My thoughts on HB

[Walrus]

I know there's a discussion thread, but this should be a pretty long post so I figured I'd make a thread.

Yes, I know this is an Alpha. I am just providing feedback. I know this isn't 100% representative of the finished game.

Anyway - if you've played HB with me in ventrilo, you're well aware that I'm less than pleased with what HB offers. I'll list my complaints here, I think they're pretty reasonable and I won't yell as much as I do in vent either :P

My number one issue with this expansion is that it's trending towards "CoHification". The absolutely massive number of units on the field leads to what I ran into a lot when I played CoH - sending a large "blob" of infantry towards a point, hoping that their sheer numbers will see them through whatever they face along the way, rather than a smaller, more closely-controlled, force. This is also evident in the way the units have been modified, for example stormtroopers are now basically SMG infantry who have better weapons. Before, a single stormtrooper squad could be micromanaged and wipe out countless enemy units, now they either get blown up by artillery or overwhelmed by spammed cheaper units. There's not much reason to buy the elite infantry except to cement your hold on an area you've already secured with cheaper units.

Here's an example: I played a 2v2 today, as the US against the Germans. My attempts to maneuver a small amount of elite units through the torrent of incoming artillery and MG fire(a point I'll address later) failed completely. However, buying 3 units of the cheaper "Rifle squad", setting them on move at will, and just letting them go captured the point without too much difficulty.

That makes me pretty unhappy. In vanilla, you will almost always be more successful with a smaller amount of units that are well micro'd. Yes, sometimes large groups of infantry that are only loosely controlled are necessary. However, that is the exception, not the norm. The huge amounts of infantry given in HB make "lone infiltrators" pretty much worthless, too. In vanilla, your lines had to be closely monitored and your infantry positions closely watched to make sure there were no gaps for scouts or flamethrowers to slip through. In HB it's trivial to do that because a single squad can watch an enormous area. The sheer number of units make it impossible for a single infantryman to make any difference, either. Before, a single stormtrooper could absolutely wreck an enemy's assault by sneaking up and panzerfausting a tank. Now, there's so many men everywhere that they will be spotted and raped before they can do a thing.

Tanks are also a waste of time in HB. The penetration changes to cannons, plus the -20 range to HE and the relative cheapness of AT guns all combine to make tanks a waste of points unless you're using them to cement your hold on a position. Take, for example, the Tiger tank, put up against a M5. At max range, the M5 has 94mm of penetration. The Tiger's max range of 160, -20 for HE, means it has to go to 140 meters to kill the M5. At that range, you're flirting with disaster because the M5 can kill the Tiger frontally at pretty much any moment. In a similar vein, the German vs. US tank combat is pretty screwed up. The Hellcat, a 600 point unit, is capable of killing the Tiger, a 1200 point unit, at maximum range. 105 penetration at 150 meters. Basically, until you get into super-heavies, tank combat consists of "take shot, back up out of range, inch into range, back up, rinse repeat". The absolute best part of vanilla is a combined arms assault being successful and taking a point, and the best part of a combined arms assault was facing off against another tank. I haven't seen an actual tank duel in any HB games I have played so far. The fact that tanks are essentially worthless now means you've got to find another way of supporting your infantry, which leads me to...

Artillery spam. F.U.C.K. A.R.T.I.L.L.E.R.Y. It's the bane of my existence in vanilla, and in HB it's totally encouraged. I don't think there's a single goddamn person on this board who thinks it's fun attempting to hold a point as your units are continually hammered by artillery. This was annoying in vanilla, and the 105's have made it 105 times more annoying with their barrages. (Mortars too, but to a lesser extent) Artillery spam was/is the last refuge of a player who cannot hold their own in tank-on-tank combat in vanilla, but now it's pretty much the only option if you want to support your infantry. Now, in vanilla, the standard option for dealing with artillery would be either counter-artillery, a scout, or a puma/armored car rush. Due to the mongol-horde-esque amounts of infantry on the field, the scout and the AC rush are both impossible. This leaves counter artillery, which only makes the artillery spam problem worse, making the game less fun for everyone involved.

Thus ends my rant, I hope you guys at least read some of it.

Oh, one thing I forgot to mention: I don't like the way the elite infantry has been homogenized. Before, each had their strengths, Germans destroyed everything at midrange and had the fausts, Russians were excellent in close quarters and had a flamethrower, etc. Now, everyone gets a rocket launcher, the Germans are no longer as good at medium range, etc. I guess it makes more sense balance-wise, but vanilla was pretty well balanced overall, even if the elite infantry wasn't.

[General FLEISH]

I can completely understand your anger, sice these are the things that annoy me the most too.
But as you said, this is still an early alpha, and thus we are here to say our opinion like you just did, to bring it one the right track. You could say the new System is a raw diamond and now it needs work to make a true juwel out of it. The basic thought behind the new system is awesome, and i think once everything is balanced again, it will be far more fun to play than vanilla.

[XxRAxXDonRodrigo]

I know there's a discussion thread, but this should be a pretty long post so I figured I'd make a thread.

Yes, I know this is an Alpha. I am just providing feedback. I know this isn't 100% representative of the finished game.

Anyway - if you've played HB with me in ventrilo, you're well aware that I'm less than pleased with what HB offers. I'll list my complaints here, I think they're pretty reasonable and I won't yell as much as I do in vent either :P

My number one issue with this expansion is that it's trending towards "CoHification". Partially Agree The absolutely massive number of units on the field leads to what I ran into a lot when I played CoH - sending a large "blob" of infantry towards a point, hoping that their sheer numbers will see them through whatever they face along the way, rather than a smaller, more closely-controlled, force. This is also evident in the way the units have been modified, for example stormtroopers are now basically SMG infantry who have better weapons. Before, a single stormtrooper squad could be micromanaged and wipe out countless enemy units, now they either get blown up by artillery or overwhelmed by spammed cheaper units. There's not much reason to buy the elite infantry except to cement your hold on an area you've already secured with cheaper units. Absolutely not agree, HB give more relevance to how you set your troops and split squads rather to how you micro them
Here's an example: I played a 2v2 today, as the US against the Germans. My attempts to maneuver a small amount of elite units through the torrent of incoming artillery and MG fire(a point I'll address later) failed completely. However, buying 3 units of the cheaper "Rifle squad", setting them on move at will, and just letting them go captured the point without too much difficulty.

That makes me pretty unhappy. In vanilla, you will almost always be more successful with a smaller amount of units that are well micro'd. Yes, sometimes large groups of infantry that are only loosely controlled are necessary. However, that is the exception, not the norm. The huge amounts of infantry given in HB make "lone infiltrators" pretty much worthless too. Not true, but you have to sneak and not just run near the map board. In vanilla, your lines had to be closely monitored and your infantry positions closely watched to make sure there were no gaps for scouts or flamethrowers to slip through. In HB it's trivial to do that because a single squad can watch an enormous area. The sheer number of units make it impossible for a single infantryman to make any difference, either. Before, a single stormtrooper could absolutely wreck an enemy's assault by sneaking up and panzerfausting a tank. Now, there's so many men everywhere that they will be spotted and raped before they can do a thing. Wait to try the infantry in a large map

Tanks are also a waste of time in HB. The penetration changes to cannons, plus the -20 range to HE and the relative cheapness of AT guns all combine to make tanks a waste of points unless you're using them to cement your hold on a position. Take, for example, the Tiger tank, put up against a M5. At max range, the M5 has 94mm of penetration. The Tiger's max range of 160, -20 for HE, means it has to go to 140 meters to kill the M5. At that range, you're flirting with disaster because the M5 can kill the Tiger frontally at pretty much any moment. In a similar vein, the German vs. US tank combat is pretty screwed up.Yes! this is a big problem and we must fix it The Hellcat, a 600 point unit, is capable of killing the Tiger, a 1200 point unit, at maximum range. 105 penetration at 150 meters. Yes this also another problem but may be we have to get used to the new tank micro; i suggest to wait to see what Devs wants to do Basically, until you get into super-heavies, tank combat consists of "take shot, back up out of range, inch into range, back up, rinse repeat". The absolute best part of vanilla is a combined arms assault being successful and taking a point, and the best part of a combined arms assault was facing off against another tank. I haven't seen an actual tank duel in any HB games I have played so far. This not true, as i sad you have to get used to the new tank micro The fact that tanks are essentially worthless now means you've got to find another way of supporting your infantry, which leads me to...

Artillery spam. F.U.C.K. A.R.T.I.L.L.E.R.Y. It's the bane of my existence in vanilla, and in HB it's totally encouraged. I don't think there's a single goddamn person on this board who thinks it's fun attempting to hold a point as your units are continually hammered by artillery. This was annoying in vanilla, and the 105's have made it 105 times more annoying with their barrages. (Mortars too, but to a lesser extent) Artillery spam was/is the last refuge of a player who cannot hold their own in tank-on-tank combat in vanilla, but now it's pretty much the only option if you want to support your infantry. Now, in vanilla, the standard option for dealing with artillery would be either counter-artillery, a scout, or a puma/armored car rush. Due to the mongol-horde-esque amounts of infantry on the field, the scout and the AC rush are both impossible. This leaves counter artillery, which only makes the artillery spam problem worse, making the game less fun for everyone I dont agree with you, artillery is really funny now and works like an arty not like an ATgun

Thus ends my rant, I hope you guys at least read some of it.

Oh, one thing I forgot to mention: I don't like the way the elite infantry has been homogenized. I dont think they are homogenized Before, each had their strengths, Germans destroyed everything at midrange and had the fausts, Russians were excellent in close quarters and had a flamethrower, etc. Now, everyone gets a rocket launcher, the Germans are no longer as good at medium range, etc. I guess it makes more sense balance-wise, but vanilla was pretty well balanced overall, even if the elite infantry wasn't.

[Hartmann]

I don't think it was ever much fun having to be constantly paranoid about invisible people sneaking through your lines.

Artillery is better then it was in vanilla as well. There you just had arti constantly tracking 1 target until it scored a hit.

[General FLEISH]

It may be better, but still not the best solution. Now it blows away everything you carefully secured withing a few seconds.

[UsF]

That what it is intended for I think. If you crowd lots and lots of units into close space, artillery is supposed to easily blow them pieces, without being able to hunt down individual units.

If the enemy is not assaulting your position, relieve some units and pull them back to safety (spread them out). It is likely that he plans to bombard your heavily defended position to soften it up before attacking. You can build up a second unknown line of defense behind your front line, where you have the remaining troops stationed, able to cover your units from behind and quickly advancing to close combat.

Wasting your artillery on a single or a hand full of units is not that cost effective and the cooldown might come back to you when you need that firepower right now.

It would be nice to have a barrage-button that orders your artillery to attack a position with a barrage once, not like the attack ground option where it shells the position endlessly after the cooldown finished, again and again. This can be worked around with attack a ground attack order and pressing S for stop immedially after, still would be nice to have a separate option. You could then order a sniper shot on one explosive device without having you to manual control the whole process for example.

[crazyofengland]

I agree that Hb is getting scarily close to CoH as i have said in another thread. And some things like the arty system is a bit better but should be more expensive and less accurate. Also i think that Elite units should be ELITE not just a bit better s they are now.

[Mavvvy]

I am very inclined to agree, from how I have seen combat unfold in heroes so far.

I feel experienced players will certainly lose much of their edge at managing their units as the advantage of stealth/ambush has been negated by sheer weight of numbers.

However this shift could be turned into a good thing if the size of the maps available are expanded in proportion to the number of units on the field.

Although im sure most vets would agree that it would be good to be able to win without being forced into using artillery.

[Instinct]

As a side note,

- infantry spammage, more units on the battlefield.
This is simply not possible, the standard CP setting is 100 CP, in MoW it is the same but mostly set to 160 CP.

Meaning that you have more units per squad doesn't mean you have more units on the field, as the game doesn't even allow that. The reason why they may appear to be more is that infantry is now used as an attack unit that simply can't be used with a 5 men group but will advance with 10 or more troopers. In MoW you'd probably wouldn't even dare to do that.
Sure you can spam infantry, but you can spam infantry in MoW the very same way and it will have the same result, you will loose. I think Kempf tried it yesterday and he lost 30 conscripts before they fired a single bullet.


I feel experienced players will certainly lose much of their edge at managing their units as the advantage of stealth/ambush has been negated by sheer weight of numbers.
So far, I have not seen a single HB match in which anyone won by using massive amounts of infantry

What I saw in masses though is this:
http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/9981/090324031200.jpg
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/7189 ... 033800.jpg (http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/7189/090324033800.jpg)

I needed no strategy, I needed no proper units, i just outmicromanaged them so they couldn't even come close to me to fire a few rounds. This may look cool, but this is neither fun for me on long term nor for the other team.
The game delivers now an opportunity for normal players to enjoy the game while not loosing terribly against and half way experienced player, who blows up their heavy tank with little to non-skill. (and a scout requires no skill at all against a noob).



Although im sure most vets would agree that it would be good to be able to win without being forced into using artillery.
I totally disagree, I spammed artillery the last 20 games and I only reached once a good score in my team. Other than that I had no chance to defend myself when my team wasn't properly organized and with the increase of costs for artillery and the reduction of the "new" factor, artillery won't be the most common tool. Also it runs contrary to your opinion that you only win with masses, whereas artillery is exactly meant to destroy masses.


Oh, one thing I forgot to mention: I don't like the way the elite infantry has been homogenized.
They may use more similar equipment, i.e. not only Germans have AT-capability and in fact Americans have now the best AT within Stormtroopers. But the difference lies in the very individual type of equipment they carry, whereas in MoW they were all clones of clones where even the weapons were homogenized (M1 Carbine??). Now they have complete different outlets of weapons for complete different purposes and btw, you saw 2 out 5 stormtroopers... so I wouldn't go so far to assume they are all the same...

[Mavvvy]

Apologies I feel I inadequately explained my opinion above. Fair point made instinct.

Of course the natural bain of infantry is going to be arty correctly used and rightly so, but in context of the current smaller maps i suppose its just always been a pet dislike of mine that artillery pieces can fire from spawn. But this is also where my second point comes into play.

In terms of the amount of infantry (the increased numbers of which i do enjoy) the issues I mentioned in my previous post personally have only occured in the smaller maps, where a skilled player due to the additional numbers on the ground can cover every approach effectively. Where generally before you would be lucky to have the manpower to do so leaving room for flanking.

So in essence what I meant to say was, in terms of smaller engagments the new gameplay may fit better into a bigger 2v2 map size then is currently availible which would round out the style of play.

Bigger maps have been very enjoyable.

Kind regards,

Mavvvy

[Instinct]

I agree about that smaller maps that were previously 2v2 or 3v3 may no longer serve as such.


Where generally before you would be lucky to have the manpower to do so leaving room for flanking.
I don't agree with this point however, when I hear "flanking", I usually ask what do you mean with flanking? Senselessly rushing in an armored vehicle on a suicide trip to destroy a big tank, or really flanking enemy troops. Not to speak of that it lead to a very stupid mechanic, using infantry as spotters spread in every bush preventing any real infantry combat.

You may now see the enemy troop movement, but that doesn't prevent the enemy from flanking. First at all human eyes can't cover everything on the screen and an attack on 2 flanks may serve much better. Just because you see something, doesn't mean that you can engage it. Leaving the room for tactical decisions not for who has more spotters in bushes and who is outmicromanaging the enemy player by spamming jeeps and armored vehicles to "flank". Also one may wonder about how realistic and gameplay supporting it is to be capable of aiming (which requires to see something) further than you can actually see... :)

I think the whole system needs a few weeks to test, than the maps need to be adjusted and most likely some of them need to be removed from the game.

What I noticed however, the player workload to actually play the game decreased drastically, 2 games of vanilla MoW are simply totally exhausting, whereas in HB I don't need to fear a scout or armored car rush, or dodge a million grenades every second and thus I can focus on my strategy to conquer or hold positions, lean a bit back once in a while to enjoy the firefights without 200 clicks per minute.

[Hartmann]

What I meant with the Hetzer MG, is that it seems to me that it is to efficient for a periscope aimed remote controlled MG. It doesn't seem to get any sort of visibility penalties, or longer reloading times.

It is one of the better infantry support tanks due to invincibility ghost MG gunner on top, which just seems wrong.

I'm not just deducting this from our game just now btw. Something that's been on my mind for a bit longer.

EDIT: Sorry for dropping my post it in this thread, was meant for the discussion thread.

[Instinct]

I agree, all this turret mguns need big time fixing. Reduced traversal speed, limited angle etc.

I think I will do that for next week version, we will see that, need to come along with skirmish again.

[Walrus]

Re: Hetzer, it's fine as it is, IMO. Keeping it alive requires constant micro-management, since it can be killed by an AT rifle from the side and all. If you've got to nerf it, just have it so a guy has to pop out to reload it. Also the thing costs 500 points now and it can be killed by a well-micro'd m20.


Infantry spam - I'm kind unclear on what you mean about the CP? In mow I always play on standard battle zones settings. Saying that the bigger unit sizes allow you to attack positions with infantry you couldn't before just isn't true, though. The defenders also have larger squads now, so it's the same "situation", just one that involves more units on both sides. Kempf's conscript spam wasn't a serious attack.

Those matches are infantry only, and you're playing against people who obviously have no clue what they're doing. You just got into position first, is all. The only thing that would change in a HB game of infantry only is there would be twice as many infantry in play.

"The game delivers now an opportunity for normal players to enjoy the game while not loosing terribly against and half way experienced player, who blows up their heavy tank with little to non-skill. (and a scout requires no skill at all against a noob)."

You're arguing for dumbing down the game, here. That's what I said was the problem in the first place. The entire reason I like MoW so much is because it's so unforgiving and rewards paying attention to your units. I don't want to be able to spam out 3 rifleman squads and win, I want to control 6 stormtroopers and sneak up on an IS3 and panzerfaust it, then mow down a squad of marines on my way out. You could do that in vanilla, but in HB there's now so many units everywhere that there aren't any opportunities to do something like that. It's been turned from "establish an elastic defense, sucker the enemies into traps and then destroy them, infiltrate their lines and ruin their plans, claw your way from trench to trench", into "make a line and slug it out". There's just so many units, and so much LoS, that most of the "trickier" ways to play have been made worthless. Tank combat used to be fun and had to involve a coordinated effort, using many different types of units in a combined assault to take out a particularly tough tank. Now, it's just a line of sight battle and some luck (since the tanks are so inaccurate).

Artillery - as I said before, because tanks have been made almost worthless (too expensive, too fragile), people now use artillery to support an attack. Artillery is just no fun, at least for me. In vanilla it made the battle more interesting because of all the ways it could change the tank game, which is where a lot of the fun in the game comes from. However, when the enemy starts buying 3-4 artillery pieces, as tends to happen when they don't want to use tanks for whatever reason, and there's a constant hail coming down, it just makes me want to quit out of that game and find one where I don't have to spend all of my time trying to rush riflemen into craters.

Elite infantry - that's my point! All of the elite infantry that I have seen so far no longer have strengths and weaknesses, they're just a above average in most things. A variety of weapons that behave differently is interesting in FPS games, but in a game like Men of War I'd prefer the units themselves are varied. Maybe more realistic that an elite unit would be equipped for all kinds of situations, but I think it's more fun game wise for them to be amazing at one thing and "meh" at the others.

[Hartmann]

I really would like to give a constructive reply to your criticism, but I just don't see the things you are seeing in the game. Try to play some more games, and play them with an open mind.

[Instinct]

Those matches are infantry only, and you're playing against people who obviously have no clue what they're doing. You just got into position first, is all. The only thing that would change in a HB game of infantry only is there would be twice as many infantry in play.
This is not possible, CP are your Command Points and they are identical to MoW. They limit the amount of units you can buy and since every soldier uses CP, it will make no difference.


Those matches are infantry only, and you're playing against people who obviously have no clue what they're doing. You just got into position first, is all. The only thing that would change in a HB game of infantry only is there would be twice as many infantry in play.
I have no means to show-off, I played the game long enough to know how to play it. Those guys had no chance because the game prevents them from having one and as we are talking about infantry spam, we may take infantry only games as good example.
What's different in HB? They can see my troops much further, they can engage my troops on longer range and they won't get nade spammed on SMG range because the AI is not reacting further than 40m.


Now, it's just a line of sight battle and some luck (since the tanks are so inaccurate).
Err... how can it be a line of sight battle when you finally see something, it's exactly the contrary now, you fight your enemies, not the fog of war that prevents you to kill a tank 30m in front of you because a 80cm high blade of grass is in the way. Whereas sneaking with your infantry still works well.

Most of your argument is completely based on the assumption that you have more units and thus not valid, as you can't have more units. It's not possible, that assumption is completely based on the fact that you have more soldiers per squad, however you can't buy as much squads as in MoW.

In Men of War stormtroopers had no specialties, they all sucked besides the Germans, if you mean that.
Or tell me, what was good about British stormtroopers or Americans, what specialties did they have, where were they better than Germans?


You're arguing for dumbing down the game, here.
I'm arguing for making the game not a scout and armored car rush game, which is 100% no fun for anyone except the one controlling the units. And when you give the enemy the opportunity to have 4 howitzers without making them loosing the game already, than something is going totally wrong on your side. (as you can have 4-10 tanks for that)

I'd recommend giving the whole thing more time, as it's the same with the Sherman 76, there is plenty of ways to take it out when you learn how and here and there is certainly a slight unbalance as we just started to transfer the new game mechanics.

[Zeke Wolff]

Regarding the remote controlled machine gun on the Hetzer. This weapon could not be reloaded from within the vehicle. The loader had to open up his hatch and manually reload it, a task that very often proved to be lethal or at least very dangerous. If you could make a loader appear when the machine gun is actually loaded, it would be a much better thing, and also increase the reloading time of the machine gun.

~Zeke.

[General FLEISH]

Yep, i think this would be the best way to solve the problem.
Limiting its traverse would be unrealistic. Its real problem was the small 50 round magazine.

The late stug III had the same system btw :D

[UsF]

If a loader pops up and reloads the machine gun, he will get killed, the next person in the tank will switch to the loader and this will continue until everyone in the tank is dead. This can happen when you control the AA mg as well.

[FrozenLiquidity]

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/9981/090324031200.jpg
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/7189 ... 033800.jpg (http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/7189/090324033800.jpg)

Instinct's favorite past time is revealed. :lol: Schooling noobs at infantry only games.