Profile of elchino7

I never build a Schwerer on the front lines (unless I am already stomping). This salty thread or whatever you want to call it is coming off of a game where I built the schwerer back at the cutoff for Rails and Metal just like you say. As soon as it was noticed, it was destroyed about 20 seconds later, just before my first tank was out. It wasn't long before I was dead as my teammate could not take up the slack.

Of course the opponents teased me that I shouldn't build a forward base then. And hence this thread.

North or south spawn ? Left or right side? How was it destroyed? By units or offmap ? IF you don't have a pocket healing HQ, a map small enough to have the Schwerer protected by at least one of the players at all times or if you are not spawned on the "defensive" side of a 2v2 map, you put it on the base.
Rails and Metals force the players bases to be divided, which makes retreating leaving a side really vulnerable.

On teamgames, value of forward truck lose value as they can be focus fired by 2 or more players units and offmaps.

As far as I know all resources and their incomes in coh2 are calculated in floating point numbers. They are only rounded to be shown in the UI, but the calculation is done using real numbers all along. So in fact there is nothing wrong with having a soldier use less than one pop, if the squad is cheap enough and if the editor supports it.

Still, I don't really think there is a need for that in the case of ostruppen.

It was changed, cause there was a bug with call in units. If you had 94.4 pop and you were to call in a 6 popcap unit, you would waste the resources and the unit wouldn't be call IIRC.

I find that to be a large issue in balancing Relic style RTS when in comparison to MOBAs. Its easy to balance Mobas cuz it almost always obvious that something is OP and UP as they excel or underperform at all times. In RTS theres a lot more middle ground as theres a lot more factors that affect how a unit performs, minus the blatantly obvious broken units in the past/present (Pre-nerf KT, Current Jackson, IL2, Guards etc)

For example in an extreme case take Tommies: Someone who doesn't use cover or moves them while shooting would claim they are UP because they are super weak in those situations. Someone who used cover against a person who doesn't use mortars/snipers to clear them would claim they are OP because they excel in that given format. (This is unrealistic of course but just an "hypothetical" example)

Also quick note I typically say low ELO would be a solid 60-70% of a playerbase in Mobas. Coh2 is properly different when saying low elo.

More or less what i have in mind.

1-3% master, 3-9% diamond, 15% plat, 25% gold, 35% silver, 15% bronze.
Ignore lower 50%, consider what is been used by the gold/plat, take a look at how effectively things are used at top 10% and check for extreme niche high performance on 5%.

On top of been harder to balance RTS, there's an issue which comes from a design perspective of updating games every 2/3 months and completely swinging performance of units instead of going for 5%/10% buff/nerfs.

Note: the article is from 04/2015 (a bit less than 1 year after WFA) and is probably talking about the original design on call ins and heavy tanks during the release of CoH2.

09/2013 (game was released on 06/2013)

Heavy Tanks
One major issue we sought to resolve was the viability of heavier tanks within the mid-late game. Their cost and performance was refactored to better take into consideration their effectiveness at the later stage of a match. Additionally, heavier tanks should be more viable in smaller matches.

IS2/Tiger were a joke in that meta (bad bad bad)Show Spoiler, so it made sense. But too many things have been done and changed, and new paradigmas are been established as the game evolves.

Reminder that there are factors outside of the stats provided by the game. Something which isn't mentioned is micro opportunity/cost.
Remember the times of double/triple IS2/Tigers with Pio/CE only ? Why wouldn't you use 4/5 medium tanks instead of 2 heavier tanks? Cause the later is easier to use and control.

The value of the more expensive unit does not have to be restricted to the distribution of its combat characteristics. In this example, there is also a cost associated with microing multiple units over just one.

Also:

The design considerations amongst opportunity cost, power concentration, and relative balance all play off of one another.

That's the point of heavies. If any of the 3 heavies or super mediums ever needs a set of buffs, i'll rather it be through changes that don't necessarily alters their raw performance. Say passive aura buffs for infantry or changes to repair speed. (ALTHOUGH i don't think they need those kind of buffs ATM).

PD: while minimum, heavy tanks (including KT) are call ins which let's you bypass build time.

PD2: wild idea. What if heavy tanks hulls MG range were reduced to 25-20 but they could now suppress like Ostwind/KT vet1 ability (IIRC).

The XP value of the unit is too low, it's far penetration is too high

That's it for me.

Putting a real cost to barrage and reducing it on vet1 could work as well.