Confused about call-in units

I would like to know what is the rationale behind making some commander units call-ins while others are simply unlocked at 0 CPs behind certain tiers.
Does it not make sense to lock all units behind tiers?
What if pathfinders were locked behind t0, allowing for more variety for USF openings?
What if the greyhound was in t1? Poeple may actually play recon commander?
Stormtroopers in t2?
Panzerfusiliers/jagers behind med truck or mechanized
etc

Imagine being able to actually plan your BOs, instead of floating req and waiting for CPs? Would that really be so horrible?

a decision was made to lock T34/85 behind a tier, yet MC4 Shermans were not
EZ8 locked behind tier, the pershing was not

If you break it down, CPs are time, which is not really a currency, because it is not something you can earn or spend. Just because you spent currency on a bunch of units that don’t require teaching currency that can soft-counter both AI and AT does not mean you should be rewarded with spamming tanks with the hoarded fuel.

P.S
Why do i need to pick a commander to build a stock unit (KT). I realize that I should have picked a commander this late in the game, but I should have the option to counter-pick a commander at any point in the game.

well infiltration units like the stormtropers can spawn from houses so I don't really mind having them in cps.

All doctrinal medium armor probably should be locked behind tech, considering the upcoming changes to lend lease might as well make it locked behind t4.

As for call in infantry this in general would lead to awkward infantry timings like soviet shocks and guards, lock them behind t1 or t2? or in HQ and unlocked after teching?, means they come too early and are too powerful if you lock them behind more tech they come later then 2cps so not worth it.

Or look at the panzerfusiliers locking them behind tech like med truck would force you to give up panzer 2 opening, you could have them at base HQ and have them unlocked once one of the trucks was deployed, but this wouldn't really change the 3 volks opening.

And cps are more than just time, they are earned faster trough combat or teching so a really aggressive early game will unlock those cps faster.

In the end it would take some serious overhaul of the game to remove all call ins not really worth it in my opinion.

If you break it down, CPs are time, which is not really a currency, because it is not something you can earn or spend. Just because you spent currency on a bunch of units that don’t require teaching currency that can soft-counter both AI and AT does not mean you should be rewarded with spamming tanks with the hoarded fuel.

I disagree with out analysis of time, thinking of it as a currency doesn't make much sense but it is a very important element of the game. How ever I do think needing to tech should be a thing. At this point the EZ8 and M4C spam call ins on larger games (3v3 or 4v4) it can be utter poison.

P.S
Why do i need to pick a commander to build a stock unit (KT). I realize that I should have picked a commander this late in the game, but I should have the option to counter-pick a commander at any point in the game.

I tend to agree with this, and it is eternally annoying that I have to be forced to pick a commander in order to get a non-doctrinal unit.

I also agree with previous comments, some kind of overhaul into the system needs to be thought about I think.

As for call in infantry this in general would lead to awkward infantry timings like soviet shocks and guards, lock them behind t1 or t2? or in HQ and unlocked after teching?, means they come too early and are too powerful if you lock them behind more tech they come later then 2cps so not worth it.

Easily fixed with side teching a la bofors/AEC

Or look at the panzerfusiliers locking them behind tech like med truck would force you to give up panzer 2 opening, you could have them at base HQ and have them unlocked once one of the trucks was deployed, but this wouldn't really change the 3 volks opening.

You can unlock panzerfussiliers after calling in the first truck, if you think deploying the truck is too late

And cps are more than just time, they are earned faster trough combat or teching so a really aggressive early game will unlock those cps faster.

being aggressive does not mean having more deaths/kills or capturing of points. CP reliance breaks the BO rhythm, needlessly.
Consider for a minute that all units are unlocked via CPs vs a game where all units are unlocked via teching. Which would you play? Then rationalize purpose of CPs and its nature. A bunch of random things that you cannot control. Why make capturing, combat, and teching generate CPs? Why not healing and repairing and using abilities? (I'm not sure which do actually give you CPs, but the fact that it the list is vague is part of the point) Sounds like a band-aid solution to a problem that could have been fixed more elegantly.

I disagree with out analysis of time, thinking of it as a currency doesn't make much sense but it is a very important element of the game. How ever I do think needing to tech should be a thing. At this point the EZ8 and M4C spam call ins on larger games (3v3 or 4v4) it can be utter poison.


I tend to agree with this, and it is eternally annoying that I have to be forced to pick a commander in order to get a non-doctrinal unit.

It is more comparable to time than anything else i can think of. Even the most skillful players have difficulty playing a CP-denying strategy. What is the point of having something that cannot be controlled, denied, earned, spent and something increases almost unilaterally for both players?
It is not time literally;It represents the progression of the overall battle. But why is it important for call-in units?

It is more comparable to time than anything else i can think of. Even the most skillful players have difficulty playing a CP-denying strategy. What is the point of having something that cannot be controlled, denied, earned, spent and something increases almost unilaterally for both players?
It is not time literally;It represents the progression of the overall battle. But why is it important for call-in units?

Players decision and performance has a major impact on CP in 1vs1 games. The impact becomes less in higher modes where the inflated economy makes teching allot faster.

The most annoying thing to me is when I kill for example a Command Panther or a Tiger or a Pershing after fighting it for 10 minutes, my opponent can instantly pop another one into battle because he has enough resources and doesn't need to 'build' the unit. Meanwhile I am stil struggling to come back from my mammoth effort of killing it..

One reason to have stuff tied to tech and other tied to CPs is that exactly that you are on two different counters and as a player you have to make the strategic decision which route to take.

For example, let's look at the Pershing: You do have the option to built the Major first and maybe get out a Sherman before you get the Pershing. However, the additional fuel spend on the tech might delay your Pershing, so a decision needs to be made which involves some skill.

Or, M4C: With this commander you could actually play without ever teching. If you don't, you could potentially have tons of fuel which you can dump into Shermans eventually. However, it also means that you don't have access to many units. So, decisions...

The tricky thing though is that you have to balance the different options to not make one of them always better than the rest.

So you basically want everything tied to tech and nothing to CPs?

You probably could make that work, but you'd likely have to add a lot of side teching to get the timing right and I don't think this would make things easier and would require a lot of adjustments.

What I would prefer is to make at least some units available to be build from T0 after a certain CP value is hit. The advantage is that you can add a build time (increasing the opportunity cost of the unit) instead of the instant call-in.

Or, M4C: With this commander you could actually play without ever teching. If you don't, you could potentially have tons of fuel which you can dump into Shermans eventually. However, it also means that you don't have access to many units. So, decisions...

This is not valid for larger game modes, the player can just build t1/t0 units and support an ally until said player has the CP required, then spam the poisen.

I can see your point in 1v1 or 2v2 even but it is utter stupidity in larger game modes. It's almost like the game needs two different commanders, one for 3v3+ and one for 1v1 and 2v2.

I can see your point in 1v1 or 2v2 even but it is utter stupidity in larger game modes. It's almost like the game needs two different commanders, one for 3v3+ and one for 1v1 and 2v2.

Yeah, well, in this section I was mostly talking why - from a conceptual point of view - one might implement the CP-based call-ins at all vs. tying everything to tech. Like, it actually adds another layer of strategic decisions. Not saying it is good or bad.

And while I was talking from a 1v1 perspective, indeed, balancing this vs. teching for all game modes, faction matchups and maps as I mentioned is tricky.

I guess, ideally it should be either "situationally good" or "high risk - high reward", and surely not the go-to strategy that always works, regardless...

The main issue with call ins is being able to skip about 100 fuel of tech, to get a tank that is probably better than what you can build anyway. That is probably about 4 minutes of cutting your opponent off (from 15-20 minute game when the medium call ins come online), a pretty sizeable lead, instantly erased.

I'd say build times are secondary. You can see the direction the lend lease is going though, with call in timer reduced when T4 is built.

One additional point. Way, way back in the original pre-release beta (I was part of it), I believe Relic's original intent was to make all call-ins inferior to similar units that you could build from tech'ing.

Somewhere along the way they got away from it and call-ins were usually better, sometimes significantly so. With that implementation, there was no risk/reward dynamic to call-ins anymore.

If that had been preserved, I think it would have saved a lot of time and effort with balance.

One additional point. Way, way back in the original pre-release beta (I was part of it), I believe Relic's original intent was to make all call-ins inferior to similar units that you could build from tech'ing.

Somewhere along the way they got away from it and call-ins were usually better, sometimes significantly so. With that implementation, there was no risk/reward dynamic to call-ins anymore.

If that had been preserved, I think it would have saved a lot of time and effort with balance.

I guess that the approach you described doesn't sell commanders very well.

I guess that the approach you described doesn't sell commanders very well.

Now we get to the truth of the mater. Likely why the community team has their scope set so low too, Relic afraid they will impact sales.