Diversity of effective units

Not only is miech a man of many words, he is also adept at inventing new words.

For example, in the previous post, he uses "incessive", which is a combination of "incisive" and "excessive".

Very clever fella!

mfncff wrote:

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.

.

Czar got Nikolai Yezhov'd. I guess it is more a matter of player activity Oceanhawk. In 12 hours a dedicated player can run a mass of light tanks 150km into his enemie's nation. He can bombard several different armies into dust with his tactical bombers. The engine should offer real counter measures besides being so active oneself. Perhaps, reserve unit orders (units react via AI against an adjacent province). Also, perhaps AA could have an range attack against air units (so that they may provide air cover to a battle from relative safety 15km away. Interceptors should do as their name implies and offer an automated interception of enemy air units within range.

As is, dedicated players (who login every 12 hours or shorter) favor a totally unreal and imbalanced mechanized army due to the over powered strengths of those two key units when used so consistently.

mfncff wrote:

Czar got Nikolai Yezhov'd. I guess it is more a matter of player activity Oceanhawk. In 12 hours a dedicated player can run a mass of light tanks 150km into his enemie's nation. He can bombard several different armies into dust with his tactical bombers. The engine should offer real counter measures besides being so active oneself. Perhaps, reserve unit orders (units react via AI against an adjacent province). Also, perhaps AA could have an range attack against air units (so that they may provide air cover to a battle from relative safety 15km away. Interceptors should do as their name implies and offer an automated interception of enemy air units within range.

As is, dedicated players (who login every 12 hours or shorter) favor a totally unreal and imbalanced mechanized army due to the over powered strengths of those two key units when used so consistently.

Light tanks, can be stopped and cut off, they are usually faster than whatever troops somebody may send behind, usually I will send infantry behind my tanks, for reasons Im not going to mention, however light tanks can be cut fast.

Light tank and tac mix, are the tallest tower, however their base is weak, pull on brick and it all falls, where as pull a brick from some other mixes, and they dont fall as much. I still think that mix is the best. But there are ways around it.

really we need interceptors and fight air craft, and them to be disgugished, however right now, Lt and Tac bombers can be beaten, however it is hard. And activity is not the only way to beat them, Maybe in the early days of the game, but since the intro of the SP units, including tank destroyers, I think that tactic can be beaten, without pure activity.

oceanhawk wrote:

mfncff wrote:

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.

Light Tanks and Tacs, have more weaknesses than you think

miech wrote:

Feel free to try and win a game versus a WildL or Paramunac, 2 examples of players who mastered the combination to near perfection. If you succeed, come back and tell us how you did it. If you fail....well, dont say I didnt told you so.

miech wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

mfncff wrote:

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.

Light Tanks and Tacs, have more weaknesses than you think

Feel free to try and win a game versus a WildL or Paramunac, 2 examples of players who mastered the combination to near perfection. If you succeed, come back and tell us how you did it. If you fail....well, dont say I didnt told you so.

Paramunac, yea it was CoA and my alliance went inactive, but I didnt expect that, and didnt play well.

Im saying it is the best tactic, but there are ways around it. Not always is it mastered however

I guess we can shake hands then Ocean, I am still trying to search for an effective countertactic, that is also effective in general. Who knows? You might actually find a good player that decided they want to try something else then this tired old ubertactic.

I might have found one, but have yet to test it against a strong Zerg rusher on equal terms (say roughly same army size and economy)

...And I need my country to be able to handle said unit mixup. Not all countries will be able to handle this counter economically, while the Zerg rush is doable by basically any country (well, aside Egypt I guess)

miech wrote:

I guess we can shake hands then Ocean, I am still trying to search for an effective countertactic, that is also effective in general. Who knows? You might actually find a good player that decided they want to try something else then this tired old ubertactic.

I might have found one, but have yet to test it against a strong Zerg rusher on equal terms (say roughly same army size and economy)

...And I need my country to be able to handle said unit mixup. Not all countries will be able to handle this counter economically, while the Zerg rush is doable by basically any country (well, aside Egypt I guess)

Eitherway, against the less skilled tac and light mix, there are counters, but I can admit that you gotta get your thinking cap on, when faced against Paramunic and wildl

oceanhawk wrote:

I am trying to experiment with tank destroyers.

They are awesome! So good against tanks. They're great! They are in all my stacks now.

Pablo22510 wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

I am trying to experiment with tank destroyers.

If you haven't already, you are pretty stupid. No offense meant, but when they released them, I fell in love with them. They are awesome! So good against tanks. They're great! They are in all my stacks now.

otherwise I do use them, they nice indeed

oceanhawk wrote:

miech wrote:

I guess we can shake hands then Ocean, I am still trying to search for an effective countertactic, that is also effective in general. Who knows? You might actually find a good player that decided they want to try something else then this tired old ubertactic.

I might have found one, but have yet to test it against a strong Zerg rusher on equal terms (say roughly same army size and economy)

...And I need my country to be able to handle said unit mixup. Not all countries will be able to handle this counter economically, while the Zerg rush is doable by basically any country (well, aside Egypt I guess)

I am trying to expieriment with Tank destroyers and SP AA, however early on, you will struggle. With opening days, dominated by infantry, having tac bombers is a huge advantage and light tanks you can have researched and in production very fast. Where as trying to adapt to SP AA and tank destroyers, might be an effective counter how ever will only be an option later into the game.

Eitherway, against the less skilled tac and light mix, there are counters, but I can admit that you gotta get your thinking cap on, when faced against Paramunic and wildl

Ive experienced that its 'hard' to switch your army composition midgame, and you end up doing lots of things at the same time, none truly effective. But perhaps thats just me.

I would really like to test it in the players league for instance, but with the 30 day cap that is in place, some of the more natural counters (SPAA/TD/Mechinf) come into play too late.

On smaller maps, games tend to be decided by day 10-15 if a competent player is around (and owns 1/4th of the map or more).

Which goes back to all my points I made earlier - from game quality perspective a developer, in my view, should always try and prevent there being '1 tactic to rule them all'. Hearthstone, as I mentioned, does a decent job in keeping things fresh.

Paratroopers for instance are possibly the next OP unit if implemented wrong, I cant be in favor of those because of it (or made very expensive, say the cost of a strat bomber or even more). I can already think of 3 to 5 ways to utterly abuse them. The aircraft carriers on the other hand, seem to be 'just right' at least in my opinion.

miech wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

miech wrote:

I guess we can shake hands then Ocean, I am still trying to search for an effective countertactic, that is also effective in general. Who knows? You might actually find a good player that decided they want to try something else then this tired old ubertactic.

I might have found one, but have yet to test it against a strong Zerg rusher on equal terms (say roughly same army size and economy)

...And I need my country to be able to handle said unit mixup. Not all countries will be able to handle this counter economically, while the Zerg rush is doable by basically any country (well, aside Egypt I guess)

I am trying to expieriment with Tank destroyers and SP AA, however early on, you will struggle. With opening days, dominated by infantry, having tac bombers is a huge advantage and light tanks you can have researched and in production very fast. Where as trying to adapt to SP AA and tank destroyers, might be an effective counter how ever will only be an option later into the game.Eitherway, against the less skilled tac and light mix, there are counters, but I can admit that you gotta get your thinking cap on, when faced against Paramunic and wildl

I found TDs have a nice little 'hidden' bonus stat compared to regular tanks. So I think I will build them more now that I saw it. It can be found, but you have to know where to look and what to compare. Your analyses, however, is spot on. Early game you will be struggling, if you 'know' you are going to go for the countertactic. It might be too late, it might not (depends on the board, obviously).

Ive experienced that its 'hard' to switch your army composition midgame, and you end up doing lots of things at the same time, none truly effective. But perhaps thats just me.

I would really like to test it in the players league for instance, but with the 30 day cap that is in place, some of the more natural counters (SPAA/TD/Mechinf) come into play too late.

On smaller maps, games tend to be decided by day 10-15 if a competent player is around (and owns 1/4th of the map or more).

Which goes back to all my points I made earlier - from game quality perspective a developer, in my view, should always try and prevent there being '1 tactic to rule them all'. Hearthstone, as I mentioned, does a decent job in keeping things fresh.

Paratroopers for instance are possibly the next OP unit if implemented wrong, I cant be in favor of those because of it (or made very expensive, say the cost of a strat bomber or even more). I can already think of 3 to 5 ways to utterly abuse them. The aircraft carriers on the other hand, seem to be 'just right' at least in my opinion.

Maybe we make another game, similar to players league, but to test tactics against good strong players like yourself and a few others. Id say we will get some support.

Paratroopers, will be OP unless implemented prop, indeed. But again I think they need to add transport aircraft, or something similar to keep balancing. As well as a embarking times and a dropping/ re assembling time, when they have landed. Maybe 90 min.

I think CV's are grand, and I agree with ya there

I remember from S1914 that an ex alliance mate started something called Top of the Tops. It was a game where the elite of the elite were to join. You could apply, but you were judged by the leader of the series by either your service record, or from personal playing experience - service record doesnt always tell how good someone is (I could have a 5 vs 1 KD if I wanted to, by playing only noobs with the zombie LT/tac tactic in mind).

In CoW for instance, you cant see how many games are won, or what the 'quality' of your opponents is (ELO for instance)

If you wanted to start such a thing, I would be happy to sign up assuming Im considered good enough.

You could make it a regular game, or game with limitations (banning tacs and rockets, or LTs, or some other fun variable. You are limited by your own creativity ).

Id say start small (10p map or maybe 22p if you know 21 very good players).

You are probably reading through the lines I dont want to lead such a thing - the Players League is enough for me as active player.

miech wrote:

I remember from S1914 that an ex alliance mate started something called Top of the Tops. It was a game where the elite of the elite were to join. You could apply, but you were judged by the leader of the series by either your service record, or from personal playing experience - service record doesnt always tell how good someone is (I could have a 5 vs 1 KD if I wanted to, by playing only noobs with the zombie LT/tac tactic in mind).

In CoW for instance, you cant see how many games are won, or what the 'quality' of your opponents is (ELO for instance)

If you wanted to start such a thing, I would be happy to sign up assuming Im considered good enough.

You could make it a regular game, or game with limitations (banning tacs and rockets, or LTs, or some other fun variable. You are limited by your own creativity ).

Id say start small (10p map or maybe 22p if you know 21 very good players).

You are probably reading through the lines I dont want to lead such a thing - the Players League is enough for me as active player.

Hahaha.

might be a good idea, not ranked obviously, just to test, might be good

I nominate miech and ocean to head this up. btw miech, if a player focuses on TAC it's probably because they are interested in winning. It doesn't necessarily mean they would suddenly become ineffectual without TAC.

@DxC: Naturally the player doesnt become 'less good'. Unless they are a rare breed and cant do anything without their precious tacs.

Its the units I criticise, not the will to win. Most people have a winning mentality in small or large amounts when playing games, so its quite natural people flock to the best tactic - I aim towards a situation that there isnt 1 tactic(al) to rule them all.

Yesterday, I encountered yet another example - I brought plenty of AA, upgraded as well, utterly useless. I wonder if I actually killed a tac or 2.

It didnt help that once I destroyed an airfield where those gazillion tacs came from, the tacs got a new 'base'. Bye bye 20-25 units. Im starting to wish back the situation 'before', where airplanes were locked at an airbase. Unrealistic? Yes. Gameplaywise? Perhaps to be favored.

Even though the new banned Czar mentioned some things here and there - I refuse to believe that Bytro keeps introducing new units for the heck of it. Why bother spending manhours, which cost a company money making a product that is useless? I like to think more positive and that those units are being introduced for people to actually use - and enrichen the experience of the game.

miech wrote:

I brought plenty of AA

unit pwr HP build upkeep

TAC 2.5 30 30 60f 100o

AA 6.0 10 12 40f

Assuming not in mountains, on average you would need 5 AA per 4 TAC to break even. If in mountains multiply the AA numbers by 1.33, for example 5 -> 6.66.

30HP / 6 = 5 AA

10HP / 2.5 = 4 TAC

build time for 4 TAC = 120 hrs

build time for 5 AA = 60 hrs

upkeep for 4 TAC = 240 food, 400 oil

upkeep for 5 AA = 200 food

The numbers tell me that it shouldn't be hard to defend the TAC attack.

You are very right there, I suppose. In theory that is indeed what happens, or should happen. In practice that means something different. You might not be online to keep churning the AA units (I assume no HC here), and that also occupies spots for non-reactive units.

It is what I mentioned earlier. There are several reasons why the Zerg approach is too good. You always have the initiative vs a non Zerg player, and the 2 core units (LT and Tac) are so damned effective together, that it takes away all the fun. AA bugging you? No problem, send in the LTs. No AA? well, kiss your nicely balanced army with expensive units goodbye. Upkeep? Rarely a problem, you do your upkeep by taking lands agressively. This only becomes a real problem later on in the world map, but by then you own half the world and it doesnt matter much anymore what you do, anyway

We are distracting ourselves with micro stuff here, and in a macro sense tacs are OP - LTs arent, unless combined with tacs. I am currently beating a player with mixed tactics myself, while he exclusively builds LTs and perhaps a stray AT. I can tell you that I have no problem churning tacs then and grind him into the ground without much effort. I even sent him a message, hinting it might not be the best approach. No AA, no figs, nothing to counter my growing army of deathplanes. In such a case you are asking for it, because I in fact builded a counter to HIS army (and be flexible).

The thing is, I WANT you to be right in practice, that means that if enough people perfect counters them, they stop eventually. Since basically all players worth a penny use it, it tells me it doesnt. Ask any known good player - any at all, find just one of them, and have them tell (here) that they have consistent success with mixed tactics against other good/top players that Zerg. If they do, Id like to see them write a play by play what I have to do to win against an active, good Zerg (without Zerging myself, obviously).

I seem to be missing something here apparently, and I like to know what. The experience of smiling when a Zerg player attacks me is something I should be looking forward to, not consider a rage quit.