Login

russian armor

Heavy tanks - easy use

26 Sep 2014, 14:32 PM
#21
avatar of BrutusHR

Posts: 262



Nice ideas !


Yeap +1 too
26 Sep 2014, 14:33 PM
#22
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1

Proposition1:
Make a dedicated repair ability on heavy tanks costing fuel. You can only repair a heavy tank with that ability.

Proposition2:
Make each shot costing a bit of ammo, like 5 ammo the shot and yeah maybe introduce the shot per click. So, no more ammo, no more shots.

Proposition3:
Create a new Trail damage for heavy tanks: gives a chance to any AT source to break the trail leaving the tank immobilized when it is under 30% of his life, only works on sides and rear. the trail damage is automatically repaired when back at least with 50% of life.
27 Sep 2014, 15:27 PM
#23
avatar of Hon3ynuts

Posts: 818

I think a change in the Upkeep system would help to Decrease the viability of heavy vehicles, if they could seperate popcap from Upkeep.

However if they choose not to do this, I think the Jagtiger, The Kingtiger and the ISU should all get an increase in popcap. This would make it harder to have adequate support for these super units and make it near impossible to have multiples at the same time.

At the same time the units should feel strong, effective and cost efficient, they are very expensive and represent the pinicle of each factions tech tree and the only Supertank that feels too strong at the moment is the ISU for its squadwipe capacity
27 Sep 2014, 16:10 PM
#24
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2


The game really needs some sort of fuel upkeep. I don't think heavy tanks can be any weaker without being underwhelming. The problem is that they are too good financially as the game progresses. That's just not right!

They can take a hell lot of damage while putting some out then retreat and repair for 0 cost. Mediums are more likely to lose a tank here or there even as they fight infantry. So they are atleast victim to some sort of attrition.

If heavy tanks started to drain resources to some extent (atleast more then mediums). Then it would allow mediums and lighter vehicles to actually keep up their numbers against heavies rather then the heavy critical mass we see now.


this. i think this is brilliant. one of the biggest gripe i have when playing big team game is that many times whenever my teammate and i get ready to destroy jagdtiger or isu etc etc, the enemy already has enough fuel to just call in a replacement, just not enough pop cap. this causes great frustration.

FUEL UPKEEP FTW
27 Sep 2014, 17:37 PM
#25
avatar of wongtp

Posts: 647

nope, heavies are as good as they are, no need for radical changes.

real problem are weak allied AT and stupidly thick KT frontal armour. jadgtiger is stupid but essential as long as isu152 stays in game.
27 Sep 2014, 20:57 PM
#26
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

I would vouch for 2 things:

1: Fuel Upkeep, as someone else said. One of the major problems with superior tanks isn't just the price, but the fact that once you have them, that's it. Inferior Tanks are expected to take losses while fighting to kill a superior tank, but that's very all-or-nothing, because if you fail, you lost some tanks and he gets his repaired for free. A hefty fuel income on medium-heavy (KV-1, KV-8, Panther), heavy (Tiger, IS-2, ISU-152, Elefant), and super-heavy (Tiger II, Jagdtiger) tanks would help negate this issue and promote the usage of medium tanks and even light tanks.

2. Rear Armour. As we know, we have Front and Rear armour, these two hitboxes are split down the middle of the Tank. I have 2 suggestions regarding HT Rear Armour*:

The first is instead of a 50-50 split, make it 35-65, so the heavy tank is forced to face the enemy at all times protect itself, while flankers are more likely to hit the delicate "rear" armour from the side.

The second is to reduce rear armour of all heavy tanks across the board. In the end, no Heavy Tank should have rear armour over 120, the average highest penetration on a medium tank (Panzer IV, T-34/76, Sherman). This is done because currently Heavy Tanks are not very threatened by a flanking enemy tank.

*I exclude the Kliment Voroshilov series from this however, because they're unique in that while heavy they carry the armour and mobility of a heavy, they do not carry the health or damage of one.
27 Sep 2014, 21:28 PM
#27
avatar of FappingFrog

Posts: 135

FUEL UPKEEP X1000 PLEASE RELIC
27 Sep 2014, 21:49 PM
#28
avatar of Kreatiir

Posts: 2819

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Sep 2014, 14:33 PMEsxile
Proposition1:
Make a dedicated repair ability on heavy tanks costing fuel. You can only repair a heavy tank with that ability.

Proposition3:
Create a new Trail damage for heavy tanks: gives a chance to any AT source to break the trail leaving the tank immobilized when it is under 30% of his life, only works on sides and rear. the trail damage is automatically repaired when back at least with 50% of life.


Cool man, great prepositions :)
raw
27 Sep 2014, 21:51 PM
#29
avatar of raw

Posts: 644


So what am I really saying?


Youre saying that playing Axis is a point & click adventure.

Eventually they will run out of fuel if they keep overextending those heavies.


What if they don't?

This mechanic is the main reason why the US late game is bad: they lack heavy tanks, and heavy tanks are simply too hard to counter properly.


It has been that way since release. And Relic is still of the impression that somehow magic keywords like 'mobility' and 'flexibility' will thwart a supposedly static Axis player. Not only is Axis in this game not static, it blows Allies in terms of mobility, firepower, map presence and power projection right out of the water. CoH2 can only be fixed if Relic fixes itself first and abandons their retarded design decisions. We need units that can go toe-to-toe /through all stages of the game/ (remove consript from premises)

My opinion is that heavy tanks should not have such a huge HP advantage over medium tanks.


How is turning everyone into soviets gonna improve the game?

1) Nerf T4.


A fair suggestion, the problem is that this will make T4 largely unattractive again and we're back to spamming T3. The reason you play Axis T4 right now is because they can get away with it; if T4 is put into its place, it becomes immediadetly useless because it has nothing to fight against.

Create a new Trail damage for heavy tanks: gives a chance to any AT source to break the trail leaving the tank immobilized when it is under 30% of his life, only works on sides and rear. the trail damage is automatically repaired when back at least with 50% of life.

That should really be a general mechanic, and it will be as well received as Blizzard. :banana:
27 Sep 2014, 21:54 PM
#30
avatar of dasheepeh

Posts: 2115 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Sep 2014, 21:51 PMraw


Youre saying that playing Axis is a point & click adventure.


playercard pls.
27 Sep 2014, 22:17 PM
#31
avatar of 89456132

Posts: 211

Consider fuel upkeep's effects on cheaper vehicles. Getting a T70 would delay the T34 longer. Scout cars and halftracks would be less desirable for the extra slowing of teching. So perhaps only certain vehicles could have fuel upkeep, but this would be unintuitive.
27 Sep 2014, 22:19 PM
#32
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

Consider fuel upkeep's effects on cheaper vehicles. Getting a T70 would delay the T34 longer. Scout cars and halftracks would be less desirable for the extra slowing of teching. So perhaps only certain vehicles could fuel upkeep, but this would be unintuitive.


Good thing we're talking about fuel upkeep on heavy tanks and not light vehicles... -_-
28 Sep 2014, 01:14 AM
#33
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2



Good thing we're talking about fuel upkeep on heavy tanks and not light vehicles... -_-


well i think fuel upkeep can work with being implemented on all vehicles.
28 Sep 2014, 04:09 AM
#34
avatar of wehrwolfzug

Posts: 126

Pop cap is an amazing tool for balancing call in units. Raise the amount of pop cap heavies use and you will see the amount of times they are called in drop.

1. You want a low micro, high damage and high hp unit? Ok that's fine. But you will have a lot less units to support the flanks.

2. This also helps balance the 4v4 matches. If you have 4 players calling in heavies then there will be nothing to hold the battlefield or cover flanks. Teams would have to adapt and have some players use conventional units/armor while the others use the heavies.

3. One heavie per battle. Worked great in coh1. You didn't dare call in a king tiger without thinking hey maybe I should wait before I do this? I only get one of these bad boys.....
28 Sep 2014, 04:21 AM
#35
avatar of pantherswag

Posts: 231

I think a manual fire would be kind of cool for super heavy TDs. Would add a little bit of a skill cap for the huge range advantage you get with the Jagd, or the massive output of the ISU-152. But, it's also no fun for a new player to finally get their super unit and then have no idea how to use it at all. Maybe a manual skill shot AP round/ HE round for Jagd/ISU respectively.
28 Sep 2014, 04:49 AM
#36
avatar of ASneakyFox

Posts: 365

they need to just make heavy tanks more rare/expensive as they were in coh1. heavy tanks were a very calculated decision in coh1 because of the combination of tank limits/tank manpower cost/cooldown timer/limiting to one heavy call in per match

That sort of stuff makes the heavy tank a high end weapon with lots of value AND lots of risk.

coh2 kind of leans towards heavies as just being a part of the standard tech progression. You build them just as easy (or in cases of most doctrines- easier) than any other tank.

If they increased the risk factor of heavy tanks i wouldnt even be against buffing them to account for not being able to call in multiples and the like.
28 Sep 2014, 06:13 AM
#37
avatar of Omega_Warrior

Posts: 2561

they need to just make heavy tanks more rare/expensive as they were in coh1. heavy tanks were a very calculated decision in coh1 because of the combination of tank limits/tank manpower cost/cooldown timer/limiting to one heavy call in per match

That sort of stuff makes the heavy tank a high end weapon with lots of value AND lots of risk.

coh2 kind of leans towards heavies as just being a part of the standard tech progression. You build them just as easy (or in cases of most doctrines- easier) than any other tank.

If they increased the risk factor of heavy tanks i wouldnt even be against buffing them to account for not being able to call in multiples and the like.
Fuel upkeep would accomplish this. I'm against hard-caps on units since it hinders possible builds and variety of play, but spamming heavies really shouldn't be that viable of tactic, especially not better then using stock units which it is at the moment.

With fuel upkeep, fielding multiple heavies will be virtually improbable rather then impossible. Letting the multi-heavy tank situation to still exist while, giving them the appropriate downsides.
28 Sep 2014, 06:41 AM
#38
avatar of Midconflict

Posts: 204

I like the idea of the fuel upkeep. But I agree that the upkeep should only be for tanks, and only heavies at that.

I also think you should only be able to get one heavy a match.If both of these limits or just one was implemented, I think it would justify the performic of heavy tanks like the ISU, KT, and JT.
28 Sep 2014, 06:54 AM
#39
avatar of Cabreza

Posts: 656

they need to just make heavy tanks more rare/expensive as they were in coh1. heavy tanks were a very calculated decision in coh1 because of the combination of tank limits/tank manpower cost/cooldown timer/limiting to one heavy call in per match

That sort of stuff makes the heavy tank a high end weapon with lots of value AND lots of risk.

coh2 kind of leans towards heavies as just being a part of the standard tech progression. You build them just as easy (or in cases of most doctrines- easier) than any other tank.

If they increased the risk factor of heavy tanks i wouldnt even be against buffing them to account for not being able to call in multiples and the like.


I actually think going in the opposite direction might be the better idea. Right now super heavies are quite expensive and therefore have to have a very huge impact upon the game when they arrive. If heavies were cheaper they by necessity would have to be weaker and therefore would have a less dramatic impact upon the battlefield. This would also bring them closer to non-doc units so that the only counter to a super heavy won't be another super heavy.
28 Sep 2014, 07:56 AM
#40
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

Expanding on what I said earlier, fuel upkeep shouldn't effect medium or light tanks. I feel there should be 3 stages of fuel upkeep:

Medium-Heavy:
A moderate penalty for advantaged-but-not-quite-heavy tanks. These include the Kliment Voroshilov and Panther tanks.

Heavy:
A hefty penalty for the standard heavy tanks, this prevents you from fielding too many and helps keep inferior medium tanks relevant by allowing the enemy to replace losses or expand before you call in more heavies.

Super-Heavy:
The highest penalty for the massive Jagdtiger and Tiger II, the penalty on these units will make it difficult to get even a Luchs. Use them wisely.
0 user is browsing this thread:

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

744 users are online: 744 guests
0 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49122
Welcome our newest member, Harda621
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM