Original Unit Ranges

[Bullet Force]

As a veteran of the series (2500 hours in Assault Squad 1, 2000+ in Men of War, 1000 in Faces of War, 200 in Soldiers Heroes of WW2) I think I can speak with some certainty when I say that the balancing and range system of Mow 1 was vastly superior to this new Company of Heroes inspired arcade mode which has been adopted for Mow 2.

Most players expected the upgrade in the form of Mow 2 would consist of a new engine, better graphics and better interface/features. They expected the same quality gameplay that worked so well but instead they got this poorly implemented new gameplay system which limited their unit choices (mostly just infantry spam these days) and fouled up the dynamics of this once great game.

I understand some new players like the new easier feel of the game where all tanks and units act nearly identical to one another but for us veterans it makes the game seem boring and dull.

So I propose that short of reworking the entire game, that simply an option be added when hosting a game that allows the host to pick whether they want arcade mode or Mow 1 mode. This would satisfy both camps.

[TheMightyDave_1]

Originally posted by Bullet Force:

As a veteran of the series (2500 hours in Assault Squad 1, 2000+ in Men of War, 1000 in Faces of War, 200 in Soldiers Heroes of WW2) I think I can speak with some certainty when I say that the balancing and range system of Mow 1 was vastly superior to this new Company of Heroes inspired arcade mode which has been adopted for Mow 2.

Most players expected the upgrade in the form of Mow 2 would consist of a new engine, better graphics and better interface/features. They expected the same quality gameplay that worked so well but instead they got this poorly implemented new gameplay system which limited their unit choices (mostly just infantry spam these days) and fouled up the dynamics of this once great game.

I understand some new players like the new easier feel of the game where all tanks and units act nearly identical to one another but for us veterans it makes the game seem boring and dull.

So I propose that short of reworking the entire game, that simply an option be added when hosting a game that allows the host to pick whether they want arcade mode or Mow 1 mode. This would satisfy both camps.

+1

[{FTW}Kodiax]

um, this is NOT Men of War 2

[SirHinkel]

Originally posted by Kodiax:

um, this is NOT Men of War 2

Still I would wish they would increase the unit-ranges instead of decreasing them more and more.

[76561198047534318]

"So I propose that short of reworking the entire game, that simply an option be added when hosting a game that allows the host to pick whether they want arcade mode or Mow 1 mode. This would satisfy both camps. "

You can't team stack anymore? Both sequels are arcade.

"They expected the same quality gameplay that worked so well but instead they got this poorly implemented new gameplay system which limited their unit choices (mostly just infantry spam these days) and fouled up the dynamics of this once great game. "

Can you be more specific about the "dynamics of this once great game"?
Infantry is always produced in order to cap flags and cover the frontline, they die off and need to be replaced, it was this way in AS1 and it's the similar in AS2.

[HaZZarD]

I feel AS2 being a more Arcade version of AS1, this is what you feel looking at the gameplay.
Realistic Weapon datas alone don't make a game more realistic.
We maybe made a step toward realism with realistic weapon datas but then 10 steps in the opposite direction with short ranges,small maps,close spawns,less small weapon damage and all this infantry spam.

I wish to see in bigger maps the solution to help medium tank in flanking, not shorter ranges on small maps.
Small maps and short ranges are those things that most of all are making the gameplay worst and too close to games like COH (IMO).

However for bigger maps, longer ranges and better distance view, performance need to improve so let's hope to see a performance boost or then adding bigger maps and longer ranges would be very difficult even with a mod.

[Ty]

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=252781082&searchtext=

[HaZZarD]

Thanks Ty2903 for that mod.


But the problem is,and this is the concern of many in my community, that ok you can mod a game to make it more realistic but if this series is going toward arcade then in future MOW titles will be always more harder to get that realistic in depth experience we all appreciated with mow and its mods.

If the game is going toward arcade you can't expect many core realistic features to be added, like longer distance view for longer ranges, some features are hardcoded and depend by Devs work, one don't turn a COH II in a realistic game so for the ones interested in a bit of realism and in depth gameplay is really important that the game is still aiming to be and stay a bit more on the realism side instead of being an arcade like many other

This to say that "if you want that then mod the game" is not always a true or possible solution.

We badly need the basic game to be decent under the realism and depth aspect, this or people that like realism and in depth gameplay will leave because modding alone would fix nothing.

[DeltaDude]

Personally I do not see a problem with the ranges. It also does not seem to make it more arcadish.

[HaZZarD]

The problem Delta is that reducing tank ranges without ranges of inf following this reduction, you increase the scale disparity between the two kind of units, this is what made the game more unrealistic.

And Tanks and AT-guns clearly suffer from this disparity because they are forced to fight close to the infantry.

[Ty]

Longer ranges are not going to work well in this game untill other fundamentals are fixed like Vision and Line of Sight. An example would be how the maps are in Close Combat. Though units have realistic ranges there are very few lanes of fire that are long enough to take advantage. Hedges, terrain, bushes, walls, trees all obscure vision and block units from shooting.

In MoW Series, these obstacles do not consistantly block vision or the ability to shoot through them. Direct Control does not help with this problem either.

If the flora, buildings...etc really did block vision and shooting through them wasn't an option. The game could be alot more tactical and have more realistic settings.

[Vashyo]

I've never really seen MoW to be a full on simulation series, if anyone played MoW original. The ranges and the way tank combat handled it was mostly just tanks spitting slow-moving shells at each other and shaking a bit when hit.
AS1 changed everything to act more like a railgun, AS2 shortened the range a bit for gameplay purposes (mostly to keep medium armor/AT guns and lower viable units longer, since AS1 was all about heavies sniping everything past their maximum firing range).

Ty allready said what I would have said on extra long ranges, Most powerful guns in the game could be absolutely devastating units unless maps are made to have all kinds of path-blocking mountains and structures all over the map. Visibility is not really an issue since u can have a man crouching in a bush and be invisible to anyone who isnt standing few steps away. I can kinda see some units like Pak43 being a very cheap unit, unless every unit has exactly same range ofcourse.

There allready are some mods that alter the settings anyways, whetever they are completely balanced though. That I cannot say.

[HaZZarD]

Originally posted by Ty2903:

Longer ranges are not going to work well in this game untill other fundamentals are fixed like Vision and Line of Sight. An example would be how the maps are in Close Combat. Though units have realistic ranges there are very few lanes of fire that are long enough to take advantage. Hedges, terrain, bushes, walls, trees all obscure vision and block units from shooting.

In MoW Series, these obstacles do not consistantly block vision or the ability to shoot through them. Direct Control does not help with this problem either.

If the flora, buildings...etc really did block vision and shooting through them wasn't an option. The game could be alot more tactical and have more realistic settings.

Yes I think this is mainly a problem of LOS and Instinct told they gonna improve it so lets hope in changes in this direction.
The best would be having a LOS like Arma III where every unit have his own LOS and they just share some info about enemy position with nearby units.


About DC I may know a way to make it realistic.
When in DC you should actually see just what the unit you controlling see, when in DC you should have just the LOS of your unit and not the LOS of all units on screen as in that moment you are that unit and not the general on field IMO.


And of course untill performances are not optimal there will be no improved distance view, right now I think over 200 meters units just disappear.
IMO this is really few distance for a RTS, it was nice maybe at the time of MOW 1 or earlier but not now, taking advance of new hardware would allow for lot more.


This is a strange series because for many things is very realistic and then for other is very arcade,this come from MOW not DMS fault at all but I was hoping to see this becoming a more clear genre, or Arcade or in depth realism (no sim).

As on the Arcade side we already have COH 2 and Blitzkrieg 3 I was hoping for this series to take the in depth realism side as its engine is perfect for that (see the pen. armour system we have)

But what I think is that Devs are afraid realism(no sim) would attract few people, but maybe they don't know how much the Arma series sell and they don't know that Arma is one of the most played Steam titles.

[ewt.strat29]

imo ranges are not as bad as said by some vets. Imo the ranges are better, based on the current maps we are playing. I would prefer larger maps and larger ranges + distance view. In a ideal world i think super large ranges etc realism would be great. But i don't think the game engine can handle this.. I agree the devs maybe wanted to target a larger market with alot of these changes. But I don't think ranges are actually the reason behind this. I think they wanted to get rid of the campy stale gameplay in pub games most people experienced. They have raised the effectiveness of early game and middle game. Imo a bit too much which I'll elaborate on next para... Anyway with the current maps smaller ranges actually make more sense. Untis are still useful, a heavy tank still plays like a heavy tank. That being said though there are useless heavy tanks around for price.
Still some balance issues here such as 105's spgs keeping their max range.
Pershing being quite crappy, i'd prefer a veteran tiger vs one.

The problem with infantry now is that it is alot easier to move them around because being defensive hasn't got the perks in AS2 as in AS1. You could hold with a MG behind a sand bag in AS1. Now mg behind sand bag, no worriesill run up a squad and take it out. I think the ranges aren't the cause of infantry spam. The cause of that is the MG nerfing and effectiveness of other small arms increasing.
But the game is faster and dynamic and less campy.. That was a issue of the previous game, for alot of players. Attacking has always been the bane of alot of players in this game. Most did not know how to attack in AS1, and combined with the map sizes allowing no room to flank. Made it a bit of a slug fest and camp fest with arty and heavy tanks just camping. This was never a problem for most of the competitive community though. Maps were anonying, but banking was a option.. Now banking is not a option, but the good thing is maybe for most players its easier to attack and stop the game being a camp fest. I myself play pretty similarl game in AS1 to AS2, just now in AS2 the infantry agressive style is probaly the best way to play. In AS1, i could say this player style has merits, his banking this... his going the emplacement route, his going defensive with MG's. I was also happy with my style to win games, flanking attacking with assault squads. But in AS2, i can say that only the infantry agressive style has merit.

AS1 did have better balance believe it or not for the competitive commutniy. Other then the shotgunners being nerfed now which was a much needed fix!. Right now, the banking route is not a option to win a game at the highest levle of play. (maybe 4v4 and up once game allows for more). There's a huge difference in gameplay in larger team games.

As always i would love maps to be a bit bigger/ non urban garden 2v2, or workshop 2v2 style play. There's alot of maps out there which are made for grenade duels, which i think is a bit silly gameplay. Especiallly on the lag we get now. It seems maps were degined specifially for grenade dueling :(

[Zé Bonitinho]

There is little point in moviing MoW to seem easier or appeal to bigger audiences. This is a very niche game and always will be. The more DMS tries to move this way the worse it will be for everyone. I hope they will continue to improve the game engine, especially mod support.

[HaZZarD]

@Strat Yes, according to the vanilla maps we have, ranges are ok, I sadly agree, maps are too small for longer ranges.

-----------------------------------------------------


So going up toward the font of all issues we find Small Maps as a very big problem on top of many below.


Now my questions to try understand what's the real issue and font of all problems are:

-Are maps small to prevent further lag, a decision due to actual performace limits ?

or/and

-Are maps small to make gameplay more fast-paced,chaotic and help new players(fighting frontally is easier,less tactical decisions) ?


What I would like to know is if this series is now designed to stay on this fast paced more arcadish path or if once performance improve we can expect something more in depth and realistic coming.


cheers