Login

russian armor

Unique Units / Better Units balance discussion

4 Jul 2020, 20:46 PM
#1
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358

I have the feeling that this tool is not being used enough to adjust balance enough.
The same way Heavy tanks are limited to 1, to actually be able to make them stronger than normal tanks, some other units might receive the same treatment to balance some limit cases in 2vs2 and teamgames aswell.

What i want to achieve is a constructive discussion of wich late game units could benefit from being limited to 1 and make game balance more stable or even become better units if they really need to.

Lets start with some candidates:
Panther: Sturdy and very AT capable. Denies easily any other tank but TDs.
Walking Stuka: Hardest hitting and accurate rocket arty. Single volley but deadly vs teamweapons.
251 IR HT: Its a cheap recon tool, powerful with teamweapons.
Hetzer FT: Very durable as a mid-late game flame unit. RNG favoured because of small target size.
Jackson: Mobile AT TD, versatile. Effectively counters any other tank in the game but the heaviest ones.
Scotts: Mobile AI howitzer. Counters ATGs by effectively flanking.
Calliopes: The most durable rocket arty.
Comets:Same as panthers, a bit more versatile but mutually exclusive with churchill.
Churchill:A stock heavy tank with an average allied medium tank AT/AI power
Firefly:Conceptually the best TD but practically a pretty avertage 60 range TD.
Brumbarr:AI assault gun, deadly vs squads and single ATGs even frontally.

Many of these units already are built only once in 1v1s. Therefore competitive balance will remain pretty similar.

Some exceptions, at least in my opinion are those units that dont overperform when paired or being massed is intended for the faction design/weakness. Such as:
KV-1/Katyushas/Pwerfer/SU-85/JP4

Any medium tank is automatically excluded from the list to me, to define them as part of the core army.
Same goes for infantry and teamweapons. Those tools should be massed if the enemy composition is going heavy on the infantry/tank/indirect fire department.

Feel free to disagree with me, dont bother saying im wrong because i might be. I would invite to anyone to share their ideas or motives about making some units unique and better, or simply leaving as they are. All factions are included so anyone should be able to contribute.

Did i miss a unit? Add it in your post!
Did i got something wrong? post it and we all will read it and learn from it!

TL;DR
Make units better by making them unique. 1v1 balance is intact on most cases. Unique units will make faction design clearer to understand.
4 Jul 2020, 21:01 PM
#2
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

I don't think that's a very good idea tbh. If you spam a unit you should have a drawback based on its design. Limiting units to 1 seems like bad design.
4 Jul 2020, 21:13 PM
#3
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

Limits are never answer to anything.

If opponent spams X, you hardcounter it with Y.
4 Jul 2020, 22:03 PM
#4
avatar of Descolata

Posts: 486

Limiting is acceptable if the pop cap cost of the unit would be prohibitive to limit spamming (churchill). It lets certain vehicles that are ok alone but oppressive together be better alone (panther in team games). Also, rocket arty spam is a serious issue, with many late game big team games seeing two per player. Making them 18 pop cap or more to limit spam would be prohibitive, limiting to 1 might make team weapons a thing again. Might require further tweaking etc.
4 Jul 2020, 22:20 PM
#5
avatar of dasheepeh

Posts: 2115 | Subs: 1

making even more units unique seems like a foolproof way to make the game more bland
4 Jul 2020, 22:22 PM
#6
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

making even more units unique seems like a foolproof way to make the game more bland

Pretty much every single time this idea comes up, it comes from someone who struggles to counter 2 of whatever he suggests to limit.
4 Jul 2020, 23:39 PM
#7
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358

Limits are never answer to anything.

If opponent spams X, you hardcounter it with Y.

This is true in more classic RTS, like SC2/AOE/C&C where units die frequently but in CoH2 unit preservation is a whole new level of concept.
Wipes and unit loss punish the player badly because armies have very low critical mass. Two jackson/panthers take a lot of time to get but can destroy any other tank for at least 15 min or more, wich is a lot.

I think unit diversity is worth the cost of limiting some units "spammability"
Again, this only would affect 2v2s and teamgames.

And as i said, i was just opening the discussion, i am not asking for any change. Save your rudeness kat
4 Jul 2020, 23:47 PM
#8
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358

Limiting is acceptable if the pop cap cost of the unit would be prohibitive to limit spamming (churchill). It lets certain vehicles that are ok alone but oppressive together be better alone (panther in team games). Also, rocket arty spam is a serious issue, with many late game big team games seeing two per player. Making them 18 pop cap or more to limit spam would be prohibitive, limiting to 1 might make team weapons a thing again. Might require further tweaking etc.

I agree completely. I never said this is a slap-a-patch and forget topic. High popcap al always discussed in the forums as rather dumb or extremely harsh cost. All the lastest patches always reduce popcaps for no reason, blurring the original concept of "stop spamming x" with it.

Rocket arty spam is bad too, but buffing/limiting them to 1 is bad too, IMO. At least rocket spam leaves a wide open weakness to exploit that are all the AT capable vehicles/squads to destroy them when volleys are on CD.

Great feedback tho
4 Jul 2020, 23:56 PM
#9
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358

I don't think that's a very good idea tbh. If you spam a unit you should have a drawback based on its design. Limiting units to 1 seems like bad design.

Its true that RTS should not rely on unit limitations, because thats what MOBAs tend to do.
But since heavy tanks already have unit limit and some even exclude mutually other options. I was thinking more into giving players more reasons to diversify their armies based on truly unique performance.

For example, imagine jacksons being able to toggle for HVAP ammo for no cost, increase sight range. Things that would only be viable if they were limited to 1. Scotts having longer range. Panthers having 60 range. Ideas can be as wild as you like.
Its hard to push the balance limit without having serious drawbacks. So i decided to start with unit limits.

Since unit preservation is a core game mechanic and infantry can reinforce and retreat (durable) and mediums have an impact when reaching critical mass. The next step is exploiting the unique unit concept for late game expensive but worth its costs units.

I expect to see more mediums, infantry flanks and well micro-ed heavy/TDs/Unique units if the idea gets implemented well.
5 Jul 2020, 00:11 AM
#10
avatar of Protos Angelus

Posts: 1515

Might work in 1v1 and maybe in 2v2 but in 3v3+ limiting some of those units is game breaking.
Eg: Panther + BrumBrum + P4s + (doctrinal heavy) in late game (worst case scenario if things do not go your way as ally) + infantry <<VERSUS>> 1 Jackson + (Pershing) + Shermans + infantry = Clear Axis win if not brain damaged. I'm talking about 3v3+ modes and more specifically 1v1 on (let's say...) middle VP USF vs OST

==> Combine this with other players heavies and mediums and you have allies scrambling.
Limiting any tank but heavy to 1 would favour Axis more than Allies since in a clear, perfect 1v1 scenario, most axis tanks win, both heavy and medium.
Brum kills infantry better than Sherman but Sherman can kill tanks too but has to switch from HE to AT which takes time and is much squishier than BrumBrum.
Panther kills Pershing but Pershing can kill infantry much better.
Jackson counters tank spams by keeping them at a distance with high range/penetration.
Jackson is countered by infantry and heavy tank destroyers (equal terms with Axis tank destroyers on sight range or Axis TD range).
Heavy tank destroyers are soft countered by infantry (hard countered if unsupported)......
And so on and so forth.

Scotts btw don't counter anything. They are useful and good but no clear counter. Good vs infantry but easily snared and easily destroyed if not vet 1 or you are not micromanaging them often enough.

I do agree with Katitoff though. Sure unit preservation is a thing in COH2 but if I see a lot of infantry blobs (like in my last game), I just make an AA HT and howits and watch the enemy complain how it's OP (around rank 100 games nonetheless...).

In teamgames, teamwork and arty dominate much more.

2 last things... IMHO the best way to limit spamming is through population. You want to have 2x stuka (+2 from ally) on Port of Hamburg (map on which they dominate due to narrow spaces and forced corridors of movement).... sure you can but it will cost you a lot of population..... And maps. Most imbalance comes from map design. Maps like Steppes (without elevations and depressions) and Whiteball, General Mud, Winnekendonk, and similar should be a standard for 2v2+ modes. Open maps where Arty can't just spam regular positions and get wipes randomly. Or where Stuka doesn't know the exact retreat path in fog of war to wipe 1-2 of your squads retreating
0 user is browsing this thread:

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

530 users are online: 530 guests
0 post in the last 24h
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49155
Welcome our newest member, zbet100top
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM