Login

russian armor

Heavy call-ins, a much debated subject. Possible solution

15 Dec 2014, 15:08 PM
#41
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17891 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Dec 2014, 12:49 PMkamk
Question is: how would you limit stuff like E8s, KV1s, etc.?

And why would they need any limiting?
Its either medium tanks or pea shooting damage sponges, not one tank armies obliterating armor and infantry alike while shrugging off AT shots.

Mediums never were a problem, heavies and super heavies always were since the day relic have decided to not limit them to 1 on field at the time.

That limitation alone encourages use of stock armor, because what else will you do with all the fuel sitting there?
15 Dec 2014, 15:09 PM
#42
avatar of KyleAkira

Posts: 410

I stopped reading after only being able to use 2 t34/85s, why should I be only limited to 2 medium tanks? This idea is awful.


We are talking about Limiting Heavy tanks. T34/85 is not a heavy so you can build as many as you can.
15 Dec 2014, 15:15 PM
#43
avatar of JohnnyB

Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1



I cant imagine (my thinking is probably to slow) how this is gonna solve anything. Can someone plz explain? :)

Overall I dont think that ops idea is the best one. If I go t3 as soviet just one Tiger is enough to win the game 8 out of 10. This forces me to go with my own call-ins. I hate call-ins and really like the T-70 and the Su-85. For me this matter is about not being forced to go call-ins.



Forgive me, but I can't see why. You will still have your heavy options (85s, IS2, ISU) and, if not, you will have your T3 T34s together with some ZIS guns, mines.... while your opponent won't afford to soon to have Tiger AND some other tanks... Quantity allways beats quality, right?
15 Dec 2014, 15:28 PM
#44
avatar of kamk
Donator 11

Posts: 764

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Dec 2014, 15:08 PMKatitof

And why would they need any limiting?...

Should have phrased it better, because that was my actual question. I'm not sure if those other callins need limitation or not. T34/85 & E8 in particular can be quite nasty, not as much as the big 6 of course.

I would like to see stock armor getting used more as well.
I think(!) if there's more mediums around, we might actually see some T34s again,... or SU76, Stug, and so on. Basic AT options also become more viable, including the USF AT. It also might switch the overall late game meta away from "get ze heavy tanks111!!!".
And ammo heavy builds might also become more viable again.

(just some thoughts)
15 Dec 2014, 15:39 PM
#45
avatar of Cadoc

Posts: 62

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Dec 2014, 15:28 PMkamk

I think(!) if there's more mediums around, we might actually see some T34s again,... or SU76, Stug, and so on.
(just some thoughts)


I doubt you'd see more T34-76, since it's not a very good tank, and gets hard countered by shreck blobs. We'd definitely see more SU85, though.
15 Dec 2014, 15:42 PM
#46
avatar of kamk
Donator 11

Posts: 764

As discussed in other topics: nerf long range on Schrecks, so one can kite properly, buff the Raketen, and kinda rethink PGrens slightly. OKW players might also think about getting some JP again.
The Schreckblob is another issue anyways, even with current heavy tank meta.

Just some "idea".
15 Dec 2014, 16:57 PM
#47
avatar of Ducati
Benefactor 115

Posts: 164

What if:

All vehicle call ins are one shot deals (like the tiger ace) unless you've teched?
15 Dec 2014, 17:22 PM
#48
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

If this was vcoh2: yeah sure.

Since this is coh2-WFA: theres need more tweak and stock/tech units being a bit more reliable (this applies to SU/OH). This comes from the fact that WFA are designed to WORK with just stock units, specially compared to Soviets.
15 Dec 2014, 18:06 PM
#49
avatar of Volsky

Posts: 344

I think heavies and things like the Panther should be prohibitively expensive. Yes yes, "then what's the point of getting a heavy?!" goes everyone. Well, their stats would be the same. It could come down to having the proper support to go with them. You can put all of your eggs in one basket, but you better have a good guard dog outside of the chicken coop.

Making heavies that much more expensive would also make mediums more viable and common, making core army strategies viable. This would also allow the Soviets and Americans to survive and perform well in 1v1 through 4v4 gamemodes. The Ostheer might have some issues as they don't have a LELrange TD (unless the StuG gets some much needed luvnesting), but the PaK 40 should be able to do the job--I like my ATGs, so maybe that's just me, but jussayin.

On top of everything, pull the population of all of the mediums and lighter vehicles down to vCoH standards (4 pop StuGs ftw), but leave the heavies (excluding the Panther) as-is. Again, you could get appreciable groups of mediums together, and the roving packs of them might be more of a threat than they are now.

This change would also make Riflemen and Conscripts useful and survivable in the late game as they can have respectable infantry support from their mediums without the fear of facing 2+ Tigers from every enemy player because 'muh 4v4'. Cons would have their utility (and Con repairs would be 'super neat-o' again), and Riflemen with Bazookas would be semi-threatening to Panzer IVs.

Would OKW suffer? Possibly, for those unwilling to adapt. Congrats, OKW is now the true PE of CoH2 (specialized units, but no versatile mediums makes combined arms a MUST), as the KT would be even harder to get. Buff the 'Poopchen' by lowering the ready_aim_time (or increasing that of its contemporaries) and we're golden.

Obers would need looking at, methinks. Why not give them slightly improved STGs and tone the LMG34 back to slightly-better-than-the-LMG42-standards. The infrared scope upgrade would make a little more sense then as it could be a scope mounting package for the STGs, making them even better at most ranges while removing the long range advantage given by the LMG.
15 Dec 2014, 18:16 PM
#50
avatar of NinjaWJ

Posts: 2070

this idea might have to be rethought due to the Soviets reliance on call-ins. Their stock units are not very good, so the faction relies on call-ins to be effective. Limiting call-ins to one would be a buff to Axis factions. The Axis factions have a lot better stock options (you can win games without choosing commanders). Limiting call-ins would be okay if Soviet stock units got a buff
15 Dec 2014, 18:32 PM
#51
avatar of WingZero

Posts: 1484

I agree that the heavy tanks needs to be limited to ONE as it was in vCoh, it would really enhance the game in terms of fun factor (through medium armor tactics). Also, Stugs would need to be on a dedicated TD level if we want to limit Osth Tiger to one. Lastly, Soviets will be the hardest hit for Call in reform, but Relic could def make IS2 and T34-85s a stock unit. OKW will be fine as they only have Command Panther, P4s and Jagd. I doubt Relic would be able to solve this issue tho, this would mean overhauling the entire game!
16 Dec 2014, 01:09 AM
#52
avatar of wongtp

Posts: 647

i dont see the problem here really. getting multiple is2 is nothing, panthers match them so no biggie. multiple tigers? meh, we have jacksons so its good. soviet dedicated AT could use a slight penetration buff but meh, its still bearable.

the problematic ones are KT which is non doctrinal and JT. these 2 are rarely called in pairs and are a 1 man army by themselves because of that 400/500++++ frontal armour and insane gun/range.

im not sure why t34/85, ez8 and kv1 are even being talked about. they are just regular medium tanks with abit more hp or more armour, cannot match heavies and require really strong risky flanks to be of any use. these tanks are much harder to use than they are to counter. schrecks eat them alive, AT guns limits their movement, whats so problematic about them?

a bigger problem would be discussing abt why soviets constantly needs call in infantry to fill up gaps in their rooster. conscripts cant make it past early game, penals are quite trashy without m3 combo.

every single soviet infantry gets smashed in long range and require really risky flanks or superior cover to match german infantry. only guards who can barely match everything except obers and gren lmg blob.
16 Dec 2014, 03:21 AM
#53
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2



I cant imagine (my thinking is probably to slow) how this is gonna solve anything. Can someone plz explain?


jump backJump back to quoted post15 Dec 2014, 15:15 PMJohnnyB


Forgive me, but I can't see why.


having tanks will hurt your fuel economy just like how having infantries hurt your man power economy. and heavy tanks would have higher fuel upkeep. a good suggestion from the past was 0-1 fu/min for light tanks/vehicles, 2-3 fu/min for medium, 6-7 fu/min for heavies, 8-10 fu/min for okw's super heavies.

this means having any vehicle would delay your next one, which means massing your tanks would take longer and even if you do, your fuel won't stockpile like crazy so you can just get an instant replacement once you lose them.

this would affect heavy tanks more and thus having more than 1 tiger/is2/isu/kt/jagd/ele would hurt your fuel econ so bad that it wouldn't be ideal.
16 Dec 2014, 04:01 AM
#54
avatar of JHeartless

Posts: 1637

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Dec 2014, 01:09 AMwongtp
i dont see the problem here really. getting multiple is2 is nothing, panthers match them so no biggie. multiple tigers? meh, we have jacksons so its good. soviet dedicated AT could use a slight penetration buff but meh, its still bearable.

the problematic ones are KT which is non doctrinal and JT. these 2 are rarely called in pairs and are a 1 man army by themselves because of that 400/500++++ frontal armour and insane gun/range.

im not sure why t34/85, ez8 and kv1 are even being talked about. they are just regular medium tanks with abit more hp or more armour, cannot match heavies and require really strong risky flanks to be of any use. these tanks are much harder to use than they are to counter. schrecks eat them alive, AT guns limits their movement, whats so problematic about them?

a bigger problem would be discussing abt why soviets constantly needs call in infantry to fill up gaps in their rooster. conscripts cant make it past early game, penals are quite trashy without m3 combo.

every single soviet infantry gets smashed in long range and require really risky flanks or superior cover to match german infantry. only guards who can barely match everything except obers and gren lmg blob.


I think the OP is also trying to solve the No tech to call in Meta not just Heavies. The stats of the T34/85 arent that much better then a P4. What makes it super awesome and Heavy Tank Esque is Mark Vehicle. But even then Paks can still hurt the hell out of them.

I see no problem with the Medium tank call ins but the Heavies are out of Whack because they counter their counters. A KT vs a Pair of ATGs is like a BAR Rifle blob vs HMGs. It counters what is supposed to counter it...
16 Dec 2014, 09:28 AM
#55
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3600 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Dec 2014, 03:21 AMpigsoup



having tanks will hurt your fuel economy just like how having infantries hurt your man power economy. and heavy tanks would have higher fuel upkeep. a good suggestion from the past was 0-1 fu/min for light tanks/vehicles, 2-3 fu/min for medium, 6-7 fu/min for heavies, 8-10 fu/min for okw's super heavies.

this means having any vehicle would delay your next one, which means massing your tanks would take longer and even if you do, your fuel won't stockpile like crazy so you can just get an instant replacement once you lose them.

this would affect heavy tanks more and thus having more than 1 tiger/is2/isu/kt/jagd/ele would hurt your fuel econ so bad that it wouldn't be ideal.


It can also completely enforce people to play only infantry until heavy of super heavy hit the field. It is already something happening today, you know blobbs into call-ins meta.

So yes, maybe it would limit heavies or super heavies by 1 per player (not sure of that). But it would not solve the underlying issue: Why do people wait for heavy instead of going stock units.
So in fact, if you make sure people are spending a reasonable amount of fuel early and mid game to stay on the field, heavy and super heavy will be naturally limited.

So by ensuring people cannot reasonably stay on a game with only infantry spam until heavies are available, you make a natural limitation of heavies.
This plus territory popcap like in vCoh.
if relic wants to limit heavy spam, they need to redesign the fundamental of the game, limiting comeback situations from a game mechanism perspective. So make the game harder to learn, less casual friendly, the opposite of their strategy since OF.

Another option, and I assume Relic is looking into it is to specialize heavies and super heavies like they did with USI/Jag.
Why a Tiger should be a treat for infantry, why is it capable of wiping with 1 shot many different infantry squads? Same for IS2 or any other Heavy/Super Heavy. There is here again a design flaw, making ultra late units super effective vs anything at any ranges.
Those units should be really dedicated with strength a weakness, And I'm not only talking about rear armor. A Heavy tank shouldn't be a treat for infantry squads, it should be the opposite. Each of them could have, like the Jag a close blind area where they couldn't fire with their main gun (at least on infantry), only rely on their MGs if available. So you had more micro and make having 2 heavy, instead of 1 heavy + medium support units, less efficient.

I mean, there are so much ideas possible to balance it, so much to do with the design before looking into any kind of limitation...
16 Dec 2014, 10:26 AM
#56
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Dec 2014, 09:28 AMEsxile


1. It can also completely enforce people to play only infantry until heavy of super heavy hit the field. It is already something happening today, you know blobbs into call-ins meta.

2. So yes, maybe it would limit heavies or super heavies by 1 per player (not sure of that).

3. But it would not solve the underlying issue: Why do people wait for heavy instead of going stock units. So in fact, if you make sure people are spending a reasonable amount of fuel early and mid game to stay on the field, heavy and super heavy will be naturally limited.

...


1. that is because tiger/is2 >>> pz4/t34. and the tech cost

2. it would discourage having more than 1 heavy, which is the point, not strictly limit.

3. fuel upkeep indirectly nerfs heavies by making it harder to replace due to penalties. this which in turn becomes indirect buffs for the stock medium tanks which has lighter load on the economy, therefore easier to replace/spam.
16 Dec 2014, 10:59 AM
#57
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3600 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Dec 2014, 10:26 AMpigsoup


1. that is because tiger/is2 >>> pz4/t34. and the tech cost

2. it would discourage having more than 1 heavy, which is the point, not strictly limit.

3. fuel upkeep indirectly nerfs heavies by making it harder to replace due to penalties. this which in turn becomes indirect buffs for the stock medium tanks which has lighter load on the economy, therefore easier to replace/spam.


Let's take an example:

We have a game balanced in territory point of view.

Player A decides to spam infantry and so has 0 fuel cost. He is waiting for a call-in to take the edge
Player B has less infantry but has invested in light and med armor. he cannot make the difference because Player A infantry focus is too effective vs ligh and medium armor units.
Player A = 0 fuel upkeep. Player B = 5 fuel upkeep.

who's going to have the fuel advantage late game?
Player A with a infantry spam + Heavy tank that will rape anything on the field
Player B with less infantry, some light and medium tanks becoming useless and easy targets to the heavy. AND having to wait 5 minutes more to get his own heavy because the fuel upkeep left him behind in fuel.

To have 2 heavies on the field, you obviously need to skip light and med fuel units. And if you can do so, that's because the game doesn't reward enough med tanks users.
So make fuel units more attractive and obviously more effective and you'll solve your heavy spam problem. Nobody is going to spam heavies if he need to deploy fuel units before because it is unlikely he will have the fuel and popcap for that.
That's how was working vcoh before OF. At equal skill level, you had to build a medium tank/ tank hunter to counter other tanks. You couldn't really only rely on your Pershing/Tiger/Tiger Ace to win the game.
16 Dec 2014, 14:03 PM
#58
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Dec 2014, 10:59 AMEsxile


Let's take an example:

We have a game balanced in territory point of view.

Player A decides to spam infantry and so has 0 fuel cost. He is waiting for a call-in to take the edge
Player B has less infantry but has invested in light and med armor. he cannot make the difference because Player A infantry focus is too effective vs ligh and medium armor units.
Player A = 0 fuel upkeep. Player B = 5 fuel upkeep.

who's going to have the fuel advantage late game?
Player A with a infantry spam + Heavy tank that will rape anything on the field
Player B with less infantry, some light and medium tanks becoming useless and easy targets to the heavy. AND having to wait 5 minutes more to get his own heavy because the fuel upkeep left him behind in fuel.

To have 2 heavies on the field, you obviously need to skip light and med fuel units. And if you can do so, that's because the game doesn't reward enough med tanks users.
So make fuel units more attractive and obviously more effective and you'll solve your heavy spam problem. Nobody is going to spam heavies if he need to deploy fuel units before because it is unlikely he will have the fuel and popcap for that.
That's how was working vcoh before OF. At equal skill level, you had to build a medium tank/ tank hunter to counter other tanks. You couldn't really only rely on your Pershing/Tiger/Tiger Ace to win the game.


i'm sorry but all i can say to that scenario is:

inf+tank army >>> inf army in NON-PUDDLED map in the rotation.

so if the inf+tank army could not sustain enough damage to the inf army by straight up damage or taking the map, its the player's fault for not playing well and getting behind.

and having to wait only five more minute for a heavy for having more versatile force than your enemy's isn't too much of a penalty.
16 Dec 2014, 14:23 PM
#59
avatar of jackill2611

Posts: 246

What if add a unlack ability to HQ that have fuel or MP cost - even if you chose some commander you need to unlock its fuel units like tanks or MHC. So you will not spam callins cause you can buy t3/t4 for that fuel.
16 Dec 2014, 14:27 PM
#60
avatar of jackill2611

Posts: 246

Also its a benefit for those commanders which don't have mechanized callins (like howitzers/air support etc) cause you cand use it without fuel and have upper hand in the fight before enemy roll out heavies.
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

469 users are online: 469 guests
9 posts in the last 24h
37 posts in the last week
152 posts in the last month
Registered members: 45059
Welcome our newest member, mickreyt42
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM