Scale caches to game mode

This seems like an obvious QOL improvement that I feel like it's probably impossible for one reason or another, but I'd like to see the cost, or output of caches scaled to the number of players in a game.

While some might argue that they ought to be standardized across game modes, the current implementation is clearly a lack of standardization. Caches provide significantly more resources in the larger game modes, while also consuming a much smaller percentage of the team's manpower.

In 4v4 caches are a no-brainer.

In 1v1 caches are a gimmick that tend to lose you an even game as they're too much manpower to invest in early, and offer too little resources to invest in late-game.

I think a lot of people might overlook the effect this has on the game. We all know that balancing for 4v4 is totally different than balancing for 1v1.

I claim that caches, and the resource inflation they cause, play a very large part in the 4v4/1v1 balance differences. Fuel flows easily in 4v4, and so the higher tier units are not nearly the same investment as it is in 1v1.

I'd like to see cache cost changed to a base of 150 for 1v1, and a minimum of 100 manpower per extra player. This would give us the following costs:

1v1 150
2v2 250
3v3 350
4v4 450

Ideally I'd like to see a 150 manpower increase per player as I think this would be a more appropriate cost point, but this would probably cause too many issues in the random team games.


Another option would be to scale the output of the caches, but I don't have suggested numbers for that.

On a final note: I'd like all the factions to have some sort of extra resource option scaled to game mode I'm just not certain how to best do that. The simplest option would be making caches the standard.

4v4 should also have higher upkeep and lower pop cap.

If this is even possible, I'd suggest more subtle price differences:

200 mp 1v1
250 mp 2v2
300 mp 3v3 & 4v4

4v4 should also have higher upkeep and lower pop cap.

That'll just place even more emphasis on high tier vehicles since the manpower to fuel ratio will be even closer, and high tier units give the best pop to performance ratio.

You could scale population costs for high tier units, but this would be a nightmare for balance team, and players.

I don't think they can do cost scaling in various game modes.

It might be more effective to just make them like opel blitz trucks which only affect the owner or make them affect allies at a reduced rate (which has no precedent so tbd if you can go halvies on income boosts).

I feel like balance wise there's not a significant need to change it. Only OKW cannot build caches and is therefore at a disadvantage in the current state, but other than that I don't feel that easier access to teching hurts the game, it still costs manpower and presents the player with a choice.

That said some maps make it very easy to harass caches and others quite difficult so maps with more contested strat points would enable a greater degree of counterplay. Hopefully we get good adjustmets in the upcoming map patch.

Specific example of a terrible map is Lanzerath ambush where you basically grind out vps for most of the game and resources other than the munitions on the corners rarely change hands at great frequency.

I don't think they can do cost scaling in various game modes.

Exactly this. The idea of scaling either caches, prices, upkeep or ability cost has been brought up numerous times, but (iirc) the problem is there is no way to change any stats on a per-game-mode basis. Any stat in 1v1 is going to be exactly the same as it is in 4v4, etc.

At best, it might be possible to create new "ultra-low" resource points, and then use them exclusively in the larger maps. It would be require a TON of work to replace all the resource points, though.

What about maps with fewer points, thus fewer resources? That way infantry becomes more important and 4v4 becomes a lot less spammy.

What about maps with fewer points, thus fewer resources? That way infantry becomes more important and 4v4 becomes a lot less spammy.

That's how I would do it.
Maybe make up the difference with more unique non resource points like the medics/mechanics to make team games stand out more. In a slug fest mechanics would be equally as valuable as fuel and could add a better dynamic.

Exactly this. The idea of scaling either caches, prices, upkeep or ability cost has been brought up numerous times, but (iirc) the problem is there is no way to change any stats on a per-game-mode basis. Any stat in 1v1 is going to be exactly the same as it is in 4v4, etc.

At best, it might be possible to create new "ultra-low" resource points, and then use them exclusively in the larger maps. It would be require a TON of work to replace all the resource points, though.

If it's not possible to do it by game mode, it seems like they could change the maps themselves.

It's a little bit more work administratively, and they might have to make duplicate maps for the different game modes, but it doesn't seem like an unreasonable amount of work.

Could do something like take off one point of munis per player on standard territory, and 1 point of fuel at 2v2 and another point of fuel at 3v3 or 4v4. If that puts much focus on the single resource territories some sort of hybrid system could be done to drop the value on the single resources.

Infantry options would become more viable, while still leaving open the option to cache everything and play the traditional styles.

That's how I would do it.
Maybe make up the difference with more unique non resource points like the medics/mechanics to make team games stand out more. In a slug fest mechanics would be equally as valuable as fuel and could add a better dynamic.

I'm actually surprised they don't already have the special points like medics and mechanics now that you mention it. I actually like this idea better as long as they still reduce the cache price to make them more viable in 1v1.

Some dick in 3v3/4v4 is still just going to wait until they have 450 mp and build it first thing.

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.

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.

I could never understand why they didn't went with DoW2/DoW3 economy for multiplayer, where each resource sector provided less the bigger the game mode was, allowing not only for more points on maps to capture, therefore solving inflation problem at team games, providing same tech pace.

I could never understand why they didn't went with DoW2/DoW3 economy for multiplayer, where each resource sector provided less the bigger the game mode was, allowing not only for more points on maps to capture, therefore solving inflation problem at team games, providing same tech pace.

It's bad and good at the same time. In 4v4 if one team loses a major point or multiple standard points for several minutes, it's not 1 but 4 opponents that out-tech you, making it extremely punishing similar like stealing the cutoff in CoH1.

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.

I wouldn't underestimate their affect on team games. In a close game the winner might only average 1-2 standard territories more resources. In 1v1 an extra squad can secure those extra territories, but in larger games a single squad won't buy you that much territory.

Caches also have an indirect affect on your manpower losses. The further you fight for territories away from your base the more manpower you will lose. Since you're so far away your units will tend to spend more time reinforcing, and traveling back and forth to the front line, and when they do actually fight they'll tend to be down on health. Since you'll average smaller squad sizes you'll lose more units, while doing less damage to your opponent who will tend to have full squads.

Since caches give you more resources with less map control the player who builds them will tend to have a better manpower economy, and a better concentration of force.

Caches are too expensive in 1v1, but they play a large role in team games.

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.

Or reduce the income gain from caches proportional to the game mode.

If in 2v2s the income gain from caches for each player is half that of 1v1s, you still have a net gain across the entire team equal to 1v1. Perhaps even slightly greater since the manpower investment is pulled from a pool 2x larger.

...
Ultimately, caches provide +3/6/9 fuel per minute extra,...

Cashes in 4vs4 return x4 times resources than in 1vs1 and thus cover their cost at 1/4 of the time...

Teamgame resource inflation is because the maps have more points on them.

In terms of the effect they have on your income, caches are actually weaker in team games. There are more points on the map, so the percentage increase in income for a single cache is actually lower.

The reason caches are strong in teamgames is because of unit saturation.

A cache gives half the resources of a territory point, so they're only an efficient source of income when spending that 250 MP on units doesn't translate into more map control.

In 1v1s, this is rarely the case. 2v2 and 4v4 maps are so saturated with units that an extra squad of infantry is unlikely to bag you an extra point. Caches therefore become a more effective source of income than more infantry.

Cashes in 4vs4 return x4 times resources than in 1vs1 and thus cover their cost at 1/4 of the time...

But so do territory points.

Caches are competing with units. Caches get built when they become a more manpower-efficient source of income than map control.

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.