Login

russian armor

Suggestion: Attach Call-ins to Buildings/Tier again.

PAGES (7)down
12 Aug 2014, 01:54 AM
#81
avatar of OZtheWiZARD

Posts: 1439

I don't think they have to be cheaper. Right now you don't pay extra because a unit is a call in.
12 Aug 2014, 07:47 AM
#82
avatar of Cannonade

Posts: 752


I am not sure if you realize that in order to attach call-in units to buildings(especially expensive super heavies), the cost of unit will have to be reduced to make them viable option. to offset cost of tech.


Its actually the exact opposite, especially on Supers. Currently they are more cost efficient and powerful than T4 units. Infact since the tier requirement would be shared by factions, there wouldnt be any need for cost adjustment on them at all. Making Supers cheaper, as ypu suggest, completely negates the point and purpose of the proposed change.

Your view that Supers would need to be made cheaper, sort of indicates you didnt understand the actual point, as its sort of exactly the opposite of what this is all about.

Im not sure you if you realize the actual point of the proposal.
Its been detailed and discussed quite comprehensively in the thead.

I recommend taking some time to read it in its entirety to help understand the possible results.

At the same time any subsequent super tanks would be cheaper and therefore creating even larger balance issues.
I cannot see it work effectively without major rework of units, costs, balance testing, etc

Supers would not be made cheaper. Infact they would be more expensivento attain as relative to now.
So this is a non-issue as far as this suggestion goes.

Also I don't quite understand how 'having to tech to use specific unit' being only option is same as weighing up decision whether to tech-up or skip tech up and go for call-in and then tech up.

CoH2 is at this moment, to a large degree, basically "Company of Callins 2".

The cost efficiency and better performance of Callins has outstripped tier varieties and costs, because they completely bypass the tier structure and progression of factions. Superficially, this has created "variety", but that has come at the expense of reduced variety from and effectiveness of tier units and, very importantly, the almost complete marginalisation of non-callin Commanders.

You will still be able to skip tiers, or tier back, as per now. That doesnt change. However, yes, in order to callin the more powerful callins, you will need to tier first. But this is not a problem, because that threshold will also be shared by your opponent inorder for them also to get their more powerful callins into the game. So the status quo remains the same.


To me there is massive tactical and strategic difference between 2 setups

There is a difference, but not as big a one as you might think.
Primarily the magnitude of that depends on which callins are tied to tiers.
So far poll and posts indicate a very strong preference for atleast some tier tying.

Personally, Id start with tying Supers, and work down from there later on.

Because they are situated at the "end" of the tier structure and game progression, they have less effect on early-mid, than would for example tying infantry/light vehicles, which would have effect for the entirety of the match and a much wider balance. Also, the Supers have a completely disproportiinate stat improvement over most other callins. Finally, their cost efficiency is through the roof, as compared to T4 builds atm. A T2 build, for example, that waits for CPs for a Super callin, saves HUGE amounts of resources in comparison, not to mention time saved on actually building the tiers with a unit committed to building, as well as having those resources available as liquid throughout that entire period.

We have gotten "used to" Company of Callins.

But what we have forgotten, is that that has basically killed T4, the core tech structure and progression of the game, and also inadvertently cut out non-callin Commanders.

Whatever loss in callin exploiting build diversity we would lose, is reconciled and compensated to us, by a better cost efficiency of tier builds and units in comparison to callins, meaning yes, callins are still better in stats, but are built ONTOP of the normal tier progressiin and unit variety, rather than completely replacing and circumventing it.

There is nothing, in princple, wrong with requiring a tier before a callin. The game is at its core built around tiering.
Callins are supposed to be an additional optional variety around and ontop of tier structure, not a constant means to entirelynsidestep and circumvent this core game mechanic.

And very importantly, it would make non-callin Commanders more viable, because they can finally compete with callin specialisation, with normal core tier units, while making use of their non-callin Commander abilities.

TLDR: Callins have become the meta, and have completely circumvented and made redundant the core tech/tier progression that is such a large core part of the game, and also which defines the factions. They are much more cost efficient AND stat superior to tier units, which has resulted in them REPLACING tiering, rather than adding variety to what is available through tiering. Finally, due to the above, non-callin Commanders have been marginalised, because though their abilities are an awesome source of diversity and options, they simply cannot compete with their normal tier units, against the cost efficiency and performance of callin Commanders.
12 Aug 2014, 09:26 AM
#83
avatar of Bulgakov

Posts: 987





TLDR: Callins have become the meta, and have completely circumvented and made redundant the core tech/tier progression that is such a large core part of the game, and also which defines the factions. They are much more cost efficient AND stat superior to tier units, which has resulted in them REPLACING tiering, rather than adding variety to what is available through tiering. Finally, due to the above, non-callin Commanders have been marginalised, because though their abilities are an awesome source of diversity and options, they simply cannot compete with their normal tier units, against the cost efficiency and performance of callin Commanders.



I think there is another possible reason for people ignoring later tiers (although clearly they are able to do so because of late-game call-ins)

For Soviets it's this:
The Axis counters to loads of infantry / snipers = vehicles.
Soviets have a T2 counter to vehicles if they go T2 (AT gun) and a call-in counter to vehicles if they go T1 (guards)


This means that the hard counters to the STALL-TIL-ISU strategy become only soft counters. You just can't punish a 25-minute T2 strategy with tanks because they can field AT. If AT was at T3 (like amis in coh1), soviets would be forced to go T3. And if guards didn't have "button" (seriously, how could this affect a tank reversing? If you sit back and think about it...), then T1/T2 strats would be punishable with PIVs and pumas.

Unfortunately it's just not that punishable to spend 20 minutes with only T0-T1/T2 units.

TLDR
I think moving soviet AT to T3, increasing CP of mega-call-ins and removing button but increasing penetration of PTRS would massively change the meta, without tying call-ins to tiers.
12 Aug 2014, 10:34 AM
#84
avatar of Lichtbringer

Posts: 476

What should be the inherent advantages of Tierbuildings vs Callins?

I think right now:
-The 3th tank+ out of a Tierbuilding SHOULD be more costefficent, because the building "investment" payed off.
-Tiers SHOULD give you more variety. And Callins shouldn't be allrounders.


A problem with the Current Callin structure (without Tiers), is that IF they were correctly balanced and you DO build a Tier, Callins would become costinefficent.

People want to Skip Tiers, that should come with pros and cons.
12 Aug 2014, 14:40 PM
#85
avatar of wongtp

Posts: 647




I think there is another possible reason for people ignoring later tiers (although clearly they are able to do so because of late-game call-ins)

For Soviets it's this:
The Axis counters to loads of infantry / snipers = vehicles.
Soviets have a T2 counter to vehicles if they go T2 (AT gun) and a call-in counter to vehicles if they go T1 (guards)


This means that the hard counters to the STALL-TIL-ISU strategy become only soft counters. You just can't punish a 25-minute T2 strategy with tanks because they can field AT. If AT was at T3 (like amis in coh1), soviets would be forced to go T3. And if guards didn't have "button" (seriously, how could this affect a tank reversing? If you sit back and think about it...), then T1/T2 strats would be punishable with PIVs and pumas.

Unfortunately it's just not that punishable to spend 20 minutes with only T0-T1/T2 units.

TLDR
I think moving soviet AT to T3, increasing CP of mega-call-ins and removing button but increasing penetration of PTRS would massively change the meta, without tying call-ins to tiers.


this is insane, moving AT gun to t2 is nonsense. who will counter flak tracks and scout cars? guards? should guards then come with 4 dp28 and bazookas and shocks fire plasma rounds? conscripts upgradable with lmg34s and panzerschrecks after t2? or maxim squad using imperial guards' heavy bolters and vengeance rounds?

yes you can punish a heavy 25min t2 strategy, its also known as fast p4s/ostwinds/stukas/isg/infantry flanks/fallshirmjagers popping up from the rear/aggressive play. the same way soviets/us punish 25minute stall-for-jadgtiger/kingtigers/t2-tigerspam. by going fast t34/76 or shermans and wreck lines.
12 Aug 2014, 15:02 PM
#86
avatar of Cannonade

Posts: 752

Bulgakov, I respect your view, but it is Sov specific and exclusive in content and perspective, entirely.

The issue at hand is actually far wider, and ecompasses all factions, as does the suggestion.
13 Aug 2014, 08:31 AM
#87
avatar of BabaRoga

Posts: 829


text


I understood point of poll. I think you misunderstood what I said. For example, Soviets are designed completely different than Ostheer and depend largely on call-ins and choosing only 2 tier buildings t2 and t3 or t1 and t4, not all 4.
It would take massive redesign of units and costs to make attaching call-ins to tiers viable.
Needing 500 fuel to tier up and get IS2 for example makes it not viable unit nor strategy. Making other tanks means that game will be finished before you can pull one out and not making other tanks is just plain stupid as one cannot survive that long without armor.

Ostheer have well rounded default tier units, and attaching call-ins to tiers would work just fine as you suggested.

I understand what your issue with call-ins is and trust me, I have no love for call-in super heavies and ridiculous 'death from above' abilities that make unskilled player defeat well organized combined arms (if only for short time, still stupid IMO)

IMO I would leave call-ins as they are (CP unlockable), but as I said I would make super heavies more vulnerable vs standard tier units and come at much higher CP.

I think that way, there would be no loss to strategic and tactical diversity call-ins bring and same effect you desire. Without exposing Soviet poor default tier design (and some other factions)

I just cannot stand single tank taking fighting vs 2X AT guns, supported by tank destroyer and infantry. And wining. Thats not COH I like
I agree there definitely
13 Aug 2014, 10:27 AM
#88
avatar of Cannonade

Posts: 752

When I ended up with about 3 pages of text, I have to concede Ive arrived at the conclusion, that though many agree Tier Tying wouls be a good thing, in form or another, it is unfortunately no longer workable as a result of the choices Relic has made with this game.

Every solution I can think of results in three more problems, to the result it just quadratically escalates into complexities that become increasinfly harder to manage, and need more changes that make things unintuitive, unduly specific and just create more problems in turn.

If we where still in an Ost vs Sov situation, many of the solutions I considered for tier tying would have had more intuitive, direct and sustainable solutions. It could have been done in a relatively simple and sensible way.

But now that there are 4 factions, and those factions didnt consider tier tying at all into their design, rather resting on the current Company of Callins paradigm, its just far too complicated a suggestion to implement. There are many other design changes also that even though you might think they where small at the time, suddenly popup as a roadblock now, to the purpose of this proposal, which is to incentivise T4 core units, and noncallin Commanders.

Every possible option of tier tying I can consider, when you start to think about how actually and pragmaticallynto implement it, just spirals into a massive intermix of cost/efficiency problems and ultimately gets stonewalled by Relics design decisions, forcing unintuitive and complex solutions to "get around" them.

Its too late. It, in my perception now, just canmot be done anymore. Too much has been designed around a Company of Callins core, since when thisnkind of solution to returning T4 core unit validity, and hence non-callin Commander reliance on them as units to counter callin Commanders, by using their abilities+core units. Where callins where a diversity ONTOP of normal tiering, rather than a way of completely circumventing tier structure.

The idea "sounds" good on paper, but once you start to really bite into how to implement it, how to practically make it hapoen in simple, coherent and practical terms, the games design at this point is constantly there blocking you. Try it. Once you start to try to write a concise itemised list of changes to actually concretely make it happen, every entry you make, ends up in 3 more problems until finally the games design as it is now today says "no", and thats that.

Im sorry guys, I tried, gave it my best, but I failed.
13 Aug 2014, 10:37 AM
#89
avatar of Sarantini
Honorary Member Badge
Donator 22

Posts: 2181

slow down on the commas there
13 Aug 2014, 10:39 AM
#90
avatar of Cannonade

Posts: 752

slow down on the commas there

Thanks.

If you want to edit my post for commas and send it to me, I will gladly resubmit it.
13 Aug 2014, 10:46 AM
#91
avatar of Thunderhun

Posts: 1617

When I ended up with about 3 pages of text, I have to concede Ive arrived at the conclusion, that though many agree Tier Tying wouls be a good thing, in form or another, it is unfortunately no longer workable as a result of the choices Relic has made with this game.

Every solution I can think of results in three more problems, to the result it just quadratically escalates into complexities that become increasinfly harder to manage, and need more changes that make things unintuitive, unduly specific and just create more problems in turn.

If we where still in an Ost vs Sov situation, many of the solutions I considered for tier tying would have had more intuitive, direct and sustainable solutions. It could have been done in a relatively simple and sensible way.

But now that there are 4 factions, and those factions didnt consider tier tying at all into their design, rather resting on the current Company of Callins paradigm, its just far too complicated a suggestion to implement. There are many other design changes also that even though you might think they where small at the time, suddenly popup as a roadblock now, to the purpose of this proposal, which is to incentivise T4 core units, and noncallin Commanders.

Every possible option of tier tying I can consider, when you start to think about how actually and pragmaticallynto implement it, just spirals into a massive intermix of cost/efficiency problems and ultimately gets stonewalled by Relics design decisions, forcing unintuitive and complex solutions to "get around" them.

Its too late. It, in my perception now, just canmot be done anymore. Too much has been designed around a Company of Callins core, since when thisnkind of solution to returning T4 core unit validity, and hence non-callin Commander reliance on them as units to counter callin Commanders, by using their abilities+core units. Where callins where a diversity ONTOP of normal tiering, rather than a way of completely circumventing tier structure.

The idea "sounds" good on paper, but once you start to really bite into how to implement it, how to practically make it hapoen in simple, coherent and practical terms, the games design at this point is constantly there blocking you. Try it. Once you start to try to write a concise itemised list of changes to actually concretely make it happen, every entry you make, ends up in 3 more problems until finally the games design as it is now today says "no", and thats that.

Im sorry guys, I tried, gave it my best, but I failed.


Excuses everywhere, that's what I see for adding 1 more condition in order to push back the call-in units. It wouldn't be against the game design, more likely would solve many issues. It has been suggested many times and testing it for 1 patch wouldn't hurt the game.

But following your logic let's stop patching the game because it's already too late, and about the too much designed call-ins; it's the same shit over and over again without any variety. Same with the plain simple factions.

Hell, even I could do the attaching to tiers/buildings in a few hours and test it, nevermind Relic.

If issues like this won't be solved it will definietly hurt the already dying game on the longer run.
13 Aug 2014, 10:52 AM
#92
avatar of Cannonade

Posts: 752

Then submit an itemised and numbered list of the EXACT changes necessary.

You might have overlooked that I am the OP and have been defending/figuring the suggestion throughout this thread.

If you can make it work, by all means, do so, and post your result.

Not that you will, of course. Cos all talk, and no walk.
But if you do attempt it, you will invariably come to the same conclusion as I have.
I tried my best and wrote and thought a great deal about it.

But when it came down to actually writing an itemised, coherent list of the actual changes required, you will see the same thing as I did, that each entry creates 3 more problems, and a systemically unsustainable solution overall, due to how far the game is along this current "Company of Callins" design arc.

It cannot be done. Its too late now.

But go ahead and show me you can do it.

I promise anyone who can solve this dilemma satisfactorily a paid and packaged surprise gift.
13 Aug 2014, 11:01 AM
#93
avatar of Thunderhun

Posts: 1617

Then submit an itemised and numbered list of the EXACT changes necessary.

You might have overlooked that I am the OP and have been defending/figuring the suggestion throughout this thread.

If you can make it work, by all means, do so, and post your result.

Not that you will, of course. Cos all talk, and no walk.
But if you do attempt it, you will invariably come to the same conclusion as I have.
I tried my best and wrote and thought a great deal about it.

But when it came down to actually writing an itemised, coherent list of the actual changes required, you will see the same thing as I did, that each entry creates 3 more problems, and a systemically unsustainable solution overall, due to how far the game is along this current "Company of Callins" design arc.

It cannot be done. Its too late now.

But go ahead and show me you can do it.

I promise anyone who can solve this dilemma satisfactorily a paid and packaged surprise gift.


I know you dont't like this call-in meta, but leaving it as it is the worst idea.

Tell me; why Relic wouldn't give this a try, well thought to solve this problem:

http://www.coh2.org/topic/21920/cruzz-s-fantasy-patch-thread-2-wtfwfa-edition
13 Aug 2014, 11:03 AM
#94
avatar of Cannonade

Posts: 752

Cruzzs fantasy patch is a completely different issue, and stands on its own right, in its own area, for what it is. Nor is it produced by you.

Its not an excuse for you to backdown from accusing me, whereas you provide nothing of your own that is better.

I asked you to provide a comprehensive and concrete detailed list of the exact changes involved in tying tiers to callins, since you claim you can.

I don't see that here yet.
Get to work.
13 Aug 2014, 11:11 AM
#95
avatar of Thunderhun

Posts: 1617

Cruzzs fantasy patch is a completely different issue, and stands on its own right, in its own area, for what it is.

Its not an excuse for you to backdown from accusing me, whereas you provide nothing of your own that is better.

I asked you to provide a comprehensive and concrete detailed list of the exact changes involved in tying tiers to callins, since you claim you can.

I don't see that here yet.
Get to work.


Ok; if you want to, might be similair but that's the only sensible thing to my mind.

Call-in's cost/cp remain the same.

Ostheer heavy armor requires last BP upgrade (Tiger, Ele, Tiger Ace).
Ostheer medium armor and light vehicle require T3 built (P4 command tank, Puma, Stug-e)

OKW's call-ins require 2 HQ buildings set up (P4, Ostwind, Jagdtiger, P5 command tank)

USF's armor call-ins require Major (E8, M10, M4 105mm, M7)

Soviet call-ins require T3 or T4.
13 Aug 2014, 11:48 AM
#96
avatar of Cannonade

Posts: 752

If Ost Supers only require BP, and not the building, they still completely outclass Ost T4 units in cost and performance.

On your Sov list, make a choice. T3 or T4? Youn didnt concretely say which.
Well, problem there.
Because T3 and T4 cost is not the same. Meaning T3 eould get callins cheaper than T4.
Where do you fit T34/85s?
Sov Callins would categorically cost less than Osts, due to BP costs, and split tier nature.

Do you begin to see what I mean?
The more concrete and final your list is, the more systemic problems related to design begin to popup to block it.

I already considered your list in the page post I didnt submit.
And as a few of the reasons Inposted above, your list is not yet finished or actuallyncomplete, nor consider those problems.

You will have to be more concise. There are still gaps in it.
But I respect very much that you tried, and did infact put your money where your mouth is.
Nonetheless, it is still incomplete, and doesnt answer the concerns above (which I also already had to consider).
13 Aug 2014, 12:40 PM
#97
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17892 | Subs: 8

Sov T3 and T4 cost exactly the same...
Play the game more.
13 Aug 2014, 12:48 PM
#98
avatar of Gilgame

Posts: 2

Isn't this something that could be simulated by two consenting players to make a demo? A custom 1v1 were the players agree on needing tech/buildings before calling in units. This would be an interesting experiment and a replay of this could provide further information on cost problems and game length (which is one of my concerns to tier-tying).

Any streamers or pros wanna try this out?
13 Aug 2014, 17:25 PM
#99
avatar of Cannonade

Posts: 752

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Aug 2014, 12:40 PMKatitof
Sov T3 and T4 cost exactly the same...
Play the game more.


Indeed they do. Mea culpa.
Osts, however, dont. Leading to the same end problem anyways, on how to balance cost of tied in tiers fairly across factions.

I can admit to a mistake, unlike you in claiming Snipers can outrun HMGs, when all infantry has the same movement rate, and dodging the point no less than 3 times., only to start suddenly and conveniently arguing about setup.

Not to mention you havent actually provided a solution to tying tiers, or any alternative for that matter.
Just cherrypicking, dodging and sniping dishonestly without taking responsibility, as is your obvious and repted modus operandi. Sad really.
13 Aug 2014, 17:32 PM
#100
avatar of MajorBloodnok
Admin Red  Badge
Patrion 314

Posts: 10665 | Subs: 9

Thank you for moderating your own thread successfully, Cannonade. :)

Lessons to be learnt here,guys.

I'm away
PAGES (7)down
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

480 users are online: 1 member and 479 guests
Gamessituspkv
6 posts in the last 24h
33 posts in the last week
143 posts in the last month
Registered members: 45144
Welcome our newest member, Gamessituspkv
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM