Since the last patch, some mid-game units became unpopular. (T70, SU-76, Flamer HT).
The main reason is that these units need more cost (mostly fuel) for building it.
I'd like to recall Vcoh Panzer Elite faction, in where Tier buildings were cheaper but you had to research an upgrade to enable some units.
Why not decrease the fuel of T3-T4 russian buildings? so that, after it's built you can have access to mid-game vehicles such as T70/M5/Su-76 and... if you wan't to get a T34 or SU-85/Katiuska, you will have to research an upgrade from that building that will cost more fuel.
(same with flame HT, something to research on T2 to enable the flamer upgrade)
I think, this is the best idea to give the role that every unit deserve in the time scale of the game.
Idea for better teching
30 Mar 2014, 01:20 AM
#1
Posts: 410
30 Mar 2014, 01:28 AM
#2
Posts: 230
good idea, +1
though relic's never really done any community suggestions regarding teching before
though relic's never really done any community suggestions regarding teching before
30 Mar 2014, 01:51 AM
#3
Posts: 4928
My idea was to make a mid-teir building for Soviets that would provide light vehicles and allow more variety (they have like ~4 different units at any given time). Could load it up with BA-64, T-26, and maybe ZiS Truck for cheap transport.
I'm dreaming though, of course.
I'm dreaming though, of course.
all you filthy hotchkiss lovers need to l2p #TeamPanzerIII
> Kriegsbeute Doctrine|Partisan Rework|British Infantry Rework|Soviet Assault Squad <
30 Mar 2014, 15:29 PM
#4
Posts: 410
I think that this would increase the strategy deph ingame without unbalancing it, because most of these units (that will appear at min 6-8 as min) can be killed by AT nades/faust or with a few pak/zis shots / shreks/ guards.
30 Mar 2014, 15:38 PM
#5
Posts: 680
Since the last patch, some mid-game units became unpopular. (T70, SU-76, Flamer HT).
Why not decrease the fuel of T3-T4 russian buildings? so that, after it's built you can have access to mid-game vehicles such as T70/M5/Su-76 and... if you wan't to get a T34 or SU-85/Katiuska, you will have to research an upgrade from that building that will cost more fuel.
.
+1
Here you have it Relic, you dont even have to invest in any thoughts (money) on this. Just copy and paste. Money saved and you get a better game.
30 Mar 2014, 16:28 PM
#6
Posts: 28
Totally agree with the OP, we will also see some units more often like the M5 which needs more love.
30 Mar 2014, 19:17 PM
#7
Posts: 2115 | Subs: 1
Thats an excellent idea actually
servant to the vet 5 königskübel
b4 and soviet FHQ enthusiast
fan of the illustrious black prince
b4 and soviet FHQ enthusiast
fan of the illustrious black prince
30 Mar 2014, 20:06 PM
#8
Posts: 49
This is actually a fantastic balance suggestion. If priced correctly, it might even allow for a soviet player to field T-70s, halftracks, and su76's at the same time without too much fuel investment.
The thing about soviets are their lack of tech versatility and combined arms. I do not think the soviets are terribly under balanced, it is more that their tech is stuck somewhere between coh1 pe and coh1 brits. Obviously, it's unlikely Reric will implement this idea, but it really could go a long way toward fixing the soviet tech problems. Now, they can't even get ACCESS to a damn halftrack without 140 fuel.
I appreciate the attempt to balance/change the pacing and skill cap, but these changes only pigeonhole the soviets even harder into the either-or tech problem of T3/T4.
EDIT: why they didnt simply steal ideas directly from the Eastern Front mod for coh1 I'll never know.
The thing about soviets are their lack of tech versatility and combined arms. I do not think the soviets are terribly under balanced, it is more that their tech is stuck somewhere between coh1 pe and coh1 brits. Obviously, it's unlikely Reric will implement this idea, but it really could go a long way toward fixing the soviet tech problems. Now, they can't even get ACCESS to a damn halftrack without 140 fuel.
I appreciate the attempt to balance/change the pacing and skill cap, but these changes only pigeonhole the soviets even harder into the either-or tech problem of T3/T4.
EDIT: why they didnt simply steal ideas directly from the Eastern Front mod for coh1 I'll never know.
31 Mar 2014, 10:57 AM
#9
Posts: 410
I'd like to hear what do any Relic staff think about that issue.
31 Mar 2014, 11:08 AM
#10
Posts: 1042
Pqiumseh said that the intention was for Soviets to have to choose... which I think is sort of irrelevant to your suggestion of low tier units in one area and high tier units in another... Considering how Soviet units are generally inferior to German ones it has to be one of the worst balancing ideas in a long time.
I like it however, I'd love to be able to use some lighter units backed by an IS or ISU for one, rather than be forced to go down the predictable boring SU-85 spam route. I find the idea of roleplaying a light assault gun unit supporting an infantry assault really exciting.
I like it however, I'd love to be able to use some lighter units backed by an IS or ISU for one, rather than be forced to go down the predictable boring SU-85 spam route. I find the idea of roleplaying a light assault gun unit supporting an infantry assault really exciting.
31 Mar 2014, 15:47 PM
#11
Posts: 49
Pqiumseh said that the intention was for Soviets to have to choose... which I think is sort of irrelevant to your suggestion of low tier units in one area and high tier units in another... Considering how Soviet units are generally inferior to German ones it has to be one of the worst balancing ideas in a long time.
I like it however, I'd love to be able to use some lighter units backed by an IS or ISU for one, rather than be forced to go down the predictable boring SU-85 spam route. I find the idea of roleplaying a light assault gun unit supporting an infantry assault really exciting.
It really is a silly idea, especially when months of play have proven that the either/or nature of T3 and T4 really gimp the faction. CoH is about combined arms tactics, but in the mid to late game Reric wants soviets to suddenly ignore all that and go pure defense or pure offense...
Another suggestion that deserves a look is to put the SU75 in T3 and the T34 into T4. Greatly reduce the fuel costs for T3 and increase the fuel cost for T4. Then soviets actually have a mid game and late game, both of which provide adaptable combined arms tactics at all stages of the game. It's the best and easiest fix imo and also provides more interesting gameplay for a faction that is currently stuck somewhere between PE and Brits of CoH1.
31 Mar 2014, 16:03 PM
#12
Posts: 522
This is a good idea, +1 to the OP.
But will Relic ever listen to us about faction design and teching?
But will Relic ever listen to us about faction design and teching?
1 Apr 2014, 15:19 PM
#13
Posts: 410
I like the pacing that have the game (importancy of microing infantry) but I still feel that the game have no Mid-game. We start playing with infantry and a very few minutes later, tanks appear.
I remember from Vcoh that mid game came from minute 5 to minute 12-14 where AC's, M8's and Pumas were taking the field.
Coh2 lacks on this, but at least we are coming on the right direction. Go keep patching/balancing Dev's !!!!!
I remember from Vcoh that mid game came from minute 5 to minute 12-14 where AC's, M8's and Pumas were taking the field.
Coh2 lacks on this, but at least we are coming on the right direction. Go keep patching/balancing Dev's !!!!!
0 user is browsing this thread:
Livestreams
 |
|
|
43 | ||
 |
|
|
25 | ||
|
|
|
|
1903 | ||
 |
|
|
225 | ||
|
|
|
|
18 | ||
|
|
|
|
11 | ||
|
|
|
|
3 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
 |
|
|
1 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.830222.789+36
- 2.561204.733+3
- 3.34957.860+14
- 4.916404.694-1
- 5.280162.633+8
- 6.305114.728+1
- 7.721440.621+3
- 8.14758.717+1
- 9.17046.787-1
- 10.1019662.606+4
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1222
Board Info
673 users are online:
1 member and 672 guests
PatFenis
PatFenis
1 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
36 posts in the last month
8 posts in the last week
36 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48939
Welcome our newest member, Ellmjnhiem
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, Ellmjnhiem
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM