The Current Phase A Blues For the Axis...

[Grimreapo]

Erm, just a reminder all what I am calling for is a reduction of cost for certain defensive units units and have called for ZERO Allied nerfs (outside of being one of the first to make a thread about the ranger Mortar being OP after I used one), the job of the .91 and .17 is to hold the line but that is not possible right now due to cost issues, lets look at one thing:

The closet thing to the T30 is the a combo of PAK36 and IG18 which costs 80pts like the T30 but the T30 has better AP power, better HE range, mobile and scales better, so a single allied unit is more cost effect than two axis ones!

And yes, not all of the Divs are added yet but what do you think going to happen when the Free French with their phase A Wolverines, Paras and I am shaking in in my boots over what the Canadians are going to do with then .91th and .17th in phase A which is likely to have 1200m Sextons!

The Axis could still hold them off but all it needs to be able to do is field weaker specialist units more cheaply...

 

[TheDeadlyShoe]

the closest thing to the t30 for LL is the french tanks. t30 is an offensive tool. pak36 is a pure halftrack counter - ig18 is a weirdo unit for very specific bocage areas.

 

[FatRefrigerator]

Erm, just a reminder all what I am calling for is a reduction of cost for certain defensive units units and have called for ZERO Allied nerfs (outside of being one of the first to make a thread about the ranger Mortar being OP after I used one), the job of the .91 and .17 is to hold the line but that is not possible right now due to cost issues, lets look at one thing:

The closet thing to the T30 is the a combo of PAK36 and IG18 which costs 80pts like the T30 but the T30 has better AP power, better HE range, mobile and scales better, so a single allied unit is more cost effect than two axis ones!

And yes, not all of the Divs are added yet but what do you think going to happen when the Free French with their phase A Wolverines, Paras and I am shaking in in my boots over what the Canadians are going to do with then .91th and .17th in phase A which is likely to have 1200m Sextons!

The Axis could still hold them off but all it needs to be able to do is field weaker specialist units more cheaply...

Well Germany did lose the war...

 

[Grosnours]

It could be that the themes of an infantry division are paritcularly well suited to the themes that let you win small games. Notably: they seem to get a lot of good cheap infantry with solid support options. You pointed out yourself that the most balanced match-up we have right now is armoured division vs armoured division. It seems pretty clear to me that Luftlande's large airforce is better in larger games than in 1v1 (air is a force multiplier across the whole battlefield). Simialry, 17 SS's strong arty is better in larger games than 1v1 (higher unit density, force multiplier again). These two divisions both have advantages that work better the larger the game gets.

I want to see what happens when we get more divisions: is it a feature of infantry divisions that make them good in small games or a feature of allied divisions?

A few things favor infantry division in general :
1) the maps offer very rarely large field of visions and many possible avenues to come to the flank of the enemy, meaning tanks are at a marked disadvantage
2) this is a little bit less true in 1v1 and 2v2 simply because the number of units/space is smaller, meaning there's a bit more room to maneuver in. Still the environment doesn't change and line of sights are still quite short
3) those divisions are the most versatile. Even though the quality of their material might vary, they offer a bit of everything and can adapt
4) they also have cheaper units
5) they have higher income (marginally and depending on the phase)
6) they have more activation points
7) phase C's role is a bit eclipsed by the importance of phase A and B

This is valid for both axis and allies. So I would say that by construction, given the current rules, the infantry division are going to be constantly good.

What allies do much better is the point 3) and they are marginally better with 4). Allied inf division offer better units at a very reasonable price.
Another advantage they have is they often have all the right material as early as possible, while the germans are often one phase late.

Now if we all agree there is an imbalance concerning the two allied infantry divisions, there's two course of action :
- buff the germans
- nerf the allies
I would much rather go with the second one, as the allies infantry division are rife with super-potent units that should not be there, whereas the german divisions seem much more balanced.

 

[holoween]

Now if we all agree there is an imbalance concerning the two allied infantry divisions, there's two course of action :
- buff the germans
- nerf the allies
I would much rather go with the second one, as the allies infantry division are rife with super-potent units that should not be there, whereas the german divisions seem much more balanced.

or simply wait for the german equivalent divisions to arrive and then judge them against each other. if the allies still overperform then there is a case for nerfing them.

 

[TheDeadlyShoe]

You don't need to see all the divisions to realize the 2div infantry is very, very cost efficient, to a degree that lets it dominate the early game *particularly* in 1v1.

 

[holoween]

You don't need to see all the divisions to realize the 2div infantry is very, very cost efficient, to a degree that lets it dominate the early game *particularly* in 1v1.

not all but at leaast the german equivalent meaning the german infantry divisions.

 

[Karlburg]

The problem isn't the 2ID rifles, it's the 2ID rangers that cost the same as normal infantry but massively outperform them, while pgrens cost an enormous premium for their performance(almost 2x).

 

[Wolke]

I don't get the argument to "wait for the other division".

In ranked play you do not know which divison you will play against before you queue up (no matter if 1vs1, 2vs2 or whatever). So all divisions need to be able to compete with each other. They may need to be played differently depending on the opponents. They may have some leeway in some phases, etc. But over all, given opponents with similiar skill, the outcome should be up to who makes the better decisions during the game and, to a lesser degree, when building their decks beforehand.

 

[LKHERO]

I don't get the argument to "wait for the other division".

In ranked play you do not know which divison you will play against before you queue up (no matter if 1vs1, 2vs2 or whatever). So all divisions need to be able to compete with each other. They may need to be played differently depending on the opponents. They may have some leeway in some phases, etc. But over all, given opponents with similiar skill, the outcome should be up to who makes the better decisions during the game and, to a lesser degree, when building their decks beforehand.

In a game that's based off historical divisions having their own strengths and weaknesses, on different maps, and at different points of the game ala Phases, I don't think you're going to be able to ever reach the conclusion "all divisions need to be able to compete against each other".

That's why I'm looking forward to 2v2 Ranked play the most. It will give you just enough where divisional 1v1 play is still possible, but at different sections of the map, but gaping holes in weaknesses can be counter-played by good team coordination.

 

[TGApples]

all divisions need to be able to compete with each other.

No they don't. I'm fine with only half of the divisions being workable for 1v1 ranked play. A third might be alright. There's also 2v2 ranked (and potentially larger) to consider, which may bring other divisions into play.

We'll have a total of 18. We currently have 6. For 1v1 two are good (2ID, Scots), two are alright (3rd Armoured, 12 SS Panzer), two are bad (17 SS, Luftlande). The two alright ones can probably compete in 2v2 if paired with a good one. If that ratio keeps up we'll be in a fairly healthy state for 1v1 and 2v2 ranked IMO. I'd prefer a bit more variety, but I'm fine with some divisions only really shining in team games.

 

[holoween]

I don't get the argument to "wait for the other division".

In ranked play you do not know which divison you will play against before you queue up (no matter if 1vs1, 2vs2 or whatever). So all divisions need to be able to compete with each other. They may need to be played differently depending on the opponents. They may have some leeway in some phases, etc. But over all, given opponents with similiar skill, the outcome should be up to who makes the better decisions during the game and, to a lesser degree, when building their decks beforehand.

the reason im saying wait for german infantry divisions to be released is that the power of the 15th and 2nd may be an inherent thing of infantry divisions and not specific to tose 2 divisions. so nerfing them without being able to comapre them to german infantry divisions could distort balance.

in addition there is the issue of game size. the current german divisions may underperform in 1v1 but they are very strong in 3v3/4v4. that again may be simply a matter of armour and airborne divisions being better in larger games issue so we need some more divisions to compare.

 

[LKHERO]

No they don't. I'm fine with only half of the divisions being workable for 1v1 ranked play. A third might be alright. There's also 2v2 ranked (and potentially larger) to consider, which may bring other divisions into play.

We'll have a total of 18. We currently have 6. For 1v1 two are good (2ID, Scots), two are alright (3rd Armoured, 12 SS Panzer), two are bad (17 SS, Luftlande). The two alright ones can probably compete in 2v2 if paired with a good one. If that ratio keeps up we'll be in a fairly healthy state for 1v1 and 2v2 ranked IMO. I'd prefer a bit more variety, but I'm fine with some divisions only really shining in team games.

This is true as well. In a game with practically 18 races/factions/armies, there's going to be a tier-list for what works best in 1v1/2v2/3v3/4v4. Hell, looking at the deck comp and resource tick of the Panzer Lehr makes them look unplayable in 1v1. But in larger games where your teammates can fill the void, the hope is real. I stress the word hope.

 

[TGApples]

The other big variable is the maps. We currently have seen 3/15, though we know a bit about several of the others. I wouldn't be suprised if the armour decks perform better if any of the maps are more open, or if any of the maps are larger. I think the armoured decks we have at the moment really aren't too far behind on Pointe du Hoc 1v1, for example, simply because the map is large, lines are thin, and those decks tend to be good at breakthroughs. I think they are behind, but not too far!

I don't really see 17SS/Luftlande being saved without overly nerfing them in large games (or making them too generic), but armour decks may bemore competitive than infantry on the right map.

 

[Graphic]

I wouldn't be suprised if the armour decks perform better if any of the maps are more open, or if any of the maps are larger.

There's Carpiquet Airfield from the VIP beta with the entire middle wide open. VIP beta didn't last long enough for metas to develop though, so that should be interesting to see.

 

[GenosseKommissar]

Allies are overperforming in every game size I feel, we did 4vs4 inhouse games and whoever have played allies, just rolled over the map before phase C kicked in..

(screenshot with anedoctical purpose)

 

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Luftlande is an infantry division. So is 17ss.

 

[ZhukoDim]

Allies are overperforming in every game size I feel, we did 4vs4 inhouse games and whoever have played allies, just rolled over the map before phase C kicked in..

Same experience here. Sometimes game is over in 10-12 mins.

 

[TGApples]

Luftlande is an infantry division. So is 17ss.

17SS is mechanised. Luftlande has the airborne icon, but the mouseover says infantry. I guess they're meant to be airborne and the mouseover is wrong so that the number of each division type is balanced faction-to-faction.

 

[Steeperman]

Luftlande is an infantry division. So is 17ss.

Nope, look at the unit Symbol in the Battlegroups menu. Luftlande is obviously an airborne Division and 17th SS is a mechanized Division. They both rely on infantry, yes, but they are not described as "infantry Divisions" ingame, like the scots and 2nd ID.