Soldier Classes

I somehow like where this is leading; reminds me on the Men of War series. A somewhat good game, but a bit monotone which ruined it. Adding the same ideas and improving it via community ideas may actually cause Call of Combat to flourish like it was planned to in the old version, although the game itself never reached its full potential.

The tactics will surely gain a new important aspect, making this game far more diverse, and far more unique in comparison to the simplistic 4 men soldier game. Beside that I actually do like how certain groups have less/or more soldiers. These implementations might make intelligence a crucial factor to succeed.

May I anyhow help with the development of the game, just wondering? :)

Like Praetorian said; I like the fact that classes have different amounts members in the squad. That's cool :)
This should add add an interesting spin on v2

The less/more soldiers is interesting.. The only (potential) flaw with that I can see is with eyes being so vital in-game; surely having 5 soldiers would benefit the most? Of course I'm just basing this info from what v1 was like, v2 could be a completely different story.

Should classes be some form of reward? As in everyone starts with riflemen and eventually unlocks the different classes? Or could it be something to do with being in an AG or rank? As in a Comp CO has more classes available to him than your standard NCO.. adds a new element to ranking up.

Good stuff nonetheless! Just brainstorming here..

Yes like Karma said, instead of a new player being thrown into the game not knowing why he/she just got shot from a thousand yards by a sniper, newbies start from riflemen and eventually unlocking them all, as time goes by and they level, more unlock and they are knowledgeable of other classes and their own enough to play them to a good level.

Also, top notch stuff here chaps

Without playing the game and giving it a try it's hard to say, but I'm thinking the Sniper class will not work in this type of game. Keep in mind one of the top complaints with v1 was the random snipes. Balance is the key with classes to keep the game fun for all. Snipers may upset that balance as they could potentially take out half of the attacking team before they are within the range of their own weapons to return fire. Although realistic....it might not be fun.

Perhaps instead of Snipers consider a class of Sappers. Sappers in the WWII era were combat engineers that often worked with explosives. Team of two solders. Each solder would have - One satchel charge (CB explosive similar to C4), one land mine, a rifle with limited ammo, and a couple grenades. Sappers could also detect and disarm opposing team satchels and land mines. Limit the number of Sapper classes that can be used on each team (AG games). Perhaps one per team.

Just a thought.

Before we complain, lets give the game a try with the Snipers lol

I don't believe anyone is complaining, Rezurexx, but thanks for your comment.

I'm rly looking forward to play thet v2 with those classes.

You can also jyst do it the same way as in v1.
Every oen starts with riflemen, but some players can be equiped with weapons handed to them by the highest in rank of that game before the game starts.
Ofcourse you can insert the rank requirements for a specific class.

When these things are to be implemented into the game, I suggest specific game rooms are made that disable certain classes, like snipers, as they might make a game completely uninteresting and dull. In army group games, obviously, things like this are a must if games are to be interesting.

Beside that, if I may add, I do believe that in comparison to the old Call of Combat, this new one should focus more on prioritizing AG games.

Each class will surely have grenades?

This sounds very interesting, I can't wait to hear more of the specifics!

i believe that this would put an interesting aspect of the battles of call of combat good idea
also this would help that people don't get first serve of the weapons and the people that want the weps leave with only just the rifles

Gaytorian wrote:Beside that, if I may add, I do believe that in comparison to the old Call of Combat, this new one should focus more on prioritizing AG games.

I agree with this. Anything to do with joining/playing in an AG should be encouraged and be ideally more rewarding as well.

Give them extra experience points for playing in games that matter.

I don't know if you realize this, the more AG games people played, the less points they had. EVERY player that had a ton of points was from opens. ANY player that never played opens but played heavily AG games never went above maybe 10-15k after 5+ years. That ought to tell you something. Philster tried (bit late but at least he tried) to double the pps earned in AG games. On the other hand and inspired from cookies' post above, would you have experience affect the abilities? I'd say a seasoned veteran should have a better aim%, maybe longer throw or stun/kill of a grenade radius and maybe better % of cover and or less stress than a new player.

I played 3/4 of my games in AG's and ended up with 70k PPs in the end :o
After 4/5 years though..

In regards to eyes im assuming sniper/recon can see further?

I had almost 10k games with 9.5k games and I had around 4-5k AG games

Individual stats for each class please.

Beer wrote:I don't believe anyone is complaining, Rezurexx, but thanks for your comment.

Don't get butthurt with an attitude now...

What about air support or artillery?

Erik wrote:How can/do you want to help with the development Prae?

Why and in what way do you feel a player should be rewarded more for playing an AG game?

Well, I may lack the technical touch to make changes, but I believe I could surely make it up with my ability for creative thinking finding the best solutions possible. I believe that via a constructive debate using this forum you should seek for the best solutions possible. Meaning that the new version of Call of Combat must imperatively learn from past experiences and upgrade them - which in a way is the main goal of this "new game". I would love to somehow assist between the transition of v1 ideas to v2. If you know what I'm implying on.

The amount of time spent - and the reward he gets should be enough to force people to play AG games. Those not wanting it can be diverted to other game rooms, but the reward for winning and losing is significantly smaller and almost not worth the time. It's quite simple, as long as you understand the psychology of individuals. Statistics should solely be based on AG games (you do have to know that some play only for the sake of being better than others). Competitiveness is what drives people forward in games like Call of Combat and makes positive rivalries. Use it for your own good. All games based on it prosper eventually. So the recipe is quite simple, base the game on AG games, offering rewards via "progress points" for reaching new ranks. Via other game room types you cannot unlock all the types of soldiers, for example.

Costas wrote:I don't know if you realize this, the more AG games people played, the less points they had. EVERY player that had a ton of points was from opens. ANY player that never played opens but played heavily AG games never went above maybe 10-15k after 5+ years. That ought to tell you something. Philster tried (bit late but at least he tried) to double the pps earned in AG games.

This is also very important if your goal is to encourage more AG games. I know this was brought up numerous times in the CO council back in the day, but the changes were not implemented for various reasons. I believe pretty much everyone agreed it needed to be done. AG games should provide a large amount of pps compared to non-AG game types. In addition, high rank players should not be punished with large pp loses when they die. In v1 high ranks would often lose three times more pps when they died than was gained in a victory when they lived. This contributed to why those that played the most AG games had problems gaining pps. All achievements/medals should be linked to AG games only.

I don't believe anyone is butthurt with an attitude, Rezurexc, but thanks for your comment. =)

Beer wrote:

Costas wrote:I don't know if you realize this, the more AG games people played, the less points they had. EVERY player that had a ton of points was from opens. ANY player that never played opens but played heavily AG games never went above maybe 10-15k after 5+ years. That ought to tell you something. Philster tried (bit late but at least he tried) to double the pps earned in AG games.

This is also very important if your goal is to encourage more AG games. I know this was brought up numerous times in the CO council back in the day, but the changes were not implemented for various reasons. I believe pretty much everyone agreed it needed to be done. AG games should provide a large amount of pps compared to non-AG game types. In addition, high rank players should not be punished with large pp loses when they die. In v1 high ranks would often lose three times more pps when they died than was gained in a victory when they lived. This contributed to why those that played the most AG games had problems gaining pps. All achievements/medals should be linked to AG games only.

I don't believe anyone is butthurt with an attitude, Rezurexc, but thanks for your comment. =)

First stage is denial Beer.

whats going on everyone. i am truely excited to get my hands on this new version. how can i get my hands on an early version???? i been playing call and i think that the loyal few should have a say when you guys launch the alpha version this summer. Edub out.

Im pretty sure you were not one of the regularly last 5 of the players who played at once

Sniper/recon: as it is now only the sniper can see further. However, as I've said before, its something which we are still debating due to its large advantage and the frustation caused by not knowing from where or by who you're getting shot. Another plausbile option is decreasing the LOS and just upping the hit%

Naturally, a sniper has a very slow moving speed (crawl speed when is going into "ghost mode" should be maybe half of the normal crawl speed of other units), a very slow fire rate, an increased LOS however is more of a tunnel vision if you may rather than a wide LOS, higher accuracy and is invisible for the most part until he fires. Not sure if you can play with tunnel vision for the sniper, but I think the ability to stay undetected when crawling or is not moving should be there. Perhaps the only team that could spot him should be the recon team? That would also add value to the recon team when they are send to scout positions. Again I understand that there are limitations on what you can factor in the game, but if at all possible, a sniper should be visible from the rest only when he fires and possibly only for a few seconds unless he is running.

All units should have a chance to spot other units. Some units can have higher success at hiding or spotting. Making absolutes like an invisible sniper will make unrealistic and weird gameplay.

I think we're looking more for Saving Private Ryan snipers, not 21th century US navy seal marine snipers, who sit in some hole with a tree-wig on their head for 5 days till their target arrives.

I think we're looking more for Saving Private Ryan snipers, not 21th century US navy seal marine snipers, who sit in some hole with a tree-wig on their head for 5 days till their target arrives.

ROFL loved the analogy

I think this should be cool.. but it'll deffinately make for a lot different gameplay

Havn't read the majority of posts, but shouldn't classes have counters? ie:

Sniper counters rifle/recon
assault counters sniper
rifle counters assault
etc etc

Just means that there will never be a "dominant" class

I think that would be the intention.
Sniper with a narrow cone of vision would be beneficial. Wasn't sniper meant to have a spotter? Killing the spotter would I assume make the sniper totally reliant on teammates. One thing is sniper has to move slowly be default if its camo'd with a slow rate of fire.
With balancing, something a lot if developers make the mistake of is balancing 1v1 - in a 4v4 or similar for AG games, you don't want a dominant pairing of classes. With classes, it's better to have fewer choices and add later so you can control balance better.

The more I think of it the worse I seem to find the idea of having a sniper. A sniper with certain elements in the game enhanced such as accuracy and LOS/reach, would tear up defenses like MG nests. It will be really hard to balance the sniper class unless you introduce mortars in the game.

I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere. Presumably each class has its own weapons. Will you sill be able to trade weapons? Can your MG team end up having both an MG and a sniper rifle? Will the characteristics of the class transfer based on the weapon to the new soldier that acquired it (so your #2 of your MG squad now has the sniper rifle with the characteristics of the sniper)?

So if you traded with a dead body of the sniper, what happens? Specifically what do you get?

Tbh, I'd pull the sniper if I were you, and modify recon in to 'engineer' that can build defenses and have good communication. I think it'd reduce balance issues and save you a lot of headaches.

I feel too much emphasis is being placed on specific squad capabilities. I'd like it more to have some specialisation within a standard squad, not completely changing the squad.
This is most clearly seen in the difference between the sniper and riiflemen squads. The sniper player is now down to controlling 1 unit, whereas the riflemen player controls 5 units. This makes the new class based system too far removed from the original game.

All squads should have 4 soldiers. Perhaps 1 more or 1 less is ok, but I dont see the point in doing it. The power of special weapons is highlighted by having it being handled by 2 soldiers. A sniper might need a spotter (but doubtful this is realistic in WW2 warfare) and a machine gunner needs someone to keep the ammo flowing. Another pairing is a communcations class, consisting of an officer with a radioman.

But to stay through to the great game concept of the original, the special class squads have to be filled out with normal soldiers. This is the whole idea of the game being a small squad based based tactical wargame.

...how long before we see n00bs going into nade wars with their sniper :p
This will be funny as hell.

What if each squad individually had a Rifleman LMG Assault & Sniper
This will make it fair for everyone, balance out the stats and have the same skill base as v1 in the sense it would be a level playing field for everyone with
no advantages.. adding different strategy aspects while keeping the same structure

For example would killing a one man sniper squad be equal to killing a rifleman who's squad consists of 4-5... could it be worth more points? then again how would KDR resolve itself or will KDR not mean much in this version

Just my thoughts

defeats the strategic aspect of deploying the special squads then provism

Well first off I just want to say how exited I am that this Version 2 of call of combat is in development and can't wait to start battling it out again. I played Chain of command for many years as well as call of combat and recognize most of the names on these boards. I am hoping my input can be positive and productive in the development of this new version of the game we all know and love.

Firstly I think the structure of squads should be kept at 4 men per squad, this is a game of numbers and strength in man power. I love the addition of classes and being able to upgrade some of your troops. I would however suggest that it work something like this:
Each player at the begging of there turn would be able to swap or upgrade his "rifleman" for a "class" pic of his choosing, this could be the Assault, LMG, Recon, Sniper or Mortar. I put mortar in cause if you guys are talking sniper I think we should have mortar too.
Privates ** Get one choice and all other PVT ranks eg. PFC.
CPL **Get two choices. also eg. Mst Cpl ect.
SGT ** Get three choices
LT or once an officer you would be able to swap all of your rifleman if you so choose.

Players would be able to customize there squads to there game play and create more dynamic teams. Having these options as well as keeping the same number of troops per player would keep the game fair for everyone and balanced at the same time.
*will touch more on my mortar squad idea later*

Hey Rezurexc

Why don't you shut the ****** you have for a mouth? Beer is trying to provide constructive input into this game and you are sitting on the sidelines trolling away in this thread. Now, I understand you haven't got past the hormonal development period of your existence on this planet, and maybe as such, you should take a little time to reflect that Beer might have been enhancing the original version of this game before you were a little sperm cell floating around in your daddy's little balls. So having said that, ditch your smug entitled attitude (which incidentally detracts from most online experience these days) and if you have something positive, cooperative, stimulating, or constructive to the processes of building a game, then please go ahead and say it. Otherwise shut your petulant little hole. Thanks.

*Edited by Erik: please refrain from using swearwords. And make peace, not war ;)

Karma wrote:I played 3/4 of my games in AG's and ended up with 70k PPs in the end :o
After 4/5 years though..

After 7/8 years I ended up with over 110k. Opens were too easy to get PPs, although I got most of mine through AG games.

Not sure how I will feel about a sniper class as much as I hated the 0.001% shots already in v1 but we shall see.

BlitzEY wrote:

Karma wrote:I played 3/4 of my games in AG's and ended up with 70k PPs in the end :o
After 4/5 years though..

After 7/8 years I ended up with over 110k. Opens were too easy to get PPs, although I got most of mine through AG games.

I seem to remember that an update fixed the problem. But the update came when everyone had already gathered a lot of PPs.

Delta2k17 wrote:Im pretty sure you were not one of the regularly last 5 of the players who played at once

Delta u sexy biiiiiotch wuddup negro!!! NBK foooo life!

Delta2k17 wrote:Im pretty sure you were not one of the regularly last 5 of the players who played at once

Delta u sexy biiiiiotch wuddup negro!!! NBK foooo life!

In a couple of months it will be a year when the last post was done about the Soldier classes. I would like to know from the Dev Team, if you guys have come to the conclusion of the specifics, or is it still a work in progress ? thanks btw, and hats off to you. BTW Hello Call and great to see all of the never forgotten names.:)