Ability cost scaling

I read this recent post referring to Ostheer's Panzer Tactician smoke and it gave me a quick thought

Ost already has a simaler feuture on all their vehicles just for a tiny amount of muni in a lot of doctrines. Saving many vehicles from destruction...

The cost of basically no ability in CoH2 is directly scaled towards the benefit. Currently, the paradigm is "same/similar abilities always cost the same" almost regardless of faction or the unit. This definitely makes sense in many cases, e.g. line infantry getting grenades, those grenades having the same profile and costs. Or "standard" mines for 30 munitions also having the same cost across factions. You get the point. It keeps stuff simple to understand, intuitive and also makes sense since the benefit of the respective abilities is fairly similar. At least similar enough to usually not warrant another +5 munitions increase in cost.

However, in some cases it objectively does not make an awful lot of sense. To stick with the example of Panzer Tactician from above: This ability performs the same on all vehicles. You click the button, pay 30 mun, your vehicle rips a pretty big vape, that's it. While there is the possibility to use if offensively, the main use is overwhelmingly defensive: to break break line of sight, gain a couple of seconds and force ground targeting to make your tank survive.
However, the benefit is depending on the unit. Getting e.g. your 251 out alive for 30 mun is nice, but losing it won't be deciding the game either. Getting your P4 out alive for 30 mun could already be game changing. Using this ability on your Brummbar, Panther or even Tiger and getting it out alive not only could, but absolutely will be game changing.

This begs the question if abilities like these should have different costs depending on the unit to keep the benefit to cost ratio a little less lopsided.


(minor edits for clearer structure)

Decent take.

Now obviously it's a case of whomever uses one tool.

Like Marx used to say, a 10shilling hammer produces very different wealth at the hands of an inexperienced worker than it does to a very experienced one.

For me, increasing costs of panzer tactician on Medium/Heavy/Elite tanks is a HUGE nonono simply because it would make those type of tanks even more discouraging to play (in 2022 coh2, where clearly tanks are not very effective), in turn damaging the core gameplay of the game even further.

Also, I truly believe that by paying 350mp and 120fuel for a machine covers the "skill cost" and "ability cost" to justify the muni staying the same, due to the simple fact that you are risking way more putting so many resources into one unit instead of 2-3 infantries or whatever.

Decent take.

Now obviously it's a case of whomever uses one tool.

Like Marx used to say, a 10shilling hammer produces very different wealth at the hands of an inexperienced worker than it does to a very experienced one.

LMAO its literally one of the easiest to use abilities in the game, stop it

For me, increasing costs of panzer tactician on Medium/Heavy/Elite tanks is a HUGE nonono simply because it would make those type of tanks even more discouraging to play (in 2022 coh2, where clearly tanks are not very effective), in turn damaging the core gameplay of the game even further.

Uhh wut? Huge exaggeration

Nobody is going to stop using tanks because panzer tact gets a cost increase

It should have a price scale. Hannibal is right

LMAO its literally one of the easiest to use abilities in the game, stop it



Uhh wut? Huge exaggeration

Nobody is going to stop using tanks because panzer tact gets a cost increase

It should have a price scale. Hannibal is right

Stop coping bro and stop downplaying the importance of my sayings to cover your inability to coherently form a counterargument.

You cannot by underground means make someone who paid 350mp 120fu for something to get less out of it just because you deemed it "unfair". It will only ruin the game.

Stop coping bro and stop downplaying the importance of my sayings to cover your inability to coherently form a counterargument.

You cannot by underground means make someone who paid 350mp 120fu for something to get less out of it just because you deemed it "unfair". It will only ruin the game.

Lol there's no argument to respond to. Explain exactly how it would ruin the game. Go ahead, can't wait to read it

For me, increasing costs of panzer tactician on Medium/Heavy/Elite tanks is a HUGE nonono simply because it would make those type of tanks even more discouraging to play (in 2022 coh2, where clearly tanks are not very effective), in turn damaging the core gameplay of the game even further.

Also, I truly believe that by paying 350mp and 120fuel for a machine covers the "skill cost" and "ability cost" to justify the muni staying the same, due to the simple fact that you are risking way more putting so many resources into one unit instead of 2-3 infantries or whatever.

Heavier tanks are the preferred choice in larger modes and T4 is also viable in smaller ones, I can absolutely not agree with tanks being useless in CoH2. The cost/risk assessment of heavier vs lighter units is also another story.

To come back to the point of the thread:

Panzer tactician is quite a special ability. All of Ostheer's the vehicles are designed to work without it. It is not a unique combination such as Shocks getting a better nade for the same cost. This makes it even different from the Puma's smoke, where the rest of the Puma's stats and cost has been balanced with the Puma having the smoke in mind. We're looking at vehicles that are fully functional and balanced without it. They all get the same ability and become stronger, which in itself is totally fine. Yet, cheap and costly units all use the same ability with the same costs, which makes the whole investment more worthwhile the more costly the unit is.

This is true for other abilities. Soviets vehicle repair comes to my mind. But technically, you can also include weapon racks. Putting a BAR on Rifles gives you better bang for the buck than putting it on Rear Echelons. PIATs are bad in general, but even worse on Sections than on Engineers.

Panzer tactician is quite a special ability. All of Ostheer's the vehicles are designed to work without it.

Exactly. Not like they dont have a good escape ability by default anyway

Heavier tanks are the preferred choice in larger modes and T4 is also viable in smaller ones, I can absolutely not agree with tanks being useless in CoH2. The cost/risk assessment of heavier vs lighter units is also another story.

To come back to the point of the thread:

Panzer tactician is quite a special ability. All of Ostheer's the vehicles are designed to work without it. It is not a unique combination such as Shocks getting a better nade for the same cost. This makes it even different from the Puma's smoke, where the rest of the Puma's stats and cost has been balanced with the Puma having the smoke in mind. We're looking at vehicles that are fully functional and balanced without it. They all get the same ability and become stronger, which in itself is totally fine. Yet, cheap and costly units all use the same ability with the same costs, which makes the whole investment more worthwhile the more costly the unit is.

This is true for other abilities. Soviets vehicle repair comes to my mind. But technically, you can also include weapon racks. Putting a BAR on Rifles gives you better bang for the buck than putting it on Rear Echelons. PIATs are bad in general, but even worse on Sections than on Engineers.

With the right doctrine, soviets can get 3 men repairing squads at no extra population for 150mp and 50ish muni. No other faction has this ability at such a cheap and spammable manner.

The argument goes both ways.

At any rate, "scaling" does not imply scaling up but also scaling down. That way, let's make the vehicle smoke 40muni as it was but "scale it down" for infantry squads to 0muni. Would that be fair?

Please stop trying to fix "topdog" performance by leaving "underdog" performance intact and putting a tax on good performers. If you want to scale, you have to make a distribution of the process not a flat out increase to "muh duh op vehicle".

And yes, tank do suck in 2022 coh2 due to the shitty meta of having 2-3 atgs at any present moment in field. If you play team games as you say you should know.

"Putting a tax on good performers"

LOL. The smoke is literally used to cover for mistakes....

"Putting a tax on good performers"

LOL. The smoke is literally used to cover for mistakes....

It's not always the case but for the economy of the argument I will concede on this.

The OP makes the case that, because tanks are generally (in his mind atleast) more effective than other lighter tanks/vehicles in most cases (citation needed), it makes sense to tax them the use of protective smoke due to this than the game currently does (by making the cost flat across every vehicle).

It's clearly a "better performance assumed tax" and nothing nothing else, and I 100% disagree with that notion.

I would also argue that NO, light vehicles should be "more expensive" with this due to the fact that a single, well placed shot with Katyusha/Nebel/Stuka can kill 3-4 full health squads and thus, by giving this vehicle the ability to also get out for free using smoke is more gamebreaking than, say, a PzIV getting a lucky wipe. As such, make the cost for Panzer Tactician smoke on RocketVehicles 120muni. (Obviously I do not agree with this, I am just replicating the thought process).

I would also argue that NO, light vehicles should be "more expensive" with this due to the fact that a single, well placed shot with Katyusha/Nebel/Stuka can kill 3-4 full health squads and thus, by giving this vehicle the ability to also get out for free using smoke is more gamebreaking than, say, a PzIV getting a lucky wipe. As such, make the cost for Panzer Tactician smoke on RocketVehicles 120muni. (Obviously I do not agree with this, I am just replicating the thought process).

3-4 full health squads?!?!? Nobody with any skill in the game is losing 3-4 full hp squads to a single rocket arty barrage

If u have to exaggerate to make ur point, then u probably dont have one

The right doctrine Based is talking about is probably one of the worst doctrines in the game unless you are playing arranged teams and taking advantage with the heaviest of vehicles. Hannibals argument is against an ability that provides greater cost to benefit ratio for more expensive vehicles and said ability is found in multiple doctrines and useful in all game modes. Pretty much your counter argument makes no sense.

As for Hannibals argument, while I agree with it, can cause a slippery slope. The best example would be "Mark Target" as it does the exact same thing. It doesn't provide much against smaller units such as LV upto all 4 shot MED tanks. However once you get to the Panther and heavier it creates a situation where it takes 1 less shot to kill(sometimes 2 depending on tank). With the prevalence of snares it can be quite disproportionate on the value of the ability. The much larger issue is that most doctrines with Mark Target also have Guards who have access to Button. So you get into a situation where abilities synergize a bit to well and we get to where we are now. (Guards doctrines are over picked)

As for Hannibals argument, while I agree with it, can cause a slippery slope. The best example would be "Mark Target" as it does the exact same thing. It doesn't provide much against smaller units such as LV upto all 4 shot MED tanks. However once you get to the Panther and heavier it creates a situation where it takes 1 less shot to kill(sometimes 2 depending on tank). With the prevalence of snares it can be quite disproportionate on the value of the ability. The much larger issue is that most doctrines with Mark Target also have Guards who have access to Button. So you get into a situation where abilities synergize a bit to well and we get to where we are now. (Guards doctrines are over picked)

True but mark targets higher cost would seem to reflect the fact it's mostly used on heavier targets. It's 80 muni for something that might not do anything if shots miss or don't pen

If anything mark target should be more expensive in team games. It's kinda like the command p4, the more teammates you have, the more potential the ability has

I like the ability cost scaling idea especially for panzer tact

Decent take.

Now obviously it's a case of whomever uses one tool.

Like Marx used to say, a 10shilling hammer produces very different wealth at the hands of an inexperienced worker than it does to a very experienced one.

(said for the easiest, no risk high reward no skill ability in the game)

For me, increasing costs of panzer tactician on Medium/Heavy/Elite tanks is a HUGE nonono simply because it would make those type of tanks even more discouraging to play (in 2022 coh2, where clearly tanks are not very effective), in turn damaging the core gameplay of the game even further.

Good, fuck the axis heavy tank meta in team mode

Also, I truly believe that by paying 350mp and 120fuel for a machine covers the "skill cost" and "ability cost" to justify the muni staying the same, due to the simple fact that you are risking way more putting so many resources into one unit instead of 2-3 infantries or whatever.

complete nonsense by some alleged PhD holder
Panzer tactician is an instant sight blocker thats given to tanks who already have blitzkrieg to run away even EASIER. you dont risk ANYTHING, wdym?

(said for the easiest, no risk high reward no skill ability in the game)

Good, fuck the axis heavy tank meta in team mode


complete nonsense by some alleged PhD holder
Panzer tactician is an instant sight blocker thats given to tanks who already have blitzkrieg to run away even EASIER. you dont risk ANYTHING, wdym?

There's an inherent risk in making tanks in general in terms of COH2 gameplay, so maximizing the risk by making an ability more expensive for the tank existing alone is not fair even by your antiaxis larp standards.

The right doctrine Based is talking about is probably one of the worst doctrines in the game unless you are playing arranged teams and taking advantage with the heaviest of vehicles. Hannibals argument is against an ability that provides greater cost to benefit ratio for more expensive vehicles and said ability is found in multiple doctrines and useful in all game modes. Pretty much your counter argument makes no sense.

As for Hannibals argument, while I agree with it, can cause a slippery slope. The best example would be "Mark Target" as it does the exact same thing. It doesn't provide much against smaller units such as LV upto all 4 shot MED tanks. However once you get to the Panther and heavier it creates a situation where it takes 1 less shot to kill(sometimes 2 depending on tank). With the prevalence of snares it can be quite disproportionate on the value of the ability. The much larger issue is that most doctrines with Mark Target also have Guards who have access to Button. So you get into a situation where abilities synergize a bit to well and we get to where we are now. (Guards doctrines are over picked)

I am not talking about specific doctrine with Panzer Tactician (I do not even remember the ones that DO have it).

I am merely defending my philosophical ground on this: it's not fair to consider something "overperforming" and in order to tone it down you decide to selectively and arrogantly increase its muni tax "just bcz omg its so op".

Because, and I say it again, this is a double edged sword. The same case could be made for the Mark Vehicle mechanic (the ONLY reason Guards Coordination is no1 DOCTRINE FOR SOVIETS ACROSS ALL GAME MODES). If you want to go down that route, I propose making Mark Target 240muni against Heavies, 150muni against Mediums and the default 80muni for everything else.

How does that sound? Huh? How about them apples?

It should have a cost scaling. Everything should have a cost scaling. It's not like cost scaling equates to a more difficult or harder to compare gameplay. Echelon mines cost 10 munis if I remember correctly. Why? Because they are dogs*it. Lost count of the amount of times that the mega vape saved a poorly planned and executed tank dive. Despite the ground targets which I always perform. Heck, on heavy tanks I only use ground target. You make it more expensive and that's that. New players will see that it's more expensive. Nothing to it. Generally OST and OKW have lower munitions costs. You get the 60 muni upgrades on your mainlines and that's it. Drop rate is only at death, so you're not really investing again....

Never understood why the mega vape costs the same on the 222 and the Tiger. On light vehicles it should be 30 munis. On mediums 50. And on heavies, 65 munis.
If you are good enough, you can vape with the LV and save munis (but that's mostly a top 100 rank play).

I am not talking about specific doctrine with Panzer Tactician (I do not even remember the ones that DO have it).

That seems pretty important to the topic

I am merely defending my philosophical ground on this: it's not fair to consider something "overperforming" and in order to tone it down you decide to selectively and arrogantly increase its muni tax "just bcz omg its so op".

You are the only person in this thread to use the word overperforming so far, nobody said what you describe

Because, and I say it again, this is a double edged sword. The same case could be made for the Mark Vehicle mechanic (the ONLY reason Guards Coordination is no1 DOCTRINE FOR SOVIETS ACROSS ALL GAME MODES). If you want to go down that route, I propose making Mark Target 240muni against Heavies, 150muni against Mediums and the default 80muni for everything else.

How does that sound? Huh? How about them apples?

Hannibal literally mentioned that this could be done for other abilities. He already addressed this, in the first post of the thread. Calm down

And what the heck is with those numbers? You don't have sensationalize the point just so you can argue against it. The cost could just go up in increments of 15-20 depending on the value of the tank

Panzer tact could be 30/45/60 for lights, mediums, heavies. Mark target is a bizarre example to use because you usually only use that on heavier tanks to begin with

As for Hannibals argument, while I agree with it, can cause a slippery slope. The best example would be "Mark Target" as it does the exact same thing. It doesn't provide much against smaller units such as LV upto all 4 shot MED tanks. However once you get to the Panther and heavier it creates a situation where it takes 1 less shot to kill(sometimes 2 depending on tank). With the prevalence of snares it can be quite disproportionate on the value of the ability. The much larger issue is that most doctrines with Mark Target also have Guards who have access to Button. So you get into a situation where abilities synergize a bit to well and we get to where we are now. (Guards doctrines are over picked)

Definitely there are some downsides to it.

There will be concessions to make as in the example of the button ability. However, the button ability is definitely not an analogous form of things like Panzer Tactitian or Vehicle Repairs. It only exists on one single unit and the ability is integral to the design of Guards. The cost of Guards can reflect how useful they should be against heavies. It doesn't cover all the bases, but you can tune a couple of knobs very specifically.

That's not the case for abilities that are handed out generally to a wide variety of different units.

I am not talking about specific doctrine with Panzer Tactician (I do not even remember the ones that DO have it).

I am merely defending my philosophical ground on this: it's not fair to consider something "overperforming" and in order to tone it down you decide to selectively and arrogantly increase its muni tax "just bcz omg its so op".

Because, and I say it again, this is a double edged sword. The same case could be made for the Mark Vehicle mechanic (the ONLY reason Guards Coordination is no1 DOCTRINE FOR SOVIETS ACROSS ALL GAME MODES). If you want to go down that route, I propose making Mark Target 240muni against Heavies, 150muni against Mediums and the default 80muni for everything else.

How does that sound? Huh? How about them apples?

I think you need to work on reading comprehension as you are talking about a specific doctrine when it comes to soviet repairs.

Panzer Tactician is available with heavies which opens it up to the cost scaling argument.

I also made the case for Mark Target being another overly cost efficient ability that should be subject to scaling so I like them apples I guess.

Definitely there are some downsides to it.

There will be concessions to make as in the example of the button ability. However, the button ability is definitely not an analogous form of things like Panzer Tactitian or Vehicle Repairs. It only exists on one single unit and the ability is integral to the design of Guards. The cost of Guards can reflect how useful they should be against heavies. It doesn't cover all the bases, but you can tune a couple of knobs very specifically.

That's not the case for abilities that are handed out generally to a wide variety of different units.

While what your saying is true, Button + Mark Target are great in 1v1 but they scale incredibly in larger game modes. Button! cost the same and last the same amount of time no matter what is on the receiving end. It is a great ability from the moment it is available as it allows any mistake to be amplified unless some type of smoke is available. It should cost more vs Heavies or have a shorter active time. None of this is taking into account the performance of guards which I actually want to make a thread about and would like to hear your thoughts.