Nice ideas !
Yeap +1 too
Posts: 262
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
Posts: 818
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.
Posts: 647
Posts: 4928
Posts: 135
Posts: 2819
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.
Posts: 644
So what am I really saying?
Eventually they will run out of fuel if they keep overextending those heavies.
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.
My opinion is that heavy tanks should not have such a huge HP advantage over medium tanks.
1) Nerf T4.
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.
Posts: 2115 | Subs: 1
Youre saying that playing Axis is a point & click adventure.
Posts: 211
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.
Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2
Good thing we're talking about fuel upkeep on heavy tanks and not light vehicles...
Posts: 126
Posts: 231
Posts: 365
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 matchFuel 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.
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.
Posts: 204
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.
Posts: 4928
8 | |||||
38 | |||||
13 |