Fundamental flaws of game design.

[Yuithgf]

As many argue over complex stuff like the stars system, what units or factions should be added and the pace of the game, i want to take a step back and state a few game design decisions that i think everyone on this earth could agree are awful.


-Grenades have high level research upgrades to buff their damage, buff their radius, and allow them to supress MG/mortar emplacements and artillery

This is bad game design.
The first salvo of grenades will destroy its target 90% of the time, the trick with grenades is not their raw damage but that it is hard to get in a position where they are used. the moment they are thrown, their mission is already accomplished.


-The cheapest rifleman unit paired with the cheapest trench system is cost-effective against every single unit type in the game to an absurd degree

This is bad game design.
Most trench types and emplacements like mortars and MGs, which im sure the devs worked hard on, are next to useless.
A similar story can be said for every single ground unit that isnt cheap riflemen. they do not have a point.
At minima prices need to be more even. Entrenched mortar costing more than a battery of 5 howitzers, what is this world.


-Melee is the only way for riflemen to fight units inside trenches

This is bad game design.
It encourages you to build defenses that are not interconnected whatsoever, which dooms most trench types to be useless even more. Why ever build communication trenches if you are defending, the moment enemy attackers step outside the trench they're in they'll melt like butter.
And on the offensive, once you are inside the enemy's trench system it is a dumb game of simply having more raw numbers than your enemy. At minima, the game needs a unit such as rifle grenadiers which would be bad in melee but can directly attack infantry inside trenches and cause minimal damage, to force them to move overtime.


-Tanks have a very small aura where they provide buffs to infantry, yet have pitiful range and are countered by the cheapest rifle unit in the game

This is bad game design.
It forces you to send them forward to fight off the unit they'll otherwise die to (especially with their insane speed), but moving infantry forward with them is more often than not an immediate death sentence for the infantry.


-Infantry in trenches visually appear to have a very limited firing angle, but do not

This is bad game design.
The fact they can fire in multiple directions is of course a good thing, but it needs to be visually clear to the player.
I assume high level trenches do not allow to fire in all directions, but im not sure because the icons for trench types do not reflect that dichotomy thus i never bothered with them. why would i bother anyway, on the defensive my men cannot get shot at.


-The only viable offensive strategy is to paralyze every single enemy unit in range of your infantry as they approach the enemy line

This is bad game design.
Once multiplayer is added or the AI becomes harder to defeat than a chimp on XANAX, our attacking infantry will often be itself paralyzed by counter-battery fire. The moment the enemy is no longer suppressed, entire squads will then die in a second, with no exaggeration. Battles will have no other meaningful determining factor than who has most artillery.

[Mikado]

It feels like a bit of a mess across different elements. I just ended up auto resolving a lot of the time and it just got boring and frustrating.

[CaptainSpacetime]

A lot of that can be fixed with cost adjustments at least.

Or making the MG/mortar/artillery emplacements persist like upgraded trenches do. So their up-front cost is justified by future usage.

As it is now yeah, 2 dollar trench and 3 dollar french infantry on defense is good enough.

On offense just add a couple arty for cover fire.

[Yuithgf]

Yep, the point of the thread was to focus on things that are easily fixable in the month and a half they have before release.

about MGs though, i've had a realisation- They are an AT unit.

45 supply means theyll rarely if ever be cost effective against infantry, however they can reliably duel machine gun tanks from what ive seen. As far as gameplay is concerned, they are an AT unit that also can fire at infantry, but that shouldnt be their main point.
They do suffer against cannon tanks though, thats at least something. They are AT, cannon tank is SPG.
Of course nothing will ever come close to the default riflemen in terms of cost effectiveness versus any unit anyway.

[Turtler]

Originally posted by Yuithgf:

Yep, the point of the thread was to focus on things that are easily fixable in the month and a half they have before release.

about MGs though, i've had a realisation- They are an AT unit.

45 supply means theyll rarely if ever be cost effective against infantry, however they can reliably duel machine gun tanks from what ive seen. As far as gameplay is concerned, they are an AT unit that also can fire at infantry, but that shouldnt be their main point.
They do suffer against cannon tanks though, thats at least something. They are AT, cannon tank is SPG.
Of course nothing will ever come close to the default riflemen in terms of cost effectiveness versus any unit anyway.

Damn. That is something. And makes my decision to carpet MG emplacements at Chateau-Thierry a bit off. But yeah, MGs should not be reliable AT weapons, even against MG tanks.

[CaptainSpacetime]

Originally posted by Yuithgf:

Of course nothing will ever come close to the default riflemen in terms of cost effectiveness versus any unit anyway.

yeah my thought with that is that sure you dump 40 supply into an MG nest, BUT if it's now on the map forever in the same way as upgraded trenches then it'll eventually pay for itself.

since right now only upgraded trenches are "worth" investing in. having a area build up not only buff trenches but more and more "free" mgs and mortars at the start seems like it fits with the whole "persistent battlefield" theme

or alternatively make their supply cost more in line with usefulness

[Max]

no point placing MGs when 225/450 guys in a hole can do the same for less than 1/4 the cost, can be replaced, can move and can fight off enemies who manage to enter the trenches.
Every defensive battle I've done has just been placing a few rows of basic trenches near the capture point and filling them. Then I just go AFK until the AI inevitably surrenders after losing 4000 units

[Yuithgf]

I've been thinking more about anti-balloon sorties.

They currently are bugged and do 0 damage, but i think even if they did do damage they'd be near useless.

60 supply to force the enemy to lower its balloons for like what, 45 seconds?
It takes less suppply to destroy a balloon with artillery, balloon sorties need to last longer even when they eventually are fixed, make it so the enemies actually needs an actual air force (or AA units if those are ever added) to counter them.

For the love of god devs if you read this don't simply make planes kill ballloons in an instant as a fix. your dramatically short killtimes have been a pain in the ass since empire at war no one likes them. Moreover if you did this, it would just mean balloons near the middle of the map (furthest from the planes spawn point) would be invincible anyway.

[Doug_Dimmadome]

I'm honestly disappointed that trenches are 1-way firing, as in if your infantry take an opposing trench they cannot start shooting in the other direction. Seems rather unrealistic to me. Also the idea that entrenched infantry take almost no damage unless its to artillery, just not the case. Reduced damage? Absolutely, they're behind cover, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't take casualties from opposing infantry.

Also tanks being vulnerable to MG fire is just... laughable to me. The whole point of tanks in WWI was they were a massive demoralizer *because* they were basically invulnerable to small arms fire. Maybe the lighter tanks should take some damage, but not enough to actually be a threat.

As a secondary wish, purely aesthetic, I wish corpses were also persistent. It just won't be WWI unless I start seeing from 1916-1918 the bodies literally piling up in No Man's Land.

[Yuithgf]

well trenches aren't actually one way firing... sometimes.

it happens that riflemen will start shooting the other way. it happens that they wont.

trenches in ww1 were made so it was harder to shoot in the other direction, but it wasnt impossible. imo it should be possiblle, but maybe less effective. maybe on high level trenches its not possible at all, idk.

also,

Originally posted by Doug_Dimmadome:

Maybe the lighter tanks should take some damage, but not enough to actually be a threat.

im pretty sure the FT were some of the better armored tanks of the war. that + being a small target should make them quite resistant, but the devs turned them into what they think a generic ''light tank'' should be instead of what they were. This is most evident by the ridiculous speed they gave them.

[Yuithgf]

Originally posted by Yuithgf:

Hey, if a petroglyph employee reads this, can you add a "clown" steam reaction to this message? i'm sure you've got nothing better to do 1 month away from the game's release

ok i know it's unlikely but... cmon let me believe.

[Ah Gor]

I think there is a more fundamental flaw than just the tactical battle design. It is the strategic mode.

At present, the strategic mode is very lackluster. It seems the whole point that the strategic mode exist at all is to prepare > fight battle > repeat. It would not have been a problem if this game is set in other war, but WW1 is notorious for being static. The game enforces this by introducing a three-star system to provinces. It certainly creates the feel, but it comes with a trade off: things would get repetitive very quickly due to a lack of progress. I could foresee it even though I didn't play the demo for very long. Therefore, an interesting strategic mode would be important to break the monotony, but what did we have instead?

I see that the devs also know this. They threw in a tech tree, an event mechanism, and the ability to skip battle in an attempt to break the monotony, but it is not enough. Beside, both the tech tree and events are cartoonish and fails to add historical flavor.

Compare this to Total War Empire. In TW you got to indulge in city building, army building, diplomacy and some very rudimentary form of economic management. Even without all these, TW's strategic map is at least visually impressive. Both game eventually make you do tac battle repeatedly, but at least in TW you also have a lot more things to put your mind on, and the line isn't static, and it isn't just trenches.

I am not saying WW1 can't be portrayed with an fun and dynamic strategic game-play. It CAN, but they need to figure out a way to make the static war interesting. Either they can redesign the strategic mode into a mini-Heart of Iron, which break the cycle with a reasonably in-depth industrial/ political/ military management system; or they can go the Frostpunk path, turning the strategic gameplay into a choice/ event-driven plot that center on an increasingly restive homefront; or they can just go the Total War path (arguably the easiest). It can go any path, but it can not stay the way it is.

[Turtler]

Originally posted by Ah Gor:

I think there is a more fundamental flaw than just the tactical battle design. It is the strategic mode.

At present, the strategic mode is very lackluster. It seems the whole point that the strategic mode exist at all is to prepare > fight battle > repeat. It would not have been a problem if this game is set in other war, but WW1 is notorious for being static. The game enforces this by introducing a three-star system to provinces. It certainly creates the feel, but it comes with a trade off: things would get repetitive very quickly due to a lack of progress. I could foresee it even though I didn't play the demo for very long. Therefore, an interesting strategic mode would be important to break the monotony, but what did we have instead?

I see that the devs also know this. They threw in a tech tree, an event mechanism, and the ability to skip battle in an attempt to break the monotony, but it is not enough. Beside, both the tech tree and events are cartoonish and fails to add historical flavor.

Compare this to Total War Empire. In TW you got to indulge in city building, army building, diplomacy and some very rudimentary form of economic management. Even without all these, TW's strategic map is at least visually impressive. Both game eventually make you do tac battle repeatedly, but at least in TW you also have a lot more things to put your mind on, and the line isn't static, and it isn't just trenches.

I am not saying WW1 can't be portrayed with an fun and dynamic strategic game-play. It CAN, but they need to figure out a way to make the static war interesting. Either they can redesign the strategic mode into a mini-Heart of Iron, which break the cycle with a reasonably in-depth industrial/ political/ military management system; or they can go the Frostpunk path, turning the strategic gameplay into a choice/ event-driven plot that center on an increasingly restive homefront; or they can just go the Total War path (arguably the easiest). It can go any path, but it can not stay the way it is.

Well said indeed. Honestly I feel like they need a battle system with more gradients. Maybe have minor victories knock off a portion of a star, so that if you keep banging your head against ever-stiffer opposition you can EVENTUALLY hope to break through (but at what cost?!?)?

Also, I do think the decisive victory of capturing the enemy's command trench should do something a hell of a lot more. Either outright turning the entire sector over to you regardless of star power or at least doing something GREATLY more beneficial than just a "Great Victory" (which the demo showed you could get pretty easily if you knew what you were doing). Something to represent the potential for more decisive maneuvering and an actual breakthrough to operational depths.

Also not all sectors have three stars. Some have only two, and others have much more (for instance, the big cities, and especially the Theater Headquarters of both sides).

[TheHolyCheese]

Originally posted by Turtler:

ive victory of capturing the enemy's command trench should do something a hell of a lot more. Either outright turning the entire sector over to you regardless of star power or at least doing something GREATLY more beneficial than just a "Great Victory" (which the demo showed you could get pretty easily if you knew what you were doing). Something to represent the potential for more decisive maneuvering and an actual breakthrough to operational depths.

Also not all sectors have three stars. Some have only two, and others have much more (for instance, the big cities, and especially the Theater Headquarters of both sides).

When I first saw the trailers for the game, I actually thought the stars represented how many objectives each side controlled, and I was kind of disappointed by how it turned out. It would've made the game feel way more immersive if each objective was kept at the beginning of each new battle, instead of the maps beginning the same (except for the shellholes and destruction). It would've felt like you really were forcing the enemy back and back, fending off counterrattacks, and maybe, just maybe, after months of fighting, you FINALLY take their command post, and capture the province.

[Yuithgf]

I do agree the strategic side is lacking, but being less used to that sort of gameplay it takes me longer to properly understand what doesnt work there.

What do people here think of every unit being able to move to anywhere on the map in 1 turn? I'm mixed on it myself.

Also maybe i just missed something, but it felt like there was little visual feedback as to which provinces i had upgraded on the strategic map. i often forgot which provice had a supply buff, a spy buff...

Big + that capturing the entire battle map should have more repercussions on the strategic side of things though.

[Ah Gor]

Originally posted by Yuithgf:

I do agree the strategic side is lacking, but being less used to that sort of gameplay it takes me longer to properly understand what doesnt work there.

What do people here think of every unit being able to move to anywhere on the map in 1 turn? I'm mixed on it myself.

Also maybe i just missed something, but it felt like there was little visual feedback as to which provinces i had upgraded on the strategic map. i often forgot which provice had a supply buff, a spy buff...

Big + that capturing the entire battle map should have more repercussions on the strategic side of things though.

I am okay with one turn movement, given that one turn represent a whole season and that railway was a thing back in the day.

That said, we have only played the Allies side in the demo, where fast strategic movement due to shorter interior line make perfect senses. It remains to be seen how would the dev model the logistical difficulties on the German side in the late war.

Maybe it won’t be one turn movement for the German after all.