Teamgame resource inflation is because the maps have more points on them.
Not true, the amount of sectors is similar across all gamemodes, although some maps (across all modes) have more than others. A map like Red Ball Express has 5 standard territory points per side (and 1 fuel and 1 munitions point), Essen Steelworks has 6 standard territory points per side. That's actually less than maps like Crossroads and Nexus, that have 5 points per side, but an extra two interchangeable ones in the middle.
The only exception is General Mud, which has 7 territory points per side.
The biggest reason for resource inflation is simply the design and nature of team games and teamgames maps. Matches are generally less 'fluid' than 1v1s, the principle of following the path of the least resistance does not really apply because either overextensions are more severely punished or it's simply not possible to go around (lane design maps and simply more crowded maps), leaving 75-80% of the map completely uncontested for most of the duration of the match. Usually there's only a handful of territory (generally the high fuel/ammo points) that's fought over (in the pictures below, red and blue lines are the frontlines you generally can't push through). Depending on the design, some maps are even worse offenders (like Angermunde), as they have the Victory Points as frontline territories leaving both high fuel and munition points uncontested too. As shown in the pictures below.
This simply creates a huge difference with 1v1, where territory is constantly cut off or switching hands, which severely lowers the average income, compared to the steady income in teamgames where most sectors never get contested.
To this extend, to try to make teamgames more fluid, I've tried to make sure the upcoming map patch will rearrange the sectors in as many maps as possible so that cutting off the enemy territory will become easier. At the moment this isn't even possible in some maps. For example Essen Steelworks will have double cut offs added:
Cashes in 4vs4 return x4 times resources than in 1vs1 and thus cover their cost at 1/4 of the time...
Yes, but cost effectiveness =/= effect on resource economy. |
I wouldn't underestimate their affect on team games
If caches had a noticeable impact, we would see OKW winrates in teamgames plummet. And yet, double OKW is considered as the strongest Axis matchup for 2v2 ( https://www.coh2.org/news/92866/automatch-stats-factions-teams-and-maps; OKW/OKW had by far the highest win rate in 2v2s), and 3x or 4x OKW teams never have much of a disadvantage (no statistics available though sadly).
With the exception of some maps, like Hill 400 (where most of the fuel resources are continuously contested), I think the influence of caches is overrated. Their influence can usually be compensated by stronger map presence giving stronger map control, as demonstrated by OKW doing fine without them.
Ultimately, caches provide +3/6/9 fuel per minute extra, which isn't neglectable, but also isn't a whole lot in comparison to periodically losing ~20-30 fuel income by cutoffs or losing most of the map control in 1v1s. Thus, as I said, most of the resource inflation in team games comes from the fact that most territory isn't contested and players always have a steady income of at least ~20-25 fuel throughout the entire match. Caches do add up to the resource inflation, but not so much that I'd consider them the problem.
|
Caches only bring in a handful of extra resources, they are not the biggest reason for resource inflation. Territory control is. The game's economy is designed around 1v1, with most sectors changing hands constantly and territory getting cut off regularly. In team games, usually only frontline territories are being fought over, leaving ~75% of the map uncontested, and giving players a steady medium-high income. That is the biggest reason for resource inflation.
And that can not be fixed without a major overhaul of the resources system, which is never going to happen for CoH2 at this point. |
4. Buff UK vehicle MG's. […] fixing them would help balance the faction in the later stages of games
For the record, vehicle MGs do not deal that much damage late game, because they do not scale with veterancy (they get no accuracy bonus, meaning that as enemy infantry gets lower Received Accuracy, the MGs deal less damage) and abundant yellow cover (craters everywhere) means they almost permanently deal 50% less damage. Tank MGs only shine in the late mid game into early late game when tanks first start appearing.
Furthermore while UKF tanks do have worse MGs than other factions' tanks, they usually have other traits in return. The Cromwell and Comet are very fast and agile, and the Cromwell has a very good potential shock timing (235 fuel, or 270 fuel with Bolster). The Churchill has 1400 health. Buffing the MGs on these tanks to Panzer IV / T-34 levels would risk giving them too much shock value.
I personally think UKF tanks are pretty much fine right now. The Churchill is still good, the Comet is good now, the Centaur is great, and the Cromwell is good as long as you can get it out early. |
brumbar range Is 35
He's talking about the Bunker Busting Barrage. |
Also why do Soviet tanks rarely ever bounce shots? Soviet armour was way more sloped
T-34 armor was only impressive when they first saw action, when the Germans mostly used 37mm and 50mm (anti-)tank guns. Once the Germans upgraded to 75mm and 88mm guns, they went through it like a hot knife through butter.
Despite these deficiencies, the T-34's armour proved problematic for the Germans in the initial stages of the war on the Eastern Front. In one wartime account, a single T-34 came under heavy fire upon encountering one of the most common German anti-tank guns at that stage of the war: "Remarkably enough, one determined 37 mm gun crew reported firing 23 times against a single T-34 tank, only managing to jam the tank’s turret ring." Similarly, a German report of May 1942 noted the ineffectiveness of their 50 mm gun as well, noting that "Combating the T-34 with the 5 cm KwK tank gun is possible only at short ranges from the flank or rear, where it is important to achieve a hit as perpendicular to the surface as possible."
However, a Military Commissariat Report of the 10th Tank Division, dated 2 August 1941 reported that within 300–400 m the 37 mm Pak 36's armour-piercing shot could defeat the frontal armour. According to an examination of damaged T-34 tanks in several repair workshops in August to September 1942, collected by the People's Commissariat for Tank Industry in January 1943, 54.3% of all T-34 losses were caused by the German long-barreled 50 mm KwK 39 gun.
As the war went on, the T-34 gradually lost some of its initial advantages. The Germans responded to the T-34 by fielding large numbers of improved anti-tank weapons such as the towed 75 mm gun, while hits from 88 mm-armed Tigers, anti-aircraft guns and PaK 43 88 mm anti-tank guns usually proved lethal. A Wa Pruef 1 report estimated that, with the target angled 30° sideward, a Panther tank could penetrate the turret of a T-34-85 from the front at ranges up to 2000 m, the mantlet at 1200 m, and the frontal hull armour at 300 m. According to the Pantherfibel, the T-34's glacis could be penetrated from 800 m and the mantlet from 1500 m at 30° sideward angle. Ground trials by employees of NIBT Polygon in May 1943 reported that the KwK 36 88 mm gun could pierce the T-34 frontal hull from 1,500 meters at 90 degrees and cause a disastrous burst effect inside the tank.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#Armour (can't be bothered looking up more credible sources)
Besides that, it's a game, and it's only historically flavoured and not historically accurate. |
I am pretty sure many people would not agree that the JP is as cost effective as Panther...
Against everything with less than 200-170 armor, the Jagdpanzer IV is way more cost effective than the Panther due to higher DPM while costing a lot less. Against anything above, the Panther does not have a clear advantage because of its low DPM.
The only thing that makes the Panther arguably more cost effective is that it can also deal decent damage to infantry. Against vehicles however, both units are roughly on par when facing heavy tanks (in terms of costs vs performance), while the Jagdpanzer IV takes the cake against all mediums/premiums/TDs.
[...]
And that bring us back to my original claim, the unit is simply not cost efficient for what it does
It will win versus all Allied TDs, and demolishes them with veterancy, two of which are more expensive, so I'd definitely call that cost effective. When fighting Allied mediums, any Allied mediums, the Jagdpanzer IV is the more cost effective choice because the Panther is simply way more expensive without being much better, while the Panzer IV is a liability against any premium tank because of its low penetration.
Another thing to consider is that it has longer range and lower target size compared to the Panther, which should reduce the amount of damage it takes in a fight quite significantly, resulting in much lower repair times.
|
https://coh2db.com/stats/
Look up any unit / weapon here.
At "Range" you will find the minimum and maximum range of the weapon.
Make sure you select the right weapon when looking up artillery, as some of them have multiple "weapons" (firing modes) with different ranges.
~99% of stats are up to date. Some weapons (IIRC the Rakketenwerfer, Ostwind) had their ranges changed since the site was updated last (spring 2018). |
I wouldn't describe an ability that allow a 60 range TD to self spot at range 49 and provide mini map information at range 70 and can provide focused self spot range of 105 as "meh"...
I was only comparing vet 1 abilities, since the comparison was about veterancy. Tracking, with slightly extended sight range and infantry getting spotted on the minimap, for 20 seconds, for 35 munitions, is in my opinion pretty meh compared to the JP4's permanent and free mobile ambush camouflage that allows it to catch enemy vehicles by surprise.
In the end of the day if JP4 "fantastic" and "JP4 is criminally underrated (only) on this forum" why is so much underused compared to FF/M36/SU-85?
The answer to your question here is the part that you quoted.
It's an underrated unit. Overshadowed by the more popular Panther, but definitely not any less cost effective.
|
i mean vet 1-5 equal to vet 1-3 i mean the 5 vet are comparable to the 3 vet of other tanks
How so? It gets +160hp with veterancy which is a huge difference, a permanently useful vet 1 ability (Firefly has nothing, SU-85 has a meh ability, Jackson's forces a reload and costs munitions), and ultimately higher, it gets +38% accuracy while the others get +30%, and all other buffs (reload, mobility) are roughly the same. On top of that, most of its basic stats (target size, reload, and accuracy) are better than the other TDs in the first place (sole exception is that Firefly has equal vet 0 accuracy and slightly better with the tank commander).
The vet 5 ambush bonuses are still decent. Even if the extra damage doesn't do anything, it still gets better accuracy and penetration for every first shot.
The only thing it lacks is a penetration bonus, but again, that is on purpose.
Beyond vet 5 being a bit lackluster, there is absolutely nothing about its veterancy to complain about. I can only agree with:
JP4 counters every single non-doctrinal Allied vehicle with high efficiency. JP4 is criminally underrated on this forum.
I almost always use Jagdpanzer IVs, they are fantastic to play with, and a real pain in the ass to deal with when playing against them. It is a really good unit.
|