Too many Heavy Tanks

1) Don't understand what you mean by this point. If you mean what I think you mean ("Tech tanks are too expensive because I'm too busy spending all my fuel on doctrinals") then it's a weird point to make. Whereas you're not going to be fuel starved, you're not going to have any manpower either because you're going to be saving it for the ridiculously priced heavy tanks.

Basically, different resource distribution, relaying on heavy call-ins will leave you floating fuel and menpower starved(or at least strained). Relaying on tier armor would allow you more efficient resource distribution if you wanted to go for multiple tier units and you still could afford fuel-wise heavy tank later on.

There's also a very good reason heavy tanks don't cost as much manpower as that and that's because Relic actually wants players to be able to use heavy tanks without completely fucking over their ability to maintain their infantry core.

Again, look at SI KV-2 for the refference point. Getting it is a huge mp strain, so you can't really spam it as you can currently with "more balanced" Tiger and IS costs. In KV-2 case you can get one and then you need to go back on relying on your tier units. Basically, you can still go for heavy tank, but you can't ignore tier armor if you want to stay in game. That is the point of my suggestion.

2) Well sure. Making them extremely in-affordable would indeed force you to think twice to get them; I don't think the intention of the balance team is to make heavy tanks completely unattainable without flat out sacrificing your infantry. If that was the route Relic would use to make non-doctrinals more attractive than doctrinals then they may aswell take out doctrinals all together because there would be absolutely no point in getting them.

Again, its not about making them extremely in-affordable, but about cost redistribution to force player into different economy, the one that actually have a drawback for skipping tiers instead of raining you with rewards for doing so. Cost values can obviously be balanced accordingly, but as I've said, delaying heavy armor or tying it to tiers will change absolutely nothing.

Like Wooof said, it would actually be far more rewarding to wait for heavies if you were losing as opposed to winning: The losing player could just sit in his base for a few minutes (defending maybe the closest points to himself at minimal infantry MP drain) before popping one out. Currently, this is what you're faced with when you're confronted with the Tiger Ace.

Tiger ace is not strong because it costs no fuel, sure that is a factor, but the real deal is it got vet3, greatly increasing its performance over normal one, not to count ability. I thought that was quite obvious, but apparently it wasn't. If you are being pushed back to base normal Tiger or IS-2 won't save you unless opponent is completely unprepared in terms of AT.

3)Eh. No. I've played enough Tiger Ace games to know that you need very minimal manpower when you've got an all-in-one-tank clearing the field for you.

You know, they don't need to come at vet3 with IWIN button ability against tanks. Tiger Ace is bullshit unit, normal Tiger not so much. They would still be as strong as they are now, you'd just have to give up some infantry presence instead of sacrificing absolutely nothing.

That pretty much covers your doubts as well wooof.
Values I gave can be balanced, I only gave a raw example of resource shift and its implications.

i dont think the manpower cost would greatly impact the number of heavies you can bring in anyway. in that video the german player floated enough to call in 5 tigers.. If they were more expensive and he was say only able to call in 2-3.. that would result in what? a minor need to be moderately more capable of microing his heavies?

If you had to tech up to tier4 and build heavies in youre t4 building thatd would help more than just raising the cost of the tanks as youd have to invest resources over time to tech up, rather than float and float and float resources. (Floating being a lot less riskier than actually investing in to a strategy)

Ideally though, i still think only one heavy should be allowed on the field. so your tank core still needs to consist of actual tank units rather than pure call ins. I wouldnt even be against buffing the heavy tanks a little to compensate for the fact that you can only get one and it would require more investing to get it. That would just make that one tank a really big game changer that can swing the tide of the game for either side depending on if the owner can keep it alive or not.

Basically, different resource distribution, relaying on heavy call-ins will leave you floating fuel and menpower starved(or at least strained). Relaying on tier armor would allow you more efficient resource distribution if you wanted to go for multiple tier units and you still could afford fuel-wise heavy tank later on.

Your "Resource distribution" will make heavy tanks impossible to attain in all but a handful of situations (When you've already won and your manpower float begins to rise; when you're in your base and you save all your manpower for a heavy). Basically, your suggestion will make heavy tanks useless. Trust me when I say there are better alternatives to flat out increasing manpower and reducing fuel costs.

EDIT: IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE IN THIS POST, READ THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH
The intention of relic is to allow you to maintain an infantry army while still being able to make heavy tanks. Heavy tanks shouldn't only be allowed to be called in an extremely small amount of situations: It's the intention that if any game lasts long enough and both players are on equal grounds, heavy tanks will be reached eventually. However, Relic also wants to make tech vehicles a viable option and wants to lengthen the bridge between infantry play and heavy tanks so that tech buildings and vehicles are indeed viable (This would lead to an infinitely more diverse meta). Making heavy tanks completely unattainable is not the solution however.

The whole reason a resource called "fuel" exists and is required to build tanks is so that there's a way to translate map control into income and so that how much you can tech is actually reflected by your map control. Also, it indirectly allows you to compartmentalize your infantry and tank incomes.

Again, look at SI KV-2 for the refference point. Getting it is a huge mp strain, so you can't really spam it as you can currently with "more balanced" Tiger and IS costs. In KV-2 case you can get one and then you need to go back on relying on your tier units. Basically, you can still go for heavy tank, but you can't ignore tier armor if you want to stay in game. That is the point of my suggestion.

I don't think you appreciate just how much >1000mp on a single unit is. This is upwards of five minutes of straight up saving manpower without reinforcing once or making squads at all. This is 100% unfeasible in an equal matchup: This will make heavy tanks 100% nonviable. Read my response earlier in this post: It covers why Relic doesn't want to make Heavy tanks 100% nonviable.

Tiger ace is not strong because it costs no fuel, sure that is a factor, but the real deal is it got vet3, greatly increasing its performance over normal one, not to count ability. I thought that was quite obvious, but apparently it wasn't. If you are being pushed back to base normal Tiger or IS-2 won't save you unless opponent is completely unprepared in terms of AT.

I don't think condescension is necessary. Also, if we're going to start going ad hominem, i'm just throwing your playercard - for no particular reason: http://www.coh2.org/ladders/playercard/steamid/76561198009261973
Also mine: http://www.coh2.org/ladders/playercard/steamid/76561198022936410

If the IS2 was 800 manpower and required no fuel cost, it'd be just as abusey as the Tiger Ace. The Tiger Ace's gimmick is not that it's vet 3 (The effectiveness of the Tiger Ace is actually around about the same as the K-T overall; actually, it's significantly less in both anti-infantry and anti-tank potency as well as general survivability) but the fact it requires no initial fuel cost.

You have really seen there any ad hominem??


Well, I gave my idea with including explanations and possible implications.
I have also pointed out the cost shift, which you completely either misunderstood or just ignored by your constant TA comparisons.

I will say it again and again, if you want to know how my change would affect heavy tanks call-ins play frigging Soviet Industry doctrine for a few games, call-in KV-2 and see how that feels, there is no need for theory-crafting here, you can see it first hand yourself.

Tying heavies to tier buildings will change nothing, nada, nichts. Same for increasing CPs.