Design Philosophy Behind Faction Playstyles
Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2011 12:31 am
I prematurely ended the Gallop/Star campaign scenario just now out of extreme frustration. I was very close to getting a perfect BV (without spending any prestige) but ultimately lost the scenario due to an unfortunate turn of events. What made me close the game in frustration was not my loss but the recurring differences in Axis and Soviet playstyles that are present in the game.
When I played the Axis campaign, I had an absolute blast. Crushing my opponent's armies, whether tank or infantry, with my panzer spearhead and following up with specialist infantry to hold the flanks was extremely satisfying. I got a feel for the Axis 'playstyle' and it seems like it was very well thought out from a game design perspective. Each specialist step has a very specific purpose and use. Want to dislodge a stubborn dug-in defender? Use engineers. Want to create a margin of safety for your supply line? Use recon. The specialist steps work very well with how I (and I assume everyone else) plays as the Axis.
Playing through the Soviet campaign and scenarios however has been extremely frustrating. I understood that I couldn't simply transplant the way I had played as Axis and use the same playstyle with the Soviets. I realized very quickly however that it wasn't a matter of the Soviets having different advantages and disadvantages but pure disadvantages across the board. The entire faction seems like it was made with the intent of it being played by the AI as an opponent to an Axis human player.
It feels this way because of the huge defensive playstyle I am forced to use even when I am the player and have to attack. The specialist steps, for example, seem to be suited much more for defensive purposes. Artillery and Katyusha rockets provide no attack bonus which is a little weird from a game design perspective as well as from an historical point of view. My attempt at Gallop/Star is a very good example of how I am forced, almost by an invisible hand, to play in a defensive way. Attacking with my infantry (with useless artillery) is counter-productive. I am forced to use my tanks which hit like wet toilet paper. Compared with the way I played Axis I barely do any frontal attacks and find myself having to envelop and surround my opponent's armies and only when they are fully out of supply can I safely attack them. This may seem interesting and even refreshing from the way most of us play Axis where we bulldoze everything with the double vet panzers but after a while it just isn't fun. The Soviet faction isn't "better" at anything than the Axis. The faction seems to be playing catch-up across the board. A reinforced Soviet rifle corps with expensive specialist steps is about equal to a half-strength German infantry division without any specialist steps. Meanwhile a decked out Axis army with engineers and recon has an answer to anything a Soviet player can throw at them. Although I haven't played multiplayer yet, I foresee balance problems there because of this.
Don't get me wrong, I am very satisfied with this game. I am however wondering whether I am missing something when I play as the Soviets.
When I played the Axis campaign, I had an absolute blast. Crushing my opponent's armies, whether tank or infantry, with my panzer spearhead and following up with specialist infantry to hold the flanks was extremely satisfying. I got a feel for the Axis 'playstyle' and it seems like it was very well thought out from a game design perspective. Each specialist step has a very specific purpose and use. Want to dislodge a stubborn dug-in defender? Use engineers. Want to create a margin of safety for your supply line? Use recon. The specialist steps work very well with how I (and I assume everyone else) plays as the Axis.
Playing through the Soviet campaign and scenarios however has been extremely frustrating. I understood that I couldn't simply transplant the way I had played as Axis and use the same playstyle with the Soviets. I realized very quickly however that it wasn't a matter of the Soviets having different advantages and disadvantages but pure disadvantages across the board. The entire faction seems like it was made with the intent of it being played by the AI as an opponent to an Axis human player.
It feels this way because of the huge defensive playstyle I am forced to use even when I am the player and have to attack. The specialist steps, for example, seem to be suited much more for defensive purposes. Artillery and Katyusha rockets provide no attack bonus which is a little weird from a game design perspective as well as from an historical point of view. My attempt at Gallop/Star is a very good example of how I am forced, almost by an invisible hand, to play in a defensive way. Attacking with my infantry (with useless artillery) is counter-productive. I am forced to use my tanks which hit like wet toilet paper. Compared with the way I played Axis I barely do any frontal attacks and find myself having to envelop and surround my opponent's armies and only when they are fully out of supply can I safely attack them. This may seem interesting and even refreshing from the way most of us play Axis where we bulldoze everything with the double vet panzers but after a while it just isn't fun. The Soviet faction isn't "better" at anything than the Axis. The faction seems to be playing catch-up across the board. A reinforced Soviet rifle corps with expensive specialist steps is about equal to a half-strength German infantry division without any specialist steps. Meanwhile a decked out Axis army with engineers and recon has an answer to anything a Soviet player can throw at them. Although I haven't played multiplayer yet, I foresee balance problems there because of this.
Don't get me wrong, I am very satisfied with this game. I am however wondering whether I am missing something when I play as the Soviets.