CP settings in AS?

[CzaD]

What are they like?

The reason why I am asking this is: in MoW, if my opponent buys an expensive, heavy tank (like Kingtiger) I can’t use strategy like buying for the same price and fielding 3 medium tanks (like Sherman) all at once and try to engage it from many directions. I can’t do it without unbalancing my army. 3 Shermans on the battlefield would cost me too many CP points, meaning I would be in danger of lacking in infantry or artillery to support them. So I have to give in the “technology race” and buy a heavy tank.

Now, when playing the GSM mod, I don’t have the problem since I can increase my CP points up to 400, which gives the players the freedom to spend their “cash” the way they want (less heavy tanks or more medium tanks) without sacrificing your infantry or art support.


I would definitely like to see something like that in AS.

[Canidae]

CP cost gets progressively higher through from light to medium to heavy tanks, so for the CP of his heavy you could have something like 2 shermans (this is what you want?).

There isn't a standard CP pool as big as 400, though. You wouldn't want the map too crowded with tanks, would you?

[Hartmann]

Default and balanced CP is 100.

With higher CP you are going to get a massive advantage for defensive players who can just keep pumping units into defenses without worrying. Along with that you're gonna see the armies of players that win a few engagements during a match grow massively, making it difficult for a player who made some mistakes early to make a comeback.

Also if your opponent buys a heavy tank, then he is the one going to have problems supporting it due to the CP it takes up. You don't have to worry about outnumbering him with tanks, as a single tank destroyer should be sufficient. Nobody sends regular Shermans against a heavy, they aren't able meant for that. And it's not like anybody can manage 3 Shermans at once anyway.

[CzaD]

CP cost gets progressively higher through from light to medium to heavy tanks, so for the CP of his heavy you could have something like 2 shermans (this is what you want?).

There isn't a standard CP pool as big as 400, though. You wouldn't want the map too crowded with tanks, would you?

That’s good news. A varied CP tank costs should encourage the use of tank combinations, instead of going for the best available gun.

Actually, I would like to see more tanks on the map, esp in tank only battles. I really don’t like MoW tank only battles, they are boring. They are not even battles, they are more like duels, in which a better gun usually wins. MoW has definitely got the scope (lots of interesting and varied units + large and varied maps) for exciting tank battles, but it lacks scale. For an exciting and tactical tank battle, we need to use a good mix of light tanks for recon, fast medium tanks for flanking and heavies for holding the front line. The winning combination and tactics doesn’t necessarily mean having the most expensive tanks in the game.


Nobody sends regular Shermans against a heavy, they aren't able meant for that.


“During the battle, Firefly tanks would stay behind in those position and cover the regular Shermans as they pushed forward, eliminating any enemy tanks that revealed themselves when they opened fire on the advancing Shermans and only moving forward when the regular Shermans had secured the area, or when they could no longer cover them from their current position.”

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Firefly#Service

And if you can’t afford a tank destroyer the most common and very effective strategy against heavy tanks is to make them turn and expose the side of their turrets or even better the side of their hulls. And nothing will make them turn faster than the sight of a fast medium tank approaching from one of the flanks.

And it's not like anybody can manage 3 Shermans at once anyway.

A good reason to practice micro-management skills.

[Hartmann]

I only see some text about regular Shermans using fireflies for support to kill enemy armour that is encountered by them, and that doesn't even mention anything about heavies. I also thought it was rather obvious that I was talking about the game and not RL.

Can you show me how to micro 3 tanks? Because unless you have 6 hands, 3 keyboards and 3 mouses that is impossible. AI can't even reliably move from A to B, let alone flank enemy armour without constant DC.

Maybe you should just buy AS and actually play it, instead of trying to correct me constantly.

[Mad Cat]

Let's not let this get out of hand if you please. For myself, I have managed to micro up to 4 separate tanks in Soldiers by quickly shifting between them as needed. It's not that much more difficult for me to do in FoW or MoW either. And I'm missing some dexterity in my right hand because of two amputated fingers. I didn't say it was easy. Not by a long shot. It took lots and lots of practice for me to be able to do it and even then I can't admit to success at every attempt. But it might just be how you manage it as a player that counts. I wouldn't disparage another player's skills just because you can't do something.

[Hartmann]

What I dislike is when someone (not having AS, and obviously can't know) asks a question, and when I (does have AS, and does probably know) answer it, he tries to prove me wrong?

Why ask in the first place if you're not prepared to receive an answer that doesn't totally agree with your preconceived suspicions about the game?

It does not promote any sort of meaningful discussion if people start arguing like this.

[Mad Cat]

Then that is an act of ignorance that needs only one reply. "Ask me when you actually have the game and/or have played it." ;)

[Hartmann]

Well yeah, in this case that would've been a better answer. But partly the reason for existence of this forum is to bring the AS discussion more into the open. We still have our internal AS forum, but its nice to discuss and inform people about AS who don't have access there.
I just enjoy informing more people about the game, and attract them into the beta or buy it when it's eventually released.

It's true that I can be overly harsh about this kind of stuff occasionally though.

[CzaD]

First things first, if I played AS, I wouldn’t have to ask about CP settings.

You say Shermans are not meant to kill heavies. But they do if you use them right, and that's what matters. And it feels really good if you can do that, that says something about your skills and tactics.

And stop saying that if somebody’s hasn’t played AS, he won’t have any skills. Don’t you think that everyone can carry most MoW skills over. AS might have different ranges + more ammo types, but that’s not a big deal. Btw, GSM mod has already introduced that.

Look, I really don’t understand what your problem is. In a regular all weapons battle, you need to micromanage infantry units (IMO this is the most difficult part and the most important one coz they are the backbone), plus you need to micromanage vehicles, equipment, tanks, artillery. So it is nothing unusual to micromanage around 25 infantry units, 2 tanks, one light vehicle plus some artillery. And you’re telling me I can’t handle 3 Shermans in a tanks only battle?


As for the “text”, if you opened the link you would find out that is an example of tank tactics which the UK successfully used in the combat against “70% of all German armour deployed during the Battle of Normandy, as well as almost all the elite, well-equipped German Elite units which contained the fearsome Tigers and Panthers”.

The question is: can these RL tactics be used in AS tank battles? Yes, I have seen many good players hiding tank destroyers at the back and putting medium or heavy tanks closer to their infantry line. Hovewer, we need to be able to deploy more than 1 or 2 tanks at once in a tank only battle first, before we start discussing MoW tank tactics . And if you could do that, think about all the epic tank battles we could fight, esp in 8 vs 8 matches.

[Tiny]

Just buy in to the thing, I did, and it's a very nice game indeed.

[CzaD]

I’ve already done it, mate. I love the game.

Honestly, I don’t mean to be a problem. I think expressing your personal preferences is an important part in a meaning discussion. Players/customers should feel free to talk about what they would like to see in a product. In this way, they provide some feedback to the devs.

However, I don’t understand why some people think that arguing with somebody’s personal preferences is a part of a meaning discussion. I just say what I and my friends would like to see in AS. However, I never say what somebody else would or wouldn’t like to see in the game, coz I always take individual differences into account.
So when you read my OP, you will see I would be interested in bigger scale tank only battles with varied tactics, as an option. But then I meet with a response like:” No, you wouldn't like it coz I personally find managing 3 tanks on the map too difficult”. It is like: “Hamilton comes to the car shop and says I would like a fast car, and a guy next to him says: Believe me you wouldn’t like it coz driving cars at 100 km/h scares the … out of me.”

And I really don’t understand why Instinct, who wants to sell his product, argues with the personal preferences of his customers. In my post on balance in AS, I expressed my personal preference of hardcore games being a partially unbalanced, like Total War games for example. However, Instinct, instead of just explaining to me that his game is primarily targeted at a group of players who like fair and competitive matches and encouraging me to try it, not only questions my idea of what a hardcore game is but he also passes judgment on my personal preferences by saying that expecting unbalance in a hardcore game is something wrong. Unlike, Hartmann, Instinct has got something to lose. Does arguing with customers sell products? And should different preferences be seen as a problem or as a business opportunity?

I wish Instinct all the best. He deserves it coz he’s got an excellent product, mod support and open dialogue with customers. But as a customer I am a bit discouraged to write about which features would make me and my friends happy and more interested in buying and playing the game, coz Instinct is likely to question and criticize my personal likes and dislikes.


P.s Please, don’t look at me a problem coz I would like to see different things in the game. I am not a troll or a ranter. I only write about features which would make me and my friend even happier MoW and MoW: AS fans.

Cheers

[Canidae]

I think Instinct and the devs generally do a fantastic job feedback-wise, but then again they can't bend over backwards to every request for obvious reasons. If 100 people all demanded different things, then that would be 100 things to implement, many of them contradicting what the majority of the other 100 may want or care about on top of that. For that reason for a position such as his it's all about judging whether the suggestion will be good for the game, good for the majority and a reasonable request anyhow (ie. can do it, can do it in a reasonable amount of time, priority of request, does it fit what they want to achieve) so I wouldn't feel disheartened if all requests weren't pandered to.

If he's arguing back at least that means he's trying to give you/hint some of these reasons why it should not be done... and you can always at least try to argue some more if you really feel you can prove that it's a suitable request (in contrast to being completely ignored as if you never suggested anything in the first place). :yes:

[Instinct]

It's new to me I was criticizing you (why would I judge your personal preferences?), all I tried was explaining you the definition of a hardcore game by industry standards, no more no less and if you are honest, I'm pretty sure you changed your mind about what a casual/hardcore game is atleast a bit. That you enjoy aspects of MoW that were simply mistakes by people working on it is lucky for you, unlucky for us. But you can't expect us to continue mistakes that have been done in the past and whether you enjoy it the way it is or not, a mistake is when one tried to do something different than what the result is. Yet, it's not even clear whether you will enjoy MoW:AS less than MoW, it's just pure speculation funded on the assumption that unbalanced factions are more fun than balanced ones, without having a look at both sides of the coin.

I also didn't continue the discussion about TW, as you even stated yourself that the major factions are balanced and they are for good reasons. Claming Britain or Japan are minor factions really just sounds like a gap filler for your point of view, since by no definition they are minors. It's just hard to build a good discussion on the basis of pure speculation of how a game could be, by just assuming balance is a bad thing without simply accepting that one needs to look at the product to be capable of judging. Sure you can have expectations from a game and wishes, but it seems that you have made up your mind before having a try on the game.

If you think though argueing is a bad thing, than I have no problem ending the discussion from my side.

[CzaD]

The biggest difference between me and you, Instinct, is that in our discussion I’ve never said that how you define things is wrong and never tried to impose my definitions on you. But, instead, I always tried to keep an open mind and reminded you of the fact that:
- how we define things is relative, depending on the individual and his experience, and;
- definitions may not be perfect, esp if we are attempting to describe a relatively new concept, like a hardcore PC game.

So again, (please listen to me), I accept your view of a balanced and a competitive MP game. I like it and I don’t think there is something wrong with it. But try to understand that playing MP battles is not all about competition. AS MP is different from TW MP: it offers only balanced factions (nearly 50% TW factions are unbalanced) and it offers no historical battles ( and it is a shame coz why do you think so many MoW players on this forum and on 1c one talk about eras?).


TW is a perfect example that supports my definition of a hardcore game, which is:

Most importantly they require long-term commitment, knowledge and/or special skills to play, plus they offer both balanced factions to promote competitiveness among players and unbalanced factions to promote realism and historical feel.

TW games and other games, like Steel Panthers, by not putting exclusive emphasis on competition in MP, have much larger scope (many more nations) and scale (being able to fight epic multi faction battles).

Don’t you think new features like:

- fight epic multi-faction battles, like UK + USA vs Germany + Germany ;
- historical battles;
- large scale tank only battles;
- new nations like: France, Italy, Romania, Poland etc.

on the cover of your game wouldn't be great selling points?

Honesly, in terms of scale and scope, GSM mod offers more to me than AS. It's got more factions and eras. GMS also added a lot of new stuff, lots of new maps ,changed the ranges and varied the ammo.


I also didn't continue the discussion about TW,

I don't care if you're going to reply or not. But bear in mind, that ignoring a customer is the worst thing you can do. It sends a bad message about your company customer relations policy. Btw, it cost you nothing to drop a line and suggest closing the discussion.

And, pls, keep an open mind and if a customer comes to you and says he would like to have a pizza with olives, don't argue with him by saying that olives on the pizza are wrong :sick: . If you do this, you're not going to sell the pizza. But say something like: I am terribly sorry but we run out of them, but perhaps I could temp you with our speciality which is… ." :) That might sell your pizza and it's what you want, isn't it?

[Instinct]

I'm imposing, judging you and ignoring you. I think the discussion is at it's end, which I already have told you in the topic before you compared MoW with TW.

I can't help you if you think something else offers you more than something you have not seen, not played, not even heard of all features or anything that could help you judging a game, besides a few screenshots and marginal information. (which is the contrary to an open mind) Nor can I help you that you simply can't accept that I wasn't criticizing your wishes or your opinion but explained the way games are defined by professionals and what industry standards they have to deliver to be accepted as such.


It sends a bad message about your company customer relations policy.
Such a line after having a multiple pages of discussion with me drops my interest to further discuss with you to a very low level. Now even suggesting that I should lie at you to sell our game, is really... outrageous? Especially after you requested to have a discussion about what balance is and does and not whether you should buy the game or not. Before I start lying at people so they feel comfortable, I will prefer not to discuss at all.
If at all you could say that you come to the pizza baker and tell him how you think an original pizza has to look like, while he tries to explain you what really belongs on it, but you refuse to believe it nor try it before saying this won't taste good.

[CzaD]

We can end the conversation but let me make certain things clear first.

Professional definitions and industry standards


Nor can I help you that you simply can't accept that I wasn't criticizing your wishes or your opinion but explained the way games are defined by professionals and what industry standards they have to deliver to be accepted as such.


I really must see the professional definitions and industry standards, since you keep on mentioning them. So far you failed to provide them. All I could see was the definition of a casual game and a hardcore gamer. It is funny that all of them come from Wiki. Let me ask you, since when Wiki provides professional definitions and standards for gaming industry? You don’t have any other sources, preferably, more reliable than Wiki? I myself can register with Wiki anytime and write the definition.

So we are left with your definition, which is a bit messy(it is all over the place), and which, to say the least, is a bit confusing.

In one of your posts, you make a clear and a very strong statement:” a game being unbalanced is clearly not hardcore in terms of gamedesign”, then you go on and argue how MoW is not balanced. And then, in another post you say:” I don't say MoW is not hardcore, of course it is.” It just doesn’t make any sense and it seems to show that either you lack a clear definition or you are not very consistent with it.

Ok, so everyone reading your posts might be a bit baffled, esp if you come up with such mystifying statements like:

“casual games aren't played by casual gamers”.

but at least you provided good examples of a balanced hardcore game: CoH, StarCraft, WarCraft, Command and Conquer, so people will know where AS is heading for.



Communication skills

I have said it many times that I really appreciate your replies and thanked you for them. But the number of your posts is not an excuse for walking away from a discussion without a word. Like you said you just decided not to reply to my posts any more, however you were not kind enough to inform me about it. It is not the best way to treat potential customers, esp if like I said before a short concluding note costs nothing but means a lot and says a lot about the quality of customer relations.

The pizza house analogy.


If at all you could say that you come to the pizza baker and tell him how you think an original pizza has to look like, while he tries to explain you what really belongs on it, but you refuse to believe it nor try it before saying this won't taste good.


I would probably agree with you on that if your pizza was indeed 100% original. But we are looking at a variation of pizza which I am very much familiar with.

To carry on with the analogy, you remind me of some Italian pizza houses, who are dead against ketchup. They follow strict industry rules which state clearly that a pizza must be enjoyed without ketchup; coz ketchup would destroy its balance. They will not sell a pizza with ketchup, so some guys just leave and go where they sell pizza with and without ketchup. Total War is like a pizza house that allows ketchup: it caters for more tastes by providing an epic scope and scale, which would be hard to achieve with perfect balancing.


I'm imposing, judging you and ignoring you.

No, come on, man. You are not judging me (you are not that bad :) ), you are just judging my personal preferences by saying that expecting hardcore games to be unbalaced is something wrong. I am not telling you that balanced hardcore games are wrong. They just suit my likes less.

Edit: I removed the word realistic from the "saying that expecting hardcore games to be realistic and unbalaced is something wrong...", coz there are many more way in which game can be realistic.

[jimopl]

In one of your posts, you make a clear and a very strong statement:” a game being unbalanced is clearly not hardcore in terms of gamedesign”, then you go on and argue how MoW is not balanced. And then, in another post you say:” I don't say MoW is not hardcore, of course it is.” It just doesn’t make any sense and it seems to show that either you lack a clear definition or you are not very consistent with it.


Just gonna add something, DMS is a german company, and i take it Instinct is german, in which case english is not his main language, thus giving him more opprotunities to make a gramatical mistake, He is very good at english and also, who knows it could be a typo?

[Instinct]

First, I have told you that continuing the discussion makes no sense, see this post:
viewtopic.php?f=148&t=6930&start=0#p83782 (http://www.digitalmindsoft.eu/forums/viewtopic.php?f=148&t=6930&start=0#p83782)



you are just judging my personal preferences by saying that expecting hardcore games to be more realistic and unbalaced is something wrong
If you continue claiming I was saying that when I clearly have not said a single word about realism != hardcore, nor that your personal preference is wrong, when all I said was that a hardcore game is doing something wrong when it's failing to provide balance and that you can't expect those mistakes to be done purposefully than it's our last conversation. I also pointed out that you probably prefer simulators over a hardcore games. I told you now 3 times in a row, that I don't judge your personal preferences, if you are unwilling to understand than I see no sense in discussing at all.



So far you failed to provide them.

“casual games aren't played by casual gamers”.
All explained in detail in several posts and afaik, I repeated myself more than twice each time, if you still didn't understand the difference between casual games and casual gamers than I fear you were just not reading what I wrote. And after you couldn't even believe me that CoH is no casual game, I provided you a quick link to wiki (which I also told you is not 100% correct). If you fail to believe me in what I'm saying, than I'm sorry, no need to discuss than.


In one of your posts, you make a clear and a very strong statement:” a game being unbalanced is clearly not hardcore in terms of gamedesign”, then you go on and argue how MoW is not balanced. And then, in another post you say:” I don't say MoW is not hardcore, of course it is.” It just doesn’t make any sense and it seems to show that either you lack a clear definition or you are not very consistent with it.
I wrote clearly in terms of gamedesign not according to overall appearance. MoW fails to deliver balance even though it tries, it doesn't mean it becomes casual because of that, or arcade. However the least thing what will happen is that an unbalanced game will be called hardcore (after your definition) because it fails to deliver balance even though it obviously tries to. This is pure nonsense.
MoW isn't succeeding in delivering overall balance, that means it's not succeeding in all elements a hardcore game should consist of, thus it's not as good as it could or should be.



You don’t have any other sources, preferably, more reliable than Wiki?
Maybe, the source would be people that make a living out of games? Obviously you assume they need to write books so you can believe them, it's tiresome.


but at least you provided good examples of a balanced hardcore game: CoH, StarCraft, WarCraft, Command and Conquer, so people will know where AS is heading for.
No, you simply imply something like you did the whole discussion over and I'm not willing to continue it anymore.

[CzaD]

I'm not willing to continue it anymore.

The feeling is mutual.