Thoughts about Call to Arms gameplay mechanics?

I don't know about you guys, but I'm really intrigued by this Call to Arms game coming out. I'm REALLY excited, because MoW is the best thing that has ever happened to video games in my opinion. Well, it's in the top 3

However, as Digitalmindsoft hasn't really told us much at all, I'm wondering how modern day combat will work, since the technology, weaponry, and distance of combat is so different. Any ideas on how this will work? They have said that it will still be squad based, obviously, but only on a slightly larger distance/combat scale. So this will be very interesting. I am hoping to see suppression play an even bigger role in the game, as well as this whole customization of weapons they've been mentioning.

All in all, I'm really excited!!!

I would really like to see a few ideas taken from CoH and applied to CtA:

1) Suppression much better integrated
2) Machine gunners not also functioning as snipers

I think the customisation thing offers huge possibilities but I also feel like they really need to do it carefully otherwise it will end up either not making a difference to gameplay or making so much difference that new players get destroyed by elite custom troops straight away.

Oh oh oh oh oh oh, just thought of a good one. For singleplayer having a skirmish option would be awesome. I've had some really fun times playing the Never Ending Battles mod with friends and it's very enjoyable to be able to defend a huge line of bunkers and defences against the AI for a change.

Good points. Having never played CoH extensively, I don't know too many of the game mechanics. I have watched gameplay and played a bit, so I know what you're talking about with the MG accuracy. The MG42 is just a bit too accurate in AS. I wonder if they will incorporate the different stats/strengths and weaknesses of weapons. For example, the SAW LMG has a really high rate of fire, but it jams easily, and since it uses the standard NATO rounds, the same as in the M16 rifle, it is not as accurate, especially at long distances. Or, you can consider the M16 compared to the M4. They each have pros and cons. So I wonder how much that will be incorporated.

Also, about customization... I agree with you. I definitely don't want it to turn into something where better players have better equipment, etc, so that new players get steamrolled. However, I think customization is that extra bit that makes a game really fun, especially for new players. So maybe you could have certain uniforms/badges, or maybe different skins (only small modifications) that would at east aesthetically change your forces. Or, they could do a "build your own class" idea where you can customize your own squad within certain restrictions. For example, I want these guys to have these weapons, more smoke grenades than fragmentation, squad leader with a grenade launcher, etc. That might break the game, but if not, I think it would add a lot. Obviously it will have to be post release (well, the way it sounds at least), since it is a lot of artwork and setup for additional features.

I don't know if you've played the MoW DLC, but the skirmish maps where you command a small amount of troops and really have to micro them are really fun. So hopefully something like that, or the never ending battles/enemy waves idea, will be implemented.

I'm worried about having less units overall because I already feel like, and this is mainly due to shoddy team work I'd say, in most situations certain unit types can create stalemates too easy.

---

You got a few MG's. Okay I need a sniper.

You got an artillery unit. Okay I need a counter artillery.

You got a tank. Okay I need a bigger tank.

You got some hidden rocket guys. Okay I need a tank which I can send in to kill your infantry behind the lines that 'doesn't matter so much if I lose it'.



If I get all that though. It means I'm committing fully to an attack. If I fail. I will have no defense unless I wait in the stalemate for longer. In which case my opponent has saved up the same amount of manpower.

---

In one hand CtA could lead to people working together more. Or it's going to be rock paper scissors stalemate more.

Inuki wrote:

I'm worried about having less units overall because I already feel like, and this is mainly due to shoddy team work I'd say, in most situations certain unit types can create stalemates too easy.

Inuki, I assume you read/are referring to the Rock, Paper, Shotgun interview that was posted with the CtA developers? They said they're planning on eliminating the massive number units to make it more beginner friendly, which could lead to the problem you've pointed out. I don't think the stalemate thing is a huge problem in AS, but it can lead to rather predictable games if you don't experiment with the map or different tactics. Then again, you've had wasy more playtime, so perhaps you've already tried it all

I'd like to see infantry become even more important in CtA, which could hopefully get rid of this stalemate problem. Digitalmindsoft claimed it got better in AS, which I believe, but I would really like to see it lean even more heavily on infantry. Perhaps that would make it lose it's "Men of War"feel, but I think it would be a nice change. Or perhaps infantry and light vehicles... I am also tired of tank superiority stalemates. The new technology in today's combat could work to enable individual soldiers (armed with a Javelin, SMAW, RPG, etc) to damage an APC or maybe get a good shot on an Abrams, but it all depends on how they implement it.

tom_sawyer wrote:

Inuki, I assume you read/are referring to the Rock, Paper, Shotgun interview that was posted with the CtA developers? They said they're planning on eliminating the massive number units to make it more beginner friendly,

CP - Command Points (Overall units on the field)

Not how many different unit types there are.

Really, just CP? I didn't catch that. Thanks for pointing it out.

Well that is a big difference... I think it will lend itself to more micro and infantry based tactics, but it will be hard to balance the game with so few units on the field. However, I guess that fewer units on the field will be a bit more like modern day warfare as opposed to WWII.

Perhaps if we had different roles like CoHO had. By that I mean there was a key infantry dominant player, armor and some kind of support Airborne role. I just don't see the game working out like that though. Not Men of War. You have to cover the entire map which means everyone needs infantry. Even if you bank hard for a tank later on you'll need infantry to keep it alive and give it sight. No player is going to ditch their middle or left to send a few soldiers to you so you can have a tank that won't instantly be killed by a bazooka.

Inuki wrote:

No player is going to ditch their middle or left to send a few soldiers to you so you can have a tank that won't instantly be killed by a bazooka.

Well, not ditch it, but I'd happily buy a few smg guys no problem. If I can keep your tank alive then it helps the team win, and if the team is winning then I'll probably have an easier time than if I kept the smg guys.

I would also like to see more cohesive gameplay in between different players, as it currently is very difficult to play as a team unless you know each other and/or on voice comms. I'd have to agree that MoW will not work if players need to "specialize" per say. However, you often see one player buy a tank that can serve to help the whole team by giving tank superiority.

Yeah teamwork via chat is lacking in most games, I'm always pinging stuff and calling when I bring an AT gun or a tank and I say what I'll do with it and where it's going. A lot of the time, if you initiate that kind of stuff then the other players will start doing it too. Part of the problem though is hard to work around, MOWAS has a large European community compared to most games which are dominated by Americans, consequently a lot of players don't speak/write English. Plus a lot of the Europeans are Russian which means that even when they can speak English, their keyboards can't type it.

Yes, the Russian characters are interesting Does anyone know why the game has a large Russian community? I've heard before, but I don't remember.

I wonder if it would be a good idea to have an integrated voice server in Call to Arms (I guess you'd call it VoIP). I can forsee it being a big problem, but if it was possible, that might help teamwork. I know other games, albeit different genres, have implemented it. For example, in Battlefield 2 you could talk to your own squad by pressing down "B", but it was completely optional and not always used, so it didn't pose problems.

Wunel wrote:

Inuki wrote:

No player is going to ditch their middle or left to send a few soldiers to you so you can have a tank that won't instantly be killed by a bazooka.

Well, not ditch it, but I'd happily buy a few smg guys no problem. If I can keep your tank alive then it helps the team win, and if the team is winning then I'll probably have an easier time than if I kept the smg guys.

Just a few smg guys? Well this is kinda the stuff I'm not looking for. I want big battles. Lots of crossfire. Not some kind of 4v4 infantry fight.

The Russian community is primarily, I think, so large because the publishers, 1C are Russian.

Inukii, I generally don't start saving until around late mid-game, a few smg guys is usually as much as I can buy unless things are going especially well. I have no problem buying a hellcat/sherman to take out a puma or getting a StuH if an ally is fighting a lot of infantry.

Hey guys! I don't know if you've seen the new Call to Arms Alpha gameplay, but it's pretty sweet. I'll just throw some thoughts out there.

1. The movement animations... Was there a running animation, or any running, in the gameplay? I didn't see any, which was odd.
2. Something that will make gameplay really interesting is the rate of fire. The bullets were flying so quickly and the rate of fire was so rapid that people were just getting shredded. I think the lack of rifles made it pretty interesting, and definitely a different style than Assault Squad. (It seemed sort of odd that the SOCOM guys, or whatever they were, weren't taking any damage...fixed gameplay? )
3. I loved the tracer rounds, and the gun sounds were decent. It seemed repetitive and empty without human voices and sound effects, but that will be fixed.
4. Did you see the SMAW looking thing? I was surprised at how little splash/building damage it did. Still, there's a confirmed weapon.
5. Smaller squads- I think there were 5 guys? That's a step towards the original Men of War or Vietnam. Although it's probably good for modern day.

Anything you guys noticed?

It's quite contradictory in terms of gameplay.

We want smaller squads! YAY

But we want faster rate of fire weapons which kill people much faster!



Exactly how do you plan to have any field presence in a multiplayer game which doesn't end in a massive stomp....or making the game entirely random by decreasing accuracy.

Good point! I suppose the way to balance it would be to make the units really cheap (low MP), but that could easily lead to unbalanced scales if one person manages to keep the majority of his units alive and makes it impossible for the enemy to come back. That, or provide more HP for your units. I mean, those enemies looked like Volks vs Paratroopers or something.

Faster rate of fire yes, but not as accurate. The vast majority of rounds don't hit their target, hundreds of thousands are shot for every hit. Gunfire now is more about suppressing your enemy while your other squad/ally flanks them. We'll probably see cover become much more integral.