New Paratrooper Rules Are a Big Mistake

[Edmon]

The problem is that this kind of thing is a pattern at this point notice how in PCI you had units with different and Polish and German infantry for example didnt have the same stats same with Russian and Germans, here aside from some unique units tanks broadly have comparable stats, its pretty clear that the balance was MP focused it was something one could handle even if it made the game play differently but now This MP focus is Obviously harming SP. so id like to ask if SP or MP is primary focus off the game. And im being genuine is SP the primary focus or MP ? because in both cases its going to impact how the game will develop.

There were plenty of complaints and AAR's showing that paratroopers could be insanely overpowered in single player as well. Allowing near instant and complete encirclements that, along with deadly grip, could enable you to disable and farm entire missions far more easily than intended. They were most complained about in multiplayer, but that doesn't mean that them being changed was purely a multiplayer concern.

However, the effects this change had on particular missions in the Grand Campaign, which is a seperate thing from all the other single player content, were unintended. Remember, the grand campaign is developed mostly seperately from the rest of the game.



Generally speaking, people don't complain about overpowered strategies in single player. Since people control their own fun and serious players will avoid using overpowered strategies to add their own challenge. But that doesn't mean that things won't be nerfed because the developer thinks it's too strong or players/testers come with evidence showing something is.

I alone have gotten:
1) On the roll hero removed from the game.
2) Two exploits involving the "field repairs" hero removed form the game.
3) "Overrun on everything" strategy was removed (eventually).


Lastly, telling our devs/staff that what they are saying is a lie and/or swearing at them is something I won't tolerate because I love the fact that our developers are always on our forums interacting with our community. It costs nothing to be polite. Pat is a more forgiving soul than I am and so I will let is slide this time, but don't do it again.

[nexusno2000]

Yesterday I arrived at Crete for my latest YouTube playthrough.

Despite all the doom and gloom, this scenario was, for the player, less impacted than Eben-Emael. I cleared the map on turn 17 of 21 with minimal trouble (on GM diff).

From a player perspective the only major change: it takes 1 additional round before you can secure the top-left airfield/supply point. Sure, if you want to re-embark and DROP your paras again, there is the same delay again, but why not simply disembark at the friendly airport to the east?

It's Student's AI forces that get completely hammered by the change. It's painful to watch - and 100% proof that the para change was done with ZERO concern for existing AO content.

- The central group is wiped out so fast that it's close to impossible (without fast rebase) to rebase aircraft there to aid them.
- The eastern group fares a little better, although its near-suicidal movement (paras like to retreat so they end up standing on rivers - and get wiped out quickly) doesn't exactly help. But they last long enough that you can A) rebase planes to aid and B) move inf by air to disembark.

So... what's my point?

Well, I'm still a HUGE fan of the para change. I guess the easy way out is to change it back. That's the wrong move IMO. Please take the time to adjust the impacted scenarios instead, with particular emphasis on Eben Emael and Op. Mercury.

[Bee1976]

There were plenty of complaints and AAR's showing that paratroopers could be insanely overpowered in single player as well. Allowing near instant and complete encirclements that, along with deadly grip, could enable you to disable and farm entire missions far more easily than intended.

But, to be honest, thats a problem with the complete encirclement system. I enjoyed playing with mass encicrclements, and sometimes its still urgently needed for some maps (depending on traits and challenges), but the ability to disable large and largest amounts of enemy units and reducing them to "training dummies" is the problem and overpowered.
I try to avoid this, because i consider it as boring for myself.
But thats a player choice and you can still encircle with paras, even with the new rules. But you dont need paras for that playstyle, any fast recon or fast units with ZOC can do this aswell. So thats a player choice.

The change doesnt really affect this problem in my opinion, but it makes paras real unfun to play in SP now, when you are not into "mass encirclements". They were weak before and the player was forced to use a lot of core slots (and heros) to make a viable para team for victory hexes outside of that encirclement system. But now they are....well even weaker (again only for SP and in my opinion).

I would have buffed them for a normal use, like with a "late supression (sup starts after 2 rounds of beeing no in a supply chain)" trait or "immune to retreat" trait. But of course that would have made them turbo OP in MP and for players who use them as encirclement-units in SP.

Either way, im really, really really excited on the ideas the team got to "repair" those mandatory para missions in the GC.

I love the fact that our developers are always on our forums interacting with our community.

I totally agree to that. Thats one of the reasons im here every day on the forums, even when im not playing the game. I like and appreciate that contact between the team and the playerbase and the shared information. Its seldom nowadays. Most publishers and developers dont really care about their community and all you get are meaningless twitters or other meaninglesse social media stuff.
So i really like the diffrence Slitherine and the developers are making here.

[Wolfenguard]

What does you think about this idea.
Going back to the old system but change the landing system.

Anti Air get a new skill, support fire against air landing.
If you drop in the range of a anti air unit, the unit attacks the landing forces. Depending on the anti air system and maybe the deadly anti air generally skill you lose more or less strength. (Low attitude attack). With Fast deployment you get a small Bonus to your defense against the anti air support.
Maybe a next idea will be some strength lose Depending on the ground type where you drop. City, light wood 10% Strengh, heavy wood, river 25%, Water (ocean) 100%
If you drop on a unit, the enemy fires first but you get a close combat attack. Depending on with unit is stronger after the fight, the unit with lesser Strengh get a free retreat.

[bendtheknee]

They were most complained about in multiplayer, but that doesn't mean that them being changed was purely a multiplayer concern.


Personally I find this change to multiplayer worse than before, wanting to respond to complaints from RANDOM MAP / FA players (that para can drop on a victory hex and instantly deploy units). Indeed now this is only possible for player 1, the paratroopers can instantly be deployed on an airport and capture a near victory hex. Player 2 do not have this possibility (airport blocked by air unit or no combination of airport / victory hex available, the latter being taken by player 1). Before player 2 could always aim for an instant drop on victory hex not taken by player 1 not anymore ...

[bendtheknee]

The current version, while still imperfect and in need of refinement, at least provides a higher degree of risk by making them a little more vulnerable over the target. Whats really needed is for the scenarios to be edited to account for the new rules .. which they are being.

What happened between this speech and the update v1.02.01 ????

[Bee1976]

I would assume there was no easy way to solve this, or it was faster to use the old ruleset or the team changed their opinion on this topic, for example realted on feedback.

Or Pats evil clone frome hell tried to mislead us

[Patrick Ward]

The current version, while still imperfect and in need of refinement, at least provides a higher degree of risk by making them a little more vulnerable over the target. Whats really needed is for the scenarios to be edited to account for the new rules .. which they are being.

What happened between this speech and the update v1.02.01 ????

Well ..

The forums are meant to be the realm of the devs and support only, but the guys are under a lot of pressure so it's easy enough for me to keep you all up to date with whatever news I can. Sometimes thats official, sometimes it's from behind-the-scenes chat. Sometimes it gets me in trouble ( not really ).

Not being involved in the game design I was not privy to the original para design change, or to this latest. The above statement, that was kindly enlarged for my aging eyes, was my opinion and informed by a message one of the designers posted on this forum many, many months ago. So it was based on information that was already in the public domain and correct at the time.
It seems the designers changed their mind and I imagine there's a few good reasons why they'd do it. Thats the way it goes.

Anyway, then there was more Covid, coinciding with months of unplanned for but unavoidable behind-the-scenes stuff. No I won't tell you what that was because its technical, technological and for you totally irrelevant other than it being the main cause of the delay of the patch. It had no impact on Pacific or 1943-5.

One of my last messages was that things were moving but that I couldn't give a definate date. The thing that was moving was this 1.02.01 update. I couldn't give a date because all we had was a nebulous window between tournaments and that was subject to change and delay. It could of been anything from 2 days to several weeks. Thats not an answer many people will accept so I kept it vague.

Pat

Edit: Sorry Bee .. I was editing this post as you were replying .. but its essentially the same. There's many people on here who speak English as a second language yet still have better grammar and spelling than I do.

[Bee1976]

Sometimes it gets me in trouble.

Hopefully not! E-v-e-r-y communication is highly (!) appreciated, at least by me. Even if there are changes and the informatios are outdated.

Thats not an answer many people will accept.

You can always pm me the hot stuff i wont share precious informations hehe