Login

russian armor

Too many Heavy Tanks

22 Aug 2014, 00:22 AM
#1
avatar of ASneakyFox

Posts: 365

This suggestion isnt so much about the balance of heavy tanks as in "this tank is too powerful", but just in the meta game surrounding heavy tanks...

in coh1, if i remember correctly. Calling in a KT was a big deal. you only got one. Once you called it in, it usually triggered an important timing push for a VP, a major pivotal point in the game. In turn if the tank went down that was also a major pivotal point in the game.

I just recently got coh2. The main thing i've noticed is that there are a lot more heavy tanks, not just in the various different models of tanks, but in the number you can call in. In this replay the german called in i think 5 heavies by the end of the game, the soviet player who was down in points most of the game managed one in.. the game consisted of 6 heavy tanks in total. the german player didnt even tech to the point of buying regular tanks, his strategy after getting light cars was "just buy tigers":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHxNX3jLniw


Personally im a bigger fan of the classic version of heavy tanks where you buy one and it supports the rest of your tanks and the rest of your army. Its hard to take out but if you manage it thats a big deal. In coh2 I see heavy tanks get thrown around like theyre panzer tanks.

I think the game would be more interesting to see more medium tanks, and make heavy tanks be very expensive tanks to fill in the ranks, rather than being the entire army.

Perhaps it would be better that only 1 heavy tank can be called in the whole game? or maybe at least only have 1 on the field at a time?
22 Aug 2014, 00:57 AM
#2
avatar of spajn
Donator 11

Posts: 927

I have tried to explain this many times but people only want Tigers and Pershings and IS-2's after they got used to all the world of tanks crap where Tigers 1 & 2 and all the IS models are flooding the battlefields.
22 Aug 2014, 01:50 AM
#3
avatar of Napalm

Posts: 1595 | Subs: 2

Unfortunately this title has gone too far down the path to turn back. It started to fall apart after the Tiger Ace and has since gotten worse. Just going to have to live with it sadly.
22 Aug 2014, 01:59 AM
#4
avatar of Omega_Warrior

Posts: 2561

Things will probably be a bit better once the call-in system gets fixed.

Other then that the real problem isn't the number of heavy tanks themselves, but the fact that using heavy tanks is simply better and easier in most cases then using a resource equivalent of medium tanks.

I think this is mostly because if heavy tanks take a lot of damage but survive then it costs them 0 resources to repair and then can easily invest sooner in another heavy, but if a player using mediums gets in trouble they are more likely to lose atleast one tank and will never really be able to catch back up with the player using heavies. I think the game would really benefit by adding some sort of cost to repairs.
22 Aug 2014, 02:02 AM
#5
avatar of ThoseDeafMutes

Posts: 1026

They are unlocked too early / without teching and the pop cap not being tied to territory means you can realistically field multiple heavy tanks while the rest of your army is in tact and you're pinned in your base.
22 Aug 2014, 02:22 AM
#6
avatar of Napalm

Posts: 1595 | Subs: 2

Things will probably be a bit better once the call-in system gets fixed.



Will it though? The OKW has access to a Super Heavy that is non-doctrinal. In a 3v3 situation my clan has it down to 14 minutes on the field. In a 4v4 it's down to 12 minutes on the field. I suppose everything has got to be in steps though.
22 Aug 2014, 02:22 AM
#7
avatar of ASneakyFox

Posts: 365

Things will probably be a bit better once the call-in system gets fixed.


what issue to the call in system are you referring to?
22 Aug 2014, 02:33 AM
#8
avatar of Omega_Warrior

Posts: 2561



what issue to the call in system are you referring to?
Relic has stated that there are problems with the call-ins, but hasn't really specified. It's pretty likely to assume they are talking about not needing to tech to bring in call-ins since this often allows players to save around 90 fuel or so in tech costs against players who rely on normal tech vehicles. This often allows players to quickly follow up their heavy call-ins with another rather quickly so tieing tech to call ins would reduce the time in which the second call in would come in for players completely relying on call-ins.
22 Aug 2014, 02:37 AM
#9
avatar of Omega_Warrior

Posts: 2561

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Aug 2014, 02:22 AMNapalm


Will it though? The OKW has access to a Super Heavy that is non-doctrinal. In a 3v3 situation my clan has it down to 14 minutes on the field. In a 4v4 it's down to 12 minutes on the field. I suppose everything has got to be in steps though.
I didn't say it would fix everything, just that it would make things better. Hence my repair cost suggestion.
22 Aug 2014, 04:41 AM
#10
avatar of NinjaWJ

Posts: 2070

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Aug 2014, 02:22 AMNapalm


Will it though? The OKW has access to a Super Heavy that is non-doctrinal. In a 3v3 situation my clan has it down to 14 minutes on the field. In a 4v4 it's down to 12 minutes on the field. I suppose everything has got to be in steps though.
yeah that is freakin annoying
22 Aug 2014, 17:39 PM
#11
avatar of iDolize

Posts: 81

Heavy tanks are what make this game interesting and fun to play.

I saw that video, Soviet player failed to kill a tiger with 2 SU-85's and a zis...

Looks like a L2P problem to me.

In most 1v1's your trying to negate your opponent from acquiring the resources and time to produce heavy vehicles, capture fuel points/ harass early etc...
22 Aug 2014, 18:26 PM
#12
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17889 | Subs: 8

Ok, a wild idea that spawned in my head.

Decrease FUEL cost of heavy tanks by 30-40%
Increase MENPOWER cost of heavy tanks by 40-50%.

How would that work in practice?
Play a game with Soviet Industry doctrine and find out yourself trying to get KV-2.
22 Aug 2014, 18:39 PM
#13
avatar of wooof

Posts: 950 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Aug 2014, 18:26 PMKatitof
Ok, a wild idea that spawned in my head.

Decrease FUEL cost of heavy tanks by 30-40%
Increase MENPOWER cost of heavy tanks by 40-50%.

How would that work in practice?
Play a game with Soviet Industry doctrine and find out yourself trying to get KV-2.


are you actually suggesting that as a fix? people already complain about people being able to make comebacks with heavy tanks. how do you think that would work if the limiting resource was manpower (which your opponent cannot cutoff) instead of fuel?
22 Aug 2014, 18:41 PM
#14
avatar of NinjaWJ

Posts: 2070

I dont have soviet industry :(
22 Aug 2014, 18:50 PM
#15
avatar of ASneakyFox

Posts: 365

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Aug 2014, 17:39 PMiDolize
Heavy tanks are what make this game interesting and fun to play.

I saw that video, Soviet player failed to kill a tiger with 2 SU-85's and a zis...

Looks like a L2P problem to me.

In most 1v1's your trying to negate your opponent from acquiring the resources and time to produce heavy vehicles, capture fuel points/ harass early etc...


neither players really did the best job of microing their tanks.. i wasnt suggesting that there was a balance issue with tanks. just that the game meta favors spam heavy tanks. And going all in on heavy tanks makes for boring games. Poor tank micro if anything probably stems from the common tactic to favor heavy tanks which are not micro intensive.

The soviet player actually showed a great amount of resourcefulness considering he took out 3 tigers with mostly medium tanks and infantry. He did make mistakes against the tigers, though keep in mind his mistakes were mainly only evident because we got to see the game with fog of war turned off.

How exactly do you mean by building an army of heavy tanks makes things "interesting"?
22 Aug 2014, 19:03 PM
#16
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17889 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Aug 2014, 18:39 PMwooof


are you actually suggesting that as a fix? people already complain about people being able to make comebacks with heavy tanks. how do you think that would work if the limiting resource was manpower (which your opponent cannot cutoff) instead of fuel?


1) Encourages use of tier armor as you are not fuel starved.

2) Paying 1000-1200mp for IS or Tiger makes you think twice if you really want to get it over stock armor or even afford yourself that mp float. It would help seal the deal, not make a comeback.

3) If you are pushed back there is rather low chance that you can float this much menpower to make a comeback relying on heavy tank.

Its not like its a random idea that came to me when I had a shower, I was thinking about it and its implications for couple of days already and truth be told, there isn't anything better I can come up with.

Why?

Because even if you tie call-ins to tier buildings, people will just get tier building and forget about it, spamming call-ins. This will solve absolutely nothing, all it will make is increase first call-in arrival(because tiering gives hefty CP amount) and stall 2nd one by a 3-5 minutes.

This way you not only allow most precious resource-fuel to be distributed into tier armor, but also offer new econmy dynamic for call-ins, focusing them more heavily on menpower, which is on constant expenditure to support your infantry reinforcement already.

See the big picture now?
22 Aug 2014, 19:08 PM
#17
avatar of austerlitz

Posts: 1705

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Aug 2014, 19:03 PMKatitof


1) Encourages use of tier armor as you are not fuel starved.

2) Paying 1000-1200mp for IS or Tiger makes you think twice if you really want to get it over stock armor or even afford yourself that mp float. It would help seal the deal, not make a comeback.

3) If you are pushed back there is rather low chance that you can float this much menpower to make a comeback relying on heavy tank.

Its not like its a random idea that came to me when I had a shower, I was thinking about it and its implications for couple of days already and truth be told, there isn't anything better I can come up with.

Why?

Because even if you tie call-ins to tier buildings, people will just get tier building and forget about it, spamming call-ins. This will solve absolutely nothing, all it will make is increase first call-in arrival(because tiering gives hefty CP amount) and stall 2nd one by a 3-5 minutes.

This way you not only allow most precious resource-fuel to be distributed into tier armor, but also offer new econmy dynamic for call-ins, focusing them more heavily on menpower, which is on constant expenditure to support your infantry reinforcement already.

See the big picture now?


Incredibly,i find the proposition rather intriguing.1100 mp for a heavy tank plus 160 odd fuel would bite bad.
22 Aug 2014, 19:10 PM
#18
avatar of Romeo
Honorary Member Badge
Benefactor 115

Posts: 1970 | Subs: 5

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Aug 2014, 18:39 PMwooof
are you actually suggesting that as a fix? people already complain about people being able to make comebacks with heavy tanks. how do you think that would work if the limiting resource was manpower (which your opponent cannot cutoff) instead of fuel?


Like the tiger ace, which everybody knows is totally balanced.
22 Aug 2014, 19:23 PM
#19
avatar of Albus

Posts: 125

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Aug 2014, 19:03 PMKatitof


1) Encourages use of tier armor as you are not fuel starved.

2) Paying 1000-1200mp for IS or Tiger makes you think twice if you really want to get it over stock armor or even afford yourself that mp float. It would help seal the deal, not make a comeback.

3) If you are pushed back there is rather low chance that you can float this much menpower to make a comeback relying on heavy tank.


1) Don't understand what you mean by this point. If you mean what I think you mean ("Tech tanks are too expensive because I'm too busy spending all my fuel on doctrinals") then it's a weird point to make. Whereas you're not going to be fuel starved, you're not going to have any manpower either because you're going to be saving it for the ridiculously priced heavy tanks.

There's also a very good reason heavy tanks don't cost as much manpower as that and that's because Relic actually wants players to be able to use heavy tanks without completely fucking over their ability to maintain their infantry core.

2) Well sure. Making them extremely in-affordable would indeed force you to think twice to get them; I don't think the intention of the balance team is to make heavy tanks completely unattainable without flat out sacrificing your infantry. If that was the route Relic would use to make non-doctrinals more attractive than doctrinals then they may aswell take out doctrinals all together because there would be absolutely no point in getting them.

Like Wooof said, it would actually be far more rewarding to wait for heavies if you were losing as opposed to winning: The losing player could just sit in his base for a few minutes (defending maybe the closest points to himself at minimal infantry MP drain) before popping one out. Currently, this is what you're faced with when you're confronted with the Tiger Ace.

3)Eh. No. I've played enough Tiger Ace games to know that you need very minimal manpower when you've got an all-in-one-tank clearing the field for you.
22 Aug 2014, 19:35 PM
#20
avatar of wooof

Posts: 950 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Aug 2014, 19:03 PMKatitof


1) Encourages use of tier armor as you are not fuel starved.


or just encourages floating mp. right now people spam fuel caches to get heavy tanks. with your system, they no longer need fuel caches and just turn that mp into tanks.


2) Paying 1000-1200mp for IS or Tiger makes you think twice if you really want to get it over stock armor or even afford yourself that mp float. It would help seal the deal, not make a comeback.


first of all, thats closer to a 100% increase in mp. considering 1 fuel = 5 mp, your heavy tanks would now cost like 100-120 fuel. otherwise your suggestion is basically making heavy tanks very overpriced in order to nerf them. that makes them similar in fuel cost to cheap medium tanks. youre not exactly promoting medium tanks as much as placing heavies out of reach in close games.


3) If you are pushed back there is rather low chance that you can float this much menpower to make a comeback relying on heavy tank.


romeo beat me to it, but, tiger ace begs to differ.


Because even if you tie call-ins to tier buildings, people will just get tier building and forget about it, spamming call-ins. This will solve absolutely nothing, all it will make is increase first call-in arrival(because tiering gives hefty CP amount) and stall 2nd one by a 3-5 minutes.


which is why i think they should be tied to call ins AND have a cp increase.


jump backJump back to quoted post22 Aug 2014, 19:10 PMRomeo


Like the tiger ace, which everybody knows is totally balanced.


which atleast has a huge impact on your economy and isnt significantly better than a vet 3 tiger after all its nerfs.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

506 users are online: 2 members and 504 guests
Spielführer, Makros
10 posts in the last 24h
31 posts in the last week
144 posts in the last month
Registered members: 45040
Welcome our newest member, jacantonh81
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM