Radical idea to reduce the benefit of blobbing

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Illegal_Carrot]

Yeah, you don't really reach spam levels until you start facing at least six MGs or ATGs, for more than three mortars.
It's when your opponents is able to constantly recrew his weapons, that's when it starts to seem like spam. Just destroy his stuff.

[Tymathee]

Open cover is what's used. IIRC, Default cover isn't actually used anywhere in the game.

okay, so the original idea is moot, there is a bonus for firing at units in open cover already.

[NightRain]

just applie these to elite infantry blobs and we're fine.

[Illegal_Carrot]

okay, so the original idea is moot, there is a bonus for firing at units in open cover already.

But whether there currently is a bonus or not, it's obviously not doing enough. So the suggestion is still viable, but with a change to 1.3 or 1.4 rather than 1.1 or 1.2.

Besides, not all weapons have the 1.25 modifiers. Most do, but not all.

[Zeyl]

A point where I want to say something - i generally experiences while playing my rounds EiR.

In most cases troops don't care if they are in the open or in cover. It depends on the support of others units - when is a single unit fighting against another? I haven't experienced that (or, to be concrete, I experienced it... and saw my troops die without making noticeable damage). In almost every case trenches, covers... are just useless. The micromanagement itself, because troops aren't able to do much alone - the macromanagement, that is what counts. How you deploy your whole force, and how you attack. And that... really annoys me. Little ambushes, bunkers, as long as you have no bigger supporting units around, they're not doing too much damage. Not enough for their own costs, at least.

I really admire the idea of EiR, but still: it's not tactical enough for me. In EiR you have to deploy a whole force of units fitting together, in the Blitzkrieg-Mod for example it counts much more how you act in the field. Running with some infantry over a field, getting into a MG-ambush? If you don't get yourself fast enough a cover, it happens that the whole troops are just dead in seconds. A good hit from a hidden ATG in the side of a passing tank? The tank burns and explodes. Of course it's more deadly, and it's fucking hard not letting your company die, but that's what I like in it. A wrong move and you feel the consequences.

If I'm attacking a ATG from the rear with a light vehicle.... hell, i have to maneuver it for minutes around it, while it tries to turn, letting the management of my other troops down. If enemy infantry blobs are running against mgs behind sandsacks in a small passage, they're just overwhelming them.
It feels wrong.

(Besides, Bunkers are totaly useless, too. Their benefits are nothing for the fact that you have to construct them so long AND buy pioneers, which are pretty useless... when the cover they build is almost unimportant.)

[AmPM]

Cover wins and losses fights quite often. If the enemy is able to run straight at your HMG maybe you should have a damage unit there too, like Pio's with Flamer to kill the suppressed men.

Blitzkrieg mod is ok, its not really tactical, but its ok. Sadly, the CoH engine is not good for realism. Nor does realism make a fun game.

[NightRain]

Generally I enjoy the tactical aspects of EIRR: while its NOT realistic it is actually a lot more tactical than most games I've played. The only thing that makes it more tactical is that every unit counts. For example loosing a Tiger or a Calliope is a gamechanging thing. A huge blob of infantry SHOULD defeat a HMG by default, why? HMG is 270mp and 40 mun 3 pop unit. It shouldn't be able to deal with a 25 pop of infantry- its only natural that it'd lose

Bunkers, while they can be useful and useless depends on the situation. Arty wars makes bunkers excellent cover to hide from the open when shells starts to land (Unless bunker itself is targeted) The same wrong move tactic is much more fatal in EIRR. One wrong move, ho crap your King Tiger is engine damaged and rendered useless for the rest of the battle due to its slow speed. OR Jagdpanther lost its engine or you just happened to lose your calliope that was the only arty your entire allied team had vs a axis doomfort.

One tiny mistake is game costing saying EIRR isn't tactical is like saying that cow's dont eat hay.

[ImmanioEiR]

I still feel that the main blob problem in EiR is elite infantry with fire up. Others may have different experiences, but it seems to me blobs without fire up aren't all that common, nor too hard to counter with suppression. Thus my previous suggestion based on Silverstone's idea that fire up be given a blob disadvantage (ala the pioblob modifier).
http://forums.europeinruins.com/index.php?topic=16446.0

In any case, I'm all for making blobs less effective, but I'm not completely certain whether blobs in general is the problem or whether it's fire up-blobs in particular.

[Smokaz]

Still think a change with the same intent as the one outlined in the original post would have a beneficial effect on EIRR gameplay as a isolated benefit.

Whether it would be a pioblob type of modifier - a change to the basic open cover modifiers - or something similiar it would hurt a lot of 'tactics' associated with the impression of poor or bad gameplay.

Assault grenade - type of abilties - used in the open frontally - would to a larger degree demand to be used under smoke effects to remain effective - which makes a lot of sense to me.

Fireup - cloaking in the open - sprinting in the open - would all receive signficant nerfs by this. Charging mg's would be a no-go and actually force squads to use fireup time to go around the mg not head into the fire directly.

It would also cause assault nade type of abilities to be part of a genuine flank when used in the open, instead of a "your unit is only supposed to be good at deterring frontal attack, but here I have an ability on a unit that negates its only use".

[Spartan_Marine88]

Nor does realism make a fun game.

I disagree. COH engine can be used to emulate Realism, and realism can be fun.

Persistancy plus Realism can't be fun though.

[AmPM]

Nah, realism does not make a fun game.

If it did most of your time in a military RTS would be spent sorting supplies, making sure they are delivered or making sure you got the right shit. Then you'd simulate sitting in some shitty environment for hours before anything happened if anything did happen.

[skaffa]

In any case, I'm all for making blobs less effective, but I'm not completely certain whether blobs in general is the problem or whether it's fire up-blobs in particular.

I think this is a pretty good point. Which blobs are exactly the problem. I think blobbing is more of a problem when you are playing AS axis vs a blobbing allied than vice versa.
Blobbing is bad when they rush you and you cant stop them. Axis are better long range so blobbing towards the allies does not mean insta win, while Allied blobs moving forward are hard to stop as they are strongest up close.
I probably find Airborne blob with mass fire up, RR and BARs the most gay. Its very powerfull and counters everything, so its unstoppable.
Then we have the brit blobs, designed to stay close together (LT), also quite annoying to deal with.

[Smokaz]

Best part is when you charge the AB blob with pumas, here's the STONE to your scissors, bitch!

And then his AB activates AW and zooks all your pumas

[Spartan_Marine88]

Nah, realism does not make a fun game.

If it did most of your time in a military RTS would be spent sorting supplies, making sure they are delivered or making sure you got the right shit.

A general would never do this task, its called delegation.

Close Combat, perhaps the best rts of all time, and the most realistic

Best part is when you charge the AB blob with pumas, here's the STONE to your scissors, bitch!

And then his AB activates AW and zooks all your pumas

And because AW is so weak, your pumas still roll them and you laugh

[AmPM]

Indeed, except it never dealt with what the military does for most of its time.

Also, rarely would a general directly tell his units where to go on a battlefield at the unit level we are talking about.

So even more exciting, you would say "Go take this hill", and then watch the game unfold.

[Spartan_Marine88]

So even more exciting, you would say "Go take this hill", and then watch the game unfold.

Actually Generals do quite a bit more then that, and create large plans that deal with the strategic more then the Tactical

Go take that hill, would actually be,

Phase 3. 1900 hrs second platoon is to launch sweeping pincer on hill 115
3rd platoon ready artillery to help take 115
etc.

[AmPM]

Yes, but it would still be incredibly boring gameplay =)

I see ourselves more as Majors.

[panzerman]

play ruse if u like that shit lawl!

[Mister Schmidt]

saying EIRR isn't tactical is like saying that cow's dont eat hay.

Cows eat grass.

[RoyalHants]

Cows eat grass.

i think they eat both dont they ?