Heavy call-ins, a much debated subject. Possible solution

Let's take an example:

We have a game balanced in territory point of view.

Player A decides to spam infantry and so has 0 fuel cost. He is waiting for a call-in to take the edge
Player B has less infantry but has invested in light and med armor. he cannot make the difference because Player A infantry focus is too effective vs ligh and medium armor units.
Player A = 0 fuel upkeep. Player B = 5 fuel upkeep.

who's going to have the fuel advantage late game?
Player A with a infantry spam + Heavy tank that will rape anything on the field
Player B with less infantry, some light and medium tanks becoming useless and easy targets to the heavy. AND having to wait 5 minutes more to get his own heavy because the fuel upkeep left him behind in fuel.

To have 2 heavies on the field, you obviously need to skip light and med fuel units. And if you can do so, that's because the game doesn't reward enough med tanks users.
So make fuel units more attractive and obviously more effective and you'll solve your heavy spam problem. Nobody is going to spam heavies if he need to deploy fuel units before because it is unlikely he will have the fuel and popcap for that.
That's how was working vcoh before OF. At equal skill level, you had to build a medium tank/ tank hunter to counter other tanks. You couldn't really only rely on your Pershing/Tiger/Tiger Ace to win the game.

This is the best solution. The only way to stop Heavy tank spam is to force players to use their vehicles and Med tanks. Infrantry alone should not be able to win the mid game.

i'm sorry but all i can say to that scenario is:

inf+tank army >>> inf army in NON-PUDDLED map in the rotation.

so if the inf+tank army could not sustain enough damage to the inf army by straight up damage or taking the map, its the player's fault for not playing well and getting behind.

and having to wait only five more minute for a heavy for having more versatile force than your enemy's isn't too much of a penalty.

Actual game design isn't agreeing with you. There are 3 factions that can wait with 0 fuel unit support till calls-in. and for the 4th one, it is only because they have no heavy capabilities...

Actual game design isn't agreeing with you. There are 3 factions that can wait with 0 fuel unit support till calls-in. and for the 4th one, it is only because they have no heavy capabilities...

i have no problem with sov holding out for 34/85, ost waiting out for tiger etc... it should be a valid tactic and once fuel upkeep gets implemented (IF), being able to stockpile fuel until the late coming first tank would be the strength of that strategy. like how picking sov industry after 3cp to have more manpower as long as possible is.

and i don't get how three armies having the ability to hold out for the heavy somehow disproves my point of inf+tank army >>> inf army.

people thought and still thinks holding out for a t34/85, is2 and tiger is so much better than going for stock tank units. and i see luvnest, stephennjf and other great players going for either t70 +t34 or pz4 even with doctrines with 34/85, is2, or tiger selected. and it works out great. what i am saying is that fuel upkeep has little to do with your "Actual game design isn't agreeing with you. There are 3 factions that can wait with 0 fuel unit support till calls-in. and for the 4th one, it is only because they have no heavy capabilities..." statement and your general stance.

what fuel upkeep is going to do is that it will prevent massing heavy tanks and the ability to replace them quickly. for example, i find i have about 300 fuel when tiger unlocks when i go no t3 as ostheer. i would be able to get up to second tiger pretty okish-ly. but after that, i would have like 14-16fu/min (my suggestion) penalty that makes getting more tigers or replacing that tiger. as of now, by the time you manage to pull a fast one and kill two tigers somehow, the tiger owner has more than enough fuel stored to quickly replace the losses. too many times i see a king tiger in a fucked up maps like trois point and what do i get for whittling down the OKW's infantry? another KT because i just freed up his popcap.

BUT I think why we are in disagreement. i see the problem as the ability to mass heavies and replace them quickly and not the ability to wait out for heavies with low tier units. but you also see the latter as a problem, too. i think.

a sherman and some riflemen is worse against a shrek blob than the same number of rifleman + 1 instead of a sherman. now once you get 3 or more shermans the HE will wipe the volks out faster than they can kill the tanks.

OKW is the biggest outlier here because they can so easily get such a strong AT weapon on an infantry unit with grenades. soviet and US infantry have a MUCH harder time dealing with mass IVs without grenades.

fuel upkeep is a horrible solution, for the same reason manpower upkeep is a horrible solution. It just rewards sucking and it makes it too easy to have "epic comebacks" which arent really that epic because all that really happened was you were rewarded with extra resource income for sucking.

a sherman and some riflemen is worse against a shrek blob than the same number of rifleman + 1 instead of a sherman. now once you get 3 or more shermans the HE will wipe the volks out faster than they can kill the tanks.

OKW is the biggest outlier here because they can so easily get such a strong AT weapon on an infantry unit with grenades. soviet and US infantry have a MUCH harder time dealing with mass IVs without grenades.

so you are saying it is better to have 4 rifles against 4 volks with shrecks than 3 rifles + a sherman?

not for me. i'd rather have sherman picking away at volks just out of their shreck range as my rifles engage them so that is volks wants to get their rockets off, they have to move up.

if they have shreks, hell yes. you have a 5 range difference between shreks and the sherman main gun and that's a tiny difference. way to much potential to screw up.

4 shreks volleying twice will kill the sherman and riflemen are lots stronger than volks as long as they avoid the grenade.

sorry i didn't assume 3 rifles + sherman/rifleman and 4 volks in the same 10 m^2 field.

so you're ignoring maps like Stalingrad, or semiosky. if you try and equalize the cost it's even worse for US since OKW can throw a puma into that mess and you can't kite shreks anymore.

so you're ignoring maps like Stalingrad, or semiosky. if you try and equalize the cost it's even worse for US since OKW can throw a puma into that mess and you can't kite shreks anymore.

I said inf+armour army >>> inf army.

then you give me a scenario where inf+armour army is 3 rifles + sherman and inf army is 4 volks.

I follow the guideline you gave me and suddenly you add into the equation a puma and Stalingrad. i mean, give me a chance.

Honestly, if you keep making up the rules, i will try to play along, but you are going to win.

so in maps like stalingrad, 4 volks are gonna be in same cap zone? they are going to be spread out throughout the map and sherman can ambush ones that are isolated with extreme prejudice.

p.s. i think semoisky has a fair share of room to maneuver. i don't think any of the maps are so clustered like stalingrad.

fuel upkeep is a horrible solution, for the same reason manpower upkeep is a horrible solution. It just rewards sucking and it makes it too easy to have "epic comebacks" which arent really that epic because all that really happened was you were rewarded with extra resource income for sucking.

so you think man power upkeep should be removed?

i guess then you disagree with pop cap, too. because it forbids building up your army indefinitely.

so you're ignoring maps like Stalingrad, or semiosky. if you try and equalize the cost it's even worse for US since OKW can throw a puma into that mess and you can't kite shreks anymore.

Map vetos are a beautiful things and these two are on my list.

I think Call in system will not be changed in the coming future, perhaps in coh3. As of now, Soviets rely heavily on the call ins and so do half of the commanders for Ost. The only sensible solution I see here is just limiting heavy Call ins.

If fuel upkeep is added medium tanks need to be buffed and actually feel like tanks, without everything penetrating them constantly.

I said inf+armour army >>> inf army.

then you give me a scenario where inf+armour army is 3 rifles + sherman and inf army is 4 volks.

I follow the guideline you gave me and suddenly you add into the equation a puma and Stalingrad. i mean, give me a chance.

Honestly, if you keep making up the rules, i will try to play along, but you are going to win.

so in maps like stalingrad, 4 volks are gonna be in same cap zone? they are going to be spread out throughout the map and sherman can ambush ones that are isolated with extreme prejudice.

p.s. i think semoisky has a fair share of room to maneuver. i don't think any of the maps are so clustered like stalingrad.

in general, i agree with you but in the case of shrek volks you need a critical mass in AI armour in order for the fight to be worth it.

maybe i wasn't clear enough but i was refering to a blob situation. yes, if one player's army is 4 schreck volks and another player's army is 3 rifle and a sherman the latter is better. i was refering to a blob situation though, in which i would rather have rifles as, baring grenades, it's harder to lose a rifle squad and the rifles will generally win anyway.

my point about stalingrad and semiosky(s) was that these are tighter maps and the shot blockers on them allow volks to force a sherman to movie into schreck range to engage.

if they're not blobing it is a completely different situation and schreck volks are at a severe disadvantage.

Can I ask a silly question???

Why can't they just make the "super tanks" weaker? It seems weird to me that there are a few units that are so much stronger than the other units in the game.

because then they're not super.

And should they be?

if they're going to be super tanks.

personally, i don't like super units of the type found in supcom because they end up replacing all the weaker units (with the exception of air in supcom) and that's boring. i find the heavy tanks in coh2 to be ok though.

i find the heavy tanks in coh2 to be ok though.

Kinda' disagree, Nuclear. Unlike vCoh, in Coh2 tanks are more potent against infantry. Remember the days when you ran like hell with your panther/p4 from a paras/ranger blob? Not the case anymore. In the end, I don't think that's a bad thing (tanks being actually tanks) not some useless tin cans, but vCoh had some limitations related to heavies.
Tbh, I think Coh2 should borrow some of good things that could be found in vCoh, the "heavies politic" being one of them, and reject the bad things (like the "blob reign"). No matter what anyone says, blobs are far more weak in Coh2 compared to vCoh and that's a good thing.

i actually never got into coh, but i have played dow2 since mid chaos rising. also by "to be ok" i'm more referring to their power level compared to what their against, not the specifics of balance. in supcom in particular the super units are much, much, much more powerful than the individual units that come before them.