Heavies vs mediums - unfair and stagnating the meta

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.

You're right I did get a little off topic. At the same time, you seem to contradict yourself when talking about call-ins vs the innate advantage of heavies over mediums. I mean you can't say that t34/85s are on par with the heavies and then say there's an imbalance. AND I still think you can't consider units in a vacuum. I mean why try to stack up plain t34/85s to heavies when you know that you're going to be using Mark Target? Same goes with USF and p47s. Unless you think that the balance is just so screwed up, then it seems like a moot point.

Also I agree with the Ciez thread about call-ins themselves being too strong, regardless of the unit type. However I don't think that should affect this discussion.

I would like to see more P4 and stugs and maybe Panters on the field, because the only thing i see are Tigers, and King Tigers.

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.

+1

It's always better to add to or improve existing counters rather than limiting options on existing units.

My problem with heavies is speed. The way speed is handled in this game just feels wrong to me. Not just heavies really but each tier. Mediums should not be able to keep up with lights. Heavies should not be able to keep up with mediums. Heavies close the gap on AT guns resulting in either no fear easy kills or forgiving retreats.

I haven't seen it mentioned and haven't noticed in game, but does repair still drop your mp income by 5 per entity repairing? If not, it's another thing that should be looked at. 5 should be for standard repair, units repairing faster should cause a harder hit on upkeep.

Heavies and Super Heavies are coming too early in this meta. My memories of vCoh is that they were hitting the field far later.

In a way or another, heavies should come around 10 minutes later in an average. In fact, by a matter of timing, it shouldn't be possible to only hold 1 VP all the game long and have time to call a heavy, the game should end before.

So in that way you force people to play and not only rely on heavy.

There are game mecaniks that can be added
1- Around VP conservation. You could link the Heavies to a VP% like only being able to call them if your opponent is less than 100 points (whatever your own points)
2- Slowing doctrinal abilities count after 6 or 7, a mecanism could be added to slowdown doctrinal abilities after reaching a number so super late units come later.

There is not need to nerf those units themselves (well maybe the JT), but increasing the requirement to get them. And if you manage to get one, you probably deserve use his power.

your comparison is too straightforward imo and not really valid for victory point control games (maybe more so for annihilation matches) and is more suited for games like starcraft, not coh. The thing is that having more but weaker tanks in coh gives you much more map control because you cant cover several strategically important map locations, more effectively utilize combined arms strategies and faster react to threats while your opponent with is usually slow heavy has to relocate it constantly in order to react to dynamic battle situation. This is especially important in late game, when vp race starts and both sides desperately try to capture vps. Hastily relocating your heavy tank is risky, not only for the tank itself but also for the team weapons that might be left unsupported and easily captured by smart opponent who knows when and how to scout. I have played several games where our team won vs axis using lots of heavy armor using mix of medium tanks, tank destroyers and single heavies of our own (as damage sponges) by better scouting, smart retreats and concentrated pushes... so I thin it all comes down to execution (and, of course, maps, because on some of them heavies have the advantage, while in others medium tanks are more effective).

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

Because people already hate the Kubelwagen and the Puma, could you imagine the rage if they also effortlessly outran anything that even had a chance to kill them? The slowest vehicle in the game is 3.0 for the upgraded Jagdtiger, and the fastest is 7.3 for the M3 Scout Car and Opel Blitz. Infantry move at 3.0 and Medium Tanks are 6.0 - 6.5, only twice as fast as jogging. Heavy Tanks speeds are 3.8 (KT), 4.7 (Tiger), and 5.0 (IS-2).

Plus, the vehicle movement patterns don't change based on speed, so an M3 taking a corner looks fine, on overdrive it looks a bit unsteady, on overdrive and on a road it looks like it's breaking the laws of physics. Increase the overall speed and it'd look like it was the Planet Express ship moving the Earth around itself rather than actually driving.

Actually, fastest is m20 (7.8), but you mentioned overdrive. But i thought overdrive does not increase max speed anymore?

You're right I did get a little off topic. At the same time, you seem to contradict yourself when talking about call-ins vs the innate advantage of heavies over mediums. I mean you can't say that t34/85s are on par with the heavies and then say there's an imbalance. AND I still think you can't consider units in a vacuum. I mean why try to stack up plain t34/85s to heavies when you know that you're going to be using Mark Target? Same goes with USF and p47s. Unless you think that the balance is just so screwed up, then it seems like a moot point.

Also I agree with the Ciez thread about call-ins themselves being too strong, regardless of the unit type. However I don't think that should affect this discussion.

Because there are other doctrines besides Guard Motor ? You can call in individual or double 85s without mark vehicle. Also why are you focusing on other abilities? If we consider mark vehicle, P47 and etc we can start considering AT strafe (Lighting), pak40 (TWP), better snare (faust, native with higher pen n range), better infantry AT, etc.

I guess i'm going to put it more clear.
Call ins > Stock tanks: performance and price effectiveness
Heavies > medium: ease of use and micro requirement for results achieved.

Because people already hate the Kubelwagen and the Puma, could you imagine the rage if they also effortlessly outran anything that even had a chance to kill them? The slowest vehicle in the game is 3.0 for the upgraded Jagdtiger, and the fastest is 7.3 for the M3 Scout Car and Opel Blitz. Infantry move at 3.0 and Medium Tanks are 6.0 - 6.5, only twice as fast as jogging. Heavy Tanks speeds are 3.8 (KT), 4.7 (Tiger), and 5.0 (IS-2).

Plus, the vehicle movement patterns don't change based on speed, so an M3 taking a corner looks fine, on overdrive it looks a bit unsteady, on overdrive and on a road it looks like it's breaking the laws of physics. Increase the overall speed and it'd look like it was the Planet Express ship moving the Earth around itself rather than actually driving.

Maybe i should have said it, why not make heavies slower either on max speed or acceleration. I wouldn't touch speed of light vehicles.

One problem is how hard you get punished for losing units. Veterancy compounds this heavily.

If you lose some of your medium tanks in an engagement and the heavy tank makes it out, it will keep it's vet, while your replacement will come as vet 0. At some point, if you're unsuccessful in killing off the heavy tank veterancy will snowball and make the it impossible to kill.

I believe that the veterancy bonuses are simply too good, and the game would simply be much better if they were reduced across the board, for all factions.

Scaling down veterancy bonuses would also have the benefit of making late game infantry combat less shitty and blobby.

hmm. i don't know i agree with number 3. at guns are pathetic against kt, jt, and lackluster against tiger etc.

but there are advantages to having for example, 2 t34s against one tiger. you can keep tiger at the fence with one t34 and a zis while harass with another. but i do agree greater survivability of heavies make them gain vet easier than mediums, which is unfair.

The fact that there is no true side armor in this game exacerbates this problem.

This was a MAJOR oversight, if not lazy game design decision. This should have been in the game hand's down. The excuse they made for not having it is nonsense.

i just watched a replay casted by computerheat:

when e-zy gets the KT out, around 30min, all he does is do minimal damage, take a shit ton of damage and get out. yet it is almost 75% towards its first vet. when it goes in the second time, it soaks up more damage with its ridunculous armor and health and gets vet 1.

i think heavies shouldnt get vet from soaking up damage or at least the vet value they get from taking damage should be reduced by half at least.

i just watched a replay casted by computerheat:

when e-zy gets the KT out, around 30min, all he does is do minimal damage, take a shit ton of damage and get out. yet it is almost 75% towards its first vet. when it goes in the second time, it soaks up more damage with its ridunculous armor and health and gets vet 1.

i think heavies shouldnt get vet from soaking up damage or at least the vet value they get from taking damage should be reduced by half at least.

excellent idea

i dont think theres a huge difference in med and heavies. heavy tanks are just super mediums, only sacrificing a neligible amount of speed but a whole bunch of armor and firepower.

the way i look at it, make heavy turrets traverse slowly, so they cant hit flanking mediums. drop their speed further so mediums can really punish them for exposing their flanks.

these things should be powerful from the front, but extremely weak to flanks. if forced to do a 90degrees traverse, it should have some difficulty in getting a good aim.

The fact that there is no true side armor in this game exacerbates this problem.

This was a MAJOR oversight, if not lazy game design decision. This should have been in the game hand's down. The excuse they made for not having it is nonsense.

I think it was planned, but didn't survive THQ's demise. It was advertised, though, early on.

All I know is heavies come way to quick and there isn't enough of a penalty for its loss

I think it was planned, but didn't survive THQ's demise. It was advertised, though, early on.

One of the in game hints tells you to flank tanks from the side to take advantage of "side armor". XD

Medium vs Heavies? Just check this from 1:45 to 2:08. How many shots? 8? I think so and all of them bounced. Just wait 1min and KT will be back with full health.




Relic's assumption that 3 Shermans are equal to 1 Tiger is good on paper but wrong in game.

A recommendation I'd make is nerfing into the ground rear armour on all heavies. Flanking just isn't rewarded enough. It's too easy for a flanked Heavy to just turn around and kill flanking tanks. Players should be punished severely for having their tanks flanked.