Demonicjapsel wrote:while OP makes some good points, i disagree with a few of them, mostly his idea on deck specializations and his re-imagining of the Destruction mode.
To start with the Specialized decks, i consider this a bad idea since you don't really do anything except allowing people to min max even more, while putting the general deck build to be virtually identical, and as such, you will still see only a very limited amount of deck types in ranked play, not as much of a solution since it makes min-maxing even easier.
Personally, the problems with spec'ed decks doesn't lie as much with themselves (although some nation decks could use an included unit or 2) but rather with the fact the general deck offers to do better allround since it gets access to all the equipment, without any major drawbacks in availability, and as such, offers by far, the best option since you get all the toys.
So instead of trying to make spec'ed decks more attractive (which they won't be until there is a clearly defined edge to be gained) why not limit unspec'ed decks in their choice?
So for instance, the French Leclerc MBT, which is a very commonly seen tank, why not limit it to armoured decks only, meaning that a non specialized deck still gets a decent choice of tanks to pick form, but simply doesn't get the top choice anymore, which if you do want it, you have to make choices.
Likewise, certain Shock and elite infantry can be limited to Motorized/Mech, Top tier arty to Support decks and specialized gunships etc can be limited to airborne etc etc etc.
This way, you can opt for a more specialized line up, combined with the vet boni and the fact you can get units that are better at what they do then a general deck, you make choices in other department, while a general deck can do it all, but has to make do with less powerful units for the advantage of having more choice.
The problem with this approach is that spec decks remain one-trick ponies. Making them really good at their one trick by doesn't fix the issue that spec decks have no real versatility and are very team dependent.
That said, I do like the idea of giving each spec deck exclusive access to e.g. prototypes.
Demonicjapsel wrote:on the subject of Destruction mode, yes the mode has issues, but i disagree on making Attacking trumps all idea OP seems to be proposing, for several reasons. for one, the thing that defending is more profitable is true, however, defense in depth is a viable military tactic, used by Russia in WWII and is generally considered to be one of the major elements in warfare.
In WWII, Russia won the war not by retreating all the way across Siberia and farming kills. They did trade land early, but they used defense in depth to achieve victory by conquering *territory*. Not by achieving a high kill:death ratio. Your example backs up my argument, not yours.
Demonicjapsel wrote:So yes, in destruction matches, i am quite happy to trade ground for letting my opponent run into a prepared trap, as my objective is to destroy the enemy, not gaining map control, so in short, i need to outlast the enemy.
No, that is a terrible idea for game play balance, unless there is a reason to attack AFTER you spring the trap. Within the current system, your approach only works if your opponent is clueless and desires to attack without realising that there is no rational reason to do so.
Trading ground to farm kills ought to be viable, but only if you plan on going on the offensive afterwards and capitalising on your kills. Otherwise, it creates a situation where players win by retreating which is idiotic.
Demonicjapsel wrote:Compensating for losses incurred is a bit silly as it goes against, what for me, is one of the core tenets of Wargame, that your means are limited, and you have to use each one fullest potential, rather then, "Oh look, i lost 30 units of infantry, well time to call in another wave), so no thanks.
the problem with RD destruction mode is more of an artillery and map problem. currently most maps concentrate forces on a very small front, and backed up by large quantities of artillery makes attacking problematic as you are required to brave the overwhelming majority of the opposing team's firepower on a very small front. this is then made even worse by the large amount of cluster and rocket artillery that each player brings, which can shut down any attack in a very short amount of time by either destroying most of it, or stunlocking it.
So instead, Maps need to be wider, and generally extend the lines by a decent margin, in this case, to defend it all with limited means you need to stretch thin, and to quote Sun Tzu "He who tries to defend all, defends nothing" meaning that by laws of force application you can breach through as no player has the means to build a frontline that is powerful enough to resist a concentrated and sustained attack, Artillery or not wihtout committing reserves to contain the breach, which means that manouvre warfare becomes more important, which in turn, diminishes the impact of Artillery has on the game.
Compensating for losses in *successful* attacks is not silly. Otherwise, the only rational action is camping. Just because you go up against players who haven't figured that out does NOT mean that the system isn't broken.
My system would not make units totally expendable, all it does is reward players who take smart risks. In my system, losing units hurts, but it hurts less if you successfully conquer sectors. In the current system, using units to their "full potential" means defending, hiding or camping, not attacking, which makes for bad and static game play.
There needs to be a positive incentive to attack. We have had this issue since EE beta, unit balance, arty and map design have nothing to do with it. They can contribute to the issue, but they are not the cause. The issue is far more fundamental than that.