Let's talk pop cap

Is anyone super happy about pop-cap as a game mechanic?

Most of my experience is 1v1 so perhaps I'm missing something when it comes to the larger team games, but whenever this mechanic comes into play it's always been a negative experience.

Has anyone actually bumped up against their pop-cap and felt "hrmmm yes this is a fun and exciting mechanic! I'm now forced to sacrifice existing, yet still useful units, to purchase a unit that is a tiny tiny bit more useful!"?

While I admit that it's relatively rare for pop-cap to become an issue, the few games that it does are awful. Nothing is worse than handily winning the early-game, and mid-game, and only needing just a tiny bit more force to close the game only to get pop-capped and then watch as your opponent claws back while you float 1000 manpower for 10 minutes.

This mechanic seems to affect the EFA the worst.

While 240 manpower grens with a 60 muni upgrade might be balanced at the 10 minute mark, how can they compete against double bren 5man tommies at the 40 minute mark? 2x 180 manpower engies might be balanced against sturms at the 5 minute mark, but what value do they bring repairing T-34 76s vs sturms and panthers?

Manpower upkeep already enforces a soft limit on unit numbers, so I'm unsure as to why we need a hard limit. Maybe 2-3 years ago the hard limit made sense for performance reasons, but are there people playing on hardware that would struggle with 2-3 more units more in-game?

It's my understanding that units used to have a more sensible pop-cap that was normalized a few years ago. I don't want to re-litigate main-line popcaps after years of balancing around the current stats, but I do wonder if it's time to raise pop-cap to 125 or 150.

Popcap and reduced manpower income are there to give an opportunity to the losing team to come back.

Popcap and reduced manpower income are there to give an opportunity to the losing team to come back.

Upkeep provides 90% of the come-back mechanism.

Pop-cap just punishes EFA with stuff like USF players de-crewing for an extra 25 pop.

I'm not arguing against come-back FWIW. I just think hard limits are unnecessary and really mess with game balance.

Pop-cap just punishes EFA with stuff like USF players de-crewing for an extra 25 pop.

You don't pay attention to any patch notes at all, eh?

You don't pay attention to any patch notes at all, eh?

Was there something relevant to the topic I missed?

pop cap is good. another variables which can be tweak to give the game more flavor

the worst hit factions are ukf and then ost. panther got a slightest buff but negated by loss in brumbar and pwafer, so their T4 costs are hanging in the air.

Was there something relevant to the topic I missed?

Yes.
The changes to USF over 100 popcap manpower income.

Other then that, you are not supposed to build massive army, you are supposed to build well balanced army, if you haven't, its fully intended that you'll have exploitable gaps if you decided to get too many X type unit while neglecting Y and Y being your weakness.

Plan better.

Yep popcap, the reason I seldom go tier 4 for ostheer on 1v1. Better just blitz and crush them with combined arms+lots of t3 tanks asap because your infantry is getting shitter as time goes on

Yes.
The changes to USF over 100 popcap manpower income.

Ah. And this completely solves the resource density problem between armies such as 280 manpower rifleman with 120 muni upgrade capacity being pop-valued the same as 240 manpower 60 muni upgrade capacity grens?

Or did you just ignore the whole sickly forest because you found one improving tree?

It's great that USF can get around pop-cap. It's stupid that other factions are limited by it.



Can anyone give me a justifying reason for hard pop-caps? Beyond performance issues?

Stopping snowballing (just build a bigger army than your opponent) and turtling (if you sit on troops doing nothing, your opponent can recover through the difference in pop cap mp drain).

Ah. And this completely solves the resource density problem between armies such as 280 manpower rifleman with 120 muni upgrade capacity being pop-valued the same as 240 manpower 60 muni upgrade capacity grens?

Yes, because you have other units that can reduce them to dust.
If you were spamming grens vs rifles and thought you'll end up on top - that's not balance problem.

Or did you just ignore the whole sickly forest because you found one improving tree?

Not understanding something does not mean its broken.
You'll learn eventually, I believe in you.

It's great that USF can get around pop-cap. It's stupid that other factions are limited by it.

Its great that soviets can have 6 man squads. Its stupid that other factions are limited to 4-5.
Its great that OKW can put whole base outside of base sector and it gets utilities with it too. Its stupid other factions are limited here.
Its great that Ost has premium tier with semi-heavy tanks which are above anything else in performance. Its stupid other factions are limited here and have to choose only 1 unit or can't have it at all.
You catch my drift yet?

Also, again, read patch notes. USF will be severely punished for going over the pop.

Can anyone give me a justifying reason for hard pop-caps? Beyond performance issues?

Yes.
Army balance.
Economy balance.
Power cap(allowing comebacks).
Map presence.
Map balance.
Map size.
Encouragement of mixed armies.
Discouragement of one unit type spam(easily countered).

These are all together, and each individually why we have pop like we do.
Feel free to deflect and disregard them all if you wish, it will not make a single one any less valid.

Stopping snowballing (just build a bigger army than your opponent) and turtling (if you sit on troops doing nothing, your opponent can recover through the difference in pop cap mp drain).

Uhh isn't the point of the game to build a bigger army than your opponent? Are we ignorant of Lanchester's square law? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester%27s_laws)

I thought the whole point of the game is that players compete over resources on the map to increase their army growth. If it's supposed to just be a roll of the dice and a player with one squad after a series of bad choices should have the same chance of winning as a player with 10 squads after a series of careful engagements then I'm not playing anymore.

Yes, because you have other units that can reduce them to dust.
If you were spamming grens vs rifles and thought you'll end up on top - that's not balance problem.

But if I spam 2x bar rifleman into a player who literally can't build anymore grens I deserve to win? This is the problem i'm outlining. Ought I be rewarded for having better resource density units than my hard capped opponent? A 100 pop USF infantry army obliterates a 100 pop OST infantry army. How is this fair?

Uhh isn't the point of the game to build a bigger army than your opponent? Are we ignorant of Lanchester's square law? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester%27s_laws)

I thought the whole point of the game is that players compete over resources on the map to increase their army growth. If it's supposed to just be a roll of the dice and a player with one squad after a series of bad choices should have the same chance of winning as a player with 10 squads after a series of careful engagements then I'm not playing anymore.

Having a bigger army gives you a higher probability of winning the game. It's as simple as that.

You simple don't like the concept of upkeep and popcap, with the last one been something that all if not most RTS implement in one way or another.


While it's a generalist way to look at RTS, games which makes you micro manage heavily in tech and economy doesn't force you to constantly micro and battle your opponent (SC2/AOE2). You can get your 200/200 values armies.
On the other side of the spectrum, you have games like COH/WC3. Which are more combat heavy, simplifying the economic aspect but forces you to think way more about your unit composition and what you are doing with it.

But if I spam 2x bar rifleman into a player who literally can't build anymore grens I deserve to win? This is the problem i'm outlining. Ought I be rewarded for having better resource density units than my hard capped opponent? A 100 pop USF infantry army obliterates a 100 pop OST infantry army. How is this fair?

If that player went for grens and not HMGs, snipers, flamer 251, ostwind or any other potent AI option, then yes, you have wasted your pop on a spam, he did not identified it, did not react to it, did not get proper tools to counter it despite having them all, resorted to spamming inferior unit instead and got beat, fair and square.

There is no balance problem here.
Relic can't patch terrible player out of you.

but forces you to think way more about your unit composition and what you are doing with it.

Uhhh what careful strategic thought is there behind the principle of cram as much resources as you can into your pop cap?

I'd love to see a game where dominant soviet players respond to a king tiger and panther stall with 8 t-34s, but under the current system this can never happen.

... resorted to spamming inferior unit instead and got beat, fair and square.

There is no balance problem here.
Relic can't patch terrible player out of you.

So Kaitof finally admits that grens are UP.

Uhh isn't the point of the game to build a bigger army than your opponent? Are we ignorant of Lanchester's square law? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester%27s_laws)

Lanchester's square laws takes into consideration both quantity and quality of opposing forces. So a numerically superior force can still lose to a force superior in quality. I think that's (usually) reflected quite well in CoH2.

So Kaitof finally admits that grens are UP.

Do grens cost 280 manpower to build?
Yes or no?

Do grens cost 280 manpower to build?
Yes or no?

Which is greater?

280/7

or

240/7?

Which is greater?

280/7

or

240/7?

Do grens cost 280 manpower to build?
Yes or no?

Don't deflect.