Ostheer Offensive vs Defensive is redundant

Why does the Ostheer even have to switch between offensive and defensive? It is remarkably redundant. Because of how quickly and cheaply the switch can be made between the two trees, I feel as though it does not have any significant impact on the gameplay. Meanwhile, were it to take longer and cost more munitions then it would be a highly flawed mechanic due to its debilitating nature. So why does it even exist? It's a minor inconvenience typically, but for a munitions starved Ostheer player it is potentially crippling. Was this originally an elaborate and extensive feature that has been significantly watered down in the released version? Why not merely remove it?

Unless the russian player is ROFLSTOMPING you, you as the ostheer should NEVER be starved for munitions. Litterally only 1 doctrine has true munitions sinks. If you can give an actual replay showing this, then we can review it for you to see what you actually mean, but I doubt the ostheer is going to be starved for muni's. Unless you're already losing on map control.

I really like the mechanic but would have to agree that it's borderline redundant since there's such a small penalty for switching.

Maybe have a 2nd level to Support / Assault that grants a free veterancy level-up to newly produced units:

- Double the cost and double production time to unlock the second level upgrade (maybe some level of tech is necessary as well so it doesn't affect the early game)
- Benefits are lost and must be re-upgraded if you switch to the other tree.

JuhwannX wrote:
Unless the russian player is ROFLSTOMPING you, you as the ostheer should NEVER be starved for munitions. Litterally only 1 doctrine has true munitions sinks. If you can give an actual replay showing this, then we can review it for you to see what you actually mean, but I doubt the ostheer is going to be starved for muni's. Unless you're already losing on map control.

That's a hypothetical situation. My real issue is that it is redundant. It doesn't really achieve much, except slow down the Ostheer's ability to respond to his opponent by building X unit to counter Y unit. On paper that sounds cool and unique, but lately I'm finding that in practice it's really just annoying. Often I find myself switching after every other unit, sometimes every unit, and that forces me to babysit my base to a certain extent, because I cannot switch doctrines while a unit is still in production, otherwise the unit's production will be halted. That means my attention is not fully focused on the battlefield, since part of my focus has to be on 'OK, can I build this unit yet? No, OK I have to switch, but can I switch yet? No, I'll have to wait for that unit to finish." Call me a n00b who needs to get used to the Ostheer, but to me this feature is really just annoying and an artificial handicap for the opponent. I don't have time to ponder on the merits of switching to the other doctrine or sticking with my current one while my opponent is building whatever he wants, whenever he wants.

Perhaps this feeling is not held by other players, though.

QuoteI really like the mechanic but would have to agree that it's borderline redundant since there's such a small penalty for switching.

Maybe have a 2nd level to Support / Assault that grants a free veterancy level-up to newly produced units:

- Double the cost and double production time to unlock the second level upgrade (maybe some level of tech is necessary as well so it doesn't affect the early game)
- Benefits are lost and must be re-upgraded if you switch to the other tree.

Hmm, actually it might be interesting if the Support / Assault 'doctrines' gave somesort of a bonus to the Ostheer units. I'm not sure how balanced it would be, however.

Last edited October 2, 2013 at 11:58 AM by Magyar

Magyar wrote:

JuhwannX wrote:
Unless the russian player is ROFLSTOMPING you, you as the ostheer should NEVER be starved for munitions. Litterally only 1 doctrine has true munitions sinks. If you can give an actual replay showing this, then we can review it for you to see what you actually mean, but I doubt the ostheer is going to be starved for muni's. Unless you're already losing on map control.

That's a hypothetical situation. My real issue is that it is redundant. It doesn't really achieve much, except slow down the Ostheer's ability to respond to his opponent by building X unit to counter Y unit. On paper that sounds cool and unique, but lately I'm finding that in practice it's really just annoying. Often I find myself switching after every other unit, sometimes every unit, and that forces me to babysit my base to a certain extent, because I cannot switch doctrines while a unit is still in production, otherwise the unit's production will be halted. That means my attention is not fully focused on the battlefield, since part of my focus has to be on 'OK, can I build this unit yet? No, OK I have to switch, but can I switch yet? No, I'll have to wait for that unit to finish." Call me a n00b who needs to get used to the Ostheer, but to me this feature is really just annoying and an artificial handicap for the opponent. I don't have time to ponder on the merits of switching to the other doctrine or sticking with my current one while my opponent is building whatever he wants, whenever he wants.

100% agree. it needs to be removed, its just a frustrating thing that you must check every time you build a different unit. oh shit, that guy just rushed an m8, no problem, il get a marder2, but fuck i'm offensive, lets wait even more.

Pools may be used as artificial handicap but it is for a good reason, we don't need such variety of units always available because that would cause redundancy. Pools are not going to be removed because it is a core feature of Ostheer. Balance is done around it and you can have AT units and abilities in both pools, how to use them is up to the player.

Pools are not redundant, what is going to become redundant are the units with the same function, which will be available at the same time in the same building. So far this is prevented due to the current gameplay mechanics and I fail to see why they are redundant.

Last edited October 24, 2013 at 7:18 PM by Blackbishop

Tom wrote:

Magyar wrote:

JuhwannX wrote:
Unless the russian player is ROFLSTOMPING you, you as the ostheer should NEVER be starved for munitions. Litterally only 1 doctrine has true munitions sinks. If you can give an actual replay showing this, then we can review it for you to see what you actually mean, but I doubt the ostheer is going to be starved for muni's. Unless you're already losing on map control.

That's a hypothetical situation. My real issue is that it is redundant. It doesn't really achieve much, except slow down the Ostheer's ability to respond to his opponent by building X unit to counter Y unit. On paper that sounds cool and unique, but lately I'm finding that in practice it's really just annoying. Often I find myself switching after every other unit, sometimes every unit, and that forces me to babysit my base to a certain extent, because I cannot switch doctrines while a unit is still in production, otherwise the unit's production will be halted. That means my attention is not fully focused on the battlefield, since part of my focus has to be on 'OK, can I build this unit yet? No, OK I have to switch, but can I switch yet? No, I'll have to wait for that unit to finish." Call me a n00b who needs to get used to the Ostheer, but to me this feature is really just annoying and an artificial handicap for the opponent. I don't have time to ponder on the merits of switching to the other doctrine or sticking with my current one while my opponent is building whatever he wants, whenever he wants.

100% agree. it needs to be removed, its just a frustrating thing that you must check every time you build a different unit. oh shit, that guy just rushed an m8, no problem, il get a marder2, but fuck i'm offensive, lets wait even more.

if you lack in at when you noticed your enemy is using a m8 against you then its not the fault of the pool system
its the players fault and a classic part of fail/wrong teching and prepreation!

for this reason we added as non pool unit the panzerjägers in t2 (which is requirement to build t3 or t4)
so you could have at in time but if you dont have it it dosent matter if there are pools or not!
when you m8 (or any other vehicle) hit the field you dont have any at out and even if there are no pool you wouldnt have any at out

the pool system was implemented to offer different kind of strats and ofc with all the strong units it would be a mess for balance if ostheer had always access to all of them!

plz dont get me wrong
i dont want to blame you

but if it is like you said post some replays and we will look into it
but im 99% its just missing preperation

Sorry but i wont miss the "pool mechanic"
Without them you have just ssoooooo many units you can build, feels then like any shit mod like Blitzkrieg.
But with the Assault/Support Pools its great; not too many  units and its tactical.
You have to think which units you need and choose the right pool.

Quotethe pool system was implemented to offer different kind of strats and ofc with all the strong units it would be a mess for balance if ostheer had always access to all of them!

But isn't that how every other faction already functions? I understand that some of Ostheer's units are quite powerful, so you can certainly make the argument it helps balance to divide the roster into two separate pools; but at the same time other factions have stronger equivalents of units than does the Ostheer, and those units are are always accessible.

I admit that I have not invested many hours into the Ostheer, so these are simply my impressions, but it seems that the division of pools are arbitrarily forced based on a theory of balance. For example, I can understand the theory that you want to keep the Tiger separate from the defensive pool of units, because of its strength, but why is the Panzer IV being treated equally with the Tiger? The Ostheer Panzer IV is actually rather weak- it's a joke compared to a number of Soviet tanks, and yet unlike Soviet tanks, it is still barred by doctrinal pools.

Well. The point is that e.g. Tiger I and Panzer IV are anti tank weapons. The Tiger I is more like a strong AT gun and the PzIV is more like an American M10.
Both tanks have advantage and disadvantages. Both tanks wont help u against infantry. Both will deal with armor in a different way.

I have to take the side supporting the claim that the pool system is incredibly redundant.

It's like saying "whelp, sorry, if you want an M8 AND an ATG, you need to build two separate Motor Pools because LEL".

Yes, I can get a PaK or I can get Shrecks--dammit, WM can do both without having to trade pools, and their weapons in that category are arguably more effective (better Shreck platform, moving ninja PaKs vs oh lel, half health on a Sherman who has 10 of his best buddies on the field).

Iirc there was mention of the LMG team getting retooled next patch. Right now, there is NO reason to even look at the HMG crew as you can just use Hot Barrel and herp derp your way to victory with a mass of LMG troops. And you might not even need them, when you can just roll with Landers that roflstomp anything on legs ahead of them--pile that on with unneeded Panzerfusiliere and Jagers and it just get's full 'tard.

I mean no offense, but OH doesn't quite feel right. It's a feeling almost of being half baked, but not quite. Like, it REALLY wants to be something but it just can't figure out what the hell that something is. There are pool redundancies that DO NOT WARRENT DEFENDING, and there are multiple copies of an elite infantry platform. WH has KCH and Storms, US has Rangers and Airborne. Brits only get Commandos, and PE gets FSJ. OH gets Landsers (arguably elite inf because they're so damn effective), Panzerfusiliere, Jagers, Pios w/ the training upgrade, Brandenburgers...I mean, how much infantry do you need?

Last edited November 2, 2013 at 6:18 AM by TheVolskinator

@TheVolskinator
I am fine with you expressing your opinion, but please realise how much hard work went into this mod. It being 'half baked' is kind of a rude thing to say(you said no offense though so I forgive you :P ). I agree that it isn't finished yet, but damn it is getting there. Pools are there to limit the unit choices and make it more tactical while also preventing the real 'Roflstomping' from happening.

Next, you can't just compare doctrinal units to non-doctrinal units. I agree that the Landser MKB upgrade might a bit on the strong side but that only changes their damage output. Nothing else. Landsers can still get melted like hell in the face of Con and Strelky masses. Heavy Mortar of SU completely obliterates squad and Sniper is also annoying. OH is all about preparation. You need to think ahead. If you don't manage to counter your opponent you were unprepared and will be frustrated as a result. Landsers are basically just like Rifles. So that would mean that Rifles would be 'roflstomping' everything too. They have the same counters to them. Landsers also have similar vetting system except better because of utilities. If you let them vet, they become powerful.

I agree that OH has some of the best doctrinal units but they need these against the might of the Red Army. Also, Sturmpio's with the training upgrade in between elite doctrinal troops? LEL. I mean really, though they have more infantry choices, they are keeping it in Vanilla context and not like BK where there were trillions of redundant units. It allows for more choices in the playstyle. Believe me, Red Army are overall having the upper hand even more so in team games while also having more infantry to choose from.

Finally, all these herp derp mass units still have counters you know. If OH spams lmg teams, get a sniper. They will bleed him like hell. Can't wait to see how many units we are gonna get with the upcoming reward docs huehue.

Pools have to stay. OH=OH, deal with it.
Have a nice day. :)

Last edited November 2, 2013 at 11:51 AM by chaosval3

@TheVolskinator
Saying "no offense" before posting an offending sentence doesn't make it less offensive... just saying, but that's fine. The problem is that you want to play Ostheer as you would play Wehrmacht and that is not possible.

I think @chaolsval3 summed up pretty much anything else I could say about it. If you have a balance concern you can just post the replay where shows you were abused(or you abused someone) in the balance subforums and we will look at it.

@chaolsval3
Well, we are slowly working on the first couple of doctrines, but you might be surprised about the content of both trees(Soviet and Ostheer).

Bishop, I rarely play EF. From what little I have played is where I'm gathering this. My comments are not 'how I want OH to conform to my playstyle'; I'm a terrible WM player anyways, I'm only really proficient as the U.S. It is your mod, and therefore your balance concern, but your very rigid take on this is puzzling. Yes, I do see your point that maybe I'm just not used to this new-fangled system, but on the other side of the coin, I'm trying it repeatedly and I'm repeatedly finding it a massive pain in the arse.

It's my personal take that the pool system is a great idea, but just translates to an inconvenience in game. Not once have I said "this is a terrible mod, get rid of it". It's better than CoH2 in almost every conceivable way (addressing chao's suggestion that I may lack a certain appreciation of the mod--again, I do not!). "OH just doesn't feel right" doesn't strike me as offensive. Merely as it...not feeling right as a faction. I could say the same for PE or CW, both of which are a little weedy themselves.

I'm adding my input as an ex rgd coder on a modding team and the developer of my own mod--this is not to detract from the 3+ years of work poured into EF, this is merely my observation and personal feeling. Bishop, I believe you at one time questioned my credibility as a "serious modder"; I chose not to take offense because the mod in question is being developed by me alone and is also the first mod I've been working on since square one--you had a point. In this situation I would ask you guys (as a dev team and, apparently, the community at large) not to take offense as well. How would you improve anything without third party/devil's advocate input anyway?

@ chao, I'm well aware that failing to prepare does not a happy player make. However, locking myself into a certain strategy that I can't quickly exit/modify/adapt according to how my opponent reacts to my initial strategy seems counterintuitive.

Last edited November 3, 2013 at 8:19 AM by TheVolskinator

The OH pool feature isnt a handicap but a bonus.Instead of building 2 buildings in order to create the units that you need you get to produce them by 1 (albeit with a slight ammunition penalty).The extra micro needed aint that much since you get warned when your previous unit production is ready so you can switch to base and order the next 1 from any pool you like.
As other factions you would need to do the same most of the time due to manpower shortage but you would also need to build 2 buildings (say US barracks and weapons support center) which ofcourse require their own manpower+fuel investment thus hurting your game a lot more than the OH pool feature.

OrderLordTank wrote:
The OH pool feature isnt a handicap but a bonus.Instead of building 2 buildings in order to create the units that you need you get to produce them by 1 (albeit with a slight ammunition penalty).The extra micro needed aint that much since you get warned when your previous unit production is ready so you can switch to base and order the next 1 from any pool you like.
As other factions you would need to do the same most of the time due to manpower shortage but you would also need to build 2 buildings (say US barracks and weapons support center) which ofcourse require their own manpower+fuel investment thus hurting your game a lot more than the OH pool feature.

Yeah cool. Instead of 2 buildings you build 1building and a tone of upgrades to unlock the units and then you have to unlock them again via pools.

The name of the thread should be "so many upgrades are redundant when you already have the lock/unlock pools".

Btw, it may be offtopic but since when the PAK 40 is an offensive weapon? ???