Login

russian armor

Call-in design philosophy - backwards?

11 Sep 2014, 14:26 PM
#41
avatar of GiaA

Posts: 713 | Subs: 2

The vcoh system of doctrine tanks was perfect. Doctrinal tanks for NO fuel but very costly in manpower. Also limited to 1 at a time. I don't think doctrinal medium tanks should be restricted to one at a time, but the heavies should. Then people will use these heavy tanks to supplement their mid/later game tanks rather than spamming them in replacement of them which is very boring and a big reason why I don't play the game very much.



So you want that fuel becomes useless during mid late game as it did in vcoh ? kewl
11 Sep 2014, 14:28 PM
#42
avatar of NinjaWJ

Posts: 2070

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Sep 2014, 14:19 PMTrainzz


This is the problem, tbh.

In CoH2, you have to decide whether you go for doctrinal units or "regular" units, because both of them cost fuel. So obviously, everybody will take the stronger, more cost efficient unit over the weaker one.

By lowering / removing the fuel cost on the call-ins, and in return increasing the manpower cost, you could get your regular units while also calling in a doctrinal one.

I guess the call-in units need some power adjustment then, but in general, this is the easiest way of achieving a variation of doctrinal and non-doctrinal units while maintaining a healthy game flow.

The only problem is that you are then even more forced into using the doctrines that have these call-ins, as you are otherwise probably at a disadvantage.


Not really. If you balance out the core units to be viable then we shouldn't see so many people just pick a specific doctrine for that clal-in.

Giving just MP costs to call-ins while perhaps upping the CP cost would drag out the mid/midlate game. I think this is a healthy change. More strategy will be involved instead of everyone just saving up for the super tank.
11 Sep 2014, 14:30 PM
#43
avatar of IpKaiFung
Benefactor 115

Posts: 1708 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Sep 2014, 14:19 PMTrainzz


This is the problem, tbh.

In CoH2, you have to decide whether you go for doctrinal units or "regular" units, because both of them cost fuel. So obviously, everybody will take the stronger, more cost efficient unit over the weaker one.

By lowering / removing the fuel cost on the call-ins, and in return increasing the manpower cost, you could get your regular units while also calling in a doctrinal one.

I guess the call-in units need some power adjustment then, but in general, this is the easiest way of achieving a variation of doctrinal and non-doctrinal units while maintaining a healthy game flow.

The only problem is that you are then even more forced into using the doctrines that have these call-ins, as you are otherwise probably at a disadvantage.


I'll still just wait for call ins because they are way better than standard units and also cost less with regards to tech costs.

Hi 2 U Mr. Tiger Ace
11 Sep 2014, 14:33 PM
#44
avatar of NinjaWJ

Posts: 2070

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Sep 2014, 14:26 PMGiaA



So you want that fuel becomes useless during mid late game as it did in vcoh ? kewl

|
AFAIK, it was not useless. That fuel could be used to make more vehicles to further press the advantage or to defend. There was an incentive to tech because the core units were good. You did not see people just sitting on rifleman all day just to wait for a calliope. There were Shermans, Jeeps, etc for support. It isn't like COH2 where people hold out with barebones units or blobs until they call in a tank.
11 Sep 2014, 14:34 PM
#45
avatar of Inverse
Coder Red Badge

Posts: 1679 | Subs: 5

I really don't see them making commander-specific units less cost-effective than base faction units. It completely goes against their business model and the fact that their design philosophy revolves around adding variety through commanders. In vCoH doctrines/companies were supplementary to base units because the base factions had a lot more variety than they do in CoH2. In CoH2, it's the commanders providing that variety, so it makes sense that they want commander-specific units to be more attractive than their base counterparts. You can like it or hate it, but it's not going to change.
11 Sep 2014, 15:05 PM
#46
avatar of Trainzz

Posts: 332 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Sep 2014, 14:28 PMNinjaWJ


Not really. If you balance out the core units to be viable then we shouldn't see so many people just pick a specific doctrine for that clal-in.

Giving just MP costs to call-ins while perhaps upping the CP cost would drag out the mid/midlate game. I think this is a healthy change. More strategy will be involved instead of everyone just saving up for the super tank.


Maybe, I really don't know how it would play out, but I think it could be worth a try.



I'll still just wait for call ins because they are way better than standard units and also cost less with regards to tech costs.

Hi 2 U Mr. Tiger Ace


Well then you will get punished for it, because call-ins are now not only more expensive manpower-wise, but you can also get overrun by mid game units that are non-doctrinal, because the fuel you needed for call-ins before can now be spent on teching. I mean, it will still be a viable strategy to just wait out until you get your call-in (which has hopefully a higher cp cost then), but not waiting for it will be just as viable.

11 Sep 2014, 16:02 PM
#47
avatar of PingPing

Posts: 329

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Sep 2014, 14:34 PMInverse
I really don't see them making commander-specific units less cost-effective than base faction units. It completely goes against their business model and the fact that their design philosophy revolves around adding variety through commanders. In vCoH doctrines/companies were supplementary to base units because the base factions had a lot more variety than they do in CoH2. In CoH2, it's the commanders providing that variety, so it makes sense that they want commander-specific units to be more attractive than their base counterparts. You can like it or hate it, but it's not going to change.


Smack on.

It was the DLC-centric design that really broke this game.
11 Sep 2014, 16:11 PM
#48
avatar of drChengele
Patrion 14

Posts: 640 | Subs: 1

For Soviets :

Add a new technology to the HQ building. 200mp/60fu, "Advanced Armour Command Liaison", 60 seconds research time.

Tech is greyed out until you choose a commander with a tank in his doctrine
AND, tech is greyed out until you build t3 or t4.

Until this tech is researched, all doctrinal tank call-in buttons are greyed out.

For Germans :

Something similar, tie to tiers and teching etc.
11 Sep 2014, 16:35 PM
#50
avatar of CookiezNcreem
Senior Strategist Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 3052 | Subs: 15



I think that for Soviets especially, but also possibly for USF and OKW, you need to be careful with this. Soviets are not designed to get all 4 tiers, so saying that Guards only come with a T1 limits strategies. This would be extra punishing for call in tanks, as both Soviet T3 and T4 cost 120 fuel, meaning you couldn't use T-34/85s with SU-85 back up or an ISU with T-34/76s.

USF is also encouraged to tier skip, getting either Lieutenant or Captain. Thus stuff like Paratroopers, Greyhounds, or Wolverines should be either have Lieutenant or Captain + CP gate.

OKW can skip tiers, but they generally seem to get all 3 in a game. Their tech is also the cheapest.



No one said you cant go T1,get guards and M3,and then go t2 and lock down the territory you took with Maxims, as sovs,its just not always viable since it costs too much

Conversely,no one said you couldnt go T2 and get Maxims and shocks,and then turn around and throw those shocks in an M3.
T34/85 could be put in T4 too,i was just throwing ideas around.
For the Soviets they should definitely implement cheapened teching each time you build a new building.(Cheaper T2 after T1 for example) to increase the amount of strategies you can screw around with,which would change the spamness of the sovs forever.



Most callin inf doc besides the soviets would remain unchanged. Paras could still drop regardless of your tech,pathfinders would still pathfind at 1cp,etc etc.

Greyhound would probably require LT and 3cp.(Which means it would be relatively unchanged.)

Assault Grens would be the same as ass engineers.

Also for the Okw,Jagdtiger comes from flaktruck,after all 3 buildings. No more 24 min jagdtigers..



11 Sep 2014, 16:52 PM
#51
avatar of KyleAkira

Posts: 410

The real problem now is that Heavy Call ins >>>>>>>> Stock tanks (T3,T4).

In terms of cost: 1 ISU to 2 P4's have a similar building cost (I don't include teching). THe winning chance for the ISU is much higher than the 2 P4.

Sometimes I feel that building T3 will make me become obsolete from the minute 15 till the end. With T3 I can have a temporally territory control (Best for deffense than offense because Zis Guns will hit hard my P4) but at the end, any Heavy call in will eat any of my T3 tank, Even if I spam many of them.
11 Sep 2014, 16:54 PM
#52
avatar of NinjaWJ

Posts: 2070

yes they should really cheapen that tech cost. T4 is what, 100 fuel? the SU85 is 140 fuel!!!! that is 240 fuel righrt there that can get you an IS2!
11 Sep 2014, 18:02 PM
#53
avatar of voltardark

Posts: 976

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Sep 2014, 17:33 PMInverse
When CoH2 was in alpha/early beta, all commander-specific units had to be built from tech structures. The main problem back then was these commander-specific units replaced existing units instead of simply adding to the number of units you could create. For instance, Guards and Shocks replaced Penals, the upgunned T34 replaced the stock T34, etc. That was an imperfect solution because it ended up limiting your options; if you didn't have enough fuel for the upgunned T34, you were essentially screwed, since you couldn't produce the cheaper, weaker variant at all.

The problem with call-ins in general is they're extremely boring when they're used as a core strategy rather than simply a supplement to base units. They're a lowest-common-denominator means of adding diversity to the game, but they're core to the commander model. If they want less people to rely on call-ins and commander-specific units, they're going to have to make the base factions more interesting. I'm sure they'd rather just release more commanders.


I think the same, it's just oversimplify the game. I rather see commanders adding new unit(s)or new options to production building. I miss the vcoh way of teching or counter-teching.
11 Sep 2014, 19:44 PM
#54
avatar of Pedro_Jedi

Posts: 543

Well, I do think that for the heavies (IS2, ISU, Tiger, KT), the most simple and pressuring solution would be limiting 1 per game. That way, u add tension - the player with the heavy will be very cautious, while the other one will be pressured into a bold attitude while trying to destroy it.
11 Sep 2014, 20:32 PM
#55
avatar of Showtaro

Posts: 121

Well, I do think that for the heavies (IS2, ISU, Tiger, KT), the most simple and pressuring solution would be limiting 1 per game. That way, u add tension - the player with the heavy will be very cautious, while the other one will be pressured into a bold attitude while trying to destroy it.


That makes sense, just like on coh 1.
11 Sep 2014, 21:04 PM
#56
avatar of Tetley

Posts: 187

I enjoyed the original beta where units where built from buildings apart from the replacement of units. However units like shocks, guards etc can easily be tied to the HQ if a similar method was introduced.

I love how the armored commander for US works it has similar options to the stock units such as the wolverine, its not quite as good as the Jackson but you can get one out quicker if required.

The other issue i have with the call on style is the instant purchase of units. So many times you destroy a heavy and another instantly gets called back on the field. I prefer the old style of only one heavy per army and its call down doesn't start until it dies.
2 users are browsing this thread: 2 guests

Livestreams

unknown 9
United States 2
United States 1

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

829 users are online: 829 guests
3 posts in the last 24h
4 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48723
Welcome our newest member, zowinfans
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM