Heavies vs mediums - unfair and stagnating the meta

Inspired by the excellent thread of CieZ I would like to describe what I perceive as a problem with the game. Not only callins but the relationship between heavy and medium armour needs to be taken into account. I will make a case for 2-3 fictional mediums against a fictional heavy. In this scenario each medium has precisely one third of the performance of the heavy, by what ever metric you want.

1) Micro tax :

More tanks means more micro is required. At the very top levels of play this is mitigated somewhat, but nobody can be everywhere. To project the same amount of firepower in the same area, the medium armour player needs to micro 3 times as many units as the heavy armour player.

2) Disproportionate firepower, veterancy and resource loss

Our ideal tanks clash. Shots are exchanged. The trio takes down one third of heavy's hit points. Its DPS remains unchanged. The heavy takes down one third the HP of the medium trio (i.e. destroys one). The DPS of the supposedly equivalent medium force is reduced by 33%. THe heavy retains 100% of DPS. Let's say 2 mediums are destroyed and 1 retreats, and the heavy loses 2/3 of hp and retreats. The results are : the player owning mediums lost veterancy and resources, they need to be rebuilt, incurring a loss of time as well (until new ones build). The player owning the heavy needs to repair it for free, only sharing with the medium player the loss of time. The heavy tank now has more veterancy. The freshly made mediums not only cost resources, they are also vet0.

Multiple mediums can be focused on one by one. Thus the "equivalent" medium force loses veterancy, resources and firepower over the course of engagement. CoH2 focuses on unit preservation.

3) Penetration and support weapons

Support weapons are viable against mediums, but much less so than heavies. I'm afraid I will have to break my neutrality in this paragraph, as Axis is the clear benefitting party in this, since they have more heavies AND more support antitank capability. You can ward off Allied mediums with Schrecks. PTRS and Zooks versus Axis mediums are nowhere near in performance. With the latest patch the PaK was toned down a bit and now each AT gun has their own strong point, but the best penetrating AT gun is still the Wehr one, and the best armoured beasts are on the Axis side. This results in Axis tanks being more resistant to support weapons than their allied counterparts, compounded by the fact that Axis has more heavies in the field, it promotes tank-to-tank engagements. And we have seen how the tank-to-tank engagements benefit the side with the heavier tanks even against a supposedly equivalent medium force.


My conclusion is that when calculating a heavy's performance, an opportunity cost should be taken into account. For reasons outlined here, they should be considerably more expensive, harder to obtain, and/or occupy considerably more popcap than an equivalent force of mediums, to compensate for the advantages listed here.

Which reminds me of the mention of making repair not free anymore...

Like having bigger tanks requiring more resources to repair so being damaged still uses up fuel/manpower to repair.

Which is also one of the ways how German tanks had problems sometimes (availability of spare parts)

I would also add that for mediums to gain their advantage by flanking. They are have to get behind the heavy completely exposing themselves to any sort of support the heavy has while simultaneously separating them from their own support.

Meanwhile heavies simply have to engage the enemy forward while maintaining the ability to easily fall back behind their support units if things turn bad.

Which reminds me of the mention of making repair not free anymore...

Like having bigger tanks requiring more resources to repair so being damaged still uses up fuel/manpower to repair.

Which is also one of the ways how German tanks had problems sometimes (availability of spare parts)

That would only work if repair costs varied between units. Since mediums of similar value would actually have a higher health total.

Personally I'm for a fuel upkeep system.

What about simply a higher upkeep for heavies?

I get what you're saying, but I don't believe in trying to compare CoH units in a vacuum. For example, your argument does take into account whether the mediums are able to get rear armor hits (which is common when you outnumber the heavy), DPS lost by the heavy due to having to traverse a slow gun vs fast enemies, the strength of supporting off-map abilities like Mark Target or P47s, and lastly range differences between tanks (Jacksons getting free damage due to superior range). As you can see there are too many factors that prevent heavies from being outright superior.

It's not like you see Tigers or KT straight rolling over the Allies; they have a pretty decent number of ways to combat heavies in my opinion.

As you can see there are too many factors that prevent heavies from being outright superior.

Well, yes, otherwise anyone fielding a heavy would automatically win the game, which is clearly not the case.

My problem with the heavies is that you see them too often, and that's because they are a tad too easily obtainable (all except KT are call-ins after all), and a tad too powerful when compared to mediums.

There is also the authenticity argument. I didn't want to invoke that because I wanted to focus on balance, but the game is not FUN if all the gameplay is concentrated on a "boss unit".

The sad part is that when mediums clash, this is where the game shines. Too bad that a Tiger or an IS2 are just around the corner...

Well, yes, otherwise anyone fielding a heavy would automatically win the game, which is clearly not the case.

My problem with the heavies is that you see them too often, and that's because they are a tad too easily obtainable (all except KT are call-ins after all), and a tad too powerful when compared to mediums.

There is also the authenticity argument. I didn't want to invoke that because I wanted to focus on balance, but the game is not FUN if all the gameplay is concentrated on a "boss unit".

The sad part is that when mediums clash, this is where the game shines. Too bad that a Tiger or an IS2 are just around the corner...

Tigers get destroyed by Jacksons, T34/85s, p47s, etc. I don't see why people complain about heavies when t34/85s are a ridiculously strong call-in.

If we're talking about units that are anti-fun, I think ISU and JagdTiger are way worse (mainly ISU because of the squad wiping bonus).

As you can see there are too many factors that prevent heavies from being outright superior.

It's not like you see Tigers or KT straight rolling over the Allies; they have a pretty decent number of ways to combat heavies in my opinion.

So you're basically denying the fact that Axis has a better late game and you can't see any connection between the percentage of axis-won games after the 30- or 40-minutes-mark and the performance of axis and allied armour. Serioulsy?

Honestly I am against having heavies or super heavies in the game in first place. They reward you for playing campy and stalling the game. Where is the point in that? CoH2 already feels much more static than it's predecessor. Heavies are just amplifying that.

Heavies are fine, super heavies are the problem, either that our people need to better strategize for flanking. I see alot of casts of players not flanking they just rush head long at a tiger with their 2 E8 Shermans or 2 T34/85 and then cry OP Axis when their tanks fail to kill the Tiger from the front.

I agree completely with the original post's statement of the problems at hand. But I disagree with the proposed solution. Most tanks in the game feel well balanced to me with a few obvious exceptions. I think improving the supporting AT weapons against super heavies is the best way to go.

Tigers get destroyed by Jacksons, T34/85s, p47s, etc.

Yes, those are all counters to a Tiger. Incidentally, the Jackson is the only thing the US have that can stand up to heavy armour, the t34/85s are, in your own words, ridiculously strong, and the p47 ability would be batshit OP in any other faction.

If you don't see the fuss over heavies, play some 4v4s as allies and you shall be enlightened.

So you're basically denying the fact that Axis has a better late game and you can't see any connection between the percentage of axis-won games after the 30- or 40-minutes-mark and the performance of axis and allied armour. Serioulsy?

Honestly I am against having heavies or super heavies in the game in first place. They reward you for playing campy and stalling the game. Where is the point in that? CoH2 already feels much more static than it's predecessor. Heavies are just amplifying that.

Do you have the data to back that up? Allies have some pretty significant late game power in the form of ISU, IS2, Jacksons, T34/85s, Mark Target, P47s, B4, etc (like I already mentioned). Are you going to try to deny that these are ineffective units? OKW can save up all game for a KT only to have it killed instantly by the ridiculously common tactic of t34/85s + mark target and P47s.

As for your second point, I feel like you didn't actually play CoH1, otherwise you'd remember the fun that was the British and also Wher t2 (defensive and terror). Both SUUUUUPER mobile and not static playstyles. Also it wasn't like you saw them frequently or anything.... /s

I wish side armor existed for everything. :/ At least then when you combat a tank, you face your front to it, but another "flanking" tank a further ways away can gain better penetrating shots hitting the side. Beats facing your general front to the enemy and not caring that any shots could get around to a weaker point.

I wish angle of fire mattered. Right now, shots that would obviously deflect by coming in at a super shallow angle along the side then barely scraping the back of the tank are actually BETTER, allowing you to score "rear armor hits" on an ever so slightly angled tank directly in front of you.

Tigers get destroyed by Jacksons, T34/85s, p47s, etc. I don't see why people complain about heavies when t34/85s are a ridiculously strong call-in.

If we're talking about units that are anti-fun, I think ISU and JagdTiger are way worse (mainly ISU because of the squad wiping bonus).

85s on themselves are not ridiculous. DOUBLE T34/85s with MARK VEHICLE are up to the same level as Tigers and IS2s.

This thread is not focusing on Axis OP, Allies UP or Tigers as it seems you like to take the thread. Rather than: this is why the meta is boring and why it is harder to play with medium tanks rather than heavies/call ins.
Theres a reason you'll see 90% of the time a match with a Tiger, IS2, ISU or T3485s.

Ciez's thread focus on cost relationship between call ins and tier tanks.
On this thread OP is trying to focus on micro requirement, risk and the disparity of possibilities on dealing with them.

Do you have the data to back that up? Allies have some pretty significant late game power in the form of ISU, IS2, Jacksons, T34/85s, Mark Target, P47s, B4, etc (like I already mentioned). Are you going to try to deny that these are ineffective units? OKW can save up all game for a KT only to have it killed instantly by the ridiculously common tactic of t34/85s + mark target and P47s.

Well please explain the axis late game win ratio then.

On another subject, what about making a further difference on the speed and mobility of light, medium, heavies and super heavies.

The difference between scout vehicles, light and medium is almost negligible.
Same in relation between medium and heavies.

One of the best thing to do is simply to increase medium tanks effectiveness.

And by the way The t34/85 is not overpowered, your all just to used to Russian armour being total garbage.

Well said , jut to add some more as ciez has pointed out if one includes teching costs call in heavies are both cheaper and more expensive on a one on one comparison with only a couple of minutes where a medium has to shine out to make up for it and thats with mines at guns and at nades around .

Another problem making this situation even worse is that ifyou buff the at guns and tank dextroyers to the point where they are able to hardcounter call in heavies they become too good against mediums and if you go for a balanced performance bs mediums then they are too ineffective vs call in heavies