Login

russian armor

increased manpower on heavy tanks is a problem

10 Sep 2013, 21:33 PM
#1
avatar of Jinseual

Posts: 598

As Pqumsieh stated, he believes that the decrease in fuel and increase in manpower for heavy tanks will make them more affordable in 1v1s. I highly disagree with this. I did not have much problems purchasing a Panther in 1v1 games or 2v2. The only times i had problems is when i did not have enough manpower, fuel was never the problem, now i don't even know if could even afford one if i use a lot of infantry.

I like the heavy infantry style of play, which drains a lot of manpower from me. Getting a panther should be one of those things that require the player to save a lot of fuel and risk going on a long tankless midgame to get the big prize, using anti tank infantry assets like the PAK gun and panzershrecks for a while until they get their heavy tanks for the big comeback instead of encouraging the player to skip t3 and go straight to Panthers.

In the games that Imperialdane had cast you can see that Panther and Tigers has already been used a lot in 1v1s and 2v2s with heavy infantry battles. This price change will not improve the 1v1 or 2v2 games, and at the same time it will worsen the bigger 3v3 and 4v4 games. You will see less infantry as players will often have to hold back on the infantry to get their big tanks out. it probably even encourage more vehicle style of plays or other units that doesn't cost manpower to reinforce.

I think one of the big reasons what made CoH so great is because of the infantry battles, and i don't want to feel punished for using them. So please, decrease the manpower cost and increase the fuel costs, if not 440 manpower and 165 fuel, change it too 520 manpower and 150 fuel.
10 Sep 2013, 22:05 PM
#2
avatar of undostrescuatro

Posts: 525

i agree.
10 Sep 2013, 22:10 PM
#3
avatar of DietBrownie

Posts: 308

I also agree on this
10 Sep 2013, 22:15 PM
#4
avatar of IpKaiFung
Benefactor 115

Posts: 1708 | Subs: 2

and some people moan that they want the vehicles to cost all manpower. Can't win really
10 Sep 2013, 23:00 PM
#5
avatar of wooof

Posts: 950 | Subs: 1

i see what you mean, but one thing i thought about was this might allow comebacks to be a little easier. say you get your army wiped and lose most of the map. your mp income is going to skyrocket and your fuel will drop. with high fuel costs, you wont get a heavy tank out again until you take the map. now you can afford a heavy tank easier. not sure if thats what they intended, but just something i thought about.
10 Sep 2013, 23:17 PM
#6
avatar of Jinseual

Posts: 598

and some people moan that they want the vehicles to cost all manpower. Can't win really


i dislike how in vcoh you can just call in a tiger every time you lost one so you can get stay in the game ( what it really does is delay the inevitable ) which is why i think that having every tank cost fuel is an improvement from vcoh. remember those matches where players just wait for 1000mp call in double panthers, just to lose them wait a little more and just call more? it's pretty annoying to go against and all it does is create more wreckage because it doesn't require any map control to get those tanks. why should games resort to "map control no longer have importance late game" kind of thing? i think the map control should be equally important throughout the game, not something you neglect and charge at vps because you got your 8 doctrine points of panther call ins.
10 Sep 2013, 23:36 PM
#7
avatar of Jinseual

Posts: 598

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Sep 2013, 23:00 PMwooof
i see what you mean, but one thing i thought about was this might allow comebacks to be a little easier. say you get your army wiped and lose most of the map. your mp income is going to skyrocket and your fuel will drop. with high fuel costs, you wont get a heavy tank out again until you take the map. now you can afford a heavy tank easier. not sure if thats what they intended, but just something i thought about.


well when your army get's wiped it is supposed to hurt. when i talked about risking a long tankless midgame for a good powerful and make a comeback in my second paragraph. i meant that i want a high risk high reward kind of scenario. not something that you call in and hope it will be a miracle weapon just because you lose your entire army. would it be better if you constantly fight for the fuel and harass other areas to get your super weapon and hopefully reverse the situation? try to adapt and fight for your resources, use the items that doesn't cost fuel. panzergrenadiers, AT gun soviet mines. if done right you can reverse the situation, it's a lot more action and fun to watch than a guy just sitting back and wait for 720 manpower.
11 Sep 2013, 00:04 AM
#8
avatar of wooof

Posts: 950 | Subs: 1

yea i wasnt advising it as a strategy. just saying, in a pinch, it should easier to get a heavy out now. obviously losing your army to get a panther out isnt a good idea.
11 Sep 2013, 08:16 AM
#9
avatar of Cann0nBall

Posts: 59

imo less available. In any competitive game I've found manpower to be the limiting resource. Reinforcing your army takes a lot and upkeep is generally shit by the time you hit T4.
11 Sep 2013, 08:45 AM
#10
avatar of tuvok
Benefactor 115

Posts: 786

mmm...I guess that with the changes to the mg42 you won't have that much fuel to spare anymore
raw
11 Sep 2013, 09:05 AM
#11
avatar of raw

Posts: 644

I agree with this and already said so a month ago. I found that with the (already prior to this patch) MP costs you end up in late-game situations where you either wait a lot of time to float the MP for "that one tank" or pull in two infantry squads. With the way the game flows, decision is almost always more infantry. Higher MP will make the tanks less seen in smaller battles, and it was never the fuel that prevented one from teching up. Considering there are zero fuel sinks in the game besides tanks (with T2 being universally useless once tanks hit), the only real cost^tm determining factor of a tank is the MP.
11 Sep 2013, 18:06 PM
#12
avatar of Cruzz

Posts: 1221 | Subs: 41

Yes, I don't understand this change. The changes to Panther and Brummbär cost just mean that nobody will ever make T4. It's extremely rare for fuel to matter anymore at the point where you'd be making T4. A single Panther or brummbär is definitely not better than having two PIVs.

For the Tiger the price increase is more minor and a bit easier to understand as it requires no tech and is kinda an omnipotent unit, but I still think the old cost was better even for it.
11 Sep 2013, 18:27 PM
#13
avatar of Cardboard Tank

Posts: 978

Couldn´t agree more with this post! Manpower is more valuable than fuel if you play infantry heavy. You will float fuel anyways late game.

Atm. T3 Panzer IV is the best option for me. 320mp versus 600mp. better get 2 Panzer IVs out for that Panther manpower wise. I don´t want to decide between a Panther without infantry support or infantry without armor support when going T4. Better get some medium armor out in form of Panzer IVs that actually has some infantry with it.
11 Sep 2013, 18:32 PM
#14
avatar of Nullist

Posts: 2425

Permanently Banned
I dont understand the MP increases, at a "supposed" fuel saving.

Just means that map control of Fuel points is less and less important.

I mean that is what fuel is for, building vehicles. Wtf on reducing fuel costs for MP?
11 Sep 2013, 18:34 PM
#15
avatar of Nullist

Posts: 2425

Permanently Banned
jump backJump back to quoted post11 Sep 2013, 08:45 AMtuvok
mmm...I guess that with the changes to the mg42 you won't have that much fuel to spare anymore


Wat.
11 Sep 2013, 19:14 PM
#16
avatar of Cardboard Tank

Posts: 978

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Sep 2013, 18:34 PMNullist


Wat.
Lol, I just played a round vs a guy called Tuvok. Weren´t your guys running straight into my 42 getting 3 bursts and then throwing their Molotov? Not gonna build a 42 for sure in the future.

On topic: The manpower increase is senseless. The fuel decrease also. Imagine you build a fuel cache early on. It costs you manpower but you get more fuel. Right now there´s less point in building a cache - as I have the same effect already:

More MP spent on cache = more manpower needed for Panther
More fuel available because of cache = less fuel needed for Panther

So it´s more or less like a forced cache if you go T4.
12 Sep 2013, 10:10 AM
#17
avatar of LeiwoUnion

Posts: 172

I think you are exaggerating this. In most games you'll have to get fuel or die. This change slightly affects this by allowing you get some of the heavier stuff a bit earlier, even if your fuel income hasn't been ideal.
12 Sep 2013, 10:25 AM
#18
avatar of Senseo1990

Posts: 317

Completely agree with the OP
12 Sep 2013, 16:28 PM
#19
avatar of Jinseual

Posts: 598

I think you are exaggerating this. In most games you'll have to get fuel or die. This change slightly affects this by allowing you get some of the heavier stuff a bit earlier, even if your fuel income hasn't been ideal.


fuel always was an important resource, and a lot of fighting occurs to take over the fuel resulting in loss of manpower. if you are lacking fuel and your opponent is swimming in it. would he have a better chance of getting the heavies than you? so despite what you think fuel will always be an important resource whether or not the tanks cost 200 fuel or 250 fuel. it would only increased the chance of your opponent crushing you with a tank a lot earlier. the only changes the new costs made are two minutes of waiting time to get your heavy tanks while you float fuel.
12 Sep 2013, 17:38 PM
#20
avatar of akula

Posts: 589

what was Relic thinking with this change? they want to make fuel points less important I guess?
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

297 users are online: 297 guests
2 posts in the last 24h
17 posts in the last week
134 posts in the last month
Registered members: 45019
Welcome our newest member, dsers
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM