Inconsistency in Population/Ressource

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.

"My logic" does explain those things.

Unit have roles and pop is related to that role. A mainline infatry is more useful than a support weapon that it takes up more Pop.

Once the pop of role/category is decided units are balanced according to power level thus an elite infatry has more Pop than mainline infatry although both are infantries.

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

And I have pointed out that imo it is related to both.

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 discu
ss 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.

This thread has the tittle "Inconsistency in Population/Ressource" thus all inconsistencies of pop/resources are on topic.

If one want to talk about FF and M36 one has to keep in mind that:
FF can arrive earlier than M36
M36 is OP by decision

for similar reason HMG-42 is superior to Maxim yet have same cost, (no tech cost HMG-42) and Pop.

If there are inconsistencies with in those TDs they have more to do with SU-85 being cheaper and or JP being so expensive/having similar pop.

"My logic" does explain those things.

Unit have roles and pop is related to that role. A mainline infatry is more useful than a support weapon that it takes up more Pop.

Once the pop of role/category is decided units are balanced according to power level thus an elite infatry has more Pop than mainline infatry although both are infantries.

Support weapons are an integral part of most builds, you can't just put an arbitrary comparison between those, because value is mostly decided situationally. Ofc if your opponent has no armor, AT gun would be infinitely less valuable then a squad of mainline, but what if he does? Same with indirect vs mainline against aggressive opponent compared to a campy HMG spamming dude. The list goes on.

Support weapons are an integral part of most builds, you can't just put an arbitrary comparison between those, because value is mostly decided situationally. Ofc if your opponent has no armor, AT gun would be infinitely less valuable then a squad of mainline, but what if he does? Same with indirect vs mainline against aggressive opponent compared to a campy HMG spamming dude. The list goes on.

Exactly my point, thus the power level of a unit is not enough to decide its pop and resources cost.

The role of the unit has to be taken into account.

A mainline infatry is more useful than a support weapon that it takes up more Pop.

And then we have maxims and conscripts and your whole argument goes down the drain.

Which means what people call "inconsistency" comes from lack of knowledge on the utilization of unit and why it sits at pop and price point it does, JP4 and you not being able to comprehend why it costs so much is a prime example here. It hardcounters both, medium armor AND TDs covering them, it does not stand up to them, it outright counters other TDs thanks to how it functions and scales, which warrants it a pop cost enough to prevent spam and actual cost taking into account what it can counter and the fact that it isn't even pinnacle choice for TD within its faction, contrary to units it counters, which are end of tech ones.

No inconsistency here, just ignorance and/or lack of practical knowledge.

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.

Again, I do see your point. Still you didn't answer my point. You said yourself Firefly was lowered in population because of the high population costs that UKF has in general. It was balanced within the faction. That is true. But in addition they are way more manpower starved than USF. So 440 MP for Firefly is a lot more than 400 MP for Jackson. In fact it feels more than a 40 MP difference for a tank that isn't anyhow stronger. So shouldn't that be balanced within the faction too?

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.

About the Jackson: True, USF just should have a nondoctrinal alternative, that would solve many problems with USF tank roster and the status of M36 as the "Holy cow".

But about UKF I wouldn't agree.
Churchill: It is just a meatshield that is fine versus infantry but deals damage to other late game tanks too slowly. Meatshields are not that valuable in a game where you can choose your targets freely. Having one means you have one Firefly less, in tank combat like Panther vs Firefly it can pretty much be ignored until Panther gets real low on health.
17-pdr: Only a problem in low skill games. Limited placement, big hitbox, easily counterable. Often enough just a waste of ressources.
Comet: Better suited for tank combat than Churchill for sure. Strong versus infantry, pays a price for that when fighting the heavy tanks and Panthers. More like a fast allrounder with decent hp/armor.

So, Firefly is the only reliable/heavy AT for UKF in the late game too when it comes down to dps/penetration. The other tanks surely can assist, but if you want to fight heavies reliable, you better go for double Firefly as you would do in a similar way by playing USF with double Jackson.

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?

AI Rangers were buffed with a new stock weapon and by switching around their veterancy bonuses. I don't really think there's any way to buff them even more without making them OP. They're already very good imo.

AI Rangers were buffed with a new stock weapon and by switching around their veterancy bonuses. I don't really think there's any way to buff them even more without making them OP. They're already very good imo.

I was just wondering since you basically said that zook Rangers prevent Rangers from being 9 population, while it could be reasonable for AI Rangers. Which in turn means that AI rangers are slightly weak for 10 POP, which could lead to a buff.

I find them good to. Good enough for 10 POP? Not sure. But I still regularly buy them for Thompsons, so probably yes.

AI Rangers were buffed with a new stock weapon and by switching around their veterancy bonuses. I don't really think there's any way to buff them even more without making them OP. They're already very good imo.

But generally by the time Rangers get out, the stock weapons are under-performing against upgraded vetted infantry. Don't think there is anyone who would use rangers stock. Maybe I'm wrong, and the stock weapons can actually hurt somebody.
Tommies are great. Much more usable in 1v1s than teamgames, as teamgames you generally want long range weapons. But all in all a great upgrade. The triple zook on the other hand is more common in teamgames and less so in 1v1s, so it balances itself out in the end. I'd still make them 9 pop. They are not a 10 pop unit. That or give them the dmg reduction modifier back 0.9 or sth like that. For 350 and 10 pop you get a unit that has only one ability, so utility is severely discriminated here (compared to let's say obers). You do get a modifier for the zooks which makes them pretty good vs tanks, especially when baiting into them. But again, that costs 150 munition with a steady supply of 50 munitions every now and then when they drop a weapon.

Are Rangers a good, balanced unit? Yes
Are they worth 350/10? No. For the timing and usefulness outside of "Charge in and hope for the best", no.
And in the end, they are a doctrinal unit. In overall good commanders, but still doctrinal. Rangers could use some sort of a change

... Sometimes some of these stats are changed without considering the others. I don't understand why.

One example out of the recent patches...

There is much truth in this for many secondary values like XP values, vet bonuses, reinforcement cost/time.

In many cases units seemed balanced at vet 0 but the balanced turns to be messed up as the game progress because in difference in secondary values.

Exactly my point, thus the power level of a unit is not enough to decide its pop and resources cost.

The role of the unit has to be taken into account.

not really. BTW HMGs are 7 pop now, same as mainline, so here goes your logic

Patchnotes may 2018:

POPULATION CHANGES
Population has been adjusted across a number of units to encourage more diverse unit compositions.

Show Spoiler

not really. BTW HMGs are 7 pop now, same as mainline, so here goes your logic

...

Yes some HMG have 7 pop so I guess that the site I checked was wrong, stock mortars still have a pop 6.

Funny that you call it "my logic" because you posted a similar thing, that power level of unit is not enough to decide the pop and that unit with different role should not be compared.

"Support weapons are an integral part of most builds, you can't just put an arbitrary comparison between those, because value is mostly decided situationally."...

Feel free clarify what factor decide Pop, in your opinion because so far you have not explained.

(edited)

Yes some HMG have 7 pop so I guess that the site I checked was wrong, stock mortars still have a pop 6.

Funny that you call it "my logic" because you posted a similar thing, that power level of unit is not enough to decide the pop and that unit with different role should not be compared.

Feel free clarify what factor decide Pop, in your opinion because so far you have not explained.

I said nothing about power level and how it tied to population. My comment was about how ridiculous to compare mainline to support weapon and saying "this" is more "valuable" then this.

I'm not a member of the balance team, so I could only guess, but the main theme with changes is how spammable particular unit should be and control of the lategame composition. Increasing\reducing pop by 1 is not a big deal, unless you start building more then 1 of that unit. And no, unit's value doesn't seem to be decided by cherrypicked stat and comparing it to other units from its class.

All this "debating" looks like JP4 holywar part 2.

I said nothing about power level and how it tied to population. My comment was about how ridiculous to compare mainline to support weapon and saying "this" is more "valuable" then this.

And the comparison was made exactly showcase that power level alone can not be used to determine pop across unit with different roles. So you actually agreed with the point I made and why that example was used.

I pointed out that power level is not enough to determine the pop value of unit in response to what other have claimed.

I'm not a member of the balance team, so I could only guess, but the main theme with changes is how spammable particular unit should be and control of the lategame composition. Increasing\reducing pop by 1 is not a big deal, unless you start building more then 1 of that unit. And no, unit's value doesn't seem to be decided by cherrypicked stat and comparing it to other units from its class.

A unit's value is determined with comparing its stat (among other things) with other units of its class.

Pls explain what stats in your opinion where "cherrypicked".

All this "debating" looks like JP4 holywar part 2.

Than you might want to consider toning down using words like "rediculus" and "cherrypicking" and try to stick to points/arguments.

A unit's value is determined with comparing its stat (among other things) with other units of its class.

Pls explain what stats in your opinion where "cherrypicked".


Than you might want to consider toning down using words like "rediculus" and "cherrypicking" and try to stick to points/arguments.

Vipper, this was addressed multiple times in this thread: https://www.coh2.org/topic/109492/jp4-performance There is really no point in continuation of that here (in my opinion of course).
In short: JP4 is nothing like Allied tank destroyers, even though it has same range, looks like SU85 (which has same pop as more expensive Jackson btw, good morning price/pop logic) and has same AOE (or lack of it). This gymnastics of getting to your point through distant roundabouts is very counterproductive.

Vipper, this was addressed multiple times in this thread: https://www.coh2.org/topic/109492/jp4-performance There is really no point in continuation of that here (in my opinion of course).

This thread is about Population/Ressource and that included JP$ so my posts are relevant. PLS Check if yours are relevant.

In short: JP4 is nothing like Allied tank destroyers, even though it has same range, looks like SU85 (which has same pop as more expensive Jackson btw, good morning price/pop logic) and has same AOE (or lack of it).

That claim is simply "ridiculous" and "mental gymnastic".

You entitled to you opinion thou and feel free to explain what JP4 is "nothing like" "Allied tank destroyers" and why.
(I suggest in another thread.)

This gymnastics of getting to your point through distant roundabouts is very counterproductive.

PLS explain what I have post is in your opinion "gymnastics" and I will take into consideration.

Do you have anything related to "Inconsistency in Population/Ressource" to add because so far you have posted much that is related.

(edited)

...looks like SU85 (which has same pop as more expensive Jackson btw, good morning price/pop logic) and has same AOE (or lack of it)...

After the recent patch population of Jackson (15->16) and Firefly (16->15) got changed. The even more expensive Firefly (440MP/145FU) now has the same population as SU-85 (350MP/130FU). I wondered about that because I do think that the population and ressource cost of a unit should correlate somehow.

After the recent patch population of Jackson (15->16) and Firefly (16->15) got changed. The even more expensive Firefly (440MP/145FU) now has the same population as SU-85 (350MP/130FU). I wondered about that because I do think that the population and resource cost of a unit should correlate somehow.

My guess for FF change is because the faction is very popcap heavy with Churchills and Comets, so reducing FF popcap cost slightly buffs lategame composition.
As for Jackson it is obviously (although not everybody agrees with that) stronger then FF with its 0.75 moving acc, excellent speed with acceleration, great penetration scaling and AP shells.
No idea why Su85 has this cost, but the pop adds up. I'd even say that SU is generally better then FF. Even though the FF has a turret its rotation speed is pretty bad (I guess it is still better then not having a turret)

Imo most patches seem like reactionary tweaks from initial idea of supposed price/performance.

BTW Jackson is 145fuel now, that makes it 400mp 145 fuel.

My guess for FF change is because the faction is very popcap heavy with Churchills and Comets, so reducing FF popcap cost slightly buffs lategame composition.
As for Jackson it is obviously (although not everybody agrees with that) stronger then FF with its 0.75 moving acc, excellent speed with acceleration, great penetration scaling and AP shells.
No idea why Su85 has this cost, but the pop adds up. I'd even say that SU is generally better then FF. Even though the FF has a turret its rotation speed is pretty bad (I guess it is still better then not having a turret)

Imo most patches seem like reactionary tweaks from initial idea of supposed price/performance.

BTW Jackson is 145fuel now, that makes it 400mp 145 fuel.

I do think population is the value that should balance the game when everybody is maxed out. For me there is no faction thing about it. No faction should be anyhow more population heavy than another. A faction may lean more to being depended on a resource manpower, fuel or munition but this shouldn’t be the case for population. Population has to be balanced across all factions the same way around combat value and versatility, else some factions will be more powerful in lategame than others. That should be avoided.
Population should not only include the Vet0 out of the box performance of a unit but should integrate how good a unit scales into lategame with veterancy and available upgrades.

Regarding the SU-85 same population for FF/SU-85 is fine, they are around the same combat value in lategame. But I can’t see how the big cost differences are justified. SU-85 may have a fixed turret but it also has the highest basic dps of all allied TDs, scales fine, is a great sight tool (especially at vet1) and is the most durable allied TD due to its clearly lower target size. I do thing FF and SU-85 should meet somewhere in the middle.

I do think population is the value that should balance the game when everybody is maxed out. For me there is no faction thing about it. No faction should be anyhow more population heavy than another. A faction may lean more to being depended on a resource manpower, fuel or munition but this shouldn’t be the case for population. Population has to be balanced across all factions the same way around combat value and versatility, else some factions will be more powerful in lategame than others. That should be avoided.
Population should not only include the Vet0 out of the box performance of a unit but should integrate how good a unit scales into lategame with veterancy and available upgrades.

Regarding the SU-85 same population for FF/SU-85 is fine, they are around the same combat value in lategame. But I can’t see how the big cost differences are justified. SU-85 may have a fixed turret but it also has the highest basic dps of all allied TDs, scales fine, is a great sight tool (especially at vet1) and is the most durable allied TD due to its clearly lower target size. I do thing FF and SU-85 should meet somewhere in the middle.

I don’t play Brit’s so not sure if it is out of favor but don’t tulips do a crap ton of damage and stun? Maybe a way to dissuade spam.

I do think population is the value that should balance the game when everybody is maxed out. For me there is no faction thing about it. No faction should be anyhow more population heavy than another. A faction may lean more to being depended on a resource manpower, fuel or munition but this shouldn’t be the case for population. Population has to be balanced across all factions the same way around combat value and versatility, else some factions will be more powerful in lategame than others. That should be avoided.
Population should not only include the Vet0 out of the box performance of a unit but should integrate how good a unit scales into lategame with veterancy and available upgrades.

if balance was symmetrical I would have agreed with your opinion, but otherwise I do not, because every faction have its unique stock units, that totally stand out compared to others. The obvious examples would be, pgrens, obers, comets and KT. So logically when you include those units this reduces amount of units available. E.g. comp consisting of several cons,2 zis,2 engies, single katy and an armada of t34 76 gonna be bigger then UKF analog but with comets.

Again I have no info about the reasoning behind some patches, I can only speculate, since balance team do not add sufficient reasoning behind each one of them (for example no reasoning added on top of recent FF pop change), but your can still read about some changes if you want.

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...).

Judging by patchnotes in recent history Jackson was never 15 pop, it used to be 14 before 17th of May 2018, then they bumped it to 16 (read my comment with a spoiler). So I have no idea where you've got this info from.