Make Call-In Armor Cheaper?
Posts: 187
I've been trying to make use of some of the Soviet call-in tanks to spice up the late game a little and have been having trouble doing so. I assume this is a common problem for Soviet players, hence the heavy SU-85 meta. I understand that if you want to make a play for a "super tank", there's a trade-off where you are going to be out-armored during the mid-game...unless of course, your opponent is going for a similar strategy.
My problem is that you pretty much have to skip teching to T4 in order to be able to afford the call-in armor before it's too late. There's already enough risk in exposing yourself during the mid-game using a strat like this, but added to that is the risk of having your call in destroyed and not having any tech to fall back on. All of this is making the 1v1 late game a little stale and predictable.
A few ideas:
1. Make call-ins cheaper. The high cost of these is likely a result in the need to offset the savings you get from not having to tech in order to get them. This makes sense as it would render T4 useless if it didn't. The problem is that if you lose the unit, you don't have anything to show for your investment. When you lose a unit from your T4 building, you at least have your tech investment to fall back on. Now this isn't to say that there shouldn't be any additional charge for the convenience/cost savings of not being required to tech, but it shouldn't have the full teching cost padded in either (which based on the cost/effectiveness of call in units, it appears to be).
2. Discount call-ins based on tech. If a player already has T4 built wants to call in an IS-2, discount the fuel cost for the call-in. In other words, don't pad the call-in cost with cost for the tech that he's already paid for..just add a reasonable premium to the unit cost for the convenience of having it available instantly and not having to build it , say 15-20%.
3. Hybrid solution. Require tech to make call-in, and make call-in cheaper.
Though all of my examples are for the Soviets, I do think that these kinds of changes would need to be made to both factions. I'm just looking for ways to open up the late game in 1v1s. I think making strategies that revolve around armor call-ins less risky is a way to do that.
Posts: 252
Posts: 598
your second idea, i disagree with, if he spent his fuel on the t4 then he should expect to use the units out of it, if he has problems calling in other tanks then he should try more unit preservation.
Posts: 187
Or simply make armor stronger
It's more than that though...it's a matter of balancing the costs of armor built from your buildings to the cost of armor that you call in.
Let's pretend that the SU-85 could be built from T4 or called in. Using the following fuel/manpower costs (which may or may not be entirely accurate).
T1 building (prerequisite) - 200/40
T4 building - 275/90
SU-85 (built) - 320/115
SU-85 (called in) - 795/245
For the purposes of this argument, my made up call-in cost is simply the sum of all the fuel/mp costs it would require if you'd actually tech'd up and built it from T4. Using this "pricing model" it would never make any sense to call in an SU-85. In practice, I don't think the comparative manpower cost of a call-in is this extreme, but I'd bet that if an SU-85 call-in existed, based on its effectiveness compared to other call-ins in the game, its fuel cost would be somewhere in the range of 245.
Since no vehicle is available to be built from a building and as a call-in, it's hard to analyze as you're trying to compare apples to oranges (or SU-85s to IS2s).
Posts: 954
Posts: 480
Posts: 252
The KV-8 is brilliant, the ISU-152 and Elephant are worth the cost, the IS-2 and Tiger need work, T-34/85s are a really good compliment to T3/4...
this
Posts: 255
Posts: 954
Posts: 255
Posts: 954
That is not true i dont think UGBEAR, it may need more testing but in the rare occasions i call one of those bad boys in (mianly in 2v2s and up, if they go 1v1 with a p4 they tend to win and after the p4 inf nerf and the 85 inf buff they are pretty good atkilling inf too
the 2 package means your opponent will have at least 2 PZIV vs 2 T-34/85, and, you are arrive pretty late for that costs and CP
Posts: 255
Posts: 954
Which is why i suggested making them a single call in. if there were the case though i can see it becomming the best comander imo, 120 mm mortar, go t1/t2 to t4, su 85 first t34 /85 secound. very very powerfull
and rise the Pen of both T-34/76 and T-34/85, the 110 pen of T-34/85 can do no harm to anything bigger than a PZIV..... ok, don't want to mention the POS-34
Posts: 480
the 2 package means your opponent will have at least 2 PZIV vs 2 T-34/85, and, you are arrive pretty late for that costs and CP
The nature of the CP timing is that you get the T34/85s when you already have another vehicle (SU-85 or a couple of T-34/76s) to support them. The 85s probably work best supporting an SU-85 because they can ram anything big and expensive, stop infantry and discourage flanks but they're not bad with cheaper 76s to ram in front of them. I'm not too concerned by their viability, given Aimstrong was kind of reliant on them cropping up in the TFN tournament.
Livestreams
31 | |||||
19 | |||||
17 | |||||
1 | |||||
295 | |||||
202 | |||||
5 | |||||
3 | |||||
3 | |||||
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.589215.733+4
- 4.1099614.642-1
- 5.280162.633+8
- 6.305114.728+1
- 7.916405.693-2
- 8.271108.715+22
- 9.721440.621+3
- 10.1041674.607-2
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, Mclatc16
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM