poll: call in vehicles as a design choice

Thankfully nobody's advocating for free callins here.

Eh, really?

Removing the fuel penalty just gives the callins a "sit tight and hold" doctrine, meaning the already cancerous turtling problem will get worse since the player would have no need to continually push into fuel/muni since he can just hold and wait for big boom vehicle.

Idk just my 0.02$ on why I am "against" callins in general as portrayed here.

Eh, really?

Removing the fuel penalty just gives the callins a "sit tight and hold" doctrine, meaning the already cancerous turtling problem will get worse since the player would have no need to continually push into fuel/muni since he can just hold and wait for big boom vehicle.

Idk just my 0.02$ on why I am "against" callins in general as portrayed here.

There's a difference between "free" (old Tiger Ace) and not costing fuel. Also, high manpower costs for callins is a much bigger tradeoff than you think. LeFH and ML-20 used to cost so much manpower that they were rarely built, so they had their manpower cost lowered and given a fuel cost to compensate.

As long as the battlegroup call ins don't enable "save up all my fuel for a non doctrinal super/heavy tank I get in my tier 4 building" gameplay (seemingly not applicable for DAK because they are SUPPOSEDLY the light vehicle focused faction). Then I think it would allow more aggressive vehicle gameplay while making the player less able to field a large infantry force that can support itself. Which means that their reliance on vehicles is a weakness that can be exploited.

Maybe I'm wrong though.

Conceptually there's nothing wrong with call-ins (or almost any mechanic, I feel), as long as the concept is executed correctly.

Lots of examples of interesting concept but bad execution, though (blizzards, coh2 early lifecycle call-ins, abandons...). Looking forward to see how they get things like elevation, recovery vehicles, and of course call-ins right or wrong this time around.

Perhabs some competitive players will hate me for saying this out loud.

First and foremost, for CoH3 to be successful it needs a key focus on return on investments (ROI) and this is also relevant for all balance debates as knowing your target audiences.
Without this key focus, CoH3 is building a house on quicksand.
Some people whether that was intentional or not are turning corporations into glorified daycare.
At a bare minimum, corporate executives/board of directors that do this intentionally is arguably in breach of fiduciary duty as publicly traded companies can't do whatever the fuck they want with other people's money/investments.
Yes, some countries will likely learn the hard way by ignoring basic economic realities.

For context;
Forum balance debates will be skewed toward the vocal minority and competitive mindset.
From EvE Online which is highly competitive, I do talk from 10 years of experience with inside intel on major alliances. For these competitive alliances, it was an ongoing struggle to balance/harmonize different groups of people with highly conflicted ways of how they wanted to play the game.

If Relic mainly adjusts its balance on CoH3/CoH2 forum activity and competitive mindset then it'll unwittingly alienate a large fanbase ("Joe's" friendly) that doesn't consider your "balance" fun.
Even if we assume the best intentions, this will happen. We all have biases that's why it's important to listen more and talk less.
The golden days of 1vs1 RTS are over and won't come back within the foreseeable future.

One of the core strengths of CoH is "fun to watch" community content which doesn't necessarily mean "fun to play" content.
As a general rule, the competitive community makes the player content while the silent majority makes the money.
Not understanding your key audience means less CoH money for everyone.

How to improve CoH3 + CoH2 return on investment (ROI)?;
CoH3 competitive mod for 1vs1 tournament players and reserve CoH3 balance for 4vs4 players.
If not, at the bare minimum CoH2 should become more "Joe's" friendly.
Also, CoH2 + CoH3 progression-based economy is still flawed and should have been fixed long ago.
If Relic/Sega can't make a functional progression-based economy why even bother?
Better to remove War Spoils + Merit and stick to War Bonds + luxury/rare items (whale content) rather than some half-baked system.

To balance 4vs4 Relic have to be proactive and engage the silent majority that is not active on forums. That means in-game surveys, in-game data collection, emails, social activity etc.
CoH3 and CoH2 have the untapped potential to become more "Joe's" friendly compared to AoE4 and Starcraft.


For further balance context, watch the video below as this AoE4 discussion has relevance to CoH3 + CoH2;

BeastyqtSC2: Do we balance AOE4 for Joes or Pros?

Perhabs some competitive players will hate me for saying this out loud.

Show Spoiler

I think your comment fall off topic here, it is not a question of balance but personal preference upon a certain way to present a feature, whatever the way taken has to come with proper balancing for everyone. Call-in not working in coh2 isn't a problem of call-in but a general game design issue making call-in the way they were originally designed OP, the way coh3 presents it general game design is far from coh2 one's and so far don't show evident issues with call-ins.
To give you an ingame feedback, you can win a 1vs1 game way before having the necessary command point to unlock a tiger. Coh3 has really little to see with coh2 in many ways and is much more closed to coh1 in general.