Login

russian armor

Limit Heavy Tanks

6 Apr 2014, 10:48 AM
#21
avatar of Porygon

Posts: 2779

Delaying CP value doesn't solve anything, you just need to stall the game a little more. You can still stall the game until TA (14 CP) and win without tech.

I still think some callin needs tech or require to pay a high price.
6 Apr 2014, 11:12 AM
#22
avatar of Le Wish
Patrion 14

Posts: 813 | Subs: 1

Agreed, moving up CPs would just delay a couple of minutes, tops.

Tech would be a good "gate" and solve some of the problems with having fuel for multiple heavies once the CP requirement is filled. It would to some extent prevent spam.
6 Apr 2014, 13:02 PM
#23
avatar of sluzbenik

Posts: 879

Cruzz is right, this crap meta has more to do with lack of decent Soviet infantry AT options and the vulnerability of SU-85s.

I think both factions should have some sort of teching cost for them though, this will promote more interesting play. There is precedent for this in COH - PE's Panther call-in required a number of different techs researched and final research at headquarters.

The requirements should differ by faction, if Sov tanks become too powerful at AT in the Western armies patch, then they might not need to differ by much.

But right now, as boring as it is, Sov T3 and T4 are only barely viable with this teching cost.



6 Apr 2014, 13:09 PM
#24
avatar of Kreatiir

Posts: 2819

I think it would be good to limit the heavy tanks because it's like this now in most of the games
Infantry - some tanks and some inf - only tanks

COH2 shouldn't change in a tankbattle in late game. Ok i'm exaggerating, but limiting 1 tiger at the field / player makes it so much more interesting..
6 Apr 2014, 18:09 PM
#25
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

I don´t think that limiting Heavies is gonna adress the problem of T1/T2 into callins.

Nevertheless i don´t see a problem to limiting heavy call-ins to just 1 per player.
6 Apr 2014, 18:13 PM
#26
avatar of Mackie

Posts: 254

imo there was a reason there was restrictions in vcoh. The tanks are supposed to supplement your army. And besides it breaks immersion for me to be up against 3 tigers rather than a mix of armor.
6 Apr 2014, 18:37 PM
#27
avatar of Kreatiir

Posts: 2819

jump backJump back to quoted post6 Apr 2014, 18:13 PMMackie
imo there was a reason there was restrictions in vcoh. The tanks are supposed to supplement your army. And besides it breaks immersion for me to be up against 3 tigers rather than a mix of armor.


idd, they should be a suplement :)
That's whats missing.
6 Apr 2014, 18:41 PM
#28
avatar of 5trategos

Posts: 449

I'm against limiting player options by design.

However there should be a viable counter to heavy tank play and currently there isn't much of one.

The ideal army composition now is 3 Tiger + pioneers for repairs or 3 IS2s + engies. There's something wrong with that picture.
7 Apr 2014, 01:24 AM
#29
avatar of Cyridius

Posts: 627

Limit to one at a time per player. At most. As already said, unless an interesting and unique design decision that has benefits to the player(For example Snipers are limited in Red Orchestra but are exceptionally powerful in the right hands), limiting choice is, by nature, generally a bad idea.
7 Apr 2014, 02:36 AM
#30
avatar of ManBearPig

Posts: 12

Was call-in spam considered a problem in the previous patch??
7 Apr 2014, 16:11 PM
#31
avatar of coh2player

Posts: 1571

I agree: 1 heavy tank at any time, and can call-in new ones after it dies. There were too many games with 2 Tigers and 2 Is-2s. (half of the pop cap) 2 heavy tanks is a lot of power in one spot and are difficult to deal with in smaller maps.
7 Apr 2014, 16:17 PM
#32
avatar of Burts

Posts: 1702

jump backJump back to quoted post6 Apr 2014, 18:13 PMMackie
imo there was a reason there was restrictions in vcoh. The tanks are supposed to supplement your army. And besides it breaks immersion for me to be up against 3 tigers rather than a mix of armor.



What? 3 tigers breaks immersion? I'm sorry but that's how tigers , and pretty much all heavy tanks were used. They were rarely mixed with other tanks. Tigers pretty much always operated in groups of 2-3. Nobody is stupid enough to send 1 tiger tank on their own.
7 Apr 2014, 16:26 PM
#33
avatar of GuruSkippy

Posts: 150

I'd like to see a research limit to use 10cp+ tank call ins.
Need Phase 3 researched for germans, don't need T4 building though.
And need T3 or T4 building for soviets.

And if it's still not enough, maybe increase cost and/or add more CP needed.
7 Apr 2014, 16:41 PM
#34
avatar of Bubalo

Posts: 64

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Apr 2014, 16:17 PMBurts



What? 3 tigers breaks immersion? I'm sorry but that's how tigers , and pretty much all heavy tanks were used. They were rarely mixed with other tanks. Tigers pretty much always operated in groups of 2-3. Nobody is stupid enough to send 1 tiger tank on their own.


During the Battle of Bastogne a group of 17 tigers advanced through American lines... 17.
7 Apr 2014, 16:50 PM
#35
avatar of dasheepeh

Posts: 2115 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Apr 2014, 16:41 PMBubalo


During the Battle of Bastogne a group of 17 tigers advanced through American lines... 17.


Good luck countering that..
7 Apr 2014, 16:52 PM
#36
avatar of Bubalo

Posts: 64



Good luck countering that..


The tanks rolled over the trenches the airborne were dug into allowing them to kill the infantry after the tanks passed. The American tank destroyers were mistaken as German armor due to the snow and fog so they followed the Tigers allowing them to tear their rear armor apart.

My information may be a bit sketchy, been awhile since I read the book - The Battered Bastards of Bastogne
7 Apr 2014, 16:57 PM
#37
avatar of Brick Top

Posts: 1162

I think maybe limit most of the heavies to 1 of each per player max would be ok. But KV1s for example I think are ok to have a few of on their own. Adds variety and flavour and isnt too OP.

I do think increasing the CP on heavies would be good though, it would put a lot of people off stalling that long. It would be better if they were called after some tecking.

I actually prefer to teck in a lot of situations, say soviets, fast T3, get out an impact vehicle, this will accelerate CPs, then you can call a heavy (works nice with ISU, 1 M5 and 1 T34).

T34/85 spam with Guards motor is not as good now CPs were moved later. Its hard to stall that long.
7 Apr 2014, 16:58 PM
#38
avatar of Mackie

Posts: 254

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Apr 2014, 16:17 PMBurts



What? 3 tigers breaks immersion? I'm sorry but that's how tigers , and pretty much all heavy tanks were used. They were rarely mixed with other tanks. Tigers pretty much always operated in groups of 2-3. Nobody is stupid enough to send 1 tiger tank on their own.


you are right, albeit not that likely that hq would requesition 3 tiger tanks to a 100man rifle company trying to seize a village/area.

its about this small group of soldier's not an entire armored division.



7 Apr 2014, 18:02 PM
#39
avatar of Omega_Warrior

Posts: 2561

I don't think that there should be a limit on heavy tanks. Instead they should just limit how much better heavy tanks are then mediums. If going for multiple smaller tanks is just as effective as calling in the smaller stuff in a different way its fine. multiple tigers should be slow and vunerable from the rear. It would courage combined arms to have meduim tanks support the heavier ones because they can react to flanks better.
9 Apr 2014, 04:13 AM
#40
avatar of wongtp

Posts: 647

I don't think that there should be a limit on heavy tanks. Instead they should just limit how much better heavy tanks are then mediums. If going for multiple smaller tanks is just as effective as calling in the smaller stuff in a different way its fine. multiple tigers should be slow and vunerable from the rear. It would courage combined arms to have meduim tanks support the heavier ones because they can react to flanks better.


this,

because of the inherently high damage that most tanks do, it gives an impression that heavy tanks need to do more to justify its great cost. but when heavy tanks are given damage so high, they can 2-3 shot mediums while taking little in return.

the idea of heavy tanks is that it should not have insane upfront firepower, but it is able to engage all targets effectively and provide very good sustained firepower and damage soak when used properly. it should not be the end all of tank combat and rape every other tank in game.

all anti tank damage should be limited to 80dmg and 120dmg for dedicated tank destroyers and heaviest of tanks(paks, ZiS, elefants, tigers). 160dmg to is2 because it has a slow rate of fire. leave 240dmg to the pak emplacement. also reduce hp on elefants, tigers to equalize with is2, and panthers down to 720

and bring back the concept of rear armour. all guns and infantry AT, barring small arms, should have 100% penetration to rear armour.

these 2 changes should allow medium tanks to be more viable in tank combat, where they can actually escape from sustained tank fire and not get destroyed by alpha strikes from heavy tanks due to reduced lethality. rear armour working as intended would give swarms of medium tanks a fighting chance if they can get shots on rear armour.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

Germany 39
France 9
unknown 20
unknown 20
unknown 8
Canada 3

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

779 users are online: 779 guests
1 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
38 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49081
Welcome our newest member, kavyashide
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM