Tank you for the spam!

[crazyelgsmurphy]

I have been thinking about writing this for a while, but I wasn't sure if I was the only one who felt this way.

Does anyone else feel there are simply too much reliance on tanks in the late game?

COH is by far one of my all time favorite games, but I have to admit that the more I play it, the more I am getting tired of seeing the tank spam near the end of the game. This is even more apparent in 4 - 8 player games where I have seen up to 15+ tanks rolling around.

Now, I realize that the game is probably designed so it has kind of a "sliding scale" meaning the game is meant to end quickly and avoid becoming a long drawn out match, but it just seems that the first half of the game is about strategy, and the second is just a clickfest.

I personally would like to see the heavy weapons in the game all drastically dropped in price so that it forces players to continue supporting units with infantry and such. Maybe it's just me, but I think it would be better if the game got harder to win as your forces got stretched out and further from your HQ.

Does anyone else feel it would be better if you actually had to plan your win all the way till the end, defend your points, and rely on flanking moves and combination weapons instead of spamming tanks/artillery and select/clicking them in someones base?

[Sprinkles]

Late game is not all about tanks. It just seems most people would counter a tank spam with tank spam so it ends up as a tank war. But massing at instead would rape the tanks forcing them to get an inf unit.....or more tanks.

[Da_Loop]

sometimes i wish allies would have a grenadier mirror that can give them zooks without having the need to summon rangers or use airbornes.

[crazyelgsmurphy]

I admit, a lot of this may be my problem. I'm the kind of gamer who used to get pissed off playing flight sim's because I didnt' want to expect to see the enemy the second I took off.

This may just be a difference of opinion but I think that many game makers have forgotten that building suspence and anticipation can go a long way in a game, and just because there aren't 40 Pio's/engies rushing for the center fuel, doesn't mean it's going to be boring.

I think my main problem is that I love the early game (when people aren't rushing for fuel points) because it's cool to take squads around, run into an MG and figure out how to solve that problem.

COH is like chess in the begining, and kids with foam bats in the end. I just wish there was a way to slow the game down, get rid of the amount of heavy units, and have games that are strategy all the way till the end.

[natrapsmai]

Tanks are a tad more resilient than everything else, so in effect you see less and less of everything that gets whittled away with time. When you have, lets say, infantry and tanks, you're going to put most of your micro into the tank (as it's more valuable), and your infantry squad will suffer as a result.

[QuixotesGhost]

I really don't know what you guys are talking about, tanks are fairly rare in this game outside of Tigers and Pershings. How often would you say you see tier 4 in 1v1, guys? I'd say about 30% of the time, maybe more, maybe less.

You are playing 500 point VP, right?

[crazyelgsmurphy]

If your sick of tank spam perhaps you might consider playing there.

No offence, but I don't really think that's a valid solution to problems like this. I see a lot of people who present solutions to ongoing problems in COH by saying, "If you don't like it, don't play that map, or don't let them do something, or etc."

Is the problem really in the amount of players, or is it in the games inability to dynamically alter the gameplay based on the type of game it is and how many players.

In a perfect world it would be awesome if in multiplayer games the players could choose different versions of the same map. For example, instead of just, "normal resources" and "High Resources" you could have say perhaps a simple sliding scale where 1 would be heavy infantry, and 10 would be heavy armour.

When you join a game you see that the host has chosen 4, which means all the points in the game will dynamically change to represent this meaning fuel will be low. Where as if you join a game where the host has 10, then the all the points will give high resources like it does now, resulting in an armour/art heavy game.


You are playing 500 point VP, right?

hehe, you changed your answer.

No, I never play VP games. I tried them, and simply don't like it. I like the idea of having some closure to the battle...like when you finally take the town, or blow the bridge....not battling over some VP in the middle...

[Black_Duck_1]

Tank spam is not an issue. The game is more about infantry these days. If your opponent can spam tanks then you are already dead.

[Wischmopp]

In most games the only tank I get is the Tiger Ace. For anything else i rely on my brave grenadiers. They destroy bases quicker than any tanks ever could :)

[crazyelgsmurphy]

If your opponent can spam tanks then you are already dead.

Not entirely accurate. I think many would agree that COH has problems with things like the croc early in the game...I wouldn't consider it a "spam" per say, but there are problems with having cheap tanks with seemingly no limits on how many can be made.

I don't think there is much in the way of infantry in the late game. You MIGHT see some Volks, and the odd Axis infantry, but you almost see no Allied infantry save the engineers. All you see is AT guns, M10's, Calliope's, and Perishings....

This usually is combined with shot after shot of Howies. The Axis is much the same, but I see a lot of Tiger spam, and Panthers.

[QuixotesGhost]

No, I never play VP games. I tried them, and simply don't like it. I like the idea of having some closure to the battle...like when you finally take the town, or blow the bridge....not battling over some VP in the middle...

That's your problem right there. The game has been balanced for VP play so you might see some goofy stuff in annihilation games. Like late game tank-spam. In 1v1 500 VP play Tier 4 is actually kind of rare. Perhaps you should give VPs another shot and it'd give you the type of game you are looking for.

Instead making suggestions that would over-nerf vehicles.

[Eojinlim]

Honestly. Right now, I'm not even playing with tanks. It's all about getting those Rangers, rifleman, or airborne paratroopers to absolutely destroy them.

With M8 Mines and at guns, I laugh when I see a Panzer IV walk right into my forces.

[crazyelgsmurphy]

I don't think nerfing the units is really the solution. I think that the game should adjust based on the game being played. Maybe I'm wrong, but why are 4 vs. 4 maps carrying so much fuel/ammo anyway? It should stand to reason that if the fuel/ammo was lowered the tanks would be just as rare in VP games as it would in the other games, the only difference would be the longer the game went, the less you would see stockpiles of resources.

Personally, I think a wicked idea would be that points with Ammo/fuel would drop as the game went longer (like they were being used up).

[natrapsmai]

... Yeah, play VP games. It's the same friggin' game minus the extra drawn out periods after you've taken the map and now have to muster up the force to take down the base.

I mean, after you take the map (where the VPs normally are), the guys base WILL fall. It's inevitable. So why bother?

[Zwebbie]

Agreed with the others; try a Victory Point 1v1. and it's possible to win games without tanks. Do a search for Golradaer's Indefatigable Strategy. It involves Rifles, Rifles and some more Rifles with a Strafing Run in between.

In larger games, the teching cost simply doesn't matter as much. Building a Panzer Command won't lose you the entire map. It can very well lose you the game in a 1v1, more so even in a time limited (i.e. VP) game.

[Sle]

Thirded. Try VP for a few games and you'll never go back.

[Burns]

The only practical and effective solution to the vehicle/infantry ratio would be to have two unit caps much like in DoW. I like the way the old Close Combat 2 did it. But thats just because I'm an infantry oriented kinda guy.

[Borrish]

It's fine as it is. If you go tank heavy you sacrifice capping power and you're going to be in serious trouble if he has even a few AT guns.

[Muad'Dib]

IMO, buffing the attack of the Pazerfaust (maybe 2x-3x more) and lowering the cost to 30 mun would probably limit the tanks spam for the allies. Probably sticky bombs as well, though I can't remember how much they cost.

But to balance it, the increase in the infantry's AT weapon should probably come at lvl 3 vet. Just so jepps and Tricycles don't become completely useless early on.

[Cobra5]

1v1 tank spam isn't an issue, IMO... 2v2 is pretty good too in that respect, you don't see big numbers of tanks until later on. VP games anyway, annihilate you'll see tanks no matter what. The game isn't designed to facilitate base rape, really, and that's all annihilate boils down to.

team games... its pretty much all tanks and nothing else. It doesn't matter VP, annihilate, what map... But I mean hey... tanks are pretty cool, I guess, so...

I don't think there's anything really that could be done in making team games less about tanks without really changing the game around.

I say, you get way too many resources in a team game... the income should be divided between players, instead of given equally... like if you are playing 3v3, each player on your team receives 1/3 fuel and munitions... or something like that.

[TheLockDown]

i think its fine the way it is, there is lots of micro in tank battles if your doing it right, and if you suport your tanks with infantry you will do beter than some one who dosent


but maibe a seting were you could change it around for those inf only lovers would be cool

[Ashmole3110]

The tanks always come so freaking early on 3v3s.Its crazy.