Reducing Soviet building cost and time

As many before have stated, the problem with the soviet faction in 1v1 is, that you have to choose between t1 / t2 and later between t3 / t4.

This can often bring you in a very uncomfortable situation, because you lack half of the soviet unit pool. The solution would be backteching to the one buidling you didn't build, but that is often just too time consuming and expensive.

My idea was, that whenever you built one of the first tier buidlings, you can get the other one for, let's say, half the buidling cost and time. Same for both late tier buildings.

For example; You start with the support weapon kampenya, you realize that your opponent goes pgren spam, you can now build the special rifle command for half the price and buidling time, to get snipers out.

Well it's just a crazy idea, but it would give the Soviets a little bit more flexibility. It would maybe already suffice to reduce only mp or fuel cost or just the buidling time.

It doesn't affect 2v2 + that much since the players normally complement eachother techwise and usually never build more than 2 of the 4 buildings each.

Anyways, what do you think?

I like this idea and hope that something like that is implemented. I think it would be more fun (if nothing else) for Soviets to be able to field a greater mix of units in the average match.

Also, many losses I see from Soviets involve them never going t4 after picking t3. It feels to me that the T34 and SU85 compliment each other very well and I'd like to see that combo more in 1v1.

Sounds like an idea atleast worth testing to a degree. I do agree that is kind of sad that its hard to get out more than two tiers in one single game for soviet, especially since the tiers complement eachother and do not offer "better units" like scaling up from p4 to panther. I tend to feel abit starved of fun units as soviets because of the cost of a new tier.

I think a fuelreducion might be the way to go atleast for t3-4 because this is what keeps me from teching up/back.

Also, many losses I see from Soviets involve them never going t4 after picking t3. It feels to me that the T34 and SU85 compliment each other very well and I'd like to see that combo more in 1v1.

I played a lot of 2v2 and 3v3 recently and just got back to 1v1, that's what made me realize that a lot of unit combos I like to use in 2v2+, are virtually unavailable in 1v1 due to the soviet teching system.

that is definitly a good idea worth trying, i would like add something more
coz the german can tech up in HQ so their pioneer can build tier building in such a short time
which doesnt like for soviet, soviet tier building need too much fuel and time to build coz they cant tech up in HQ,so one way to improve it would be the soviet tier building either requre high fuel less time to build or less fuel long time to build, which will make tech-up more balanced.

Buildtime and cost are directly related in CoH2.
The more something costs, the longer it takes to build.
Call-ins being the exception.

The game is "balanced", from a design perspective, centrally, on this basic equality.

If these buildtime/cost ratios start getting messed with, it will mess with a primary design and balance basis of the game.

To side step fking around with this basic equilibrium, to unpredictable results and a disjointed system, I prefer the option of intra-tier upgrades. So to primarily fuel, and secondarily Muni, upgrades that diversify the tier, IF chosen.

This way actual tier timings and costs remain the same, but you can achieve the desired additional results by teching WITHIN that tier.

TLDR: +0.5 intra-tier upgrades, such as Molotov/ATNade are now.

Buildtime and cost are directly related in CoH2.
The more something costs, the longer it takes to build.
Call-ins being the exception.

The game is "balanced", from a design perspective, centrally, on this basic equality.

If these buildtime/cost ratios start getting messed with, it will mess with a primary design and balance basis of the game.

Design perspectives can be changed in favor of variety and balance

Design perspectives can be changed in favor of variety and balance

You seem to have misunderstood my central point.

In CoH2, ALL buildtimes are related to cost, at exactly the same ratio, regardless of faction.
(With the exception of all call-ins, which are ALL vested in Commanders, and therefore are founded on Commander balance, not the games fundamental buildtime/cost rstio, and instead on Commander choice, CP as the determining "-buildtimer", and cost (as weighed vs stats and effectiveness of the call-in).

Every single built unit (whether Sniper or T34 or Panzerwerfer), battlephase, unit upgrades and building shares the exact same ratio of cost to buildtime, in BOTH factions. Even Mine build time shares this exact same ratio.

On both sides, everything of the same cost, takes the same time to build. This is "balance".

It is a key foundatiin in the design and systems of the game.

Changing that, is like pulling out the cornerstone of a building. The entire building, evertyhing built upon that, is destabilised and becomes disjointed/misaligned. The building becomes crooked and unsound. None of the doorways or window frames line up anymore afterthat, and each doorway/windowframe has additional stress placed upon it due to this. It makes balacing therafter an absolute nightmare, because for every susbequent change you make, you have to now additionally account for the fact that the building is now lopsided.

Thats why I propse intra-tier upgrades, as a sort of +0.5 tier option.
This doesnt change this basic foundation (read: structural equilibrium of the system), but instead BUILDS upon it,

True, buildtime of the building would be affected, so it has to be weighed in properly. I dont se how slighlty shorter buildtimes (as a effect on reducing cost) would affect the game in a way that totally breaks it. It would add the possibility to widen the tech for soviets, yes, and that in it self can be a problem that needs attention. But the more I think of this idea I like it, and the more I find playing with soviets is less fun. Its just harder to get the same variety of units out.

But for now Soviets are MUST build cons to control the map. They don't have gms, snipers and mortars in building what cost 80 mp and 20 fuel. Soviets can build t1 or t2 building, but they 99% will lose map control. I don't know how to fix or change that, but imho this need some solution.

Its just harder to get the same variety of units out.

Which is why I propose intra-tier 0.5 upgrades.

Allow you to diversify the current tier (at its high cost) , for less cost, without having to expend fully on the next tier (again, at high cost).

Can be done without upsetting the universal foundational equilibrium of the game, which is the "buildtime:cost" ratio.

If that baseline balance is upset, suddenly ALL buildtimes/cost will have to be re-considered INDIVIDUALLY.
Per my building example above, that would mean that every doorway/window you put in after that would also have to be equally skewed, or you end up with a building wheremsome doorways are skewed to the left, some straifht, and some to the right, which makes for a pretty "imbalanced" and all together, structurally, shitty building. Thereafter you are dealing with a system of compunding errors and imabalances that makes every chsnge you make afterthat imbalance something elsewhere in the building. You are no longer building on a balanced base/foundation, but an imbalanced one. Every builders nightmare and makes them want to kill the guy who did that, for making their job that much more difficult, not to mention making it impossible for them to "fix it", because the problem is in the foundation of the building they are working in, not in the specific window/doorway they are specifically trying to build straight

Ofc the universal buildtime:cost ratio itself can be adjusted, but that can only achieve 2 results:
-reduce the magnitude ofnthe ratio, so things build faster for the same cost.
-increase the magnitude, so things build slower for the same cost.

Aside from that, you can change the cost, which then directly also reduces the buildtime, or increase it, for the inverse result.

I agree with Nullist on this one, messing around with build times is like asking for trouble.

Getting m3 and flame Penals before Germans can have enough ammo/fuel to deal with it. German tier one is geared up for dealing vs Cons, not quick m3 with sniper or penals. This would have domino effect on entire balancing done so far, and entire game would need major re-thinking and re-balancing.

Not gonna happen (not that I wouldn't mind some variety in Soviet game play and options)

P.S.

Using m3 and Penals as lose example, not to be taken literally.

Ost had Battlephases, which are, when boiled down and simplified, a +0.5tier upgrade.

You get some small advantage, such as RNades at Battlephase 1, but you DONT get the building. That is the remaining +0.5 tier upgrade that adds up to a full +1 tier.

I propose that Sov has this Battlephase-like +0.5 tier upgrade INTEGRATED into an actually built tier. Instead of being a halfstep to the next tier, as it is in Ost, it would be an intra-tier halfstep for Sov.

they need a new building that is more or less = to supply yard for the US for this idea to work.

spend 200mp and 50 fuel for a supply yardish building, then cut t3 and t4 by 40-60% to achieve that kind of flexibility OP is suggesting.

this way, the 1st t3/t4 will be equal to the initial 95 fuel, the 2nd t3/t4 can be bought at a discounted price.

On the other hand, there are doctrinal units that already remove that cornerstone by removing build times from the equation.

I don't think there's anything inherently special about everything having the same build time ratio. It's clear to me that the decision to go that route was more a practical time saving decision, much like removing the large target tables for every weapon.

It's just easier to balance at first to just set everything to a cost ratio, and if you forget to enter in or change a specific build time, it defaults to that.

Besides, while I do like the idea of in-building tiers, that would mean the buildings would have to be lowered in their initial cost, which results in a lower build time anyway.

Then there's the idea floating around of something similar to .5 tiers, which are fuel based global upgrades, which seem very Soviet. You can even make those big global upgrades mutually exclusive. You only get 1 per building. So while the pain of making that costly tier choice is offset with some other potential upgrades.

At this point, something needs a changing, and all options listed so far have good points. It's a matter of what Relic chooses to do with the time they have allotted. I figure Sega already has them working on something specific by now, especially since they already have Creative Assembly working on Warhammer Fantasy and the new Alien game.

I agree with Nullist on this one, messing around with build times is like asking for trouble.

Getting m3 and flame Penals before Germans can have enough ammo/fuel to deal with it. German tier one is geared up for dealing vs Cons, not quick m3 with sniper or penals. This would have domino effect on entire balancing done so far, and entire game would need major re-thinking and re-balancing.

Not gonna happen (not that I wouldn't mind some variety in Soviet game play and options)

P.S.

Using m3 and Penals as lose example, not to be taken literally.

You should reread my initial post. I'm not talking about an overall cost reduction!
It's only about cheaper "backteching" !

On the other hand, there are doctrinal units that already remove that cornerstone by removing build times from the equation.

Yes, they sidestep it, and are governed by CP, instead of buildtime, in order to fit into the overall timing results of the universal buildtime:cost ratio.

They sit "ontop" of the building, so to say. Like a balcony that can be simply attached to the side of the building, at nominal cost, once the building has that many floors applied to it where the blueprint states "we want a balcony here to get the advantage of this beautiful ocean view". Its not a building in and of itself, but something that is added to it, oncemthe building has reached that stage. The relative value of that balcony is then reflected in how "good" that balcony is, and charged accordingly.

You should reread my initial post. I'm not talking about an overall cost reduction!
It's only about cheaper "backteching" !

I know what you wrote.

It is just as difficult getting t4 with Germans after going t3, as is with Soviets. You need considerable amount of fuel, MP and time to survive without lets say extra piv you could get instead.

So getting Su85, and couple of quicker and cheaper T34/76's is still gonna wreck the balance

The point remains

Can be done without upsetting the universal foundational equilibrium of the game, which is the "buildtime:cost" ratio.

Again, Im not sure why buildtime would be a problem when you backtech? Its not like going for a super-fast T34 or something. Instead it would give the option to go T34 if you teched to T4, but without the major headache of "is it worth building and costing me another Su85?

The buildtime is in my eyes more or less a non-issue since you have to build the first of the relevant tiers 1or2 or 3or4 before you can get the cost reduction to the other wihtin the pair. Yes, it is a discount both in price and fuel. Heck, to offset this you could even increase mp cost slightly in favor of fuel to balance the buildtime out. Im not interested in the buildtime what so ever. But getting a more varied army on the field, and have options available to me.

About the 0.5 upgrades I think they are nice. An intresting one suggested in a stream I sa yesterday. Make the FHT upgrade availeble in T3, reminds of COH1. But other then that, what upgrades are you talking about, especially for soviet? Are theese upgrades things or units that are allready available in the game in other ways? If not you are suggesting the introduction of completely new elements into the game and I think that would be a huge blow to balance and would require alot of testing. Perhaps also modelling, pricing etc. I think that the idea you are proposing is more interesting in the long term, but I honestly think it requires alot more work.

The point remains

Also, point remains that soviet builds tend to be just 2 tiers, providing less variety of units. No matter how you go about it, changes will upset balance and need re-balancing.