Ostheer is awkward, possible solution?

[Floki]

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.

[chaosval3]

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

[maddogb]

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.

[Floki]

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

[Hendrik 'DarcReaver' S.]

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.

[chaosval3]

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

[maddogb]

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.

[Hendrik 'DarcReaver' S.]

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.

[krupp steel]

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)

[Walentin 'Walki' L.]

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.

[chaosval3]

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!

[krupp steel]

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.

[Hendrik 'DarcReaver' S.]

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.

[krupp steel]

How? cons have same inf armor type as rifles?

[Hendrik 'DarcReaver' S.]

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'.