Login

russian armor

increased manpower on heavy tanks is a problem

12 Sep 2013, 18:33 PM
#21
avatar of link0

Posts: 337

I don't think it's a big deal. It's just a small nerf to T1-T2 builds that stall for 5CP.
12 Sep 2013, 19:55 PM
#22
avatar of BartonPL

Posts: 2807 | Subs: 6

try to compare CoH1 and CoH2 Fuel incomes... in CoH1 you usually had like 20 (no OPs) and in CoH2 you got usually 25-30 (if you captured half map) so IMO it's normal that Fuel costs has been reduced and MP increased. I'm so happy from Fuel changes on Tiger and on IS-2, at least i don't have to wait 2 hours to get my first good doctrinal tank unit.

I also hope they gonna change unit costs mostly for T-70, P4, SU-85 and all infantry units
13 Sep 2013, 19:58 PM
#23
avatar of Jinseual

Posts: 598

it's better to have lower fuel costs on tanks because of higher fuel income? that is just asking for tank spam. i think before the patch players were able to obtain heavy tanks reasonably quick. still whether or not the price change on heavy tanks like is2 and tiger is a good idea, the panther and brummbar price is, bad they are not heavy tanks, despite what relic thinks.
13 Sep 2013, 20:59 PM
#24
avatar of Blovski

Posts: 480

Makes going for Panthers, IS-2s and Brummbars in 1v1 so much more plausible. In bigger games I accept it probably removes a tactical dimension just a little.
13 Sep 2013, 21:02 PM
#25
avatar of BartonPL

Posts: 2807 | Subs: 6

it's better to have lower fuel costs on tanks because of higher fuel income? that is just asking for tank spam. i think before the patch players were able to obtain heavy tanks reasonably quick. still whether or not the price change on heavy tanks like is2 and tiger is a good idea, the panther and brummbar price is, bad they are not heavy tanks, despite what relic thinks.


dude, before this patch you were overpaying for your tanks, only P4 seemed viable and Panther (but panther price was totally imbalanced) and soviets had only SU-85 as a viable counter to P4 spam. Remember price for IS-2? 300 Fuel and tank was useless? also 290 Fuel for IS-152 that could be also easily raped
13 Sep 2013, 23:15 PM
#26
avatar of Jinseual

Posts: 598



dude, before this patch you were overpaying for your tanks, only P4 seemed viable and Panther (but panther price was totally imbalanced) and soviets had only SU-85 as a viable counter to P4 spam. Remember price for IS-2? 300 Fuel and tank was useless? also 290 Fuel for IS-152 that could be also easily raped


if being useless at the high price is a problem, then buff the tanks. the is2 received a price reduction + a heavy damage buff. the isu152 can be easily defeated if a tank is able to flank it, but keep in mind that the isu152 act as an anti everything because of it's long range and huge damage, and it's meant to be behind the lines. if the enemy cannot attack the isu152 then the tank will ruin everything the germans have.
15 Sep 2013, 03:18 AM
#27
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

With either scenario people are suggesting waiting around to get enough resources to build a tank. Whether it this resource is fuel or manpower is less important than whether or not this resource is reliable late in the game. By reducing fuel cost on heavy tanks, fielding them has become more strategic. Lighter vehicles by proxy become much more viable because 200+ fuel isn't necessarily needed to be stockpiled at all times. Furthermore, vehicle and light tank play drives down the constant need for infantry reinforcements (less squishy units running around) and therefore less tied-up manpower.

Fuel is a resource that can be stockpiled throughout the game, and the more fuel units costs, the more territory needs to be held for longer periods of time. If a player is cut off or pushed back, they must rely on the fuel in their reserves to tech up or field heavy tanks, as waiting for it to trickle in can be prohibitively slow. The amount that's in your reserves is a reflection of how much control of the map you've held all game.

Manpower is a resource that is constantly in flux that is principally only held in reserve due to population cap, or through sensible gameplay promoting unit preservation. If a player is pushed back into their base or loses squads, their manpower income remains steady (or reverts to the higher rate of income due to a relaxed pop cap). The more you can float or the more dire you're in need of manpower is a reflection on how much of the map you're actively contesting.

In short: these changes put fielding tanks more in line with total map control and game play throughout a match rather than just simply fuel income.
16 Sep 2013, 08:45 AM
#28
avatar of Tivook

Posts: 89

I think it was a stupid change. I would prefer we revert back to the way it was pre-patch.
16 Sep 2013, 09:38 AM
#29
avatar of SgtBulldog

Posts: 688

I don't like it either and it certainly hasn't done any good to tank spam.

In COH2 you can't limit the enemies fuel like you could in COH1. It's pretty redundant to fight over fuel now since players can just build fuel caches on strat points anyway (plus the opel).

End game has become like American football: two blocks of armour rammed into eachother and then someone drops the ball. Where's the finesse and tactics?
16 Sep 2013, 10:30 AM
#30
avatar of LeMazarin

Posts: 88

I like this change cause it allows you to go T3 and still get a tiger/elephant out as Osteehr and go for T3/T4 and still afford to buy a IS2 late game as Soviet.

Before it seemed you had to stay low tier whole gane to afford an IS2/Tiger/... in time that the tank still could have impact
21 Sep 2013, 23:07 PM
#31
avatar of Jinseual

Posts: 598

the panther and brummbar prices are sooo ridiculous, german tanks are supposed to be the kind of vehicles that are hard to get and very good, but now the panther is both easy to get and very good. the fuel prices need to be increased!

600 mp and 130 fuel panthers did not improve 1v1s but imbalanced 4v4s! comon relic!
21 Sep 2013, 23:42 PM
#32
avatar of =][=mmortal

Posts: 215

you cant balance off 4v4s for the millionth time. They would have to implement cost scaling based on the number of players in a match: either resources would decrease, or costs increase proportionately if that is your issue.

I dont play large team games specifically because its just specialist unit spam (snipers, mg42s, su85s, etc) en bulk
21 Sep 2013, 23:55 PM
#33
avatar of undostrescuatro

Posts: 525

and the t34/86 is more expensive than the IS-2
22 Sep 2013, 01:31 AM
#34
avatar of Jinseual

Posts: 598

you cant balance off 4v4s for the millionth time. They would have to implement cost scaling based on the number of players in a match: either resources would decrease, or costs increase proportionately if that is your issue.

I dont play large team games specifically because its just specialist unit spam (snipers, mg42s, su85s, etc) en bulk


even in 1v1s it's still imbalanced. i already explain what the tank should be like in 1v1s in my first post. the player has to save fuel at the risk of being overrun to early by tanks. risk and rewards and the current price doesn't allow that. did you read my last sentence from my previous post?

"600 mp and 130 fuel panthers did not improve 1v1s but imbalanced 4v4s! comon relic!"

so it doesn't help you to bring up 1v1s because it doesn't help 1v1s and just worsens 4v4s. get it?
22 Sep 2013, 03:20 AM
#35
avatar of Con!

Posts: 299

what is this talk of now you have to have less units if you want to build panther/ brumbar? the difference is 160 manpower, last I checked no unit in the game cost less then 200 and that is just pio's. In comparison the fuel was dropped by 35 and 30 giving you about a minute faster tank, fuel wise (assuming you have at least half the map that is). Sure is it going to take you slightly longer to save up the manpower, yes.

If your saving for t4 as a competitive build vs. tight builds and good players you need fuel way more then manpower and the the extra manpower you pay is less then what you should be bringing in in a minute. Does this make panthers viable in 1v1 vs. good players with good builds probably not but it puts it more in the right direction I think.
22 Sep 2013, 15:19 PM
#36
avatar of JohanSchwarz

Posts: 409

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Sep 2013, 03:20 AMCon!
what is this talk of now you have to have less units if you want to build panther/ brumbar? the difference is 160 manpower, last I checked no unit in the game cost less then 200 and that is just pio's. In comparison the fuel was dropped by 35 and 30 giving you about a minute faster tank, fuel wise (assuming you have at least half the map that is). Sure is it going to take you slightly longer to save up the manpower, yes.

If your saving for t4 as a competitive build vs. tight builds and good players you need fuel way more then manpower and the the extra manpower you pay is less then what you should be bringing in in a minute. Does this make panthers viable in 1v1 vs. good players with good builds probably not but it puts it more in the right direction I think.


You're forgetting about reinforcement costs for existing infantry. Every additional second I have to wait for floating 600 manpower is another second that my wounded squad does not reinforce and just sits at base.

It's not too bad for the first Panther/Brummbar if you're rushing it, but it becomes a huge problem late game since you are never going to be floating 6-700 manpower in a close game.
0 user is browsing this thread:

Livestreams

United States 151
United States 16
unknown 7

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

863 users are online: 863 guests
0 post in the last 24h
6 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49125
Welcome our newest member, Xclusive
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM