Login

russian armor

4v4

15 Sep 2014, 11:52 AM
#21
avatar of Sarantini
Honorary Member Badge
Donator 22

Posts: 2181

I understand what you are trying to accomplish, but that would just solve the cause not the true problem. The real problem is that heavy vehicles and advanced mediums to lesser extent are just too cost-efficient. It's just more noticeable in large team games due to the higher resources. And no I'm not talking about the call-in issue, a small one time fuel advantage.

Heavy vehicles can operate and push without worrying about the vehicle suddenly dying to a well placed at defenses due to their high durability and sometimes range, and as long as they pull back before death and this will cost them nothing, especially since the dedicated AT can't give chase against even minor support. Medium tanks on the other hand are forced into attempting high risk maneuvers if they want to succeed against these vehicles which even in the best of cases will cause casualties for them.

They need to add some sort of cost to USE heavy vehicles so that cost effectiveness of the medium tanks actually evens out with the heavies

Currently that is done by popcap and upkeep, are you saying they should increase the popcap for heavies or do you think something else?
15 Sep 2014, 12:01 PM
#22
avatar of Omega_Warrior

Posts: 2561


Currently that is done by popcap and upkeep, are you saying they should increase the popcap for heavies or do you think something else?
I think the popcap should probably expand to fuel and probably increase for heavies, either that or a cost for repairing vehicles with cheaper ones being less expensive.
15 Sep 2014, 12:14 PM
#23
avatar of Hon3ynuts

Posts: 818

I think the popcap should probably expand to fuel and probably increase for heavies, either that or a cost for repairing vehicles with cheaper ones being less expensive.


Changing the pop system wont help that much since manpower surpluses are often harder to come by than fuel in team games

However King tigers have a pop of 26, where as IS2 and tigers have a pop of 24. Not sure about other heavies but KT should deffinatley have a higher popcap
15 Sep 2014, 12:27 PM
#24
avatar of Winterfeld

Posts: 249

Okay, weird idea here, but why not change the stats for the different gamemodes? Like 2 different balances, 1vs1 has its own balances, while 4vs4 has different ones. Not major ones that would confuse you like different armor and stuff like that, but manpower costs for units, so it is harder to steamroll e.t.c.
In short, let 1vs1 be balanced, but change the team games sepperately? :/
15 Sep 2014, 12:31 PM
#25
avatar of Omega_Warrior

Posts: 2561



Changing the pop system wont help that much since manpower surpluses are often harder to come by than fuel in team games

However King tigers have a pop of 26, where as IS2 and tigers have a pop of 24. Not sure about other heavies but KT should definable have a higher popcap
From my experience, most players will simply stop paying for infantry after a certain point and simply churn out heavies as fast as they can. Manpower comes easy since as long as the players are cautious they can have their heavies do most the fighting while having very little bleed to resources. While those relying on tanks like the T34/76 are forced to be more aggressive as to not let the heavies build up.

I don't know exactly what needs to be done, but what i do know is that heavy vehicles are too economically efficient. They have no bleed and while this is true to some extent from mediums, they are much more likely to die. Something needs to be done to reverse this. Players relying on heavies should be economically penalized more then players using lighter choices. Strategies implementing heavy vehicles shouldn't be better then the alternatives.
15 Sep 2014, 13:37 PM
#26
avatar of Hon3ynuts

Posts: 818

From my experience, most players will simply stop paying for infantry after a certain point and simply churn out heavies as fast as they can. Manpower comes easy since as long as the players are cautious they can have their heavies do most the fighting while having very little bleed to resources. While those relying on tanks like the T34/76 are forced to be more aggressive as to not let the heavies build up.

I don't know exactly what needs to be done, but what i do know is that heavy vehicles are too economically efficient. They have no bleed and while this is true to some extent from mediums, they are much more likely to die. Something needs to be done to reverse this. Players relying on heavies should be economically penalized more then players using lighter choices. Strategies implementing heavy vehicles shouldn't be better then the alternatives.


You seem to assume these heavy vehicles are inherently OP and need to be nerfed, i'm not sure this is the case. As well microed medium tanks while having more risk can be more effective at destroying armor and inflicting manpower bleed(on most maps)

Though regardless of their impact i see that most games have been decided by the time the first tanks start rolling onto the field off so i don't really think it's just a late game heavy tank problem in 4v4s
15 Sep 2014, 13:56 PM
#27
avatar of NinjaWJ

Posts: 2070

my question is, how was the 4v4 and 3v3 balance before WFA was released?
15 Sep 2014, 15:34 PM
#28
avatar of Napalm

Posts: 1595 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Sep 2014, 13:56 PMNinjaWJ
my question is, how was the 4v4 and 3v3 balance before WFA was released?


Very good. The lack of super units really helped out. OKW introduced a faction of super units, some of which are non-doctrinal. Want the best infantry in the game? Obersoldaten. Want the best general tank? King Tiger. Want the best anti-armor tank? Jagdtiger or JagdPanzer. Want the best blob buster? Walking Stuka. Alone these units aren't any issue but in a team environment where fuel starvation is anything but, it makes it *really* difficult to win.
15 Sep 2014, 17:04 PM
#29
avatar of Lucas Troy

Posts: 508

I would much rather play 4v4 than 2v2 or 1v1, but I avoid anything larger than 2v2 like the plague since balance doesn't take those modes into account.

Hopefully, CoH3 (:P) will take the opposite approach and make balance and game design decisions with 4v4s in mind. Then we can have huge battles that also play really well, and we can scream at anyone who complains about something being too weak or too good in 1v1. :P
15 Sep 2014, 17:08 PM
#30
avatar of BeltFedWombat
Patrion 14

Posts: 951

Okay, weird idea here, but why not change the stats for the different gamemodes? Like 2 different balances, 1vs1 has its own balances, while 4vs4 has different ones. Not major ones that would confuse you like different armor and stuff like that, but manpower costs for units, so it is harder to steamroll e.t.c.
In short, let 1vs1 be balanced, but change the team games sepperately? :/


It's not a strange idea it makes complete sense. When I put it to Quinn Duffy once, along with a special 1 v 1 elite mode, he said (politely) "I'm not making two separate games."
15 Sep 2014, 17:27 PM
#31
avatar of NinjaWJ

Posts: 2070

i doubt they would take the time to do that. it would be too much hassle.
15 Sep 2014, 17:27 PM
#32
avatar of Omega_Warrior

Posts: 2561

I would much rather play 4v4 than 2v2 or 1v1, but I avoid anything larger than 2v2 like the plague since balance doesn't take those modes into account.

Hopefully, CoH3 (:P) will take the opposite approach and make balance and game design decisions with 4v4s in mind. Then we can have huge battles that also play really well, and we can scream at anyone who complains about something being too weak or too good in 1v1. :P
I really don't know what relic was thinking when they made the allied factions.

Dev1: Hey let's give the axis non-doctrinal panthers and heavy tanks.
Dev2: Should we give give the allies non-doctrinal T34-85s and 76mm shermans to fight them.
Dev1: No, we can't possibly have the allies be relevant in the late game.
15 Sep 2014, 19:46 PM
#33
avatar of ElSlayer

Posts: 1605 | Subs: 1

1) Tight maps. You can't use medium tanks effectively because almost any direction of your move resulting in straight head-on attack on enemy defences. Larger maps would also solve problem of artyfest - concentration of indirect fire would be lower, units will be more spread along the map.

2) Аbundance of resources. Holding half of the map, or at least one of fuel points is enough for each player of your team to make one top unit - ISU, double T-34-85 or King Tiger. In 4v4 all resources (maybe except manpower) should be halved.

3) Game speed. The time window between first built medium tank and first call-in vehicle is too small so it is better (and not that punishing) to just wait until you get required CP/fuel for better vehicles. The rate of CP gain should be lowered.

I think it is okay that heavier tank is less vulnerable to running into enemy defences and more safe to use in general. That is the point of heavy tank.

But fast medium tanks should force you to react or make you to lose positions (and eventually the Game) if you don't.

Also allies need to have non-doctinal heavy tanks which would have high survivability and low DPS. KV-1 for Soviets would fit right in.
15 Sep 2014, 19:53 PM
#34
avatar of voltardark

Posts: 967

1) Tight maps. You can't use medium tanks effectively because almost any direction of your move resulting in straight head-on attack on enemy defences.

2) Аbundance of resources. Holding half of the map, or at least one of fuel points is enough for each player of your team to make one top unit - ISU, double T-34-85 or King Tiger. In 4v4 all resources (maybe except manpower) should be halved.

3) Game speed. The time window between first built medium tank and first call-in vehicle is too small so it is better (and not that punishing) to just wait until you get required CP/fuel for better vehicles.

I think it is okay that heavier tank is less vulnerable to running into enemy defences and more safe to use in general. That is the point of heavy tank.

But fast medium tanks should force you to react or make you lose positions (and eventually the Game) if you don't.
[/quote
]
Axis, unless noobs, will veto all maps that don't advantage them... Results : Axis win 4vs4 80% of the time, no matter who play them.
15 Sep 2014, 20:11 PM
#35
avatar of ElSlayer

Posts: 1605 | Subs: 1

I don't know exactly what needs to be done, but what i do know is that heavy vehicles are too economically efficient. They have no bleed and while this is true to some extent from mediums, they are much more likely to die. Something needs to be done to reverse this. Players relying on heavies should be economically penalized more then players using lighter choices. Strategies implementing heavy vehicles shouldn't be better then the alternatives.


How about increasing heavy vehicle repair time so they will be out of combat for longer time if soaked much damage?
15 Sep 2014, 20:25 PM
#36
avatar of Alpharius

Posts: 56


How about increasing heavy vehicle repair time so they will be out of combat for longer time if soaked much damage?

That means nerfing OKW repair station and Sturmpio repair abilities => prepare to face the rage of Axis players
15 Sep 2014, 20:26 PM
#37
avatar of dasheepeh

Posts: 2115 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Sep 2014, 02:19 AMNinjaWJ


speaking as an exclusive 4v4 only player, i don't think it is exactly easier. A lot of people blob but i think this comes from not having to pay attention to the entire map. However, i think 4v4 does have its difficult moments. Since the maps are bigger and there are more units, flanking is a lot more potent and effective.


How about trying the smaller gamemodes? Youre missing out the fun that comes with a smaller scale game. And experience obviously, because you only play one gamemode with one faction. Its like you are playing 1/4 of the game.
15 Sep 2014, 20:40 PM
#38
avatar of Alpharius

Posts: 56


How about trying the smaller gamemodes? Youre missing out the fun that comes with a smaller scale game. And experience obviously, because you only play one gamemodes with one faction. Its like you are playing 1/4 of the game.

I play 2vs2 sometimes, but only with friends I can communicate with.
But 4vs4 is good for me, since I can relax and play Partisan commander or Urban defence and have chance to win.
15 Sep 2014, 21:41 PM
#39
avatar of ElSlayer

Posts: 1605 | Subs: 1


That means nerfing OKW repair station and Sturmpio repair abilities => prepare to face the rage of Axis players

You've read it wrong. I've said "increase heavy vehicle repair time". There are two other factions that have heavy armor.


How about trying the smaller gamemodes? Youre missing out the fun that comes with a smaller scale game. And experience obviously, because you only play one gamemode with one faction. Its like you are playing 1/4 of the game.

I've tried and just didn't liked it. In smaller game modes there is more element of capturing here and there which doesn't feel like position war when two armies push on each other. For me it feels more like... playing tag.
16 Sep 2014, 10:27 AM
#40
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

Ok, new serious problem just arrived. Trolls. I had few games with guys who do not have any commanders or bulletins and they simply do nothing. They are not afk, they are writing that they are trollig casue it's impossible to win as Allies vs Axis. They simply do nothing as a protest against unbalance.
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

477 users are online: 477 guests
9 posts in the last 24h
37 posts in the last week
152 posts in the last month
Registered members: 45058
Welcome our newest member, podcasts
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM