Changes for the mod

[Warhawks97]

Point of my post was that people often suggest changes based on their play-style while believeing that their play-style is universally the best one and everybody should play that way. However who decides what is "better". The terms "good" and "bad" are highly subjective for every person. Therefore some play-style can suit very well to some players and so they consider it the best, but it is only the best for them, others may preffer the defensive style and thus it is best for them, but nobody can say that one style is unversaly better than the other.

I never did. But you should decide which way the mod should go. Right now its better for campers (esspecially without CW arty on allied side).

But players often forget about this when they make suggestions for changes and their suggestions are then of a nature "it will benefit my style and others can go f*ck themselves" and I feel that one of my duties as dev team member is to look at suggestions and ask myself if this or that change in playstyle "A" won't mess up the playstyle "B".

Again, say which way you want this mod goes. If you tell me now that you actually pitty those who camp arround making it easier for them to win by making defenses so effective (talking about cost ratios and anti camp weapons). If you tell me that you like campy more as it makes it more appealing for new players then tell me that. I would then right now looking for games like spearhead mod in coh2. Its not an offense. But make a decision. Thats all i want to know.

I know that Warhawks supports the dynamic gameplay - he said it himself several times. For him it is more fun, more challangeing. But again - for HIM. OK, surely there are other players who enjoy it too. But there are surely players who preffer campy style. Is their style worse? Maybe from your point of view. But surely not from theirs. And we cannot simply make the mod work for one playstyle and completely ditch the other side.

And you said camp is good for new players which do not want to risk too much and waiting untill they get their own assault force. Firstly it should be said that this goes mainly for axis. As allis campy is suicide due to rocket arty etc etc. but again you must make a decision. Right now it pisses me that lazzy campy style as axis is easier as to fight a game in which i attack and risk/lose units and which requires perma micro from my side. When allis have no CW arty i can actually lay back and relax. 88´s, AA tanks and inf here and there and its done. Then i wait to get all my arty and big tanks and finish it. So the boring way is often more easy to win as the interesting one. In future you will have lots of "experienced campers" with good win ratio but without any cloue of micro managment and smart attacks as everything they learned after 1000 games is to build bunkers/88´s and arty and few tanks. I mean i am watching lots of streams from players. Guys like sukin and shadow doing awesome games without real camp (maybe one pak, thats all) and they are effective but its a hard job to become such a good player. Then i look games from some others sometimes. I just see boring campy.... HMG´s.... paks, AA tanks, arty. The best one is a screenshot ive made in which alone you see two stuh, ostwind and maultier. Arround (sadly not directly visible in screenshot) 50 mm pak, grens with k98 and G43 and a 37 mm pak.

Yes, I know that solving this would be good but I don't really believe it can be solved. I mean, what could be possibly done about it? Should we remove emplacements and defensive elements? That would force players not to camp - but as I said, that would ruin the game for players who like to camp. Should we greately reduce arty? That would on the other hand put campers into advantage. Should everybody receive about the same campy capabilities? That would lead to even more arty...

Not removing emplacments. There need to be something that can prevent too crazy campy from beginning. Ive been talking a lot about light arty. Ive been talking about cheaper vehicles and more expensive paks to change cost/efficency ratio. Ive been talking about 105 sherman in armor doc or at least calli before jumbo simply to prevent crazy campy a bit. The many emplacments and bunkers do not come from nowehere. They are the "second step" of defensives which is possible coz there isnt much that can prevent the "first step" of defense which can be only prevented by using arty doc and the early 75 mm HT´s.

So not removing. And just as one can build easy camp to win, it would be then just fair to have "easy" arty.

The problem is that if everybody has a different playstyle, you practically cannot fine-balance the game without significant changes to one of the playstyles for which the changes will be harming. And since we don't want to tell to players "this is the playstyle you have to use" and even if so, it is impossible to determine which playstyle is universaly better, we cannot make changes without harming one or the other side of the baricade.

And still.
Camper:" Fucking ary noobs! you can only win by arty! learn to play!"
Arty user: "You damn campers deserve to get bombed to hell by priests!"

I stopped counting how many times ive seen that. Without exaggerate i would say in like 60-75% of the games. So no side is really satisfied currently. Campers coz all run straight for ugly crazy arty docs. The others coz of ugly campy. And in between these two extrems, between arty doc arty spammer and defensive doc defense spammer all the poor little fags that sit arround with their units (tanks/inf etc) unable to do anything. Attack=suicide so the only option is waiting and hoping arty mate will win the game. That sounds pretty much like that what all BK players do enjoy so much. Cheers.

I have also noticed that quite often somebody writes a post like "X is very OP because of.... and against..." to which somebody replies "What? I have never had any problem countering X...it should stay as it is.". Now both sides get support from some players...so what do you do then?[/quote]

Maybe use your imagination a bit. I mean despite OP or not, counterable or not, few things simply look ugly the way the are working. There you can ask yourself how much fun ability/unit x makes or how it contributes to have real fun during games.

[Butterkeks]

That's what I meant Markr.

It would be nice if camping was less effective, but there's no way to do this without breaking balance or reduce fun for others.

I also prefer a more dynamic type of game, my problem is the following: I actually prefer playing axis, but I nearly never can. Especially newer players but also some experienced ones claim to play only axis therefore I'm forced to play allies in about 85% of my games.

So Axis are "easier" to play and many players don't even want to try out the more complex Allied system.
That's why there are so many axis-only players but nearly no allies-only players. If it was as easy to play with allies as it is with axis, or if it was as conplex to play with axis as it is with allies, the problem would not exist.
This would mean a ton of rebalancing and reworking, which is quite a BS at this stage of BK -> no solution for it

This also goes back to all this "supermutant nazi soldiers" who are simply kicking the asses of every allied counterpart. Again, mostly played by players who refuse to really learn any tactics, but jist bunker and then shred the enemy with super heavy units.

Yeah, ok, maybe some players like it more that way. Others don't. I also don't want to say that the dynic game style is the only way how to play BK.
This is a very difficult topic. I also really like def doc. I like building bunkers and stuff. But I more use them to have a point to which I can retreat, but still hold the line. Others build a bunker, cap a territory and build immidiately a new one so you can't cap it back. Then cap a new territory, build a new bunker etc.
It's this advancing with emplacements gamestyle that's exhausting and not counterable without CW arty.
For axis it's always possible to break through allied defenses as they have always arty in every doc.

As I already said, difficult topic.
I also don't now how to "solve" it. Atm simply by always having cw arty in allied team.
Not everyone uses this gamestyle, it can just be very exhausting if it appears. But now RAF also has some arty, so I guess we should wait how the new patch works out and if the problem is still existing after it.

[Warhawks97]

Yes, I know that solving this would be good but I don't really believe it can be solved. I mean, what could be possibly done about it? Should we remove emplacements and defensive elements?

No. Why?

That would force players not to camp - but as I said, that would ruin the game for players who like to camp.

And here you simply must decide which sort of players and games you want to have in BK in future.

Should we greately reduce arty? That would on the other hand put campers into advantage.

Isnt that the case already unless allied play with CW arty?

Should everybody receive about the same campy capabilities? That would lead to even more arty...

Nah.... some defense things need to be fixed, cost efficencies and arty reworked here and there. Currently i am looking with mixed feelings to 88 change. Range reduction here, range increase there, naked will take a bit more damage from arty but not as much as paks and howitzers do.

Another thing are bunkers in generally. Those get limited to def doc. Lets see here how it will end. High HP+ "concrete with eyes" and uncapturable is a bit weird for the BK system to be honest. anyway. They arent my greatest concerns. I fear more the infrastructure arround bunkers.

Super range units do fight off allied emplacments but as said axis have not so much trouble killing them. Last game my 3 hotchkiss proved very deadly against RE emplacments which surprised me to be honest. The prob here is that players can rely their offense on those 1-2 units by using all others just for defense and all other res for defense stuff by having low losses. I think they cause more camp as they solve simply as players have more res for defense and also as defense is the most effective way to protect those.

Cost efficency ratio: already said many times. Here somehting is going to be changed with increased pak cost.

Arty rework: Light arty+ allied need urgent arty stretching. Cromwell arty in RAF doc is a first step to that direction. Hopefully we will see few more such steps in future.


So yeah... the campy abilties are OK. Just 88/107 changes, arty stretching for allied and it would be almost fine i think. The 107 "issue" for luft doc could be funnily solved by giving luft 88 an arty ability to give a sample.


And yeah.... for the same reason i am against emplacment limits ive been against arty limits which i really would remove.

[MarKr]

And here you simply must decide which sort of players and games you want to have in BK in future.

I would still like to come to a solution that would keep both kinds of players.... you say:

If you tell me that you like campy more as it makes it more appealing for new players then tell me that. I would then right now looking for games like spearhead mod in coh2.

And if I said that it would go the other way, players will drop too. You must try to understand what you're asking here - one way or another to lose substantial part of the players which is in no way good for the mod. So I'd say it is better to keep both groups maybe at cost of touching both play styles.

Also why is it always "Allies have no early game arty! Add them something!" instead of "Allies have no early game arty! Remove some from Axis!"? Like really why does BK doc need Nebelwerfers? Why does Def doc have them when they have other Arty units? Why does Luft have Nebles? I'd rather give them barrage for 88s and remove them.

Anyway we're getting OT here again...If you want to continue this, write me a PM, or start some new topic but we should not drag this further away from the original topic.

[Warhawks97]

And here you simply must decide which sort of players and games you want to have in BK in future.

I would still like to come to a solution that would keep both kinds of players.... you say:

If you tell me that you like campy more as it makes it more appealing for new players then tell me that. I would then right now looking for games like spearhead mod in coh2.

And if I said that it would go the other way, players will drop too. You must try to understand what you're asking here - one way or another to lose substantial part of the players which is in no way good for the mod. So I'd say it is better to keep both groups maybe at cost of touching both play styles.

Also why is it always "Allies have no early game arty! Add them something!" instead of "Allies have no early game arty! Remove some from Axis!"? Like really why does BK doc need Nebelwerfers? Why does Def doc have them when they have other Arty units? Why does Luft have Nebles? I'd rather give them barrage for 88s and remove them.

Anyway we're getting OT here again...If you want to continue this, write me a PM, or start some new topic but we should not drag this further away from the original topic.

I wouldnt remove axis early game arty or the 0 CP arty. It sounds like you want to remove nebler from BK saying it doesnt needs them. Well.... a BK doc would need "everything"... airplanes, arty, inf etc. Blitzkrieg is the combined warfare actually where every part of the army has its clear defined role. With other words all would have to work together in their specific roles to achive that. You would have to rename the doc in a heavy breakthrough or spearhead doc and moving KT to it.

Anyway... imagine you remove early axis arty or adding CP´s. The allis would then just do early game camp as axis. The ammount of defenses and emplacments would increase to an insane ammount so that at the end Only SE and CW arty is able to deal with it. So you get camp games from beginning that "Must" end in massive arty party. Keep axis arty as it is. Just terror Stuka could need a unlock along with something is it is quite massive at the time it comes and the defense it faces at that time. For Luft you can remove nebler and add barrage to 88. But make sure 88´s wont create " more defense for axis, more anti defense for axis". Def has iirc no nebler... once it had but got removed in 4.6 or 7 i think^^. But def gets howitzers right with 3 CP (which isnt bad).


So removing early game arty from axis isnt a good idea i think. What i would do (as said several times already). Nebler cost to 325 or 350 MP. Its about cost efficency again. A nebler with arty barrage is just as expensive as a mortar. That shouldnt be.

And yeah...old story. 75 pack howitzer to motorpool for inf/and or AB. Idk. Maybe calli jeep to inf (like originally intended by xali) and 75 pack to AB only. In motorpool after motorpool upgrade and as the drop (cost as coming in next patch) and calli jeep to inf doc (would also be a bit more realistic btw).

Calli sherman swap with jubmo (and 105 sherman to it).

Remove a CP from from inf doc 105 howitzer and add one to long tom.

Increase build cost of unemplaced 105 to 385 MP and 35 fuel (its about cost efficency compared to other units and how appealing arty is).




That way defense wouldnt become usless, but also not the best way to win a game. Defenses more organzied in ambushes but when postition is known a move would be necessary. And thats also a prob. Often you know where the defense is.... just you get nothing to kill it effectively. Mortars might be an option but are vulnerable to inf rush attacks and counter mortars.

That woudlnt make defenses usless and would still have some use but less static. But pure spam of defenses wouldnt lead to win anymore-> thus generally more movment-> thus less crazy late game arty games with CW arty/SE-> less tanks die to arty of about which many complain also.


I think when players complain about campy, then its mainly from allied side. Axis dont have more defenses, but better defenses and less defense breaking options. When players complain about arty, then it comes from allied side (coz of the general arty abuse from axis which has to do with the mentioned cost efficency) but also a lot from axis side coz those losing most of their expensive tanks to CW arty. But thats also often their own fault as they force allied to go for CW arty feeding the priests with their tons of defensive weapons. So less "necessary CW arty"-> less expensive tanks die to priest.

[kwok]

You know what I think will solve some of the problems?




Big maps.

[Warhawks97]

You know what I think will solve some of the problems?




Big maps.

those would need to be created. We have some big maps but many players lag/crash on them. The only way is not to play 4 vs 4 anymore and instead doing 3 vs 3 on these maps.

And even then not everything. The game you had with illa. I watched it a while and it was funny. You made it to their base and then they started an 88 line. Starting from left side of the map back to their base and then forward to map center. I think you won but compared to how easy it was to do offensive camp just with 88´s, almost turning the game although you already started destroying their base and the helplessness you faced with armor doc. Thx God (or not) you had a with illa an inf teammate that was able to turn the game after a while by using arty. But it was close though of what i saw coz the 88´s barraged illas units also with arty and he lost lots of inf squads to 88 arty.

So it would solve it to a certain extent. But once a wall of 88´s/stuhs are arround enemies base those gonna push your army doc back to your base, even if it would take a whole day. So add to that: Only very big maps without too many open fields or you will fail and despair of axis offense camp as well.

[JimQwilleran]

those would need to be created. We have some big maps but many players lag/crash on them. The only way is not to play 4 vs 4 anymore and instead doing 3 vs 3 on these maps.

Some maps lags because they are overfilled with useless objects like huge forests etc. Best maps for 4vs4 would be desert maps like Dust and Stones. I agree that big maps are a good solution.

[Warhawks97]

those would need to be created. We have some big maps but many players lag/crash on them. The only way is not to play 4 vs 4 anymore and instead doing 3 vs 3 on these maps.

Some maps lags because they are overfilled with useless objects like huge forests etc. Best maps for 4vs4 would be desert maps like Dust and Stones. I agree that big maps are a good solution.

yeah.... desert maps.... Long live the offensive camp. Isnt that what almost happend to you and illa in that 2 vs 2 at goodwood? A desert maps makes things even worse, thats why i dont really like them much. On those the 88´s will remain very deadly, even more the emplaced then. So yeah, so far forrest maps crowded with usless stuff (there are a few) are the only at which i at least partially fun as that stuff reduced the bunkers/88/super range units efficency by a lot.

[kwok]

Yes, you're right the 88's were a very effective hold up. Like I said, large maps solve "some" problems but not all. There are still game-breaking parts of the game, like 88's and mortar pits, etc. But, the topic at hand is the effectiveness of an offensive camp style. If you notice in the game, the Axis did NOT have a very effective offensive camp. The 88 put up a VERY strong defense, but any offense by the Axis were short lived because Allies had so much map control. It could be the difference in player levels. But, in my personal experience and countless of 1v1's on 4v4 maps with BabySealBatter, I've never run into an optimal offensive camp. The only situation I've see an offensive camp working is if against particular play styles that are weak to offensive camps (but I changed my strategy and came back from getting beaten back from the offensive camp). What happened in the game with me and Illa wasn't an effective offensive camp I'd say. The 88's stopped us from winning immediately and prolonged the game, which is fine and even fun/exciting. But, was I worried 88's started coming up? No not really. I tried one tactic, didn't work. Had time to rebuild my force into a different army composition and worked around the 88's. We won. The 88's weren't as bad as a problem mentioned, just annoying as heck and probably DO need an adjustment purely because I could definitely see it becoming a game breaker if exploited and abused (decrew + build exploits). But, I really was not worried when 88's came up, just extremely annoyed... but that's just how the devs designed Axis to be: EASY (This can literally be quoted if I cared enough to find the quote).

My gripe is just the type of people that the faction attracts and fosters...

[Warhawks97]

I talked a lot about the nasty camp/offensive camp of axis side. I most of the time blamed the axis players doing it coz its "easier" and the lack of allied camp breaking options. Maybe ive been playing a bit too often BK doc where i just need like 3-5 units to get an effective ground force with good offensive capabilites. And when lost i just did need like 3 well placed units to repell counter attack. Well, past days i played again more often PE and not only as arty doc. And i must admit that the early stage can be played very offensively with PE untill enemies get also vehicles. The problem then is that i must camp arround if i dont want to lose the game within next few mins.

The prob are sometimes cost of axis units which force a bit to camp. Those are expensive for fair reasons as they are very powerfull (PE inf in general). But the problem is that if i want to attack i can quickly lose them to an HMG and vehicle and schrecks are provided only in an extra squad. That means, when i played TH and SE doc, that i can strike back pretty much everything with Grens with G43, scout car or 20 mm vehicle and 50 mm pak. In fact its almost already something that could require arty to break. But at the same time i cant do an offense with them. Losing the vehicle or an inf squad and i would lose the game as it would be very costly to rebuild. So in my last game with TH doc i did need a 50 mm and 20 mm vehicle in the back and for attack My IV/70 (enemies had shermans), Pgrens and heavy assault squad. But in order to get those i had t spend a pretty long time in a defense to get these ressources.


So that campy issue is weird. Its a mix of lacking arty/ early light arty, expensive cost of strong units which afterall can die during offense while in defense they let nothing pass.

Changing that campy styles might require a lot of reworks. Unit performences, unit costs, doc changes etc.


But one thing i would begin with that can highly increase game dyncamics, attack strategies etc are the Transport HT´s. The problem is: Making them to cheap and there would come a spam of cheap HT´s with AT squads inside roaming the map and killing everything. But besides that a cost increase of these vehicles could drastically change offensives and styles. In fact it was the combo of Tankhunter IV/70 and two gren squads and sdkfz 250 that allowed me at the end to go more offensivley with outflank mgs etc while TH was soaking the pak fire. It also felt somehow very realistic suddenly to play PE as mechanzied german faction.


Things i would maybe do but which absolutely nobody would like is:

Making Transport HT´s cheaper. But Hendheld AT´s should fire out of it while moving and they would finally need some aim time. Right now they drive topspeed cross country and sniping vehicles and tanks.

Idk. For WE and US cost might stay at first. US one a bit cheaper with new Tank depot upgrade vehicle cost reduction thing down to like 200 MP. The PE one down to arround 260 MP. As for PE i dont want to nerf their units to make them cheaper in order to increase flexibility and replacment options. But maybe really 5 or 4 men men squad that is later increased to 5 men combined with dropped build cost so that build and reinforce cost would keep the same, just ammount of units and thus flexibility increased. That way PE inf with transport HT could become a usefull strategy and it would have helped me a lot in last game. But i guess i can just keep dreaming. People would kill me when i would suggest it in a specific topic.

[Kolaris]

R.E. Dynamic vs Static gameplay...I think it's important to make a distinction between a strategy that players choose and a strategy that players are forced into. Some certainly favor a defensive strategy, but others may wish to be aggressive but end up camping by default simply because dynamic play isn't rewarding enough. That's something that can be addressed.

Balance between aggressive and defensive options is a good thing, but please keep in mind that static camping will always exist as the "default" option. It's easier. It's our natural inclination as humans. Without encouraging dynamic play, it may not exist.

Anyway...ideally artillery would be a prelude to an assault, rather than something that achieves victory on its own. And in turn aggressive counter attacks should be a way to deal with artillery, rather than more artillery of your own.

[JimQwilleran]

R.E. Dynamic vs Static gameplay...I think it's important to make a distinction between a strategy that players choose and a strategy that players are forced into. Some certainly favor a defensive strategy, but others may wish to be aggressive but end up camping by default simply because dynamic play isn't rewarding enough. That's something that can be addressed.

Balance between aggressive and defensive options is a good thing, but please keep in mind that static camping will always exist as the "default" option. It's easier. It's our natural inclination as humans. Without encouraging dynamic play, it may not exist.

Anyway...ideally artillery would be a prelude to an assault, rather than something that achieves victory on its own. And in turn aggressive counter attacks should be a way to deal with artillery, rather than more artillery of your own.

I am devoted inf doc player. This doctrine is considered as a spam/camp doctrine. But I play it highly aggressive, I build emplacements only if I face attack of 2 players of docs that have much superior inf like luft, and I need to stop them. I build howitzers in 1 game in 20, otherwise I use call-in arty. Most of the time I push with rangers and jumbos. I personally hate camping. It is cheap, tactic-less and game-breaking imo. On axis side, as well as on allies side. Camping kills the fun of the game.

Just like if no one ever heard that the best defense is attacking.

[Wolf]

R.E. Dynamic vs Static gameplay...I think it's important to make a distinction between a strategy that players choose and a strategy that players are forced into. Some certainly favor a defensive strategy, but others may wish to be aggressive but end up camping by default simply because dynamic play isn't rewarding enough. That's something that can be addressed.

Balance between aggressive and defensive options is a good thing, but please keep in mind that static camping will always exist as the "default" option. It's easier. It's our natural inclination as humans. Without encouraging dynamic play, it may not exist.

Anyway...ideally artillery would be a prelude to an assault, rather than something that achieves victory on its own. And in turn aggressive counter attacks should be a way to deal with artillery, rather than more artillery of your own.

I am devoted inf doc player. This doctrine is considered as a spam/camp doctrine. But I play it highly aggressive, I build emplacements only if I face attack of 2 players of docs that have much superior inf like luft, and I need to stop them. I build howitzers in 1 game in 20, otherwise I use call-in arty. Most of the time I push with rangers and jumbos. I personally hate camping. It is cheap, tactic-less and game-breaking imo. On axis side, as well as on allies side. Camping kills the fun of the game.

Just like if no one ever heard that the best defense is attacking.

Agreed, as I play inf probably most of the time now, I also tend to play much more with rangers / inf.rangers rather than howitzer play. But then we have topics, how Inf only have one 105 sherm and how its ultra bad... yesterday again, I was asked "howitzers???". Nope.

[crimax]

.

[Warhawks97]

Agreed, as I play inf probably most of the time now, I also tend to play much more with rangers / inf.rangers rather than howitzer play. But then we have topics, how Inf only have one 105 sherm and how its ultra bad... yesterday again, I was asked "howitzers???". Nope.

I am trying to do the same. I havent used 105 sherman since ages. I also dont use many howitzers as they get instant counterartied anyway.

But when i only play with inf, mortars, captain and stuff i have 0 back up. That way i could only stand luftwaffe and ive got 2 vet 5 ranger squads, vet rifles, vet mortars and used off map arty on their forward retreat points and bases. But after like one hour fight against luft inf i could take only two more points and even vet 5 rangers had very hard times against freshly deployed luft inf. But i got permanently bombed by like 4-5 neblers, firestorms and finally steamroled by a panther G because i had no back up or anything.

I wanted to get the 75 mm arty as light arty and to kill enemie neblers but i created like 4 or 5 FHQ´s and all got destroyed.


So its pretty difficult actually. At the one hand i dont like camp much but without some emplacment back ups one axis counterattack can throw you back to your own base. As axis i am doing more an aggressive fight using often no defensive weapon at all during game.

R.E. Dynamic vs Static gameplay...I think it's important to make a distinction between a strategy that players choose and a strategy that players are forced into. Some certainly favor a defensive strategy, but others may wish to be aggressive but end up camping by default simply because dynamic play isn't rewarding enough. That's something that can be addressed.

Balance between aggressive and defensive options is a good thing, but please keep in mind that static camping will always exist as the "default" option. It's easier. It's our natural inclination as humans. Without encouraging dynamic play, it may not exist.

Anyway...ideally artillery would be a prelude to an assault, rather than something that achieves victory on its own. And in turn aggressive counter attacks should be a way to deal with artillery, rather than more artillery of your own.

As allied i often feel that aggressive playing is not rewarded enough. You can play as aggressive as you want sometimes, using rangers and smoke stuff but you stil have crazy hard fight against quite easily build up axis defense. And when you just think "Yeah, i made it" and you took like three territories paying a lot for that, there comes an axis tank and you get thrown back to base becuase fighting axis tanks requires generally good planing in advance and so you just retreat and all the stuff you achieved up to that time is gone and instead of strong axis inf you suddenly encounter strong tanks and you firstly get pushed to camp more in order not to let that axis tank passing. And when axis defense is being rebuild as long as the tank holds the line, artillery is then the only way to get back to your own offensive gameplay.

As axis i feel a lot more rewarded playing aggressively. During games i build actually only one defensive weapon: a 50 mm pak. Never any HMG or stuff just in difference to allis this style is high awarded. Inf with stgs/lmgs, vehicle with 20 mm canon and tanks generally allow very high flexibility, instant switch from offensive into defensive gameplay and you can dodge arty pretty well. And when i took three territories with my units (tank, puma, inf squad), i am also a lot more able to defend it against counterattacks unless the entire enemie team comes to kill me or at least i can go back into next offense faster as i dont need to deploy special tools and tactics to kill enemie armor (except churchills atm).

Anyway...ideally artillery would be a prelude to an assault, rather than something that achieves victory on its own. And in turn aggressive counter attacks should be a way to deal with artillery, rather than more artillery of your own.

Well, atm it feels like this:

Axis:
Arty before attack-> Arty during attack->Arty after attack-> Arty to kill enemie counterattack-> Arty sometimes just because they feel in mood for it. Its sometimes nonstop rocket arty and there is not a single minute in which you dont hear rocket launchers shooting. And that starts veeeery early in games already.

Allis:
Either nonstop arty when enemie plays RA. Or Very rarley used arty but well placed arty on important axis defensive or retreat points, but usually always combined with an attack.


I would give some arty to all docs becuase sometimes pure aggressive playing makes no more sense or is just suicide without arty support and just a waste of res and feeding enemie units. But i also dont want nonstop arty shooting.

Here it becomes difficult how to achieve it but i think no doc should be left without arty or ineffective or too late arty but they shouldnt use arty nonstop at positions where they only expect enemies. When arty is shooting at areas where no enemie is and just becuase they expect enemies there or when arty doesnt cover an advance then arty is too cheap to build and to use.

So costs need to be checked srsly. Not only arty cost, but also cost of stuff that could be used instead of arty.

Arty should be used either to cover own advances or to destroy enemie unit concentrations. But not simply shooting somewhere into the fog or war just because there might be a single HMG or something

[Terence's Mouth]

Dont forget cheap aliet emplacements.
If a player with emplacement spam fights vs one player with artillery, the artillery player should be able to win the game.

So if you want to increase the munition price of artillery shooting you have to change something at the emplacements too.
The best way here wouldnt be to change the price i think...
I realy would like less artillery damage to tanks, same artillery damage to infantry, more artillery damage to emplacements(Tanks and infantry would be make still the same damage)
It would solve some problems i think, players would be focused more on using artillery against emplacements because of price and efficience.
If you could balance the price/damage in a good way the biggest problem then would be the Grille because its the only one with one big shot that definatly hits the target.

Some other ideas that may help you or maybe not^^:
1. Two types of artillery shooting(like the caliope) one cheap but short shooting and one high and expensive shooting.
2. Better aiming with all artillery but less time of shooting.
3. An artillery Limit for all factions but 3 kinds of artillery for all doctrines and factions, X of small artillery guns, X of middle artillery guns, X of big artillery gun.
In combination to this:
All doctrines have some artillery, mobile small artillery and stationary bigger artillery while the artillery doctrines like SE and RA would be the only doctrines with heavy mobile artillery.
4. Two kinds of munition, or one normal munition plus one cheaper anti emplacement munition.

Just some ideas that you can improve where and how you want.

[Warhawks97]

Dont forget cheap aliet emplacements.
If a player with emplacement spam fights vs one player with artillery, the artillery player should be able to win the game.

Allied emplacments are better for sieging. I rarely build emplacments as allied unless i have 50-60% of the map. Effective emplacment spam for the win as allied works when having 70-80% of the map. But also the best way to finally fight down axis without risking getting bashed by one massive counterattack. So as allied when i have like 80% of the map i just siege the axis with defense and emplacments supported by shermans untill axis did bleed out. And when i have the ressource advantage, why shouldnt it work?
When you have only a small map of the part, then axis would simply bomb and overrun your emplacments. As axis i stop using many emplacmants when i have most of the map as the offensive units are just as good for defense purpose as defense weapons. Only 88´s are usefull then due to its range.

Axis can effectively use defenses when having a smal part of the map. Esspecially bunkers and 88´s. In fact they are then more valuable as when holding more parts of the map. The defense can stand some arty fire and can buy time to get Panthers out.

So allied defense and axis working very different. Allieds better used to siege axis when holding most of the map. Axis better as final stand and to buy some time for real comeback late game units. But that might be changed since RE doc found its way back to the game.

So if you want to increase the munition price of artillery shooting you have to change something at the emplacements too.
The best way here wouldnt be to change the price i think...
I realy would like less artillery damage to tanks, same artillery damage to infantry, more artillery damage to emplacements(Tanks and infantry would be make still the same damage)
It would solve some problems i think, players would be focused more on using artillery against emplacements because of price and efficience.
If you could balance the price/damage in a good way the biggest problem then would be the Grille because its the only one with one big shot that definatly hits the target.

Some other ideas that may help you or maybe not^^:
1. Two types of artillery shooting(like the caliope) one cheap but short shooting and one high and expensive shooting.
2. Better aiming with all artillery but less time of shooting.
3. An artillery Limit for all factions but 3 kinds of artillery for all doctrines and factions, X of small artillery guns, X of middle artillery guns, X of big artillery gun.
In combination to this:
All doctrines have some artillery, mobile small artillery and stationary bigger artillery while the artillery doctrines like SE and RA would be the only doctrines with heavy mobile artillery.
4. Two kinds of munition, or one normal munition plus one cheaper anti emplacement munition.

Just some ideas that you can improve where and how you want.

Well... at least you found your way to the cost performence ratio. But inf should keep vulnerable to arty, everything else wouldnt make sense. Just less super humas-> lower cost for super expensive inf-> Arty vs single inf squads is less cost effective-> less arty against single inf squads.

no limit on light arty and more light arty. Good enough to kill mgs and paks and emplacment but bad against tanks or to make full squad whipes.

The mobile one not only to a single doc. It would end up like RA doc atm. Tons of arty units in one doc that cant be used.


But stuff like that could be changed for example: A sherman or Tank IV stubby gun with HE upgrade or fully upgraded Stug III and HE activation cost more as a 105 howitzer+ making a barrage.

A mortar 81 mm cost about as much as an howitzer or almost. The ammo cost to build makes it worth to go rather for nebler.

so i would make it like that:

1. 105 howitzers unemplaced: 400 MP and 35 fuel, emplaced 500/50.
2. Nebelwerfer: 375-400 MP
3. Self-propelled Howitzers: At least 650 MP and 80 fuel. All of them. But idk how to add fuel cost for call ins like hummel and priest. The Hummel once had been build in Tank support command (or even Tankhunter command when battletanks got also build there). Maybe Hummel could be added then to support command as a build unit. And priest maybe to the Tank command truck?
4. Waking stuka as CP unlock.
5. ALL units that have HE rounds should upgrade HE rounds for only 15 ammo. Permanent activation NOT more than 25 ammo. Single shots just 15-20 ammo, max 25 for lagest guns and 15 for upgrade+ 25 for activation for AA tanks as well. That way a single HE shot wouldnt cost more as an entire barrage from an arty unit.
6. No inf squad more expensive than 500 MP build cost. 500 MP should be the absolut limit for an inf squad, actually 450. But that would affect also other inf squads cost.
7. VT´s could play a more important role as accurate ability to crack single heavy defended areas, which means emplacments and bunkers.

[Terence's Mouth]

puh if you change to much you loose the overview and i realy think were at a point where nobody has a clear overwiew.
We just picking things out and want them to change without looking or changing other stuff.

I prefer easier ways to fix that artillery problem, like that 2 types of artillery fire one cheap and short / one expensive and long.
I think this would be a good way if we could find out the best price.
A price that brings less artillery but still enough to destroy emplacments.[But i think we would need a damage change(to emplacements) too then or it wouldnt fit]