Hi,
There are some interesting and creative proposals doing the rounds following yesterday’s announcement. I actually quite like a lot of the things the devs are working on (such as the tech tree), but a lot of people are complaining about loss of campaign choice and reasonable historical accuracy. Having thought about it for a while, I would like to propose a compromise solution that would a) reduce the queues from what we have now b) maintain, and perhaps even increase, historical accuracy in terms of the nature of the WW2 battles featured in the game. So hear me out.
*Disclaimer: I know nothing about game development, so feel free to point out things that are illogical or difficult/impossible to implement, if any.
Offensive v Defensive Battles
Looking overall at WW2, the Axis were in the ascendancy and on the attack for a good 2/2.5 years. After Stalingrad, the pattern of warfare was very much defensive. Sure, there were battles like Kharkov in '43 and Nordwind in '44, but these are outliers, I think it’s fair to say. So i what I propose is to create four queues:
Axis offense (Moscow, Stalingrad, Tunisia)
Axis defence (Normandy, Berlin)
Allies offense (Normandy, Berlin)
Allies defence (Moscow, Stalingrad, Tunisia)
This would reduce the number of queues from what we have now AND give players a greater degree of choice over the campaign/maps to play over what the devs are currently proposing.
What about historical accuracy?
You chose the faction to play and fight the battle in line with the overall nature of the campaign. In Berlin, the Germans and their allies were barely able to attack at all. So it makes sense that if you want a Berlin map, you queue as Axis defence. Sure, you could get Normandy too, but it’s better than what the devs are suggesting now. While this is not a perfect solution (I am aware of counter-attacks, local offensives etc.), players could create custom battles with the attacking/defending sides reversed if they wanted their fix of the Soviets attacking in Stalingrad, for example. Or increase the amount of Confrontation games where both sides attack an objective.
As for weaponry, the tech tree the devs are suggesting looks good. And I don’t see why it can’t be incorporated into this matchmaking system with some rules to keep weapon use restricted to its actual period of use. Early tier weaponry can be used in both offense and defence, while late tier weaponry can be used in Axis defence and Allies offense.
Example: The MP43/44/StG variants can only be used in Axis defence. Volkgrenadier squads, for example, were created for defence when Germany was on the back foot. The StG is essentially a weapon for defence (to provide additional firepower for squads at reduced strength because of casualties). It makes sense to deploy this squad in the correct historical period in a battle where you have to defend in the main. Same goes for King Tigers - these were late war defensive weapons as they were not mobile enough for attacking tactics, generally. They cannot be used anachronistically in Moscow.
Boost matchmaking with XP bonus for joining any campaign
A way to boost the number of human players in a match yet further would be to offer players with enough qualifying weaponry the chance to join any battle with a small XP bonus (say 5-10%).
What about the Pacific?
I realise this is a big problem, being a totally separate theatre. Potential solutions could be to create another two queues, which would bring us to six in total (still fewer than the current number), make the Allies offensive and the Japanese defensive and make all of the maps Confrontation so each side has a chance to attack and defend. Or create four queues (now ten in total) and have something like:
Axis offense (Philippines, Burma [for example])
Axis defence (Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima [for example])
Allies offense (Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima [for example])
Allies defence (Philippines, Burma [for example])
Weaponry restrictions and XP bonus apply here too.
I know this is not ideal, so if any bright spark has any good ideas here, please share them.
Anyway, this is just an idea. Any thoughts or criticism welcome.