#17607
Russian preservation concerns/Ostheer Vet suggestion
Very impressed with this mod from what I read and saw in the video, but I have some questions/concerns about the impact of certain choices, not as they affect balance, but as they affect overall game-play/battlefield decision-making. Of course, once I’ve played the mod, I may find my concerns invalid, and I do definitely plan on playing it on the 21st. Until then though, I figured I’d ask.
I also had a veterancy idea(not so much for the Russians but possibly for the Ostheer), down towards the bottom, just for the sake of contributing to the idea pool.
I really like the no retreat idea for conscripts-----I think it should apply to conscripts only though, or at least not for every troop type. One thing I think we’ll miss here is the capping gamble(when do I retreat? Is it worth trading unit for point? Is it worth that extra second?) With Russian units, there’s never a reason to make a decision.
I don’t mind the no reman(especially because I understand the roadblock here)---but again, if it could be changed, I certainly think it should be changed, at least for some unit types. This is more important than my first concern, because it reflects the number of choices that can be made on the battlefield. It waters them down(at least as far as I can tell), and I’m not sure there is something viable to replace that action and its consequences with.
Granted, because they can’t recrew their own weapons, the soviets need to be extra cautious, but in ideal play, people are cautious anyway.
I appreciate the unique approach to veterancy, global weapon upgrades(how veterancy is really just represented in better unit options)----but I wonder if this also, is so hard-line that it reduces the coh experience, especially when joined with the other two reductions in COH functionality.
All other factions seem to have a clear incentive to keep certain units alive. American and PE vetted units are more valuable than non-vetted. Brit squads are extremely expensive to buy(but cheaper to reinforce), their lt’s and captains gain veterancy, and they have individual upgrades, which are expensive to replace in munitions. Wehrmacht heavily relies on those same personal upgrades, and takes a big hit when it loses an upgraded gren or storm team.
If all Russian upgrades are global, and if there is no individual veterancy, or weapon buys, the Russian player seems absolved of any need to focus on unit preservation, which might be fine as a means of encouraging a certain Russian play-style, I only worry that that play-style might feel less personal, or more to the point, less nuanced, or choice-laden on the tactical level, if not on the strategic level.
One option would be slightly more expensive unit-buys and dirt cheap/free reinforcement costs, which would make it important to keep unit integrity, even if most of a squad is obliterated. This may be how things work already, I’m not sure.
……………….
Veterancy Suggestion: Note, this is thinking while I type- it’s not well thought out, but might generate some ideas.
On the note of veterancy, this doesn’t really fit the Russian play-style, but a somewhat unique idea for veterancy occurred to me. It would be a hybrid of American/wehrmacht upgrades in a way, though the only wehrmacht comparison would be that this idea involves a special upgrade building(elite equipment/training facility).
The general idea behind this would be veterancy earned by action in the field, which would have similar if lesser affects to American veterancy, though, perhaps attained easier.
The significant difference would be the training(or just equipping/reassigning) facility, that would allow you to trade in remaining squad members(which have attained varying levels of veterancy) for higher level troops with better load-outs. It would work kind of like a medic bunker, tallying up trade-in’s until it had enough to generate a new, better armed, more elite squad. (actually, for simplicity, I think that unit types could only attain one level of veterancy, and that different facilities might be needed to trade different soldier types-this might not be necessary)
I see this idea necessarily coupled with a no reinforcement disadvantage for this faction though.
This might be a unique disadvantage/advantage of some Ostheer units. No reinforcement but full heal for remaining members at base(for free, or else with a cheap base upgrade) though I suspect something better has already been decided on.
Alternatively, if the no reinforcement idea is not so hot, the veterancy would still work the same way, but the building/buildings for different unit types would instead, be a necessary visit for vetted squads to gain improvements at no munitions cost. Of course, the player should not have to rely on earned veterancy to counter threats, so perhaps these would be alternative ways to get equipment and upgrades, as a cheaper(munitions light) means of equipping, rather than buying via munitions upgrades, the same way you can buy a PE squad that already has shreks, or you can purchase the shreks separately.
I also had a veterancy idea(not so much for the Russians but possibly for the Ostheer), down towards the bottom, just for the sake of contributing to the idea pool.
I really like the no retreat idea for conscripts-----I think it should apply to conscripts only though, or at least not for every troop type. One thing I think we’ll miss here is the capping gamble(when do I retreat? Is it worth trading unit for point? Is it worth that extra second?) With Russian units, there’s never a reason to make a decision.
I don’t mind the no reman(especially because I understand the roadblock here)---but again, if it could be changed, I certainly think it should be changed, at least for some unit types. This is more important than my first concern, because it reflects the number of choices that can be made on the battlefield. It waters them down(at least as far as I can tell), and I’m not sure there is something viable to replace that action and its consequences with.
Granted, because they can’t recrew their own weapons, the soviets need to be extra cautious, but in ideal play, people are cautious anyway.
I appreciate the unique approach to veterancy, global weapon upgrades(how veterancy is really just represented in better unit options)----but I wonder if this also, is so hard-line that it reduces the coh experience, especially when joined with the other two reductions in COH functionality.
All other factions seem to have a clear incentive to keep certain units alive. American and PE vetted units are more valuable than non-vetted. Brit squads are extremely expensive to buy(but cheaper to reinforce), their lt’s and captains gain veterancy, and they have individual upgrades, which are expensive to replace in munitions. Wehrmacht heavily relies on those same personal upgrades, and takes a big hit when it loses an upgraded gren or storm team.
If all Russian upgrades are global, and if there is no individual veterancy, or weapon buys, the Russian player seems absolved of any need to focus on unit preservation, which might be fine as a means of encouraging a certain Russian play-style, I only worry that that play-style might feel less personal, or more to the point, less nuanced, or choice-laden on the tactical level, if not on the strategic level.
One option would be slightly more expensive unit-buys and dirt cheap/free reinforcement costs, which would make it important to keep unit integrity, even if most of a squad is obliterated. This may be how things work already, I’m not sure.
……………….
Veterancy Suggestion: Note, this is thinking while I type- it’s not well thought out, but might generate some ideas.
On the note of veterancy, this doesn’t really fit the Russian play-style, but a somewhat unique idea for veterancy occurred to me. It would be a hybrid of American/wehrmacht upgrades in a way, though the only wehrmacht comparison would be that this idea involves a special upgrade building(elite equipment/training facility).
The general idea behind this would be veterancy earned by action in the field, which would have similar if lesser affects to American veterancy, though, perhaps attained easier.
The significant difference would be the training(or just equipping/reassigning) facility, that would allow you to trade in remaining squad members(which have attained varying levels of veterancy) for higher level troops with better load-outs. It would work kind of like a medic bunker, tallying up trade-in’s until it had enough to generate a new, better armed, more elite squad. (actually, for simplicity, I think that unit types could only attain one level of veterancy, and that different facilities might be needed to trade different soldier types-this might not be necessary)
I see this idea necessarily coupled with a no reinforcement disadvantage for this faction though.
This might be a unique disadvantage/advantage of some Ostheer units. No reinforcement but full heal for remaining members at base(for free, or else with a cheap base upgrade) though I suspect something better has already been decided on.
Alternatively, if the no reinforcement idea is not so hot, the veterancy would still work the same way, but the building/buildings for different unit types would instead, be a necessary visit for vetted squads to gain improvements at no munitions cost. Of course, the player should not have to rely on earned veterancy to counter threats, so perhaps these would be alternative ways to get equipment and upgrades, as a cheaper(munitions light) means of equipping, rather than buying via munitions upgrades, the same way you can buy a PE squad that already has shreks, or you can purchase the shreks separately.