View Full Version : Desperate need of Mixed Factions in Team Games
Kojaimea
10-09-2008, 17:21
If there is one thing about team games in RTS, they need to be different to the 1v1 format of the game. Units should have to be used differently, and there should be more units available for each team so a greater diversity of strategies can be used.
In MoW beta, each team is confined to the same set of units, as you cannot select a faction for individual players, but instead for teams. I would like to see the option for each player to choose their own faction, as this would allow the greater diversity of strats i mentioned earlier to be used.
TTorpedo
10-09-2008, 18:12
Hell No,
Lets preserve a bit of sanity. Its already chaos out here as it is. I don´t see any need to mix army's they are pretty similar as they are, and the scoop of strategy's you can use are huge compared to most of the games out there.
In the end you can still mod it though...
SS-Kommando
10-09-2008, 18:38
Hell No,
Lets preserve a bit of sanity. Its already chaos out here as it is. I don´t see any need to mix army's they are pretty similar as they are, and the scoop of strategy's you can use are huge compared to most of the games out there.
In the end you can still mod it though...
I agree completely. It would be utterly ridiculous having one player as German and one player as Soviet on one team, vs one player as German and one player as the USA on the other... If it was implented, I would definately not buy Men of War to be honest, and I'm sure many others see it the same way too. I have confidence in the developers that they will not implent this, though.
/SS-Kommando
Kojaimea
10-09-2008, 19:03
I dont mean mix teams, i mean mix the factions within one side.
Wouldn't a Brit + Americans vs Germans + Soviet match up be much more interesting? Maybe it would require the implementation of more Axis armies to make up for the abundance of Allies (i'm assuming here that the soviet team is essentially after the defection). There are so many opportunities for this however, with this still being in its beta phase
4 players per team all using the same set of units to me is just an extension of the 1vs1 mechanics of a game like this and i wont be buying this game if there isn't a way of mixing. It has been done with great effect in every other RTS game i can think of without any problems you are describing, and it adds a great deal of strategical depth to them, as the counters to specific unit makeups of your opponent become more complex, and a reliance of combined arms amongst you and your teammates becomes of greater significance.
So probably there would be also: ger + usa vs. ussr + uk :D
No to this idea.
They should fix the possibility that you can play now: usa vs. uk, kinda weird.
SS-Kommando
10-09-2008, 19:32
I dont mean mix teams, i mean mix the factions within one side.
Wouldn't a Brit + Americans vs Germans + Soviet match up be much more interesting? Maybe it would require the implementation of more Axis armies to make up for the abundance of Allies (i'm assuming here that the soviet team is essentially after the defection). There are so many opportunities for this however, with this still being in its beta phase
Having Americans and Brits on the same team would make sense, but not much else besides that; Americans and Brits never fought alongside the Russians, and Japanese troops never fought alongside the Germans.
4 players per team all using the same set of units to me is just an extension of the 1vs1 mechanics of a game like this and i wont be buying this game if there isn't a way of mixing. It has been done with great effect in every other RTS game i can think of without any problems you are describing, and it adds a great deal of strategical depth to them, as the counters to specific unit makeups of your opponent become more complex, and a reliance of combined arms amongst you and your teammates becomes of greater significance.
There are still two different minds commanding each one of the armies, which means it is by no means equalivent to an 1vs1.
/SS-Kommando
SS-Kommando
10-09-2008, 19:37
So probably there would be also: ger + usa vs. ussr + uk :D
No to this idea.
They should fix the possibility that you can play now: usa vs. uk, kinda weird.
I have very seldom seen any game in FoW with the Soviets vs. the USA myself, so I doubt this would be a problem. What Kojaimea proposed would definately be a pain in the ass for us who wants the game to be historical; because each individual would be able to select what faction he wished -rather than the host deciding the teams- there would be no way to make sure a game plays out historically correct, since every individual player could chose whatever faction they want. As a result ridiculous scenarios with 3 Germans and 1 Soviet vs. 2 Germans, 1 British and 1 Soviet would play out...
/SS-Kommando
Kojaimea
10-09-2008, 19:57
In terms of any competitive RTS game, gameplay always has to take precedence over realism.
The Gameplay > Realism factor has always been the case in every RTS game that has gone on to be a success.
Mixed armies (Wehrmacht and Panzer Elite, Americans and British) is already possible in CoH, and when PE and brits were added to the game, the strategical depth in team games increased 10 fold.
I am speaking from experience, and consider the option to mix up the units available to your team to be ESSENTIAL. Another way of doing this of course would be to add doctrinal units to each faction, say 4 commander doctrines that could be chosen, each doctrine giving that player access to certain units or abilities only available to that player through his doctrine choice.
And pleeeease read my posts, i am not suggesting you have Axis + Allies within one team...
SS-Kommando
10-09-2008, 20:33
And pleeeease read my posts, i am not suggesting you have Axis + Allies within one team...
I did read your posts. And you suggested that the Soviets should be on the German side. You should have said "Western Allies" to make yourself clearer, since the Soviets were infact one of the Allies.
One of the problems with adding German allies, though, would be that they didn't historically have enough decent tanks, cannons and so on to make up formidable land forces of their own. I think the best option would be to split the Germans into two, if following a path like the one you suggested: namely the Wehrmacht and the German Elite (it is not allowed to say its real name for some stupid reason according to German law).
To be honest, it wouldn't be so bad that way, even though I would rather keep the current system.
/SS-Kommando
i think that is good be all of the team from the same faction, UK, USA, Germany, URSS and Japan
but no 1 of the team from UK for example and the other Germany, that is not a good idea :shady:
TTorpedo
10-09-2008, 20:54
I understand your concept, its firmly based on Coh and is father Dawn of war..C&C and is father Dune 2.
This is another family Close Combat, Combat Mission, Soldiers, Theater of War, Fow and now MoW
In this latest breed, WW2 is not just a scenery like in Coh, there are no "factions" and no special "ability´s" in ww2. The game is based on ww2 warfare.
I try to keep an open mind but.. theirs a line here. Play a bit more understand this nuclear distinctiveness and you will see how strange the idea of mixing "improbable" allies is for me (and i my add most of the community)
This is one of those core aspects of the emulation/ Immersion of the game it cannot be changed without changing the all game
Hey but not all is lost, Like i said before you can mod it easy (notepad is enough) and prove me wrong :confused: Although i would advise to make a total modification of the game, Like a MoW-COH mod, assuming the departure from the core game.
On the other hand, keeping the core aspects of the game:
Basically your "just" asking for more units more squads and vehicles to chose from, within a team.
And i may add; Instead of molding your army squad by squad unit by unit You can have small army groups to pick instead; Players on the same side/ nation can pick a A full rifle platoon including is close support weapons where other player can pick an arty group or a scout group etc...(more in the WIC line!) This I´m Ok with it
Kojaimea
10-09-2008, 21:28
Im a competitive 1vs1 and 2vs2 gamer, and looks like this game is being torn away from this by people more bothered about which tanks look nice together more than a tactical and strategic game, so i guess it's not for me.
Have fun in your beta :)
Zeke Wolff
10-09-2008, 22:54
Yep, of course we do bother about which tanks looks nice... Hey, I want a Pink Panther! :P
Seriously, have you tried the game/beta? If you have, and you still find it as game with no tactical etc, then you have clearly played the game with the wrong people. There are always people who just wants to rush ahead, overrunning your spawnpoints etc, but you´ll soon discover who they are, and thus, simply avoid playing with them.
Personally I don´t care whether I uses a Pz.Kpfw. IV Ausf. H, a Panther or a Tiger I as long as they´re capable of knocking out the enemy tanks without getting knocked out in return. Panthers and Tigers are notoriously hard to knock out from the front, so if you are up against one of those, use tacticts and go around them and hit them where it hurts, ie. their flanks. The Russian Su-85 and Su-100 is perfectly suited for this task. Or why not use a bazooka dude and sneak up on the enemy tank unnoticed and blast it to pieces from the rear? You won´t survive long in this game if your only tactic is to hit the enemy in the front.
Your wish about having mixed teams... Well, the UK and US did fight together during a couple of times during the war. Both in North Africa and during the Battle of the Bulge, US infantry fought under British command (ie. Montgomery). But for the others... well, Italy and Germany could be one team, but USSR-UK, USSR-US, no, that did not ever happen during the war, and I can see no reason to why it the possibility should be added in MoW either. I wouldnt mind seeing the Hungarian forces either, since they had some quite good tanks in the Turan series etc.
~Zeke (yes, I am a pro-historical correctness nerd...)
Allow UK / US to fight together, but nothin more than that in my opinion.
And no to doctrines / special abilities etc, this is a war sim rts, it works in coh, but wouldnt work here.
However, why is there no veterancy? If my puma flanks around and knocks out 3 shermans, he should get a little more effective somehow, dunno if this would work, but I would love to see some form of veterancy. Correct me if its already in somehow :)
SS-Kommando
11-09-2008, 01:20
Allow UK / US to fight together, but nothin more than that in my opinion.
And no to doctrines / special abilities etc, this is a war sim rts, it works in coh, but wouldnt work here.
However, why is there no veterancy? If my puma flanks around and knocks out 3 shermans, he should get a little more effective somehow, dunno if this would work, but I would love to see some form of veterancy. Correct me if its already in somehow :)
And how are you thinking that should be depicted? The only way I could think of is increased accuracy, but it is accurate enough as it is now, so there's not really any point for that. Increased damage/speed there's not much to say about. It would not many any sense at all, since a crew's experience doesn't increase the gun's strenght or the vehicle's speed.
Either way, I don't think this would be needed, since I can't see any way it could be depicted well as I said above.
/SS-Kommando
i think that is good that Uk and USA be separete because we can know what of that 2 is better,and if UK and USA be together, How many tanks they will have 8O ?
Shermans, crusader, matilda, turttle , centurion.......and more , more and more
in my opinion it is good with 5 nations: UK, USA, Germany, URSS, and Japan :D
Im a competitive 1vs1 and 2vs2 gamer, and looks like this game is being torn away from this by people more bothered about which tanks look nice together more than a tactical and strategic game, so i guess it's not for me.
Your wish about having mixed teams... Well, the UK and US did fight together during a couple of times during the war. Both in North Africa and during the Battle of the Bulge, US infantry fought under British command (ie. Montgomery). But for the others... well, Italy and Germany could be one team, but USSR-UK, USSR-US, no, that did not ever happen during the war, and I can see no reason to why it the possibility should be added in MoW either.
This particular discussion must not be framed as a conflict/tradeoff between realism vs. gameplay. Personally, I am no realism nerd. I also do not care much whether in MP the game allows mixed teams, so I have no historical objections to that. I must point out though that this kind of mixing is simply not needed for enriching gameplay. The reasons are obvious. MoW already has 100x (and I am not exaggerating) tactical and strategic depth of games like CoH, Warcraft, and what have you, Yuri's revenge? Why?
The outcome of a combative encounter in MoW depends on so many more variables:
vision (which is a function of the angle, obstacles, physical unit size, emitted noise, etc.)[/*:m:3vguqk0g]
nuanced armour (front, sides, turret, rear, upper/lower plate, slope) vs. generic lifebar and all-around armour;[/*:m:3vguqk0g]
angle, distance, firing vehicle speed, target vehicle speed, turret rotation speed;[/*:m:3vguqk0g]
creative use of cover for fire evasion and vision[/*:m:3vguqk0g]
The above are just the most obvious to me, but there are more, because MoW attempts to emulate the real environment, while CoH and others are dummy environments where you need to invent different spells and special abilities, such as burn 5 mana points to deal damage to cave troll or what not, otherwise it would be boring (or some might say it's boring anyway). So MoW is not just about appealing to the historical crowd, it's a tactical game that uses this enormously larger number of variables in an intuitive (realistic) way in contrast to very low number of variables in an RTS game. Therefore it makes for much more varied gameplay without any need to throw in extra units from various sides. In MoW you can stage a lot of different situations with just a few units, a tank, a gun, an armoured car and a few infantry, even with just these same units possibilities are enormous. This is a game for cunning people.
I have not even started talking about the possibilities that teamplay adds to a game like MoW. 1v1 and 2v2 are obsolete. In 6v6 or 8v8 in MoW you can have really complex tactics which are not available in 2v2. But in CoH/Age of empires worlds it does not matter whether you have 2v2 or 6v6 as long as unit list is the same.
SS-Kommando
11-09-2008, 14:02
Text.
You forgot to name the most feature of all! Namely the direct control. With the direct control it is possible to aim with and drive any units manually, which is absolutely great with tanks and cannons in player vs. player battles, incase you didn't know, Koja.
/SS-Kommando
You can select the team you want in FFA game. And MoW isnt a RTS, its a RTT, Real time Tactical, a bit obscure genre, yet its closest by description. My personal opinion is that this franchise makes a genre of its own. :)
KeesFluitman
13-09-2008, 18:52
I do not agree with Koje.
Due to lots of options in this game and many units, competitive gameplay comes with balance and this suggestion would raise even more suspicion amongst the competitive gamers out there.
I also doubt if Kojea played the game frequently, meaning daily, weekly.
As for the comment Kojea made about people who want a nice looking tank are running this show.
Not true, if you would have read the posts in here. You'd have heard that people were not mentioning that.
Kojai wants the game's 2vs2 to be as IMBALANCED as in Company of Heroes.
NO to that idea. Same factions on same sides.
SS-Kommando
15-09-2008, 00:26
As for the comment Kojea made about people who want a nice looking tank are running this show.Not true, if you would have read the posts in here. You'd have heard that people were not mentioning that.
To be honest, I think the visuals are important too. They are of course not the core component of the gameplay, but it would obviously not be very fun if tanks looked like Tetris blocks. I think we can all agree on that.
/SS-Kommando
Im a competitive 1vs1 and 2vs2 gamer, and looks like this game is being torn away from this by people more bothered about which tanks look nice together more than a tactical and strategic game, so i guess it's not for me.
Have fun in your beta :)
iam a coh player, i played coh since beginning
u cannot compare CoH and MoW that are two basicly totaly different Games except they have WW2 scenario and are strategicaly.
After playing a couple of games in MoW i got the same fealing when playing RedOrchestra after DayofDefeat.
The last one is very fast and arcarde style bute makes fun too (a bit like CoH in Shooter Genre), Red Orchestra (like MoW) is much slower like MoW dont need such fast strategical thinking but has more strategical/tactical possibilities.
Its much more realistic.
All games (DoD, RO, CoH, MoW) have its place.
zerochrome
21-09-2008, 04:53
I agree with koja. what is wrong with having US+UK or US+Russia etc?
this is a GAME not a time travel machine which will let us command in actual war and playing with mixed factions will mess up the flow of history.
A game that can only hae 1 faction vs another faction at 2v2+ will NEVER be as deep, tactical, or skillfull as one that allows mixed factions.
:wilting: Then only two factions ? Axis vs Allies ?
I would like USA vs URSS or URSS vs GB or all combination.... include GER vs JAP. :yes:
Zebah (szebus)
21-09-2008, 18:41
:wilting: Then only two factions ? Axis vs Allies ?
I would like USA vs URSS or URSS vs GB or all combination.... include GER vs JAP. :yes:
yes , all combinations but with the posibilities of teaming them ... for example in a 2 vs 2 --> A Team = US and USSR vs B Team = Germany an Japan , or even A Team = Briths and Germany vs B Team = USSR and Japan ... got it ? :rtfm:
Technowiking
24-09-2008, 10:36
Having Americans and Brits on the same team would make sense, but not much else besides that; Americans and Brits never fought alongside the Russians, and Japanese troops never fought alongside the Germans.
/SS-Kommando[/quote]
There were japanese troops in normandy at D-day, not many tho..but a few..wich proves the opposite of your statement.
Proof or it didnt happened. :)
SS-Kommando
24-09-2008, 11:12
Having Americans and Brits on the same team would make sense, but not much else besides that; Americans and Brits never fought alongside the Russians, and Japanese troops never fought alongside the Germans.
/SS-Kommando
There were japanese troops in normandy at D-day, not many tho..but a few..wich proves the opposite of your statement.
My point was that it didn't happen to a large degree. I thought that was obvious, but now I have clarified it. There were soldiers of several nationalities within the German military, but most of these nationalities only made up a very small percentage.
/SS-Kommando
Zebah (szebus)
24-09-2008, 12:08
Look , if a combination like this would be a bad idea, then why a Brith vs US match is posible in multiplay ?
Zeke Wolff
24-09-2008, 13:14
There were japanese troops in normandy at D-day, not many tho..but a few..wich proves the opposite of your statement.
Yep, some Japanese citizens fought with the Germans during WWII, just like Russians, Swedes, Norwegians, Finns, Brits, Poles, US, Irish, Danes, etc etc did. But NO Japanese Imperial Army troops fought in the European Theatre of War. Just because some civvies decided that they would join the Germans, isnt the same as to say that the Japanese fought alongside the Germans.
Just take a look at the United States, which had a fully integrated "Japanese" Division in its ranks. These Japanese soldiers were born in the US and fought as US soldiers but that doesnt make them Japanese Imperial Troops.
~Zeke.
SS-Kommando
24-09-2008, 17:10
Look , if a combination like this would be a bad idea, then why a Brith vs US match is posible in multiplay ?
The main reason this is a horrendous suggestion is because the topic starter thinks that the player himself should be able to pick his nation (or is this just an impression I have gotten?), rather than the host selecting the options.
As for Brits vs Americans games. While it does sound ridiculous, I doubt it occurs to a large degree. I have no personal experience of it myself at least, but feel free to fill in if you have any.
/SS-Kommando
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.