Reducing Soviet building cost and time

Soviets building only two buildings is not that big a problem; hell, the Amis did so too in COH1 most of the time, as many matches ended with them building T1 and T3 only.

The thing is, the American buildings were just more versatile and powerful, as well as (important) much faster to build. One could say all the upgrades for riflemen were crammed into the Soviet HQ, but it's pretty clear that conscripts are worse in a fight than rifles, so you end up with a weaker early game unless you build T1 or T2 fast. The thing is, they take ages to build, distrupting your map control, and every unit in them is fairly easily counterable by what the Germans have in T1 with the possible exception of the sniper.

Then the two factions have a similar model when it comes to elite infantry, but I can tell ya I much prefered rangers (medium AT with powerful AI) and airborne (Light AI with powerful AT) to guards (medium AI with light AT) and shock troops (powerful AI and nothing else). And, the fact that T3 and T4 for Soviets costs so much in one go doesn't help. The American supply yard helped to reduce costs there and it so accessing T3 for them was pretty doable, as well as getting T4 later when it became necessary. I have almost never seen a Soviet player get T3, then tech to T4 even in an extended game (and just never vice-versa). It's just too expensive and time consuming to ever consider.

IMO, build time for Soviet buildings across the board need reduction. Screw the ''it costs more, it needs more time to build'' nonsense as it simply favors Ostheer for no good reason. And/or, maybe decrease the cost of either high-tier building once one of them is built. Say, by 100/30, so backtechiing ends up being a reasonable solution instead of complete madness.

Lower fuel cost would require higher MP cost, though.

There is some room for adjustment there, from the total of 130 MP extra Ost spends vs the 80 Fuel (Not counting the +50 start fuel) that Sov spends extra.

It aint much, but maybe that can be leveraged into equalising T1 build time and cost a little bit.
The problem being though that fuel is especially precious at early game.
But perhaps it can be more strstegically spread throughout tiers.

And it assumes the game will go to t4 with all buildings on both factions, which is ofc most odten not the case, especially in 1v1., or else that extra slack soesnt really exist to redistribute.

IMO, build time for Soviet buildings across the board need reduction. Screw the ''it costs more, it needs more time to build'' nonsense as it simply favors Ostheer for no good reason. And/or, maybe decrease the cost of either high-tier building once one of them is built. Say, by 100/30, so backtechiing ends up being a reasonable solution instead of complete madness.

I think you maynwant to look at the tier costa and buildtimes I compiled earlier in this thread.

"Here are the results. Not perfect by any means, but alteast a general indicator until someone wiser can provide sure figures. Ost buildtimes are Battlephase and building, combined:

T1: 20s (80/10) --- 43s (200/40)
T2: 56s (320/40) --- 52s (240/50)
T3: 67s (360/60) --- 80s (275/90)
T4: 80s (360/80) --- 80s (275/90)
Total: 223s (1120/190) --- 255s (990/270)
Sov +50 Fuel at start, not included in above."

I don't know if it is fair including the battle phase time. Sure it does take time, but it doesn't tie up a unit to do so. Having one unit out capping or (laying mines!) for an extra min actually makes a real difference.

I don't know if it is fair including the battle phase time. Sure it does take time, but it doesn't tie up a unit to do so. Having one unit out capping or (laying mines!) for an extra min actually makes a real difference.

Its a difference, yes.

But its not a difference in cost or buildtimes.

I cant leave out the Battlephase buildtimes as you suggest would be fair, or the results would be ridiculous. Whether or not it takes a Pio to build, that is how long it takes to get the tier out and functioning.

I don't know if it is fair including the battle phase time. Sure it does take time, but it doesn't tie up a unit to do so. Having one unit out capping or (laying mines!) for an extra min actually makes a real difference.

Exactly. Your pioneer is out doing stuff while battle phase is being researched; your engineer, on the other hand is sitting in base doing nothing while building for a minute or more. This is also why building a structure without having at least one or two conscripts first is very, very risky, as you completely surrender map control to your opponent.

Sure. But that doesnt change the buildtime or cost.

Something to consider is that soviet buildings cost less but soviets have higher upgrade costs then German counterpart abilites, 500 mp/50 fuel for healing, molotoves, and at nades while just 150 mp and 60 muni for healing with pfausts not needing an upgrade and rifle nades part of battle phase 1. Which brings the costs to 1490/330 for soviets and 1270/190 for germans subtract 50 fuel starting fuel for soviets and 20 for Germans and you get 280 fuel for soviets and 170 for germans.

Tbh I consider having to upgrade Molotov/ATNade on Cons, is a result of them having free Oorah and Merge.

They could swap them frankly so you have to buy those instead, for all I care.

Sure. But that doesnt change the buildtime or cost.

But it does limit available builds for the Soviets. And they need all the help they can get on that front. Make the battle phase research also take a bit less time if that's the concern, but as it is Soviet build time and costs are just too much.

Make the battle phase research also take a bit less time if that's the concern, but as it is Soviet build time and costs are just too much.

Dude, did you actually look at the timings and costs I posted?
I mean really, did you?

Sure. But that doesnt change the buildtime or cost.

It certainly doesn't affect the cost, but I am not always concerned about how long something takes. I am certainly concerned with the opportunity cost associated with it.

In this specific case, I am really not sure how to consider it all to try and say that things are balanced or are not. But I will say that there is an advantage to not having to use your pioneer to start teching.

To illustrate by exaggeration, let's just say it took 10 min build the new and amazing tier 5. One side has to use 3 squads to build it while the other side doesn't have to use any squads.

Would you agree that the side that doesn't have to use a squad to build it has the advantage?

Playing as Soviets, if I had to research a tech before building and then got a build time of the building (meaning engineers occupied) that was the research time less to build, I would be pleased indeed!


For example:

Lets take a look at T1: 43s (200/40)

If I had to research T1 at 200/40 cost for 35 seconds. Then to actually get units I had to build the building for free with a 8 second build time. I would say that is better (as in it makes the Soviets more powerful than they currently are).

That is essentially the design that the Germans have now. I am not saying the Soviets should (or should not!) get that. But just saying that is makes them "better".

nullists numbers are very close. the actual numbers are 160s for t1 and 196s for t2. this is then divided by the number of engineer entities. so a full squad of engineers builds them in 40s and 50s respectively.

also, relic considers fuel to be equivalent to 5 mp, so the building costs in mp are 200+5*40=400 for t1 and 240+5*50=490 for t2. so the build time is .4 seconds per mp. this holds true for german buildings as well, though im not sure about research times.

Soviets building only two buildings is not that big a problem; hell, the Amis did so too in COH1 most of the time, as many matches ended with them building T1 and T3 only.

The thing is, the American buildings were just more versatile and powerful, as well as (important) much faster to build. One could say all the upgrades for riflemen were crammed into the Soviet HQ, but it's pretty clear that conscripts are worse in a fight than rifles, so you end up with a weaker early game unless you build T1 or T2 fast. The thing is, they take ages to build, distrupting your map control, and every unit in them is fairly easily counterable by what the Germans have in T1 with the possible exception of the sniper.

Then the two factions have a similar model when it comes to elite infantry, but I can tell ya I much prefered rangers (medium AT with powerful AI) and airborne (Light AI with powerful AT) to guards (medium AI with light AT) and shock troops (powerful AI and nothing else). And, the fact that T3 and T4 for Soviets costs so much in one go doesn't help. The American supply yard helped to reduce costs there and it so accessing T3 for them was pretty doable, as well as getting T4 later when it became necessary. I have almost never seen a Soviet player get T3, then tech to T4 even in an extended game (and just never vice-versa). It's just too expensive and time consuming to ever consider.

IMO, build time for Soviet buildings across the board need reduction. Screw the ''it costs more, it needs more time to build'' nonsense as it simply favors Ostheer for no good reason. And/or, maybe decrease the cost of either high-tier building once one of them is built. Say, by 100/30, so backtechiing ends up being a reasonable solution instead of complete madness.

CoH and CoH 2 are different games.

The Problem with soviets is, that you usually can't afford more thant two buildings which results in losing a ton of flexibility.

Exactly. Your pioneer is out doing stuff while battle phase is being researched; your engineer, on the other hand is sitting in base doing nothing while building for a minute or more. This is also why building a structure without having at least one or two conscripts first is very, very risky, as you completely surrender map control to your opponent.

Yup, this cannot be discounted. It just means it's completely misleading to directly compare "building time" for the two factions. They are completely different and not directly comparable.

I think one possibility is to give Combat Engineers a build speed buff in the first 60 seconds of the game. This way you could go for a strategy with fewer Conscripts if you want to.

So to apply these to OPs suggestion of a 50% discount on backteching for Sov, in comparison to Osts linear path to have same total tiers, and assuming if cost is halved, so is buildtime:

T2 to T1: 76s (400/50) --- 73.5s (340/70)
T1+T3 to T2: 143s (760/110) --- 149s (595/155)
T2+T3 to T1: 143s (760/110) --- 153.5s (515/160)

So "cheap backtech" seems to be an easy method to give soviets a bit more flexibility without screwing up balance completely.

The buildtimes and costs themselves are validly comparable. What false conclusions someone derives from those is their own issue, and not because of the comparison being invalid.

The comparison doesnt "discount" onfield times for constructing units, it simply isnt comparing onfield times.
Those too can be easily compared, if you wish to take the time and caclulate and present them yourself.

These are the buildtimes and costs of the tiers, nothing more, nothing less.

So "cheap backtech" seems to be an easy method to give soviets a bit more flexibility without screwing up balance completely.

They seem to show that with your backtech proposal, the total buildtime for these total tiers, when backteching, would draw closer together, but there is also substantial resource savings for Sov also as a result, compared to now.

T2 to T1: 76s (400/50) --- 73.5s (340/70)
Here Sov saves 100 MP and 20 Fuel, and has T1+T2 21.5s earlier, compared to now.

T1+T3 to T2: 143s (760/110) --- 149s (595/155)
Here Sov saves 120 MP and 25 Fuel, and has T1+T2+T3 26s earlier compared to now.

T2+T3 to T1: 143s (760/110) --- 153.5s (515/160)
Here Sov saves 200 MP and 20 Fuel, and has T1+T2+T3 21.5s earlier compared to now.

Those are some pretty huge changes, both from a time and a resource perspective, compared to now.

Can the game really handle Sov having T2+T1, 21.5s sooner and 100 MP 20 Fuel cheaper than now?

I dont know.

Those are some pretty huge changes, both from a time and a resource perspective, compared to now.

Can the game really handle Sov having T2+T1, 21.5s sooner and 100 MP 20 Fuel cheaper than now?

I dont know.

Yes, I see. But if we add those 100 mp and 20 fuel somwhere to the sov techtree?
We'd have the tech times pretty much evend out.