Balance Issues: Please consider

[rfisher983]

This was a post from a guy named, ConanOBrien (http://75.126.25.66/%7Egamerep/community/index.php?showuser=33962) on gamereplays.org

ConanOBrien:
"I do not know how much this issue has really been thought about and I believe it needs more thought put into it. Many of the powers in the game for axis and allies provide units or abilities that normally wouldnt be available for that sort of resource. I am referring to calliopes, pershings, tiger ace, off map reinforcements and the like. One of the biggest ones of those is in the blitzkrieg doctine with the combination of manpower blitz and the tiger strike team. It gives you one of the best units and the game and costs no fuel and if used with manpower blitz it is nearly popping out a fuel free tank every 3 or so minutes. This seems to drag out games when they shouldnt be and turn around tides on a good player who is holding large portions of the map. These powers almost destroy the point of needing to hold high priority fuel and ammunition points as they are far less useful when using the proper doctrine. If I am playing a game and decide to put my energy into cutting off fuel lines and cutting off his armored support I expect to be needing to build anti-infantry because he will not have much armor but instead you get tanks called off of the map for only manpower. This really hurts the whole point of fighting for high fuel points and the like when they are completely replaced by one resource. Not only does this simplify the game for players using these abilities but it also does not allow the other doctrines/companies to be used to their full effectiveness.

I feel a simple fix such as a resource adjustment on these powers either requiring some fuel or munitions to call out would help out the game alot. Im sure there are people that feel very differently than me but I was wondering what you guys have noticed while starting to get experience with the strategies and mechanics of COH.

end of rant
Cone zone out."

I agree with this and believe this should change with the next patch.

Allies:

Allies need to have atleast a Tank Depot in order to get a calliope rocket launcher.

Axis:

Axis need to have a panzer command in order to get a"Armor Assault Force" = tiger + stormtrooper combo.

Agree / Disagree ?

[Tirus]

disagree I think it's fine the way it is, but that's just me =)

[3StackedMidgets]

I think the reason why they don't use fuel is to give players who don't have map control a chance to get back in the game.

To a player who has map control, the lack of fuel cost won't matter anyway because they would be able to afford it in any case.

In the case where the map has been split most of the game, it gives one side a chance to break out.

For example, in beta I played a game where I had solid map control for most of the game. I had howitzers smashing the Nazi base, to the point where he had lost many of his structures. He used manpower blitz to break out, bypass my (poor) defenses and take out 800 manpower worth of artillery.

I still won the game, but it gave him a chance at victory. I would have lost eventually if I hadn't had such a large VP lead.

[AntiCommie]

I dont think this would be a bad thing, except, these seem to allow a comeback to actually happen. What I mean is if you hold most of the fuel points, but I can hold most of the munition and about half the strategic points, you would have a huge advantage becuase you could build tanks, but I could just use arty. However, if I were Blitz/Armor/terror I might have a chance. I think the problem is tanks are too effective against infantry for cost. Honestly, I think a tank should be a huge investment. Tanks should roll almost anything, but they shouldnt cost just 2 riflesquads.

[Kaikai]

three points, first is that the only real tank that comes in is the tiger.
The StuH is an anti infantry tank, it has a howitzer not a tank cannon.
its useless against tanks pretty much.

secondly, it only delays the enivitable, a good player needs those fuel points for panzers and panthers, two tigers will not suffice.


and finally, the tiger is endgame stuff, you need to get to the bottom of the doctrine tree to activate it.
most endgame stuff is brutal.

[Dread Moose]

therefore should cost fuel ^^^^^^^

[theBlind]

Don't worry about it, as players increase in skill those seemingly awesome abilities will be shown as balanced. We had the many of the same discussions as open beta started as we have now and as players got better the chance to, say, actually afford a Pershing or the 200 munitions for manpower blitz for a Tiger assault force or even paying for the Tiger directly means enough of a hole in the players defenses to make the ability balanced.
To put it differently: as long as the other player keeps pushing and does not rest on his heels all those abilities are very much balanced. The problem is that new players (even good new players) tend not to push hard enough. Don't worry, I've done that as well early and I learned ;)

[WildeCard]

I agree with theBlind. These kinds of points were brought up in the Beta a while back, and since then nothing has changed and no one has looked back.

Of course, by the time CoH arrives here, I'll be a noob - I'm sure I'll have my share of problems too. (Haven't played the beta in a long time..)

[Naru]

Consider the purpose of the off map abilites/re-inforcements for a moment, why do they exist? Their purpose is to try and prevent an hour long game being determined in the first 10 minutes of the match, where one player gets the upper hand on the other, and the loser can never achaive a comeback. Why do many of these powers use munitions? To make munitions an important assest, AS important as fuel. The combination of muntitions and god powers can sway the game in your favor, or allow you to win. While these assests often cost alot of resources, they are uncvonetional, ie. not related to the normal path of power (fuel) that typically allows a person to "tech" up and have a more powerful army. It's a nice balance, and means that if you are not on top of your game the WHOLE game, you could loose, and that's exaclty the way the game should be. You shouldn't cruise into easy mode after you lock up most of the fuel points. Doing so should give you an "edge", and it does give you an edge, but it SHOULDN'T secure the game for you, and it doesn't. I don't see any problem ith off map re-inforcements/abilites. If you expect any given game to a be a fight from start to finish, you won't either. There is already enough inherent reward for taking territory such as all the fuel points in terms of resource gain rate and population cap, and losing players don't need further penalties. Snatching up all the fuel is the difference from seeing one tiger and some pak.38s and some infnatry vs. one tiger, a panther, 2 panzers, and an Ostwind --and that's a BIG differnece. How much more of an edge do you really need? Let's not make the game less challenging if we are in the lead, and it will be more fun in the long term, for loser and winner.

[Boomstar]

Don't worry about it, as players increase in skill those seemingly awesome abilities will be shown as balanced. We had the many of the same discussions as open beta started as we have now and as players got better the chance to, say, actually afford a Pershing or the 200 munitions for manpower blitz for a Tiger assault force or even paying for the Tiger directly means enough of a hole in the players defenses to make the ability balanced.
To put it differently: as long as the other player keeps pushing and does not rest on his heels all those abilities are very much balanced. The problem is that new players (even good new players) tend not to push hard enough. Don't worry, I've done that as well early and I learned

No definetly not, off-map tanks are ruining the game. Most of your manpower comes from the HQ so no matter how much territory you take the other player can still pull tanks out. This is compounded by the fact that to gain territory you need to use infantry and infantry isn't really good against tanks. Off map tanks requiring tank production buildings wouldn't work really imo, they need to cost fuel. Not as much fuel as tanks from a depot but something for sure. Off map tanks lets players stay in the game even when they should be getting beaten for not holding there territory, either by not investing enough in infantry or being outplayed . Its simply no good.

This would put allies in a tough position because in one vs one allies really need the callipoe for sturm spam. So other things would need to change as well.

[ÜberJumper]

I strongly agree that off map armour should cost fuel.

Storm Squad = 400 Manpower

StuH + Storm Squad = 700 Manpower, 50 Fuel

Tiger + Storm Squad = 1000 Manpower, 150 Fuel

Tiger Ace = 800 Manpower, 150 Fuel (manpower points to be looked at depending on % better the TA is over a regular Tiger, Regular Tiger = 600 manpower)


Calliope = 600 Manpower + 90 Fuel (Munitions cost for its special attack balances out fuel cost).

Off Map Combat Group = 800 manpower + 100 fuel/Munitions? Because what you get here is random, this is a tough one to balance.

[theBlind]

You're trying to fix something that isn't broke.
And you forgot the Pershing.

[WildeCard]

Why is this is a problem again? Games that get drawn out for any significant amount of time are generally recreational games.

The style of players in these games are different from competitive players - and when either side gets one of these 'over powering' toys, of course things are going to look bad for the other player.

These issues don't really exsist for competitive players, who are more concerned about ammo costs for upgrades that will actually appear in ranked games, rather than 6+ CP abilities that won't see action in Semois and the like.

EDIT: Essentially, what I'm trying to say is that it isn't broke. The current system just doesn't complement a more casual style of play and I don't particularly see that as a problem.

[theBlind]

Why is this is a problem again?
Because we're going through the same motions as we did when open beta started. It's actually funny how very much the complaints now and back then are similar - and that's also why I'm so sure that with people learning and getting better the problems will go away.

[Valkyr]

I think that Axis have a slower start, infantry is not as good as allies, bunkers have to be upgraded to be te equivalent to a mgs, hq has to be upgraded to different stages.., so they had to have an advantage later, if you are a good player you are going to survive enough and take positions till an advanced moment of the match when you are able to call offmap tigers, by this moment the allie player/players should have taken more strategic points than germans to compete against Tigers and Tigers Ace, in conclusion this later advantage of calling tanks only with manpower is fair. Allies should thank that relic put the m26, if you think a moment you are going to realize that this tank saw service in the pacific not in Europe, so...

[Sepha]

I agree the company/doctrine tanks should cost fuel, though you should probably meet the availability half way like a supply yard should be needed for the calliope or tier 3 for the stug, tank depot for the pershing and panzer command/tier 4 for the tiger. Otherwise they lose the edge they bring to games at the moment and once they cost fuel, they might lose their edge totally.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Well I think the reason they don't cost fuel is they didn't want people buying summon abilities and then not being able to use them.

[th15]

They don't really have an advantage later. Unless you have enough fuel for a panther you can't do very much about calliope + sherman spam (stugs just don't cut it when they have more than just a few sherms).

The Axis advantage comes at tier 3 where they get stugs and the allies only have AT guns and greyhounds at that level. Stugs will also plug the first few sherms that roll out.