Heavy call-ins, a much debated subject. Possible solution
15 Dec 2014, 12:09 PM
#21
Posts: 760
I stopped reading after only being able to use 2 t34/85s, why should I be only limited to 2 medium tanks? This idea is awful.
15 Dec 2014, 12:12 PM
#22
Posts: 935
T 34-85s need as much earlier as posible. thats the point. They have immense impact on the game. "Your system" doesn't solve this problem.
As wehrmacht I always build ONE tiger only. So you system wouldn't work for me. And so on.
As wehrmacht I always build ONE tiger only. So you system wouldn't work for me. And so on.
15 Dec 2014, 12:15 PM
#23
Posts: 2280 | Subs: 2
Permanently BannedLimits on vehicles is an awful idea.
either tie call-ins to tech or introduce fuel upkeep
either tie call-ins to tech or introduce fuel upkeep
There is no recording in all WW2 history of a piat actually knocking off a vehicle. Yes, it was THAT bad.
15 Dec 2014, 12:24 PM
#24
Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1
I stopped reading after only being able to use 2 t34/85s, why should I be only limited to 2 medium tanks? This idea is awful.
Because the axis player will be limited to one Tiger, for example. Still to weak for your taste? Ok, call an IS2 instead
. I suppose that besides being stuck in soviet play only, you are not stuck in T34/85's doctrines too, are you?
BeefSurge wrote:
A lot of people have an image of how they want a faction to play, leading to problems. This is why you have people complaining about lack of Soviet bunkers, why T34/76 sucks, why Cons don't scale, Grens don't get normal grenades, Muricans don't get heavy tank, OKW laser weapons and Die Glock Death Bell, etc.
A lot of people have an image of how they want a faction to play, leading to problems. This is why you have people complaining about lack of Soviet bunkers, why T34/76 sucks, why Cons don't scale, Grens don't get normal grenades, Muricans don't get heavy tank, OKW laser weapons and Die Glock Death Bell, etc.
15 Dec 2014, 12:29 PM
#25
1 
Posts: 764
What about this:
adjust the popcap more accordingly for ALL factions.
Hm, then we sadly still have the USF "what's a popcap" strategy. :/
adjust the popcap more accordingly for ALL factions.
Hm, then we sadly still have the USF "what's a popcap" strategy. :/
15 Dec 2014, 12:32 PM
#26
Posts: 760
oh please soviet stock units are awful, so people use call ins. This entire idea will nerf the allies, all of the germans need to do is to tech up and get super panthers or vet up their p4s and and still stomp the allies. This idea will only make the game in a worst state.
Because the axis player will be limited to one Tiger, for example. Still to weak for your taste? Ok, call an IS2 instead
15 Dec 2014, 12:41 PM
#27
1 Posts: 764
Panthers aren't the answer to ATs & infantry.
One could say it the other way around "all a soviet has to do is get SU85", yeah... nope.
One could say it the other way around "all a soviet has to do is get SU85", yeah... nope.
15 Dec 2014, 12:44 PM
#28
Posts: 135
Limit on heavy vehicles is an excellent idea.
1. You get your tiger, use it well -> you don´t need another one.
2. You get your tiger and struggle with it. You now have an option to begin saving for a new one in case your tiger gets killed, or you can tech up and have some non doctrinal support for it, which of course might put you at disadvantage if you manage to lose your tiger.
3. You get your tiger, use it carelessly and lose it, then call another one with your saved fuel. Your opponent propably has no problems dealing with the new one too, seeing as you fed his at guns and tank destroyers veterancy with that last one. Why should you deserve luxury of two tigers when you can´t handle even one?
It´s not really rocket science: limit would mean that heavy tanks would arrive in column (one at a time with the added delay of travel time from spawn to front) instead of line (two or more heavy tanks shooting simultaneously and distributing incoming damage among themselves) like it is now.
1. You get your tiger, use it well -> you don´t need another one.
2. You get your tiger and struggle with it. You now have an option to begin saving for a new one in case your tiger gets killed, or you can tech up and have some non doctrinal support for it, which of course might put you at disadvantage if you manage to lose your tiger.
3. You get your tiger, use it carelessly and lose it, then call another one with your saved fuel. Your opponent propably has no problems dealing with the new one too, seeing as you fed his at guns and tank destroyers veterancy with that last one. Why should you deserve luxury of two tigers when you can´t handle even one?
It´s not really rocket science: limit would mean that heavy tanks would arrive in column (one at a time with the added delay of travel time from spawn to front) instead of line (two or more heavy tanks shooting simultaneously and distributing incoming damage among themselves) like it is now.
15 Dec 2014, 12:49 PM
#29
1 Posts: 764
Question is: how would you limit stuff like E8s, KV1s, etc.?
15 Dec 2014, 12:54 PM
#30
Posts: 760
Panthers aren't the answer to ATs & infantry.that statement made zero sense, the su85 and panther are to completely different vehicles, and the panther is not badvs infantry with its 3 mgs.
One could say it the other way around "all a soviet has to do is get SU85", yeah... nope.
15 Dec 2014, 12:59 PM
#31
1 Posts: 764
that statement made zero sense, the su85 and panther are to completely different vehicles, and the panther is not badvs infantry with its 3 mgs.
It isn't bad, but not great either, especially if you consider the costs of it.
And let's not forget about ATs. Would you rather engage 2-3 Zis with a Panther, or some (King-) Tiger?
OPs idea is to change the whole "let's get heavy tanks" meta, so imagine the gameplay more COH1'ish.
Not saying it's the super awesome solution, but keeping an open mind is a start.
15 Dec 2014, 13:19 PM
#32
Posts: 760
the panther has the armor of a heavy tank and the speed of a light/medium tank, blitz at vet one and even more armor and health(?) At vet 2 not to mention smoke if you choose that doc. What's 2-3 z is going to do? Especially if it doesn't penetrate which it most likely won't. The heavy tank will only be a effective change if soviet core units get the appropiate buffs and usf has better at.
It isn't bad, but not great either, especially if you consider the costs of it.
And let's not forget about ATs. Would you rather engage 2-3 Zis with a Panther, or some (King-) Tiger?
OPs idea is to change the whole "let's get heavy tanks" meta, so imagine the gameplay more COH1'ish.
Not saying it's the super awesome solution, but keeping an open mind is a start.
15 Dec 2014, 13:22 PM
#33
4 
Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2
i am against limiting heavy call in because a big part of heavy call in problem for me is that by the time you are able to kill it, the enemy has enough to call in another one straight away.
even in situations like 3 t34s (300 fu + 120 fu tech)v. 1 tiger (230 fu i believe), the soviet needs to position better, micro better, be more committed to beat that one tiger.
heavy >>>> medium
this leads to whoever countering heavy tanks in 2v2+ take quite a lot of time gathering and positioning their tanks to kill that heavy... which means the guy with the heavy stockpiles fuels enough to call in a replacement as soon as his heavy goes down.
even in situations like 3 t34s (300 fu + 120 fu tech)v. 1 tiger (230 fu i believe), the soviet needs to position better, micro better, be more committed to beat that one tiger.
heavy >>>> medium
this leads to whoever countering heavy tanks in 2v2+ take quite a lot of time gathering and positioning their tanks to kill that heavy... which means the guy with the heavy stockpiles fuels enough to call in a replacement as soon as his heavy goes down.
 | Playercard of Bo-Bobby Lion | |||||||||||||||
|
15 Dec 2014, 13:39 PM
#34
Posts: 62
I genuinely have no idea how I'd deal with Panthers if I was limited to just 2 T-34/85, but my opponent could build as many of his tanks as possible. It might work in 1v1, but it'd be rather disastrous in 4v4.
15 Dec 2014, 13:45 PM
#35
Posts: 135
It is still indefinitely easíer to focus on one heavy at a time. If caught unprepared, you can try to disable, damage, distract or slow it down to give you some more time to prepare and position accordingly without having to worry about second one waiting behind the corner.
Of course in team games there would still be multiple tigers on field as there are more players, but there´s also the chance that your team has their own as well, so it kind of evens out.
Now I don´t have anything against fuel upkeep or delaying the arrival of heavy tanks, I could take all of those if needed, but the limit should come first IMO.
Of course in team games there would still be multiple tigers on field as there are more players, but there´s also the chance that your team has their own as well, so it kind of evens out.
Now I don´t have anything against fuel upkeep or delaying the arrival of heavy tanks, I could take all of those if needed, but the limit should come first IMO.
15 Dec 2014, 14:17 PM
#36
Posts: 246
Hey! Why just dont limit every unit to 1 at the field! (just joking)
For those who complains that you can field multiple heavies - COH2 isn't COH1. Just play and enjoy! (..went to play some tetяis...)
For those who complains that you can field multiple heavies - COH2 isn't COH1. Just play and enjoy! (..went to play some tetяis...)
UA
soviets
15 Dec 2014, 14:21 PM
#37
Posts: 2819
FUEL
UPKEEP
Solved.
UPKEEP
Solved.
All posts made are about situations in 2v2's. Not a 1v1 player.
15 Dec 2014, 14:32 PM
#38
Posts: 680
FUEL
UPKEEP
Solved.
I cant imagine (my thinking is probably to slow) how this is gonna solve anything. Can someone plz explain?
Overall I dont think that ops idea is the best one. If I go t3 as soviet just one Tiger is enough to win the game 8 out of 10. This forces me to go with my own call-ins. I hate call-ins and really like the T-70 and the Su-85. For me this matter is about not being forced to go call-ins.
15 Dec 2014, 15:01 PM
#39
Posts: 135
Soviet core faction design is its own separate issue, albeit very serious one too. People are just so damn used to their multiple heavies they will never want to give up the option of having more than one at their disposal at given time. Fuel upkeep, however nice that would be, is still more complex to implement than simple cap I think. It would be nice addition on top of that cap for sure.
15 Dec 2014, 15:03 PM
#40
Posts: 976
The problem is when one side has nearly no territory control and with call in or building heavies it turn the battle to it's advantage, would not be solved with fuel upkeep. Or can someone explain it to me how it would in the context of a 3vs3 or 4vs4 game ?
My solution is simple, i would lower the base popcap to 50 (as an example) and making territory capture the way to increase it to a maximum of 100.(as it is now). It shouldn't impact the first stage of the game.
Thus increasing the tactical value of the territory should make the game even more interesting (more like COH or COHO) and the occurrence of those unrealistic comebacks, should be lower.
Thanks .
Comments plz
My solution is simple, i would lower the base popcap to 50 (as an example) and making territory capture the way to increase it to a maximum of 100.(as it is now). It shouldn't impact the first stage of the game.
Thus increasing the tactical value of the territory should make the game even more interesting (more like COH or COHO) and the occurrence of those unrealistic comebacks, should be lower.
Thanks .
Comments plz
VoltarDark
Long live to COH3, the new king of all team RTS !
Long live to COH3, the new king of all team RTS !
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
251 | ||
 |
|
|
45 | ||
|
|
|
|
14 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.611220.735+5
- 3.35057.860+15
- 4.1110614.644+11
- 5.276108.719+27
- 6.306114.729+2
- 7.918405.694+2
- 8.262137.657+3
- 9.722440.621+4
- 10.1041674.607-2
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1236
Board Info
840 users are online:
840 guests
0 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
7 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49122
Welcome our newest member, Harda621
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, Harda621
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM