Let's talk pop cap

I already answered that

Please point to where you did.

Why?

Pop-cap prevents you from capitalizing on a temporary power burst from low value density units. Since the only reason you're building low value density units is the temporary burst of power in exchange for long-term upkeep losses there's no upside to building low value density units. All you get is the downside of higher relative upkeep.

Without pop-cap a player heavily invested into mid-game units would have about 10 minutes to win the game before upkeep burns out their economy. With pop-cap there's like a 2 minute window to capitalize on before you can't build anymore units and have to begin actively sacrificing low density units.

He had two stugs and a Pak in the final fight. His only mistake was building stugs instead of pushing big tank butan, because mediums are arbitrarily devalued thanks to their low comparative value density.

that was basically a 50 vs 90 popcap fight since half of giaps army was out of position or back in base

that was basically a 50 vs 90 popcap fight since half of giaps army was out of position or back in base

So you still think he would have lost if he had been allowed to purchase one more p4 or stug or AT-gun? Heck, even a panther?

So you still think he would have lost if he had been allowed to purchase one more p4 or stug or AT-gun? Heck, even a panther?

He lost because he didn't capitalized on crushing advantage, held back too much and allowed opponent full recovery.

Absolutely nothing to do with pop cap.

He lost because he didn't capitalized on crushing advantage, held back too much and allowed opponent full recovery.

Absolutely nothing to do with pop cap.

So allowing players to build over the pop-cap will have no ill-effect on the game as bad players still lose if they don't capitalize on crushing advantages?

Please point to where you did.

Sure thing, it's in the point you ignored.

...while neglecting other factors such as abilities and general faction balance/features or simply basic stats of the respective unit.

DPS, EHP, reinforcement cost, camo, abilities, snares etc. None of this is covered at all. Any of these could be quadrupled and your metric would not see it. You don't need a late game AI terminator squad if your have a Brummbar, similarly, IS need to fill more roles in a faction that has glaring holes.

Even a simple thing as starting resources throws most of your calculation off. And then there is veterancy, how does this go into the equation?

The initial cost is highly balanced to how quickly you can pump them out and how much resources the faction needs for teching at a given time.
For your calculation to be meaningful, you must first show how all factions bleed the same, have the same costs at any given time and how all metrics are the same (or conversely, how all of this does not matter). If all the surrounding factors are similar, then you can draw a conclusion from comparing the purchase cost only.

Pop-cap prevents you from capitalizing on a temporary power burst from low value density units. Since the only reason you're building low value density units is the temporary burst of power in exchange for long-term upkeep losses there's no upside to building low value density units. All you get is the downside of higher relative upkeep.

Without pop-cap a player heavily invested into mid-game units would have about 10 minutes to win the game before upkeep burns out their economy. With pop-cap there's like a 2 minute window to capitalize on before you can't build anymore units and have to begin actively sacrificing low density units.

What you describe is literally normal balancing issues.
If any unit does not give enough bang for the buck, it is UP (low value density), nothing else. Or OP the other way around.
If what you say were true, why do we see so many meta changes while the prices of units are either barely touched or (most cases) not touched at all? Why is 95% of balancing done via combat stats and not via the purchase cost?
With your purchase cost = combat value theory, OKW should spam Kubels all game (70 MP/pop). And even if they did not, Volks outperform Obersoldaten at any given moment in the game and Obers are similar to Sturms. Even more so, Pfusiliere should outperform Volks at any given moment. Yet, a viable Pfusi build starts with two Volks.
We should also see Tigers, IS2 and Pershing all day long, also Elefant and JTs should appear in 1v1s (much higher cost density than Panther). Yet, we don't see that many heavies and literally 0 Elefants in 1v1.
Yes, in general specialists are strong and expensive. But a Grenadier in a 3x PGren build (assuming this was viable to begin with) has waaaay more value than a fourth PGren, for the simple reason that it provides a snare alone. It has nothing to do with purchase costs.

I also don't know why you throw numbers such as "2 min" and "10 min" around with no back up. No one gets pop capped in the mid game, because at the time you can get pop capped the game is at least 25-30 min old (unless there have been no proper fights and bleed).

Having no pop cap means you are forced to remove any bleed if you want to go that high. It forces you to build vehicles and best case beefy vehicles that you will not lose and replace. This will force heavy units even more, the exact thing that you critisize.

Again, show how initial squad cost is the main factor behind unit balance from early to late game. So far, you have stated this as a fact and not backed it up ever. And from this point, you need to show how removing pop cap would solve these value issues better than normal balancing could.

DPS, EHP, reinforcement cost, camo, abilities, snares etc. None of this is covered at all. Any of these could be quadrupled and your metric would not see it. You don't need a late game AI terminator squad if your have a Brummbar, similarly, IS need to fill more roles in a faction that has glaring holes.

Why have a build cost at all if the things you've listed are share no relationship to the cost of the unit?

Just make sections 1 manpower and rifleman 1000 manpower and the game will still play out the same right? After all its everything else that matters but the cost.

If what you say were true, why do we see so many meta changes while the prices of units are either barely touched or (most cases) not touched at all? Why is 95% of balancing done via combat stats and not via the purchase cost?

Because any function has a dependent variable and independent variable. It's arbitrary which one changes, but from a matter of practicality you do pick one. Balance could just as easily be done by keeping combat stats fixed and varying the prices.

With your purchase cost = combat value theory, OKW should spam Kubels all game (70 MP/pop). And even if they did not, Volks outperform Obersoldaten at any given moment in the game and Obers are similar to Sturms. Even more so, Pfusiliere should outperform Volks at any given moment. Yet, a viable Pfusi build starts with two Volks.

If Kubels could be repaired independent of a 340 manpower squad they actually would be built all game. This is an exception that proves the rule since a Kubels true cost is tied to sturms.

Pfusi builds start with volks because there is no pop-cap consideration in the early game, and the short term power boost from volks is temporally more valuable than the long term efficiency of pfusi.

We should also see Tigers, IS2 and Pershing all day long, also Elefant and JTs should appear in 1v1s (much higher cost density than Panther). Yet, we don't see that many heavies and literally 0 Elefants in 1v1.

Lets turn this question on it's head. If pop value density isn't a thing then why don't we see t34 spam winning every 4v4? Why is it the game mode with higher resources favors higher resource units if low resource units are just as valuable?

Having no pop cap means you are forced to remove any bleed if you want to go that high. It forces you to build vehicles and best case beefy vehicles that you will not lose and replace. This will force heavy units even more, the exact thing that you critisize.

How does pop-cap encourage low-value bleed units? If you're pop-capped for any substantial amount of time the last thing you want is low value units taking up pop. Manpower concerns are totally irrelevant to you since you can't spend it anyways. No one is building mainline infantry at 90 pop. They're building engies. They're throwing away mortars and MGs for more tanks because the only thing of value is having denser units at that point.

If you want to discourage heavy tank usage you need to reduce upkeep values. I'm perfectly happy with where they are now though. They're a long term investment with a high upfront cost.

With pop-cap though a player building mediums is prevented from fully exploiting short term cheap units that overwhelm heavy tank investments before the dividends become too big.

The worst thing you can do in a winning position is to build mediums instead of saving for heavys and elite infantry, yet I think most players agree that medium tank fights are far more exciting and skillful than 50 minute games of poke heavy tank forward for 1 minute, repair for 5 mintues.

How the power levels of a low density(red) strategy vs a high density(blue) strategy look with pop-cap:



How the power levels would look without pop-cap




With pop-caps a low density strategy has a tiny advantage before they hit the pop-cap and spend the rest of the game massively disadvantaged to the point they might as well quit at 30 minutes. Lights and mediums are only useful for a few minutes of shock value before becoming a long term liability. As long as the high density player can survive for a few minutes with only a couple AT guns a heavy will easily secure the game.


Without pop-caps a low density strategy has a much stronger advantage early late-game, but a high-density strategy will eventually blow it out in value if they don't close. Lights and mediums are incredibly useful in keeping your opponent in check, and punishing heavy tank stalls, yet both players still have a long term pressure to invest in denser units.

Why have a build cost at all if the things you've listed are share no relationship to the cost of the unit?

Go quote me on that, because I never said that build costs hold no value to balancing. I said that looking at build costs alone and neglecting everything else is bullshit.

Just make sections 1 manpower and rifleman 1000 manpower and the game will still play out the same right? After all its everything else that matters but the cost.

If that's the quality of discussion you're aiming for, we can end this right now because I am really not interested in shit-throwing.

Because any function has a dependent variable and independent variable. It's arbitrary which one changes, but from a matter of practicality you do pick one. Balance could just as easily be done by keeping combat stats fixed and varying the prices.

Apparently balancing by combat stats is the preferred way, although the effects are much more indirect than changing purchase costs. Should make you think why, because I am sure that balance team is not interested in creating more work than necessary.

If Kubels could be repaired independent of a 340 manpower squad they actually would be built all game. This is an exception that proves the rule since a Kubels true cost is tied to sturms.

No they would not. Kubels get two-shot (or even shot+snare or shot+small arms). Building them mid and late game is simply throwing resources away since there is a medium and an ATG available.

Also suddenly there are interdependencies?
Why is there no interdependency between IS and REs? Grens and MG42s? Penals and the lack of any team weapon? Obers and the otherwise lack of a cost late game AI option for OKW?
That's what I am talking about: You cannot completely neglect the environment your comparison operates in.

Pfusi builds start with volks because there is no pop-cap consideration in the early game, and the short term power boost from volks is temporally more valuable than the long term efficiency of pfusi.

You just said literally this:

Pop-cap prevents you from capitalizing on a temporary power burst from low value density units.

You even gave the example of medium tanks in the mid game, where you usually just reach about 60-65 pop. At this point you can still fit any unit you like, so population is still not a concern.



Maybe let's take a short cut:
Why do you think that the purchase cost is such a better measurement of performance than any actual performance stat like DPS or health?

Lets turn this question on it's head. If pop value density isn't a thing then why don't we see t34 spam winning every 4v4? Why is it the game mode with higher resources favors higher resource units if low resource units are just as valuable?

Again, I never said that even if you're trying to insinuate so.
I'll bounce this question right back since you are convinced of the purchase cost theory: Why are T70s not built in the late game when they have way higher cost density than T34/76s? Heck, even the IS2 cannot cope with this cost density.

How does pop-cap encourage low-value bleed units? If you're pop-capped for any substantial amount of time the last thing you want is low value units taking up pop. Manpower concerns are totally irrelevant to you since you can't spend it anyways. No one is building mainline infantry at 90 pop. They're building engies. They're throwing away mortars and MGs for more tanks because the only thing of value is having denser units at that point.

You pick the most cost efficient units. But again, cost efficiency is not determined by purchase cost alone, also not by pop cap alone. Actual performance stats is what matters.

If you want to discourage heavy tank usage you need to reduce upkeep values. I'm perfectly happy with where they are now though. They're a long term investment with a high upfront cost.

With pop-cap though a player building mediums is prevented from fully exploiting short term cheap units that overwhelm heavy tank investments before the dividends become too big.

The worst thing you can do in a winning position is to build mediums instead of saving for heavys and elite infantry, yet I think most players agree that medium tank fights are far more exciting and skillful than 50 minute games of poke heavy tank forward for 1 minute, repair for 5 mintues.

The worst thing you can do in a winning position is not keeping the pressure.
If you keep playing at the same army strengths you allow your opponent to punish a misplay of yours and wipe squads/steal weapons etc. If you have an additional 1-2 units on the field (the advantage you gained previously), the chance of him doing so is much lower, because he needs to fight an uphill battle. You on the other hand bleed less, put more pressure, more map control, more income.

If you don't believe me, then believe any of the other pro or non-pro players that have said exactly the same in this very thread.

4 things

1. You're massively understating the value of the concept of so-called "low density units" they do not stop existing just because something else is built later that is on the field that is bigger than them. They can still provide value in other facets of the game or even against the bigger threat if they aren't the primary source of value. The problem comes in building the wrong answer to a unit, or not building an answer at all either in response or pre-emptively which you can use your gamesense to figure out what it is you should build to counter what. You're not going to build a tank destroyer to counter an infantry blob right?

2. Your idea of no pop cap would result in games with infinitely too many units fielded by both teams resulting in the aforementioned problem of "stick tank in, poke, repair for 5 minutes" because there would be too much shit to actually break through and make a push in the late game. Without an early game mistake every game would turn into the equivalent of 4's on 1's maps. No one wants to play that. That would be awful and ruin the game because if you don't keep up with your opponent to a point where you can comfortably defend against anything, he will run you over with his numerically superior number of units which isn't particularly skillful nor interesting as opposed to the concept of using a limited number of units and jumping on advantages created via the way you've used your units to outplay your opponent.

3. There is opportunity cost in waiting for Heavies. Sometimes the cost is too great because you're actively not using your resources now to win and you're weakening your overall position in the grand scheme of the game and in the short term by letting go of applied pressure in a winning situation. If your opponent realizes you haven't built a tank yet because you're saving for a heavy, he will build a tank destroyer +ATGun and now you've suddenly lost your advantage for no particular reason because you subscribe to the fallacious notion of "unit density" instead of "I want to win the game".

4. I understand what you're trying to say, but the fact of the matter is that you're not quite grasping some important concepts that go into how you build your army instead relying on a very small conceptual subset of information that might be true in a vacuum, but not in practice. You should really heed the words of not just myself, but basically everyone else here trying to explain why what you want to do just won't work properly. We're not trying to be mean or shut you down for no reason, it's just that your idea is too narrow in scope to function correctly and would fundamentally break how units and the game work for what ultimately wouldn't be an improvement in anyway.

Go quote me on that, because I never said that build costs hold no value to balancing. I said that looking at build costs alone and neglecting everything else is bullshit.

Apparently balancing by combat stats is the preferred way, although the effects are much more indirect than changing purchase costs. Should make you think why, because I am sure that balance team is not interested in creating more work than necessary.

Are some units, despite being balanced early game, far more effective than others in a pop-cap situation?

If yes: which is more work for the balance team?

1: rebalancing 10s of units around the pop-cap performance without disturbing early game balance
-or-
2: changing 1 arbitrary value

No they would not. Kubels get two-shot (or even shot+snare or shot+small arms). Building them mid and late game is simply throwing resources away since there is a medium and an ATG available.

The SOV clown car has the exact same health. 2x WC-51s dominated USF meta for months. 222 is an OST staple. Bren carrier has been a staple of UKF for awhile though currently there isn't much reason for one over super sections.

Kubels are the only ultra-lights that don't see much play not because they don't have high value individually, but because kubels tie up a 340 manpower worker/mainline.

Also suddenly there are interdependencies?
Why is there no interdependency between IS and REs? Grens and MG42s? Penals and the lack of any team weapon? Obers and the otherwise lack of a cost late game AI option for OKW?
That's what I am talking about: You cannot completely neglect the environment your comparison operates in.

So you want me to write a 1,000 page book on every unit in the game before commenting on anything? I have a sneaking suspicion you wouldn't want to read it.

Maybe let's take a short cut:
Why do you think that the purchase cost is such a better measurement of performance than any actual performance stat like DPS or health?

I think the purchase cost, after 5 years of balancing, is a decent summation of the relative value of a unit's DPS and health stats, and though they may not be perfectly accurate, are a good tool for high level discussion compared to the alternative situation wherein I write a 1,000 page book.

I cannot think of a single unit that consistently beats a more expensive unit in it's same class role. Semi-elite infantry beat mainline infantry, elite infantry beats semi-elite. Mediums beat lights. Heavies beat mediums etc. etc.

The only equalizer for cheap units is numbers, which works great for the first 30 minutes of the game until it becomes impossible to outnumber your opponent.

Again, I never said that even if you're trying to insinuate so.
I'll bounce this question right back since you are convinced of the purchase cost theory: Why are T70s not built in the late game when they have way higher cost density than T34/76s? Heck, even the IS2 cannot cope with this cost density.

T-70 is built in 99% of SOV games, and the entire faction revolves around it's effectiveness so I'm not sure why you think this is some sort of gotcha. I've seen 100s of games where someone replaces a destroyed t-70 for every 1 game someone replaces a 222.

The worst thing you can do in a winning position is not keeping the pressure.
If you keep playing at the same army strengths you allow your opponent to punish a misplay of yours and wipe squads/steal weapons etc. If you have an additional 1-2 units on the field (the advantage you gained previously), the chance of him doing so is much lower, because he needs to fight an uphill battle. You on the other hand bleed less, put more pressure, more map control, more income.

If you don't believe me, then believe any of the other pro or non-pro players that have said exactly the same in this very thread.

This pressure mindset sounds great until you hit a base entrance mine chasing low health squads, or get ambush snared in front of two AT guns.

Are some units, despite being balanced early game, far more effective than others in a pop-cap situation?

If yes: which is more work for the balance team?

1: rebalancing 10s of units around the pop-cap performance without disturbing early game balance
-or-
2: changing 1 arbitrary value

Lots. And Penals and Osttruppen are hard to rebuild and inefficient in the late game, while e.g. Conscripts being decently rebuildable despite having lower cost/pop. IS have weaknesses early and are one of the best infantry units late game. 5 men upgrade is a big plus despite lowering cost/pop, same goes for the VSL meta we are still having. All this should not be the case in your theory, yet I do not see players actively not bolstering because they achieve higher cost/pop.

But all do. Because what they achieve is higher DPS/pop and higher survivability/pop with their squads, which is what matters way more than purchase costs.

Relic and balance team have consistently chosen option1, do you really think they are all stupid and don't see the easy option?

The SOV clown car has the exact same health. 2x WC-51s dominated USF meta for months. 222 is an OST staple. Bren carrier has been a staple of UKF for awhile though currently there isn't much reason for one over super sections.

Kubels are the only ultra-lights that don't see much play not because they don't have high value individually, but because kubels tie up a 340 manpower worker/mainline.

Exactly. M3 and WC are decent/meta because you can load a bursting unit into them, UC is decent due to good upgrades. And none of them get build in the late game despite having an abnormously high resource density. Why? They should make a perfect addition to the late game army due to this if what you say were true.
(And off note: Sturms are 300 MP)

So you want me to write a 1,000 page book on every unit in the game before commenting on anything? I have a sneaking suspicion you wouldn't want to read it.

I think the purchase cost, after 5 years of balancing, is a decent summation of the relative value of a unit's DPS and health stats, and though they may not be perfectly accurate, are a good tool for high level discussion compared to the alternative situation wherein I write a 1,000 page book.
I cannot think of a single unit that consistently beats a more expensive unit in it's same class role. Semi-elite infantry beat mainline infantry, elite infantry beats semi-elite. Mediums beat lights. Heavies beat mediums etc. etc.
The only equalizer for cheap units is numbers, which works great for the first 30 minutes of the game until it becomes impossible to outnumber your opponent.

Nope, I want you explain how your claim can hold up if there are so many contrary examples.
Your approach neglects strength in different phases of the game. If Osttruppen are too efficient early and bad late game, no amount of interfering with pop and purchase cost will change that. Yes, better units are more expensive, but the purchase cost is not good enough to describe the quality alone.

Your approach only makes sense if we assume we had perfect balance AND everything is balanced to purchase costs (something you still have not shown, you've just said that stronger units are more expensive, therefore your metric is accurate), which we don't have.

Imagine Grens being actually UP to Conscripts, despite having the same "cost density". How would your approach guide to the right direction? Decreasing cost? This would lead to a worse metric for them and actually make Grens less desirable according to the metric, despite being one way to solve it. Increasing cost? Would improve the metric but make them even weaker. Lower pop? Could be the right choice, but what if they are only 5-10% weaker but decreasing the population from 7 to 6 results in a ~15% change? Can't match that. Nevertheless, it would make them appear better than Conscripts despite them being now equal.
How do we deal with them making decent damage, but just dying too quickly? Just lowering the population will create issues since a spam of them could potentially delete other squads quickly due to insanely high DPS that you can field. It might still be a balanced, but not a fun game.

Again, all this neglects faction features, vet and multiple other things I mentioned.
Looking at stats like damage and health however allows you to identify the issues.

T-70 is built in 99% of SOV games, and the entire faction revolves around it's effectiveness so I'm not sure why you think this is some sort of gotcha. I've seen 100s of games where someone replaces a destroyed t-70 for every 1 game someone replaces a 222.

You did not answer the question:
Why is it not built in the late game anymore? Why do Soviets use their T4 units when their most cost-dense units are actually in T3 and should be therefore - your claim - much more desirable?

And before you resort to claiming I was cherry picking: This is actually the case for most units: Luchs and Puma cost more per pop than a KT (~46% favor for them in MP and only 22% favor for KT in fuel). And literally ALL artillery vehicles have a horrible cost/pop ratio. Yet if you do not build them you have already lost the match in 2v2 upwards.

Do you think an 8-10 population Katyusha/PWerfer/Stuka would be better balanced than the current one? Or that those need cost reduction?
Because that is what your metric is suggesting.

We simply do not have perfect balance, and not all units are priced to their vet0 late game potential, since this would screw up early game balance. Balancing is difficult, and if you're not willing to make a decent comparison ("write 1000 pages") that is totally fine. But you should accept that your easy short cut comes with severe drawbacks regarding the conclusions you get.

This pressure mindset sounds great until you hit a base entrance mine chasing low health squads, or get ambush snared in front of two AT guns.

Which meant you got outplayed. If your Panther drives on a base entrance mine in front of two ATGs, nothing is gonna save that either.

5 men upgrade is a big plus despite lowering cost/pop, same goes for the VSL meta we are still having. All this should not be the case in your theory, yet I do not see players actively not bolstering because they achieve higher cost/pop.

5 men squads are meta BECAUSE they increase pop value density. You're increasing a squads firepower by at least 25%, but only increasing the pop by 14% (7+1).

The only other option for OST to increase it's pop-value density is hedging Pgrens with Ostruppen BECAUSE grens are worthless in pop-value density late game. You need at least 4x vanilla gren squads to even compete against 3x double weaponed WFA infantry.

Relic and balance team have consistently chosen option1, do you really think they are all stupid and don't see the easy option?

I'm not going to call them stupid, but it's clear this idea hasn't been floated at all judging by the absolutely abysmal quality of responses from the resident knee-jerk contrarians.

You're not thinking through your posts whatsoever, and only reflexively protecting your ego at this point, so I'm going to take a break and let this idea stew awhile.

5 men squads are meta BECAUSE they increase pop value density. You're increasing a squads firepower by at least 25%, but only increasing the pop by 14% (7+1).

The only other option for OST to increase it's pop-value density is hedging Pgrens with Ostruppen BECAUSE grens are worthless in pop-value density late game. You need at least 4x vanilla gren squads to even compete against 3x double weaponed WFA infantry.

So the actual metric is suddenly DPS and not purchase cost?

Look what I said here:

DPS, EHP, reinforcement cost, camo, abilities, snares etc.

I'm not going to call them stupid, but it's clear this idea hasn't been floated at all judging by the absolutely abysmal quality of responses from the resident knee-jerk contrarians.

You're not thinking through your posts whatsoever, and only reflexively protecting your ego at this point, so I'm going to take a break and let this idea stew awhile.

You're the only one making this personal. And you're also the only one completely ignoring what others and I have posted.

But fine by me, less time wasted.

So the actual metric is suddenly DPS and not purchase cost?

I've always used the phrase pop-value density. I've only used cost as a rough index of value because that's what it is. While not perfectly accurate we'd spend years deriving some other index of value, and I know this for a fact because balance team has spent the past 5 years trying to perfect the already existing index of value i.e. cost!

You'd see this if you were honestly evaluating the merits of the idea, but it's clear you're straw-grasping instead of admitting to yourself that you rushed into an argument without actually thinking it through.

The only issue with pop cap is that the US exists.

Abandon tank, pop cap goes down, build another, cont.