Great concept, poor execution

[Dimosa]

I really love the concept for the game, and think that the mechanics are on point. But the execution is just terrible, and highly disappointing.
Infantry melts before the sun, when charging. I get that loads died, but this is just too much.
Tanks feel utterly useless. IRL when a tank breached a trench they started to hose down the infantry. In game, nothing, much. And they just die of small arms fire.
Getting units in a trench behind the enemy, they just sit there. Move them out, AI just 180 no scopes the entire squad. I really like the ideas the have, but the RTS part really needs to do a lot better before I'm going to even consider buying the game.

[Doomdood]

so are the mechanics on point or need do they need work? Confusing

[Lion Heart]

Originally posted by Dimosa:

I really love the concept for the game, and think that the mechanics are on point. But the execution is just terrible, and highly disappointing.
Infantry melts before the sun, when charging. I get that loads died, but this is just too much.
Tanks feel utterly useless. IRL when a tank breached a trench they started to hose down the infantry. In game, nothing, much. And they just die of small arms fire.
Getting units in a trench behind the enemy, they just sit there. Move them out, AI just 180 no scopes the entire squad. I really like the ideas the have, but the RTS part really needs to do a lot better before I'm going to even consider buying the game.

that's actually pretty historically accurate, Infantry did get mown down like butter, in the Somme the British lost something like 10,000 men in the first 2 hours of the battle, when the Australian Light Horse attacked the Turkish trenches at the Nek, not one troop made it to the Turkish trenches and WWI tanks were in fact vulnerable to small arms fire, tank building in WWI was not like it was in WWII the armor was thin and riveted together. and it didn't offer a lot of protection, small arms fire would splinter the armor and send shards of metal flying around the inside of the tank, crews ended up wearing chain mail armor as a result, the tanks were slow, unreliable and incredibly dangerous to crew.

and i have no idea what your talking about 180 no scoping, but if your talking about units shooting enemy units to the rear of the trench, that's what you would do, you wouldn't knowingly keep your back to them

[Dimosa]

Originally posted by Doomdood:

so are the mechanics on point or need do they need work? Confusing

The idea is good, but the execution needs work.

[Dimosa]

that's actually pretty historically accurate, Infantry did get mown down like butter, in the Somme the British lost something like 10,000 men in the first 2 hours of the battle, when the Australian Light Horse attacked the Turkish trenches at the Nek, not one troop made it to the Turkish trenches and WWI tanks were in fact vulnerable to small arms fire, tank building in WWI was not like it was in WWII the armor was thin and riveted together. and it didn't offer a lot of protection, small arms fire would splinter the armor and send shards of metal flying around the inside of the tank, crews ended up wearing chain mail armor as a result, the tanks were slow, unreliable and incredibly dangerous to crew.

While true, seeing a single volley of rifle fire kill over 250 men in second is too much, besides the fact that we are still using 1940 group charges. For the tanks, while rifle fire was for sure problematic for the crew, the sponson machine gun or cannon was a lot more effective in clearing trenches by hosing them or destroying fortifications etc.

and i have no idea what your talking about 180 no scoping, but if your talking about units shooting enemy units to the rear of the trench, that's what you would do, you wouldn't knowingly keep your back to them

I had some troops in a trench behind the enemy sitting on their butts just looking at each other, until i moved them out and the entire enemy squad just stepped down from the firing block, did a 180 and insta wiped the entire 250 men squad.

[Turtler]

Originally posted by Lion Heart:

that's actually pretty historically accurate, Infantry did get mown down like butter, in the Somme the British lost something like 10,000 men in the first 2 hours of the battle,

Because British command had thought that the artillery bombardment would be so powerful it would utterly flatten all the German defenses and defenders, hence why they lifted it early and let a pause. Which of course let the almost-entirely-intact German units come out of their shelters and take up positions to devastate the attackers.

This is pretty much what you see when the German AI Yolo Charges you at Chateau-Theirry, ((though even the AI Scripting isn't THAT dumb and they do spend time trying to do mid battle bombardment to do things like kill your tanks and destroy the machine gun emplacements). And that is how it should go.

But troops shouldn't recover from a bombardment in three seconds flat and have a third strength rifle unit that just got suppressed hose down two full strength raider units.

The game should punish you for not properly preparing your attack (and hurt the AI for doing the same, but you shouldn't have troops recover this quickly from bombardment to almost full fighting capacity.

The fact that Passchendaele was chosen for the Historical Battle highlight in spite of showcasing the flaws with this mechanic baffles me.

Originally posted by Lion Heart:

when the Australian Light Horse attacked the Turkish trenches at the Nek, not one troop made it to the Turkish trenches

Yeah Yeah.... I see your Nek and raise you Bersheba, where Turkish troops were baffled by the Australian decision to not dismount and so were wrongfooted by a straight up charge.

And lest we think this was simply because of different nature of the defenses in the Levant, the late war Belgians did a similar thing when they flatly charged cavalry against the German trenches at Burkel and - with proper preparation and armored car support (another thing I think is sorely missing in the game and tech tree thus far) - routed the Germans.

Feats like those are simply Not Possible in the game as it is right now, because pretty much every German can mad minute as competently as the 1914 BEF and both sides shrug off artillery fire like it is a minor inconvenience.

Originally posted by Lion Heart:

and WWI tanks were in fact vulnerable to small arms fire, tank building in WWI was not like it was in WWII the armor was thin and riveted together. and it didn't offer a lot of protection, ]/quote]

And yet they were NOWHERE near like what we see in game, unless they were entirely unarmored practice vehicles (which did rarely get pushed into the front as the Australians learned to their ire).

FT-17s will outright lose duels with German Machinegun emplacements when both are at full health and no other side intervenes.

This..... *Shouldn't happen.* I'm not opposed to rifles and machine guns doing SOME Damage to tanks since that was an issue, but the key word is SOME. If you are reliant on normal bullets to put down a tank, you have done something wrong and the situation is truly desperate, since those bullets are the exact thing these tanks were designed to tank and eat for lunch. And they did.

Originally posted by Lion Heart:

small arms fire would splinter the armor and send shards of metal flying around the inside of the tank, crews ended up wearing chain mail armor as a result, the tanks were slow, unreliable and incredibly dangerous to crew.

Yeah, but that brings us back to what I was talking about. SPLINTER, not wholesale pierce like what they are apparently doing in this timeline. Historically every species of tank present in game and even armored cars could sustain profound beatings from multiple interlocking heavy and medium machine guns and continue fighting fine (At least in terms of penetration) for several minutes if not hours.

It should not be easy to kill a tank with bullets (as opposed to specially made AT Bullets, bombs, or artillery, you know).

Originally posted by Lion Heart:

and i have no idea what your talking about 180 no scoping, but if your talking about units shooting enemy units to the rear of the trench, that's what you would do, you wouldn't knowingly keep your back to them

Agreed there, that's not the issue I have though the ability to change facing would probably help. That I don't have an issue with.