Fuel upkeep would be a nice way to soft cap the heavies. Not so sure about mediums, but two t34 85s should definitely not burden the player the same way a Tiger or Jagdtiger do.
I realize HazardousKing said the numbers are just an example, but let's discuss some concrete numbers.
Given an average late game fuel income of around 20-25 per minute (15-20 for OKW), depending on map size and caches, a -5 penalty for heavies would not be as keenly felt by Soviets and Ostheer. While increasing heavy tank penalty to -10 would definitely be felt but it would also completely and irreversibly cripple the already struggling OKW fuel economy.
well we could give OKW a 33% discount to the fuel upkeep that way it is felt equally(yes I know it might not equal 100% but I really can not be bothered doing the math to calculate the correct discount to make it equal to all other factions).
but a 20-25 fuel per min economy will be hurt by -10 bring it down 40-50% and -5 at 20-25%, now if this is to be implemented the magic number will need to be found I think it may be between -5 and -10. |
Funny how the Russian guy wants realism...
So... ISU-152, IS-2 etc. had HORRIBLE reload times. Their optics weren´t on par with German optics. Their ergonomics were poor. The rounds carried were half as much as those of regular tanks. IS-2 had to set the gun to standard position after every shot in order to reload, having to readjust on target after every shot, leading to poor target tracking.
Panthers and Tigers were much better than the IS-1 and KV-85. The IS-1 flopped and barely saw any action. Hell, the KV-85 has the 85mm of the T-34/85 which was insufficient to penetrate the Panther frontally.
The IS-2 is hardly comparable to the KT as you claim. KT is a different league, in the same weight category the Panther is more comparable. And the Panther was the better performing machine, having the flatter trajectory, reload time (3x as fast), optics, crew comfort etc.
In general Soviet tanks were CLUMSY machines. Looking good on paper because of a big gun but lacking in everything else.
If you wanted realism, your Soviet tanks would be pretty much weaker than now. There would be more, but complaining that they are too weak on a 1v1 basis is wrong.
On topic: That being said, the ISU-152 and JT should rather get a reload time increase and a minimum range of 10m. I think that will be sufficient.
yeah and if you want realism the ISU152 would also rip a hole in the side of pretty much every tank, there are even records of the turret of a tiger being ripped off from the ISU152 shells.
so you either need to stop comparing historic records with balance because as it has been said multiple time balance>accuracy because if you want historic accuracy you should play men of war since it has not only side armour but turret armour on tanks and tanks don't have health bars. there are too many units that stray from the historical accuracy that you can just throw it out at this point. |
I still vote for Fuel upkeep. Raising the CP's would delay when they enter the fight, but once there the same old problems will still remain. Fuel upkeep on Heavy-Medium (Easy Eight, T-34/85, Panther, etc) and Heavy Tanks (IS-2, Tiger I, Tiger II, etc) would help level the playing field as lost medium tanks wouldn't put you at such a huge disadvantage.
I agree with fuel upkeep, possibly per unit of pop used possibly different on the class of tank for example 1 per min for light, 2 for medium, 3 for heavy and possibly 4 for superheavies. of course before takes this out of context this is just an example of how the idea would work. it could be any amount for any number of the vehicles above, e.g 1 for medium and 2 for heavy's. however it could be a base * population so perhaps 0.25 per min per cap for medium and 0.5 per min per cap, so 10 pop for a medium would be 2.5 fuel per min upkeep and for a heavy would be 5 fuel per min. |
How did you come up with this conclusion? 
it was in a feedback option and a lot of people seem to want a trading/crafting, I would prefer crafting to craft my 5 engraved faceplates into the ultimate engraved faceplate. |
Good idea but in perfect game. In CoH2 where there are pathfinding problems and stuff like that it would be too punishing to have only 1 heavy tank which you lost due to gameplay issues.
I like the idea to move heavies even to 20 CP. Not much to work, force to use medium tanks, heavies will show up only at the end and this will prevent situation like T1-T2-Call ins because it's too risky.
It would be horrible to be forced to use only medium tanks...not looking at any faction in particular...US...
as for 20CP it will still be a wait till heavies with slightly more medium tanks, also what about T34/85 will that be 20CP? or 15? ect.
I think the limit whether it be you get 1 per game or you can only have 1 at a time like artillery officer maybe with a long cooldown like 10 mins(perhaps with a timer start on death) maybe without, that way a heavy tank will be precious until it's cooldown is almost off, if timer starts on death it will give a breakthrough period which would be the reward for killing the heavy tank, I believe the KT should be added to this as well since it has a high reward for lower risk than medium tanks since you can repair it and have a brand new tank. |
I don't agree, support weapons should not be able to cap full stop. Infantry can capture territory as they are mobile, they can dig in, they can fire and manoeuvre and support weapons cant. HMG's are massive and they can be moved but they move while its safe to do so, same for at guns, mortars ect - they all rely on infantry to screen for them.
If you stop these units from capping then a player that chooses to go 3-4 maxims will be severely punished with loss of map control - they can still win, given good positioning but they wont be taking the whole map instantly. Same for mg42 heavy builds, the player will suffer lack of capping as a consequence. its not a hard cap and its not insurmountable, but it would be situational and skill based.
except the base infantry for soviet is bad and penals are basically cons when it really comes down to what they do, bring cons or penals or better yet both into a state that makes sense and maxim spam will reduce, because at the moment a maxim squad is basically cons with a gun that can supress and deals more damage than a rifle since they have the same cost. |
Indeed, and they were just so much more Soviet!
We need more red banners!!!! |
The conscripts will merge into the KT and take control over it, of course.
"Flank it" is such a lovely phrase though. But never try suggest it as a counter to an ISU, because that just ain't happening.
Are you sure because I have thrown everything at it including my T-34 with their amazing speed that a KT can do with overdrive, I want to be sure that it actually happens as I am yet to get a conscript behind the KT. |
Just remember, just because OKW can rush a suppressing unit to your base and lock you down in your home sector for a good part of the elary game gaining lots of ground and resources doesn't mean you can go on the forums and ask for it to be nerfed.
Because for all Axis fanboy magic there solution for dealing with there own units is to "Flank It".
"Flank it" is apparently the counter to everything Axis has, according to Axis fanboys.
So when in doubt: Flank it. Flank it right into there vet-5 volk-shreck-blobs.
but I heard that if you get 1 conscript behind the KT, the KT will just outright explode or was I lied to by the axis players. |
You need a big cup of sense of humor
Poe's law... |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
