Regarding pricing, there are a lot of ways this could be done.
half price for a second building in the 1 and 2 or 3 and 4 tier categories, as you suggest gustav, which sounds pretty good to me,
but might have unforseen consequences to early t1 t2 combinations(I can't imagine them, but then that's why they'd be unforseen).
I do not think that there would be any Problem in t1 /t2 combinations since this is already possible in 2v2+.
A more gradual pricing option could be to make progressive fuel(only) reductions for every building of a different tier you build. This would basically reduce cost and build-time for subsequent buildings in relation to how many buildings you build.
Initial pricing would change slightly:
t1 would still cost 40 fuel, t2 still 50, t3 to 100, t4 to 100
after building t1, your t2 building would now only cost 40 fuel, your t3 or t4 buildings would cost 90 fuel. After building t2, you would get an additional discount of 20 fuel for your next building for a total savings of 30 fuel, so your t3 or t4 building would cost 70 fuel. If you subsequently built t4 on top of 3 OTHER TIERS you would get an additional 30 fuel discount for the basement price of a 40 fuel building, but you still probably wouldnt' be able to buy anything.
In back-tech order it would be something like 40 fuel for t1, 90 fuel for t3, and then 20 fuel for t2.
From t1 to t3 to t4 it would be 40, 90, 70 respectively(much more gradual of a reduction)
total fuel cost for all tiers would be 190-210 fuel, versus the 270 that everything costs now, versus the 200 total fuel that I think the Gustav model would cost. My discounts would just come more gradually. I just realized though that this becomes problematic when being forced to rebuild a building, unless the price is just locked in once its been built. So long-term this option would be the most cost effective, but wouldn't really fully materialize until late game.
Edit: I just realized that if t1 or t2 were the last building built, that some of the discount would essentially be lost, and either of those buildings would be in negative numbers for fuel cost, so not as elegant a solution as I thought, showing my poor math skills!! Not sure that would be such a big deal though. Another goofy thing is in my model it would be cheaper to build a 3rd building before building t4 than just going straight to t4 after the second building, so uh...I guess that's a bigger flaw! Haha!!!
the most expensive tech choice would be to go t2 t3 and then t4. t1 would be free but you would lose 20 fuel of discounts. I should have spent more time on this before posting I think. Probably should have considered a percentage approach to discounts rather than a progressive number.
Interesting Idea. |
I'd be interested to see what happened if they dumped all Soviet buildings to be in line with German building costs and battle phases. Considering what many Soviet units are like (i.e. inferior to German counter parts) the results would be interesting...
That's not the point of my suggestion.
As MoerserKarl said, there would be a guaranteed imbalance in favor of soviets. |
Maxim spam might become too strong if you reduced T2 build time, but it does seem that Soviets are unfairly burdened by the need to get their buildings started 100% on time or else be forced to wait minutes for a proper counter to certain units.
Why? You won't be able to get the first maxim out sooner.
With the "cheap backtech" the initial buildingcost for the first building you build remains the same.
|
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. |
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. |
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. |
I went ahead and actually timed the buildtimes with a stopwatch (made in the USSR btw, and the second hand is 10s ahead of 0, but whatever) cos I love you guys and Im putting off my homework.
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.
Well thanks for the effort!
So does build time depend on fuel or mp cost or both? |
|
Hi
Is there a damage modifier for flamethrowers against units in buildings?
Does it make a difference damagewise, from where the flamer is "shooting" into the building? |
Great idea!
I'm not sure why this would require much re-balancing if any at all really. It would still be a major trade-off to back-tech or tech to one of the top tier buildings. Honestly, even a small adjustment to costs and build-times would make a difference. If too much of a discount breaks the game, then do less of one.
Exactly.
|
|
Upgrades would definitely add some spice to the game. But it doesn't change the matter, that soviets only field half their unit pool in 1v1. |
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
