Overall Game Design

[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

[tank130]

I want to throw out my thoughts on the direction I would like to see this mod go.

When I first joined this mod 7 years ago, the game play was more about infantry and tactics. I feel now it has become more about vehicles and quick easy point & click methods of play. The increase of vehicles has resulted in a counter of mass AT.

Take a look at the reward units available. There is a disproportionate number of vehicle rewards over infantry rewards. We have also added a number of additional vehicle units that are not reward units.

In addition to all the vehicle units, we have added additional repairs. The argument often used is we need to preserve vehicles in a persistence environment.

It is the combination of a large catalog of vehicles and the increased survival rate that creates the need for excessive AT


I would like to propose a direction more along these lines. Obviously there needs to be tweaks and it is not a once size fits all for every faction. It is a general design direction I think would create a more diversified game. It also requires an open mind to changing unit composition and not forcing ourselves to think that every current unit must retain it's current ability.


Heavy tanks designed more to combat other heavies or mediums, but weak against infantry

Medium Tanks designed to be anti infantry and anti LV.

LV's good at anti support weapons, but weak to small arms. Best suited for flanks and recon

All vehicles should be weaker to AT, but AT should be much more expensive.
Repairs moved to repair units that are very weak. Repairs should be costly, but faster.

Heavy & medium tanks should be powerful, but must be handled carefully to avoid lose.

Heavy Tanks should not be able to take on AT weapons head on and win.

[TheVolskinator]

Ok, to address one point in particular, your opinion that 'LVs should be anti support weapon, but take small arms damage and are vulnerable to everything else; good for recon'. So, we're turning most if not every LV into a glorified jeep with larger guns strapped to them? For clarification, I mean, LVs have larger HP pools than jeeps but are basically as vulnerable to small arms as the old vCoH PE scout cars or infantry halftracks; they can defect SOME small arms but will usually be penetrated. Meaning, basically, small arms will faceroll them if you catch an LV with two or more squads.

If, for example, we make the M8 a jeep with a larger HP pool, that makes it an even less attractive option than it is now, since the main cannon is basically garbage and the .50cal gunner has a massive magnet strapped to his helmet (i.e. he dies a lot, to most anything, even rock-armed Pios). With its new 'jeep w. lotsa HP' status, now the M8 needs to run away from small arms--this means that now the M8 needs to run screaming from a G43 or LMG blob--meaning you can get away with just grabbing as many G43s/LMGs/MG42s as possible, ignoring shrecks, since LVs get scared off by small arms.

Why not just get a Jeep for recon? It has a large LoS and can detect cloaked units; it's also dirt cheap.

What would happen to, for example, .30cal AP rounds, which in the 'rifles need zooks, k mang?' thread you brought to the table as a primary means of warding off LVs? What's the point of buying AP rounds if the base MG can just wreck any LV that comes into range anyway? That's a good upgrade, voice files, and a cool-looking 'overheating barrel' FX effect down the drain.

What about medium tanks? If my blob of BARs can kill any Puma that comes within range, why do I need to bother with any Shermans if medium tanks are made to kill LVs and infantry, but (I'm taking this as an implied point) not other mediums? If that's the case I'd just stuff more BARs and ATGs into my company; who the hell needs stickies if LVs get shredded if they attempt to rush an ATG?

-----

Heavy tanks are made to ONLY fight other heavies and mediums...well okay, if the enemy chooses not to field any tanks because of the new infantry-based environment, why bother getting any heavy tanks? That's MP and fuel I could be dumping into more howitzers, nebels, or infantry.

If the heavies are to be made as vulnerable to AT as medium tanks are, what would be the point of taking a heavy tank when I could get two more mobile medium tanks that can snipe infantry in its place? If the enemy brings a heavy out, I can just call an ATG in and pen it to death.

-----

If we made all AT more expensive, then the M10, M18, Firefly, Marder, Hetzer, and StuG all become even less common than they currently are. The Panther would have nearly zero opposition, but then again little point to exist since you could deal with Allied infantry with LMG blobs and tanks with Paks (and heavies such as the Churchill and Pershing would have gone from having a slim chance to ricochet shots to having nearly no chance).

Also, then, why would I EVER buy a doctrinal Bazooka for a rifleman squad--probably the worst platform for HHAT in the game--if it costed (I'm ballparking a doubling of all AT pricing, just for reference) 110 MU, when I could get two BARs (under my vet overhaul, 55 MU each) or two Grease Guns or a whole mess of mines or, for the price of not-taking two REALLY REALLY SHITTY BAZOOKAS, a sniper!

What then of ATGs? I really don't fancy lugging a 760 MP, 280 MU ATG around if it's just going to eat a single shell from, say, an Axis turbo mortar and then the crew drops dead. In moves the really really scary Gren blob/group/whatever, and now I can't get my investment back. Or, it gets nuked by a nice, cheap 90 MU Goliath...

Holy crap, Goliaths would be even MORE attractive than they are now! You nuke the 2-3 ATGs that an average player could afford and then bring on the pair/trio of medium tanks and hey presto, the enemy player is completely SOL; Piats are 220 MU (assuming price goes from 100 to a reasonable 110 MU), and on a meh platform, RRs are an ungodly 300 MU, Ranger bazookas are 160 MU, or, for a full package, it goes from 200 (130/70 split of SMGs/Zooks) to 270 MU (130/140 split). Yikes!

What would we do about the infantry balance then? I have to say, and I think nearly everyone in the community would agree on this point, that Gren LMGs basically render riflemen invalid and will chew up and spit out Tommies, with or without upgrades, with only a modicum more effort. You can almost literally a-move with four Gren LMGs and absolutely wreck the face of any allied infantry that stumble into range. We'd either have to give Rifles and Tommies some sort of massive buff, or start slashing prices to retarded levels; 120 MP rifles so that you could get a 2:1 ratio going (I think Grens can comfortably eat two rifle squads assuming two players of equal skill are using the units) and at least hope to attrition the enemy to death.

Then, with the 2:1 ratio, deployment times come into the picture; after having to deploy twice the amount of infantry, after a  good half hour I'm now sitting on my laurels for 30-45 seconds waiting for my next callin to arrive. Or, I make 20-25 pop callins to get around this, which murders any flexibility I could have to react to new threats.

-------------------

It's a lot of theory crafting, and tank will quote it, sum it up as mindless QQ, and tell me to 'L2P, drop the crying, these changes are fine and would work perfectly', but ffs, I do not like the implied consequences of these proposed changes--Allied non-doc infantry SUCKS against Axis infantry (not including Volks), and Allied elite troops just about draw even...the amount of overhauling we'd have to do is daunting, and then we run into the problem of squabbling within the dev team and community on how to re-balance all of the infantry.

I base all of my previous text on the assumption that we would purposefully make all forms of armor, LV or otherwise, more rare than it is even in OMG mod, be it by nerfs, price increases, harcaps, or some combination therein.

[Tachibana]

Rather than writing an essay, I'll just keep it simple: Why re-invent the wheel?

If you want to make vehicles less durable, removing double repair kits and moving repairs to engineers (assuming there is still an attached munitions cost) should be enough.

Secondly, and I know this may be a blanket statement, but vehicles are MORE FUN. If I really wanted to play grindy, strategic matches where vehicles are secondary considerations and Artillery and infantry is the main method to victory, I would play a shit ton more OMG. I like EIR because it is more vehicle centric. It is less strategic but more tactical and far more fast paced(since vehicles are faster than inf). Even then, in this vehicle centric game, infantry based companies still excel (elite armour grens, airborne cap rush, cloak fall spam, nade mando's, Defensive volkspam, Blitz volksturm, smoke rifles).

The fast pace of the game makes it far more frenetic and consequently, far more difficult to play. At the same time, once you put in your reps and get stomped, it makes learning it and finally winning games far more satisfying.

[Walkin]

Overall, I like the idea. vCoH, vCoH2, and EiR are all far too invested in vehicles that move super fast, travel super smoothly, and can stop/turn on a dime. The most powerful doctrine unlocks/abilities are almost always the one that increase your company's speed/acceleration/maneuverability (Sprint, Fire Up, Keep It Moving, Lightning War, etc.), and they usually do it in particularly unrealistic and gimmicky ways. Across the board, I think vehicles could use a reduction in their acceleration and turret rotation. Anything with wheels can remain relatively untouched in terms of movement (but have a tougher time navigating terrain!), but anything with tracks ought to have its acceleration reduced by a fair amount. Top speeds can remain about the same, but it should take a longer time to get up to that top speed, especially for heavier vehicles. The heavier the vehicle, the greater the penalty should be. Tigers and Pershings should be lumbering giants on the battlefield, not the magical smooth-maneuvering, fast-driving, quick-rotating weapons platforms they currently are. The Tiger Ace was especially bad about this.

 Right now there's hardly any difference between the various light and medium vehicles factions have access to; for example, there's hardly any real different between the Stuart and the Staghound, despite the fact that one is a wheeled vehicle and one is a tracked tank. They have slightly different guns, but that's honestly the only noticeable difference between them.

I'd like to see AT guns get an increase in accuracy, but a drastic decrease in damage (57mms two-shotting StuGs and Ostwinds is just absurd). I'd also like to see them made less clunky and more reliable. As effective as an AT gun may be, they're simply not fun to use due to how unwieldy they are. I'd also like to see support weapons in general turned into full 5-man squads, instead of the piddly 3-man teams they are now, though that's a discussion for another time.

Overall, I feel like the strengths, weaknesses, and functions of units, especially vehicles, should be more pronounced, leading to a greater need for combined arms and unit variety. The reason spam/gimmick companies are so effective is because those units are so easily able to overcome their weaknesses all on their own, especially en masse.

[TheVolskinator]

Carrot, a Shreck blob can overcome its weakness--not being bulletproof, when used en masse, since Gren rifles are so fantastic.

It's a staple tactic of OMG, and translates well into EiR.

ATGs don't 2-shot StuGs without Vet, tank reapers, and AP rounds. Same goes for Ostwinds, ATGs aren't that effective.

This is also CoH, it's not supposed to be realistic. If you want realism, I'll gladly throw in realistic Shermans, straight out of my realism mod, that have an 80m turning radius and take somewhere around 30s to reach their top speed (and I'd limit them to 3rd/4th gear--9-15 mp/h; 4.023/6.706 in in-game speed--when not on a road). Problem being, nobody would want to use them then.

[tank130]

Volks, your posts are so full of sarcasm and child speak I can't get past the first 4 lines. Try again in a little more adult fashion and I will have look.

[TheVolskinator]

Ok, to address one point in particular, your opinion that 'LVs should be anti support weapon, but take small arms damage and are vulnerable to everything else; good for recon'.

So, we're turning LVs into jeeps that have larger HP pools than jeeps but are basically as vulnerable to small arms as the old vCoH PE scout cars or infantry halftracks; they can defect SOME small arms but will usually be penetrated?

If, for example, we make the M8 a 'jeep with a larger HP pool', that...

-Makes it an even less attractive option than it is now, since the main cannon is basically garbage and the .50cal gunner has a massive magnet strapped to his helmet (i.e. he dies a lot, to most anything, even rock-armed Pios).
-Means that you would need to flee from mobs of non-AT equipped infantry...

Why not just get a Jeep for recon? It has a large LoS and can detect cloaked units; it's also dirt cheap.

What would happen to, for example, .30cal AP rounds, which  you brought to the table as a primary means of warding off LVs? What's the point of buying AP rounds if the base MG can just wreck any LV that comes into range anyway? That's a good upgrade, voice files, and a cool-looking 'overheating barrel' FX effect down the drain.

What about medium tanks? If my blob of BARs can kill any Puma that comes within range, why do I need to bother with any Shermans if medium tanks are made to kill LVs and infantry, but (I'm taking this as an implied point) not other mediums?

-----

Heavy tanks are made to ONLY fight other heavies and mediums...

-If the enemy chooses not to field any tanks because of the new infantry-based environment, why bother getting any heavy tanks? That's MP and fuel I could be dumping into more howitzers, nebels, or infantry.
-If the heavies are to be made as vulnerable to AT as medium tanks are, what would be the point of taking a heavy tank when I could get two more mobile medium tanks that can snipe infantry in its place? If the enemy brings a heavy out, I can just call an ATG in and pen it to death.

-----

If we made all AT more expensive, then the M10, M18, Firefly, Marder, Hetzer, and StuG all become even less common than they currently are. The Panther would have nearly zero opposition, but then again little point to exist since you could deal with Allied infantry with LMG blobs and tanks with Paks (and heavies such as the Churchill and Pershing would have gone from having a slim chance to ricochet shots to having nearly no chance).

Also, then, why would I EVER buy a doctrinal Bazooka for a rifleman squad--probably the worst platform for HHAT in the game--if it costed (I'm ballparking a doubling of all AT pricing, just for reference) 110 MU, when I could get two BARs (under my vet overhaul, 55 MU each) or two Grease Guns or a whole mess of mines or, for the price of not-taking two REALLY REALLY SHITTY BAZOOKAS, a sniper!

What then of ATGs? I really don't fancy lugging a 760 MP, 280 MU ATG around if it's just going to eat a single shell from, say, an Axis turbo mortar and then the crew drops dead. In moves the really really scary Gren blob/group/whatever, and now I can't get my investment back. Or, it gets nuked by a nice, cheap 90 MU Goliath...

Holy crap, Goliaths would be even MORE attractive than they are now! You nuke the 2-3 ATGs that an average player could afford and then bring on the pair/trio of medium tanks and hey presto, the enemy player is completely SOL; Piats are 220 MU (assuming price goes from 100 to a reasonable 110 MU), and on a meh platform, RRs are an ungodly 300 MU, Ranger bazookas are 160 MU, or, for a full package, it goes from 200 (130/70 split of SMGs/Zooks) to 270 MU (130/140 split). Yikes!

What would we do about the infantry balance then? I have to say, and I think nearly everyone in the community would agree on this point, that Gren LMGs basically render riflemen invalid and will chew up and spit out Tommies, with or without upgrades, with only a modicum more effort. You can almost literally a-move with four Gren LMGs and absolutely wreck the face of any allied infantry that stumble into range. We'd either have to give Rifles and Tommies some sort of massive buff, or start slashing prices to retarded levels; 120 MP rifles so that you could get a 2:1 ratio going (I think Grens can comfortably eat two rifle squads assuming two players of equal skill are using the units) and at least hope to attrition the enemy to death.

Then, with the 2:1 ratio, deployment times come into the picture; after having to deploy twice the amount of infantry, after a  good half hour I'm now sitting on my laurels for 30-45 seconds waiting for my next callin to arrive. Or, I make 20-25 pop callins to get around this, which murders any flexibility I could have to react to new threats.

Post modified, as seen above. Nothing present within that post is intended to be sarcastic, and I request all readers interpret all data points and/or theorycrafting as such.

[aeroblade56]

 Right now there's hardly any difference between the various light and medium vehicles factions have access to; for example, there's hardly any real different between the Stuart and the Staghound, despite the fact that one is a wheeled vehicle and one is a tracked tank. They have slightly different guns, but that's honestly the only noticeable difference between them.

I'd like to see AT guns get an increase in accuracy, but a drastic decrease in damage (57mms two-shotting StuGs and Ostwinds is just absurd).

drastic difference between the stuart and the staghound. besides the amazing MG the stag also gets cannister shot. and its maingun will hit infantry way more than the stuart ever will. the stuart will destroy PE vechs and give upgun pumas a run if not beat them. a staghound will get so rekt by upgun pumas and PE because its gun either doesnt do enough damage or doesnt pen( has trouble penetrating anything more than a LV)

The ostwind has around 600 hp i think which is nearly as much as a sherman and p4. the 57 does 150 damage a shot so you do the math. Likewise it will not kill a stug.

_______________________________________ __________________________

Fixing repairs to engineers will make a fair difference in the pace of the mod. i think that some doctrines should obviously allow faster repairs or better repairs.

As for the suggestion of increasing heavies ability to fight other heavies and mediums and such.

Allied units severly lack any real heavies. KT jagdpanther will put a pershing to sleep a tiger will destroy a pershing(toss up)
but aside from your pershing that cant even deal with a KT or JP you got nothing.

[Shabtajus]

Isn't it's the right time to calm down egos and start normal conversation? We all love this mod and it would be a great chance of improving it by sharing ideas instead of raging at each other lol.

Volski made some good point in his long ass post. But i feel like he is a little bit over reacting. Like tank130 said he wants less tanks/lvs spammy enviroment. I am a fan of tanks but it kind of got boring to be forced of using tanks/lvs/ spam based infantry companies. It's always the same strategies which limits your creativity since doctrines forced you to buy certain units what resulted into spam by default. All we (players) want is having a mod which gives you more abilities for units to make different strategies let it be gained via veterancy or make them cost resources. As for AT vs tank debates i made my point in previous posts. Add a wear and tear effect which will be a great way to reduce tanks/lvs. No need super drastic nerfs like Volski/tank130 implying.

[TheVolskinator]

I don't WANT super drastic nerfs; I honestly prefer the EiR playstyle to the OMG playstyle. If we want to move repairs to engineering units fine, but if we make use of a wear and tear system then I'd personally cease using anything larger than an LV; I find my EiR vehicles lasting much longer than my OMG ones, even if, say, I only repair my Sherman from 25% to 100% of its HP. Since my OMG Sherman can now only eat a couple of Pak shots before exploding there's little incentive to repair it at all unless I've vetwhored a blob of Engineers up to Vet3 (which eats pop) or someone has Sappers with an uber repair ability on them (which eats pop).

Which then leads me to believe that I'd be better to use my vehicles in a hyper aggressive, no retreat, no surrender, no survivors style of play (which seems to be the common theme in OMG, since I almost never see a veteran armored unit of any description short of a KT).

[Hicks58]

Moving reps off the vehicles is a workable solution, but wear and tear really isn't.

As I've said many times before, unless you've got a visible number for your vehicle's hp instead of a bar (Or alongside a bar), you'll always be punished for wear and tear, as you'll never be able to keep track of just how much your vehicle can take after it's first repair, no matter how small or big the repair job was.

Wear and tear is a solution, but it's tacky and messy as fuck.

Also Tank, looking at your main post, you're doing something to EiRR that you tell so many people to do when they speak up. "If you don't like EiRR, go play OMG".

Except you, rather puzzlingly, seem to be aiming to send EiRR in OMG's direction.

Oh and just because misinformation irks me...

The ostwind has around 600 hp i think which is nearly as much as a sherman and p4. the 57 does 150 damage a shot so you do the math. Likewise it will not kill a stug.

Ostwind HAD 400, was (relatively) recently buffed up to 500. 3 ATG rounds will leave it ready to be sneezed on, until you get vet 1. StuG HP I do not have committed to memory, but last recall puts it at 400 HP, with skirts having incoming damage mods vs ATG's, which I can't confirm due to lack of Corsix atm.

[Shabtajus]

Moving reps off the vehicles is a workable solution, but wear and tear really isn't.

As I've said many times before, unless you've got a visible number for your vehicle's hp instead of a bar (Or alongside a bar), you'll always be punished for wear and tear, as you'll never be able to keep track of just how much your vehicle can take after it's first repair, no matter how small or big the repair job was.

Wear and tear is a solution, but it's tacky and messy as fuck.

Hicks i am asking wear and tear effecting your tank/lv if you go for a repair HP being at 50% or below. It will make player think twice before soaking up so much damage. Why you need a bar of how much wear and tear you have on your tank? I feel like without bar it makes it more interesting. It will be like a toss up. You never know what will happen. Isn't it's more interesting? If player does not understand that after 5 repairs armour of tank will be shitty well aint no bar will help him get common sense he lacks .

I don't WANT super drastic nerfs; I honestly prefer the EiR playstyle to the OMG playstyle.

So as i do but we all clearly see holes in EIR:R meta game which can be fixed using OMG's experience. We see tanks/lvs being kind of shitty in OMG but way to strong in EIR:R. Find difference between these two problems and you will see what is needed to do to make it work for EIR:R2. At this moment i see EIR:R having too much and too good repair for tanks/lvs and meanwhile in OMG those repairs are shitty. The main difference: OMG has wear and tear + engies/pios fixing tanks + eats pop what makes a game a little bit slower. As for EIR:R i see totally biased repair system which does not cost any extra pop presence on the field and no tear and wear effect and arguably low cost of munition.

So like i have said before: remove ability get a second repair. I t will twice cut amount of tanks/lvs. Any smart player will use two repairs and it leads you fighting 6 pershings/15 P4s. I am not even counting hordes of M8's or those 3x repairs you can get for TD doctrine. A single repair is more than enough to make tank cost worthy.
50% wear and tear rule - idea behind this is using tank in more tactical way instead of LOL rush! Ofcourse you always will have that CHARGE! for any cost choice but hell make player pay for being retarded. Atm you are rewarding dumb play style by giving repairs without any wear and tear effect. You can simply charge do damage and go back being at 5% or 10% HP for a repair and after repair is done you can repeat that again. Isn't that a little bit stupid?
 

[tank130]

I think switching to the wear & tear model is swinging the pendulum too far.

Moving repair to repair units is probably the best place to start. If that is not sufficient, we can always look at wear & tear later. I feel it will be sufficient and we will not need wear & tear.


@ Volks,

The reason I pretty much ignore your post are as follows:

1.) They are often written with sarcasm and childish humor, completely over whelming what could possibly be a good point
2.) Your over reaction to the massive extreme of the worst case scenario makes it read like a rage post.
3.) Try a few posts instead of a massive wall of text.

Read the opening paragraph of my post.  Read it twice and really let it sink in.

I would like to propose a direction more along these lines. Obviously there needs to be tweaks and it is not a once size fits all for every faction. It is a general design direction I think would create a more diversified game. It also requires an open mind to changing unit composition and not forcing ourselves to think that every current unit must retain it's current ability.

So for simplicity, start at the bottom:

A) If we agree that we do not need to keep every unit exactly the way it is now doing exactly what it has been doing, then your entire argument is moot.

b) If we agree that what I proposed is not a "one size fits all" and obviously needs to be tweaked to suit a faction, then one can clearly see options because of point "A"


Let me give you an example of the over extreme you have used:

Making LV's specialized in support removal and better at Recon does not make them a jeep. I would certainly expect we would be intelligent enough not to give them the same HP as a jeep, nor would we give them the same fire power as a jeep. If I am not mistaken, modifiers can be added to units to make them more effect against other specific unit types - like support units.
I specifically stated they would be better suited to support removal, recon and FLANKING. Last I checked, jeeps were only good at one of those abilities.

[XIIcorps]

You know why eirr is vech spam, no pool!

[Batgirl]

I agree with tank on that I would like to see more infantry and more tactics! I disagree on the rest.

This is done easily:
1: Offmaps must cost munitions  - no free "frontal rush to mg+at camp and wee offmap arty" Retarded.
2: Drastically reduce the amount of munitions available for army selection - this will force you to choose between CHEESE - you can get shreks OR lmgs OR tank add ons OR repairs OR off maps (1st proposition implemented) NOT get all! This would totally change metagame while retaining the endless interesting possibilities eirr has.
3. To counter the impending doom of regular 50 unit riflespam make a cap/add support cost on basic infantry in army as well.
4. Make a cap on reward units.

---> less cheese --> more viable medium tanks + more viable regular infantry making the use of both of thse things more FUN --> more FUN more use of the units. May require some balancing after implementing but no way requires balancing everything, which isnt going to happen with no games going on.

OMG style repairs promote a campy style of gameplay while EIRR repairs promote more dynamics. I dont see any reason to go to the OGM style and it wouldnt change the actual balance from cheese units or spam to mediums/regulars and the currently less used units at all.

[TheVolskinator]

Let me give you an example of the over extreme you have used:

Making LV's specialized in support removal and better at Recon does not make them a jeep. I would certainly expect we would be intelligent enough not to give them the same HP as a jeep, nor would we give them the same fire power as a jeep. If I am not mistaken, modifiers can be added to units to make them more effect against other specific unit types - like support units.
I specifically stated they would be better suited to support removal, recon and FLANKING. Last I checked, jeeps were only good at one of those abilities.

Ok, to address one point in particular, your opinion that 'LVs should be anti support weapon, but take small arms damage and are vulnerable to everything else; good for recon'.

So, we're turning LVs into jeeps that have larger HP pools than jeeps but are basically as vulnerable to small arms as the old vCoH PE scout cars or infantry halftracks; they can defect SOME small arms but will usually be penetrated?

If, for example, we make the M8 a 'jeep with a larger HP pool', that...

-Makes it an even less attractive option than it is now, since the main cannon is basically garbage and the .50cal gunner has a massive magnet strapped to his helmet (i.e. he dies a lot, to most anything, even rock-armed Pios).
-Means that you would need to flee from mobs of non-AT equipped infantry...

Why not just get a Jeep for recon? It has a large LoS and can detect cloaked units; it's also dirt cheap.

If you're going to try and selectively read my responses to try and make me look like an unintelligible chimp you'll have to try harder than that, tank.

I didn't say we were giving it Jeep HP and a shitty jeep .30 cal, I said that the M8 would be taking a significantly higher amount of damage from small arms, an amount that could be analogous to the amount of damage taken by a Jeep when it is engaged by small arms fire. Maybe I didn't say that directly, but it was very obviously implied unless you were applying an over-literal tone to it.

No, I don't want LVs to be Jeeps with new skins, but my point in all of this is that if you park an M8 in front of an MG42, you'll notice that it actually takes damage from it--most LVs aren't fully bulletproof as it stands; if we make them weaker they'll have a much harder time accomplishing anything and their role would shrink, and make the medium tank the de-facto mechanized unit in most companies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Batigrl, at what point would we be hardcapping Riflemen? They're the only non-doctrinal infantry available to the Americans; if we cap Rifles at, say, 20 squads, that puts a massive damper on the attritional efficiency of most every company that isn't spamming elite infantry.

Furthermore, US crew weapons are fairly garbage because, though they have 55 HP/man (identical to MG42/Gr34/Pak crews), they're facing weapons with significantly higher DPS, especially at long range--meaning even if placed in a building, a .30 cal might end up getting wrecked by a medkit-equipped Grenadier squad in heavy cover.

Trying to jam in a lot of Engineers also doesn't work because they're basically the least survivable building unit available in the mod; even Luftwaffles are better (same 55 HP/man, but 5 men in a squad, and rifle-armed).

If the established consensus is that Rifles exist purely as grenade delivery platforms, to be disposed of during/after use, hardcapping infantry could possibly end up screwing over US companies since they have no reliable way of carving a swathe through a metric butt ton of Grenadiers or a fountain of PGrens.

That said, yes, uberspam is annoying.

[TheVolskinator]

Making a separate post as per your request; what exactly do you mean by flaking? Strategic ("Yo guys, we're changing sides, lets move to the left") flaking or tactical ("Ach I can make a dash just outside the arc of his Pak and get a shot or two in before the Shreck squad drives me off") flanking?

Most LVs already excel in this regard, as their mobility is unilaterally outstanding; the differences are usually in vehicles' armament; a PE AC is far better at flanking than an M8 most of the time, since the AC's 2 cm cannon will rip apart any infantry or crew weapons it encounters; an M8 will need to stop and wait for the 7 second reload on its main gun, or for the .50cal to finally whittle an enemy infantryman's HP to 0.

[tank130]

Volks, you keep arguing what units currently do and what they are currently used for. If you would stop living in the past, we could move forward in what is most likely a better future. As long as you keep thinking the same way, we will always have the same thing.

Most LVs already excel in this regard, as their mobility is unilaterally outstanding; the differences are usually in vehicles' armament; a PE AC is far better at flanking than an M8 most of the time, since the AC's 2 cm cannon will rip apart any infantry or crew weapons it encounters; an M8 will need to stop and wait for the 7 second reload on its main gun, or for the .50cal to finally whittle an enemy infantryman's HP to 0.

For example, you are complaining about the M8 reload. If it's a problem, we can change it so it's not a problem. It feels like every time an idea is tabled you right an essay on how it won't work instead of looking at the possibilities and opportunities for change.

The meta game before doc disabling happened just fucking sucked. The mod has grown stagnate and boring to play. I am not going to continue to finance the same old shit for half a dozen people to play. Either we make some significant changes and essentially create Eir2 or we just shut this shit down.

That doesn't mean it MUST be my way or the highway, what it means is the changes need to be something new and fresh, not just a coat of paint on the same old dog shit.

[chuggachar]

If you would stop living in the past

Judging by how you opened this thread i feel like you're trying to live the past more than volski is imo

[TheVolskinator]

If the M8 needs to be modified in order to facilitate it supposedly becoming a disposable glass cannon, I need finite numbers. I can't make it fairly balanced to begin with if I'm given "make it easier to kill with small arms, and make the cannon better".

That, and we don't even have finished doctrines, let alone the experimental new veterancy values I'm tinkering with.