Profile of distrofio

I still miss hotchkiss

CoH2 is a gray and sad battlefield without it.

-Doesn't read OP
-Tries to summarize what OP is saying

So, Is this your argument?

Having retreat on an AT gun is just a poor mechanic because unlike infantry squads or machine guns, it doesn't have to stay around on the field very long to do a significant amount of damage, especially when you have multiple and can get a volley or two off and retreat at 4-5 men still.

Well, why dont we then wait until tanks show up their ass and then we buy the ATGs, teleport them in their faces, instagib the poor fool and then i dont know, magically return the ATG to obvlivion and get refunded their worthy cost. Its absurd.

Thats not what really happens. In a real game you get ATGs before tanks arrive and place them in such a way they will stop overconfident vehicles, secure the retreat of other squads and even much more important, stay idle, like a lot of time and stay behind because ATGs are not ment to be exposed to direct small arms fire.

So, i can easily refute your point by saying, retreat of raketens is simply a design variation intended to make the unit worth to expose to riskier situations. Other ATGs are competitive without the need of taking so much risks. Examples be 17P or Pak40. The same logic is seen in every USF tank, having 0.75 moving acc modifier, instead of every axis tank being 0.50. Its a trade off, a variation. Without these the game is simply AoE WW2 version. Bland and boring.

What now? The thread is still a rant.

I don't think that's a very good idea tbh. If you spam a unit you should have a drawback based on its design. Limiting units to 1 seems like bad design.

Its true that RTS should not rely on unit limitations, because thats what MOBAs tend to do.
But since heavy tanks already have unit limit and some even exclude mutually other options. I was thinking more into giving players more reasons to diversify their armies based on truly unique performance.

For example, imagine jacksons being able to toggle for HVAP ammo for no cost, increase sight range. Things that would only be viable if they were limited to 1. Scotts having longer range. Panthers having 60 range. Ideas can be as wild as you like.
Its hard to push the balance limit without having serious drawbacks. So i decided to start with unit limits.

Since unit preservation is a core game mechanic and infantry can reinforce and retreat (durable) and mediums have an impact when reaching critical mass. The next step is exploiting the unique unit concept for late game expensive but worth its costs units.

I expect to see more mediums, infantry flanks and well micro-ed heavy/TDs/Unique units if the idea gets implemented well.

Limits are never answer to anything.

If opponent spams X, you hardcounter it with Y.

This is true in more classic RTS, like SC2/AOE/C&C where units die frequently but in CoH2 unit preservation is a whole new level of concept.
Wipes and unit loss punish the player badly because armies have very low critical mass. Two jackson/panthers take a lot of time to get but can destroy any other tank for at least 15 min or more, wich is a lot.

I think unit diversity is worth the cost of limiting some units "spammability"
Again, this only would affect 2v2s and teamgames.

And as i said, i was just opening the discussion, i am not asking for any change. Save your rudeness kat

I have the feeling that this tool is not being used enough to adjust balance enough.
The same way Heavy tanks are limited to 1, to actually be able to make them stronger than normal tanks, some other units might receive the same treatment to balance some limit cases in 2vs2 and teamgames aswell.

What i want to achieve is a constructive discussion of wich late game units could benefit from being limited to 1 and make game balance more stable or even become better units if they really need to.

Lets start with some candidates:
Panther: Sturdy and very AT capable. Denies easily any other tank but TDs.
Walking Stuka: Hardest hitting and accurate rocket arty. Single volley but deadly vs teamweapons.
251 IR HT: Its a cheap recon tool, powerful with teamweapons.
Hetzer FT: Very durable as a mid-late game flame unit. RNG favoured because of small target size.
Jackson: Mobile AT TD, versatile. Effectively counters any other tank in the game but the heaviest ones.
Scotts: Mobile AI howitzer. Counters ATGs by effectively flanking.
Calliopes: The most durable rocket arty.
Comets:Same as panthers, a bit more versatile but mutually exclusive with churchill.
Churchill:A stock heavy tank with an average allied medium tank AT/AI power
Firefly:Conceptually the best TD but practically a pretty avertage 60 range TD.
Brumbarr:AI assault gun, deadly vs squads and single ATGs even frontally.

Many of these units already are built only once in 1v1s. Therefore competitive balance will remain pretty similar.

Some exceptions, at least in my opinion are those units that dont overperform when paired or being massed is intended for the faction design/weakness. Such as:
KV-1/Katyushas/Pwerfer/SU-85/JP4

Any medium tank is automatically excluded from the list to me, to define them as part of the core army.
Same goes for infantry and teamweapons. Those tools should be massed if the enemy composition is going heavy on the infantry/tank/indirect fire department.

Feel free to disagree with me, dont bother saying im wrong because i might be. I would invite to anyone to share their ideas or motives about making some units unique and better, or simply leaving as they are. All factions are included so anyone should be able to contribute.

Did i miss a unit? Add it in your post!
Did i got something wrong? post it and we all will read it and learn from it!

TL;DR
Make units better by making them unique. 1v1 balance is intact on most cases. Unique units will make faction design clearer to understand.