Artillery

[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

[MannfredvonRitter]

Now, if you're using it you love it, if you're receiving it you hate it.

Why? Because EIRR is persistent and nothing has the chance to annihilate your veterancy more than a lucky howitzer shell. Against campy axis players and to a lesser degree camping allies artillery is a necessity. What can we do to make both sides win?

Well I have an idea a simple idea but never the less it may help to alleviate all people on the receiving end.

The current policy with artillery seems to be make it expensive (you will see that all artillery units are quite expensive). This has made artillery in general a very rare weapon, but when used it can be devastating, especially when a calliope/hummel etc rains down on you for an entire battle and conditions/force availability doesn't lend itself to a hard enough push to kill the thing.

What I'm suggesting is that artillery be made limited uses, based upon the platform and the devastating usage of that platform. For a calliope this could be 6 uses for shell based artillery (priest, howtizer, hummel) this could be 10 uses for a stukka or nebel perhaps 12. Ultimately this would force people to not spam artillery, but to use it tactically; ultimately the aim (I believe) of the team is to encourage tactics and discourage spam of gamey tactics. I think this would go a long way to achieving it. It means that artillery usage will have to be well thought out and tactical but still devastating, it will remove the spam of it. You can't just rely purely upon artillery to clear a position, but combined arms and tactics to clear a position with artillery support.

To further expand this idea, perhaps each level of veterancy increases the uses of the artillery piece. I.e. calliope starts at 6, goes up to 7, 8 and then finally 9, with call in timers going down to enable more barrages in the same time it did the original 6. This ends up of direct benefit to the artillery without being drastically overpowered.

(no statements are concrete, just estimations really, deciding uses per artillery unit would be a more complicated and long term process).

The main reason I say this, is we deal with an environment, based upon finite numbers of units (exhaustible armies) but maintain infinite uses of artillery, I feel that the two don't get together overly well.

[Tymathee]

sounds intereseting but extemely limiting. whats to stop from putting uses on a lot of other uses.

[MannfredvonRitter]

sounds intereseting but extemely limiting. whats to stop from putting uses on a lot of other uses.

Nothing really, it may be a good shift for EiR, you are forced to be intelligent with unit usage (permanent loss of units) so why not force intelligence with ability usage? It already exists on many weapons, grenades for example.

[salan]

I like the argument about it being a finite amount of infantry yet an infinite amount of uses of artillery so long as it survives.

It kinda resembles my current discussions on repair in EIR.  Infantry is in a finite amount, yet even tanks can recycle to full and be used from start to finish many times.

[brn4meplz]

It is an interesting concept, But I'm not sure EiR is structured enough to implement it. the mechanics of everything just function in a different way. Not to mention i don't really have an issue with artillery myself. I know troops(manpower) is a limiting factor in matches and that tank repairs are essentially indefinite. But i think the moment we start limiting uses other question concerning uses will be made.

The Calliope in original CoH was a munitions cost based unit(albeit with a cannon) So I wonder why you opted for a limited use approach and not a munitions(launcher) based cost approach. doesn't that seem more logical? If you can keep your unit alive long enough to use the uses you purchased doesn't that fit more with the EiR ethos? I'm also assuming your proposing a cost decrease to the artillery units in question then? To bolster your combined forces approach and limited uses?

EDIT* Incase you were confused, I'm in no way a proponent of this idea

[EscforrealityTLS]

First and foremost this is an excellent Idea. Nice one VonRitter.
I'd like to see people having to choose between more arti uses or extra LMGs.

But Salan tanks, where recycled and repaired. And in battle repairing tanks in this game means that some of your pop is not on the front lines but in the  back getting fixed up. Its all tactical. People that use a tank and crap loads of repairs do so at the risk of being overwhelmed.

[Scyntos]

I think what should really happen is release the darn RBs and doctrine abilities so that people like Manfred who need more at their disposal to win have such.

Also.. we can quit balancing half of a game when the unreleased half will directly effect how we perceive the current half.

[Smokaz]

Great, now I have to pay for shooting with the nebel.. I get off 2-3 barrages before a tetrarch murders it. How are you going to decide how to price the number of uses? A calli or a stuka might get off a lot more shots than say a howie or a nebel..

[MannfredvonRitter]

I think what should really happen is release the darn RBs and doctrine abilities so that people like Manfred who need more at their disposal to win have such.

Also.. we can quit balancing half of a game when the unreleased half will directly effect how we perceive the current half.

Go flame on another forum, I'm quite certain it isn't tolerated here anymore.

I don't appreciate the personal attacks, did I mention your name somewhere here which gives you the right to attack me? No? Ok then, leave me be. I was actually having a civil discussion and asking for input from people.

I just said artillery uses COULD be limited like sticky bombs (4 uses).

I hope that's your main forum account also, alias's aren't allowed here anymore.

[salan]

Great, now I have to pay for shooting with the nebel.. I get off 2-3 barrages before a tetrarch murders it. How are you going to decide how to price the number of uses? A calli or a stuka might get off a lot more shots than say a howie or a nebel..

no one said anything is going to change .. its just an interesting argument.

[Scyntos]

I'm quite certain all you do is whine all day about this or that. You rarely have something to contribute that doesn't involve something being broken or overpowered. I'd tell you to learn to play.. or maybe use some of that intelligence you seem to speak so highly of, but clearly it hasn't worked in the past.

Sure.. your argument might be just and civil, Mr. "I can choose who I play." But when it comes down to it.. I'm really just kind of peeved that the game could change from it's current version due to the fact someone like you plays it. Someone who is so enveloped in his own inadequacies that the game needs to change around him and not the other way around.

Oh.. yes.. this is my main forum account. I don't see any reason to hide behind another one. I said my peace, and if people don't agree with me, that's fine. But I'm not the only one that has such an opinion of you, Manfred.

P.S. Good idea.

[salan]

actually if you post on your secondary accounts there would be a lot more issues then you personally attacking someone, which needs to stop.

grr making me re-read my moderator rules!

[MannfredvonRitter]

I don't have any problem dodging artillery at all. But there have been so many posts complaining about artillery and how it ruins veterancy and persistancy that I wondered if there was a new idea which would contribute.

Perhaps you have an issue with my own free will, but I don't. If I don't want to play a certain person because the manner in which they play a game is not fun for me personally, don't be immature and take it as a personal attack. There are people in life that just don't mesh with other people. I find it more productive to avoid conflict than to put myself in situations where it could arise.

[Draken]

I like the idea, but the price of arty should go down then, and cooldown should be decreased.

[MannfredvonRitter]

I like the idea, but the price of arty should go down then, and cooldown should be decreased.

That was basically the idea. Decrease uses so that artillery is made cheaper and a bigger part of tactics beyond currently where it's more attrition based, rather than tactical uses. I also mention it, because the devs wanted to make a system which encourages spending of PP and if veterancy is easily lost, people are less likely to spend it, so making artillery less common I would hope, make people more willing to shell out points.

Granted I could also say "Thank you, this is great" but that wouldn't be overly good as a contribution to future developments. This isn't a complaint, just an idea, if they don't want to use it they're free not to, I don't mind.

My idea is that if artillery has say, 6 uses you are forced to decide when to use it, rather than instantly firing it into where enemies may be or random concentrations of troops, you fire it when it makes tactical sense. I like that it forces players into making a choice about where to use it and introduces the concept of scarcity to the weapon.

[Warlight]

The number one rule when play against allied players is.  Don't sit in one place.  The WM has plenty of stealthy units (And artillery is the reason).  Everytime a lone rifle squad comes up, and sees something of mine, especail a big group of something of mine or my allies I call it out and Tell them they need to scatter. 

Most of the time... they don't or they scatter after the artiller is coming.  You need to be more proactive when dealing with artillery and not reley on fog of war.  hell, the early part of a R+ game i spend like a sonor operatore listening in the darkness for tanks and Infantry... "BLAM! hamburger everywhere."

That said, limiting the amount of artillery shots you get from an on map thing isn't a bad idea.  You won't get unlimmited off maps right? 

I still don't know if its going to matter though, I guess the best way to test this is have people who regularly use arty count the number of times they fire it per battle.   I don't often see allied players spamming it into the darkness, though I tend to spam my neble because it has the habbit of being terribly inaccurate and shows all the nearby units who were affected by it (even if I don't hit them).

Definatly warrents a look, but just to check, is the walking(yea Creeping) barrage only a set number of uses or how does that work?  The creeping barrage is the only thing I really get annoyed about, it'll wreck an entire line. 

[EscforrealityTLS]

I think its important to allow players to spend as much as they want on uses. When one buys an artillery piece it should come with a minimum amount of uses but then allow one to buy as many uses as one wants for munition cost.

[Scyntos]

The Creeping Barrage? Not entirely sure, I think I recall someone saying you pay for it and gets 1 use. I know out of all the games I've seen a Priest in I've only seen a creeping barrage once per match, so that may be correct.

[Groundfire]

I dont like the idea of pay per shot. If it's on the field taking up pop, you should be able to fire it as much as possible.

If there was a pay per shot on onmap arty then it needs an accuracy buff. Im talking about being able to take repair bunkers out in one volley with scouting.

But to be fair, I could easily just say that how bout you use tactics to get rid of my stationary gun instead of me using my a limited number of shots "tactically".

Really, its not that hard to avoid. If I see you repairing near the front lines, expect a 105 shell to obliterate those pios.

The axis then complain of arty spam, and the allies say that's a tactically good shot, blah blah blah...

[brn4meplz]

edited for not serving a purpose-wish i could just delete it