Login

russian armor

Suggested change for call-in doctrinal units?

11 Feb 2014, 04:18 AM
#1
avatar of Porygon

Posts: 2779

If we want to slow down the impact of doctrinal call-in unit, or just bringing more strategic depth to the game, just increasing CP doesn't solve the problem.

(1) Give back some teching prerequisite to them, like in the beta

Anyone else agree that cons/gren stall without teching and bring in super tank instantly (and early) is quite stupid?

- example: Guards/Shocks/Assgren/250 HT needs T1 or T2 built, T-34/85 / ISU / IS2 / KV-1/2/8 / Stugie / Tiger / Elefant needs T3 or T4

or / and


(2) Give some interesting option for "getting" them, since all units of the game is "called-in" right? Idea inspired from PE Tank Buster/Assgren

- 80% of current cost if you build them from building, which would occupy the building queue and takes some time

- 120% of current cost (or maybe some extra fuel cost) if you call-in instantly, cost increase slightly after each instant call-in (no prerequisite)


Any thoughts?
11 Feb 2014, 05:09 AM
#2
avatar of Astarot

Posts: 140

This will never work in 1v1!

We barely see T4 from germans and now if they have to build/research it to get Tiger/Elefant its just too expensive. And on top of that he will just get rammed and there goes your 200 fuel. I would rather get more P4s than doing all this prerequisites.

Sorry dont like this ideas.


I would say to make things more interesting is to split the commander abilities in two like vCOH. Then you will choose if you want to go for the tiger or some other options. Now is just linear/boring and no decision making. If this is to be a strategy game where is the strategy???

Strategy:
noun, plural strat·e·gies.
1.Also, strategics. the science or art of combining and employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operation.
11 Feb 2014, 05:25 AM
#3
avatar of Porygon

Posts: 2779

If the CP is fixed correctly, you need to tech up to survive anyway, and suggestion 2 can solve the "too expensive" problem.
11 Feb 2014, 05:45 AM
#4
avatar of pantherswag

Posts: 231

I think this would limit strategic choices a little too much. If I have to build T4 before I can get a Tiger I might as well just get a Panther and a Brummbar for just a little more than the Tiger. If I have to build T3 to get a command Panzer, I might as well get the normal Panzer which performs better for less fuel.

And it would completely eliminate any T0-T2 play for Germans. Pio spam just ain't what it used to be without Osttruppen or ass-grens.

I just really think this is a bad idea. No offense.
11 Feb 2014, 05:45 AM
#5
avatar of spectre645

Posts: 90

why are all your threads centered around nerfing soviets to the ground?
11 Feb 2014, 06:04 AM
#6
avatar of Porygon

Posts: 2779

why are all your threads centered around nerfing soviets to the ground?


Learn to read please
11 Feb 2014, 10:33 AM
#7
avatar of spectre645

Posts: 90

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Feb 2014, 06:04 AMPorygon


Learn to read please


Oh i can read and i've read about 4 of your threads that are usually loaded with hyperbole. You claim that conscript stalling is a viable tactic after the building nerf? I personally think you just want to vent your frustration somewhere, which is fine but your suggestions are not always the best.

I personally think that if call-in vehicles had only a manpower cost associated with them, instead of a fuel cost then players would feel more inclined to build other units.

Regarding infantry, a CP change is all that is needed.
11 Feb 2014, 10:39 AM
#8
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

why are all your threads centered around nerfing soviets to the ground?


As if Germans even have many call-ins to nerf, if anything some of them need a slight buff (Osttruppen, Assault Grenadiers).
11 Feb 2014, 10:47 AM
#9
avatar of spectre645

Posts: 90



As if Germans even have many call-ins to nerf, if anything some of them need a slight buff (Osttruppen, Assault Grenadiers).


Assgrens were just a bad idea from the get go. That unit simply has no real place in the game especially when germans get Pgrens non doctrinally. At first they were stronger than scripts, then they were nerfed and are now just about usable; nothing special really.

ostruppen are ok but their usage is very specific i find.
11 Feb 2014, 10:55 AM
#10
avatar of Porygon

Posts: 2779

Assgren needs some tweaking, they are ok-ish in the first 3 mins, and utter shit after that. Only shocks or idiots would fight them in zero range, and they are worthless while not fighting in zero range.
11 Feb 2014, 11:20 AM
#11
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8



Assgrens were just a bad idea from the get go. That unit simply has no real place in the game especially when germans get Pgrens non doctrinally. At first they were stronger than scripts, then they were nerfed and are now just about usable; nothing special really.

ostruppen are ok but their usage is very specific i find.

You do know the only thing that changed about AGs is the cost? They never had any stat changes.
11 Feb 2014, 11:34 AM
#12
avatar of Strummingbird
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 952 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Feb 2014, 11:20 AMKatitof

You do know the only thing that changed about AGs is the cost? They never had any stat changes.


I daresay 'stronger' would reference the unit's cost-effectiveness, pound for pound, compared to conscripts, not necessarily straight-up combat effectiveness.
11 Feb 2014, 12:43 PM
#13
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

Honestly my biggest disappointment with Assault Grenadiers is that they neglected to call them Sturmgrenadiers. Oh what could have been.. :P

That aside, a small price drop or something to help them sustain the late-game would be delightful.

On the other hand, Osttruppen are okay, but they never get to shine. Light cover provides them a poor bonus and breaks too easily, while heavy cover lets them beat Penals 1v1 but is much less common, let alone a section long enough for 6 people. Trenches overcome that, but Rus has a hard-counter to trenches (and cover in general) on every infantry unit they get (molotovs, satchels, grenades). Since they nerfed the cap rate, they're more of a gimmick than anything else. They're not so much underpowered as they are incredibly niche, a niche so small it's usually not worth looking into.
12 Feb 2014, 15:26 PM
#14
avatar of coh2player

Posts: 1571

I recently played VCOH again and I am once again reminded how much I miss the Sherman vs. Panzer IV/Stug IV dynamic. The vanilla Sherman was weak AT/Strong AI and a universal upgrade could turn all Shermans into Sherman 76 so it could compete with the Panzer IV. US also relied on the cheaper M18 or M10 with the 76mm gun.

As a German player, you had the Stug IV and the Panzer IV, although in different (but not expensive) tiers.

These were crucial main-line tanks yet in COH2 they made it completely asymmetrical to the point where one has to rely on Call-ins if they are Soviet. There were things that deserve to be asymmetrical- but making T3 amazingly asymmetrical was not one of them.
12 Feb 2014, 15:37 PM
#15
avatar of Strummingbird
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 952 | Subs: 1

As a German player, you had the Stug IV and the Panzer IV, although in different (but not expensive) tiers.


I'm pretty sure teching and the buildings themselves were a lot more expensive in vcoh compared to coh2, and tanks were (fuel-wise) a lot cheaper to compensate.
12 Feb 2014, 18:53 PM
#16
avatar of coh2player

Posts: 1571

^
The teching is around the same I think. The Stug IV is really cheap compared to the Panzer IV, and the cost difference between the two is wider than the one in COH2. The vcoh Panther is cheaper than COH2 but not as strong as it is in Coh2.

Overall, there are still quite a few things that Vcoh did better than COH2. I like M10s and Hellcats a hell a lot more than the SU-85s.

What surprised me from playing Vcoh is how many universal upgrades there are and how expensive some of the vital ones are. For instance, the BAR and stick bomby upgrade cost 120 fuel together.
12 Feb 2014, 20:15 PM
#17
avatar of WiFiDi
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 3293

^
The teching is around the same I think. The Stug IV is really cheap compared to the Panzer IV, and the cost difference between the two is wider than the one in COH2. The vcoh Panther is cheaper than COH2 but not as strong as it is in Coh2.


they were also in completely different teirs.
12 Feb 2014, 21:38 PM
#18
avatar of The_rEd_bEar

Posts: 760

The day relic buff assgrens to be be useful late game is when they do the same for cons never.
13 Feb 2014, 01:53 AM
#19
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

I recently played VCOH again and I am once again reminded how much I miss the Sherman vs. Panzer IV/Stug IV dynamic. The vanilla Sherman was weak AT/Strong AI and a universal upgrade could turn all Shermans into Sherman 76 so it could compete with the Panzer IV. US also relied on the cheaper M18 or M10 with the 76mm gun.

As a German player, you had the Stug IV and the Panzer IV, although in different (but not expensive) tiers.

These were crucial main-line tanks yet in COH2 they made it completely asymmetrical to the point where one has to rely on Call-ins if they are Soviet. There were things that deserve to be asymmetrical- but making T3 amazingly asymmetrical was not one of them.


The T-34/76 is kinda the same, the difference with it is having a weak gun and weak armour. The Panzer IV Ausf. F1 vs the T-34/76 does share that dynamic, oddly enough. But that's not featured in the multiplayer game aside from the Panzer IV Command Tank.

They they swapped the SU-76 to T3 (preferably swap places with T-70), that'd bring back some of the Infantry Tank + Tank Destroy dynamic, and would go a long way to making Soviet late-game feel good.

The Panzer IV / StuG IV dynamic hasn't changed much imo, except now it's a StuG III instead and it has longer range with more emphases on the Tank Destroyer role.

I agree that Soviets rely too much on call-ins, this seems to be a side-effect of the game being shuffled around.
13 Feb 2014, 02:17 AM
#20
avatar of coh2player

Posts: 1571

The Stug in Vcoh is T3, and the Panzer IV, Panther are T4. Then there was the STUH via the blitz doctrine. A quick t3 1 v 1 build would be Stugs or Stug + Stuh instead of panzer IVs of Coh2.

Or G-Wagon instead of Stug, if you activate TOV. The G-Wagon was basically a glass cannon version of the SU-85.

So early game fights were M10/M18 + Shermans vs. Self-propelled guns.

In a way, the Americans have better gear until T4/call-ins (Panther, Tiger, King Tiger)
2 users are browsing this thread: 2 guests

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

634 users are online: 1 member and 633 guests
Gravemouth
1 post in the last 24h
4 posts in the last week
24 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48743
Welcome our newest member, kubetdlsite
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM