Incourage skill play.

2 years ago
Do you guys every experiance of out play the enemy in front of their base.Then enemy press retreat and a few secend later their mg the just retreat just set up at the base and fire out to the cut off point.

For me the reward is like nothing.Let me explane to you.In order to flank the enemy mg in front of the base in need a lot of skill such as positioning timing and map awearness.

But the reward is very few.since enemy can press retreat to escape that well excecute flank and lose only few secend to reset up mg inside their base to fire out to protect cut off.

Or do you ever experiance raket wafer retreat?

In the late game german just camping 2 vp with raket and have some tank out to support it.

When you risk your tank or infantry to out play raket and force them to retreat it can just lose a few secend to retreat and can besetup again inside base ready to action again.

This system discourage tank assult because when you out play raket wafer and force it to retreat it can be setup again in base which mean if you all in your tank to try to kill a german tank even after you out play enemy at support already it is still have little chance of success.Since german tank need only few secend to drive to base secter to get in raket(which just retreat) wafer range support which mean double fire power.

So i would like to introduce "panic "debuff

This is buff is create to incourage flanking and skill armor assult.

Team weapon that just finish retreat will have reduce 50%accrucy and increase for 20 secend.
This change is create to reward skill play of player who can flank enemy infront of their base or well plan armor assult in enemy base secter.increase the time of enemy to respond to cut off play or tank all in after they retreat unit.


  • #2
    2 years ago
    Rommel654Rommel654 Fort Eustis, VAPosts: 934 mod

    There have been some games in the last few years that have simulated this "recovery and reconstitution" idea, but it may not be needed here.

    Your point if I understand correctly is really about lines of communication. There is a reason he is tougher at his base; one is as to pause a critical momentum you may have from a tactical victory to a game ender. Only the Soviets/Wehr cannot completely overcome extended lines as they can't have a true forward retreat point. USF and Brits can. OKW can but only in a limited way.

    More than one game has been lost from a player overextending his advantage only to underestimate how strong even weak forces can be at the base early game. If you have him at his base but don't have the forces to seal the deal, you do have many other advantages you could take from owning the map. To take away the base advantages would make for some unjustifiable short games and as soon as one got to a critical point or a rout of the enemy there could be little chance of a comeback.

    There are lots of fights in the game. To me, one of the most important is the reconnaissance fight. If he is camping with raks and mg's, then you have indirect, smoke, and maneuver. If you truly want to get better operationally you should watch your defeats in 3 ways. First from the enemy's perspective with the FOW on - looking at build order, when and how he started to react to your forces and tactics, what he could see when, where did he take risks, his tactics, etc.

    Then with the FOW off and look for all the opportunities you missed had you had complete understanding.

    Then with the FOW on from your perspective. Then with your limited view, but increased knowledge of what is going on - visualize. Visualize from the limited clues you have to see the opportunities. This will help you recognize in future games with the smallest of clues to where those opportunities may be.

  • #3
    2 years ago
    Rommel654Rommel654 Fort Eustis, VAPosts: 934 mod

    It always surprises me when someone throws up a pyrrhic stat as an authority of argument. If you are an expert in replays then you would be the first. I've spent many years training Brigade Combat Teams watching replays of actual battles, and I've learned there is always much more to learn - from anyone. To dismiss a source because of some personal moving window of measurement is to follow in the folly of many elitists.

    To each his own. The recon I speak of is not necessarily a recon plane. The best recon comes when the enemy does not know where you are getting your intel. It is part of a recon plan for each stage of the game, not just when you have an off map you want to use, but in developing Decision Points.

    In short your idea won't work for this game. You are trying to negate a natural law of lines of communication. The longer the lines, the more complicated the operations.

    Units already have a buff when they retreat. Now you want to not only eliminate that buff, but greatly penalize units when the retreat and are in their base. Your reason for this is because it rewards units that fight close to their base and rewards players that timely retreat their units in the face of overwhelming firepower. We call folks noobs for staying and letting their units die, and now you call them unskilled if they retreat and counterattack.

    This 20-30%, what statistic is this coming from? Success of what? If you just made it up, what are you really trying to say? If you are super aggressive but you only find the enemy mg's when your squads are pinned you may not be using all of your enablers.

    Yea, it is tougher to hold territory far from your base and close to his. It should be. But you are rewarded with the resources of the greater share and for unit preservation. His advantage to being close to his base is mitigated when the Katy's, Panzer werfers or walking stukas come out as he has much less maneuver space and his casualties will be disproportionate.

    I would much rather have the problems that come with long lines of communication verses the problem of fighting outside my base because the advantages that come with long lines of communication (more resources, maneuver space, better recon, initiative, time, defense options) greatly outweigh the advantages of fighting from your base (faster time back in the battle).

  • #4
    2 years ago
    Rommel654Rommel654 Fort Eustis, VAPosts: 934 mod

    Lieutenant Colonel, but that is in the real world.

    I'm sure I don't understand you as you are your best historian. What you are proposing is not an unrealistic simulation. Many games replicate units to have a recovery time. The one in this one is the time to heal and reinforce. It is directly proportional to how damaged a unit is.

    You want to add a period of time for units that have retreated to be less effective or more vulnerable. This would be an additional penalty that would negatively impact most if the unit had to get back into battle quickly. I think I now understand.

    This game is about time. Destroying enemy forces for this game buys you time. It is the means to the end. How many games have you won where you had no significant forces remaining, but your enemy lost sight of the victory conditions. He had a significant larger Army as he was staring at the defeat screen - desperately writing to you that if the game had last 5 more minutes he would have destroyed you - you lucky ...... person.

    In some cases your idea would work fine. But there are other things you would need to consider and modify. I'm sure you are aware that the smallest changes in time have great impacts. For example changing time to repair from 1.5 to 2.0 for some units could unbalance game play. Time to reinforce, even by seconds can have impact to timing and pacing of the game. This is most seen in 1v1's.

    Even if you could balance the timing of your new idea with the pacing of the game in all stages of 1v1's, at each echelon you would need to rebalance it because you are changing time. Your idea would work, just not by itself. You would need to change other time related incidents. This could be anything from movement to capture rate. They are related. The variables increase as the echelon increases (2v2 -4v4).

    I have no problem with your idea. I guess I need to be convinced that units fighting from the base (with it's advantages) are a problem. Your superior micro, tactics and aggressive "assault" as you describe put him there, and now you are at a disadvantage because of his increased strength from base defenses, fast recovery, and short lines of communication. In this case you chose your time and place of battle. You have the initiative, you don't have to give it up by exhausting your victorious troops in an attrition battle that will take your retreating troops 3 minutes to get back in the fight.

    He is only reacting to your play. You bested him by aggressive tactics so he is doing what he can to regain the initiative. To keep the initiative you have to change it up as he has. It is a great time to use those other great tactics; let him chase you to an encirclement, you have space and time as he has to reconnect with you, canalize his troops to pick where and when you want to fight him.

    I certainly understand it is easier said in a blog than executed in a game. Use your inner General. If you are lucky enough to anticipate someone using this tactic then you are clever enough to find a solution that fits your play style - without having to change a sensitive game mechanic of time.

    When I suggested that you watch the replay, it was not an elementary quip to a noob. All good players watch replays. I was trying to give you a general military tip that can cross over to the game. After you get all the basic stuff from the replay of what happened, why it happened, and data like build orders, you can begin to train yourself to see through the fog of war for the next fight. Few watch a replay more than once and certainly not to train themselves to visualize. It is hard and most will never get there. Instead they lean on their superior micro skills and tactics alone - which for many take them pretty far.

    Imagine if that great player had less of the fog of war.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

  • © SEGA. SEGA, the SEGA logo, Relic Entertainment, the Relic Entertainment logo, Company of Heroes and the Company of Heroes logo are either trademarks or registered trademarks of SEGA Holdings Co., Ltd. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. SEGA is registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.