Heavies vs mediums - unfair and stagnating the meta

It is why you don't really need to make them stronger but add a cost to Axis late game survivability. Because all the game mechanics are made to give a 50% chance to Axis to survive early game and go late game. But late game, we aren't anymore to a 50% chance of winning for USF.
If Axis manage to survive early game, USF should also have 50% chance to overcome Axis late units.

The ideal would be to have 4 phases instead of 3 in the typical party. So each phase dominated by a faction is timed: 10-15 minutes early game, it should be also 10-15 minutes late game and next a last phase untimed where both side have equal chance to win the game.
Early: Dominance USF
Mid: 50/50
Late: Dommiance Axis
Ultra-late: 50/50

I think that is a really good idea. Certainly a step up from the current situation, the only trick would be to make sure it doesn't mess up SU/Wehr late game.

It is why you don't really need to make them stronger but add a cost to Axis late game survivability. Because all the game mechanics are made to give a 50% chance to Axis to survive early game and go late game. But late game, we aren't anymore to a 50% chance of winning for USF.
If Axis manage to survive early game, USF should also have 50% chance to overcome Axis late units.

The ideal would be to have 4 phases instead of 3 in the typical party. So each phase dominated by a faction is timed: 10-15 minutes early game, it should be also 10-15 minutes late game and next a last phase untimed where both side have equal chance to win the game.
Early: Dominance USF
Mid: 50/50
Late: Dommiance Axis
Ultra-late: 50/50

Exactly, the biggest problem with early game vs late game balance is that it is unequal. Early game only has a set amount of time it can last. While late can pretty much last forever. I would take late game advantage over early anytime.

Exactly, the biggest problem with early game vs late game balance is that it is unequal. Early game only has a set amount of time it can last. While late can pretty much last forever. I would take late game advantage over early anytime.

ONLY if that early game is not huge which wouldn't let you get into the lategame.

Chronological balance is not balance at all. Obviously some factions will have perceptible strength peaks at certain times in the game due to the way teching is not mirrored. But, at every point in the game the other guy needs to be able to field an effective counter, assuming equal field / resource control.

There is no logic to a faction having better early or late game than others. These do not cancel each other out. It affects team games, it affects the ability to get into the late game.

Germans can keep their heavies, I don't mind. But the US needs something to fight them, and the Soviets need to step out of their uber-reliance on commanders.

I've said this before, but the "Early game" is too short versus what the rest of the game consists of, especially in team games, exponentially so, for this early vs late game balancing nonsense. it's a terrible idea and it should go away for the most part.

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.

your math is completely superficial by not including the number of other factors that actually make the balance, and therefore faulty, relative and in ultima linea biased.

just a raw example: did you even think about how to take into account that your 3 hypothetical mediums 'are' or 'should be' in the fight from the considerable earlier timepoint, and all the theoretical DPS and vet they should've dealt and gained by the time the hypothetical heavy hits the field ?

did it cross your mathematical mind that the THREE, fast, early units can be in the three different places at the same time - faster ! ..and theoretically and strategically utilize their role against EVERYTHING else that's in the game besides the "heavy" in terms of DPS, area denial, support, breakthrough and map control - far more effectively than one slow heavy unit - that's basically a steamroller and a scarecrow for allied spam of mediums ?

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.

Simply wrong. As I've mentioned medium armor comes earlier and gains vet CONSIDERABLY faster which completely negates your funny little theory, not to mention that in case you didn't notice COH2 engine allows you to select multiple of units AT ONCE

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.

your "calculation" should be considerably regarded as mathematical dilettantism.

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.

Honestly you really didn't have to bother.. also I honestly hope I wont have to deal with the anguish of wading through your 3. post

your math is completely superficial by not including the number of other factors that actually make the balance, and therefore faulty, relative and in ultima linea biased.

It's a good thing then I didn't in fact proclaim to have a 100% accurate uber-mathematical model of the CoH2 game that takes literally everything into consideration. It's a forum post, not a scientific paper.

just a raw example: did you even think about how to take into account that your 3 hypothetical mediums 'are' or 'should be' in the fight from the considerable earlier timepoint, and all the theoretical DPS and vet they should've dealt and gained by the time the hypothetical heavy hits the field ? did it cross your mathematical mind that the THREE, fast, early units can be in the three different places at the same time - faster ! ..and theoretically and strategically utilize their role against EVERYTHING else that's in the game besides the "heavy" in terms of DPS, area denial, support, breakthrough and map control - far more effectively than one slow heavy unit - that's basically a steamroller and a scarecrow for allied spam of mediums ?

Alright, this is an actual argument. Finally something that can be refuted.

1) You MIGHT get a vet2 medium if you are lucky, by the time a heavy call-in hits the field. Vet1 is more often the case, and in the case of soviet mediums, vet1 is a laughable non-bonus. And so what? The mediums are much more prone to exploding and losing all the accumulated veterancy.

2) If mediums have such free reign, and are so effective, then why don't we see medium tank spam whined about so much in the forums, then? Why are games, and especially team games, usually decided by Axis heavies or Soviet super call-ins?

3) The mediums cannot counter everything else. A single AT gun and a few Schreck squads will chase off mediums faster than you can say Cheese. Also you propose using mediums in an aggressive role, which means they are much more likely to trigger a mine during their breakthroughs.

4) It's a victory point game and, ceteris paribus (oh look, Latin! It must make my argument look EXTRA SWEET), a heavy tank parked near a hotly contested victory point is a game decider. So the medium tanks can be everywhere on the map, except the places that will win them the game. And in case you want to say the mediums can harrass the 2 other VPs - you know, the heavy tank owning player still has 70+ popcap to defend at least another VP long enough for the cavalry to arrive.

5) You will note that three-to-one ratio that I used is completely unreal and just used for argument's sake. Popcap and cost-wise, ingame it's barely more than 2:1, approaching 2.3:1 in Tiger vs T34/76s. This further dilutes your argument of apparently roaming packs of mediums pwning the entire map while the poor heavy can do nothing as it is cumbersome and slow.

6) Heavy tanks are not that much slower than mediums, apart from JT. Maybe 20% slower than mediums.

your "calculation" should be considerably regarded as mathematical dilettantism.

What mathematical process except simple algebra did I utilize, and where did the math go wrong? Also, "considerably regarded"? Seriously? Normally I don't care about such things but if you want to go all high and mighty and Latin in your posts you should at least understand that big words and misplaced adverbs do not help your argument.

It's a good thing then I didn't in fact proclaim to have a 100% accurate uber-mathematical model of the CoH2 game that takes literally everything into consideration. It's a forum post, not a scientific paper.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
What mathematical process except simple algebra did I utilize, and where did the math go wrong? Also, "considerably regarded"? Seriously? Normally I don't care about such things but if you want to go all high and mighty and Latin in your posts you should at least understand that big words and misplaced adverbs do not help your argument.

Oh it's a forum post now ? With all your numbers blazing and "calculative" approach you certainly did your best (I suspect) to make it appear as "scientific" as possible, since your logic was obviously to camouflage your subjective and biased way of thinking about the (dis)balance of a game with this quasi mathematical charade.

1. obvious and irrelevant

2. medium tanks have their role and place within the timing and the game itself. I've seen far more games literally decided by the successful deployment of Pz4's, E8's and T34 groups than I've seen these so called magical turnarounds when all of the fuel is injected into one heavy unit with the "all or nothing" strategy in mind. Just for the record, I'm not talking about the super late game beyond the 1h mark - where fuel is abundant, all rules fade and mostly chaos reigns.

3. one shock squad or a rifle miniblob will send that At gun and shreck blobs back to base in no time..
and so on, and so on..

4. "hotly contested VP" guarded by the sole heavy tank !?? Yeah maybe if the allied player have lost 90% of his units and is contemplating surrender ... ever used Jacksons, SU-85's, or Thunderbolts to force the Tiger to "unpark" itself ? Or nevermind the range based counters, ever tried flanking with those 3 hypothetical mediums, and by flanking I don't mean rushing headlessly into the FOW, but rather tactical (should there be any other?) flanking maneuver which includes scouting actions and preemptive arty strikes on the AT's and such..


5. and 6. part obvious, part irrelevant, part untrue. I'm not sure if you've ever even had the pleasure to try to 'outmicro' three or even two of those "marginally" faster allied mediums with the Tiger, or god forbid something even slower.. ? If you went head on without support, and found yourself rushed on with more than two mediums you just might try to blitz reverse and hope to forget about the whole thing. In half of these scenarios you might lose the engine, get stuck with the medium behind your back and two others melting your health bar from the flanks.. Even if you manage to kill one or two of the mediums before the third or the arty finish u off, allied player will consider that a small victory and a huge morale boost, especially if the opponent is fuel starved.

Ceterum censeo your simpleton math went wrong the moment you tried to thoughtlessly augment your argument with it. And as of my misplaced try at satire and your obvious displaced ability to comprehend that I was making fun of your overzealously quantiplaced usage of the word "considerably" I am left considerably perplexed

one other thing, can you share some light on how you came up with your forum nickname if it's no secret ?

Oh it's a forum post now ? With all your numbers blazing and "calculative" approach you certainly did your best (I suspect) to make it appear as "scientific" as possible, since your logic was obviously to camouflage your subjective and biased way of thinking about the (dis)balance of a game with this quasi mathematical charade.

Bro, why all the hate? Because I used simple arithmetics, like, divided a few numbers? What is it with the dismissive and insulting tone from the get-go? Am I supposed to wade through a pile of your insults and pseudointellectual bullshit every time I want to see if you made a coherent point? Thanks, but no thanks.

Also, your complaint is basically that I am biased... towards medium tanks?

one other thing, can you share some light on how you came up with your forum nickname if it's no secret ?

Okay, you weird creepy person. It is not a secret. I've been dragging it for several years now, been playing vCoH with it as well. I am a medical doctor and 'chengele' is a word for basically, meathook. The nickname was a clever pun that I am afraid will elude you if you are not a Serbian (or possibly Turkish, can't vouch for that) speaker, but basically meant to imply that I am so incompetent that I would proceed to kill patients over the course of my carreer. The nickname was given to me as a term of endearment, you know how friends are.

Then again, with that attitude, maybe you don't.

Bro, why all the hate?



Also, your complaint is basically that I am biased... towards medium tanks?



Then again, with that attitude, maybe you don't.

Hate ? You're pretty sensitive for a doctor

my complaint is that you are irrationally biased Against the heavy tanks which are imo 'conditio sine qua non' for a WWII rts, and you pretentiously tried to make your whine sound "scientific", while it actually made no sense at all.

I asked about the nick, 'cause I used the same one in my CoD2 playin' days, long time ago - and since I was playing exclusively on one specific Bosnian server, I thought you might have stolen it

Čengele FTW

The last posts were creepy and well... dumb.