Landferd Binnyworth wrote:
... just having Elite ai be free and optional is do-able, it was optional with a cost, just make it cost nothing now
General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
Landferd Binnyworth wrote:
... just having Elite ai be free and optional is do-able, it was optional with a cost, just make it cost nothing now
Hans A. Pils wrote:
I'm still extremely unhappy with the plan to give many units offensive/defensive focus just for the sake of a clearer distinction. I read from freezy's posts two arguments why that shall be done:
1.: More tactical maneuvers. True, but that will be unrealistic / weird maneuvers. Also having the option to gain advantage from tactical movements will require players to be online more often, which isn't necessarily positive.
2.: Giving players an incentive to research a broader variety of units, thus allowing more different strategies and more realistic army compositions. True, but that can also be achieved by using the SBDE system from CoW1.0 and just making it more strict (which would be the better SBDE solution anyway - see --> this post <-- on that).
So no argument left, or am I missing something?
Now the counter-argument against fantasy roles of units: They just hurt the eye. I'm OK with giving AC and LT a bit stronger offense values than defense. Maybe even TD, since they had much stronger front plates than sides and rear - which made them good defenders against opponents approaching from the front, yes, but at the same time very vulnerable against surprise attacks from their flanks or from behind. Commandos offensive as well, sure. But all others? No, thanks. Wouldn't three or four offensive ground melee units be enough? Why do you insist on also an infantry unit having offensive focus?
Looking at examples:
* Regular infantry twice as strong in defense than in offense: Oh no, please not. 50% stronger defense as in CoW1.0 is just fine.
* Motorized infantry stronger in offense than in defense: So we have to imagine them boldly firing out of their trucks like 18th century US Cavalry out of their saddles? With a cigar in the corner of their mouth, right? Or maybe from the rear-platform of a jeep like Sylvester Stallone? Sorry, that's not WW2.
* AC stronger in defense than in offense? WTH.
* ...
Hans A. Pils wrote:
Sure, and @Landferd Binnyworth had well understood that. That's what he was criticizing. But I don't see how Elite AI harms RP(?)
Hans A. Pils wrote:
* Motorized infantry stronger in offense than in defense: So we have to imagine them boldly firing out of their trucks like 18th century US Cavalry out of their saddles? With a cigar in the corner of their mouth, right? Or maybe from the rear-platform of a jeep like Sylvester Stallone? Sorry, that's not WW2.
vonlettowvorbeck wrote:
I think that is what all rebellious militia in 3rd world countries do, isn't it?Them not being very successful, once encountering even half-trained regular troops though.Hans A. Pils wrote:
* Motorized infantry stronger in offense than in defense: So we have to imagine them boldly firing out of their trucks like 18th century US Cavalry out of their saddles? With a cigar in the corner of their mouth, right? Or maybe from the rear-platform of a jeep like Sylvester Stallone? Sorry, that's not WW2.
So, what about this idea: Motorized Infantry can keep its strong offensive character in rural provinces but only if there are no regular troops in the province?
Like: effectively butchering civilians, but effectively being butchered by regular troops?
A bit like ISIS troops so to speak? Would be realistic!
On the other hand, rural provinces, without opposing regular troops present, do not require much offensive capacity, do they?
Will this require extra programming though? Any coder having ideas on this?
freezy wrote:
If we turn nearly every Inf into a defense unit, there is not much variety or options for players focusing on the Inf branch.
Hans A. Pils wrote:
(please advise on a neutral term that we can use for these guys without getting banned)
The post was edited 1 time, last by coolgame2019 ().
coolgame2019 wrote:
The first thing i want to say after my last post about what is good with the old ver. We can agree that all players here love a good strategy game. But players who cried out for resources trading. I have to say to the DEV, this is defintely a BIG NO NO. And should NOT even giving provinces either in coaliation or not (except returning the home provinces back to the coaliation teammate). It is because the nature of the game (Free to play) and cross platform. It will crush your honest and new comer player (both paid/non paid player). That may also be one reason why people don't stay in this game long. I don't want to get into details but you know how. And I bet those who insist the old version probably know how. I think this is Breach of game conduct.
The post was edited 1 time, last by vonlettowvorbeck ().
The post was edited 2 times, last by white bird: Added comment about speed differential between Battleship Flotilla and the convoy ship. Added comment about less HP for Tank Destroyers and MT's and SP Arty. within a convoy. ().
Akulla3D wrote:
Just wondering when we can expect the next level of testing for 1.5 -- despite all the negative reactions from different folks I for one welcome these new changes.
Ryan04px2025 wrote:
Others don't that is why they will be "fixing things up" before going forward.Akulla3D wrote:
Just wondering when we can expect the next level of testing for 1.5 -- despite all the negative reactions from different folks I for one welcome these new changes.