Asymetric balance of Jerries VS allies in Normandy 44

User avatar
Gronank
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2492
Joined: Tue 8 Nov 2011 23:40
Contact:

Re: Asymetric balance of Jerries VS allies in Normandy 44

Postby Gronank » Mon 8 May 2017 18:25

Mike wrote:
Gronank wrote:The problem with 20mm single barrel flak is that you can't make them good AA without making them outstanding machineguns.

As for power of air in general. In my mod, I've increased survivability of guns and infantry a lot (while retaining suppression) and this makes planes less useful as deletion tools and more suppressive in nature


AT LEAST TELL ME THIS IS A SHAMELESS PLUG!

What's an unrecognised genius supposed to do? It does get a little akward with all the "I think X is a problem" discussions and all all you have in response is "Well, I think Y is a solution because I've done it and it works"
Image

User avatar
varis
Brigadier
Posts: 3210
Joined: Mon 20 Feb 2012 16:52
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Asymetric balance of Jerries VS allies in Normandy 44

Postby varis » Mon 8 May 2017 20:08

Asymmetric balance based on historical flavour sounds cool, even if quite challenging.

But if you balance by buffing defensive capabilities, isn't there a risk that the faction is locked into a defensive meta? That could be a major concern in my mind. You could avoid that by just targeting select divisions with this capacity, not everyone had top rate AA/AT guns I wager.

Gronank wrote:
Mike wrote:AT LEAST TELL ME THIS IS A SHAMELESS PLUG!

What's an unrecognised genius supposed to do? It does get a little akward with all the "I think X is a problem" discussions and all all you have in response is "Well, I think Y is a solution because I've done it and it works"


I think his issue was more that you did not say "drumroll... SHAMELESS PLUG, kashbang"?

But back to world class genius misunderstood during his lifetime, would you think mods will actually start playing a larger part in balance discussions, now that the stuff is official and more established I'd think a few players can take a look and assess just how good the solutions might be. (We'd still need to admit that fans often come up with more conservative half-way solutions than the original developers.)
Image

User avatar
Salamander7734
Master Sergeant
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon 20 May 2013 22:24
Location: Niflheim
Contact:

Re: Asymetric balance of Jerries VS allies in Normandy 44

Postby Salamander7734 » Mon 8 May 2017 20:48

I have actually been thinking about this quite a lot as it happens. I'm not sure the problem is the asymmetrical balance. Personally I think the problem is that the planes behave like Wargame close air support, as though they have direct radio communication to every squad on the ground.

I'm not even sure if this is possible in engine, but I wanted to hear what people thought of this suggestion

Rather than being able to give planes a direct 'attack ground' or 'attack object' order they are replaced by two new orders. 'Hunt' and 'Strike'

In hunt mode you get a large circle, like the off map artillery. You place the circle and the plane proceeds there. It then stays in the area strafing anything it comes into contact with. You cannot give it specific orders to attack units, because with 1944 technology I guess it would be quite hard to relay the exact targeting, you just let the pilot get on with it.

In strike mode you get a smaller circle. This is used for bombers and rockets. An attack in strike mode drops the payload inside that circle, but in no specific place. This is because unless the plane can see an obvious target its very hard to know what it's striking at. If you tell a plane in 1944 to strike a bush you think has an AT gun in it there's a reasonable chance it will choose the wrong bush. Right now it seems to strike the exact mark 99% of the time.


While this won't make planes any less annoying, or change the balance as it applies to both sides, it will make using them very different and make direct intervention less powerful. They'll be less a cure all killing card and more a support piece, but also require less micro management to be effective.

Again this is just looking for opinions, I wanted to try thinking up something outside the box.
Image

User avatar
varis
Brigadier
Posts: 3210
Joined: Mon 20 Feb 2012 16:52
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Asymetric balance of Jerries VS allies in Normandy 44

Postby varis » Mon 8 May 2017 20:56

All along I've been thinking that planes in WG would have been MUCH better and more realistic and authentic if they worked like that. Designate a plan / corridors for the air strike / fighter sweep, call it in, and hope the pilot dudes are up to their jobs. Instead of tricky micromanagement what we have now.

Then again the current approach probably is much easier to implement in the engine.
Image

User avatar
Gronank
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2492
Joined: Tue 8 Nov 2011 23:40
Contact:

Re: Asymetric balance of Jerries VS allies in Normandy 44

Postby Gronank » Mon 8 May 2017 21:17

But back to world class genius misunderstood during his lifetime, would you think mods will actually start playing a larger part in balance discussions, now that the stuff is official and more established I'd think a few players can take a look and assess just how good the solutions might be. (We'd still need to admit that fans often come up with more conservative half-way solutions than the original developers.)
I think there are basically two types of people who play these games, the sandboxers who play the theme and the exploiters who play the mechanics. This is the source of all the realism vs gameplay arguments. With the new mod system, particularly that mod usage is visible in lobby, mod discoverability is going to be a lot higher. I would therefore expect that there's going to be a lot less arguing about balance overall. All the sandboxers are going to congeal around one or two of the numerous realism mods that are going to be popping up and left to argue about the balance of the base game are going to be those who play ranked. These people, while certainly caring for authenticity to some extent, are primarily going to argue about imbalances, not about things that are wrong in regards to the theme.

Mods are a potent tool in showing how changes can make a thematic difference but they're not very good at resolving balance issues. The reason for this is that you can only percieve a balance state with hundreds of combined hours played in it. Compared to that effort, creating a mod is only marginally more productive than just theorizing about it. So, to answer your question, I don't think there's going to be a lot of balance suggestion mods.

I created my mod because I thought infantry lost fights wrong, they died instead of running away leading to pretty insane casualty rates compared to any real formation (the casualties we have in game would make the first wave at Omaha look like, well, a walk on the beach). I don't have any real complaints about balance at all (well, some), but I do think that some things should work differently for a better experience.
Image

User avatar
DasaKamov
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 338
Joined: Wed 17 Apr 2013 18:03
Location: United States of Denial
Contact:

Re: Asymetric balance of Jerries VS allies in Normandy 44

Postby DasaKamov » Mon 8 May 2017 23:03

Gronank wrote:What's an unrecognised genius supposed to do?

Cut off one of your own ears in protest, of course!

Out of curiosity (and in all seriousness), it seems that increasing infantry survivability could change the fundamental experience of vanilla Steel Division. It seems like infantry in an entrenched position would be much harder to dislodge and, therefore, the frontline would be more static than it is currently.

I also have the feeling that it would be easier to reach a critical mass of infantry in the endgame, since most (all?) divisions have access to sufficient numbers of infantry throught all three Phases, and it's more likely that more survivable Phase A infantry would be combat-effective well into Phase C (while also being reinforced with a steady flow of B and C infantry.)
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." - George Bernard Shaw

User avatar
Gronank
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2492
Joined: Tue 8 Nov 2011 23:40
Contact:

Re: Asymetric balance of Jerries VS allies in Normandy 44

Postby Gronank » Mon 8 May 2017 23:22

DasaKamov wrote:Out of curiosity (and in all seriousness), it seems that increasing infantry survivability could change the fundamental experience of vanilla Steel Division. It seems like infantry in an entrenched position would be much harder to dislodge and, therefore, the frontline would be more static than it is currently.

Ah, but the limit on infantry combat duration is suppression (it's just that death shortly follows in vanilla) and I haven't changed suppression. In addition, I made it so that pinned infantry automatically retreat, as well as letting the player retreat any of his engaged infantry at will. The result is that infantry fights ends as quick as they used to except with lower losses
DasaKamov wrote:I also have the feeling that it would be easier to reach a critical mass of infantry in the endgame, since most (all?) divisions have access to sufficient numbers of infantry throught all three Phases, and it's more likely that more survivable Phase A infantry would be combat-effective well into Phase C (while also being reinforced with a steady flow of B and C infantry.)

The infantry count tends to build up, but they get pushed around a lot. Of course, I haven't actually gotten around to play a long even mp game to see exactly how this plays out.
Image

User avatar
DeuZerre
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 11125
Joined: Mon 27 Feb 2012 23:17
Location: Universe, Galaxy, Solar System, Earth, Ground, Eurasian Continent, Main Landmass.
Contact:

Re: Asymetric balance of Jerries VS allies in Normandy 44

Postby DeuZerre » Tue 9 May 2017 01:04

Salamander7734 wrote:
Spoiler : :
Rather than being able to give planes a direct 'attack ground' or 'attack object' order they are replaced by two new orders. 'Hunt' and 'Strike'

In hunt mode you get a large circle, like the off map artillery. You place the circle and the plane proceeds there. It then stays in the area strafing anything it comes into contact with. You cannot give it specific orders to attack units, because with 1944 technology I guess it would be quite hard to relay the exact targeting, you just let the pilot get on with it.

In strike mode you get a smaller circle. This is used for bombers and rockets. An attack in strike mode drops the payload inside that circle, but in no specific place. This is because unless the plane can see an obvious target its very hard to know what it's striking at. If you tell a plane in 1944 to strike a bush you think has an AT gun in it there's a reasonable chance it will choose the wrong bush. Right now it seems to strike the exact mark 99% of the time.

I like that stuff a lot; It would probably be more like Wold in Conflict. However, it should be possible to dynamically change those orders during the course of the sortie.

But I guess it's a lot of AI coding to do and the game probably doesn't have the structure to do this.
Image
Marshal honoris causa
FLX wrote:Removing the weaknesses from the divisions leads to all divisions being the same in the long run. We won't proceed like that.

Random
Captain
Posts: 1509
Joined: Thu 31 Jan 2013 19:05
Contact:

Re: Asymetric balance of Jerries VS allies in Normandy 44

Postby Random » Tue 9 May 2017 07:26

I dont think there can be said that much about balance beyond 1v1 balance before we know all decks. And 1v1 balance has to take into account 2v2+ balance.

However the things you suggest are fine, I am agnositc to whether that would make the game more balanced.

User avatar
Saavedra
Warrant Officer
Posts: 499
Joined: Thu 10 Apr 2014 21:53
Contact:

Re: Asymetric balance of Jerries VS allies in Normandy 44

Postby Saavedra » Tue 9 May 2017 09:59

What I would do, by shamelessly stealing Salamander´s idea, is make Allied ground attack planes reach the map faster and attack areas like he suggested to represent the "taxi" system the Allies had going on. On the other hand, German ground attack planes would work the way they currently do to represent the need to have very carefully planned sorties given the Allies´ air superiority.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests