Login

russian armor

Heavy Tank CP

13 Nov 2019, 22:53 PM
#21
avatar of Clarity

Posts: 245

I agree with Hon3ynuts that some of the heavies are balanced while others come too quickly. I would say the IS-2 should require all tech structures to be built before being able to be called in, and maybe a slight CP increase to slow it's timing down while still making it useful in team games. The Tiger should require Tier 4 to be built just like the Tiger Ace and the Pershing should require LT, Captain, and Major to all be teched.
13 Nov 2019, 23:06 PM
#22
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 3963



Since then we've actually received some info about that from veteran modder Sneakeye, so this might actually be possible to implement next patch (we haven't tried yet).
wait someone translated the spaghetti code ?
13 Nov 2019, 23:53 PM
#23
avatar of RoastinGhost

Posts: 275



I think it is not possible to make a unit buildable from a structure AND give it a CP requirement. Or else this would have happened longer time ago already


That would be very easy, actually.

In my opinion, their CP reqs shouldn't have been lowered by this much.
A more direct solution to the heavy tanks' timing issue in team games would be to increase the rate at which CPs are gained based on number of players. There's an existing, unused modifier that could do this very simply.
13 Nov 2019, 23:56 PM
#24
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 3212 | Subs: 1

Could do a heavy tank requisition in the top tier of all factions too. That way unlocking the heavy armour is more of an investment than just holding out after unlocking mediums. Easier to tune to each factions individual needs/timing as well that way
14 Nov 2019, 00:01 AM
#25
avatar of aerafield

Posts: 1938



That would be very easy, actually.



No I mean that I think it's simply not possible to implement it cuz the tools dont allow it. But not sure
14 Nov 2019, 00:06 AM
#26
avatar of RoastinGhost

Posts: 275



No I mean that I think it's simply not possible to implement it cuz the tools dont allow it. But not sure


Right; I'm very familiar with the mod tools and can say confidently that you can put a CP requirement on a unit that is built from a base structure.
14 Nov 2019, 00:18 AM
#27
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 3212 | Subs: 1



I think it is not possible to make a unit buildable from a structure AND give it a CP requirement. Or else this would have happened longer time ago already


I've played mods that are like this and tbh I think this is the best route. You incorporate all possible ways to tune timing into 1. You have build time (no more insta replace if floating enough resources) no more mid tier stall and no having to worry about it coming too soon/late based on cp alone. It's the most work -to set up, but after that adjustments would be easier to find the optimal balance point
14 Nov 2019, 03:48 AM
#28
avatar of Farlion

Posts: 187

Heavy timings are fine as they are.
14 Nov 2019, 03:54 AM
#29
avatar of CODGUY

Posts: 573

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Nov 2019, 03:48 AMFarlion
Heavy timings are fine as they are.


Yes they are.
14 Nov 2019, 05:54 AM
#30
avatar of mrgame2

Posts: 672

Actually heavy tanks are not that OP to worry too much about delaying timings. At least for axis ones, imo, are strongly hard countered nowadays. Sov and Ukf heavy armorhp still poses problem for Wehr especially. Delaying is more bad for allies than axis.

That said, the purpose of delaying is for?

Should we make a game progress through phases in proper order (longer game, promote use of units)

Or

Allow players to skip and chose (shorter game more flexibility)


I think in 1v1, most players will hold out for heavy, i mean infantry and AT guns are more than enough to deal with limited med tanks, and tanks cant cap points, most tanks. Heavy can do AI and AT, so they maybe cheaper effectively with single micro

I guess objective is promote more unit variety.

In this case, perhaps teching and base building can be cheaper but bases can be destroyed easier, to encourage base dives and base arty.

Perhaps we should cap tank range to 60, to compress their effectiveness and open up maps mobility for tanks. Now tanks die in less than 10 sec if you got into bad spot and busy microing another battle. So heavy with more hp is preferred first
14 Nov 2019, 09:00 AM
#31
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 1953 | Subs: 3

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Nov 2019, 21:35 PMLago
What do you think is the latest viable timing for the current iteration of heavy tanks?


Personally I actually think the current timings are fine, with some minor tweaks needed (like a slight cost increase for the IS-2, a manpower increase for the Pershing as it's only 600mp currently and perhaps some extra fuel too, and perhaps Ostheer Tiger to T4 and give the Ace a cost increase to Tiger II levels). One other solution could be to delay their peak performance slightly by moving some of their performance (like reload) from vet 0 to vet 2 or vet 3, giving the opponent a bit more time to get out counters, while keeping most of the shock value and easier army composition fitting at 9 CPs.


Heavies can indeed come early, but it's usually kind of evident that the enemy is getting one and/or the result of a one-sided match. Now there is finally a reliable way again (looking back at vCoH) to end a dominating match early (see Noggano's 16 minute Pershing versus HelpingHans in a match where he had 35-50 fuel income for a majority of the time), because mediums are not incredibly reliable at overwhelming an opponent at that point due to how potent ATGs/snares/mines can be at fending them off.

I personally like how heavies are now viable across all gamemodes, and how they can serve a role again (bringing overwhelming power at a point where you got the opponent cornered). Mediums still have a role in shock value (a ~11-12 minute medium can sometimes be more devastating than a 16 minute heavy, see VonIvan's 11 minute Sherman vs PFC) and they can still be used en masse to great effect on certain maps (like General Mud). And there is still always a good amount of risk involved by putting all faith into a single unit.


So personally I would opt for some small tweaks to performance and timing (cost), rather than pushing their CPs up again and potentially making them come too late in teamgames again.
14 Nov 2019, 11:40 AM
#32
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 6376 | Subs: 1


...
Heavies can indeed come early, but it's usually kind of evident that the enemy is getting one and/or the result of a one-sided match...


That would make sense if all faction had access to super heavies stock for a similar price.

The current timing makes Super heavies commander much more attractive and narrows meta. Making certain commander stronger (in this case Super heavy commanders) than others is actual a bad direction. One would have have to replace all other commander abilities to weak abilities and even then it might not be enough.

In addition having units that "seal the deal" would only make sense if all faction have equal power at all stages of the game. Else some factions would be allot better at "snowballing" the enemy.
14 Nov 2019, 13:05 PM
#33
avatar of DerbyHat

Posts: 1026 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Nov 2019, 11:40 AMVipper
In addition having units that "seal the deal" would only make sense if all faction have equal power at all stages of the game. Else some factions would be allot better at "snowballing" the enemy.


+1

I think heavies should be 10 CP + buildtime at least, just so getting a medium before a heavy becomes more advisable. Heavy rushes make matches feel like they're on fast forward and certain factions struggle with that if they're played the traditional way.
14 Nov 2019, 13:37 PM
#34
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 1953 | Subs: 3

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Nov 2019, 11:40 AMVipper
That would make sense if all faction had access to super heavies stock for a similar price.


All factions have stock tank destroyers available that can hold back heavies quite decently for a much lower cost. I think getting medium tanks while the opponent is (usually quite obviously) saving up for a heavy tank is more strategic mismanagement than it is a balance issue (for example VonIvan vs Luvnext G3 of the WCS).
14 Nov 2019, 14:14 PM
#35
avatar of Lago

Posts: 2718

All factions have stock tank destroyers available that can hold back heavies quite decently for a much lower cost. I think getting medium tanks while the opponent is (usually quite obviously) saving up for a heavy tank is more strategic mismanagement than it is a balance issue (for example VonIvan vs Luvnext G3 of the WCS).


I'm starting to think the KT's model is the best one: make it powerful, but it has a significant additional teching cost so it's not in direct competition with the medium units. The Luchs didn't stack up well against the Pz4 when they shared a tier, and the T-70's a hard sell when you can buy at T-34 for not much more.

You could make heavies CP0, but they require you to tech all your buildings. That'd work well for USF, OKW and OST (where that usually means about 250-300 MP and about 50ish FU) and UKF already does this (200 MP 50 FU for Hamvil).

That'd create a lot of breathing room for medium armour without artificially delaying heavies to the teamgame unviable CP 13.

Soviet is the awkward puppy: the IS-2 is the tank that needs delaying the most (375 armour renders the StuG ineffective, forcing the Panther) but the Soviet tech structure doesn't support it. They might need a bespoke doctrinal sidetech of 200 MP and 50 FU.
14 Nov 2019, 15:39 PM
#36
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 6376 | Subs: 1



All factions have stock tank destroyers available that can hold back heavies quite decently for a much lower cost.

That would make sense if all faction had the same AI infatry or the same cost efficiency in TDs. They do not, thus super heavy meta creates further imbalances.


I think getting medium tanks while the opponent is (usually quite obviously) saving up for a heavy tank is more strategic mismanagement than it is a balance issue (for example VonIvan vs Luvnext G3 of the WCS).

That simply decreases diversity further, for instance USF premium tanks have been buffed thru the roof and still see little action because their window of opportunity is small.

Faction can be perfectly balanced when using certain commanders but that does not make them balanced...

14 Nov 2019, 16:16 PM
#37
avatar of Lago

Posts: 2718

I'm inclined to agree with Vipper here: medium armour is the top of the nondoc roster and has a huge diversity of vehicles.

Heavy tanks coming out later allows a buildup of medium vehicles that stops heavies dominating the way medium armour dominates light armour.

I think it's better heavies stand on the quality of the unit rather than shock timing.
14 Nov 2019, 16:57 PM
#38
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 1953 | Subs: 3

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Nov 2019, 15:39 PMVipper
That would make sense if all faction had the same AI infatry or the same cost efficiency in TDs. They do not, thus super heavy meta creates further imbalances.

Every faction has an affordable tank destroyer that is (much) cheaper than an opponents heavy tank. Only Ostheer has a bit of an awkward time transitioning into T4 for a Panther because of extra costs and research/build times (but that is a problem with Ostheer tech, not with heavies). Even if some factions have an easier time getting these counters out, none of them are too far behind. And if the opponent is so far ahead in resources that they can get a heavy out before a counter can be produced, I don't see much of a difference with getting swarmed by 2-3 mediums instead (beyond a heavy being a bit more reliable at closing the game fast).


jump backJump back to quoted post14 Nov 2019, 15:39 PMVipper
That simply decreases diversity further, for instance USF premium tanks have been buffed thru the roof and still see little action because their window of opportunity is small

USF premium mediums see little use because they are overshadowed by the (cost) effectiveness of the HE Sherman and the Jackson, as none of them offer anything significant over these two, and using them comes down to player preference. That has always been the case and has nothing to do with heavy tanks.
14 Nov 2019, 17:04 PM
#39
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 6376 | Subs: 1

Every faction has an affordable tank destroyer that is (much) cheaper than an opponents heavy tank. Only Ostheer has a bit of an awkward time transitioning into T4 for a Panther because of extra costs and research/build times. Even if some factions have an easier time getting these counters out, none of them is too far behind. And if the opponent is so far ahead in resources that they can get a heavy out before a counter can be produced, I don't see much of a difference with getting swarmed by 2-3 mediums instead (beyond a heavy being a bit more reliable at closing the game fast).

Let me try to explain this one more time. TD access would make sense if infatry fight where equal, they are not and some faction can pull infatry/TD combos allot easier than others. Thus the Super heavy meta is easier to be countered with stock units by some factions than others.




USF premium mediums see little use because they are overshadowed by the (cost) effectiveness of the HE Sherman and the Jackson, as none of them offer anything significant over these two, and using them comes down to player preference. That has always been the case and has nothing to do with heavy tanks.


It has allot to do with Super heavies since heavy cavalry see allot of action and Pershing/M36 is a very powerful combo.

In addition it has allot to do with the fact that USF premium are cost efficient vs Tigers/KT...
14 Nov 2019, 18:35 PM
#40
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 6307 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Nov 2019, 16:57 PMSander93
And there is still always a good amount of risk involved by putting all faith into a single unit...

I don't see much of a difference with getting swarmed by 2-3 mediums instead (beyond a heavy being a bit more reliable at closing the game fast).


TBH, i'm surprised by this response.

You can't magically pop out (double T3485s are no longer a thing) 2-3 mediums at the same time. They require more micro and allow the player on the backfoot plenty of opportunities to recover. The tools required to deal with a medium are completely different than the ones required to deal with a heavy tank.

And even if you found yourself fighting against several mediums with a lower amount of AT units, the defending player can still manage to kill one or 2 if he plays his card right.

Stalling for the 17/20 min heavy tank is not the risk option, it's the safe choice at the moment. Getting the medium and allowing the opponent the opportunity to kill it is the risk.


If the desirable outcome is allowing players to finish games reliable when ahead, i don't think that goes in favour of the design of the game. I think that has to be done by VP countdown.

This is more so for a CoH3


Performance and cost on heavies are fine IMO. I'm not saying to push them as back as before (13 CP) but a middle ground and/or having a construction time would go a long way.
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
  • Oberkommando West flag N1cko
  • Oberkommando West flag Scotch1
  • Soviets flag Frosty
  • Soviets flag Beatricks Swire
uploaded by Frost

Board Info

151 users are online: 6 members and 145 guests
Jinseual, SturmTigerGaddafi, Hubkaaq20, mrgame2, SkysTheLimit, Vykraznar
194 posts in the last 24h
1008 posts in the last week
5593 posts in the last month
Registered members: 68157
Welcome our newest member, Hubkaaq20
Most online: 918 users on 27 Oct 2019, 01:03 AM