Why Tank Spam Is Not Inherently A Bad Thing.

I know these forums are... highly volatile, but let's begin with an open mind and thoughtful input.

With the two most recent changes, there have been a rise in a new SU meta: tank spam. Multiple T-34s, light vehicles, and the hottest topic of the hour, multiple SU-76s are seen on the field in almost every game. "Nerf!" the forums cry. "Too spammy!" I thought long and hard about the spam, how players feel being forced to deal with the spam, and how Relic has enabled the spam through their latest patches.

And I think we've been looking at this the wrong way.

I propose a radical thought: Why is having multiple tanks on the field at the same time by the same player a bad thing? The only thing inherently bad about tank spam is the slightly increased amount of frustration the opposing player experiences when dealing with something new. So I come to the conclusion that it is NOT A BAD THING. On the contrary, I think, in order to preserve the health of the game for longevity, tank spam is actually a good thing. For one, remember that the doctrine for Soviets has always been "strength in numbers." (I want to make it clear right now that I'm talking about game design philosophy, NOT HISTORICAL ACCURACY. I believe there's even a rule stating to not bring in history into balance discussion.) However, weirdly enough, before the patch, we rarely see more than 1 tank of each type on the field at the same time. Maybe 2 t-34/85s or something, but that was it really. But now SU can call in more than 1 t-34 or more than 1 su-76. I've even seen games with multiple t-70s. It really cements the "strength in numbers" doctrine, just like how Axis has always had a "better armor, better guns on tanks" doctrine since as far back as I can remember. Why is calling in more than 1 tank, a thing that Soviets are supposed to be able to do all along, such a bad thing? Do Soviets not deserve to have their own niche, in numbers?

People say that vehicle spam is a sign of a lack of skill, but let's look at it from the other side. Every Allied tank is inferior to its Axis equivalent. I would say, with the new fuel prices enabling it, tank spam was an inevitability to fight Axis armor. Necessity is the mother of invention, after all. Tank spam is merely a result of the NEED for more than 1 Allied tank to fight off 1 Axis tank. So if we see tank spam as an inevitable need rather than a lack of skill, the practice becomes much more justified.

There is a price for tank spam, by the way, guys. The price you pay is a LOT (and I mean a LOT) more micro compared to Axis armor. Imagine a typical engagement of an OKW Pz-IV vs. 2 SU-76s. Head on, the PZ-IV would most likely wipe an SU-76 and get away safely. To succeed, the Allied player would have to juggle reversing and keeping the PZ-IV at max range and having the PZ-IV switch targets to ensure a tank does not die. All the PZ-IV needs to do is right click where he wants to shoot, and reverse if things get sticky. You can imagine the Allied player easily having to click 3-4 times as much to ensure favorable results when he is pitting the equivalent of 150 fuel vs. 135 fuel.

I would go so far as to say this is Relic's intent all along. They WANT tank spam to be a thing. The patch notes that decreased T-34 fuel and put the SU-76 in t3 reflect on that I think. Call me a fool, but I have a little confidence that Relic saw the prices and intended for them to be slightly spammable. They DID look at fuel cost for su-76 in the past and saw fit to raise it by 5 fuel. They saw the t-34 fuel in the past and saw it fit to reduce it by 20.

So in conclusion, I think tank spam meta for SU is healthy for the game because it lets SU have (at least a semblance) a feeling of being in control by having a response to german late-game tank superiority by having numbers to match. Tank spam is not a result of a lack of skill, but the result of necessity due to overwhelming Axis tank power. The price they pay is a lot more micro. This is further proven (I think) by Relic's new fuel prices for all SU vehicles. They purposely gave Soviets a weapon to fight Axis through numbers. They didn't do this on accident, guys.







And finally, I want to address the hottest topic. Going in on this, I know a lot of people disagree with me, but let's keep things civil. The SU-76, although definitely spammy, has been the source of rage for a lot of people. The most common suggestion I saw was to reduce the penetration because it can have a chance to penetrate tigers and panthers. However, I believe that is not a good change. As a community, have you guys not always strove for less RNG in the game? We've seen that so much through the past year. Mortar nerfs, plane crash nerfs, flamethrower nerfs. All of these things are done to reduce RNG. Why should Allied tank guns be the exception? Why does OKW and Ostheer get to enjoy an RNG-free game with all the nerfs to Allied insta-kill abilities, while Allied players have to throw a dice to determine whether their Su-76 will pen a Panther 5 times in a row or not at all? It shouldn't. I say keep the penetration. Any lower and no amount of SU-76s will help against a good tank, ruining the tank spam meta. 60% is already a weird number where it can fail to penetrate MANY times when you need it to, anyway. Let its weaknesses be apparent elsewhere: Its weak HP, weak armor, long and inaccurate barrage (seriously, people who SU-76 has anti-infantry because of it, have you guys ever had your squads wiped to its barrage ability? Please tell me, because I can never wipe a squad with it), its lack of a turret, and its very underwhelming Vet 1 ability (which I think needs to be buffed).

The second most common suggestion is to raise its price. Sure, I don't mind a price hike of 5 fuel or so. But any more and I think it would undermine SU's new power in numbers. It would be less spammable, and it needs to be spammable to compete. Let's look at the StuG III Ausf. G. It's superior to the SU-76 in every way. A single StuG can probably wipe SU-76s by the droves if managed properly. Bottom line is, StuG is also an end-game tank destroyer that you can buy mid-game. Except better because it has better stats AND it gets to face weaker tanks. So why is no one rallying for StuG price hikes, but SU-76 price hikes instead? I don't know. The only difference is SU-76s barrage, and hiking up its price past the StuG's merely for its barrage is nonsensical to me.

So there you have it. I'm sorry if it's lengthy, but I have a lot to say after reading everyone's comments on the state of balance. I believe people are not looking at it deeply enough. All people see is a new obstacle which instantly becomes a hindrance and therefore should be moved out of the way by Relic. But tank spam is good, guys. Let it become part of the game, and I think the product will be a much more dynamic Company of Heroes 2.

Welcome.

TL;DR?

welcome. i fixed the title for you.

TL;DR.

- new sov tech and cheaper t34 and now spammable su76 make SOV "tank spam" more.

- and people(which?) hate it and think it is bad for the game.

- however it fits the whole "quality in quantity" characteristic very well.

- also SU has to tank spam because their tanks cannot stand 1 on 1 against axis tanks.

- also, the drawback of tank spam is that it is micro intensive.

- i also think relic wanted it this way.





- on su76, lowering pen will induce more RNG so nerf it in some other ways if need be.

- price increase anything above 5 fuel will undermine whole "quality in quantity" thingy.

I agree OP.

I agree op

welcome. i fixed the title for you.

TL;DR.

- new sov tech and cheaper t34 and now spammable su76 make SOV "tank spam" more.

- and people(which?) hate it and think it is bad for the game.

- however it fits the whole "quality in quantity" characteristic very well.

- also SU has to tank spam because their tanks cannot stand 1 on 1 against axis tanks.

- also, the drawback of tank spam is that it is micro intensive.

- i also think relic wanted it this way.





- on su76, lowering pen will induce more RNG so nerf it in some other ways if need be.

- price increase anything above 5 fuel will undermine whole "quality in quantity" thingy.

Thanks I guess a TL;DR would have been a good idea for this. I'll copy-pasta your post on the official CoH forums where I've made a similar thread.

This method of thinking is somewhat paradoxical considering if you make them cost more you can increase performance. The reason why (normally) Axis tanks a better 1v1 is they cost more, but this isn't always true.

For instance IS2 > Tiger, T34/85 > Panzer IV, and so on and so forth.

Spam is cheesy as hell and really shouldn't be encouraged, it's essentially brainless. Combined arms should be encouraged, not just making a fuckload of a unit until your enemy can't handle it anymore.

But equally, there shouldn't only be One True Way to play.

T34/85 costs more then P4...

T34/85 costs more then P4...

Unless you enhance your armor with bulletins a T34/85 will beat an OKW PIV one on one, same for the Ost PIV. An up-armored OKW PIV with bulletins can kill an 85.

This method of thinking is somewhat paradoxical considering if you make them cost more you can increase performance. The reason why (normally) Axis tanks a better 1v1 is they cost more, but this isn't always true.

For instance IS2 > Tiger, T34/85 > Panzer IV, and so on and so forth.

Spam is cheesy as hell and really shouldn't be encouraged, it's essentially brainless. Combined arms should be encouraged, not just making a fuckload of a unit until your enemy can't handle it anymore.

I'd like to point out paragraph #6 in my original post where I argued for the fact that spam is, in fact, not brainless. It demands an intense amount of micro to keep your fragile yet numerous units alive, else you will just be throwing fuel into the trash. Can it truly be more brainless than controlling one tank in which you can rely on a lot of enemy shells bouncing? I think not.

Even when not engaging enemies, the amount of map awareness to not get flanked or accidentally leave a stray unit in a vulnerable position is intense as well. I feel like managing 3+ SU-76s is a feat of strength on its own.

To address your first point, you COULD theoretically increase tank prices and buff their stats as well to mirror Axis tanks, 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:

But equally, there shouldn't only be One True Way to play.

the Neo of metas?

the advantage of spam is that you can (theoretically) be in more places at once. two 34/76s can be fighting on two different parts of the map while one V can only be in one place. on the other hand, a V can kill a 34/76, back off, and come out way ahead even though two 34/76s cost more.

This method of thinking is somewhat paradoxical considering if you make them cost more you can increase performance. The reason why (normally) Axis tanks a better 1v1 is they cost more, but this isn't always true.

For instance IS2 > Tiger, T34/85 > Panzer IV, and so on and so forth.

Spam is cheesy as hell and really shouldn't be encouraged, it's essentially brainless. Combined arms should be encouraged, not just making a fuckload of a unit until your enemy can't handle it anymore.

Did you read the section about how spam increases micro consumption? I'm mainly an axis faction player and I've been playing this game since it was released, So i feel like even though i am not a top tier player i have something to add. One strong unit with less micro consumption is about as brainless as spamming several weaker units with higher micro consumption. I agree totally with the OP.

What exactly is the point of playing an RTS game if everybody wants to only play one faction? especially in a game like COH2 where one side has to be axis and the other side has to allies? Both factions need their own unique tools to deal with each other, I would probably quit playing this beautiful game if it turned into another boring as hell SC2 clone where all armies are just different looking versions of one another. long live asymmetrical balance.

P.S i know you catch quite a bit of flak from those goofs queen and kait and i want you to know i'm just trying to have a civil conversation.

Did you read the section about how spam increases micro consumption? I'm mainly an axis faction player and I've been playing this game since it was released, So i feel like even though i am not a top tier player i have something to add. One strong unit with less micro consumption is about as brainless as spamming several weaker units with higher micro consumption. I agree totally with the OP.

What exactly is the point of playing an RTS game if everybody wants to only play one faction? especially in a game like COH2 where one side has to be axis and the other side has to allies? Both factions need their own unique tools to deal with each other, I would probably quit playing this beautiful game if it turned into another boring as hell SC2 clone where all armies are just different looking versions of one another. long live asymmetrical balance.

P.S i know you catch quite a bit of flak from those goofs queen and kait and i want you to know i'm just trying to have a civil conversation.

When your outnumbered and facing a lot of DPS with fragile units you have to use a LOT of micro. It's a different type of micro, but it's micro none the less. What the OP is talking about is macro; controlling a large force of units as opposed to a small one.

Let me give you an example, when your OKW PIV hits the field it will be facing a large amount of AT which means you need to be on the ball with reversing it and moving it around the field. It represents a very large investment which means it's loss is a big one. When you dealing with cheap spammable units one loss isn't a huge deal.

"spam" such as maxim spam, SU-76 spam, and whatnot is brainless because it relies on simply overwhelming your enemy through the shear impact of so much suppression/DPS in the case of maxim spam or barrage + AT in the case of the SU-76. When countered both these things fall apart and almost always result in a loss for the executing player; but countering them requires far more skill than executing them does.

Thank you for the civil conversation

When your outnumbered and facing a lot of DPS with fragile units you have to use a LOT of micro. It's a different type of micro, but it's micro none the less. What the OP is talking about is macro; controlling a large force of units as opposed to a small one.

controlling two units(i.e. t34) to the fullest takes more micro than controlling one unit to the fullest(i.e. p4). especially when it comes to tanks in my opinion. and yeah, OP IS talking about macro, a strategic aspect of SOV, which is spamming su76 or t34/76, but he also dedicates a paragraph about how the tank spam takes more micro in which case he IS talking about micro, not macro.

Let me give you an example, when your OKW PIV hits the field it will be facing a large amount of AT which means you need to be on the ball with reversing it and moving it around the field. It represents a very large investment which means it's loss is a big one. When you dealing with cheap spammable units one loss isn't a huge deal.

there is no mid game+ vehicular unit in coh2 that is so cheap that losing one wouldn't be a big loss. relatively a lesser loss but in an even match, losing even a quad will hurt bad. anyway, if that was an example of how micro-ing one relatively more expensive unit is more or as micro intensive as micro-ing two cheaper units, it is a horrible example. yes, losing a OKW p4 would be a big loss but your example has nothing to do with micro heaviness of a single expensive unit.

"spam" such as maxim spam, SU-76 spam, and whatnot is brainless because it relies on simply overwhelming your enemy through the shear impact of so much suppression/DPS in the case of maxim spam or barrage + AT in the case of the SU-76. When countered both these things fall apart and almost always result in a loss for the executing player; but countering them requires far more skill than executing them does.

Thank you for the civil conversation

haven't come across any of those, so i have no opinion about them.

When your outnumbered and facing a lot of DPS with fragile units you have to use a LOT of micro. It's a different type of micro, but it's micro none the less. What the OP is talking about is macro; controlling a large force of units as opposed to a small one.

Let me give you an example, when your OKW PIV hits the field it will be facing a large amount of AT which means you need to be on the ball with reversing it and moving it around the field. It represents a very large investment which means it's loss is a big one. When you dealing with cheap spammable units one loss isn't a huge deal.

"spam" such as maxim spam, SU-76 spam, and whatnot is brainless because it relies on simply overwhelming your enemy through the shear impact of so much suppression/DPS in the case of maxim spam or barrage + AT in the case of the SU-76. When countered both these things fall apart and almost always result in a loss for the executing player; but countering them requires far more skill than executing them does.

Thank you for the civil conversation

Hello Alexzandvar,

Let's step back for a second and look at definitions. "Macro" in terms of RTS means focusing on your economy. Increasing your income through mining minerals or something, teching up, etc. to ensure you have the resources to build a large army. This is largely irrelevant in this game because your resources come automatically with capturing territory.

I looked up "micro" on urban dictionary (har har I know, but it's the best sources we've got for non-official words while also showing what the most widely accepted use of the term is through the rating system) and the top 3 definitions emphasize something important: Managing MULTIPLE UNITS. (Link to the term is at the bottom of my post. Entry #1 says "single units" which is not to be confused with "a single unit.")

Thus, by the sheer definition of the word, managing 2+ SU-76s requires, by far, much more micro than 1 Panzer IV. I was not talking about macro in my post.



Now I want to address the other part of your post. I'll ignore MG stuff since I made this thread to defend SU tank spam.

Being "on the ball" with reversing and positioning does require skill, but that all comes with the package of managing a tank. Every person who has tanks need to do that, or you're throwing away resources. I'm saying SU has to do it twice as much as Axis. No, I don't think it's true that you can sit a bunch of SU-76s in one spot and call it a day. Even head-on, if you leave your fragile tanks sitting like that, you are inviting the axis player to engage in his favor with his rules (if he's not bad). In other words, when he engages, your tanks will be in danger. Due to their fragility, one or more will die if you don't move and position every one.

And without escape/engagement mechanisms like combat blitz and smoke, SU has to be even MORE precarious in their positioning, reversing, and engagement ranges than Axis. Your argument that it takes a lot of micro to manage an Axis tank only further justifies my position that it is just that much harder to micro Allied tanks, instead.

Now you might be thinking, "How can they be forced to micro more than me when I have to deal with a wall of tanks and AT by being forced to flank and track the positions of every gun just to ensure that my one tank lives? It's too much!" Well, you are given the tools to deal with it. Their shots can bounce; yours don't. You have escape/engage skills, they do not. You are durable, they are not. And you only need to kill one or some of their tanks per engagement to come out on top.

Regarding the large resource loss that comes with losing your tank, I believe that is a natural price to pay for the "few but powerful" quirk of the axis powers. There is nothing wrong with it and it should be that way. Your post implied that, because Axis have a lot to lose with the destruction of a single tank, that they should not be forced to face a wall of enemy tanks.

However, I would flip that argument on its head and say that because they could lose so much, being forced to face a wall of tanks is a natural obstacle to overcome and should be expected when you roll out your first elite tank.

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 losing a bit of steam and I feel like the message got muddled near the end, but I hope it comes through.

Micro: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=micro

"Spamming" a unit does not make someone a bad player. Some of the most elite CoH1 2v2 players spammed M10s, and to do it successfully and not leave a graveyard of free munitions for a Wehrmacht player took a lot of micro and careful planning/positioning. But the SU76, SU85, or anything else without a turret takes a lot less skill since you are basically sitting at range at choosing a unit to fire at, and if you ever get in danger you can reverse all unit simultaneously (doing the same thing w/ 5+ tanks in vcoh took god tier micro). Spamming an assault gun type vehicle will always be fairly easy compared to making offensive manuevers with turreted tanks, but since we have so many more assault guns in coh2 will just have to deal with it and hope its different in the next game. In the mean time they could cut down on SU76 spam by getting rid of the T3 requirement for T4. I like SU76s because I already made the building anyway and I don't want to build another expensive structure for T34 when I can immediately start getting another powerful unit.

"Spamming" a unit does not make someone a bad player. Some of the most elite CoH1 2v2 players spammed M10s, and to do it successfully and not leave a graveyard of free munitions for a Wehrmacht player took a lot of micro and careful planning/positioning. But the SU76, SU85, or anything else without a turret takes a lot less skill since you are basically sitting at range at choosing a unit to fire at, and if you ever get in danger you can reverse all unit simultaneously (doing the same thing w/ 5+ tanks in vcoh took god tier micro). Spamming an assault gun type vehicle will always be fairly easy compared to making offensive manuevers with turreted tanks, but since we have so many more assault guns in coh2 will just have to deal with it and hope its different in the next game. In the mean time they could cut down on SU76 spam by getting rid of the T3 requirement for T4. I like SU76s because I already made the building anyway and I don't want to build another expensive structure for T34 when I can immediately start getting another powerful unit.

Now I never played vCoH, but here's how I see it.

Sure, sitting in the back requires less micro. But defensive play means you're sacrificing engagements on your terms. It's a tradeoff.

You can engage offensively with multiple turreted TDs, but the price is a lot more micro.

You could sit back, but you leave yourself open for the enemy to engage in his favor.

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;

USF: Aggressive play, keeping units attacking through smart use of smoke and grenades. Very reliant on combined arms between infantry and tanks.

OKW: Early game aggressive, mid game defensive, late game aggressive. Relies on microing a very large amount of infantry unit's in support for a small handful of tanks. Must use ability such as salvage and conversion to stay in the game.

Ostheer: Combined arms from beginning to end, you have to use support weapons to make up for your lack of elite infantry and the fragility of your mainline infantry. Large emphasis placed on unit preservation.

Soviets: Aggressive play using area denial from high explosive ordinance to hold territory. Focus's on easy to keep around squads that can stay out in the field longer than the enemies. Very ability based.

I'll take units that are defensive and nature and require virtually little to no micro any day over a more offensive force (provided the defensive units aren't drastically inferior). Of course this requires having decent map control to begin with, its hard to recover a bad early-mid game with a defensive playstyle. But that is almost another topic, I'm talking mostly about tanks. Just because they are long range directional units doesn't make them bad offensive units, they just don't require much micro. You can use turreted tanks defensively too, but the point is you rarely see an assault gun doing aggressive flanking.