Login

russian armor

Reducing Soviet building cost and time

23 Oct 2013, 12:24 PM
#21
avatar of BabaRoga

Posts: 829

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Oct 2013, 12:18 PMLe Wish


Also, point remains that soviet builds tend to be just 2 tiers, providing less variety of units. No matter how you go about it, changes will upset balance and need re-balancing.


I'll answer that with what I said couple of posts up ^

Not gonna happen (not that I wouldn't mind some variety in Soviet game play and options)

I love quoting myself hi hi B-)


I should probably elaborate on that, since its out of context.

Its not gonna happen because it would require major re-design of the game and re-balancing, don't think Relic/Sega would want to sink that much effort, time and money in taking apart their creation

23 Oct 2013, 13:03 PM
#22
avatar of Nullist

Posts: 2425

Permanently Banned
jump backJump back to quoted post23 Oct 2013, 12:14 PMLe Wish
Are theese upgrades things or units that are allready available in the game in other ways?


Yes. They are largely already in-game or require essentially only a stat change, and at most an upgrade icon in the build menus, and some kind of onfield representation such as a white weapon silhouette.
23 Oct 2013, 13:06 PM
#23
avatar of Eupolemos
Donator 33

Posts: 368

It was a basic, conscious design decision on Relic's part to make Soviets focussed on two tiers. That is not going to change easily.

On the other hand, they've been talking about changing up Soviet, so they are less dependent on call-ins, so anything may happen in that shuffle.
23 Oct 2013, 13:35 PM
#24
avatar of Le Wish
Patrion 14

Posts: 813 | Subs: 1


Its not gonna happen because it would require major re-design of the game and re-balancing, don't think Relic/Sega would want to sink that much effort, time and money in taking apart their creation


I see your point, and sadly I think you are correct in this. That said, I still think it is worth discussing to find ways to open up soviet builds.

@Nullist Ok. But then please give more examples than the three available from T0. What upgrades would you think could blurr the lines between t1/t2 and t3/t4?

@Eupolemos. Yes I agree that it has been a design decision, along with t0 units and all that that provide some sort of glue to those builds. And for a very long time soviet had ha huge advantage on callin infantry and also more vehicles. However with the introduction of new commanders we got t0 units for ostheer as well, and to that actually 2 t0 options (doctrinal I know) as opposed to soviet 1. I feel that they somewhat gave the ostheer the capability of not getting locked into their straight teching (a good thing imo), be that only with commanders. Design already seems broken imo. Why not break the same design for soviet as well?
23 Oct 2013, 13:49 PM
#25
avatar of Nullist

Posts: 2425

Permanently Banned
@Le Wish: Upgrades could range from
-specific weapon upgrades like PTSR to Penals or T34 upgun, which diversify the tiers existing units function within itself
- flat stat increase upgrades roughly similar to Bulletins like (pulling out of my ass) a 10% accuracy increase to T3 armor units
-lateral upgrades like 10% reduction in all muni costs or 20% faster repair rate.
-maybe even an option to "buy" CPs for faster progression.

Options are endless, but the principle remains in intratier upgrades, rather than upsetting current hard tier progression, or more specifically, upsetting the buildtime/cost ratio.
23 Oct 2013, 18:26 PM
#26
avatar of GustavGans

Posts: 747



I know what you wrote.

It is just as difficult getting t4 with Germans after going t3, as is with Soviets. You need considerable amount of fuel, MP and time to survive without lets say extra piv you could get instead.

So getting Su85, and couple of quicker and cheaper T34/76's is still gonna wreck the balance

The point remains


There is a significant difference between soviet t4 and german t4.

When I play as germans, there's nothing in soviet t4 I can't handle with my own t0-t3 units.


23 Oct 2013, 18:33 PM
#27
avatar of sztefenfu

Posts: 55

That would be great idea. This patch is imo worst so far. Playing axis have never been easier.
23 Oct 2013, 20:18 PM
#28
avatar of Le Wish
Patrion 14

Posts: 813 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Oct 2013, 13:49 PMNullist
@Le Wish: Upgrades could range from
-specific weapon upgrades like PTSR to Penals or T34 upgun, which diversify the tiers existing units function within itself
- flat stat increase upgrades roughly similar to Bulletins like (pulling out of my ass) a 10% accuracy increase to T3 armor units
-lateral upgrades like 10% reduction in all muni costs or 20% faster repair rate.
-maybe even an option to "buy" CPs for faster progression.


PTRS for penals and T34 upgun I can support as upgrades. 'simple' changes that would allow some diversity.

Buying stat increases feel slightly cheesy, something like buying vet in CoH. Strange really, but for some reason it feels better when paired with a weapon or model.

Upgrades like faster repair and lower muni costs could be interesting. Looking at the supply yard from CoH1 that provided you with the option to lower your upkeep was interesting.

Buy CPs is an interesting idea, not sure how it would play though and pay with what?
23 Oct 2013, 20:34 PM
#29
avatar of wayward516

Posts: 229

I like the idea of having more upgrades as a separate talking point from how the Soviet (or German) tiers work. But it can be hard when you choose to go T1 to be aggressive, then feel like you need to tech to T2 for Maxims or AT guns, pushing back your t3 or t4.
23 Oct 2013, 20:42 PM
#30
avatar of GustavGans

Posts: 747

Upgrades would definitely add some spice to the game. But it doesn't change the matter, that soviets only field half their unit pool in 1v1.
23 Oct 2013, 21:37 PM
#31
avatar of Joshua9

Posts: 93

Great idea!

I had the same one but didn't consider that it might also be done for t1 and t2 buildings. I hope they do something like this so that at least back-teching is made more practical.

You can get by just by spamming infantry and t34s at the moment, but I always feel pretty stuck in that rut, due to the risks of diverting resources to another building.

I'm not sure why this would require much re-balancing if any at all really. It would still be a major trade-off to back-tech or tech to one of the top tier buildings. Honestly, even a small adjustment to costs and build-times would make a difference. If too much of a discount breaks the game, then do less of one.

Definitely been wanting some global fuel upgrades for both factions- it doesn't sound like those are in the cards though, at least if I remember Quinn Duffy's take on that previously.
24 Oct 2013, 06:54 AM
#32
avatar of GustavGans

Posts: 747

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Oct 2013, 21:37 PMJoshua9
Great idea!

I'm not sure why this would require much re-balancing if any at all really. It would still be a major trade-off to back-tech or tech to one of the top tier buildings. Honestly, even a small adjustment to costs and build-times would make a difference. If too much of a discount breaks the game, then do less of one.



Exactly.
24 Oct 2013, 09:05 AM
#33
avatar of Nullist

Posts: 2425

Permanently Banned
Has anyone got a buildtime list?

Or can anyone show equation for build time from MP/Fuel/Muni cost?
24 Oct 2013, 10:25 AM
#34
avatar of Nullist

Posts: 2425

Permanently Banned
I went ahead and actually timed the buildtimes with a stopwatch (made in the USSR btw, and the second hand is 10s ahead of 0, but whatever) cos I love you guys and Im putting off my homework.

Here are the results. Not perfect by any means, but alteast a general indicator until someone wiser can provide sure figures. Ost buildtimes are Battlephase and building, combined:

T1: 20s (80/10) --- 43s (200/40)
T2: 56s (320/40) --- 52s (240/50)
T3: 67s (360/60) --- 80s (275/90)
T4: 80s (360/80) --- 80s (275/90)
Total: 223s (1120/190) --- 255s (990/270)
Sov +50 Fuel at start, not included in above.

Frankly, I was surprised how similar the buildtimes are for the most part.

So to apply these to OPs suggestion of a 50% discount on backteching for Sov, in comparison to Osts linear path to have same total tiers, and assuming if cost is halved, so is buildtime:

T2 to T1: 76s (400/50) --- 73.5s (340/70)
T1+T3 to T2: 143s (760/110) --- 149s (595/155)
T2+T3 to T1: 143s (760/110) --- 153.5s (515/160)
24 Oct 2013, 10:31 AM
#35
avatar of GustavGans

Posts: 747

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Oct 2013, 10:25 AMNullist
I went ahead and actually timed the buildtimes with a stopwatch (made in the USSR btw, and the second hand is 10s ahead of 0, but whatever) cos I love you guys and Im putting off my homework.

Here are the results. Not perfect by any means, but alteast a general indicator until someone wiser can provide sure figures. Ost buildtimes are Battlephase and building, combined:

T1: 20s (80/10) --- 43s (200/40)
T2: 56s (320/40) --- 52s (240/50)
T3: 67s (360/60) --- 80s (275/90)
T4: 80s (360/80) --- 80s (275/90)
Total: 223s (1120/190) --- 255s (990/270)
Sov +50 Fuel at start, not included in above.




Well thanks for the effort!

So does build time depend on fuel or mp cost or both?
24 Oct 2013, 10:51 AM
#36
avatar of Nullist

Posts: 2425

Permanently Banned
Updated with an application of your suggestion to those figures for backtechs upto T4.

Apparently buidtime depends on both, since Ost T2 and Sov T1 have the same fuel cost, but not the same MP cost, or buildtime.
24 Oct 2013, 11:32 AM
#37
avatar of carloff

Posts: 301

Great work Nullist. Thanks.
24 Oct 2013, 11:42 AM
#38
avatar of Nullist

Posts: 2425

Permanently Banned
Overall, Im sorry to say I really dont like the suggestion. Changes so many figures and timings that its hard to anticipate what results it will concretely have, especially in conjunction with infantry call-ins that no longer need a building.

Throws all the buildtimes and costs into a complete jumble, and would be confusing as hellmfor new players. It was extremely confusing for me even, though Im looking at the numbers.

Looking at the build times and costs, its only T1 that stands out.
T2+ are fine.
Infact I think the delay and cost of T2+ is pretty grossly overstated by many, in light of the actual cost/buildtime.
T1 stands out, however, because of a real ingame factor these figures dont show, which is that Ost T0 is utterly meaningless, whereas Sov provides Cons.

Overall the only buildtime/cost I would touch with even a 10ft pole, is the T1.
And even that, with very great caution and reluctance.

The T2+buildtimes and costs really are very similar, and not at all what I was led to believe by reading many posts here. I suspect that some Sov players have completely forgotten to include Battlephase buildtime and cost in their considerations.

Infsact, inlight of these figures, Im almost angry considering what Ive read from Sov players, and taken at their word.

These figures dont mstch the picture they have painted, at all.

If anything, my direct suggestion to Sov, is to build 2 CEs, and effectively halve the T1 buildtime, making it equal with Ost T1. Yes, that may effect capping potential, but its a direct solution to those 20s saved, if that build window really is that narrow in their opinion. I furthermore think Sov are blatantly abusing the +50 fuel, not inline with its intended use. People arent choosing between faster tech, mollies and ATNades, instead they want and expect to get all 3. Im convinced, looking st these figures, that that is not intended, and is also not inline with basic Gren/Con ewuivalency considering free Merge and Oorah, for which their is no Ost equivalent.

And wtf is this about Penals not arriving in time vs LMGs? Look at the build times. First Penal (also accounting for Penals 360MP buildtime) can hit the field long before any Gren can even dream about a LMG, the Muni just doesnt roll in at that timing yet.

The irony about people who have critiqued me about not playing Sov, and therefore not knowing what Im talking about, where right, but not in the sense that I was clueless, but in the sense I couldnt detect their bullshit because I didnt know any better and took them blindly at their word.
24 Oct 2013, 11:54 AM
#39
avatar of carloff

Posts: 301

Maybe change places of Soviets T1 and T2 with cost reduction for building with maxims, mortars, zis3?
24 Oct 2013, 13:41 PM
#40
avatar of Le Wish
Patrion 14

Posts: 813 | Subs: 1

I never argued the actual builtime is the issue. Good to see that the total fuelcost is more or less the same, something that I actually suspected.

However, it is very clear that soviet players tend to stick with 2 tiers, even if costs are the same. Why?

My theory of this is actually the partial tech provided with battlephase and build (also the build locks up a unit for longer for sov). In short, it is a psychological division. As ostheer, I can partially go for the next tier, it doesnt provide me with anything yet (apart from riflenades) but I can build the building when needed. If I need, I could build another t3 unit before using the rest of the fuel to build t4, if I need to. As soviet, say you went t3. The choice is between a new tier and a new unit. "Do I need another t34 or build the building t4 and then wait 115 fuel for a S85?" In the heat of battle, that t34 might feel like a better choice, locking the soviets into their builds.

This is why I proposed something in the line with lower fuel and increased mp leaving overall buildtime more or less same, but increase the incentive to burn fuel on another tier.

OR add something like the supplyyard that unlocks tier 3 and 4 for soviet, for an initial high fuelcost, then lower cost on t3 and t4.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

unknown 7
Korea, Republic Of 2
Germany 2

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

576 users are online: 576 guests
10 posts in the last 24h
19 posts in the last week
138 posts in the last month
Registered members: 45029
Welcome our newest member, arunnk
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM