking another army etc. So the irony here is, in fact, that while for ground units it isnt cost effective to have a diverse stack, for airunits it is. And that flexibilty is far more important then the higher costs, as we are also forgetting that economy is laughably easy to manage, compared to S1914 (or HoI ). If Bytro would chose to half production values for instance...one can only hope.

Perhaps all of this, is because Im more of a strategist/tactician, then an 'operator', it even shines through my games, where I excel at diplomacy and long term thinking/extrapolating, yet am perhaps mediocre in effective actual use of units.

Lastly, though indeed units have similar roles, the way they execute it is different. AT or TD? Well, that depends on a lot of factors. Upkeep, what resources your core provinces have a lot of (oil or grain?) or...the opposing army. TDs would be better against LTs, while ATs are better against mediums/heavies. Same goes for most other units. Its the tried and true rock/paper/scissors model a lot of strategy games use - and its a fine model. I would be pleased however, if we could make it rock/paper/scissors/lizard/Spock (insert Big Bang Theory show). If you have severe rares issues, then rockets and commandos might not be for you. But if you play Canada on the 22P map, you are almost forced to go for a rocket strategy.

Para, I forgot to mention, I completely agree with your analyses, mind you. An airforce is important in this game, and it should. It should not be a 'wunderwaffe' though.

I also agree regarding the SPAAs, I try to go for them as soon as I realise my opponent uses the combo. Sometimes I am in time, sometimes Im too late.

We talked about Mech infs earlier. ironically, maybe they can be the anti-tac/LT unit for late game - their AA defense is quite high and they match the strength of LTs on lvl 1, and outshines them (also in speed) in stats on higher levels. Now there is the issue where to find all that grain to produce/upkeep them....

I will still try often enough to see if people like you and Wild can be beaten by a perfect counter tactic - I just havent found it (yet?).

PS: Spy bombs suck, unless used in VERY large numbers (costly hobby too, only viable on 50/100p map). Airfields still work at 60% strength...

@CzarHelios: Please stop spreading rumours about what Bytro thinks or does or what you think was said in private chat groups. There are 2 possibilities: 1) You claims are baseless, then spreading that info is wrong as it misguides other people. 2) your claims are true and it is leaking of internal/personal information, which is against the rules. So either way, that's an official warning to stop posting stuff like that. Thanks.

To the others who were reading here: Of course we want to make a great game, that's why we are always thankful for your feedback. A great game is more likely to be financially successful, so there is no reason for us to make it intentionally bad or bland. CoW Support will continue and you can keep the feedback coming .

freezy wrote:

@CzarHelios: Please stop spreading rumours about what Bytro thinks or does or what you think was said in private chat groups. There are 2 possibilities: 1) You claims are baseless, then spreading that info is wrong as it misguides other people. 2) your claims are true and it is leaking of internal/personal information, which is against the rules. So either way, that's an official warning to stop posting stuff like that. Thanks.

To the others who were reading here: Of course we want to make a great game, that's why we are always thankful for your feedback. A great game is more likely to be financially successful, so there is no reason for us to make it intentionally bad or bland. CoW Support will continue and you can keep the feedback coming .

I appreciate the criticism of the OP and even Czar (though he was being a bit overzealous). Light tanks and Tac stacks is all a player currently needs to dominate a continent in this game. I like to play using the entire roster of units despite the fact that it is a hinderance. Statistic values need to be changed all around to make our beloved CoW a great and unique MMO wargame. That will keep player retention. That will make the company more money.

@freezy, I suddenly have a FP account, this topic has anything to do with it?

If changes are thought up regarding unit strengths, or other modifications, feel free to send me a message for a skype talk. My end goal is a balanced, diverse approach where ALL units are useful - now some just...arent (or in rare cases). I have multiple ideas how to implement it. For an example of a game where things are (relatively) balanced, look towards Hearthstone. At the core of the game, the mechanics are not even that different (A counters B, B counters D, D counters X and Y etc), if one looks past the fact the 2 games are very different genres.

What mfncff above me wrote, is the essence of what I want to say, sometimes I am a man of (too) many words because of my incessive need to cover all the dots and pre-emptively parry likely counterarguments.