not really. BTW HMGs are 7 pop now, same as mainline, so here goes your logic
...
Yes some HMG have 7 pop so I guess that the site I checked was wrong, stock mortars still have a pop 6.
Funny that you call it "my logic" because you posted a similar thing, that power level of unit is not enough to decide the pop and that unit with different role should not be compared.
"Support weapons are an integral part of most builds, you can't just put an arbitrary comparison between those, because value is mostly decided situationally."...
Feel free clarify what factor decide Pop, in your opinion because so far you have not explained.
(edited) |
... Sometimes some of these stats are changed without considering the others. I don't understand why.
One example out of the recent patches...
There is much truth in this for many secondary values like XP values, vet bonuses, reinforcement cost/time.
In many cases units seemed balanced at vet 0 but the balanced turns to be messed up as the game progress because in difference in secondary values. |
Support weapons are an integral part of most builds, you can't just put an arbitrary comparison between those, because value is mostly decided situationally. Ofc if your opponent has no armor, AT gun would be infinitely less valuable then a squad of mainline, but what if he does? Same with indirect vs mainline against aggressive opponent compared to a campy HMG spamming dude. The list goes on.
Exactly my point, thus the power level of a unit is not enough to decide its pop and resources cost.
The role of the unit has to be taken into account. |
And if 15 POP of TD counter 20+ POP of MBTs, I'd call that a worthwhile investment.
Overall, your logic only works in few cases. It does not explain ANY elite infantry. It does not even explain any vehicles that have decent AI or maybe even AI only. All these would not be worthwhile, they do cost more in both POP and resources than even the most expensive infantry squad there is. Still, people build tanks. Why? According to you, that should be a waste of population.
"My logic" does explain those things.
Unit have roles and pop is related to that role. A mainline infatry is more useful than a support weapon that it takes up more Pop.
Once the pop of role/category is decided units are balanced according to power level thus an elite infatry has more Pop than mainline infatry although both are infantries.
Yes, but obviously not for the one we're discussing here.
This is a mere statement without much backup. You even made the point yourself, quoting Sander, that cost is related to unit performance. Obviously, not the role itself.
And I have pointed out that imo it is related to both.
But I'll leave at that. I think we've had this discussion in some form already and we both made our POVs clear. OP wanted to discu
ss the relation between resource cost and population with the specific example of the Firefly and Jackson, which has barely been done so far. SO I'd rather come back to that.
This thread has the tittle "Inconsistency in Population/Ressource" thus all inconsistencies of pop/resources are on topic.
If one want to talk about FF and M36 one has to keep in mind that:
FF can arrive earlier than M36
M36 is OP by decision
for similar reason HMG-42 is superior to Maxim yet have same cost, (no tech cost HMG-42) and Pop.
If there are inconsistencies with in those TDs they have more to do with SU-85 being cheaper and or JP being so expensive/having similar pop. |
I think this is a too general statement to make.
It depends on how effective the counter is. A TD with double the fire rate needs higher POP than if it had half the fire rate, even if it the targets are worth less population.
I agree to your example as a general thought, but it does not have much to do with CoH2.
Imo it has everything to do with COH2.
HMG (Mortars) can be extremely effective and counter multiple mainline infatry but have less pop than mainline infatry because of their role as support Weapons.
TD are in the a similar manner "support weapons" (atg role) to counter main battle tanks.
Every unit has more than only one target. Even TDs that specialize towards mediums can contribute decently against higher armor targets. And who guarantees that there will be a ratio of 1 TD to 1 medium? No one. If the TD is good enough to counter 1-2 mediums, there is no reason for the TD to be cheaper. This obviously translates to all units, as we can see with the Elefant and Jagdtiger.
Generally speaking TDs will not win the game main battle tank will, main battle tanks serve more roles.
Elefant hardly see any action in 1vs1 for a reason.
In sort, role comes first and power level comes in comparison to units with the same role. |
To the topic:
I've always considered population to reflect the unit value at later stages of the game, while resources rather take the role of reflecting the value of the unit right out of the gate. Obviously it's not as black and white as that, but the general idea works well.
POP always defined for me how much combat power you could squeeze into your army. Units that scale very well via upgrades and veterancy should therefore be more expensive in population. Buying a unit or upgrade is an upfront investment, for which you usually need quicker return. Goes more towards the "shock value" of the unit.
I agree with Sanders that these values are balanced within their faction, although I'd say "mostly" instead of "only". We've regularly had standardization of units or abilities across factions, and this makes sense to some extend.
Regarding your example: I think in the end probably no one would really notice the difference between a 16 POP or 15 POP Firefly or Jackson. The Jackson should not be overly expensive since it's your only AT unit to really scale into the late game as USF, unless you want to spend all your munis on those special AT rounds of the 57mm ATG. I think this is why it did not get a price increase: To not risk gating USF out of AT options more than necessary. On the other hand it performs so well that Jacksons need to be population intensive. I assume this is why they cost both less resources and more POP than the Firefly.
Quick question:
Was it considered to give Thompsons a tiny buff then to make them on par in value with triple zook Rangers? If so, what was the reason against it?
Imo pop is also related to the role of the unit.
Specialized unit should have lower pop than their intended targets. For instance lets say a medium tank has a pop of 12 and it being hard counter by a TD with 14 pop.
If player A builds that medium tank and player B that TD player A can simply avoid engagements and have the advantage of bigger size army and lower upkeep. |
I said it's related to unit performance within their own faction. Given how hard the JP4 murders mediums
A dedicated TD that cost more than mediums, both in resources and pop, can kill mediums if they decided to slug out it (and can lose if flanked unlike Panthers).
Nope it does sound like "murders" to me. Basically it can do what Stug III does for around double the price in 10 range more.
If one is facing mediums one is better investing in PzIV. It can handle mediums, has great AI and even has lower pop.
and TDs,
Again only TD that decided to slug it out. And the faction has an ATG with lower range than enemy TDs.
how hard it scales with vet,
While having higher XP value than other TDs and firing at cheaper targets with the only really good bonus compared to other TDs is the extra HP. In an faction that has a five vet system.
and how OKW has the Panther and other heavies to engage enemy heavies effectively, the JP4 is fine at 15 pop.
...
On the contrary being in the same building as Panther should justify lower pop since Panther can engage both medium and heavy tanks. |
SU-85: 350/130/15
So which population should SU-85 have then? Funny that you don't brought that one example that is even more obvious than JP. You see know? That is exactly the discussion I didn't want. No biased faction discussion please.
So I won't discuss that any further.
I'll summarize my first post just for you: I brought an example of Jackson and Firefly which population was practically exchanged. I wondered why ressource costs weren't adjusted accordingly (exchanged). It would have made Jackson a little bit more expensive and Firefly a little bit cheaper (same amount). Since most people around here seem to see the Jackson as the ultimate non-superheavy TD and USF winratios seem to look better than UKF ones overall I thought such an adjustment could be reasonable. If the dev team doesn't want to consider it, thats the way it is. I can live with that. Overall there is no big change in teamgames which I play mainly.
You misinterpreted me and my intentions, so it makes no sense to discuss it anymore.
No, it seems he quoted the right person. Your post is not quite appropiate and adds nothing but salt unless you wanted to be real funny. In the latter case we can't see your ironical expression in a typed text and you didn't point that out so it keeps beeing irrelevant and missleading.
PLS avoid personal/ non constructive comments.
Things are pretty simply:
if ones accepts Sander93 point that unit should have pop according to "performance within its own faction" JP4 should have lower Pop than FF/SU-85.
if one accept your point that unit should have pop according to their cost both SU-85 and JP4 should have lower pop than FF/m36.
|
if it ain't broke don't fix it
I guess you wanted to quote OP and quoted me instead. |
No, that is not the question of this thread and I don't want to go this thread that way. This thread is about comparison of a units population to its own ressource cost, not about units having the right population and cost for their performance. So if you want to speak about JP in this thread then talk about its population beeing too high for its ressource cost. But I do think 400/135 to 15 is something that is pretty close to the other units ratio, especially if Firefly and Jackson cost would be exchanged. Then Firefly would be 400/140 to 15 which would be pretty much the same as JP. Jackson would have 440/145/16, that would be a similar ratio.
If you do think JP ist too expensive (population/ressource) overall, just make a new thread about it please. Thanks.
I am sorry to have to point out this to you but:
Population is unrelated to unit cost.
Both are related to unit performance within its own faction...
Yeah, I see that and it makes sense...
So sander93 just told that pop is related to unit performance and you just agreed with him but for some strange reason you disagree with me when I say the same thing.
But even according to your own argument (and suggestion):
Jackson atm (MP/FU/pop): 400/140/16
Firefly atm (MP/FU/pop): 440/145/15
(Firefly as you just suggested (MP/FU/pop): 400/140/15)
JP4 cost 400/135/15
thus should have lower pop
|