4 things that would make CoH2 instantly better

Is Mortality some kind of pro or something?

All I see him doing is being sarcastic, insulting and pretty much everything except constructive, helpful or offering solutions.

i just had an idea.

of course it's not going to get implemented and it won't "fix" what's wrong with the upkeep system imho, but somehow i like it:
manpower income penalty the more manpower you are floating.

it not only punishes players that are not spending their manpower on units in comparison to the player that does but it also encourages less skilled players to actually play better by not floating as much.

also, with the current strat point/resource income system, i wouldn't mind for fuel/muni caches to cost upkeep too.

They have made it fast paced early game I believe because they think the masses find this period boring. If this is their reasoning I am very angered.

This is the sad truth. It would also explain why they added so much indirect fire...

@Crawler: How about no upfront cost just upkeep cost for the caches?

@Kolaris: Im sure everyone would want to hear suggestions from you how to correct the new and current upkeep system.

Could you please numerically list some some suggestions which work from within the elements of the current system, that would improve it?

It would provide a valuable structure for discussion that is solution centered,mrather than people constantly restating "the problems" and ultimately getting nowhere, especially not closer to something the Devs can implement and axtually work off of.

+300 Manpower Income
No untaxed population whatsoever
1 Pop = 1 MP/Min upkeep

This is essentially halfway between what we have now and vCoH levels.

Early game Manpower injection = halved
Maximum upkeep = halved

Preferably in addition to resource points now giving +3-5 MP/Min

What does the "+300 Manpower" part mean?

Could you expand on your proposal a little bit, perhaps with some examples of its effects?

What does the "+300 Manpower" part mean?

Could you expand on your proposal a little bit, perhaps with some examples of its effects?

It means you start earning 300 manpower for every minute of game time. Its the number to the right of your current resource.

He basically means that for every 1 population you have, you reduce that income per minute by one. So when you have 50 population, you'll only earn +250. By the time late game comes around, you should be hanging at around +200-250 a minute, which is just enough to replenish losses, but taxing if you make mistakes.

You can offset this by capturing more resource points in the map. Its a good suggestion.

OFC, it would be even better if they could add a supply yard-style upgrade on top of it.

I see. Thanks for explaining. Whats the current income at start with no territory and only one unit?

+300 :-P

(you do get a few "free" units though, meaning that you are only being taxed once you go over the threshold)

@crackbarbie:
a reasonable suggestion, but imho it would make it too easy to "spam" caches, if only to delay capturing if points... as in "i know i can't hold this sector, so i'll just build a cache, deny the resources for a longer time and all it costs me is a tiny amount of manpower that i trade in for ammo/fuel"
reducing the cost could be viable though... would need testing, but since it will not come, it's moot discussing it really ;-)

Whats the current MP/min tax per pop point?

You can follow the quote to go to a discussion about it

Right now the system is:

+300 MP/Min starting income
-4 MP/Min per 1 Population used
Population 0-25 and 75-100 are not taxed by Upkeep

So for examples,
Population 13 = 300 MP/Min
Population 46 = 216 MP/Min
Population 75 = 100 MP/Min
Population 99 = 100 MP/Min

Thanks, and sorry for making you repeat yourself.

I read the thread and now better understand the figures of the problem.
I had a suspicion it was pop threshold related.

I was trying to approach the issue from a tiering perspective, but the nature of this beast is indeed that it penalises the player with better preservation, thereby somewhat tying in with my points about flat tierinf and a winners inability to respond to teching, due to having exceeded the threshold, which leaves him a lame duck vs the opponents next gen, resource financed, return.

My first reaction was making the tax progressive to 75+pop, but then I realised, as I see many have already, that that doesnt fix the issue at all, and is a separate and probably as severe issue in lategame that it currently is untaxed. Theoretically a player cpuld deliberately push past 75+pop to regain resource income, but that is practically impossible because he will be crushed by the opponents next gen, tiered, resource financed, return to the field.

I see now where you are coming from, and find your solution to counter every counter Im desperately trying to think of.

Its simpler, and better, to make upkeep a direct relation to pop count per point.
The thresholds for taxation must go. I see that clearly now.
As you also said, this allows for better balancing simply by adjusting pop count of a unit.

Such a great suggestion, Kolaris. I just DM'd it to Mr. Quinn himself on twitter, so hopefully he'll notice your proposal and give it consideration.

@Kolaris: I don't think the system would work out too well with those numbers. I.e. late game army of 55 pop and 7 (Kholodny has 11) sectors held would net a MP output of 266-280mp depending on whether sectors yield +3 or +5 mp, which imo makes upkeep too insignificant.

I would try -1.5 per pop rounded up and +5 per sector, since in the same scenario this would result in 242mp. This would shift the focus towards map control, and also penalize a player for over-investing into tier 1, which I find is probably the only good feature of coh2's current upkeep system. It also allows a behind player to mount a comeback by cutting off the ahead player from his sectors, severely decreasing said player's mp income.

Finally, in no competitive game will any player reach pop cap, so it's senseless to argue that 150mp income at 100pop (territory control notwithstanding) is too little.

Yeah it can work I suppose but its still destroying the early game to much. 300 manpower base income is absolutely way to much and drowns out the strategic early infantry play of the game. Reinforcing prior to 30 population barely inhibits you from getting a new squad. For example, as America if you had to reinforce a rifleman by 4-5 men without having inflicted any damage to Axis it would hurt you in the early game a lot more. Early game in CoH2 just feels like who can get the most fuel, the manpower war is literally non-exsitant at this stage of the game and this annoys me extremely!

CoH1 early game = Fight for mapcontrol and manpower.
CoH2 early game = Fight for mapcontrol.

This is simply how I see. One extra thing to worry about in CoH1 early game is so much better for enjoyment and competativeness. They have made it fast paced early game I believe because they think the masses find this period boring. If this is their reasoning I am very angered.

As Kolaris pointed out in another thread a bit ago, having the first 25 pop be untaxed actually punishes you MORE for losing squads in the early game, because you don't get a MP increase from it.

@raz: I don't really think I'm "shouting how people are afraid of change". The better player is rewarded for his good decision and the worse player is punished for his mistakes, you win this game by holding VPs, and winning engagements nets you Vps. I also am not "complaining" about how it used to work, I am making a statement of preference in favor of comebacks. It never fails to amaze me how people project their strong feelings onto others. And as far as "At the moment we are at the extreme where loosing player is giving him such advantages that despite his skill he is kept alive by the game design." Maybe it gives the losing player too much of a chance, I dunno yet, but the worse player will still always lose, and that's what counts.

@cr4wler: A strawman is where you create a weak position that you pretend is what your opponent is arguing, and then attack that. He was saying CoH 2 was a different game and using that as a point in his argument for why it should be different. Not that I agree with that logic.

@Kolaris: I don't think the system would work out too well with those numbers. I.e. late game army of 55 pop and 7 (Kholodny has 11) sectors held would net a MP output of 266-280mp depending on whether sectors yield +3 or +5 mp, which imo makes upkeep too insignificant.

I would try -1.5 per pop rounded up and +5 per sector, since in the same scenario this would result in 242mp. This would shift the focus towards map control, and also penalize a player for over-investing into tier 1, which I find is probably the only good feature of coh2's current upkeep system. It also allows a behind player to mount a comeback by cutting off the ahead player from his sectors, severely decreasing said player's mp income.

Finally, in no competitive game will any player reach pop cap, so it's senseless to argue that 150mp income at 100pop (territory control notwithstanding) is too little.

The numbers don't factor in Manpower from points because I don't think Relic will change that. But if they do, suggested numbers would definitely need to be tweaked.

Keep in mind that population values on tanks are much higher (about 50%) than in vCoH, and that hitting the upper limit of Upkeep @ 75 Pop was not at all uncommon in the Beta.

So, the question is whether we would need more MP/Pop or a lower base income, and how much points should give. I'll have to think about that some more, but more opinions would be welcome.

Mr. Duffy's response:

We are adjusting it, but we're not sure of the numbers yet. We'd like to reduce the rubber band effect a bit.

Pretty good news, I think.

Good stuff. 'A bit' is a tad concerning but any progress in the right direction is good progress

Is there a difference?


Good God, is someone being impolite on the internet?
Sound an alarm! Call the police! Get Aquaman!

Yes there is a difference. Read a damn book about critical thinking and logic.

Oh well, nvm.

I like your idea Kolaris but definitely think the upkeep should be a little more punishing than -1 per pop, maybe 1.5 or something like that. Anyone looked into the manpower cost of repairing vehicles, is there any at all??