Steel Divisions biggest flaw

[Protosszocker]

youre not outsmarting an equally good player or if you can outsmart him then he could do the same to you with the same chance of doing it. so if you have the same chance of outsmarting each other you again boil it down to the first fight being the only one that matters.
think of a computer exactly mirroring your every move. in a classical rts without rng you will end up with the last 2 units on the field killing each other at the very end.
in a game that relies on rng that only holds true until the first fight where rng will decide a victor.

also focusing a certain unit type works just as much as it does now. one your opponent has none left in the current phase then they cant bring new ones.

also if you think, the way i suggest would work best, doesnt work then thats fine however a mechanic acting in this way would still be important
there is a reason i first put fairly simple modifications first. ex a 50% refund over the next 3 income ticks could work aswell if you think it would otherwise be too fast.

No its not who wins the first fight wins, as both players have completly different tools, so still you can win later by useing your combo whise, nothing feels better than turning a game where you are behind, refunds just make it dull. Its not like you dont have a chance after being behind, if you are both on the same level (you are still makeing misstakes and defenders always have the advantage), he will not be able to overrun you. Sure if you loose your Firefly as 12th with out achiving anything you have lost or you are in big trouble, but thats what you get for letting it die that easily. I mean most of the infantry is jsut there to die. you want people to get a refund for them? I would send in my Ersatztruppen on purpose in late game jsut to get my high tier units faster and maybe capturing a bit more land. Sorry but you suggest a fight where one kill more is game over and both sides have the same tools to play with but thats not true. There should be looses you should not be able recover from. I saw alot of people winning by just throwing their troops away from the get go too but capturing more space with this. Takeing bad engagements for points already is a strategie, letting some one benefit for this would just make it worse.

 

[holoween]

No its not who wins the first fight wins, as both players have completly different tools, so still you can win later by useing your combo whise, nothing feels better than turning a game where you are behind, refunds just make it dull. Its not like you dont have a chance after being behind, if you are both on the same level (you are still makeing misstakes and defenders always have the advantage), he will not be able to overrun you. Sure if you loose your Firefly as 12th with out achiving anything you have lost or you are in big trouble, but thats what you get for letting it die that easily.
Sorry but you suggest a fight where one kill more is game over and both sides have the same tools to play with but thats not true. There should be looses you should not be able recover from.

yes in actual gameplay it is not as clearcut however the basic principle applies

I mean most of the infantry is jsut there to die. you want people to get a refund for them? I would send in my Ersatztruppen on purpose in late game jsut to get my high tier units faster and maybe capturing a bit more land. There should be looses you should not be able recover from. I saw alot of people winning by just throwing their troops away from the get go too but capturing more space with this. Takeing bad engagements for points already is a strategie, letting some one benefit for this would just make it worse.

so youre saying youre throwing away a 10p unit to have 5 more points in tha bank 3 min later? while i wont say there is never a situation where this is the bast way in the overwhelming majority it isnt.
while i have seen throwaways pam work its been a long time since ive seen it work and against decent players it stopped working once people wised up to the possibility.
as a last ditch effort to keep territory for just a bit longer i dont see it as problematic as that effectively represents a gamble where ou either win or loose.

 

[Protosszocker]

so youre saying youre throwing away a 10p unit to have 5 more points in tha bank 3 min later? while i wont say there is never a situation where this is the bast way in the overwhelming majority it isnt.
while i have seen throwaways pam work its been a long time since ive seen it work and against decent players it stopped working once people wised up to the possibility.
as a last ditch effort to keep territory for just a bit longer i dont see it as problematic as that effectively represents a gamble where ou either win or loose.

If you get the money back it isnt a gamble... it is just the best solution. And yeah sure you dont jsut throw them away you throw them in for points on the scoreboard, but also if you can get your high tier units later why not throwing away your low tech units at one point? Thats why it works in COh, you dont get fuel for it. Loosing shitty troops doesnt give you a faster way to good troops, thats different here.

And the basic principle is that both players should outsmart and out counter each other. not who looses troops lost... lossing troops is a big part of this game, loosing a troop can give you so mcuh intel. And everyone can already get at least 3 inf squads per minute. In COh it works different. Also Coh has a max cap. Sd doesnt. Sry but I really think you run the wrong way for interesting more balanced battles. The only usefull way i see is maybe increasing the overall income of the lossing division as long as it is 1000 or more points behind. But even than it is not connected to looses but more to the overall score (the thing that really matters) and this way it would also not allow spamming in, as it just works as long as you are really hard behind. Also it would not hit until mid game, so you still have to hold your point in the early game with a smaller force and the offensiv player still has the chance to bring to totally destroy you (there should always be an option for this).

 

[holoween]

If you get the money back it isnt a gamble... it is just the best solution. And yeah sure you dont jsut throw them away you throw them in for points on the scoreboard, but also if you can get your high tier units later why not throwing away your low tech units at one point? Thats why it works in COh, you dont get fuel for it. Loosing shitty troops doesnt give you a faster way to good troops, thats different here.

the difference is that in coh you can always rebuild a unit so throwing away your inf to get pop for a tank can be viable since youll never end up without the ability to rebuy it.
if you do a suicide rush in steel division you might run out of inf and stop being able to hold the line.

also the rate of loosing units in a game between equally skilled opponents will be fairly similar so a refund system doesnt give either player a significant overall advantedge.
someone playing a significantly better player will end up with more resouces to spend overall (assuming a refund solution) however unless the balance is drastically off he will still loose to the better opponent as the winner can still get the refund for his units should he ever loose a significant ammount.
what it does allow is for equally skilled players to play more risky which directly translates more offensively because a single fight wont immediately end the game
and if one player has a significant skill advantedge it somewhat makes up the difference and allows both players to have an enjoyable game

 

[Hidden Gunman]

Establish and maintain a reserve...no denying it's difficult if someone is throwing everything they have at you, but if/once they waste out then you have the advantage.

Someone wins, someone loses...that's the point of competitive games, not to have drawn out indecisive battles.

 

[Gilmund]

the difference is that in coh you can always rebuild a unit so throwing away your inf to get pop for a tank can be viable since youll never end up without the ability to rebuy it.
if you do a suicide rush in steel division you might run out of inf and stop being able to hold the line.

also the rate of loosing units in a game between equally skilled opponents will be fairly similar so a refund system doesnt give either player a significant overall advantedge.
someone playing a significantly better player will end up with more resouces to spend overall (assuming a refund solution) however unless the balance is drastically off he will still loose to the better opponent as the winner can still get the refund for his units should he ever loose a significant ammount.
what it does allow is for equally skilled players to play more risky which directly translates more offensively because a single fight wont immediately end the game
and if one player has a significant skill advantedge it somewhat makes up the difference and allows both players to have an enjoyable game

Yeah how throw inf against tanks in suicide rushes cause you're able to refund them is skill, my point entirely. You just admit what kind of dull strategies this system creates.
If the rate of loosing units between equal players is fairly similar, there is no need to give one of the two players advantages in the first point. Like i said, the more equal the player the less the frontline is moving. Hence the game is slower in its outcome the losses are not onesided and it leads to draws. The who-wins the first fight wins the game is definitely not true. If there are huge losses from the very beginning from one player against the other, it is cause he hasn't played conversative enough with his units, did shit and deserve to loose or sweat to come back.
The game already force to play risks cause you make ground and making ground give you conquest points to win. SD is a good example of a game where aggressivity is rewarded.

It is not a skill advantage you're proposing, it is a free comeback who allows you to do anything wheter you've lost units or not, it would not allow both players to have enjoyable game, it would allow dull strategies to bring shitload of units in the field despite your loss of units, turning the game into arcade like it has been said.

 

[morpher]

What about this idea.

When you get ground you don't automatically start getting victory points. You have to invest a certain amount of income points to exploit the advantage. Maybe in the form of some kind of vulnerable unit that cannot fight. So the dude that won the engagement has two choices.

1 - He can trade the destruction point advantage in a conquest point advantage and makes it easier for the losing dude to counter attack.
2 - He can keep pushing and delay the conquest ticking to get a better position on the map.

It adds strategic depth and doesn't feel like cheating.

 

[TorgoW]

Sounds like NBA Jam.

Yup, I'm old.

ps: Booooo

 

[Windy]

Sry, I really did not completely get all the points.

basically the game circle currently is
1st fight 50/50 chance of who wins
2nd fight whoever won the first fight has a 70% chance to win
if one player wins both fights the battle is effectively decided
if both win once its back to the start. however the player who won the second fight is probably better since he won the fight despite the odds being against him

I totally disagree with that. I have won several games, in some of them I lost even the first 3 fights and it is about -2 in the first 5min. But I still won at last, as Allies (4th armor) and axis (12ss). It is indeed that in most games the sides won the first 2 fights got the victory. However, from my observation, it is just one side is outskilled by the other. Even magically giving the losing side the same amount of units as the winning side, those players will still lost the next fight, and next and next until they learn something. It is the issue of the learning curve of this game. Unskilled player will just be destroyed by veterans. Without matching system, which requires a decent number of players, unskill players will struggle in games, and that really make some players frustration and completely quit this game.

If players at both sides are equally good, then what will result winning or losing other than a draw? If you want to argue for RNG, then I will say the losing side will gain its loss back later in the game due to the same RNG point, unless the RNG is completely in favor of one side. I admit that the losing side may need more 'luck' to comeback, but if the skills are equal, it is not a big issue. A magic 'one shot kill' of a tank from AT will be enough for the losing side to turn the tide if two players are equal.

From my experience, if my opponent is about the same level as me, there will be a lot of back-and-forth, winning or losing a single fight is not conclusive at all.

In Company of Heroes we have:
1. Upkeep for units so whoever ha smore units on the fiels has lower income allowing the other side to catch up.
2. Full squads cost more than reinforcing making it easier catching back up in strength than increasing it further.

if you ahve fewer troops and less territory you are in fact loosing
so what the income balance does is prevent you from loosing now because youve lost some units but gives you the chance to come back and retake the territory since especially fuel only kicks in later in importance. whatever should we call a mechanic that lets someone come back from a bad situation i wonder?

As (was about rank 150 in 1v1, 100 in 2v2, 20 in 3v3, far from top but better than many others) a coh2 player, I will say that the upkeep for units (which are just manpower) will not bring any significant help for losing side. The extra manpower gain by losing side in 5min will not even enough to afford an ostruppen squad. Any careless losing in coh2 will be punished very hard. When you are behind, you will have to rely on dedicate maneuver of AT/light armor to counter medium tank (Consider your oppoent will get a Panzer4 in 10 min if you had a bad fight in the early game, and you still have less inf than your oppoent). Except for some OP call-in commanders, most of the comeback I observed in top games (top 10 players) is about losing side win a big fight by excellent tactics, or it is a long time trade-off with patience and skills and gradually regain the advantage.

Same as that in SD, though losing side will not get that little bonus in points, it has shorter supply line and the troops will arrive and fight much earlier than winning side (same in coh2). You can argue that this is pointless, but from my experience, it allows me to reinforce and relocate quicker than my opponents and have a higher chance to regain advantages (maybe just small ones) somewhere. By repeating that with patience, for an equal opponent, I still have a reasonable chance to recover.

Also, same mechanism happen in other RTS (maybe not in Men of War), like SC. Come back of losing side is either from one excellent massive fight; or patient, long-term accumulation of advantages. Except for the shorter supply line, nothing magic to help the losing sides, but they do come back in some games.

Of course the losing sides have lower chance to win. Otherwise, what will be the point to win the first, or first several fights? Even for coh2 that losing side have more income in manpower, however, the winning sides have more fuel (for tanks) and ammo (for art and airstrike), which is not happen in SD. If bringing that system into SD, I will be fine if the losing sides gain some points in compensation if their units are restricted to infantry, AT, some small artillery piece and half-tracks, no armors, no heavy artillery, no planes. If that happens in SD, it will be a nightmare for losing side.

 

[holoween]

Yeah how throw inf against tanks in suicide rushes cause you're able to refund them is skill, my point entirely.

so you have a limited ammount of inf available and only get a fraction of their cost back. how exactly do you get that suicide rushing them is a good idea from that?
because if you do that you will run out of inf and loose the map.

even if they gave you a 100% refund instantly and had no availability limit you would still loose like that because during the time they need to get from your spawn to the frontline your opponent is holding more ground.

 

[Ktonos]

Don't take the following wrong, It is said in a friendly manner, I always try to avoid toxic confrontations.:

i cant argue against your subjective feeling

My feeling is subjective and your's isn't? Not fair to say that. We all talk about our subjective opinions anyway.

what youre saying makes the issue im trying to adress fairly clear: there is never a change in momentum baring rare circumstances

Don't know what I said that makes the issue you are addressing clear. What I said indicates the opposite.

In anyways, when the opponents are within the same skill range the threat of a comeback is usually there, and in some occasions there is a comeback.When I say in "some" occassions, I mean it in a good way. It would be unnatural to have more comebacks.

Now when there is a skill disparity, then, comebacks are rare indeed, and the threat of a comeback is also extinct. Thats the same in every competitive activity; Football, Basketball, sprinting and, ofcource, wars rarely have comebacks when there is a quality gap between the opponents.

If what you propose is a forced comeback in these occasions, when there is a skill disparity, then I again disagree.
It would be like having a game between a low football league team pittted against the champions league winner and have a special rule to give the weak team extra players when the better team takes the lead. What you propose will make the game less sim, more arcady, and demote the role of skill.

Now I don't like matches where either I am steamrolled or when I myself steamroll an opponent. In fact easy victories are worse than easy defeats; At least in defeats u learn something new. Other than that there is no excitement, they are no fun. I feels like a grind when I am on the winning side, and an irritating affair when I am on the losing one. But I don't believe that there should be a mechanic for comebacks to battle this. I feel there should be better matchmaking options.

The game's biggest flaw is the absence of matchmaking filters; This addresses the problem you mention.

 

[holoween]

I totally disagree with that. It is indeed that in most games the sides won the first 2 fights got the victory.

those 2 statements do contradict each other

in some of them I lost even the first 3 fights and it is about -2 in the first 5min. But I still won at last, as Allies (4th armor) and axis (12ss).

so the one time the game allows for comebacks to happen they actually happen.

so thank you for agreeing with the basic observation of how the game progresses

However, from my observation, it is just one side is outskilled by the other.

yes thats because the game cicle i described is influenced by outside factors. if one player is beter than the other the initial fights chances arent 50/50 but maybe 60/40.
if one side has more income at the start the chances will equally be affected.

the problem is that the game circle is reinforcing itself. if one side is winning its going to win even harder. this is somewhat hidden if you play against an opponent with a income distribution opposite of yours (low income start high income end cs high income start and low income end)

Even magically giving the losing side the same amount of units as the winning side, those players will still lost the next fight, and next and next until they learn something. It is the issue of the learning curve of this game. Unskilled player will just be destroyed by veterans. Without matching system, which requires a decent number of players, unskill players will struggle in games, and that really make some players frustration and completely quit this game.

yes a worse player will loose against a better one. however in the current system a terrible player will have effectively lost by 5 min but keep playing for another 10-15 where all he can do is send individual units into a meatgrinder. the issue is that you cant learn anything from throwing units away so a new player spands the majority of the time ingame not learning much. on the flipside if they do get more troops they a longer timespan ingame where they can learn valuable lessons.

and while i agree we need a matching system with the low ammount of players in steel division you will always run into fairly high skill differences

If players at both sides are equally good, then what will result winning or losing other than a draw? If you want to argue for RNG, then I will say the losing side will gain its loss back later in the game due to the same RNG point, unless the RNG is completely in favor of one side. I admit that the losing side may need more 'luck' to comeback, but if the skills are equal, it is not a big issue. A magic 'one shot kill' of a tank from AT will be enough for the losing side to turn the tide if two players are equal.

From my experience, if my opponent is about the same level as me, there will be a lot of back-and-forth, winning or losing a single fight is not conclusive at all.

the problem under the current system is that rng working out over the game doesnt work beacase after the first fight the winner of that fight has more troops meaning any further fight is skewed in their favour. the main point behind the comeback mechanics is even out this points difference to take rng out of the equation.

As (was about rank 150 in 1v1, 100 in 2v2, 20 in 3v3, far from top but better than many others) a coh2 player, I will say that the upkeep for units (which are just manpower) will not bring any significant help for losing side. The extra manpower gain by losing side in 5min will not even enough to afford an ostruppen squad. Any careless losing in coh2 will be punished very hard. When you are behind, you will have to rely on dedicate maneuver of AT/light armor to counter medium tank (Consider your oppoent will get a Panzer4 in 10 min if you had a bad fight in the early game, and you still have less inf than your oppoent). Except for some OP call-in commanders, most of the comeback I observed in top games (top 10 players) is about losing side win a big fight by excellent tactics, or it is a long time trade-off with patience and skills and gradually regain the advantage.

i dont know how pronounced this effect is in coh2 as ive never played it too much but it had a noticable effect in coh1. also at higher ranks to skill difference is so small that this doesnt have a massive effect anyways. one side consistently loosing more troops will simply loose at that level.

Same as that in SD, though losing side will not get that little bonus in points, it has shorter supply line and the troops will arrive and fight much earlier than winning side (same in coh2). You can argue that this is pointless, but from my experience, it allows me to reinforce and relocate quicker than my opponents and have a higher chance to regain advantages (maybe just small ones) somewhere. By repeating that with patience, for an equal opponent, I still have a reasonable chance to recover.

you have a slight advantedge in how fast your troops arrive your opponent has defenders advantege.

Also, same mechanism happen in other RTS (maybe not in Men of War), like SC. Come back of losing side is either from one excellent massive fight; or patient, long-term accumulation of advantages. Except for the shorter supply line, nothing magic to help the losing sides, but they do come back in some games.

Of course the losing sides have lower chance to win. Otherwise, what will be the point to win the first, or first several fights? Even for coh2 that losing side have more income in manpower, however, the winning sides have more fuel (for tanks) and ammo (for art and airstrike), which is not happen in SD. If bringing that system into SD, I will be fine if the losing sides gain some points in compensation if their units are restricted to infantry, AT, some small artillery piece and half-tracks, no armors, no heavy artillery, no planes. If that happens in SD, it will be a nightmare for losing side.

the comparison with classic rts is problematic as their focus is on the economy and technology so the getting ready for battle not the battle itself.

 

[holoween]

My feeling is subjective and your's isn't? Not fair to say that. We all talk about our subjective opinions anyway.

no my feelings are just as subjective. my feelings being though that most battles are decided very early on and from that point the fight becomes boring as there is never a real chance for my opponent to do something.

what isnt subjective is looking at how the gamemechanics work and how they interact to create certain situations.

Don't know what I said that makes the issue you are addressing clear. What I said indicates the opposite.

the observation youre making matches mine that being comebacks are rare. whats different is that you say thats the way its supposed to be and i say that id prefer the outcome of a battle to be less determined early on.

In anyways, when the opponents are within the same skill range the threat of a comeback is usually there, and in some occasions there is a comeback.When I say in "some" occassions, I mean it in a good way. It would be unnatural to have more comebacks.

Now when there is a skill disparity, then, comebacks are rare indeed, and the threat of a comeback is also extinct. Thats the same in every competitive activity; Football, Basketball, sprinting and, ofcource, wars rarely have comebacks when there is a quality gap between the opponents.

the analogy with football is flawed. there are always 11 payers on the field (barring red cards) no matter how many goals one side scores. so in this case the only thing affecting the outcome is the skill on each side. the analogy in steel division would be if each time a goal is scored the team it was scored against has to remove one player.

 

[Windy]

those 2 statements do contradict each other



so the one time the game allows for comebacks to happen they actually happen.

so thank you for agreeing with the basic observation of how the game progresses




yes thats because the game cicle i described is influenced by outside factors. if one player is beter than the other the initial fights chances arent 50/50 but maybe 60/40.
if one side has more income at the start the chances will equally be affected.

the problem is that the game circle is reinforcing itself. if one side is winning its going to win even harder. this is somewhat hidden if you play against an opponent with a income distribution opposite of yours (low income start high income end cs high income start and low income end)





yes a worse player will loose against a better one. however in the current system a terrible player will have effectively lost by 5 min but keep playing for another 10-15 where all he can do is send individual units into a meatgrinder. the issue is that you cant learn anything from throwing units away so a new player spands the majority of the time ingame not learning much. on the flipside if they do get more troops they a longer timespan ingame where they can learn valuable lessons.

and while i agree we need a matching system with the low ammount of players in steel division you will always run into fairly high skill differences




the problem under the current system is that rng working out over the game doesnt work beacase after the first fight the winner of that fight has more troops meaning any further fight is skewed in their favour. the main point behind the comeback mechanics is even out this points difference to take rng out of the equation.




i dont know how pronounced this effect is in coh2 as ive never played it too much but it had a noticable effect in coh1. also at higher ranks to skill difference is so small that this doesnt have a massive effect anyways. one side consistently loosing more troops will simply loose at that level.




you have a slight advantedge in how fast your troops arrive your opponent has defenders advantege.




the comparison with classic rts is problematic as their focus is on the economy and technology so the getting ready for battle not the battle itself.

the problem under the current system is that rng working out over the game doesnt work beacase after the first fight the winner of that fight has more troops meaning any further fight is skewed in their favour. the main point behind the comeback mechanics is even out this points difference to take rng out of the equation.

I think the core issue (maybe I am wrong? ) of this topic is that you argue that winning sides will always have more troops than losing side and win all remaining fights. For that point, I agree with that if two players are strictly equal good. However, it circles back to the same problem, what lead to winning or losing other than a draw for the first fight? Then it comes to RNG, and if RNG is balanced, the losing side will have a chance to come back.

Even one side lost the first fight and two players are equally good, there is still hope to come back. Players will make mistakes in the game. Even for winning side with more troops, improper engagement will make them easily lose the advantages. More troops DO NOT guarantee victory at every fight. That is how I come back in several games, playing with patience; avoid massive fight in which my opponent just has more troops than me; make use of shorter supply line to creat advantages in number of troops in some areas and kill more enemy than I lost to reduce the difference of points in the field; wait for mistakes from my opponents.

the issue is that you cant learn anything from throwing units away so a new player spands the majority of the time ingame not learning much. on the flipside if they do get more troops they a longer timespan ingame where they can learn valuable lessons.

This is actually how I learn from the player that destroyed me and improved in skills.

Losing sides should not be given any help. If they are willing to learn, try to fight in blood, use brains instead of becoming salty, and come back by themselves. Babysitting by extra point to losing side is not helping and extremely UNFAIR (you need to be responsible for your loss, need to learn to handle in disadvantage). This is not a game easy to learn and learning from frustrated defeat is necessary.

Also, this game really needs a good tutorial to teach new player some fundamental skills.

 

[Herr_Robert]

I don't like the idea of comeback mechanics like the ones you mentioned. And I think you have very good chances of making comebacks in this game compared to most other RTS games anyways. For example, 12th SS is the kind of division that can turn the tide of the game completely in the last 10-15min because of its strong late game (especially its tanks), and you can also go from losing to winning by using micromanagement to destroy a few of your enemy's high value units in the middle of the game.