two design flaws in infantry-only games

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
winterflaw
Posts: 19
Joined: 13 Apr 2017, 12:49

two design flaws in infantry-only games

Postby winterflaw » 15 Aug 2018, 00:28

So, other people may well have pointed these issues out before - forgive me if so.

I've been playing infantry-only games a bit to sound them out.

Two points;

1. many factions have a transport vehicle which is available - but most or all of these have a machine gun, when the vehicle is populated; a small fleet of these give you a highly mobile set of mg42/hmgs, and they dominate the battlefield - that's *not* infantry only

2. the American airborne doctrine has infinite mortars; the supply drops from the airborne recon square are unlimited, and they each provide a mortar

Mortars dominate the infantry-only game. The unit cap on mortars is central to gameplay, and a doctrine which avoids it dominates the game.

User avatar
Kr0noZ
Global Moderator
Posts: 247
Joined: 26 Nov 2014, 06:20
Location: Germany

Re: two design flaws in infantry-only games

Postby Kr0noZ » 15 Aug 2018, 01:12

Well, that is a side effect of how inf only mode is done.
We basically made a mode where the vast majority of units and abilities like call ins are locked, but abilities of available units are usually not restricted. Now, as for the AB supply drop, since you can't easily have this ability work a set number of times there's no way to really control that.
We COULD count mortar units on the field and block the ability once there are x mortar squads, but this is easily defeated by not picking up the mortars until you have a big stack of them and then crew the whole heap at once.

As far as the transports go, the ones that are avaiable should be only the unarmored ones that can be shot up with regular rifle fire very quickly, so even something like an MG from concealment could blow up an entire group in seconds.
They also cost Manpower to build which you could invest in units with more actual combat power or simply get trucks of your own to "counter" it.
Removing them entirely would make gameplay on the very large maps such a massive drag that few people would play them and they were specifically left buildable by popular request when the mode was first introduced to give the slow infantry some strategic mobility.
"Normal people belive... if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Engineers believe... if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet."
- Scott Adams

winterflaw
Posts: 19
Joined: 13 Apr 2017, 12:49

Re: two design flaws in infantry-only games

Postby winterflaw » 15 Aug 2018, 10:04

Kr0noZ wrote:We COULD count mortar units on the field and block the ability once there are x mortar squads, but this is easily defeated by not picking up the mortars until you have a big stack of them and then crew the whole heap at once.


Yeah. This is the other way to get lots of mortars, of course; pick thme up from other players. It's weaker form of the supply drop problem. However, supply drops are a much more severe form of this problem because supply drops are directly under player control and indeed are only 300 mp and that's it. It's *easy* to keep pulling down mortars. Picking up mortars from the field is much more rare - and eventually of course a mortar squad will lose the mortar when it dies; I might even say those two mechanisms are rather close to each other in how quickly you gain and lose mortars. Not so for supply drop, which is mortars a-go-go.

[qutoe]As far as the transports go, the ones that are avaiable should be only the unarmored ones that can be shot up with regular rifle fire very quickly, so even something like an MG from concealment could blow up an entire group in seconds.[/quote]

That's not been my experience of them. Last night I was American, I had the American transport, it (just) survived an anti-tank hit from an infantry unit, and I repaired it. I regard them as fairly insensitive to non-anti-tank fire.

Removing them entirely would make gameplay on the very large maps such a massive drag that few people would play them and they were specifically left buildable by popular request when the mode was first introduced to give the slow infantry some strategic mobility.


I understand.

I play vs AI, not vs humans (I don't use Steam), and I can imagine human players building some decent anti-tank and taking our the transports.

Supply drop I'd still argue is a loop-hole. It's very powerful and it makes the other doctrines worthless - indeed, it makes the Brits worthless.

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 425
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: two design flaws in infantry-only games

Postby Jalis » 15 Aug 2018, 11:47

Infantry only is typical a solo or multi coop game, Winterflaw. Nobody play it in pvp.

You can even be happy it exists at BK. It is the lone solo activity still updated by BK team.

However it is just an adaptation of the main game. A true infantry only would require a dedicated mod.

winterflaw
Posts: 19
Joined: 13 Apr 2017, 12:49

Re: two design flaws in infantry-only games

Postby winterflaw » 15 Aug 2018, 16:13

Jalis wrote:Infantry only is typical a solo or multi coop game, Winterflaw. Nobody play it in pvp.


No one plays it, so it's okay it's broken.

This is not a very good line of argument - the flaw is pretty obvious.

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 425
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: two design flaws in infantry-only games

Postby Jalis » 15 Aug 2018, 19:48

You dont seems to understand that bk is a pur pvp mod. Like said you re even very lucky inf only is still supported.

It is a long time now BK have been hijacked by pvp community. That means if solo gamer want to play BK for solo game, they have to play it like it is.


Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Mr. FeministDonut and 1 guest