Login

russian armor

Relic, can you finally ...

14 Dec 2013, 21:57 PM
#21
avatar of hubewa

Posts: 928

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Dec 2013, 21:37 PMraw


Great. Except that is not was this thread is about.


What do you mean "this is not what the thread is about". I addressed what you were talking about in terms of raising fuel costs. Its unnecessary and will ruin 1v1s

Unless if you mean the thread was all about flaming you, then sure, it's off topic.
raw
14 Dec 2013, 22:12 PM
#22
avatar of raw

Posts: 644

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Dec 2013, 21:57 PMhubewa


What do you mean "this is not what the thread is about". I addressed what you were talking about in terms of raising fuel costs. Its unnecessary and will ruin 1v1s


But I wasn't talking about raising fuel costs. I was talking about significantly lowering MP costs on armor.

@raw insulting relic because you are upset isn't going to make them listen to you.


I don't think it is insulting to state that the game is in a terrible shape and that Relic as a developer is responsible for that. Yes, we are slowly leaving closed beta state and units now actually do try to occassionally follow orders*, but that doesn't mean that the fundamental design flaws have magically vanished.

*On that note, units of all shapes can get stuck now or have their pathing AI garbled. I had a
- Conscript stuck in open terrain
- A tiger stuck on a Pak43
- A T-34 stuck on another T-34
- Movable Objects close to each other are prone to bug out the pathing to the extend that an object will either crazily spring backwards (if it can) or try to repeatedly drive against the other object.
14 Dec 2013, 22:17 PM
#23
avatar of Lynskey
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 223

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Dec 2013, 21:52 PMWiFiDi
@raw insulting relic because you are upset isn't going to make them listen to you.

@the rest of you guys on topic perhaps? less insulting eachother if the thread isn't good don't respond. The old addage: If you don't have anything nice to say don't say it, perhaps?

i need to make this t-shirt hell coh2.org should sell it. (id buy like 5.)

"I came for an argument the other day/night and a discussion broke out."
-WiFiDi :P

for all you non-Canadians out there. (and/or killjoys)


14 Dec 2013, 22:19 PM
#24
avatar of hubewa

Posts: 928

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Dec 2013, 16:19 PMraw
... start raising fuel cost and lowering MP costs on tanks?


Pretty sure you did there

I'm not even sure lowering MP costs on tanks is a good thing. This will definitely open up to more fuel caches/OP trucks

And for 300 MP, vehicles are already very cheap. In VCOH, with a MP system which was even harsher, your main tanks costs 400 MP.
raw
14 Dec 2013, 22:24 PM
#25
avatar of raw

Posts: 644

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Dec 2013, 22:19 PMhubewa


Pretty sure you did there

I'm not even sure lowering MP costs on tanks is a good thing. This will definitely open up to more fuel caches/OP trucks

And for 300 MP, vehicles are already very cheap. In VCOH, with a MP system which was even harsher, your main tanks costs 400 MP.


VCOH's MP system wasn't harsher and it isn't even comparable, as the MP income was dependant on territory held and not a constant rate. That ment that you had more MP income going toward mid, and the difference between base and mid is exactly what allowed you to field tanks while still paying the maintainance costs of your infantry. In CoH2 you simply can't do that. Hence the game degenerates over time. To reflect the all new constant resources system of CoH2, Tanks must cost significantly less MP, simple as that, which would allow you to maintain both your infantry aswell as buy new tanks and with that effectively ending the spamfest and giving infantry a strong presence on the field, instead of being useless cannonfodder as it is now. Upping fuel costs would push tank timings further out, increasing their rarity (which is a good thing in the context of CoH) and putting more weight on both the non-armor defense/offense play, and capturing and holding points for extended periods of time, so this would be a nice addition, but that isn't actually the main point.

Edit: The other half of the issue is that MP decrease/pop was significantly better mapped to the actual costs of the units you could purchase.
14 Dec 2013, 23:53 PM
#26
avatar of wooof

Posts: 950 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Dec 2013, 22:12 PMraw


But I wasn't talking about raising fuel costs.


jump backJump back to quoted post14 Dec 2013, 16:19 PMraw
... start raising fuel cost


hahaha
15 Dec 2013, 05:43 AM
#27
avatar of hubewa

Posts: 928

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Dec 2013, 22:24 PMraw


VCOH's MP system wasn't harsher and it isn't even comparable, as the MP income was dependant on territory held and not a constant rate. That ment that you had more MP income going toward mid, and the difference between base and mid is exactly what allowed you to field tanks while still paying the maintainance costs of your infantry. In CoH2 you simply can't do that. Hence the game degenerates over time. To reflect the all new constant resources system of CoH2, Tanks must cost significantly less MP, simple as that, which would allow you to maintain both your infantry aswell as buy new tanks and with that effectively ending the spamfest and giving infantry a strong presence on the field, instead of being useless cannonfodder as it is now. Upping fuel costs would push tank timings further out, increasing their rarity (which is a good thing in the context of CoH) and putting more weight on both the non-armor defense/offense play, and capturing and holding points for extended periods of time, so this would be a nice addition, but that isn't actually the main point.

Edit: The other half of the issue is that MP decrease/pop was significantly better mapped to the actual costs of the units you could purchase.


1. VCOH's MP system tended to be harsher. At most, you were only going to get +12MP from the map. Still significant but didn't really offset it. Also, your base MP rate was never +300 in VCOH unless if you had supply yard lvl 2 and you had good map control
2. Tanks costing less MP would mean more MP for fuel caches, thereby offsetting the fuel increase anyway. If you want tanks costing less MP so that infantry gain a strong presence, that's a bit too newb friendly I'll have to admit. Although the potency of AT weapons do need to be improved, that's really not we're talking about here.
3. There was one patch where T-34s used to cost 240 MP and idk how much fuel. That is the cost of a conscript squad. The result was simply spamming T-34s, esp if you had a fuel cache. Especially when you hit endgame, as MP becomes more precious, reduced MP would only result in more tank spam.

The armour/infantry relationship needs to be tweaked, I'd agree with you, but this is not how to tweak it.
raw
15 Dec 2013, 07:14 AM
#28
avatar of raw

Posts: 644

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Dec 2013, 05:43 AMhubewa


1. VCOH's MP system tended to be harsher. At most, you were only going to get +12MP from the map. Still significant but didn't really offset it. Also, your base MP rate was never +300 in VCOH unless if you had supply yard lvl 2 and you had good map control


Comparing absolut values is bogus, as units cost completely different amounts of MP between the games. And even if they wouldn't you could still not compare it, as the timings would be different, what you have is different, what you face is different...

Drawing these number comparisions is useless at best. However, the existance of the MP differential is exactly what paid a good amount of infantry maintainance.


2. Tanks costing less MP would mean more MP for fuel caches, thereby offsetting the fuel increase anyway.


You forget that a more active infantry around the map can also dispatch caches more quickly and more reliably, like it was in CoH1 for example.


If you want tanks costing less MP so that infantry gain a strong presence, that's a bit too newb friendly I'll have to admit.


The goal here is not that losing your infantry pieces should be inconsequential. By all means, someone who keeps losing men left and right should definitely feel that in his pocket. The problem is that having build infantry /at all/ gets more and more inconsequential the longer the game progresses due to
- exorbitant maintainance costs
- armor vastly outperforming infantry
- inability of infantry to deal with anything on the field but infantry (exception: pgrens)
- instagibs

That results in the simple fact, that when I invest into infantry, keep them alive, am active with them around the map, actively kick out enemy troops of their entrenchments and ultimately kill, I am still the dumb idiot, because the other guy just sat there and waited for his tank, instantly negating /anything/ the infantry ever did on the field.


3. There was one patch where T-34s used to cost 240 MP and idk how much fuel. That is the cost of a conscript squad. The result was simply spamming T-34s, esp if you had a fuel cache.


Spamming vehicles works because they are too potent, not because they don't cost enough. Infantry needs to be able to project a stronger presence on the field even when armor is out. That is the core issue, and not some fancy number games on MP and fuel costs. Axing MP costs on tanks would atleast allow you to pay the horrendous infantry maintainance costs going mid late, and would allow you to viably transition from an infantry heavy early.

reduced MP would only result in more tank spam.


That's exactly why I also suggested to raise fuel alongside, so the decision process mid/lade isn't "let me think a secon..TANK". Tanks should be strong, but they should also be precious.
15 Dec 2013, 10:00 AM
#29
avatar of Volsky

Posts: 344

I say boost the MP costs and keep the fuel costs as is.

vCoH: M4A3 Sherman: 420 Manpower, 90 Fuel
CoH2: T-34/76 (direct equivilant): 300 Manpower, 95 Fuel.

vCoH: Panzer IV: 410 Manpower, 80 Fuel
CoH2: Panzer IV (direct equivilant; waw much mindblown): 320 Manpower, 115 Fuel.

vCoH: Panther: 600 Manpower, 110 Fuel
CoH2: Panther (bla bla): 600 Manpower, 130 Fuel <- ONLY almost direct copy-over of a unit's cost, and (imho) these aren't the most common thing ever in 1v1 matches.

Reducing the manpower would just mean waiting to whore up more fuel while spamming caches and infantry to pointlessly suicide in an attempt to take out your opponent's fuel.

What really needs to change is the resources system. Importance needs to be placed on dedicated fuel and muni points, not this new system that I've hated from day one. This system just means "cap the map, do whatever", the old system meant "you can have your really, really nice terrain that's easy to defend, but the High Fuel Point is over THERE in red cover, in the middle of an open, empty field."
15 Dec 2013, 10:05 AM
#30
avatar of hubewa

Posts: 928

Here we go, it's awesome that we can have a good discussion about this instead of flaming that can happen on this forum.

1. Well okay, even if we don't compare numbers, we can still compare how many units you can pump out per minute. You can pump out ridiculous numbers of conscripts per minute due to how the pop system works, but I won't go into this too much, but this part was more, well, just saying haha.

2. Even if it were more active, the thing is you aren't going to easily hit caches near the enemies base. This was the difference between coh2 and coh1. In Coh2, you can easily put caches next to your base, very difficult to harrass. in Coh1, to make a cache worthwhile, you had to put it on a medium point, which tends to be a lot easier to harrass.

3. As you have stated, the AT capability of infantry does need to improve. I think this is you stating the right problem, but not the correct solution. No, I think the current situation of engine crits everywhere is not a good system, especially for the Russians or the game (it's just wayyyy to gimicky). I think instead that Infantry should do a lot more damage but shouldn't have as high of a chance of critting.

I think your solution has some merit, but with more fuel caches in play due to how COH2 works, it may actually become counterproductive. It may work in the midgame, but by the lategame where you could potentially be floating fuel, it's not a good idea.
16 Dec 2013, 22:33 PM
#31
avatar of PaRaNo1a
Patrion 26

Posts: 600

If I am following the OP he wants an infantry spamm fest that will turn in mid/late game to a tank spam fest?
I agree that tanks come way too early in CoH2 than in VCoH but I don`t see how lowering their MP will fix that??
raw
18 Dec 2013, 18:16 PM
#32
avatar of raw

Posts: 644

If I am following the OP he wants an infantry spamm fest that will turn in mid/late game to a tank spam fest?
I agree that tanks come way too early in CoH2 than in VCoH but I don`t see how lowering their MP will fix that??


That's because you're not following. The MP reduction on tanks is there to help infantry stay viable in mid/late. Nowhere would this change even affect infantry-only early game, wtf.
Pushing out tanks is done by increasing fuel, which is a completely separate issue from the MP reduction (but I still support it).

@hubewa:

1) The amount of units produced per time unit is determined by the resource's rate. In case of infantry that is MP and this is a different issue. What I am talking about is the difference between armour MP and infantry MP cost. As long as tanks cost about as much MP as infantry per piece, and infantry lacks any ability to deal with armour reliably, there is little reason to invest in anything else but armour.

2) Well said. But that is just another check box on the long list of "Things Infantry is incompetent at in CoH2".

3) I agree.

It may work in the midgame, but by the lategame where you could potentially be floating fuel, it's not a good idea.


The thing is, when you start off the game infantry heavy (and you keep them alive) you'll end up with floating fuel sky high but unable to pay for any armour, precisely because of the HUEG MP cost of infantry. You are effectively penalized for opting for a heavy infantry strategy and then you're penalized even more for executing it well. Wasting your squads is actually beneficial at the moment, as it frees up MP needed for tank spam. That simply isn't right.
18 Dec 2013, 22:26 PM
#33
avatar of hubewa

Posts: 928

@Raw

It was even worse in the beta, I remember just tearing everything up with Panzer Grenadiers and then having to survive on +100MP while my opponents ended up pumping out Su-85s.

And these were the days Panzerschrecks were single upgrades.

Hmm, about point 2, I'm not sure if anything should really penetrate close to the base to be honest. It doesn't matter if your infantry consists of ubersoldiers, they cannot get close to a well defended base.

I think from here, we've discussed two solutions - increasing fuel (and Imo, keeping MP costs same or increasing them is the right thing to do) and/or increasing the AT potential of infantry/AT guns. While relic has moved to try to fix this, I guess its better if these got toned up.

One thing I would like to see as a result would probably be a slight buff to the AT rifles that the guards has, obviously will be nowhere near as good as the PG schrecks but still do modest damage nonetheless.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

846 users are online: 1 member and 845 guests
Rosbone
1 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49062
Welcome our newest member, Mclatc16
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM