Page 3 of 3

Re: Feedback: What Steel Division gets right and what it gets wrong

Posted: Sun 4 Jun 2017 12:16
by Tagaziel
Saavedra wrote:At this point, the King Tiger is not so much a unit as a strategic asset. The equivalent of bringing one of those frigates from Wargame to a battle on land.


I'm principally a single-player, but this sounds like a feature, rather than a bug. Certainly makes fighting challenging and interesting.

Re: Feedback: What Steel Division gets right and what it gets wrong

Posted: Tue 6 Jun 2017 21:01
by Salamander7734
Tagaziel wrote:
Saavedra wrote:At this point, the King Tiger is not so much a unit as a strategic asset. The equivalent of bringing one of those frigates from Wargame to a battle on land.


I'm principally a single-player, but this sounds like a feature, rather than a bug. Certainly makes fighting challenging and interesting.


Problem is it's not just a single player game. In multi-player it's suffering from the same thing as wargame did. Apparently it's balanced because if one team does this specific strategy, executed perfectly, with cunning and finesse and team work they can win. If the other team just drives forwards casually going herp-de-derp-de-herp and the specific strategy is not done, it's auto win for the driving forwards team.

Re: Feedback: What Steel Division gets right and what it gets wrong

Posted: Tue 6 Jun 2017 22:04
by Elder Forest
They have repeated the wargame mistake of allowing too much availability of many units (especially in phases B and C) resulting in too much deck min/maxing (ok this plays to the competitive scene but to the detriment of the casual/historical player). Every deck should have to take a percentage of "less than optimal" units to bring challenge, realism and flavour without the certainty of getting stomped. Also some units are rarely seen on the batttlefield "because the min/max alternatives are better" so were a waste of development time, which is sad.

I also agree command bonuses are excessive, a good mechanic but just overcooked.

Re: Feedback: What Steel Division gets right and what it gets wrong

Posted: Wed 7 Jun 2017 10:16
by Terracos
Elder Forest wrote:They have repeated the wargame mistake of allowing too much availability of many units (especially in phases B and C) resulting in too much deck min/maxing (ok this plays to the competitive scene but to the detriment of the casual/historical player). Every deck should have to take a percentage of "less than optimal" units to bring challenge, realism and flavour without the certainty of getting stomped. Also some units are rarely seen on the batttlefield "because the min/max alternatives are better" so were a waste of development time, which is sad.

I also agree command bonuses are excessive, a good mechanic but just overcooked.


I think this problem of min/maxing will occur in every RTS, you cannot prohibit it, except you give players no choice. But if you have no choice which unit will be put into a division, you will just min/max with divisions.

Even in Starcraft, with only three races and way fewer units you have min/maxing. You cannot prevent this from happening.


And to be honest you will bring "less than optimal" units in most decks, because the optimal unit is not in your division.


And i still dont know what you guys see in the King Tiger. I havent seen one in any 1v1 i have played and i played alot. Infantry/airborne division dominate, aswell as other divisions with a strong phase A. A phase C King Tiger cannot throw a game around.

Even in 2v2 you see hardly king Tigers except you try to play for one in Phase B. Me and a friend tried this strategy, when you play 3.FJ and Panzer-Lehr and buy one right when phase B starts. It is really tricky to excecute and we won 2/5 times. But the two wins were also based on the enemy being bad, good enemies see that the Panzer-Lehr stops spending points after 7min of playtime and will throw everything at you so you have to spend points and you will lose because your units wont reach the front in time.

Re: Feedback: What Steel Division gets right and what it gets wrong

Posted: Wed 7 Jun 2017 12:06
by Saavedra
Elder Forest wrote:They have repeated the wargame mistake of allowing too much availability of many units (especially in phases B and C) resulting in too much deck min/maxing (ok this plays to the competitive scene but to the detriment of the casual/historical player). Every deck should have to take a percentage of "less than optimal" units to bring challenge, realism and flavour without the certainty of getting stomped. Also some units are rarely seen on the batttlefield "because the min/max alternatives are better" so were a waste of development time, which is sad.


The problem with Wargame is sticking units from 1953 together with units from 1995 and somehow expecting players to use all of them. The units that are crap are not cheap enough to throw them at more expensive, high-end units, and that happens with units that are almost contemporary to each other, nevermind ones that have decades of difference.

Re: Feedback: What Steel Division gets right and what it gets wrong

Posted: Wed 7 Jun 2017 18:08
by Tagaziel
Salamander7734 wrote:
Problem is it's not just a single player game. In multi-player it's suffering from the same thing as wargame did. Apparently it's balanced because if one team does this specific strategy, executed perfectly, with cunning and finesse and team work they can win. If the other team just drives forwards casually going herp-de-derp-de-herp and the specific strategy is not done, it's auto win for the driving forwards team.


I meant in MP. My last match did have me putting on my brown pants when the Henschel Bengal rolled around, but it was still fairly trivial to scare it away. Now killing it is another thing entirely (I use non-descriptive names for Battlegroups, so I wound up with an Infantry division when I really needed a fast, fast, fast unit.