First Thoughts

[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

[Apex]

First I want to say I really like the idea of this Mod and cant wait to see it in action. Still, after reading the design and information summarys I want to make a few suggestion/observations.

Dont you think this kind of Resource System will be a bit complicated? Not only to understand by the players, but it must also be very difficult programming all this.
Also seems to me that tanks and and off-map artillery maybe difficult to get and use. And all those different taxes will make planning your strategy hard and take the focus off it.
I would keep it more simple.

Why not use the relic giving costs for units and abilites? By restricting the different ressources, giving certain units a limit and disabling abilitites to certain battles you could still have the unit mix and the fights adjusted to the specific situation. And it would make it a lot easier for the players because they are already familier with the troops and their costs. I see a lot of players crying about unbalaced unit costs spamming you email account. (You are not changing the unit stats are you? Please dont.). And please keep the pop cap high. The bigger the better.

I would also cut the tax system, i think a unit upkeep tax is all u need. I dont understand why there is a general tax of 10% on your full resources instead of just giving you 10% less.
I also think a transport tax is unnecessary, just a round delay getting ur troops to the front is all u need.

Please think twice about the reinforcement maths. "Take the units Costs, divide it by its size, divide it by 2 ... " I got enough of this in university.

In general, In my humble oppinion, this Mod should focus on the strategic part, not on the tactical part. I know you want your own different mod, but i would keep as many tactical elements (troop costs, pop cost, stats, ...) from CoH, because we all love it and Relic really did a great job with it and i dont think you should change a winning team.
I really love many of your ideas like predesigned defences, sector control, company splitting etc. and really want to see how this works and get this mod popular big time.
But I fear that many players will be scared of the fundamental changes you want to make to the game and the quite complicated additions.

I hope I could help, maybe some of the above suggestions will give you some new ideas.

Nevertheless, i already signed up for the alpha and after that we´ll all be smarter. Once again, if any german translation or historical research is needed, i would love to help.   


Keep up the could Work

Apex

[fldash]

Apex, thanks a lot for your feedback on the system.  I will answer a few of your questions to the best of my ability and I'm sure the other designers will add even more if they get the time.

The resource and tax system isn't that complex.  Much of it is needed to the nature of the war system and the game modification.  The divy tax is to keep players high up in the chain of command from sending all the resources to just a few players.  If they do not spread out the funds evenly and fairly, the tax will make their 'net gain' of resources very small and hurt their war effort.  The other taxes are in place to keep the war from having an extremely bad 'slippery slope' whenever one side starts to take over more territory.

Tanks and off-map artillery are intentionally harder to get for several reasons.  For one, if you are defending a sector, you get the defense bonus time to setup all your defenses.  With off-map artillery being as readily available as it is in the game now, your defenses would be wiped out quickly and without much cost.  It should be difficult to over-run a well-defended sector, not just a matter of dropping artillery on all the defenses.

Unit costs are based on their ability to be countered.  Tanks are not easy to counter so they are the most expensive.  Furthermore, we don't want the war to revolve around tanks.  They should be important to the war effort not something you simply throw recklessly at the enemy.

The reinforcement math is confusing only because you aren't seeing the 'core' number which is all you will see in the game and when you are planning the battle and how much resources you want to take to battle.  We are giving you the math behind the number you will see in case you are interested.

I think our design merges the tactical and strategic elements together in a way that benefits all the players and immerses them into the war.  This is exactly our goal.

As for players being scared about the complexity and changes...  Our goal is to take vanilla COH and turn it into an amazing war simulator with focus not only on the strategic mindset needed to micro your units effectively in battle but also to give a sense of importance to every unit in the field and their associated cost in the overall war effort.

We aren't currently changing ANY unit stats; the units will behave just like you have grown to know in vanilla COH.  However I can't promise that changes won't have to eventually be made to balance the system out.

I think once we run through a test or two, work out the kinks, and get the site fully functional and online, the players will be foaming at the mouth to get in and experience COH on a grander scale.

[Ucross]

All of the taxes and reinforcements are quite straight forward:

All a first level commander has to worry about is unit tax.  When they buy units, if they are far from the front, they pay more for them (for them to be transported to them).  That's it in terms of taxes.

The other taxes are still pretty straight forward:

Divy Tax: You have to give $$ to all your commanders beneath you or you'll have a penalty

General War Rax:  If you're winning the war, you have higher taxes to slow you down

That's basically it.


As for reinforcements, its basically just like it is in game right now.  Prices slightly adjusted, but basically the same.

[Apex]

Thanks for the reply guys, it answers a few of my questions. I now understand most of the taxes and that they are necessery. I´m still not sure about the transport tax, I would prefer a round delay.

About the ressource system, you say that you increased tank and artillery costs because they are too powerfull. Agreeable.
But still, you could just decrease the fuel given to commanders, so tanks are less seen on the battlefield and give artillery usage a limit so it can´t be used that often.
And as you know, artillery is often the only choice to destroy a well prepared AT MG defence, so limiting it that much might not even be an idea that good. Rumor spreads that tanks will be nerfed with 1.5 anyway.

About your costs.
                   
Stug: 800MP  110F 
Nebelwerfer: 1000MP  120F                       

You cant call these prices just "slightly adjusted",


Panther: 1700MP 370F
Rangers: 220MP, 10MUN
---> 14 Bazookas on 1 Panther

not even yet talking about balanced.


I´m pretty sure that more players would join if they would encounter the same unit costs.
If you wanna keep vanilla CoH , keep the vanilla unit prices, it would save you a lot of problems.

But it´s your mod and I dont wanna sound like the Boogie Man.


Lets wait for the Alpha.

[Ucross]

Thses are all alpha preconceived costs.

What will actually be required we are not sure.

The costs were created based on:

1) Artillery will be more effective
2) Units that can survive artillery are more effective
3) Range is much more important
4) Advancing troops are less powerful due to no strategic locations
5) Supporting troops are more powerful
6) You cannot create a counter in game so units that need a counter to destroy are much higher in price

All tanks and powerful units have fuel associated so that fuel can be a limiting resource.  As well though, if fuel becomes abundant we still want naturaul checks.  I think the current cost system will strongly cator towards infantry - which will make AT a lot less important and then make tanks more powerful (which they already have the set up costs for).

You're right that the numbers are not slightly adjusted.  At the same time, we needed something to work with that took into account the more slow play that emphasises the survival of every unit.

It is COMPLETELY open for suggestions on changes.

[Genghis]

I think in the future u guys should change the commanders/doctrine. My suggestion is to change into three type of divisions which players could choose. For the Germans, I suggest to have Grenadier, PanzerGrenadier & Panzer Divisions. As for the Americans, I suggest to have Infantry, Armoured & Airborne Divisions (it would be good if u have another idea, i personally dont really like this idea). Each type of division can only use certain type of units. Here is the draft:
Germans
Grenadier (13): officer, pioneer, volks, grenadier, MG, mortar, sniper, AT gun, nebelwefel, bike, howitzer, Tiger, 88 gun
PanzerGrenadier (12): officer, pioneer, bike, grenadier, MG, halftrack, StuG, StuH, Puma, Ostwind, Stormtrooper, Panzer4
Panzer (11): officer, pioneer, bike, grenadier, MG, halftrack, Panzer4, Panther, Puma, Ostwind, KCH
Americans
Infantry (11): officer, engineer, riflemen, mortar, mg, sniper, jeep, AT gun, halftrack, howitzer
Armoured (10): officer, engineer, riflemen, jeep, haltrack, AC, Sherman, Croc, M10, Pershing
Airborne (9): officer, engineer, para, AT gun, mortar, MG, sniper, jeep, Sherman (all airdrop fr plane & have vet but all cost fuel)

Also there should only be one sniper allow & bike & jeep should have their sniper detection remove. Bike & jeep should be in squad. It would be great if u guys could add some new units as well, eg radioman, bazooka squad, firefly

Btw have u guys thought of how to divide the map into sections? Coz if u havent we could use the way hearts of iron divide the map. Ive got that game so I could send u the screenshot of it u guys need it.

PS u guys could advertise on Tales of Heroes. u can talk to bridger about that

[Unkn0wn]

For now we are trying to keep it as simple as possible while still going to a level on which the mod can actually run like it is supposed to.

I have already made a proposal for changing axis doctrine names since terror/blitzkrieg/defensive division sounds really wacko. Allied company names are fine.

Additional changes may also still be made to the company/doctrine abilities and purchasable unit list.
(But don't expect that many new features or major changes for the alpha)



I understand that there are people out there that would rather see us carry on with everything from the Vanilla CoH but keep in mind that what we are doing here is beyond what Vanilla COH has to offer and thus we also have to extend and modify CoH itself to fit the project in the long run.

One of those needed changes was the change to unit costs, however I believe most of you are interpreting this wrong. You will NOT collect resources and buy units ingame. You will have a preset amount of resources to work with and thus we need to work with a more balanced and appropriate unit cost list.

It's only common sense that in the long run this cost list will be changed for balancing purposes, numerous times. It's also likely that some other vanilla CoH things will be modified but I believe at this point we do not attend to really go in a whole new direction with the current ingame CoH settings. We will merely tweak them to fit the project.

Best thing to do right now is sit back, wait for us to launch alpha and then give input so we can work the kinks out .

[fldash]

PS u guys could advertise on Tales of Heroes. u can talk to bridger about that

You might want to listen to the next episode...

[Unkn0wn]

Awesome, you got him to do it?

I sent him a PM last week aswell, he said he was going to look into it .
(He already did Experience Company of Heroes after we asked too, and he loved the mod aswell)

Great guy, great show, great advertisement for the mod!

[fldash]

I'm not sure how much he'll say, it may just be a brief mention since we don't have much concrete yet.  Either way, it's good advertisement and I'm sure he'll be willing to feature us on a full show once we get going.

[Unkn0wn]

Here it is!!!

http://tales.tsncentral.com/podcast/tohaudio/Tales_of_Heroes_Week17_1-21-07.mp3

[UnderHeavyFire]

As a side note:  High tank and artillery prices will reflect realism.  At the moment, CoH ends up being tank spam followed by tank battles.   In this 'mod', i think youll find a lot more infantry related battles, with ONE or TWO tanks in support.  (estimate) 

(ps. except for me, i love my Jeeps  )

[Wilson]

I like the sound of this project. It could be awesome. My question is, how are you going to deal with player skill as a deciding factor in battles? Some people are going to be better than others, which by itself is fine. It gives commanders a chance to become a feared name if they play well.

It would work out well if the higher commanders send their best people to fight the enemy's best people, but surely they could also try and breakthrough an area where there's a 'weak' commander. Being annihilated by better players is ok a few times, but do you have any plans to try and prevent people losing all the time? I assume that people can retreat from a battle if they can tell they're going to lose horribly, so worse players could retreat from battles they're going to lose and wait for support on the main map from better players. Hopefully this wouldn't be annoying for the better players if their opponent just runs away, because they still win, and win the territory.

This post has come across as a bit of a ramble, but hopefully it raises a few points about differing player skils. How do you envisage the different player skills affecting the progress of the overall war?

[Ucross]

I like the sound of this project. It could be awesome. My question is, how are you going to deal with player skill as a deciding factor in battles? Some people are going to be better than others, which by itself is fine. It gives commanders a chance to become a feared name if they play well.

It would work out well if the higher commanders send their best people to fight the enemy's best people, but surely they could also try and breakthrough an area where there's a 'weak' commander. Being annihilated by better players is ok a few times, but do you have any plans to try and prevent people losing all the time? I assume that people can retreat from a battle if they can tell they're going to lose horribly, so worse players could retreat from battles they're going to lose and wait for support on the main map from better players. Hopefully this wouldn't be annoying for the better players if their opponent just runs away, because they still win, and win the territory.

This post has come across as a bit of a ramble, but hopefully it raises a few points about differing player skils. How do you envisage the different player skills affecting the progress of the overall war?

Highly skilled commanders will indeed be feared divisions amoung the opposing forces.  However, don't forget that battles will range from a few riflemen and engineers trying to hold of an army of tigers to very even battles.   Commander skill will be 2-fold.  1) making sure all engagements are in your favour when the occur and 2) playing effectively.  Skilled CoH players who are poor with troop positioning may lose quite a few battles due to not having enough supplies or trusting their own skill too much.

Players CANNOT retreat from battles.  They must try to hold out for the time limit (probably 60 minutes) or risk losing their company.  Players can, however, move away from a current battle if they survive one turn and are now in a contested territory.

[Wilson]

Hmm. No retreat you say? Trouble is, if you get overrun and you do lose your company, surely that's going to be very expensive to replace. Mind you, I guess it's your fault if that happens. And I forgot about the time limit, that makes it better. You can fight a guerilla engagement I suppose. Or hide

[fldash]

If you think you will be destroyed in a battle, you can retreat without actually playing which will only cost you half your forces.

[Soulis6]

Is it always going to be just half your forces? This seems a bit steep for a tactical retreat.
Granted i have yet to see how the map will work with this but it just seems a bit pricy to withdraw from a battle you think you will lose.
Maybe im completly wrong however. Guess i'll just have to wait for alpha
Speaking of which can i still get into alpha? i noticed it now says only signups on the actual website and i wasnt sure if this means soon or after alpha.

 

[fldash]

Signups for the Alpha haven't actually opened yet.  We did an initial poll to check interest.  Stay tuned.

Also, please remember that nothing is 100% decided yet and things will likely change as we go through the first alpha.

[Lai]

Wilson: to me half the joy about this mod is to try becoming a feared commander or take down feared commanders.
I guess if the community grows large enough it could be a possibility to have separate wars for players according to their skill level. For example: Recruit, Veteran, Crack and Elite level. ^^

[Ucross]

There will definitely be skill variation in EiR.  This is a key element to the game.  Not only will the most skilled player's division be feared, but when you go into battle against them they'll likely have all vet 3 troops (after winning so much) and quite a good and powerful selection of squads.  It might take quite a few your sides companies to take down the highly skilled commander's companies.