Inconsistency in Population/Ressource

Imo the population value somehow reflects the game value of a unit, so ressource costs do too. Sometimes some of these stats are changed without considering the others. I don't understand why.

One example out of the recent patches. While Jackson went from 15 to 16 population, Firefly went from 16 to 15 population. Still Firefly remains to be the more expensive one. Shouldn't all stats be exchanged? Overall Jackson is the best deal anyways (dps/speed/moving acc, great Vet1 HVAP compared to unreliable and expensive rockets...).

Jackson atm (MP/FU/pop): 400/140/16
Firefly atm (MP/FU/pop): 440/145/15

So shouldn't cost be exchanged like it was already done for population?

Its not the only example but I did thought since it was a recent change and both units are allied (no bias) + same combat role it is a pretty obvious one. You'll find further examples by looking closer at it.

Population costs are unrelated to resource costs.

Both are related to unit performance within its own faction. They can be changed seperately to finetune balance. Which was done for the Firefly, because UKF is a more population cost heavy faction than USF.

Population is unrelated to unit cost.

Both are related to unit performance within its own faction. They can be changed seperately to finetune balance. Which was done for the Firefly, because UKF is a more population heavy faction than USF.

Yeah, I see that and it makes sense. But following your own argumentation there is more about it: UKF is the more manpower hungry faction, while USF itself is more munition hungry than UKF. So it makes somehow sense that rockets are more expensive than HVAP, but it does make no sense that Firefly is more expensive at manpower than Jackson. Manpower is a critical ressource for UKF. So shouldn't their manpower cost be exchanged? It is the same argument you brought up for population.

Imo at fuel both factions are roughly about the same. I see no big differnce.

The question is why is JP Pop 15 when it designed to engage targets with less armor.

The question is why is JP Pop 15 when it designed to engage targets with less armor.

if it ain't broke don't fix it

The question is why is JP Pop 15 when it designed to engage targets with less armor.

No, that is not the question of this thread and I don't want to go this thread that way. This thread is about comparison of a units population to its own ressource cost, not about units having the right population and cost for their performance. So if you want to speak about JP in this thread then talk about its population beeing too high for its ressource cost. But I do think 400/135 to 15 is something that is pretty close to the other units ratio, especially if Firefly and Jackson cost would be exchanged. Then Firefly would be 400/140 to 15 which would be pretty much the same as JP. Jackson would have 440/145/16, that would be a similar ratio.

If you do think JP ist too expensive (population/ressource) overall, just make a new thread about it please. Thanks.

No, that is not the question of this thread and I don't want to go this thread that way. This thread is about comparison of a units population to its own ressource cost, not about units having the right population and cost for their performance. So if you want to speak about JP in this thread then talk about its population beeing too high for its ressource cost. But I do think 400/135 to 15 is something that is pretty close to the other units ratio, especially if Firefly and Jackson cost would be exchanged. Then Firefly would be 400/140 to 15 which would be pretty much the same as JP. Jackson would have 440/145/16, that would be a similar ratio.

If you do think JP ist too expensive (population/ressource) overall, just make a new thread about it please. Thanks.

I am sorry to have to point out this to you but:

Population is unrelated to unit cost.

Both are related to unit performance within its own faction...

Yeah, I see that and it makes sense...

So sander93 just told that pop is related to unit performance and you just agreed with him but for some strange reason you disagree with me when I say the same thing.

But even according to your own argument (and suggestion):
Jackson atm (MP/FU/pop): 400/140/16
Firefly atm (MP/FU/pop): 440/145/15
(Firefly as you just suggested (MP/FU/pop): 400/140/15)
JP4 cost 400/135/15

thus should have lower pop

if it ain't broke don't fix it

I guess you wanted to quote OP and quoted me instead.

You believe Ranger use 10 population？Balance team always forget details.

But even according to your own argument (and suggestion):
Jackson atm (MP/FU/pop): 400/140/16
Firefly atm (MP/FU/pop): 440/145/15
(Firefly as you just suggested (MP/FU/pop): 400/140/15)
JP4 cost 400/135/15

thus should have lower pop

SU-85: 350/130/15

So which population should SU-85 have then? Funny that you don't brought that one example that is even more obvious than JP. You see know? That is exactly the discussion I didn't want. No biased faction discussion please.
So I won't discuss that any further.

I'll summarize my first post just for you: I brought an example of Jackson and Firefly which population was practically exchanged. I wondered why ressource costs weren't adjusted accordingly (exchanged). It would have made Jackson a little bit more expensive and Firefly a little bit cheaper (same amount). Since most people around here seem to see the Jackson as the ultimate non-superheavy TD and USF winratios seem to look better than UKF ones overall I thought such an adjustment could be reasonable. If the dev team doesn't want to consider it, thats the way it is. I can live with that. Overall there is no big change in teamgames which I play mainly.

So sander93 just told that pop is related to unit performance and you just agreed with him but for some strange reason you disagree with me when I say the same thing.

You misinterpreted me and my intentions, so it makes no sense to discuss it anymore.

I guess you wanted to quote OP and quoted me instead.

No, it seems he quoted the right person. Your post is not quite appropiate and adds nothing but salt unless you wanted to be real funny. In the latter case we can't see your ironical expression in a typed text and you didn't point that out so it keeps beeing irrelevant and missleading.

Population costs are unrelated to resource costs.

Both are related to unit performance within its own faction. They can be changed seperately to finetune balance. Which was done for the Firefly, because UKF is a more population cost heavy faction than USF.

Isn't population used as one of means to discourage/nerf spamming?

So sander93 just told that pop is related to unit performance and you just agreed with him but for some strange reason you disagree with me when I say the same thing.

I said it's related to unit performance within their own faction. Given how hard the JP4 murders mediums and TDs, how hard it scales with vet, and how OKW has the Panther and other heavies to engage enemy heavies effectively, the JP4 is fine at 15 pop.

Yeah, I see that and it makes sense. But following your own argumentation there is more about it: UKF is the more manpower hungry faction, while USF itself is more munition hungry than UKF. So it makes somehow sense that rockets are more expensive than HVAP, but it does make no sense that Firefly is more expensive at manpower than Jackson. Manpower is a critical ressource for UKF. So shouldn't their manpower cost be exchanged? It is the same argument you brought up for population.

Units are balanced only within the context of their own faction. The unit cost of the Jackson doesn't matter for the unit cost of the Firefly. On top of that, the Jackson artificially overperforms a bit on purpose because it's the only reliable/heavy AT that USF has in the late game. UKF has the 17-pounder, Churchills for meat shields, Comet, etc. to help hold back Axis' heavier armor.

You believe Ranger use 10 population？Balance team always forget details.

We didn't forget anything, Rangers were purposefully left at 10 pop because of how effective tripple elite Bazooka Rangers are and we didn't want to encourage spamming them. Thompson Rangers being affected by this was a sacrifice that was made deliberately. If it wasn't for the zooks they could've been 9 pop like other elite infantry.

SU-85: 350/130/15

So which population should SU-85 have then? Funny that you don't brought that one example that is even more obvious than JP. You see know? That is exactly the discussion I didn't want. No biased faction discussion please.
So I won't discuss that any further.

I'll summarize my first post just for you: I brought an example of Jackson and Firefly which population was practically exchanged. I wondered why ressource costs weren't adjusted accordingly (exchanged). It would have made Jackson a little bit more expensive and Firefly a little bit cheaper (same amount). Since most people around here seem to see the Jackson as the ultimate non-superheavy TD and USF winratios seem to look better than UKF ones overall I thought such an adjustment could be reasonable. If the dev team doesn't want to consider it, thats the way it is. I can live with that. Overall there is no big change in teamgames which I play mainly.


You misinterpreted me and my intentions, so it makes no sense to discuss it anymore.


No, it seems he quoted the right person. Your post is not quite appropiate and adds nothing but salt unless you wanted to be real funny. In the latter case we can't see your ironical expression in a typed text and you didn't point that out so it keeps beeing irrelevant and missleading.

PLS avoid personal/ non constructive comments.


Things are pretty simply:
if ones accepts Sander93 point that unit should have pop according to "performance within its own faction" JP4 should have lower Pop than FF/SU-85.

if one accept your point that unit should have pop according to their cost both SU-85 and JP4 should have lower pop than FF/m36.

I said it's related to unit performance within their own faction. Given how hard the JP4 murders mediums

A dedicated TD that cost more than mediums, both in resources and pop, can kill mediums if they decided to slug out it (and can lose if flanked unlike Panthers).

Nope it does sound like "murders" to me. Basically it can do what Stug III does for around double the price in 10 range more.

If one is facing mediums one is better investing in PzIV. It can handle mediums, has great AI and even has lower pop.

and TDs,

Again only TD that decided to slug it out. And the faction has an ATG with lower range than enemy TDs.

how hard it scales with vet,

While having higher XP value than other TDs and firing at cheaper targets with the only really good bonus compared to other TDs is the extra HP. In an faction that has a five vet system.

and how OKW has the Panther and other heavies to engage enemy heavies effectively, the JP4 is fine at 15 pop.
...

On the contrary being in the same building as Panther should justify lower pop since Panther can engage both medium and heavy tanks.

To the topic:
I've always considered population to reflect the unit value at later stages of the game, while resources rather take the role of reflecting the value of the unit right out of the gate. Obviously it's not as black and white as that, but the general idea works well.

POP always defined for me how much combat power you could squeeze into your army. Units that scale very well via upgrades and veterancy should therefore be more expensive in population. Buying a unit or upgrade is an upfront investment, for which you usually need quicker return. Goes more towards the "shock value" of the unit.
I agree with Sanders that these values are balanced within their faction, although I'd say "mostly" instead of "only". We've regularly had standardization of units or abilities across factions, and this makes sense to some extend.
Regarding your example: I think in the end probably no one would really notice the difference between a 16 POP or 15 POP Firefly or Jackson. The Jackson should not be overly expensive since it's your only AT unit to really scale into the late game as USF, unless you want to spend all your munis on those special AT rounds of the 57mm ATG. I think this is why it did not get a price increase: To not risk gating USF out of AT options more than necessary. On the other hand it performs so well that Jacksons need to be population intensive. I assume this is why they cost both less resources and more POP than the Firefly.

We didn't forget anything, Rangers were purposefully left at 10 pop because of how effective tripple elite Bazooka Rangers are and we didn't want to encourage spamming them. Thompson Rangers being affected by this was a sacrifice that was made deliberately. If it wasn't for the zooks they could've been 9 pop like other elite infantry.

Quick question:
Was it considered to give Thompsons a tiny buff then to make them on par in value with triple zook Rangers? If so, what was the reason against it?

To the topic:
I've always considered population to reflect the unit value at later stages of the game, while resources rather take the role of reflecting the value of the unit right out of the gate. Obviously it's not as black and white as that, but the general idea works well.

POP always defined for me how much combat power you could squeeze into your army. Units that scale very well via upgrades and veterancy should therefore be more expensive in population. Buying a unit or upgrade is an upfront investment, for which you usually need quicker return. Goes more towards the "shock value" of the unit.
I agree with Sanders that these values are balanced within their faction, although I'd say "mostly" instead of "only". We've regularly had standardization of units or abilities across factions, and this makes sense to some extend.
Regarding your example: I think in the end probably no one would really notice the difference between a 16 POP or 15 POP Firefly or Jackson. The Jackson should not be overly expensive since it's your only AT unit to really scale into the late game as USF, unless you want to spend all your munis on those special AT rounds of the 57mm ATG. I think this is why it did not get a price increase: To not risk gating USF out of AT options more than necessary. On the other hand it performs so well that Jacksons need to be population intensive. I assume this is why they cost both less resources and more POP than the Firefly.


Quick question:
Was it considered to give Thompsons a tiny buff then to make them on par in value with triple zook Rangers? If so, what was the reason against it?

Imo pop is also related to the role of the unit.

Specialized unit should have lower pop than their intended targets. For instance lets say a medium tank has a pop of 12 and it being hard counter by a TD with 14 pop.

If player A builds that medium tank and player B that TD player A can simply avoid engagements and have the advantage of bigger size army and lower upkeep.

Imo pop is also related to the role of the unit.

Specialized unit should have lower pop than their intended targets. For instance lets say a medium tank has a pop of 12 and it being hard counter by a TD with 14 pop.

If player A builds that medium tank and player B that TD player A can simply avoid engagements and have the advantage of bigger size army and lower upkeep.

I think this is a too general statement to make.
It depends on how effective the counter is. A TD with double the fire rate needs higher POP than if it had half the fire rate, even if it the targets are worth less population.
I agree to your example as a general thought, but it does not have much to do with CoH2. Every unit has more than only one target. Even TDs that specialize towards mediums can contribute decently against higher armor targets. And who guarantees that there will be a ratio of 1 TD to 1 medium? No one. If the TD is good enough to counter 1-2 mediums, there is no reason for the TD to be cheaper. This obviously translates to all units, as we can see with the Elefant and Jagdtiger.

I think this is a too general statement to make.

It depends on how effective the counter is. A TD with double the fire rate needs higher POP than if it had half the fire rate, even if it the targets are worth less population.
I agree to your example as a general thought, but it does not have much to do with CoH2.

Imo it has everything to do with COH2.

HMG (Mortars) can be extremely effective and counter multiple mainline infatry but have less pop than mainline infatry because of their role as support Weapons.

TD are in the a similar manner "support weapons" (atg role) to counter main battle tanks.

Every unit has more than only one target. Even TDs that specialize towards mediums can contribute decently against higher armor targets. And who guarantees that there will be a ratio of 1 TD to 1 medium? No one. If the TD is good enough to counter 1-2 mediums, there is no reason for the TD to be cheaper. This obviously translates to all units, as we can see with the Elefant and Jagdtiger.

Generally speaking TDs will not win the game main battle tank will, main battle tanks serve more roles.

Elefant hardly see any action in 1vs1 for a reason.

In sort, role comes first and power level comes in comparison to units with the same role.

Imo it has everything to do with COH2.

HMG (Mortars) can be extremely effective and counter multiple mainline infatry but have less pop than mainline infatry because of their role as support Weapons.

TD are in the a similar manner "support weapons" (atg role) to counter main battle tanks.

Generally speaking TDs will not win the game main battle tank will, main battle tanks serve more roles.

And if 15 POP of TD counter 20+ POP of MBTs, I'd call that a worthwhile investment.
Overall, your logic only works in few cases. It does not explain ANY elite infantry. It does not even explain any vehicles that have decent AI or maybe even AI only. All these would not be worthwhile, they do cost more in both POP and resources than even the most expensive infantry squad there is. Still, people build tanks. Why? According to you, that should be a waste of population.

Elefant hardly see any action in 1vs1 for a reason.

Yes, but obviously not for the one we're discussing here.

In sort, role comes first and power level comes in comparison to units with the same role.

This is a mere statement without much backup. You even made the point yourself, quoting Sander, that cost is related to unit performance. Obviously, not the role itself.

But I'll leave at that. I think we've had this discussion in some form already and we both made our POVs clear. OP wanted to discuss the relation between resource cost and population with the specific example of the Firefly and Jackson, which has barely been done so far. SO I'd rather come back to that.