Why Tank Spam Is Not Inherently A Bad Thing.

A medium loss for most factions is a set back, a medium loss for OKW is a game loss. Like every faction has it's own micro challenges...

Hey,

I don't know if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me there, but here's an excerpt from my previous post that I thought sounded pretty cool regarding this philosophy.

Sure, it's not as devastating when Allies lose one of their tanks, but that's because you're playing by a different set of rules. You can't expect to win by killing a couple Allied tanks like they can for you. You have to make them bleed with your superior tools that I mentioned above.

How do you get ahead as Allies? Pinch their few tanks in with good tactics and destroy them.
How do you get ahead as Axis? Bleed their tanks with your better ones. Bleed them until they can't bleed anymore.

I'm not disagreeing I'm just saying both require micro just of different natures. You can't play defensively as OKW because you will get raped by artillery. Really the only very non-micro intensive faction is Soviets but that's because their infantry don't require as much micro thanks to larger squad sizes.

I don't understand Basilone's argument. Sure assault guns are more conservative in function, and sure a deep flank with proper tanks is inherently more risky, but that's precisely why those tanks have heavier armour and turrets. That is literally their design spec.

Whether or not there are issues around the Su-76, I don't think this has a bearing on the question of the defence of tank spam, which I think was really aimed at the T-34. The general thrust that too many people are too willing to cry 'spam' as soon as anyone builds more than one of a unit type is, IMO, quite correct.

It SHOULD be viable to use strength in numbers as a tactic. It only becomes problematic when it is such a good tactic that everyone does it at every opportunity, and it does not appear to me that this is the case.

Next up, some brave heretic needs to mount a defence of blobbing...

I don't understand Basilone's argument. Sure assault guns are more conservative in function, and sure a deep flank with proper tanks is inherently more risky, but that's precisely why those tanks have heavier armour and turrets. That is literally their design spec.

Whether or not there are issues around the Su-76, I don't think this has a bearing on the question of the defence of tank spam, which I think was really aimed at the T-34. The general thrust that too many people are too willing to cry 'spam' as soon as anyone builds more than one of a unit type is, IMO, quite correct.

It SHOULD be viable to use strength in numbers as a tactic. It only becomes problematic when it is such a good tactic that everyone does it at every opportunity, and it does not appear to me that this is the case.

Next up, some brave heretic needs to mount a defence of blobbing...

TLDR

-"spam" is not inherently bad
-In vcoh assault gun spam was harder to execute. Longer range + reverse button makes it really easy to kite targets (now anyone can do it well, it used to a high level player thing), opposed to vcoh where there wasn't a huge range advantage but the frontal armor was much more durable. That stuff isn't going to be changed though, so the better solution is just make turreted tanks a bit more appealing.

OK but two points here:

1) IMO there should always have been a reverse button in CoH1, and while it may be easier now to do that sort of thing than it was, that doesn't in itself mean that it is too easy.

2) There are question about the possible over-effectiveness of the Su-76; if this was an issue that applied to assault guns simply by virtue of being able to reverse etc., then the same problem would arise with StuG's, but I haven't seen nearly as much concern about them.

Tank spam IMO isnt bad mid game-late game, I'd agree.....

It's only bad early game. It ruins the infantry gameplay we've come to love in CoH1, which is kinda why ppl really disliked it when the T-70 came out early under Sov Industry. (Esp back in the day where you couldn't build PaKs fast enough to counter them).

IMO SU-76 spam as it stands is fine.... If the unit wasn't so darn good dealing with Panthers, Tigers or Elefants EN masse.

IMO SU-76 spam as it stands is fine.... If the unit wasn't so darn good dealing with Panthers, Tigers or Elefants EN masse.

But see, that's why I made this post. They're supposed to begin countering Axis late game equivalents in numbers. My lengthy previous posts aside (which I think justify 2-3 SU-76s vs. 1 panther nicely), 2 SU-76s cost 150 fuel. In a head-to-head engagement with no flanking or other tactics whatsoever (in which the SU-76s cannot do and the Panther can do), why shouldn't they be able to fight back against a Panther's 175 fuel?

And Tigers... Truly, they are more vulnerable to SU-76s than a Panther due to their slower nature, but I would attribute that to a Panther's overperformance as well as the fact that those two hold different roles in combat. Tigers slowly break through a line while Panthers use Blitz tactics. TD's of any type, not just SU's, are better against the former than the latter, so maybe if you see SU's being spammed, a strategically sound choice would be to withhold from Tigers.

I actually really doubt any amount would help against an Elefant though.

But see, that's why I made this post. They're supposed to begin countering Axis late game equivalents in numbers. My lengthy previous posts aside (which I think justify 2-3 SU-76s vs. 1 panther nicely), 2 SU-76s cost 150 fuel. In a head-to-head engagement with no flanking or other tactics whatsoever (in which the SU-76s cannot do and the Panther can do), why shouldn't they be able to fight back against a Panther's 175 fuel?

And Tigers... Truly, they are more vulnerable to SU-76s than a Panther due to their slower nature, but I would attribute that to a Panther's overperformance as well as the fact that those two hold different roles in combat. Tigers slowly break through a line while Panthers use Blitz tactics. TD's of any type, not just SU's, are better against the former than the latter, so maybe if you see SU's being spammed, a strategically sound choice would be to withhold from Tigers.

I actually really doubt any amount would help against an Elefant though.

Well, that would be true in the previous meta and timing of units, if the SU-76 was in the TD building.

But now, what you have is the SU-76s dominating the Panthers in every engagement in 1v1 maps which are smaller.

Also Fuel, considering the timing of units and cost of teching to these units, is a bit of a miscomparison. It costs a lot more to build your first panther than your second, just as it costs a lot more to build your first SU-76 than your 2nd or 3rd.

That and with the strong T3 soviets get, they get to tech/build SU-76s a lot faster by pushing the Germans off the field.

As an Early/midgame vehicle, I feel the SU-76 is far too good for the time when it arrives. I think vehicle balance should be more framed by pop cost, fuel, role and when it arrives on the battlefield.

Well, that would be true in the previous meta and timing of units, if the SU-76 was in the TD building.

But now, what you have is the SU-76s dominating the Panthers in every engagement in 1v1 maps which are smaller.

Also Fuel, considering the timing of units and cost of teching to these units, is a bit of a miscomparison. It costs a lot more to build your first panther than your second, just as it costs a lot more to build your first SU-76 than your 2nd or 3rd.

That and with the strong T3 soviets get, they get to tech/build SU-76s a lot faster by pushing the Germans off the field.

As an Early/midgame vehicle, I feel the SU-76 is far too good for the time when it arrives. I think vehicle balance should be more framed by pop cost, fuel, role and when it arrives on the battlefield.

Alright, then would you feel better if SU-76s came later but everything stayed the same? That seems to be the message you're giving me. I wouldn't mind if T3 was pushed back by 10 fuel or something since M5 and SU-76 are problem units, but there is really no elegant way to push SU-76's back too much without crippling SU. Nerfing them would spell disaster as they would be locked out of a reliable TD until they have enough fuel to afford their most expensive tank in the last tier. I feel like the design of SU in CoH 2 doesn't leave a lot to work with. For now, a scaling TD that arrives mid-game might just have to be a thing that Axis have to work around.

But timing for the SU-76 is a little off-topic, so I will leave it at that.

Alright, then would you feel better if SU-76s came later but everything stayed the same? That seems to be the message you're giving me. I wouldn't mind if T3 was pushed back by 10 fuel or something since M5 and SU-76 are problem units, but there is really no elegant way to push SU-76's back too much without crippling SU. Nerfing them would spell disaster as they would be locked out of a reliable TD until they have enough fuel to afford their most expensive tank in the last tier. I feel like the design of SU in CoH 2 doesn't leave a lot to work with. For now, a scaling TD that arrives mid-game might just have to be a thing that Axis have to work around.

But timing for the SU-76 is a little off-topic, so I will leave it at that.

I think in the last patch , Relic has broken the fundamental rule of balance - if you're making big changes, go big. They've changed a lot of the roles of units when it comes down to the narrative of the game and timing, but forgot to change a lot of the stats of the stuff they've changed, so it leads to the current M5/SU-76 situation we're in.

I feel the easiest thing to do is to make the SU-76 a purely early-midgame unit. That is, a unit that can deal with P4s and nothing heavier than that, with barrage being a bit more accurate too (so give SU-76 ZIS stats for barrage). People are still going to build SU-76, and it is still strong early to mid game, but leave it to that really. (IE a Pennetration nerf, a range nerf would hurt the SU-76 more than a penn nerf)

In most strategy games you find, if a unit can be spammed, its because its really good at one stage of the game, but its really limited in others/has reliable counters. If the latter doesn't happen, then we call that unit broken. The most famous example is, of course, zerglings.

I have no problem with T-34-76 spam in the past, I had no problem with M10/M18 spam in CoH1 but yeah, I think talking about the SU-76 in this discussion is kinda derailing your point a bit because it is a controversial vehicle, but I mostly agree with all your points.

OK but two points here:

1) IMO there should always have been a reverse button in CoH1, and while it may be easier now to do that sort of thing than it was, that doesn't in itself mean that it is too easy.

2) There are question about the possible over-effectiveness of the Su-76; if this was an issue that applied to assault guns simply by virtue of being able to reverse etc., then the same problem would arise with StuG's, but I haven't seen nearly as much concern about them.

Right now SU76 is standing out, but since beta every assault gun has been way too good at one point, and the huge range and super easy kiting has played a big part.

Why is having multiple tanks on the field at the same time by the same player a bad thing?

Because automatch, and also Relic (and everyone who advocates for the recent patch) seems to want more infantry spam; everything about the patch points to this.

I agree with everything you said, but I doubt Relic does.

but I feel like the community, as well as myself, are against it due to the "asymmetrical balance" of CoH 2. Sure, having literally the same units stats-wise on each side would solve all balance issues, but in the end, diversity is key, as squippy pointed out:

That completely explains putting OKW Panzer4 into stock.


Kappa.

edited