Resource manipulation as the primary catalyst of imbalance

I also posted this on the official forums, but frequently responses are more insightful here.

(TLDR at the end of the post)

I'll briefly note that by "imbalance" in this topic I mean (1) the number and (2) the time of arrival of medium and heavy armor (primarily in team games), as opposed to specific unit stats / abilities / performance. I would like to focus here on the general dynamics of armor in team games and its relation to resource manipulation (RM) systems (meaning caches, the Opel Blitz truck, the Luftwaffe Supply Drop Zone, the Soviet Industry and the OKW resource diversion), not on how certain units overperfom by themselves. I'll also note that when I mention match dynamics I refer not just to some personal view of how games should be progressing, but also Relic's declared general approach / wish to this progression as well as to making all units more or less relevant at all stages of the game and supporting tactical play based on skill.

The issue I'm trying to approach here is as follows: The devs have declared a number of times in past (and the game's structure clearly shows) that their intended goal for match progression is infantry and light vehicles in early game, followed by medium armor in mid game and heavy armor in late game. However this approach apparently only takes into account the standard resource income, because once you bring RM systems into equation, these segments can be defined only by time period (minutes into a match) and not by unit classes present on the field -- players use the RM systems to rush to medium and heavy armor in a much faster pace than anticipated by the progression system, and so the window of opportunity for light vehicles (and, as a result, the early game) diminishes significantly (same goes for the duration of mid game as opposed to late game). The RM systems then enable players to amass great numbers of armor which hurts combined arms approach and diminishes role of support units. The third issue appears when players lose their armor in combat -- the RM systems allow them to overcome the loss without any penalty, as the necessary fuel amount for deploying another armor unit will have already been accumulated for them while they were busy using (and losing) their previous unit. The final issue that I can think of is that of the resulting lack of strategy -- many doctrines become irrelevant because the gigantic fuel income allows players to roll out both their doctrinal armor plus non-doctrinal units. Why get an Elefant and rely on teammates to combine their Panthers with it by flanking the target I'm shooting from afar when I can get both the Elefant and the Panther and do it all on my own? This kills teamwork and team roles, with all team players being universal in their tactics, and doctrines losing strategic sense.

In conclusion, it seems to me that the problem and relevance of these three issues hurting tactical and skilful play is without question.

Now, regarding solutions to these -- in a recent post in the vanilla army ideas thread I declared my preference to having the OKW resource diversion system replace other RM systems for all armies, saying it would curb the ridiculous fuel income and would thus limit the current armor spam in team games, plus feature a drawback of munitions income for increased fuel income. However after thinking more about it, the system would still enable players to bring in / replace armor earlier and in greater numbers than what seems to be a reasonable and measured rate for tactical play. And so I believe just getting rid of all RM systems should be the solution.

Now for the benefits of removing the RM systems. Taking into the account all that was described above, these seem to be some of the major resulting benefits of the change:

** More window of opportunity for light vehicles;
** Less number of armor units at any time in a match = actual need for combined arms;
** Less number of armor units at any time in a match = more need and roles for the currently underused on-field artillery (with the exception of the already popular Stuka zu Fuss and the B-4, the (im)balance of which is a separate matter);
** More time needed for accumulating fuel for armor units = actual penalty for losing them;
** Heavy armor hitting the field later = more gap between medium and heavy units and so more window of opportunity for lower tiers;
** As a bonus, no caches would mean more reward for flanking / harassment / cutting off gameplay.

I think I addressed all the points I had in mind on this matter. There have been more radical solutions offered for balance problems recently (I have myself supported requests for the removal of superheavy one-tank-army units or hard caps of one per player, etc.), but this one would be comparatively easy to implement. The devs would understandably be averse to the idea of removing units they spent time and effort in creating for the game, but this proposal only offers a removal of RM systems, with no significant loss of development time and effort.

Thanks to all who took their time to read this. All constructive analysis / criticism / proposals / notes are welcome.


TLDR: Caches, the Opel Blitz, the Luftwaffe Supply Drop, the Soviet Industry and the OKW resource diversion render match dynamics structure useless and hurt tactical gameplay by skyrocketing fuel income and so enabling the deployment and replacement of armor earlier and in greater numbers than reasonable for tactical and skilful play.

You forgot Soviet Industry.

Can you supply days to support your claims?

Can you supply days to support your claims?

I supported my claims by comparisons and elementary judgment in the original post, but sure, just clarify what days you are asking about.

interesting... i have always wondered how doctrines like Luftwaffe supply or the opel blitz doctrines affect the game

Absolutely wrong. Caches cost mp. Opel blitz cost mp. Luftwaffe drops cost mp. If opponent team have cashes/opels everywhere and despite having huge mp advantage your team can't punish them for greedy play it is not balance problem.

Huge late game investments should be as rewarding as elite infantry or medium armor rushes, and reducing incomes will only make elite infantry play more rewarding. And everybody knows which faction gains more than others from elite infantry. Medium armor? Srsly? Who will ever choice to build medium armor if opponent can't punish his waiting for super-heavy late game monsters with massed tanks? Yanks? I thought their late game already too weak.

Show Spoiler

A good and well written post, But I think the problem lies somewhere else. IMO the problem is the survivability of light and medium armor, specially light armor. Even if there was no RM mechanism, some units are doomed to die no matter what. For example, even for the best players, when you bring in a 222 or a M8 Greyhound, you know that you are gonna lose them at some point. So even without this system I still prefer to hold my ground, and wait for some real armor, specially when I know that I might not be able to micro these units very well. As allies I rarely build caches and try to use manpower in SHOCK AND AWE tactics.
On the other hand, I don't think the devs perform these kind of changes now. But I support increasing the cost of caches in 3v3+ games so if you want to rush for heavy armor, you have to sacrifice map control (like the MP increase in Opel blitz). Although, if you do not bleed MP, you are not gonna have a problem.

If opponent team have cashes/opels everywhere and despite having huge mp advantage

What huge advantage? In a 3v3 / 4v4 each player in a team would need to spend 200 MP for a single cache to have their half of strat points secured.

Even if there was no RM mechanism, some units are doomed to die no matter what. For example, even for the best players, when you bring in a 222 or a M8 Greyhound, you know that you are gonna lose them at some point.

One scenario I can think of right off my head is that halftracks would have much greater window of opportunity for rear point harassment if the only thing that could counter them were AT guns and infantry, both of which lack the mobility of armor to punish halftracks before they cut territory off.

P.S. Thanks for reminding about the Luftwaffe Supply Drop and the Soviet Industry. Added in the post.

What huge advantage? In a 3v3 / 4v4 each player in a team would need to spend 200 MP for a single cache to have their half of strat points secured.

Are you even serious?

If enemy team builds caches early, they sacrifice early game capping power and probably will lose first engagement without support of building unit. Second, they will lose first engagement and then probably second and then probably whole game by delaying their combat units regardless. In simple words, they invest in caches, which can be destroyed with ease after 4-5 minutes in 3v3/4v4, you gain more resources via map control and inflict more losses on them via squads number advantage.

If enemy team builds caches early

There was no word in the original post about building caches so early that it hurts unit production.

And if opposite team builds cashes later (5m+) in 3v3/4v4 more than half of your original post statements, such as

the time of arrival of medium and heavy armor

and

window of opportunity for light vehicles (and, as a result, the early game) diminishes significantly

completely wrong.

Only medium tank timing such late caches noticeably burst is panther.

yea, i gotta only agree partially. i only agree with luftwaffe air supply shit. that thing can boost fuel of a player way too much for least investment imo.

and maybe caches can be like 300mp? but i dont know, dealing with caches is also a skill. the problem is maps most of the times: not big enough to harass/ go behind enemy lines.

also, problem with med overshadowing light and heavy overshadowing med are completely different problem that i think can be solved by fuel upkeep.

also, i think combined armed army of tanks and infantries are always more effective except for t34/85 and easy eight, but that is the beauty of those tanks imo.



But on the other hand, removing RM as in caches will help to reduce constant muni off map call in abilities though. so i don't know.

And if opposite team builds cashes later (5m+) in 3v3/4v4 more than half of your original post statements, such as and completely wrong.

Only medium tank timing such late caches noticeably burst is panther.

You obviously missed the point that caches affect not only the timing, but quantity and replacement rate of armor.

I fully agree with your tl:dr.
Though the abilities are cool, they should have a WAY longer cooldown.

Good read.

Show Spoiler

[Citation Needed ]

Well written post. If a 2v2match becomes a stalemate its not unusual to float 300 fuel, you know you can sacrifice some tanks as you have a lot of caches. Or you can sacrife some inf to call in that third Tiger or Isu. Even though I completly agree with your post the matter may be to large to change.

I'm pretty sure Opel Blitz trucks no longer effect resource income of allies.

I am unfamiliar with those doctrines consisting of RM mechanisms, only the OKW conversion truck and caches. Do you guys see these mechanics as not having enough tradeoff or having too much benefit?

I think the only RM thing that has a good tradeoff is building cache very early; you are sacrificing an additional unit for map control for a boost later on

I am unfamiliar with those doctrines consisting of RM mechanisms, only the OKW conversion truck and caches. Do you guys see these mechanics as not having enough tradeoff or having too much benefit?

The Opel Blitz costs 300 MP and boosts resource income from any point it is set on, so that is more or less in the same category as caches. The Luftwaffe Supply Drop costs 200 MP and brings in 150 MN or 50 FL depending on resource point on which it is dropped. The Soviet Industry boosts fuel income and vehicle production speed at the cost of manpower income passively, starting at 3 CP (IIRC) till the end of the game.

I think the only RM thing that has a good tradeoff is building cache very early; you are sacrificing an additional unit for map control for a boost later on

If we are discussing this in terms of benefit / harm to tactical and skilful play (which was the primary point of my post), I can't see how hindering unit numbers in early game can be a valid trade-off for tank spam rolling over infantry and blowing up armor in late-game.