A constructive list of general gameplay issues (not specific unit/division balance)

[molnibalage]

To me 51% pts. collection is the most serious issue + mortar. Because of A/B/C phases it is simply broken the 1% marigin. With inital A rush most of game have been decided in early game. A+B phases are much longer than C. You cannot turn the stat of battle in most of cases...

 

[Graphic]

@Graphic can you allow me to send you PMs? I will be civil.

Try now

 

[evilcat]

Situation of Phase C decks should be looked into.
Comparing 15th Scotish and 12th SS the first gain large advantage of points and dont loose it till close end. Hard to make comeback.
For 3rd US it is less visible, since germans are less frontloaded, and their C advantage is bigger.

It is also to consider faster gain of extra points. like 51%/56%/61%.... there need be some ticking at 51% to avoid stalemate, but if we break enemy there should be larger reward as so far.

 

[Karlburg]

I think it might be fairly hard to come back in phase C because it's too hard to get +2, I wouldn't mind seeing the thresholds to get past +1 decrease in phase C, both to put losing players out of their misery and to allow for comebacks. You shouldn't expect, though, to be able to totally negate what happens in phase A and B.

 

[_Sev_]

What i would like to see is a more TO&E style approach to reduce the spamming of certain units.
What i mean is i cant purchase single squads/Vehicles/AFVs/Guns but platoons or half platoons going hand in hand with a point adjustment.
For example i have to purchase in phase A a platoon of generic infantry on its vehicles consisting out of 3-4 squads and a leader, two recon vehicles, two ATGs etc.
So for example 2-3 mortars would be purchase together with for example 2-4 HMGs representing a heavy platoon of an infantry coy and i get only one for the phase.
This would lead to the use of vehicels you barely see because not fitting in the meta and also reduce the ammount of spamable meta units.
To carry this further for example you would be faced with the decision to purchase playing the 12.SS a Pz IVH/PzIVJ platoon with 4 tanks plus a command Pz IV or two Panther D for the same price or even the Pz IVs being cheaper so it would be really a hard choice what i purchase.
Same would also work with artillery, mortars planes etc. together with an overall reduction of total number of those units and as stated above with a point adjustment.

 

[Max_Damage]

Please add how you can one shot bomb an INVISIBLE arti piece with a bomber just by looking at where the arti tracers originate from. I think its a big problem.

 

[local-festival]

Artillery tracers are an essential part of the game should stay this way.

 

[TGApples]

I agree for the most part, but:

Phase C focused decks seem to be getting worse by the day as the metagame solidifies and people learn the game, and the problem is the current Conquest mechanics and/or the standard rules. Most of the time you win based on the 1-3% you seized in the very opening stages of the game, and the C-decks simply don't have the manpower/money to contend with the phase A divisions then. By the time you've built up your strength, you have very little time to retake ground and even less time to accrue victory points from it in order to eke out a win.
Ideally, we've got to rethink how much of the map you need to control before you get points, and how much each tier of control awards the player. Getting points at 51% is simply bad; such a small difference can be the result of accidents, luck, or map imbalances. If reworking the rules for Conquest isn't in the cards, we've got to rethink the standard settings, like 50 minute timers, higher required score to win, or both.

I disagree with. I don't think it's much of an issue as you do and I like the 51-49%. I've seen several suggestions for improvement, such as making points come in faster in later phases, or tightening up the breakpoints but I'm not completely convinced there needs to be a change.

It all comes down to that word meta again. The start of the match is about picking your battles. Take Colombelles 1v1: if you're SS Panzer against an infantry division you're not strong in the factory, you are strong in the open. It's a viable strategy to completely ignore the factory and seize one (or both) of the sides. So long as you keep the factory contained you can often end up with control over more land than the guy who's sitting in the factory. The factory is a natural fighting point, but it's also a trap if the other guy has better infantry than you. It's taking people a while to realise this. It is similar with US Armoured: you're fast and mobile in A, so don't go for the meatgrinder but take the open ground.

There same is true on other maps. US Armoured and SS Panzer do well early on Pointe du Hoc because they're so darn fast and cost effecitve counters to light vehicles don't exist. The cost-ineffective ones completely counter them, but can't be everywhere. The infantry player has to commit to his positions. The armoured player can bring a local concentration of force with breakthrough infantry ready to exploit any holes to put versitile infantry with AT deep into many annoying hedges. Arty is pretty useless on this map as it's too big and dynamic. It's the 71st's worst nightmare.

Omaha is trickier, but still has plenty of places fire support vehicles can really help and it's hard to get any sort of counter on to them. I think if a "phase C" deck can hold 49-51 or 48-52 they can often start the comeback with tanks or arty in B and close it out in C.

As we get more maps it'll be interesting to see which if the current maps they're most like. People are still learning to make the best out of the deck's strengths and weaknesses and I think a lot of the comments on balance have been from trying to do something with a deck that it just can't do effectively against the opponents deck, leading to cries of imbalance.

EDIT: I think I may try the tournament on Saturday without using 2ID/Scots but trying some decks that get stronger later. Hopefully I get past the first round this time. The last experiment got Scotted.

 

[Lomak]

Agree with most of it.

One of the problems also is that there is not a variety of openers in phase A.

For example 12. SS. The only valid strong opener with them is: use 2-3 the vehicles that come with the recons (the one with 20mm + MG) and 2-3 of the armored vehicles from under sub for the 500 deploy points in the start.

If you don't do that then your only hope for a good phase A is that your opponent makes opener as weak as yours.

 

[Bracken]

Not sure about 1. and 4., but I agree with 2. and 3. Please buff the 91. anti-air too. My 20mm is very weak in Phase A and Allied AA is crazy in this Phase.

 

[evilcat]

Nitpicking: At 10th min you get phase B income, so you get only 9 A tics. Which is quite misleading.
Problem: 40y min tic dosnt matter at all.
Solutions:
1) ignore, nobody cares
2) add 1 min phase 0 or warm up with 0 income, and no victory points on conquest. Basicly time troops are driving to the position.
3) Add 1 free A-tic upon battle start.

Phase 0 i like, since the idea of two division waves driving full speed and clashing is funny.
Bonus tic is also interesting since it gives instant benefit to phase A divisions (which is the point i suppose)

 

[Langerak]

Agreed on 1&2.

3: Another option to cut arty availability would be to look at the number of activation points for each deck. For some reason INF divisions receive 40, AIR 38 and ARM 36. The current number for the infantry divisions feels too generous compared with what you get in the others, I don’t feel I have to make serious choices for the 15th, 2nd or 17. SS. If all divisions are put on 36 AP the inf divisions, currently the biggest culprits when it comes to arty spam, have less bonus points to spend which will cut mostly into their support/arty tab.

4: I am a bit hesitant to call for mechanical changes like this when we’ve seen only a few decks so far and the balance between them is far from settled. It just so happens that two phase A decks (scots and 2nd) are currently by far the strongest in competitive play. I would be more in favor of nerfing/buffing specific decks than to alter conquest rules at this time. I like 51/49% rule as it forces one of the players to commit.

Generally though I agree with the sentiment: it is important to keep in mind how strong the snowball effect of being good in A determines the rest of the match. Divisions that are designed to be good in C really have to be very good in that phase to be able to comeback and win games against equally skilled opponents.

 

[gronank]

Ideally, we've got to rethink how much of the map you need to control before you get points, and how much each tier of control awards the player. Getting points at 51% is simply bad; such a small difference can be the result of accidents, luck, or map imbalances. If reworking the rules for Conquest isn't in the cards, we've got to rethink the standard settings, like 50 minute timers, higher required score to win, or both.

If your problem is that points earned early are to valuable compared to points earned later, why not just propose to scale down the value of points earned early compared to ones earned later?

The only thing widening the gap between you and your opponent gaining +1 is going to do is to increase the amount of ground that needs to be taken for the losing side to make a comeback. That said, I think the map control needed for point gain should taper off like 52%/+1, 55%/+2, 57%/+3, 59%/+4, 61%/+5, 63%/+6, not to help C focused groups but to reflect the fact that pushing away from your spawn and into your opponent's gets harder and harder

 

[Harold Alexander]

1. Agree

2. Agree, german AA besides Flak 36 88 is pile of shit, maybe 75 pts flak 37 mm is not bad, but all other AA are overpriced.

3. Mortars are cancer need to be nerfed

4. Agree, actually C decks have only 15-18 minutes to deploy and use units, not the all 20.

 

[CyberianK]

Currently its not that bad with 20 points max diff between Scots (85) and 3rd Armored (65).

But it could potentially become a big issue when those guys hit the fan:

Hollywood Division
Grandpa Division
UnbiasedDevs Division

 

[Max_Damage]

wew french bias inc

As for the phases, they are just ok and dont need nothing be done. Sure maybe phases A and B are very slightly more important but C is twice as long and noone said C must be the more important phase anyway.

 

[I WUB PUGS]

At present, Conquest has turned into:
Spam cheap crap to grab ground as fast as you can.
Then get the mortars ready.
Then when Phase B hits, call out the rockets and planes.
Phase C, just do more of that.

It isn't good gameplay and isn't the tactical sandbox we were promised. People have figured out that they can economize a lot better by just fielding a ton of fluff with a couple hero units and a ton of artillery. They don't care about losing these fluff units because Conquest doesn't penalize it. The 51% is becoming cancerous and it's becoming an artillery fest to pin any pushes, just as bad as anything I've ever seen in Red Dragon destruction.

I played one game of destruction last night (first time in the beta) and yeah, you know, it too is an artillery fest, but at least you can make them pay and players don't swarm you with cheap stuff because it adds up to a loss eventually. Oddly, it was a better experience mainly because there wasn't any spam. It was still a lot of camping and artillery, which is the biggest drawback of destruction, but who can seriously look at Conquest right now and not say the same thing?

The difference between the two modes right now isn't playstyle at all, its just income and since income is flat in Conquest, you get to spam all game long. At least in Destruction, you can deny them some income.

To be clear, I friggin hate both game modes right now. And I really felt like Conquest was going to be the no-brainer go-to game mode for Steel Division, but it is beginning to suffer from its own unique problems stemming from the map control and a brain dead set of 'I win now' buttons being fired behind a wall of cheap infantry.

 

[Think Tanker]

I agree entirely with Graphic's points, especially on the effectiveness of German AA in tandem with the overly effective Artillery meta.

 

[TGApples]

It isn't good gameplay and isn't the tactical sandbox we were promised. People have figured out that they can economize a lot better by just fielding a ton of fluff with a couple hero units and a ton of artillery. They don't care about losing these fluff units because Conquest doesn't penalize it. The 51% is becoming cancerous and it's becoming an artillery fest to pin any pushes, just as bad as anything I've ever seen in Red Dragon destruction.

For context, how many players per team do you usually play with? I don't find the same in 1v1/2v2/4v4, but I can sort of see where you're coming from with 3v3.

 

[I WUB PUGS]

I agree entirely with Graphic's points, especially on the effectiveness of German AA in tandem with the overly effective Artillery meta.

I'm wondering if a simple fix wouldn't be to up the number of 88's and allow like 1 to become available in Phase B.