Login

russian armor

British Tanks come out too early?

13 Nov 2015, 01:56 AM
#1
avatar of Antemurale
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 951

So I did some calculations on the fuel requirement for vehicles in game.

All cost figures are based off of rushing these units onto the battlefield.

Of course, this doesn't factor in map control.

Remember OKW has fuel income penalty (only gets 66%).

SOV M3A1 Scout Car requires 25 Fuel (10+15)

USF M20 Utility Car requires 70 Fuel (50+20)
WM Sdkfz. 222 requires 80 Fuel (40+20+20)
WM Sdkfz. 251 requires 90 Fuel (40+20+30)
UKF AEC Mk. III requires 95 Fuel (30+15+50)
OKW Sdkfz. 251/17 Flak HT requires 95 Fuel (40+55)
USF M15A1 AAA Halftrack requires 110 Fuel (50+60)
OKW Sdkfz. 234/2 Puma requires 110 Fuel (40+70)
USF M5A1 Stuart requires 130 Fuel (60+70)
OKW Sdkfz 251 Walking Stuka requires 145 Fuel (40+100)
SOV T-70 requires 165 Fuel (10+85+70)
SOV SU-76M requires 170 Fuel (10+85+75)
OKW Panzer II Ausf. L Luchs requires 170 Fuel (40+80+50)
OKW Jagdpanzer IV L/70 requires 175 Fuel (40+135)

USF M8A1 Scott requires 245 Fuel (50+120+75)
UKF Centaur AA Mk. II requires 245 Fuel (30+115+100)
WM StuG III Ausf. G requires 250 Fuel (40+45+75+90)
UKF Cromwell Mk. IV requires 255 Fuel (30+115+110)
OKW Panzer IV Ausf. J requires 255 Fuel (40+80+135)
WM Ostwind requires 260 Fuel (40+45+75+100)
SOV T-34/76 requires 265 Fuel (10+85+90+80)
SOV BM-13 Katyusha requires 270 Fuel (10+85+90+85)
USF M4A3 Sherman requires 280 Fuel (50+120+110)
WM Panzer IV Auf. H requires 285 Fuel (40+45+75+125)
WM Panzerwerfer 42 requires 290 Fuel (40+45+45+75+85)
USF M36 Jackson requires 295 Fuel (50+120+125)
OKW Panther requires 295 Fuel (40+80+175)
UKF Sherman Firefly requires 300 Fuel (30+115+155)
SOV SU-85 requires 305 Fuel (10+85+90+120)
USF M4A3E8 Sherman Easy Eight requires 310 Fuel (50+120+140)

UKF Churchill Mk. VII requires 345 Fuel (30+115+50+150)
WM Stumpanzer IV requires 365 Fuel (40+45+45+75+160)
UKF Comet requires 380 Fuel (30+115+50+185)
WM Panther requires 380 Fuel (40+45+45+75+175)
OKW Tiger II requires 420 Fuel (40+40+80+260)


From the above, it is clear that while British tanks are just as good (or even superior to) their counterparts, they can come onto the field earlier.

I would suggest an increase to the fuel cost of the British T2 Company Command Post. Make it cost 140 Fuel (up from 115), so that British tanks come out at a more reasonable time.
13 Nov 2015, 02:14 AM
#2
avatar of Arclyte

Posts: 692

3 posts and about 10 games played

alt account troll detected
13 Nov 2015, 02:19 AM
#3
avatar of Dullahan

Posts: 1384

This is why Brits have fuel sinks.

-Weapon racks 15F
-Grenades 25F
-Squad sizes 25 F
-Bofors/AEC 15 F
-Hammer/Anvil 50 F


Ostheer spends the most fuel teching, but they have zero fuel sinks. Likewise OKW gets 1 less fuel per strat point and 2 per fuel point, but don't have fuel sinks either.


A Brit rushing a centaur or whatever only needs to spend 780 manpower 245 fuel, but they're sacrificing weapon upgrades, grenades, larger squad sizes (which translates into 25% less damage on their infantry sections and sappers.) and Bofors Emplacement/AEC both of which have their uses.

Meanwhile Ostheer spend 780 manpower and 260 fuel for an Ostwind and aren't missing anything from their army like grenades or weapon upgrades.


I think over time you'll see people learn to appreciate the importance of stuff like bofors/AEC and how effective they can be. In general any RTS metagame heavily favours fast teching for high end units until the metagame developments. Saw the same shit in Dawn of War 2 for years, only in the last 2-3 has the metagame evolved beyond that.

I don't think anything about British teching should be touched with a 10ft pole. This is the sort of problem that is solved by players getting better at steamrolling british players who don't buy their upgrades in favour of trying to rush an early centaur/cromwell.

13 Nov 2015, 03:12 AM
#4
avatar of pastasauce

Posts: 29

This is why Brits have fuel sinks.

-Weapon racks 15F
-Grenades 25F
-Squad sizes 25 F
-Bofors/AEC 15 F
-Hammer/Anvil 50 F


Ostheer spends the most fuel teching, but they have zero fuel sinks. Likewise OKW gets 1 less fuel per strat point and 2 per fuel point, but don't have fuel sinks either.


A Brit rushing a centaur or whatever only needs to spend 780 manpower 245 fuel, but they're sacrificing weapon upgrades, grenades, larger squad sizes (which translates into 25% less damage on their infantry sections and sappers.) and Bofors Emplacement/AEC both of which have their uses.

Meanwhile Ostheer spend 780 manpower and 260 fuel for an Ostwind and aren't missing anything from their army like grenades or weapon upgrades.



I think over time you'll see people learn to appreciate the importance of stuff like bofors/AEC and how effective they can be. In general any RTS metagame heavily favours fast teching for high end units until the metagame developments. Saw the same shit in Dawn of War 2 for years, only in the last 2-3 has the metagame evolved beyond that.

I don't think anything about British teching should be touched with a 10ft pole. This is the sort of problem that is solved by players getting better at steamrolling british players who don't buy their upgrades in favour of trying to rush an early centaur/cromwell.



thank you, this post should be everywhere.
13 Nov 2015, 07:15 AM
#5
avatar of pugzii

Posts: 513

This is why Brits have fuel sinks.

-Weapon racks 15F
-Grenades 25F
-Squad sizes 25 F
-Bofors/AEC 15 F
-Hammer/Anvil 50 F


Ostheer spends the most fuel teching, but they have zero fuel sinks. Likewise OKW gets 1 less fuel per strat point and 2 per fuel point, but don't have fuel sinks either.


A Brit rushing a centaur or whatever only needs to spend 780 manpower 245 fuel, but they're sacrificing weapon upgrades, grenades, larger squad sizes (which translates into 25% less damage on their infantry sections and sappers.) and Bofors Emplacement/AEC both of which have their uses.

Meanwhile Ostheer spend 780 manpower and 260 fuel for an Ostwind and aren't missing anything from their army like grenades or weapon upgrades.


I think over time you'll see people learn to appreciate the importance of stuff like bofors/AEC and how effective they can be. In general any RTS metagame heavily favours fast teching for high end units until the metagame developments. Saw the same shit in Dawn of War 2 for years, only in the last 2-3 has the metagame evolved beyond that.

I don't think anything about British teching should be touched with a 10ft pole. This is the sort of problem that is solved by players getting better at steamrolling british players who don't buy their upgrades in favour of trying to rush an early centaur/cromwell.



Holy shit, never seen someone destroy the OP in a post so well in my life.

gz
13 Nov 2015, 07:31 AM
#6
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470

This is why Brits have fuel sinks.

-Weapon racks 15F
-Grenades 25F
-Squad sizes 25 F
-Bofors/AEC 15 F
-Hammer/Anvil 50 F


i think a big part of the problem lies with team games in which the brit HQ upgrades are generally not worth getting and half the time the bofer/AEC isn't either. i have no idea how the brits play in 1v1 (or 2v2 for that matter) as i haven't played them in that game mode yet but in 3v3/4v4 it's all about not building infantry sections and rushing vehicles. this results in them having a couple of infantry units (vickers, snipers, engineers) and maybe a UC and not spending fuel on anything but teching and the tank they want.
13 Nov 2015, 07:41 AM
#7
avatar of WhySooSerious

Posts: 1248

Squad size upgrade is a definite. The 25% dps increase is VERY MUCH worth 25 fuel also including 25% increase in squad life.
13 Nov 2015, 10:14 AM
#8
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

Lets also don't forget brit inferior map control in early game due to less squads on field and need to retreat early.
13 Nov 2015, 11:17 AM
#9
avatar of SupremeStefan

Posts: 1220

lol jagpanzer come earlier pls fix that
13 Nov 2015, 11:22 AM
#10
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 830

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Nov 2015, 10:14 AMKatitof
Lets also don't forget brit inferior map control in early game due to less squads on field and need to retreat early.


Let's also not forget superior range of Vickers in comparison with all other HMGS. It can hold a good portion of any map with its range. Other than that, Brits aren't that big of a threat early game.
13 Nov 2015, 11:36 AM
#11
avatar of Ful4n0

Posts: 345

lol jagpanzer come earlier pls fix that



this.



it is really funny that the fuel starved faction, that should rely on inf coz of that infamous fuel penalty, and thus, it has best handle AT in their mainline inf and ATG at T0, is the one able to field that great TD sooner than any other faction can field their TDs.


just commenting....not saying this is wrong....


Why it is seen OKW armor as a problem for that faction when it only needs to tech to that truck in order to get one of the best TD in game if not the best one, the leig (one of the best OKW units at present), get healing and forward retreat all in one tier??? combined with a commander with mg or elite inf, is a very powerfull combo IMHO.

13 Nov 2015, 11:45 AM
#12
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8



Let's also not forget superior range of Vickers in comparison with all other HMGS. It can hold a good portion of any map with its range. Other than that, Brits aren't that big of a threat early game.

That superior range vickers applies exclusively at vet and in garrison, so cut the bullshit unless you want me to start screaming how HMG42 have 16 dps long range and 60+ short range while ripping light armor all day long like it was default ability.
13 Nov 2015, 15:17 PM
#13
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2


i think a big part of the problem lies with team games in which the brit HQ upgrades are generally not worth getting and half the time the bofer/AEC isn't either. i have no idea how the brits play in 1v1 (or 2v2 for that matter) as i haven't played them in that game mode yet but in 3v3/4v4 it's all about not building infantry sections and rushing vehicles. this results in them having a couple of infantry units (vickers, snipers, engineers) and maybe a UC and not spending fuel on anything but teching and the tank they want.

Exactly.
This is why Brits have fuel sinks.
-Weapon racks 15F
-Grenades 25F
-Squad sizes 25 F
-Bofors/AEC 15 F
-Hammer/Anvil 50 F

Point is, those fuel sinks are not effective bar the squad size upgrade. Weapon racks and squad size can be skipped till after fielding your first tank.

There's no point on getting the nade package (it should be fuse with Squad size or add a AT nade or something).
Hammer and Anvil are late game upgrades and can be considered T4 for UKF.
Bofor/AeC are mostly a joke.

Bofor/AeC upgrade should cost no fuel, a bit more manpower and translate that fuel cost to T3
13 Nov 2015, 17:22 PM
#14
avatar of Dullahan

Posts: 1384


Exactly.

Point is, those fuel sinks are not effective bar the squad size upgrade. Weapon racks and squad size can be skipped till after fielding your first tank.

There's no point on getting the nade package (it should be fuse with Squad size or add a AT nade or something).
Hammer and Anvil are late game upgrades and can be considered T4 for UKF.
Bofor/AeC are mostly a joke.


The better German players get, the more important those fuel sink upgrades and units become.

German makes extensive use of garrisons? How do you suppose you deal with that without grenades or a flame universal carrier?

German gets a halftrack to reinforce through shotblockers in the field. How do you suppose you kill it without PIATS or AEC?

Rushing straight for a vehicle also makes you vulnerable to being countered. Rushing a centaur but your opponent has put teller mines all over and has a stug waiting for it? Centaur is unlikely to accomplish much.

I've played relic RTS for years and this is how it always goes. The equivalent to "Not build shit and wait for heavy tank" in DOW2 was "tech t3 and save up for avatar" and it was super easy to not only field a bigger army of cheaper units but also counter their heavy unit with plentiful AT sources.

The same is true here. Any sort of vehicle rush leaves you wide open to aggressive mid game play, with no guarantee said vehicle will accomplish anything.

Fast teching works when your opponent is equally fast teching. Which is very common in coh2 right now. But in a more aggressive meta such strategies become very weak, and investing in other things becomes more useful.


13 Nov 2015, 18:01 PM
#15
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

snip

The better the german player is, it will always revolve on who is better with sniper-countersnipe play. It was shown during the tournament and this is what i see on automatch.

Nades are useless against anyone who can bunny hop from buildings. Flame carrier delays your heal and gets easily countered by moving your units and fast 222. AEC can lose to double 222. Piats won't do shit against anyone who can kite.

Centaur might have more of a shock value, but for just a little more you've a Cromwell.

ATM it feels like the same situation we had with the release of USF. Upgrades and midgame units (bar AAHT/M20) were not worthy in comparison to just going M20 > Sherman.
13 Nov 2015, 19:32 PM
#16
avatar of SpaceHamster
Patrion 14

Posts: 474

There is 0 reason in a competitive game to get anything but the 5 man squad upgrade and go straight to t2 -> cromwell, or centaur against CAS meta.

AEC and bofors are just manpower/fuel dummy sinks that look good on paper but are terrible in practice. Only time bofors ever served my needs was to defend a far left VP on minsk pocket where I couldn't funnel units all the time when I was down to 50 vps or so.

The best units in t1 only cost manpower, which is actually the reason the brits can rush tanks out so fast. Changing the tech costs will only delay the inevitable as I still won't see a reason to get mill bombs, AECs, piats, or early game bren guns. When I can instead be laying down mines and saving for strafing support/artillery cover.
14 Nov 2015, 03:02 AM
#17
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470

i think the 5 man squad and weapon upgrades are shit simply because IS become shit rather fast due to having to stand around in cover. this makes them have very low DPS while closing and very vulnerable to indirect (particularly the lieg).
14 Nov 2015, 03:08 AM
#18
avatar of AchtAchter

Posts: 1604 | Subs: 3

i think the 5 man squad and weapon upgrades are shit simply because IS become shit rather fast due to having to stand around in cover. this makes them have very low DPS while closing and very vulnerable to indirect (particularly the lieg).


I have to disagree with this post. In late game the complete field is plastered with yellow crater holes and you can build green cover with your IS wherever you wish. IS have crazy vet and win against obers (green vs green cover) by a big margin when having 5 men & brens.
I don't see good players doing mortar or isg spam, since its not an issue to counter, as you can push usually players who go heavy on indirect fire away or go double sniper.


About topic:

The problem is that brits can handle situations completely fine without investing in fuel & munitions sinks. Thats why you are hardly punished for rushing a tank as a brit. I personally see that as a problem and would rather see the tech costs for the T3 increased, while giving the brits grenade for free when teching up to T1. Same could be done with bren guns / piats, that you can upgrade to one bren with T2 and a second at T3.
14 Nov 2015, 05:50 AM
#19
avatar of kitekaze

Posts: 378

Of course, this doesn't factor in map control.

Remember OKW has fuel income penalty (only gets 66%).


Your post is invalid after these sentences.

Remember that OKW bases are often placed outside the battlefield, cover two to three points. Thanks to that, they can get more fuel than they should have.

A combination of OKW defense and Wehrmacht cache make great synergy for safe and efficent fuel income, hence why they become better in team match.
14 Nov 2015, 08:43 AM
#20
avatar of Antemurale
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 951



Your post is invalid after these sentences.



I'm just saying that OKW P4 can come out earlier than SOV SU-76M because you handed the entire map to your enemy. But in most well-fought matches, map control is about 50-50.

And as others have said, UKF fuel sinks can be skipped and can still deal with mid-game comfortably. Facing armor? AT sniper and/or 6-prds. Facing garrisoned HMG? AT sniper and/or flanking infantry. Run into mines? Royal Engineers with sweepers.

Most UKF players I've run into either skip fuel sinks entirely before they field armor or use fuel sinks extensively, rely on heavy T1/T2, and then brings out T4 armor. So, a T3 fuel cost upgrade wouldn't be amiss.

Edit
LOL on that first post. Just a CoH1 vet who's recently moved over to CoH2. Plus, don't have to play ranked all the time, do I?
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

590 users are online: 590 guests
0 post in the last 24h
12 posts in the last week
25 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49851
Welcome our newest member, Eovaldis
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM