Ostheer is awkward, possible solution?

So I love Eastern Fronts, I love how the Soviets work and their design. I love the idea behind the Ostheer but, I think they are very awkward to use.
I like how they have this duality of support and offense, where one must shift between the two pools, however... their veteran is based around three choices. I also notice that later two upgrades mention Modernization. However one is an ability unlock upgrade while the other is a tier upgrade. Then you have the Support Unit research which is actually a tier upgrade. On top of that, you have Serialized Tank Production that changes based on Doctrine choice.

So Confusing.

I suggest first off, switching the naming of Support Modernization and Support Unit Research. Just switch them, it's a small change that doesn't harm anything but makes the upgrades more obvious on what they do. So then players associate the whole Modernization wording with a tier upgrade.  So then Support Mondernization and Panzer Mondernization are tier upgrades, and Support Unit Research is an ability unlock upgrade.

ok, now for a big leap.

Why not just make a 3rd pool called Mobilization that allows you unlock the same units as the Support Unit Research and Panzer Modernization currently does? It would unlock after building the 3rd tier or 4th tier buildings and allows players to build vehicles and tanks. It would also allow veterancy to happen based on which pool is currently being used.




Then you can just make Support Unit Research and Panzer Modernization more about lowering switch costs between pools and also upkeep.

Last edited October 26, 2014 at 7:27 PM by Floki

Hi, could you add me on Steam? Steam= warhammerchaosgod

i play ost a lot as my friend insists on going brits and i think i would find this more confusing the "pools" are a toggle and work well, can't see how you would add a third toggle without slowing the flow down given the time it takes to switch, still think the marder should be in the support pool, its not an assault weapon and breaks the flow.

I spent quite a long time talking to Darc Reaver and ChaosVal3 on my suggestion, it's merits and it's failures. While they saw some Pro's, that also agreed, it had some Con's. If, I understood them correctly the idea behind Ostheer is that the Assault Pool and Support pool are ment to operate like sub-doctrines. That once you choose one or the other, you aren't ment to be toggling back and forth between the two, unless you absolutely must.

While, I disagree with this design choice because I "personally" don't believe any RTS faction should operate in my words "rigidly", I accept that this faction is what it is. My only concern is that it may end up like the Brits, because the Brits are a very rigid faction. I also have some Oil deficiency concerns, however as I understand the next patch, It seems Oil choices will not be such a major issue in the future.

With that said!, I still think the Veterancy system for Ostheer could be made concise and transparent, more aligned with this idea of sub-doctrination. I think the first step, if it is going to stick with this current design is to improve the wording for the tooltips. I have unofficially semi-volunteered to write up a re-wording of things so they read more intuitively. I plan to work on this with ChaosVal3 on the weekends, as I work full-time during the week.

I think having the veteran system operate like it currently does provides for too much convolution. I have a proposal idea, that perhaps instead of being able to choose all 6, have four of the 6 choices be linked to the assault or support pools. OR, and this reminds me of age of mythology... Have your Doctrine choice be linked to which two choices of veteranancy you receive.

Doctrine 1.
Vet Inf type A & B
Vet Vec type A & B

Doctrine 2.
Vet Inf type B & C
Vet Vec type B & C

Doctrine 3.

Vet Inf type C & A
Vet Vec type C & A

Well, I don't see that much of a benefit of connecting veterancy to the pools/doctrines. It's not like with Panzer elite where you Need to pick your veterancy to get a vet bonus at all. The vehicles and infantry of Ostheer get their vet bonuses by Default. I.e. vet 1 gives 20% reload Speed on vehicles. And infantry gets 10% received accuracy. Etc. The chooseable veterancy doesn't provide different combat roles, but instead it makes the vehicle perform better at a role you want to give it.


Like more sight range/capping Speed if you Need a Scout unit/unit for ninja capping. Repair abilities in case you're going heavy on vehicles and Need repairs everywhere. less upkeep in case you're playing with superior numbers, or you Need to save Manpower.As for tanks, well the bonuses are combat related, but still they're only putting accents onto the vehicle veterancy. Like giving it a bonus to perform better as meatshields (skirts-gunner vet), or better range and a top mg gunner + Radio improvements for nearby tanks (commander vet). Or giving it more mobility (Driver vet) for better flanking.

It's not as if this would be very confusing at all, at least in my opinion. Of course I'm a bit biased, as I've played quite a lot of games in EF already, but still, it's pretty easy to pick up, and not much harder to understand than let's say... Wehr veterancy.

So. If you'd connect the Ostheer vet to pools/doctrines it would most likely be necessary to rework all bonuses.

As a part I really think that the whole awkwardness/confusion just Comes from having no real Guidelines for Ostheer/Soviets. We couldn't do that in the past anyways, because every Version lead to a complete rework of both factions (or soviets in the pre-2.200 era). However, as the Ostheer/Soviets will be 95% finished with the next patch I'll create some Videos for utilizing those factions.

Pretty much what Darc said. +1...nay! +2!

floki, can't see how you can not consider the "pools" a toggle, you can only have one active at a time, its totally different from the "doctrine" method as is veterancy.
The way i have interpreted the pools is as an "evolution" during game and it fits in with my gameplay style of capture resource points, securing supply lines then moving to offensive, really can't see where any confusion lies there.

maddogb wrote:
floki, can't see how you can not consider the "pools" a toggle, you can only have one active at a time, its totally different from the "doctrine" method as is veterancy.
The way i have interpreted the pools is as an "evolution" during game and it fits in with my gameplay style of capture resource points, securing supply lines then moving to offensive, really can't see where any confusion lies there.

Exactly this was the idea behind the current pool System: Switch your Unitpool accordingly to your playstyle and/or your personal Needs.

Next patch will introduce some minor adjustments towards the pool Units, and hopefully will make the pool choices more interesting in Terms of gameplay differences.

But we'll see if it works out the way we planned it.

Yeah. I feel like I am using the assault pool much more often simply because the most of the units in the defense pool are weak
(Pak40 is more more clunky, capturable, and isnt much better than upgunned marder ii)
(MG34 doesn't suppress quick enough so it takes damage way too quickly, rifle grenadiers as a unit are much better)
(Assault is generally more useful for the Skirmish officer than defensive)

132 wrote:
Yeah. I feel like I am using the assault pool much more often simply because the most of the units in the defense pool are weak
(MG34 doesn't suppress quick enough so it takes damage way too quickly, rifle grenadiers as a unit are much better)

Ever played Kübel MG34 combo? Kinda similar to the wehr bike & mg abuse. You know push infantry units away so the mg can build itself up. Pretty useful imo.

What 132 says is the perfect example. Generally, players tend to go support pool because they have more reliable but, more static play. This basically would mean less micro. However, he tells us that he prefers Assault Pool because the units are more mobile and aggressive. Again, just what we want to hear. Player's playstyle preferences.
Cheers mate!

Walentin wrote:

132 wrote:
Yeah. I feel like I am using the assault pool much more often simply because the most of the units in the defense pool are weak
(MG34 doesn't suppress quick enough so it takes damage way too quickly, rifle grenadiers as a unit are much better)

Ever played Kübel MG34 combo? Kinda similar to the wehr bike & mg abuse. You know push infantry units away so the mg can build itself up. Pretty useful imo.

Similar concept BUT less effective than wehr simply because of suppression. And bike+mg isn't abuse, its using strategy. What I am saying is that any skilled player would be able to counter this with effective flanking manuevers so bike + mg isn't abusive. And unlike the MG42 and bike, the Mg34 w/ kubel usually won't effectively be able force retreat 2 flanking squads from different directions (say riflemen) even if the push is being used simply because it won't suppress on time. On the otherhand, Mg42s can quickly suppress one infantry squad instantly then change directions to suppress the other flanking infantry squad that is being pushed by the motorcycle.

Conscripts are supressed more easily than riflemen, so your argument is quite void. Also, the mg34 got some decent supression aswell. On top the kübel is better than the bike in terms of dps. It also can reverse. Playing Ostheer t1 in 2.300 is still easier tho.

How? cons have same inf armor type as rifles?

They're using an own armour, which is similar to infantry armour from riflemen. But they take additional damage from mgs and additional supression from all sources. Maybe you should get your facts straight before making bold claims. Just sayin'.

No need to be rude, but I happen to play at high expertise, beating many renowned coh experts on the GR forum, and unlike you I don't have the game mechanics program lists and shit to know the exact specifics for every man. Just sayin'

Last edited October 31, 2014 at 9:36 PM by 132

Which is why you should refrain from making bold statements. It doesn't matter how good you are at the game, it won't make your say ultimate. There is no point in thinking you 'know' everything about the game or this mod. The only thing bragging will do is that it will make you look bad, in my opinion.

132 wrote:
No need to be rude, but I happen to play at high expertise, beating many renowned coh experts on the GR forum, and unlike you I don't have the game mechanics program lists and shit to know the exact specifics for every man. Just sayin'

Nah, don't get me wrong. Wasn't meant as an insult.

No problem, just wanted to give out my insight as to why things are the way they are.

now i'm getting confused, shouldn't the doctrines be more about style of play than pools?
to me it appears the pool system is more a mechanism for "spacing" availability of overwhelming weaponry thus making the balance somewhat more even.
After all no one can play an entire game based on one pool, eg the lack of a cheap mortar team etc prevent you from going straight to assault and staying there whilst the lack of decent "finishing" firepower such as panzer 4 prevent anyone staying in support pool.

The way I see it, pools are a way to divide the ostheer faction, almost as if it would be 2 different armies. This is implemented so the faction would be more original unique and harder.

Perhaps the initial use of pools caused to divide the armie, but now it is false, specially because there is only one unit being toggled so it is no way to make it two "armies" now.

maddogb wrote:
now i'm getting confused, shouldn't the doctrines be more about style of play than pools?
to me it appears the pool system is more a mechanism for "spacing" availability of overwhelming weaponry thus making the balance somewhat more even.
After all no one can play an entire game based on one pool, eg the lack of a cheap mortar team etc prevent you from going straight to assault and staying there whilst the lack of decent "finishing" firepower such as panzer 4 prevent anyone staying in support pool.

Yes, Overall doctrines are also to fit a faction to your personal playstyle. However, doctrines shouldn't be forced, that's why we've been trying to make the Ostheer not rely too much on a doctrine (although you'll always need one because else you cannot get your main anti tank vehicle). But at least you don't Need to pick it immediately at the game start.

132 wrote:
The way I see it, pools are a way to divide the ostheer faction, almost as if it would be 2 different armies. This is implemented so the faction would be more original unique and harder.

The pools do not really "divide" the Ostheer, they just put in certain accents in the gameplay. Either you're going for frontline troops (kugel, bombardiers etc), or more passive Long range Support Units (Pwerfer, Mortar etc). AWith the next time we'll emphasize this System I hope. Afterall you can still Switch the pool ingame. Even if you don't do it a lot in a 1v1, in 2v2+ there are many situations in which a pool switch will bring you a tactical Advantage for a comparably low cost.

However, as for the whole Topic "make the pools permanent. It'll be more fun!". It won't. We had that thought in the past a while after the Ostheer was released in the initial beta. It's dumb. You essentially still Need to have the same Unit types in the tiers to make the factions work. And then you can just use different unit Skins instead. Every faction Needs a hmg, a mortar like unit, a main battle tank, an anti infantry tank and so on. So, for Ostheer what will you do? Add a mg42 and a mg34 for switching? Boooooooooooooooooooooooooring. A Kugelblitz and an Ostwind? BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORING. And so on.

So, what do you do then? Ah, design the other pool competely different. Also, it's pretty much impossible to design 2 completely different factions in one army with the same doctrinal layouts. First off it's confusing for the Players playing against the Ostheer. Second, it's not worth the effort. Because Players simply pick the stronger faction, which then results in the other "pool" being underplayed. Third, it's incredibly hard to make the tech layouts fit the doctrines.

Having 2 entirely different factions in one is not really a way to make them "unique and harder". Having a faction that is hard to Play is shit, to put it short. Factions have to be easy to learn, hard to master. Not hard to learn easy to master. Soviets and Ostheer already are hard to Play properly, there is no reason to make them even harder.

Edit: don't get me wrong though. I'm always open for suggestions. But there's also stuff that I simply do not like to talk about much, especially when I hear stuff like "make factions harder to Play but more rewarding". CoH is already hard enough in many aspects, there's no Need to increase that difficulty even more.

Last edited November 4, 2014 at 9:00 AM by Hendrik 'DarcReaver' S.

Hendrik wrote:

Yes, Overall doctrines are also to fit a faction to your personal playstyle. However, doctrines shouldn't be forced, that's why we've been trying to make the Ostheer not rely too much on a doctrine (although you'll always need one because else you cannot get your main anti tank vehicle). But at least you don't Need to pick it immediately at the game start.

? do remember a  long time ago playing a full game without picking a doctrine but not with OST :D
main anti tank vehicle, with OST fortress thats panzer4, is that something needing looked at?

132 wrote:
The way I see it, pools are a way to divide the ostheer faction, almost as if it would be 2 different armies. This is implemented so the faction would be more original unique and harder.

I can see that but, to clarify, not as though its two different doctrines? perhaps a clear simple statement from the devs about their vision on pools would allow more constructive input from players as to how successful this is

Hendrik wrote:
The pools do not really "divide" the Ostheer, they just put in certain accents in the gameplay. Either you're going for frontline troops (kugel, bombardiers etc), or more passive Long range Support Units (Pwerfer, Mortar etc). AWith the next time we'll emphasize this System I hope. Afterall you can still Switch the pool ingame. Even if you don't do it a lot in a 1v1, in 2v2+ there are many situations in which a pool switch will bring you a tactical Advantage for a comparably low cost.

However, as for the whole Topic "make the pools permanent. It'll be more fun!". It won't. We had that thought in the past a while after the Ostheer was released in the initial beta. It's dumb. You essentially still Need to have the same Unit types in the tiers to make the factions work. And then you can just use different unit Skins instead. Every faction Needs a hmg, a mortar like unit, a main battle tank, an anti infantry tank and so on. So, for Ostheer what will you do? Add a mg42 and a mg34 for switching? Boooooooooooooooooooooooooring. A Kugelblitz and an Ostwind? BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORING. And so on.

So, what do you do then? Ah, design the other pool competely different. Also, it's pretty much impossible to design 2 completely different factions in one army with the same doctrinal layouts. First off it's confusing for the Players playing against the Ostheer. Second, it's not worth the effort. Because Players simply pick the stronger faction, which then results in the other "pool" being underplayed. Third, it's incredibly hard to make the tech layouts fit the doctrines.

Having 2 entirely different factions in one is not really a way to make them "unique and harder". Having a faction that is hard to Play is shit, to put it short. Factions have to be easy to learn, hard to master. Not hard to learn easy to master. Soviets and Ostheer already are hard to Play properly, there is no reason to make them even harder.

Edit: don't get me wrong though. I'm always open for suggestions. But there's also stuff that I simply do not like to talk about much, especially when I hear stuff like "make factions harder to Play but more rewarding". CoH is already hard enough in many aspects, there's no Need to increase that difficulty even more.

Couldn't agree more with the learning curve concept, having played RTS games since Dune2 seen so many fail on good ideas not only poorly carried through but also poorly communicated.
Radical new concepts like the "pool" system may be fantastic but if the players don't "get it" they can still fail, that supports my idea of a simple statement on how the devs see the pool system going forward, my personal view is it simply needs "tweaking" (Marder and maybe Ostwind
moved to 1st pool :D)

It does indeed need some tweaking. Although it is mostly important, I think atleast, that we stick with what we have now and that it will hopefully lead to overall acceptance from players. Changing the design and balance continously is its own sort of problem(in the long run).

In my opinion, with some minor switching around and tweaking, the pool system could be finalised. That said, I haven't played in quite a while...

Last edited November 4, 2014 at 1:39 PM by chaosval3

Basicly i think the Pool System is fine now.
I played some games and i talked to many other Players and i think its more a training problem (i know players who hated the pool system and changed theit opinion after the 10th + game). Maybe some little changes are possible but imho the Pool system is almost finaly...

When i said that they make the faction harder, i meant it because the player is left with less options and must use resources to switch to the other pool if he really wants the alternative unit. Ofcourse, it would be much easier if the ostheer had no such thing as pools and all units were available.

132 wrote:
When i said that they make the faction harder, i meant it because the player is left with less options and must use resources to switch to the other pool if he really wants the alternative unit. Ofcourse, it would be much easier if the ostheer had no such thing as pools and all units were available.

Sure thing. The importance of actually switching the pools to get access to a certain type of unit will become more important iwth the next patch. Or at least I hope so.

Hendrik wrote:

132 wrote:
When i said that they make the faction harder, i meant it because the player is left with less options and must use resources to switch to the other pool if he really wants the alternative unit. Ofcourse, it would be much easier if the ostheer had no such thing as pools and all units were available.

Sure thing. The importance of actually switching the pools to get access to a certain type of unit will become more important iwth the next patch. Or at least I hope so.

ooo now your just teasing us :D