Indeed cause i would be surprised there is always 200 people with the majority of them waiting in chat without playing or joining lobbys. I tend to forget my game is open sometimes but i'm not a good example
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Indeed cause i would be surprised there is always 200 people with the majority of them waiting in chat without playing or joining lobbys. I tend to forget my game is open sometimes but i'm not a good example
Yeah, I feel ya. The 4v4 maps kinda allow for people to play badly and not kill the team and that's an aspect I don't know if i'll ever like because it takes away so many of the possibilities. Part of the possibility is that, someone can lose and lose big, but in sword it doesn't take a lot of it for a game to be lost because no one covers a big enough area. I'm not sure what the solution is, but the complaints about arty spam are never going to end when you play it on maps too small for it, and I think that's the price to be paid for not having to worry about a game being blown up because no one decided to play a part of the map.
Sure but from my experience against average players, you're never able to push with Lehr in phase A. You hold and you begin to push in phase B once you get your first Tiger/Panther. I tend to bring KT a bit later cause there is some timing and the more early you bring your first big boom the better. The trouble with the KT is to wait 3 times 150 points to get only one panzer when you often need to get some armor in multiple positions (left/center/right) to create no zone open field areas. I tend to go 3 Befehl Panther in a row (or tigers/panzers IV if i'm in bad shape) for this reason and bring my KT later. The KT option is also trouble cause you find yourself in a very bad spot if you unfortunately loose it and it is your only armor asset at the moment. It does happen as it is focused.
To be able to push with Lehr in phase A is just proof you've some less good player in front of you imo.
I've not the time to do it anymore unfortunately but to create guides with strategies and screenshots showing the different angles to attack a position would be something. Learn the maps and practice them is the key.
The trick in my experience with Lehr is to get your leadership from everything but your infantry tab. If you play it out that way, you get the A phase infantry that you need and all the other vet infantry late game without a slot issues. What we are talking about is exactly the point, small details like this is what people need to know before coming into a multiplayer game and getting wrecked. Theory is usually easier than putting it to work, but at least people can see other options in play style that end up making the game more robust in the long run. As there are many different solutions to one problem a head of you.
Well my experience is arty alone never wins a game, quite the opposite, the more arty/offmap the more you loose, even in 4vs4 (but i speak of conquest games, destruction games play differently). Cause you lack the points to bring other units and arty does not hold a line nor it counter armor push. Offmap may turn the tide in forests/towns though, but no more than in other team games when used in forests/towns.
I take two fuhrer from the very beginning, one for my at guns, one for my panzerwerfer cause they are cheap but you definitely canno't take another slot for fuhrers in your infantry tab. The trick is to keep these two alive as long as possible. Then you're right, you bring your command radius with your panzers. I got 2 befehl panzers IV, 1 Befehl tiger, and 3 befehl panthers + 2 SPW 232 in the support tab if i have lost my fuhrers and need some cheap solution for my arty.
The deck thing is always a bit of a mystery, because of what Roirraw says...player choice in line with how they play. I found my GA decks wrecked opposing inf builds, and once I worked out the recce/leader/AT/armour interplay, could hold my own against most armoured builds (didn't like the peak unit emphasis in the early days, but that tapered off)...win or lose, I enjoy playing with those GA builds, and for me that's the important thing.
The player count at the moment (and for some time gone) is a victim of a few factors - the subtle learning curve of the game, which is quite more difficult than WG to pick up; the poor peak unit balance at release and for a while afterwards; the toxic atmosphere that pervaded the various forums. Ironically, I noticed much less BS on the chat lines than we saw in WG, but the forums were way more toxic and unwelcoming...it was almost inversely proportional. The saver for many players in WG was the low unit numbers/low income games...they got pretty popular in their own way, it was sort of a counter-point to the clown car aspect of 10v10.
The player count at the moment (and for some time gone) is a victim of a few factors - the subtle learning curve of the game, which is quite more difficult than WG to pick up; the poor peak unit balance at release and for a while afterwards; the toxic atmosphere that pervaded the various forums. Ironically, I noticed much less BS on the chat lines than we saw in WG, but the forums were way more toxic and unwelcoming...it was almost inversely proportional. The saver for many players in WG was the low unit numbers/low income games...they got pretty popular in their own way, it was sort of a counter-point to the clown car aspect of 10v10.
Can confirm, fairly new in and lost my first 7 games and recently won my first game (3v3). It's a brutal game to cut your teeth on.
Nail and head. Seems to me the biggest issue is balancing. If there was a way of guaranteeing that new players like myself (although i played WG:RD) were evenly distributed across teams the games would likely be a lot more fun for both Vets and New Players.
This is the biggest thing IMO, coming from a guy who's still enthralled with Skirmish. If there was a kiddie pool in multi, it would be more welcoming. Smaller maps, smaller unit counts, etc. would help. It's just so overwhelming to the inexperienced. I come from turn based strategy games.... this is really my first RTS with more than 3 or 4 things to worry about. Normal speed, medium difficulty, it's rough! I still have to run it slow at medium.
Anyways, survival of the fittest does not grow numbers. This is a little off topic but the business of martial arts gyms knows this well. You have to provide for normal people if you want big numbers and enrollment. There are only so many people who will come back 3 days after a broken nose. So if you want big business, you gotta have a kiddie pool. Not just advanced sparring... You gotta have that regular old dude kickboxing class. Next thing you know you'll see guys moving up. If you run a "weed out the weak" operation, you're going nowhere.
Yupp. This game does not lend itself to random lobbies of 1000 game veterans and people who have played 8 multiplayer games like myself, far too unforgiving. Only takes me to underperform against someone opposite me for the whole match to be wasted for my teammates which results in me thinking I don't want to ruin other players experiences.
As a veteran I’d much rather have you play and want to learn. Try Hards that admonish you for being new are the problem. The “elites” of the game should ask themselves how much money they are making off Tourneys.
That’s what I thought.
That’s what I thought.
I'll help anyone and try to help randoms when I can, but what I won't do is nurse a bruised ego to someone who gets angry at situations they can't counter. When players complain about "arty spam" "imba axis armor" "plane spam", it goes a long way to ask for help instead of whining to the internet. It's up those who are a part of this community to help curate it, keeping people honest about their complains and experiences is helpful for everyone.
I rely heavily on command vehicles, but I think it's necessary to have at least one card of command infantry for a deck to function well. The CVs are too vulnerable in some situations, you can't use them in big forests and you need (cheap) commanders in phase A.
Lately I only quickplayed some games. If I don't recognize the name I ask my opponents if they are new. If so, I just leave...
Not worth their or my time.
Not worth their or my time.
You should really not run the game slower, it creates bad reflexes. In fact in multiplayer you're not facing IA constantly advancing, it gives you more time to react. IA just overwhelms you with units and manage everything at once, players don't.
Yeah the AI is only good to sort of understand the mechanics but vs people the air game is more visceral and you can see the strategy at play. You get more reaction time because a human can’t micro everything at once.
I personally will play lesser opponents but I try to help them and I won’t try to smash them. That’s me though.
I personally will play lesser opponents but I try to help them and I won’t try to smash them. That’s me though.
Well that's nice of you! Lol c'mon man, help a brother out here or there.
I'm working on it!
When the AI rushes on all fronts and some micromanaging is necessary all over the map at once, it's tough. I try to run it normal when I can, but at first contact it's overwhelming. I'm trying to correct some weird pathfinding, deal with the left side, and next thing you know my units covering the right side are all kaput and the whole side collapses. It's crazy... trying to train my brain step by step though.
Sure but the choices are limited and you canno't make a deck in what it's not created for, you just can work the edges. For example, some pure armor deck like Lehr shines in open field areas and struggle imo in some middle ground areas with too many treelines. It is not that much how you wanna play the deck than how the deck is build and is supposed to be played (with its own strenghts/weaknesses) : what points you get in what phases decide a lot, what best units are there in the deck (vetted, particular combos..) and how they play, what parts of the map you'll choose and what chance you'll have to face some perfect deck for you or you perfect counter.
If you watch some videos where Lehr does make ground in phase A against some infantry deck like Scots, there is always more a difference of skill between two players than anything else cause Lehr should not be able to compete the infantry + support of Scots in phase A. Infantry is its weakness and as Churchill V are enough to disable any paks in phase A, enemy infantry supported by honey's are just unstoppable.
Against decks like Lehr with their points and strenghts coming in phase C, you've to roll over them in phase A then hold the best you can to win.
In teamplay you usually meet some armor allied deck in front of you cause of the part of the map you choose hence you tend not to meet the decks like Scots which are more able to roll over you. Open field attracts armor decks and allied armor players tend also to build their armor strenght over time, which is not how you wanna play against Lehr if you hope to win. Some GA/3rd armor will only be able to compete late game against panzers reducing the distances in phase C and a good lehr player will try to stay at max range.
A puma strategy in phase A is good but you've only 75 points each thick to do so, a puma costs 100 and you've to take 3 cards to bring all the three. It is 4 four thicks, 300 points only to get 3 times 8ap and 4 frontal armor. They go down very easily. With not enough infantry to support you to make something of your kills, cause there is none in the deck, its very expensive and cause your points did go in pumas.
Therefore i'm not really convinced about the phase A possibilities of Lehr to push in phase A with 75 points each thick and the kind of units available. It is not like 2DB. 2DB may do something with the combo M10/M8/M5/M3 with cheaper infantry.
If it might reassure you, IA is consequently more difficult than players in a way. Jump in multiplayer
It is really bad, how player numbers have decreased again. It was great after the close combat patch. But now the waiting in the lobbies is again really anoying. I hope the next patch tomorow will have a similar effect as the last one.
But imho for the 10vs10 the main reason is not the team stacking, but the overall bad balance. In smaller games I think the balance is quite good (2vs2 to 4vs4, I do not play 1vs1). But in 10vs10 I feel, that axis is dominating. And I think the last patch has made this worse. I really like the changes on AA, which solved the plane train issues. But buffing AA in general and introducing Luftwaffen Feld is giving even more advantage to the axis heavy tanks on the tight 4vs4 maps for 10vs10.
Honestly I do not think, that this could be solved easily. Asymmetric balance between factions and phases make it imho impossible to a have good balnce in 1vs1 and 10vs10 at the same time. And changing basic game mechanic this is not realistic with a patch.. Maybe with next part of the SD-series
One thing, that could work, would be to change the maps for 10vs10. E.g. Pegasus already feels more balanced then Colombelle or Carpiquet. Increasing the frontline to 1500m per player instead of 1000m could also help. Maybe we can get a smaller version of Sword to test it (Sword is currently 2500m/player iirc).
Fun fact about imbalnced team: I played this weekend a few games on axis together with mainly people with <100 games vs roiraw and some other veterans, which always stacked on allies. And it was really fun. I lost 2 of 3 games. But it felt much more balanced, than most other 10on10 games I played during the last weeks. So as long as all the 500+ games experts are crowding on the allies side, please go on with this And if you can encourage 20-30% of the veterans to change to axis, this could be enough to have a balanced game.
Btw, I am still a bit scary of a matchmaker. Everytime I tried the current quickplay, I canceled it after it searched 10min for game without success.
But imho for the 10vs10 the main reason is not the team stacking, but the overall bad balance. In smaller games I think the balance is quite good (2vs2 to 4vs4, I do not play 1vs1). But in 10vs10 I feel, that axis is dominating. And I think the last patch has made this worse. I really like the changes on AA, which solved the plane train issues. But buffing AA in general and introducing Luftwaffen Feld is giving even more advantage to the axis heavy tanks on the tight 4vs4 maps for 10vs10.
Honestly I do not think, that this could be solved easily. Asymmetric balance between factions and phases make it imho impossible to a have good balnce in 1vs1 and 10vs10 at the same time. And changing basic game mechanic this is not realistic with a patch.. Maybe with next part of the SD-series
One thing, that could work, would be to change the maps for 10vs10. E.g. Pegasus already feels more balanced then Colombelle or Carpiquet. Increasing the frontline to 1500m per player instead of 1000m could also help. Maybe we can get a smaller version of Sword to test it (Sword is currently 2500m/player iirc).
Fun fact about imbalnced team: I played this weekend a few games on axis together with mainly people with <100 games vs roiraw and some other veterans, which always stacked on allies. And it was really fun. I lost 2 of 3 games. But it felt much more balanced, than most other 10on10 games I played during the last weeks. So as long as all the 500+ games experts are crowding on the allies side, please go on with this
And if you can encourage 20-30% of the veterans to change to axis, this could be enough to have a balanced game. Btw, I am still a bit scary of a matchmaker. Everytime I tried the current quickplay, I canceled it after it searched 10min for game without success.
For sure there are counters to the big cats and everybody can learn how to kill these beasts. But do you really mean, that the tank game is balanced in current 10vs10? Between players of same skill, I would always expect the advantage on the axis side.