Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Transferring Units

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Steel Division: Normandy 44 2266 Please link&sync your Paradox account to Steam Steel Division - Let's Plays and AARs!
J

Juke16

Recruit
10 Badges
Mar 5, 2017
5
0
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Magicka
  • War of the Roses
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
Hopefully players will be able to pass units to other players in the new game. It's exceptionally bad when players start quitting and one player, who may or may not be new to the game, is stuck with units all over the map.

This is a standard feature for other RTS games such as Men of War, and would greatly help the players of Wargame.
 
+1 theres a ton of times in wargame i wish i could just gift my units to an ally who needs help but i dont have the micro to control units on the other side of the map.
 
Agreed, not only because of the whole "newbie overwhelmed" but also it helps people to keep a sector to focus on especially in a 10v10 game and helps people with specific decks, the olde issue of 10v10s in past games which had motorised or airborne decks suddenly expected to hold regions which are designed for tank warfare or attrition isnt something I would enjoy seeing again.

Best for all if you can transfer assets to somebody whom can either fight there or is in the area so they dont suddenly wonder why their flank that was Shermans has turned into a locust spam trying to stop panther tanks :eek:
 
Yes, 1000X yes please. I fail to see the harm in this, the units still had to be paid for at some point from somebody's existing deck, and would be a way to help out without getting unduly burdened by having to micromanage multiple fronts.

One of the main shortcomings of the wargame series is the rules regarding unit inheritance when one player drops. It is incredibly annoying trying to control units on opposite sides of the map when some random dude drops. It would be so much better if when players drop, the units are given to the the players whose own units are closest, rather than arbitrarily going to players based on the order they joined the game lobby. One player drops, then another, and pretty soon one poor person is saddled with half the team's units and no way to effectively micromanage, which is a severe disadvantage. Would be much better if the units were more evenly and intelligently distributed rather all going to a single player.
 
I agree with nande, although being randomly gifted units at times is inconvenient, gifting units to players is incompatible with the deck system. What are the drawbacks of bringing an airborne deck if your buddy can just supply you with heavier tanks later in the game? I also question the extent to which a gifting mechanic would benefit new players. I think it's more probable that pubbies would swap units in order to even out the gaps in their decks, while new players without allies/friends to play with would end up with all the limitations of their original deck since nobody would lend units to someone who would get them destroyed immediately, with the minor benefit of having to worry about too many units at once.

Also, the scale of the game might have an effect on this problem. I'm still not sure what the size of the map/number of units in the game is, but my understanding is that Steel Division takes place at a scale below that of Wargame, meaning players should have fewer units to worry about at once.

A gifting mechanic which applied only to units which a player receives after another player drops would be acceptable, but allowing players to gift units in general wouldn't work.
 
Last edited:
nande said:
no thank you. Decks are balanced by their unit selection, and if you want a deck with no weakness a little teamwork isn't much to ask.
Click to expand...

Its asking for more than "a little teamwork" when 1 guy has to suddenly control half a 10v10 game.... ;)

I mean, people still pay for said units, all it does is mean that the team doesnt have added pressure of suddenly trying to figure out where the "hole in the line" is so to speak. The whole "but people could fix issues in their deck" thing to me is kind of moot, people already can do this with very, VERY basic teamwork, the most damaging thing that happens in 10v10 (hell, anything above a 4v4 if they adopt the same system as the wargame series of dedicated servers with any variable number up to 10) is that you have a domino effect of the following.

Man disconnects for some reason
Some poor soul out of depth, not got the right deck, something gets their stuff on the other side of the map
Sometimes they try to hold out, but more often this fails due to having the wrong deck/not enough kit/points to suddenly defend 2 different zones. They drop out not wanting to waste their time not having fun.
Man number 3 drops out
Man number 4 drops out
Man number 5 drops out

Im sure you can see where this is going, right chaps? This when i played anything above a 4v4 was the single most common problem i ever had, even above stacked teams. I would rather this domino plague not go into a new game which to be frank, is going to have it worse because you will have people using decks which weaken over time, simply people with airborne decks cannot be expected to fight tigers with locusts, tetrarchs and cromwells across multiple parts of the front which is why the ability for the player to give away a section of the front to somebody whom is playing in that area will be exceptionally helpful.
 
why introduce an overly elaborate feature which brings more problems than it solves. It breaks the deck system, but for what benefit? So some guy in 10v10 has the privilege of managing which of his new units go to whom?

If something needs to be done, instead of letting choice rest with one person, assign a different colour to the leaver's units and have the game pass them to the first person that selects them. Surely that's a better and less exploitable way.
 
Last edited:
Leaver's units should become different color to his teammates, who could then select and claim any of those units they want. I suggested something similar on Eugen's forums once.
 
While we are at it:
It would be also nice, especially with the "battle development"-feature, to be able to retreat ones own units over the map edge and getting this way their availability and a few points back.
 
But pls if so then with a cooldown timer otherwise i leave with my tank platoon on the left flank the map because the enemy is attacking on the right flank.
 
_Sev_ said:
But pls if so then with a cooldown timer otherwise i leave with my tank platoon on the left flank the map because the enemy is attacking on the right flank.
Click to expand...

I thought more about a special area you have to bring them too... Line of Communication...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back