This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Nubrannosaurus
1
« on: April 19, 2011, 11:12:44 PM »
I edited the above. I misread it originally and thought two squads were dropped in, not a single 2-man squad. This has much more potential as a 2-man squad. I like the above idea mentioning fluency in Russian and/or cloaking or at least something that disguises them.
2
« on: April 19, 2011, 04:04:04 PM »
I'm going to make some constructive criticism, not because I want to bash this mod, but because I feel it's important for anyone and everyone to impart their opinions, all for the greater glory of this mod.
Luftwaffe Recon Command: The only variation that makes this different than America's Recon ability is that the ability is unit-dependent. That is, it requires a unit on the field to allow this ability to function. I like that it's different and it certainly has different implications in the game, but at its core it is the same ability as America's Recon ability. I understand it's usefulness, especially to allow Brandenburger to infiltrate behind enemy lines, but how is that 'ability combo' any different than performing Recon + Paratroopers with America? It seems exactly the same, unless I'm missing something.
Branderburger: Going along with the point above, these seem just like the other paratrooper-types (Fallschirmjagers and Paratroopers) in the game. Hopefully their equipment differentiates them, but their implementation is the same as America's Paratroopers.
The Panzer Elite have Fallschirmjagers, which cannot paradrop into combat but instead can be deployed into a vacant house -- a key difference between Panzer Elite and America. If the Ostheer are going to have paratroopers of some sort, shouldn't they strive to act differently than the Panzer Elite and America?
EDIT Did not realize this is a 2-man squad, I misread it as two squads. I feel better about this already, despite it still having the same air-drop mechanic. 2-man elite squads have exciting mechanical and thematic possibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Just wanted to make these quick points, interested in hearing anyone's thoughts.
3
« on: April 14, 2011, 09:41:59 PM »
Hey guys, nice job so far! A few quick questions if you don't mind:
1. Does the Luftwaffe Recon Command function differently from America's Recon Airborne ability? If not, what reasons did you guys have for choosing this ability?
2. In the Luftwaffe Recon Command is the "stuka support" the same as "Aces High!"? If not, what exactly does "stuka support" do?
3. What are panzernests and trip wires? Are they equivalent to tank traps and barbed wire?
4. There's only a single player active ability that does damage (Aces High!), what were your reasons for doing this? Not criticizing your choices, simply curious why this was done.
Thanks, guys, that's all. Keep up the great work!
4
« on: September 04, 2010, 12:03:13 AM »
I can't impart my opinion at that time for what the Ostheer tanks should be, but one thing's for sure is that doctrinal units define a style of play, not the general standard of play. The standard of play is the how the army functions without doctrine units. What are its strengths? What are its weaknesses? With this idea, we can see that America and Wehrmacht are considered well-rounded armies, whereas the the Panzer Elite is considered fast and mobile, and the British considered defensive.
With that in mind, you'll realize that doctrines allow players to alter their army's standard of play to a different style. Picking Airborne makes America a more mobile, offensive army. Picking Royal Commandos makes the British less defensive and more mobile because of their instant ability to drop three different types of gliders. Picking Scorched Earth makes the Panzer Elite and even deadlier strike force because now they have the ability to use their speed with a deceptive offensive nature (booby-trapping). Do you guys see where I'm going with this?
We need to develop the Ostheer as an army first, we need to define their standard of play first. When that's done, we'll develop three different ways (doctrines) to change that standard to represent three different unique styles of play.
5
« on: September 03, 2010, 11:06:30 PM »
I have never used the artillery base as the British, Americans, or Russians because it is a total waste. One salvo and the base gets crapped on by everything that can lob a round into the fog of war. The Hummel, Katyusha, Priest is the way to go and exactly what I would want to see in the Ostheer.
Really? When utilized by experienced players, the artillery emplacements can be absolutely devastating. I'm pretty much out of the loop as of new strats and top players, but I remember tons of replays where the Axis would be at the mercy of Allies artillery supremacy. That being said, I don't think the Axis should have as much access to artillery as the Allies do just because their nature of play is supposed to be different than the Allies. True, the Americans only have the 105 as artillery, and it's doctrine specific, but that whole dynamic changed when the British arrived. The Hummel is doctrine specific but besides that the Axis lack in readily available artillery. The Stuka is great, but that costs munitions so it's on a different level.
6
« on: September 01, 2010, 10:36:58 PM »
Well, the pricing of the units and structures is pretty much insignificant compared to the necessity of creating a solid, well-designed army. Really, we don't need to take prices into consideration much besides giving a rough idea like "150 or so munitions" or "high munitions" or "low manpower trickle" etc, etc. Balancing is after conception. Besides, creating an army from scratch is hard enough, lets leave balancing to the devs  . The problem I have with this army is that it borrows too many preexisting ideas. There are some sound concepts in there, uniquely defining the army with ideas like "mobile artillery," but when I see this army and how it operates I think of "Wehrmacht 1.5" not the new "Ostheer." As for the doctrines, a lot of abilities already exist with the other factions. Some I really like, such as Static Warfare, Stuka Attack, and Experienced Crew -- those are good ideas that really change the dynamic of an army and how they inherently operate. Others like Air Supply and Log Causeway are simply boring and borrowed from other factions essentially (Log Causeway is Blitzkreig but without the fire bonus and restricted to your own territory). Just my 2 cents.
7
« on: January 31, 2010, 09:08:57 PM »
I like your concepts for the most part, Rommel, but your doctrines are pretty lackluster. I like critiquing and designing doctrines the most when it comes to faction brainstorming, so I'll focus my review on how well you designed your doctrines. I'll go through all of them critiquing the aspects of an idea concerning it's usefulness and uniqueness.
Heeresunterstützungsverbände ( Army support troops )
7. Flieger-Division: It works, although they are already part of the PE. It's hard to design new units when there are so little to choose from. "Fanaticism!" is the same thing as Zeal for the Terror doctrine. "Sprint" is very similar to Fire-up, but again, not much you can do as a creator when you need an ability to deter suppression. That being said, is it really necessary for this unit to have an ability to be immune to pinning?
Luftversorgung ( Airsupport ): Pretty boring as it's the exact same ability as "Supply Drop" that the American Airborne Company Commander receives. This should be changed to something more unique.
- StuKa Einsatz ( StuKa Attack ): Not a bad idea, but this could use some more explanation. Is it like the Henschel PanzerKnacker Support ability, where multiple planes fly in a targeted area and attack all units in the reticle? Or do the Stukas attack units all over the map? If it's the latter, I dislike this ability because there are no abilities in the game where you click a single button and every enemy unit is attacked -- there's always the skill of aiming and running the course of luck.
- prioritized Support: Is there a drawback? Is it all resources? It's kinda boring but it works.
- prioritized weapons: It works, but again this is pretty boring.
- sHeeresPzAbtl 503 "Feldherrnhalle": I like Tigers and I like the "Fear" and "Terror" abilities for this unit.
Overall Thoughts On Heeresunterstützungsverbände ( Army support troops )
Some of the ideas you presented are decent and some are good, but a couple of them are lacking uniqueness or usefulness. The three abilities I dislike are Luftversorgung, prioritized support, and prioritized weapons. I dislike Luftversorgung because it's the same thing as "Supply Drop." If you want an ability that gives supplies, try and develop a more unique way of doing this.
Prioritized Support and Prioritized Weapons are both useful abilities, but they are just so boring for gameplay. Yes, we can see why they would be good, but they aren't very exciting. In execution, they are both similar to Resource Blitz for the Blitzkrieg doctrine for Wehrmacht; not only is Resource Blitz an underused ability, but how would players feel if they had two abilities like that for the Blitzkrieg doctrine? I feel your Luftversorgung doctrine could either replace Prioritized Support or Prioritized Weapons or both.
Heereseliteverbände ( Army's elite troops)
- „Horrido, Hurra!“: Same thing as Red Tide. Should be replaced for the sake of variety and uniqueness.
- Grenadiere "Großdeutschland": I like the theme and abilities, but I'm noticing you're taking preexisting doctrine-specific abilities and placing them on your call-in units (such as Grenade Shower, which is the Assault Grenadier ability for Blitzkrieg doctrine and your above Fanaticism! for the Flieger-Division). I kinda like it because it's a unique twist of using preexisting abilities since it's only using them for your elite call-in units.
- Panzerartillerie "Großdeutschland": Good and I like it.
- Panzervernichtungsschlacht: It's good and a nice way of making your faction represent training that excels in combating enemy armor. Nice flavor, uniqueness, and usefulness.
- Minenschlacht! ( Minebattle! ): Not quite sure how I feel about this. It's okay to use some preexisting abilities, but it seems like you're pushing it now. This is the same ability as Teller Mines for the Tank Destroyer Tactics for PE, but also with the addition of the anti-infantry mines. It just seems overkill. UNLESS, are anti-infantry mines just the regular mines that engineers and pioneers can place? Or are they something different and more powerful against infantry? If they're regular mines, then this ability is okay, except for it's the same thing as the doctrine-specific Teller Mine ability.
- sHeeresPzJgAbtl 654: I like it. Elefant is awesome.
Overall Thoughts for Heereseliteverbände ( Army's elite troops)
I like the doctrine for the most part, it’s not perfect, but some abilities need to be reaplced. “Horrido, Hurra!” should be replaced, and the “Mine Battle” is a bit redundant. As you may have noticed, I like ideas that are mechanically different and unique. When Relic created the PE and British, they did quite a good job at avoiding the use of preexisting ideas. That’s why I think the Ostheer should do the same thing.
Festungsverbände ( Fortress troops )
- Festungsbau: Cool, I like it. Hopefully the faction dynamic, the way the faction is played in battle (British are defensive, PE are offensive, etc), isn’t upset by this increase in defense. Other than that, it’s good.
- Festungskampf ( Fortification battle ): I like this ability a lot. Thematically cool and mechanically useful and unique.
- 10.5cm leFh 18/40: Good. Who doesn’t like 105 artillery?
- Stadtkampf ( Towncombat ): I like it, I had an idea almost exactly like this. Useful and unqiue.
- Durchbruch! ( Breakthrough! ): Not bad, it’s a lot like “Blitzkrieg Assault!” for the Wehrmacht except a little different. Now quite sure why your defensive-related faction should receive this type of offensive ability.
- Der Gigant! ( the Giant! ): Eh, least liked ability in this doctrine. Again, why would a doctrine based on defense receive this type of offensive ability? It seems out of place.
Overall Thoughts On Festungsverbände ( Fortress troops )
This doctrine has some cool abilities, but there seems to be a conflict of defense and offense. This is a mostly defense-related doctrine, so I’m not sure why this doctrine should receive offensive-related abilities like Der Gigant! And Breakthrough! It’s as if giving “Blitzkrieg Assault!” for the Defensive Doctrine for the Wehrmacht.
So, those are my thoughts for all 3 of your doctrines. I hope you don’t take it personally as I’m providing a genuine critique and I only want the Ostheer to be the best they can be. Viel Glück mein deutscher Freund!
8
« on: January 31, 2010, 07:44:27 AM »
Good question, I'm sure this has been asked before, but I don't know if there has ever been an answer given by the devs. When it comes to history, the Ostheer could represent a lot. In the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, the initiative to invade Russia, Germany was on the offensive and seemed unstoppable as they had the past years. Therefore the Ostheer could partially represent the standard blitzkrieg (in game terms, offensive and mobile) they had always been remembered for. However, the Russians proved difficult adversaries with unexpected defiance. As the war progressed, the Germans turned from an offensive nature to a more defensive nature. The progression of Russian productivity, technology, and manpower soon proved overwhelming for the Germans. Soon vital supplies and resources (like oil) were difficult to attain and it halted the German war machine. In game terms, this could be represented as the Ostheer being an army focused on attrition-based tactics, or abilities that allow maximum capitalization on resources and/or materials. The Germans used many foreign, captured tanks for battle, so this could be represented in-game with a faction heavily focused on units provided from captured territories. Or even perhaps the ability to capture wrecked vehicles (with a bulldozer-type vehicle) which can then be revived to fighting-fit as the Bergetiger utilizes. The possibilities are really quite varied. The Ostheer could theoretically represent a mobile, rush, fast, blitzkrieg faction, or a defensive faction relying on a war of attrition, utilizing the wreckages of war to their advantage, or a mix of the two, or aspects not even mentioned in this post -- it can be spun in so many ways. This is why the Ostheer are an exciting faction to brainstorm  P.S. If my history is wrong in any way, please inform me.
9
« on: January 30, 2010, 05:42:34 PM »
Please no. Tank micro is what sets apart the newbs and pros. Besides, this would have to be faction-exclusive since they aren't changing the regular game. That in itself would be silly for the two EF teams to have inherent newb traits.
10
« on: January 28, 2010, 07:59:25 AM »
Love it. It follows all three protocols for my scale: it's unique, useful, and historically relevant. The blob modifier is OKAY, but I love the rest. The theme and personality of this unit is awesome. Nice job!
11
« on: January 24, 2010, 11:21:55 PM »
More details. Medium sized fire distance, is this less or more or equal to a 25-pounder or M102 howitzer? How many shells does it fire per salvo? How powerful is each shell (same as 25 pounder or less or more)? What is the cooldown? I'm also assuming this is indeed a howitzer and not a direct-fire weapon like the Flak 88.
These details are what define your idea compared to the plethora of other artillery-like ideas already existing in CoH.
- close -
Lord Rommel - DEV
12
« on: January 24, 2010, 10:35:18 PM »
So when you say "rail only maps," you're just making an aesthetic suggestion then? In other words, if there happens to be a railroad near the Ostheer base, instead of it being put on the ground, it is put on the railroad instead? If it's just about aesthetics then sure, it works.
As for the idea itself, having an artillery piece that has a semi-long cooldown and fires one shell(assumed) but with high accuracy and power? Not too bad. I kinda like it and I kinda don't. It's got merit, keep working with it. It's mechanically different from the standard artillery pieces in the game where they are inaccurate but fire many shells.
13
« on: January 24, 2010, 09:53:47 PM »
Nope. I love the idea of Gustav (who doesn't love an artillery piece that can launch 5-ton high explosive shells?) but there's no reason to give the Ostheer an advantage like this exclusively for railroad maps. Balance is about consistency, and having map-exclusive abilities would ruin this consistency. Even with a 3-5 minute cooldown, this consistency is still messed up because you've now given the Ostheer an ability that is almost identical to a V1, but exclusively for railroad maps. How does that make sense? Thematically, yes, but mechanically, no. "Congratulations, just because you're so lucky, we've given you an advantage in this match-up, enjoy." What about automatch? How fair is it for the allies player if a railroad map is chosen?
14
« on: January 24, 2010, 12:57:19 AM »
Neat idea, but I say no simply because the Axis will have a significant advantage on a map with a railway. There's no reason to change the game balance this way.
15
« on: January 22, 2010, 06:08:00 AM »
Note to self: If Romanians are included do not place on flanks.
Hahhaha so true.
|
Show Posts