3v3 Montherme-Issues Shown [V1.3a]

[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

[TheDeadlyShoe]

only because it was running from AT guns that did all the real damage. things like the main gun only go out when a tank is severely damaged.

 

without (expensive) sticky bombs, allied general AT really lacks...

i watched the replay again, and i really dont know where you guys are getting this 'airborne are spammable' bit. in the big southern infantry fight, one mass of grenadiers and a KCH squad fought off two players worth of paratroopers. that's even though the paratroopers had better positions, better cover, and mortar/vehicle support.  I lost about 22-23 paras, and Stranger must have lost at least 25, maybe 30.  Very few para squads survived, but most of the grenadier squads survived to fight another day with their gained veterancy.  Airborne cant even reinforce!

[Unkn0wn]

I agree that even though massive airborne dropping out of the sky is like "AH WTF"  at first, you'll soon realise that they are actually pretty easy to take out with KCH and grenadiers.

(Heck, even a halftrack can do his full share.)


People that throw down airborne in the middle of your force are silly as airborne is not the super unit some people think it is. It's perfect for quick support, flanking and some other general manouvers but they are not the nr 1 fighting unit.

However, it'd be nice if their drop takes a little longer, was not available in the 30 first seconds of the game and had some drift .

[Ucross]

You all bring up great points and we are discussing them all.  Here is one I'd like to address:

Having 10 as the minimum pop for a squad is not ideal.  I propose lowering this value to 5.  If the squad size is lowered, many squads of smaller size will be created instead of just a few, large squads.  This will allow for dynamic mixing or squads during a battle, resulting in a game with more strategic depth.  I especially noticed the constraints of 10 minimum pop cap when i had to summon my reserve squads.  In order to have these squads, i had to spend a large amount on padding to make them equal 10 population.  Perhaps a smaller minimum squad size for certain "reserve only squads" could be a possible compromise.  These squads would be delayed by a set time, but have a lower minimum size.

This is a very delicate issue.  It is the idea of having a good size of reinforcement come to help you during a battle - it's quite enjoyable.  However, EVERYONE should aim to make their platoons the minimum pop cap which is 10 (if you didn't I can see why this might be MORE of a problem).  At the same time, 10 minimum size for platoons means that you must lose a quarter of your forces before you can bring a platoon in.  As well, it makes calling in counter easily and quickly more difficult.  There are pros and cons to raising it, leaving it, and lowering it.  We'd like to try it at 10 a little longer to see if we can get a better feel for the pros and cons.  This is one of the tougher issues to deal with though.

[Unkn0wn]

Lowering platoon cap even more is like killing the platoon system.

Our original idea was to have seperate unit call ins, remember?
We stepped down from that and figured that obviously though people should call in "platoons" and not seperate units. A platoon is a group of units, it's a players job to set up good platoons that can be called in on the right occasions.

It also brings more strategy into the game obviously.

[Ucross]

Lowering platoon cap even more is like killing the platoon system.

Correct

Our original idea was to have seperate unit call ins, remember?

yes

We stepped down from that and figured that obviously though people should call in "platoons" and not seperate units.

No, the main reason we stepped down was feasability.  It was agreed that seperate squad call ins with platoons was the most ideal.

A platoon is a group of units, it's a players job to set up good platoons that can be called in on the right occasions.

Correct, but a smart player will not be building platoons that are like the type you want to see - a smart player will build all his platoons to be as close as possible to 10 pop cap with the 1 unit they need.

It also brings more strategy into the game obviously.

I strongly disagree with this.  I find it brings no strategy (unless you consider tailoring your platoons to 10 pop strategy).  It does bring a neat element - and that's the major (and perhaps only) pro that I can find to it.

[drChengele]

It is not the fact that Airborne are cheap that is the problem; it's the fact that they are cheap AND can drop anywhere.

Paras are, in fact, spammable, and I am pretty sure they compare in effectiveness with most basic Axis infantry. I lost 2 MP44 Storms to 4-5 Para squads. That seems reasonable... except for the fact that, cost for cost, my storms are far more expensive than said Para squads, and I poured substantial ammo into their MP44s to be able to ambush and counter infantry.

We cannot look at this game in terms of vanilla effectiveness. Ability to drop anywhere on the feald means a helluva lot in this game. This allows players to drop paras immediatelly, in the middle of the field. In the first minute of the game. They may not be KCH, but they sure as hell can hold a position until the heavy guns arrive.

I would also like to point out another thing. Rangers. I don't know how costly they are, but I've had a fire-up+grenade obliterate my MG (I think the grenade destroyed the actual MG and the crew went along with it). In this game, heavy weapon crews are expensive and important. They are the Axis (and I presume Allied as well) player's lifeline against hordes of infantry that both sides are likely to have. Losing an MG to a mortar or a sniper can be prevented with good micro. Versus Rangers, all support/micro in the world can't prevent them from tossing a nade at an MG, resulting in a painful death. Well, I guess I could clump up a hefty 5 MP40 Volks support to be ready for Rangers. But then they'd make a sweet mortar bait.

Rangers are basic infantry. MGs are heavy weapon teams that are supposed to stop infantry. Fire-up is far more of an issue here than in vanilla. If said MG could have been recrewed, all would be well. But it was *destroyed*. I have three HMGs in my troop outlay. Even if I had five, losing one is a hell of a big deal when you are facing Paras and Rifles

I haven't had snipers cause mass attrition to my troops in EiR yet so I am not sure if they are really overpowered or not; but I would agree to a price increase rather than a popcap increase. Really a sniper should not take any more pop cap than a heavy weapons team. If  pop cap remains at 40, I think 3 is a good compromise along with a hefty price increase.

As for Spoon'as wiring, like I said, you did nothing illegal, feel free to keep doing it. By the time my spawn point was wired, I didn't have anything. 6 squads of Volks as a reserve (I usually save these for later stages in the game to man remaining heavy weapons on the map, it turns out recent HP decrease doesn't really allow for many heavy weapons to be left), and I couldn't do jack even if it weren't for wire. It is the basic concept of wiring off the spawn point that bothers me and other players. In this game, there is no HQ, there is *only* a spawn point. The fact there is no LOS to it calls for players to adapt to the spawn points' vulnerability. But it still remains a cheap trick.

Now, if there was a LOS, simple 2 Volks squads spawn would be plenty enough to prevent the wiring, so maybe that'd help. The fact I saw "sector turning red" means precisely nothing. So there are enemies there. In my own territory. In a war game. Wow. Didn't see that one coming.

Besides, Spoon, when PaKs were owning Allied light armor on that 3v3 on Montargis, you were the first to cry "imba", and how PaKs are too good, need a price increase, etc. And I agreed. And when I say that "airborne are too spammable", I get nothing but criticism, and an unreasonable one ("funny you should complain about spam"). First of all, it is not wrong to spam anything; second of all, even if it is, I didn't spam anything; and finaly, that doesn't change the fact that Paras are too cheap for what they can do.

Well, that's still my opinion, for what it's worth. Airborne are too cheap considering they combine fire-up, paradrop capability (and possibility of RRs and satchels). Grenadiers are fewer in numbers, cannot paradrop, and cannot fire-up.

[fldash]

I will be re-increasing the health of mortars and HMG's in the next version.  I lowered it based on complaints it was nearly impossible to kill.  Tough luck now, better bring something to kill them if you want them off the field.

[Stranger491]

I was in that game. Sights on the other team did a sniper spam.

[Demonic Spoon]

I will be re-increasing the health of mortars and HMG's in the next version.  I lowered it based on complaints it was nearly impossible to kill.  Tough luck now, better bring something to kill them if you want them off the field.

Just increase the health of HMGs. They were decreased because of issues with mortars, and mortars only. No idea why you affected the health of HMGs.

I was in that game. Sights on the other team did a sniper spam.

It's also kind of ironic. Shoe already brought up the issue that he believed sniper spam was cheap and overpowered to hell...but he still did it. And yet I am being bitched at endlessly for something completely new I did in the game. Hypocritical? I think so.

Regardless, there were endless opportunities to stop it, and I don't feel bad that you let your spawn point be overrun.

Paras are, in fact, spammable, and I am pretty sure they compare in effectiveness with most basic Axis infantry. I lost 2 MP44 Storms to 4-5 Para squads. That seems reasonable... except for the fact that, cost for cost, my storms are far more expensive than said Para squads, and I poured substantial ammo into their MP44s to be able to ambush and counter infantry.

We cannot look at this game in terms of vanilla effectiveness. Ability to drop anywhere on the feald means a helluva lot in this game. This allows players to drop paras immediatelly, in the middle of the field. In the first minute of the game. They may not be KCH, but they sure as hell can hold a position until the heavy guns arrive.

Storms are expensive because of cloak and bundled nade, not because of their effectiveness in combat. While maybe airborne are a tad too cheap, you're making the issue out to be far bigger than it really is.

I would also like to point out another thing. Rangers. I don't know how costly they are, but I've had a fire-up+grenade obliterate my MG (I think the grenade destroyed the actual MG and the crew went along with it). In this game, heavy weapon crews are expensive and important. They are the Axis (and I presume Allied as well) player's lifeline against hordes of infantry that both sides are likely to have. Losing an MG to a mortar or a sniper can be prevented with good micro. Versus Rangers, all support/micro in the world can't prevent them from tossing a nade at an MG, resulting in a painful death. Well, I guess I could clump up a hefty 5 MP40 Volks support to be ready for Rangers. But then they'd make a sweet mortar bait.

Rangers are basic infantry. MGs are heavy weapon teams that are supposed to stop infantry. Fire-up is far more of an issue here than in vanilla. If said MG could have been recrewed, all would be well. But it was *destroyed*. I have three HMGs in my troop outlay. Even if I had five, losing one is a hell of a big deal when you are facing Paras and Rifles

Firstly, something I have experienced multiple times is that if you support your HMG LIKE YOU SHOULD with infantry, the Rangers will die too fast to get a nade off (because Fire Up causes them to take more damage). Even then, it's fairly easy to simply redeploy a couple meters away to avoid the nade-something I have done many times in the past.

For the record, they cost 250 manpower and 70 munitions, which is steep as hell for what they do. They are NOT basic infantry by any stretch of the imagination. Believe me when I say if I could spam rangers, I would-but I can't.

As for Spoon'as wiring, like I said, you did nothing illegal, feel free to keep doing it. By the time my spawn point was wired, I didn't have anything. 6 squads of Volks as a reserve (I usually save these for later stages in the game to man remaining heavy weapons on the map, it turns out recent HP decrease doesn't really allow for many heavy weapons to be left), and I couldn't do jack even if it weren't for wire. It is the basic concept of wiring off the spawn point that bothers me and other players. In this game, there is no HQ, there is *only* a spawn point. The fact there is no LOS to it calls for players to adapt to the spawn points' vulnerability. But it still remains a cheap trick.

Once again, it's fairly obvious that I was closing on it because of the minimap. If I didn't wire it off, hell, I'd set up HMGs and AT guns and such. The fact is, if you let me take over your spawn road and have nothing else, you lose. That's good-like blowing up someone's base in vCOH as opposed to waiting for the VPs to run out. I believe it might be a tiny bit more powerful than it should be, and one of Shoe's suggestions might work...but not nearly as bad as you make it out to be, and not bad enough to stop me from using it.

Now, if there was a LOS, simple 2 Volks squads spawn would be plenty enough to prevent the wiring, so maybe that'd help. The fact I saw "sector turning red" means precisely nothing. So there are enemies there. In my own territory. In a war game. Wow. Didn't see that one coming.

Except if there are enemies in your territory, closing on your spawn road, you should be fighting to take them out. Seriously, how hard would it have been to stop? I had 3 engineers, a riflesquad, a halfdead ranger squad, and a mortar...

Besides, Spoon, when PaKs were owning Allied light armor on that 3v3 on Montargis, you were the first to cry "imba", and how PaKs are too good, need a price increase, etc. And I agreed. And when I say that "airborne are too spammable", I get nothing but criticism, and an unreasonable one ("funny you should complain about spam"). First of all, it is not wrong to spam anything; second of all, even if it is, I didn't spam anything; and finaly, that doesn't change the fact that Paras are too cheap for what they can do.

1) I simply looked at all that PAKs get, and how they were superior in every way to 57mms (not counting the ridiculous 90munis AP rounds), and decided that they should not be more expensive than the PAK.

2) I concede that Airborne are a bit too cheap. Maybe a price increase of 30-50 or so, and a 10-20 second timer that you can't drop them in, at the beginning of the game.

[acker]

Do M10s have higher penetration values than the Sherman? My M10 had very little trouble attacking Stugs.

[fldash]

I believe the M10 vs Stugs and Stuhs gets a penetration bonus.  I'd have to look though to be certain.

[Ucross]

Personally I would like to encourage wiring off the opposing areas or trying to lock them in with an HMG.  I believe it's important to protect your supply routes and adds some strategy to the game.

It's easy to counter by having 1 engineer with clippers or one vehicle.

[Stranger491]

or put mines in front of it so if reinforcements come they die and how where do you put the replay files.

[Demonic Spoon]

Stranger, that is EXACTLY what I would have done had I still had my m8.

[Skunker]

Personally I would like to encourage wiring off the opposing areas or trying to lock them in with an HMG.  I believe it's important to protect your supply routes and adds some strategy to the game.

It's easy to counter by having 1 engineer with clippers or one vehicle.

That's not really strategy, its like getting baseraped: nothing you do will help you. His micromanagement completely took his attention off of that position, with line of sight around the spawn, then it'd be strategy.

engineers with clippers cost munitions and manpower, and have to be called in in a reserve squad, plus there's the possibility of them being mowed down by an HMG sitting there. Vehicles can't get through those tank traps.

Unless we want the game to be a total campfest because people are afraid their spawn will be wired, I suggest we put something to help counteract that. (Simple LOS at spawn would work perfectly)

[Demonic Spoon]

Baseraping IS a strategy. Once again, if you can't defend it, it's your fault.

[fldash]

I will be adding line of sight to the off-map positions hopefully, I'll have to test it.

[Unkn0wn]

With 40 pop cap you cant possibly both assault and defend a spawn tbh .

[Skunker]

Baseraping IS a strategy. Once again, if you can't defend it, it's your fault.

Dude, do you want to tell me how the hell he could defend his position when he cant call in more troops at once, he can't make bunkers, and he can't lay mines because his munitions were all but expended? No offense but that argument is totally crap.

Maybe in another game if I play against you, I'll sneak some engineers into your spawn while you are microing elsewhere then laugh at you while you are stuck and blame it on you for not defending that point vigorously with 40 pop cap limitations.  Certainly all it takes is 3 seconds for them to set up the wire and tank traps.

Fldash: good news.

[Jazlizard]

M10's are more effective then NON-upgunned shermans period afaik, unless something was changed with this mod. My Stuh in paticular in this game was facing a NON-upgunned shermin if I remember right. The Stuh basically has the Stug's body with a different gun. i.e. it deflects alot, I haven't watched the replay to see how many side deflections I got in paticular, but to be honest I've seen crazy deflections on all sorts of vehicles (even a certain well known video of a jeep deflecting like 4 tiger shots LOL)

I think a big issue a lot of people have right now is EiR requires different strategies all together. Some people complain about sniper spam (which may or may not be an issue, I don't know how I feel about that one, it certainly can be effective.) but then again I only see very few jeeps or bikes on the field to counter them. I think they are pretty expensive right now and if you can take them out thats pretty much most of the other players forces, if you built a decent company not based on one thing (i.e. mass infantry only) you should be able to overcome it.

Although I agree some things seem a little expensive / cheap right off the bat, it's a little hard to test right now IMO due to the limited resources, mainly fuel and to some extent munitions. I belive a lot of these alpha balance changes will get a good amount of tweaking as more features get added and more scenarios are played out.

I heard a rumor about a fuel increase for the next patch testing? Anyways I can hope right?

Anyways, I am glad to hear about the possibility of an LOS to spawn in points added, and might suggest you guys take a look at some of the points in some of the maps as some are easier to wire off/tank trap then others, a simple move to a more open area might help as well!