A Thought: Exponential Pricing to Promote Unit Diversity

Hello there, how are you? Having a good day? Hopefully that's the case.

It's not new to throw up another suggestion to help balance the common spam meta in the lower stages of the ladder that I dwell in. However, the thought seemed so feasible to me that I couldn't help but reach out and see what everyone else would think about it.

That being said, the purpose of this thread isn't so much to push this into Relic's face as it is just my need to discuss about it and hopefully either spot the flaws in what I will soon explain or be happily surprised with a popular alternative that Relic may consider for balance.

What I mean by exponential pricing is the idea of increasing the purchase cost of each new squad or unit in general in order to dissuade strategies that involve heavily on one specific unit. Notable strategies that many have lamented before would be the Volks spam, Rifle Terminators, Cheesetruppen, and the late double snipers meta. This should by no means increase the reinforcement, upgrade, skill cost by any means, solely the first purchasing price, thus still allowing these strategies to be maintained if necessary, but with a whole new level of difficulty.

For example, Mr. Soviet started with the purchase of one conscript squad. This first purchase is 240 manpower. Afterwards, he faces the choice of either setting up T1/T2 to purchase a weapon team or recruit a second conscript squad. At this point, a price increase will reflect encouragement for army diversity, so let's just say there is a 20% increase in pricing for the new conscript squad, lifting 240 manpower to 288. The third one will build on that price to exponentially raise the price to 345 manpower. Mr. Soviet may be able to afford the first two squad, but by the third one, he may find it more effective to invest in the T1/T2 building and churn out a much cheaper Maxim crew. Hopefully, this example will help provide some idea of what the pricing system can do to deter the issue of spamming.

This influence of pricing can extend to the call-in meta as well, avoiding M10 Wolverine spam and other armor varieties that are freely brought in without much challenge.

However, I am fully aware that the game is too complex to just say the same can go for other factions. US, for example, don't have any other builds from the start of the game to vote for something else. Thus, this would either scrap the system, or a new pricing of the US riflemen. One that I could from the top of my head is retaining the same reinforcing price while dropping the purchasing price, thus still reinforcing clever maintenance of their survival while not crippling the faction's early game.

A lot is needed to take into consideration, but many of them do come with a viable solution. Many argue over the unit costs quite a lot, and I feel this may be a solution. Now, discuss!

IMO, this is not a good solution. It is not a very elegant way of creating unit diversity, it would feel to me to be a cheap and lazy fix of the real problems, that i certainly would probably find frustrating.

The solution to encouraging unit diversity, is to give all units proper, well defined rolls (that are not very broad), cost and time them accordingly and make them effective in those rolls.

For example, AT guns fit those requirements well, and as such they are effective and useful units in pretty much any army, however, against heavy indirect fire, you may choose to exclude them in favor of a tank destroyer. This is good, the unit has a purpose, but it also involves a strategic decision to be made to hold up its effectiveness. Great.

I find the real problem stems from these units that have too wide a roll. The endlessly repeated example is volks, with their early game timing, cheap pricing, and anti infantry and anti tank rolls. Its just too much, you will not promote diversity when one unit can perform so many rolls and on its own counter such a wide variety of units.

Another example in my opinion is rocket artillery, its always slated as a blob counter, but really, in most games i play, its roll is to melt any infantry, blobbed or not, even individual high value squads (randomly wiping them every now and then as well) completely invalidate team weapons and destroy defensive positions. All arty tbh can be used this way, some is just more RNG than others.

This is a problem when it comes to unit diversity, you see rocket artillery in most games, its not really a super late game rarity in that case. And once it hits the field MANY units become bad choices, as this one unit counters them so thoroughly. So again unit diversity punished due to one unit with such a wide scope of effectiveness.

Give all units rolls, make those rolls appropriate, make the units effective in those rolls. This organically punishes spamming tactics, as their army comp is left with holes that can be effectively punished.

Thats horrible idea plus it was already suggested, it was equally horrible back then.

I don't even need to explain why its horrible, but I will in a single sentence:

It kills at least 50% of all strats and completely takes away USF and soviets from the game.

The UKF was originally designed in that way, in a sense. Toms had a high rebuild cost and were vulnerable in open areas. So you had to use everything in your inventory to survive the early game.


Now they are immortal exterminators with a high potential for blobbing. They cost less than grens to reinf, what the hell.

I am sure sorryWTFisthis is baiting, especially with UKF being right now the top choice of every Allies player, especially those considering ESL.

Biased much? :/

The UKF was originally designed in that way, in a sense. Toms had a high rebuild cost and were vulnerable in open areas. So you had to use everything in your inventory to survive the early game.


Now they are immortal exterminators with a high potential for blobbing. They cost less than grens to reinf, what the hell.

I think you should stop trolling man. Look at the win rate for top players in UKF, the amount of griping on the forums about them, and the number of people who play them in competitive tourneys, then come back and tell us all what exactly in gods creation is over powered about the Brits.

I am sure sorryWTFisthis is baiting, especially with UKF being right now the top choice of every Allies player, especially those considering ESL.

Biased much? :/

UKF, top choice? Dude, I don't think anyone even played UKF in the ESL tourney.

UKF, top choice? Dude, I don't think anyone even played UKF in the ESL tourney.

That's the joke.gif

TBH it was funny but stay on topic.
2 post invis (one for quoting)

It's a good idea, but there is a much more sneaky way to do it.

Instead of increasing the base price you increase the upkeep cost, possibly beyond a certain number. 2 MG42s, all is well and normal, buy a third and the upkeep of all three rises.

US Infantry being necessary would just have a higher cap before increased upkeep kicks into play.

Alternatively you could balance the roles between bayonets and support. 3MG42s is fine as long as you field 3 or more bayonets, 3 Rocket arty vehicles fine as long as balanced by three or more tanks. One tank and 3 Calliopes means you'll pay the upkeep fine.

Etc.

It's a good idea, but there is a much more sneaky way to do it.

Instead of increasing the base price you increase the upkeep cost, possibly beyond a certain number. 2 MG42s, all is well and normal, buy a third and the upkeep of all three rises [...]
Etc.

Interesting idea. So are you saying that your manpower income will decrease? Or that duplicate units have a higher pop cap? And is this only for infantry or will it affect vehicles too?

And what happens if you pick up a team weapon? If you steal your opponents MG and now have 3, will you have a sudden and unexpected decrease in income?

Arbitrarily punishing builds for having more than x number of units is a terrible idea.

We go from multiple viable soviet builds such as heavy T2, heavy cons in t3, etc, into a handful of each unit in a singular good build.

Not in my coh 2, no thanks. Keep unit limits on heavies where they deserve to be.

The idea is bad due to factions not been designed to be played on the same way.

"Interesting idea. So are you saying that your manpower income will decrease? Or that duplicate units have a higher pop cap? And is this only for infantry or will it affect vehicles too? "

Manpower income would decrease, as it does now but in a less linear fashion. Say you had 'too many' Pioneers( whatever that number happens to be) on the field at the same time. Instead of paying 10 manpower per minute it might increase to 12, 14 or whatever depending upon the level of spam.

More likely though bayonets, whether in tank or infantry form, would be immune or at least have a reasonable ceiling however support units like engineers, MGs, mortars, rocket arty and the like would be penalised. So you couldn't field a huge army entirely of Sappers and Vickers without taking a future manpower income hit.

Captured weapons and vehicles of course wouldn't count.

It wouldn't cut out cheesy sniper / MG spamming but it would give it a cost.

It isn't entirely unrealistic, a company would have a hard limit to the number of x available before it had to start borrowing them from elsewhere. Most of the spams complained about are from support units which doctrinally are there to support infantry not replace them. Being crap and losing them shouldn't be penalised but spamming nothing but Maxims or snipers could be.