Resource manipulation as the primary catalyst of imbalance

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.

That's only if u can hold to that point where the caches come in handy. There are games where you want to establish map control, so building caches very early say, right off the bat or within 0-5 minutes seems risky. You are losing an additional unit that can be used to force off the enemy or to take vital points. I guess it would be helpful if you can turtle well enough that first couple of minutes

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.

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.

Opal blitz is 200.. and only effects yourself.
The fuel from Luft supply doctrine is one of the only things it has going for it.
Box's suck now, and everything luft supply does, CAS dose better.

Well, nice post, i fully support it.

The 3 worst parts of COH2 for me are :

1) Increasing the resource accumulation rate of fuel/munition is too easy, leading to endgame units coming to early.

2) Popcap not tied to territory control.

3) Command system (a.k.a slotting commanders) is way inferior to previous versions of COH games.

My 2 cents.

Boosting your resources doesn't increase your unit purchasing of teching power all that much. You're still beholden to 3 factors: Manpower, Teching times and unit build times.

If you divert manpower for extra fuel to try and build that heavy tank sooner, you will be beaten by a player who opts to spend his resources capturing the map and building AT weaponry.


In 3v3/4v4 this may be more of an issue since map control is fucking irrelevant in those game modes and it's much easier to have one player focus on caches or whatever while everyone else fights.

You also have to consider that they can be destroyed, which is what any good player should be trying to do.

Well i can agree with the post of the thread creator, it's not ok that it is possible to hold off the enemy into lategame, just to spam tanks like crazy. On some maps you can do this easily without your enemy noticing your strat until it's too late. And 200 mp in the early are a great sacrifice, really? I have abused this shit myself and i haven't had any disadvantages, only advantages, you don't even notice the 200mp missing.

Opal blitz is 200

It used to be 200 MP, one of the patches changed that to 300. Not that this changes any point here.

The fuel from Luft supply doctrine is one of the only things it has going for it.

Possibly, but bad doctrine design has nothing to do with the point of this thread.

If you divert manpower for extra fuel to try and build that heavy tank sooner, you will be beaten by a player who opts to spend his resources capturing the map and building AT weaponry.

As already noted by me on the previous page, each player in a team spending 200 MP to secure their side of the map with caches is a minuscule expenditure that places them in no disadvantage at all. You can see this in every team game.

It used to be 200 MP, one of the patches changed that to 300. Not that this changes any point here.

Possibly, but bad doctrine design has nothing to do with the point of this thread.

As already noted by me on the previous page, each player in a team spending 200 MP to secure their side of the map with caches is a minuscule expenditure that places them in no disadvantage at all. You can see this in every team game.

No, go check its 200. You are wrong.

As already noted by me on the previous page, each player in a team spending 200 MP to secure their side of the map with caches is a minuscule expenditure that places them in no disadvantage at all. You can see this in every team game.

The opponent can get flamers to quickly and efficiently destroy the caches.

Obviously in team games where map control is pointless you're going to see distant strat points get a cache for zero risk. But that's an issue of map design being too big.

Obviously in team games where map control is pointless you're going to see distant strat points get a cache for zero risk. But that's an issue of map design being too big.

It's already quite hard to carry out a flanking game due to so many units filling up maps in team games. Reducing map size would be just disastrous for meaningful tactical game. Plus noting that caches can be destroyed is a backwards way of dealing with the huge issue that was outlined in the original post.

It's already quite hard to carry out a flanking game due to so many units filling up maps in team games. Reducing map size would be just disastrous for meaningful tactical game. Plus noting that caches can be destroyed is a backwards way of dealing with the huge issue that was outlined in the original post.

Destroying it is called counterplay. Letting your opponent be unmolested in his strategy is going to make you lose, regardless of what it is. It's like if your opponent builds an artillery gun. You don't sit there and get bombarded: you get off your ass and you kill it.

Destroying it is called counterplay. Letting your opponent be unmolested in his strategy is going to make you lose, regardless of what it is. It's like if your opponent builds an artillery gun. You don't sit there and get bombarded: you get off your ass and you kill it.

the nature of map doesn't allow it; that's the point (at least in 3v3+). at least for caches on normal territory points right outside the bases.

do you risk a vehicle to get to it? you'll probably get detected on the way and imo, only light vehicle that can really counter caches, aka not too expensive, mobile and kills caches fast, is 222. others take too long. you don't want to risk any sort of tanks because you have to preserve.

do you use infantry? well, what infantry though, especially for allies? guards? and risk getting wiped as you try to get them out softly so you dont retreat through enemy front line? assuming they sneaked all the way across an overcrowded map.

the matter of fact is that this allows 3v3+ games to have short early game and very small mid game where armies are made up of a lot of infantry + a few tanks combined arms, and accelerate the game into late game and super late game where only heavies and few vetted medium tanks exist sparingly. - this is kinda sad imo, because i really love transitions between early, medium and late game in 2v2s.


EDIT: so the real counterplay in 3v3+ would be pushing up the entire frontline, which is what you do anyway.

the nature of map doesn't allow it; that's the point (at least in 3v3+). at least for caches on normal territory points right outside the bases.

I don't disagree there, but that's again an issue of map design and the inherent flaws in the game mode than it is with the balance of cache bonuses. 1v1 and 2v2 do not have this issue, and are the game is balanced around them first and foremost. The biggest problem with caches is that too many maps give you an easily defend strat point next to your base (that isn't a cutoff), which makes them pretty risk free to build. The gold standard for map design is something like Koholodny where the point is far enough away from your base that it can still be killed, but also quite defensible.

3v3/4v4 is also a game mode where you have to start looking at each player as a component of army strength. In 1v1 and 2v2 you may send 1-2 units off on their own to do stuff, but in bigger game modes you are much better served by acting like a company in a real war wherein you move all your stuff cohesively and work with your teammates as separate forces. The fun of 3v3/4v4 imo is when you have a good team you can strike multiple places at once with efficacy, and use teamwork to set up ambushes etc.

EDIT:
I think the simplest solution would be to have fewer strat points in 3v3/4v4 maps. This would naturally slow down income and make capping/controlling points more significant.

Reading this thread I am more convinced that Map design is more of an issue in 3v3 and 4v4s.

Destroying it is called counterplay. Letting your opponent be unmolested in his strategy is going to make you lose, regardless of what it is. It's like if your opponent builds an artillery gun. You don't sit there and get bombarded: you get off your ass and you kill it.

Again: not including a mechanic that kills most of sense and meaningful approach to a match is a better alternative to coming up with reasons to make it sound balanced.

Yes you can keep feeding your OKW teammate wuth Luftwaffe supply and then they can rush out a KT. Basically Axis get several cool resource tricks while the Allies only have Lend Lease. The Lend Lease plane flies in from the opposite side of the map which is stupid.

Yes you can keep feeding your OKW teammate wuth Luftwaffe supply and then they can rush out a KT. Basically Axis get several cool resource tricks while the Allies only have Lend Lease. The Lend Lease plane flies in from the opposite side of the map which is stupid.

It's so the OKW HQ can shoot you down of course!

It's so the OKW HQ can shoot you down of course!

DUH!

Added this point to the OP:

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.

Reading this thread I am more convinced that Map design is more of an issue in 3v3 and 4v4s.

^

The game would literally lose nothing in terms of balance and diversity if fuel and ammunition caches were simply thrown out. In 1's and 2's cache options might give a bit extra risk/reward depth, but this small benefit comes at too high a cost, namely ruining team games.

Team games are completely turned on their head compared to 1's and 2's, fuel caches are specifically to blame.

Every cache gives +3 fuel to each player on the field. That means a fuel cache generates extra +12 fuel per minute in 4v4 teamgames. That means a single fuel cache will generate around 400 fuel over the duration of a team game, if it is built around a 5 minute mark and assuming a 40 minute team game.

Three fuel caches (completely common in team games) equals up to 1200 fuel distributed among the players over the course of a 4v4 game, not taking into account OKW penalties and destruction of caches. And the grand total cost for this is 45 seconds of each player's manpower income.

THERE IS NO NEED FOR THIS. Zero. None. Nada. Zilch. If you hold four territory points and a fuel point you have more than enough for a very nice, natural progression down the tech tree and timing of tanks.