Login

russian armor

Explaining manpower income and upkeep

  • This thread is locked
25 Apr 2013, 03:46 AM
#21
avatar of SShaker

Posts: 10

A good and easy way to address the upkeep subject might be (as suggested in other threads) to bring back sector based manpower income (+3 manpower per territory held in coh1). This will reward good play and unit preservation, since it will result in more capping power and therefore map dominance. It also alleviates the manpower income loss resulting from a higher population count due to unit preservation.

However, it might be too early to completely dismiss the new upkeep system. In 1v1 games if you are preserving your units and manage to inflict squad losses for the other team you'll still come out ahead if you balance your investment and don't over invest in lower tiers. I see it as a new strategical challenge to find the right balance between early game investment and being able to counter late tier units if my opponent, despite having lost most of the map, manages to field one. It adds another layer of strategy, which I welcome to some extend.



After playing a game today, I kind of take back what I said earlier in the thread about how you are penalized and can't react to new tech because of upkeep. After watching the replay, I realized that I need to reevaluate my play which I will do when exams are over :p.

Despite that, I still agree that upkeep right now is too steep and discourages T1 play too much. Like the quote says, the penalty for heavy T1 is that your opponent will tech up but having 150 mp/min income is overkill right now. I think Relic should try small tweaks to the upkeep system during the beta.

Basically what I'm saying is that I agree with what I quoted. I've already brought up the sectors not giving mp anymore and it could be a soft fix to the steep upkeep but it may be too early to judge.
16 Sep 2016, 11:44 AM
#22
avatar of GenMe

Posts: 294

A good and easy way to address the upkeep subject might be (as suggested in other threads) to bring back sector based manpower income (+3 manpower per territory held in coh1). This will reward good play and unit preservation, since it will result in more capping power and therefore map dominance. It also alleviates the manpower income loss resulting from a higher population count due to unit preservation.

However, it might be too early to completely dismiss the new upkeep system. In 1v1 games if you are preserving your units and manage to inflict squad losses for the other team you'll still come out ahead if you balance your investment and don't over invest in lower tiers. I see it as a new strategical challenge to find the right balance between early game investment and being able to counter late tier units if my opponent, despite having lost most of the map, manages to field one. It adds another layer of strategy, which I welcome to some extend.



this is where soviets have manpower bleed issues, they need more low tier units to counter low tier axis units, when they start facing LMG grens and rife nades or AC's their upkeep gets really ugly, they can control most the map and not be able to tech due to low manpower.
16 Sep 2016, 11:49 AM
#23
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273

Did you have to necro a three year old thread?
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

874 users are online: 874 guests
2 posts in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
40 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49072
Welcome our newest member, Durddcdy23
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM