kwok wrote:Because when I put "historical rotations" on my mod just for shits and giggles even though I knew it was terrible game design, I was hit with the "biggest bitchfest" about how it wasn't realistic at all. Hilarious how the people who want something "historically accurate" end up being the biggest advocates against it.
I think the main reason why the turn speed is NOT so fast is because players have this idea that more cost should always beat less cost in BK. So when a small tank out maneuvers a big tank, the owner of the big tank gets super frustrated. This idea of cost should match quality is more important to players than micro and strategy of a game. As much as I agree that vehicles should rotate slower (I do it for my mod), there are a lot of game design challenges to consider. Making the changes could challenge the reason to tech/buy more expensive stuff. If something cheap is as effective as something expensive then at an extreme example it would stagnate the game to the cheaper units at lower tiers (see the bitchfest about quad halftracks, scotts, and the entire armor doctrine...)
I don't know a solution for BK, but a solution that I used in my mod is that most units cost the same but have very specific roles. The units are designed for those specific roles so when they are countered or meet a counter they will go down as expected. I also control the amount of unit types there are which makes it a lot simpler and easier: if I need anti inf, I get the mg42... if i need anti-tank, i get the stug. There isn't something like: if i need anti tank, I could get the marder or stug... the stug is more expensive so if a tank manages to kill it then I should be upset because I couldve just gotten the marder. if there is a TRUE problem with the anti-tank capabilities of axis I could just balance the stug. I do not need to worry about is it the stug or marder that's the problem? should i lower the cost of stug? should i buff the stug? what's the difference between stug and marder then?
This is a drastic design difference from BK which is KNOWN and PRAISED for its unit diversity. The only reason I bring this up is to show that balancing is complicated because everything goes back to game design, equilibriums, and player feelings. (and i guess also to advertise my mod).
While not explicit, this convo is hidden with those kind of questions: Odd exception to marder? Reverse improvement? Pain in the ass to micro? Small tanks trying to flank? Like the elefant but not that slow? How are all these units designed and how do they fit with the vision of BK as a whole? How do they fit in the PvP scene while staying true to the values of BK? shit like this.
Try my mod! lol. I started a new one from scratch, gots some cool stuff and a brand new armor combat thing.
You don't actually need to think that much about it, also cost of the tanks wich u used as example:
StuG IV - 400 MP/40 Fuel
Sturmgeschuetz (StuG) III (Sd.Kfz. 142/1) - 350 MP/40 Fuel (Terror and Blitzkrieg Only)
Marder I - 360 MP/40 Fuel (Defensive Only)
You shouldn't be upset there is almost no difference on prices, if marder dosn't get chosen that often then i would give it a cammo hability while being slower on rotation. To make a unit works at it should be an ambusher tank hunter. While the stug being a support tank working with infantry without having that silly "AT position".
Also the only bitching thing about the m16 AA of the armored doc wich wasn't really that much was the limited number for it, never saw any bitching about the scott, and about the armor doc most of it its because Shermans are shit, and even more now since they "revised" the doc completely wich added more cp's to focuse more on shermans wich its dumb because they're shit in bk, but at least they tried.