[OST] [All] *Winter Preview* OST Teching adjustment

#1
11 months ago

With the latest version of the Winter preview, it seems like OST get tanks much faster than before. While I understand the intent of the change, it seems to be a bit too far. Its odd since the change didn't look as if it would affect teching that much, if at all, but I've noted a difference, even with games with the AI as well. Has anyone else noted this or perhaps taken the math into account?

Comments

  • #2
    11 months ago
    MorisMoris Posts: 71
    edited February 2020

    I’m sorry, this is not entirely about your topic that you created, but if it came to technologies for OST, I wanted to express several ideas.

    The design of the grenadiers does not look the best. Maybe it's worth giving players a choice between upgrading the mg-42 and a new improvement of +1 soldiers armed with g43 with the ability to interrogate the wounded. In the German infantry dock, the grenadors' improvement should be changed so that they would be able to build sandbags and a false volley / stunning model24. And bring back old changes for level 3 veterans

  • #3
    11 months ago

    @BazookaDre, thank you so much for making this thread, I've been wanting to discuss the issues you raise. Before I answer I want to make sure everyone understands I don't want to make the game biased towards any faction, I want it balanced/fair. There is a lot to cover so I'm going to use headings:

    What do the Wehrmacht Tech Changes Mean for the Game?

    The Tech changes for Wehrmacht are a bit strange to think about: Someone who is just building the Support Armor Korps (SAK) and not the Heavy Panzer Korps (HPK) will not be paying any extra Fuel or manpower. Someone who is building the HPK but not the SAK will not be paying any extra Fuel or manpower. Someone who wants to build both the SAK and HPK will now be paying 15 less Fuel. There are two main interesting results from this change. Firstly, someone who built a SAK and now wants to escalate things and go to a HPK will now pay 15 less Fuel to do so. Secondly, Someone who built a HPK and not a SAK will have a much easier time "back teching" to get the SAK, because there will now be no Fuel cost for SAK if they want to build one. 15 less Fuel in this scenario. This can help if a player has built a HPK but now finds themselves on the back foot and at the same time in a Fuel crisis. They can opt to push out a Stug III from a SAK rather than the Panther or Sturmpanzer IV they were trying to get.

    Does this mean that Wehrmacht are getting "tanks much faster than before"? No and yes (I put no before yes for a very specific reason). For someone who wants to only get a SAK, and not a HPK, and build a medium, the cost will be the same as it is now. For someone who wants to get a HPK, and not a SAK, and build one of those vehicles, the cost is also the same. For someone who wants to build both a SAK and a HPK and then purchase their first tank, they will be getting it sooner if manpower is not a problem. This third case, where Wehrmacht is actually getting tanks sooner, seems highly unlikely, except in the one scenario I described where a Wehrmacht player found themselves in a crisis. So, it's a big no and a little yes to this question.

    It Seems Wehrmacht gets Tanks Much faster

    The following is about the current game and not the Winter Balance Preview. There is no "seems" about it, it can be objectively proven that, in terms of Fuel cost, Wehrmacht gets access to tanks sooner than any other faction (except for a couple of teching scenarios); I have done "the math". This has been a problem for as long as I have played the game and I used to attribute it to the Soviets having such a high cost for the Mechanized Armor Kampaneya. But, after having done the maths for all factions, I can see now that Wehrmacht is the odd one out here, with lower teching Fuel costs than any other faction for their primary medium tanks to become available (except for a couple of teching scenarios).

    So, let's do an example of a teching path for Soviets versus one for Wehrmacht, that illustrates this, and discuss. I would like to focus the discussion on the various faction's ability to field their first primary medium tank, by unlocking it through tech, in terms of Fuel cost:

    Example 1

    Special Rifle Command -> Tankoviy Battalion Command -> Mechanized Armor Kampaneya -> Medium Tank
    10 + 85 + 90 = 185 Fuel

    Infantrie Kompanie -> Battle Phase 1 -> Battle Phase 2 -> SAK -> Medium Tank
    10 + 40 + 90 + 15 = 155 Fuel

    In this teching scenario we can see a 30 Fuel advantage to Wehrmacht, but this is not the only path, so we need to discuss. In the Soviet path they are not getting a Support Weapon Kampaneya, for a field gun, and instead supplementing their army of Penal Battalions with PTRS rifles for anti-armour support. Wehrmacht is doing something similar by having an army of Grenadiers and supplementing them with a Panzergrenadier squad with Panzerschrecks. Wehrmacht is missing out on light vehicles and a field gun but the Soviets are missing all the support weapons. It used to be that, for Wehrmacht to follow this tactic, they had to build a Leichte Mechanized Kompanie which costs 20 Fuel and so they would only have a 10 Fuel advantage in that case, but they put Panzergrenadiers in the Kampfgruppe Headquarters for some reason. Even if Wehrmacht was building a Leichte Mechanized Kompanie they would now have access to field guns, and the Soviets not, while also enjoying the 10 Fuel advantage. This is unless Soviets built a Support Weapon Kampaneya which would now bring the Wehrmacht Fuel advantage to 25. This is the Fuel advantage Wehrmacht enjoys over the Soviets with all tech unlocked/all buildings unlocked minus Battle Phase (BP) 3.

    Let's look at another example, which I believe is probably more common for Soviets, and it will bring up some very important points for discussion:

    Example 2

    Support Weapon Kampaneya -> Tankoviy Battalion Command -> Mechanized Armor Kampaneya -> Medium Tank
    15 + 85 + 90 = 190 Fuel

    Infantrie Kompanie -> BP 1 -> Leichte Mechanized Kompanie -> BP 2 -> SAK -> Medium Tank
    10 + 40 + 20 + 90 + 15 = 175 Fuel

    Here we can see that Wehrmacht only has a 15 Fuel advantage. This Fuel advantage is significant but not too great, however, our Fuel considerations have not ended. In this scenario, the Soviet player is training Conscript Infantry Squads and supporting them with field guns against vehicles. In such a scenario, I believe, it is common for people to be getting both upgrades for conscripts, the Molotov Package and the Anti-tank Grenade Package (RPG-43 grenades) which would add 20 Fuel to the Fuel requirement for the Soviet player to get a medium. We could discount this extra 20 Fuel if the Wehrmacht player was not receiving any similar upgrades to their infantry, and simply call Molotovs and RPG-43 grenades a bonus which they are getting, that Wehrmacht isn't, by spending Fuel. However, Grenadiers receive Panzerfausts for free, which you can compare with the RPG-43 grenades, a vehicle snare, and, via the mandatory BP 1 teching requirement, they are getting access to rifle grenades which can be compared to Molotovs (somewhat). So, in the scenario, where a Soviet player wants to have these options available to them, to have similar tactical options available to their infantry as Wehrmacht, they will be at a 35 Fuel disadvantage. Now, I believe that the Soviet's field gun and HMG is more durable than the Wehrmacht's because they have 6 infantry, versus 4, with the same target size; but I would say rifle grenades are better than Molotovs and MG42 LMGs better than not having MG42 LMGs. Wehrmacht also gets access to bunkers. This hearkens the fact that factions are balanced as a whole and not between individual units. There is also the path of not getting an Infantrie Kompanie, but I want to keep this as short as possible.

    How do we solve this problem? I believe that Panzergrenadiers should firstly be put back into the Leichte Mechanized, that's a no brainer. I couldn't believe that change myself, I was thinking I can get my tanks even sooner now. It will then be mandatory for Wehrmacht to spend this Fuel if they want to have access to anti-vehicle support, whether it be a field gun or Panzergrenadiers; otherwise their infantry will be naked with just Panzerfausts. Secondly, increase the Fuel cost of BP 2 by 25 Fuel. This would mean that, in the first example, of a Soviet commander fielding Penals and the Wehrmacht commander Grenadiers and a Panzergrenadier squad, the Soviets would have a 15 Fuel advantage (don't forget we now have to build a Leichte Mechanized for 20 Fuel); which you might think is imbalanced, but that Soviet commander is giving up access to all three support weapons compared to Wehrmacht, so it's a fair trade-off in my opinion. Especially since the Support Weapon Kampaneya costs 15 Fuel, which, if you take that into account, you have both Wehrmacht and Soviets having equal Fuel requirements to unlock all tech minus BP 3 and conscript upgrades. The only problem would be how to balance the 20 extra Fuel required for commanders using the conscript upgrade packages. Remember, we're talking about Fuel balance here. If you look at Example 2 and add 25 Fuel to Wehrmacht, we could reduce the Fuel costs of both conscript packages to 5 Fuel, and that way you would have both factions perfectly balanced with Fuel (add 5 + 5 = 10 Fuel to Soviets), but Soviets not having the Special Rifle Command. Well, you spend 10 fuel for a Special Rifle Command, so here we've instead buffed up our conscripts.

    Final Comments

    See the Appendix for other factions. I think if a change, such as I suggested, was made to Wehrmacht, any factions playing against them could start to breathe again. It's too often that you will have an advantage over Wehrmacht, in terms of map control, but not reap the benefits of the marginal increase to your fuel income that comes via the extra points you control. At the same time, if Wehrmacht have an advantage, you get punished much harder.

    Appendix - Other Factions

    US Forces Example 1

    Weapon Rack Unlock -> Ambulance -> Platoon Command Post or Company Command Post -> Mechanized Platoon Command Post or Mechanized Company Command Post -> Battalion Command Post -> Medium Tank
    15 + 10 + 35 + 20 + 120 = 200 Fuel

    45 Fuel or 25 Fuel disadvantage compared to Wehrmacht
    +15 Fuel for US Forces if they unlock the Grenade Package
    Some serious thought needs to be put into the US Forces to determine whether this is fair.

    US Forces Example 2

    Weapon Rack Unlock -> Ambulance -> Platoon Command Post or Company Command Post -> Platoon Command Post or Company Command Post -> Battalion Command Post -> Medium Tank
    10 + 15 + 35 + 35 + 120 = 215 Fuel

    60 Fuel or 40 Fuel disadvantage compared to Wehrmacht
    +15 Fuel for US Forces if they unlock the Grenade Package

    Oberkommando West Example 1

    Battlegroup Headquarters (including half-track) -> Schwerer Panzer Headquarters (including half-track) -> Panzer Authorization -> Tanks
    15 + 25 + 15 + 60 + 60 = 175 Fuel

    20 Fuel or 0 Fuel disadvantage compared to Wehrmacht
    +15 Fuel for Oberkommando West if they get Field Medics upgrade for Battlegroup Headquarters

    Oberkommando West Example 2

    Mechanized Regiment Headquarters (including half-track) -> Schwerer Panzer Headquarters (including half-track) -> Panzer Authorization -> Tanks
    15 + 45 + 15 + 60 + 60 = 195 Fuel

    40 Fuel or 20 Fuel disadvantage compared to Wehrmacht

    This could be looked at, but you are getting superior tanks. Wehrmacht, for example, would have to escalate to BP 3 for Panthers. So I think it's quite economical as it is, especially considering Oberkommando West don't have access to Fuel Caches; they might need a slight fuel advantage due to this. Or, they might not; they may have been given other strengths to compensate for not having caches.

    British Forces Example 1

    Research Weapon Racks -> Platoon Command Post -> Company Command Post -> Medium Tank
    15 + 30 + 115 = 160 Fuel

    5 Fuel disadvantage or 15 Fuel advantage compared to Wehrmacht
    +10 Fuel to Unlock No. 36M 'Mills Bomb' Grenade for British Forces

    British Forces Example 2

    Research Weapon Racks -> Platoon Command Post -> Bolster Infantry Squads -> Company Command Post -> Medium Tank
    15 + 30 + 35 + 115 = 195 Fuel

    40 Fuel or 20 Fuel disadvantage compared to Wehrmacht
    +10 Fuel to Unlock No. 36M 'Mills Bomb' Grenade for British Forces

    As with US Forces Examples 1 and 2, this needs a serious look.

    British Forces Example 3

    Research Weapon Racks -> Platoon Comman d Post -> Bolster Infantry Squads -> AEC Armour Car or Bofors -> Company Command Post -> Medium Tank
    15 + 30 + 35 + 15 + 115 = 210 Fuel

    55 Fuel or 35 Fuel disadvantage compared to Wehrmacht
    +10 Fuel to Unlock No. 36M 'Mills Bomb' Grenade for British Forces

  • #4
    11 months ago
    @Thundercracker I'm glad someone els has also looked into this.
    Personally I notice the fuel gap much more pronounced with USF and now manpower to a small degree with some of the changes.
    They hold more disadvantages than the other two allied factions and not haveing snare when vet rifleman are killed is one of them along with less options overall in their strategy.
  • #5
    11 months ago

    You may be correct, but all I want to say is that I am very happy with the US Forces as they are currently and I really really hope they don't change them/make any major changes to them, except to address this fuel disparity. Every single change they have made to the US Forces has been excellent and much needed. The most recent one, that I am very thankful for, is that you can bring your first officer in faster now. My only wish is that it was a bit faster, but I'm not sure how they would accomplish that. It's essentially a Riflemen squad+ but you are being punished with a much longer training time, and it's too manpower intensive to field 4 riflemen and then an officer. My strategy is to have 3 riflemen and one officer.

    The commander revamps for US Forces that have occurred over time are simply amazing. For the Airborne Company you can now replace a Riflemen squad that you would have otherwise had to field, with Pathfinders, rather than having to wait until 1 CP. Having 1 Rear Echelon squad, 3 Riflemen, 1 Officer, 1 Pathfinder squad and 1 Paratrooper squad was simply unusable for me because of the pop investment, which, don't forget, pop eats away your manpower income. Also you have less room for tanks later, and these are needed in Annihilate games. We are off-topic here but I just wanted to say that I really like where the US Forces are at now and what has been done with them.

  • #6
    11 months ago
    @Thundercracker oh I agree I think usf is in a better position then before but still I beleive they need some work to bring them in line with others.

    Perhaps fuel itself is the only issue slowing down their tech progress to much idk.
    I do feel like manpower is slow or allways low idk.

    70 fuel to get essentially 2 more rifleman when you might already have 3 rifleman in the early game because you cant give up map controle to okw and support your teamate takeing away how many other unit typs you can field and it is atleast 3 minutes before your first officer to give you any other unit options.

    For a faction that is saposed to be flexible they seem the least of all to be that to me.

    When it comes to late game I allways find i cant field the units i feel i need as I've already reached pop cap but i also know people can abuse the pop cap with usf so it becomes hard to controle this.

    As much as I love usf which I have the most experience with I can jump on brits of Soviets and easily do better with much less micro or any of the factions really.
    Usf 46% win rate all others 50-55% as far as myself is concerned.

    So I hope the tweaking to their faction continues in a positive direction.
  • #7
    11 months ago

    For a faction that is saposed to be flexible they seem the least of all to be that to me.

    That gave me a good laugh. I think it comes down to the paths you follow and the modularity of squads afforded to them via the weapon racks, you can choose to focus on anti-vehicle or anti-infantry or a balance of both with the weapon racks. For example, get a Lieutenant and give your Riflemen bazookas first up, or, get a Captain and give your Riflemen squads BARs first up and supplement them with a field gun (or Rear Echelon Troops can work). But I understand what you are saying, if you want to invest in the other command post at any time, except in the case of having your infantry mostly wiped out, the extra officer on the field becomes a burden; not much room to field an elite doctrinal squad. You sort of get punished for teching. I remember seeing you discuss the Major giving back tech, which I'm not sure how you would balance that with Fuel cost. You will get almost all tech with no option to save Fuel by not choosing one of the tech paths that you may actually find useless for your strategy. This is because, now, that fuel cost would have to be accounted for in the Battalion Command Post otherwise it would be unfair. By the very nature of what I described, this would be very inflexible, since it forces you to unlock/tech something you don't want and cough up the Fuel.

    I'm glad to see I'm not the only one with the problems you described I just don't know how they would fix it. You could have officers coming in earlier but putting a cooldown/unlocking time on both their squad upgrades and the unlocking of the command posts. The only problem is that it doesn't make sense for the command posts to not unlock when the officer comes on the field; his presence is unlocking it. However, you could argue that he is unlocking it, with his presence, but slowly/over time. This is unless he came in off map in the late game and got blown to bits straight away. You could still make it so the unlocking freezes in that case, though. Maybe tie the unlocking of the building to a condition where the corresponding officer has to be alive or it won't unlock (unlocking will pause if he dies) and then set the unlocking time to meet all the timing requirements they laid out in the changelog. So, to be clear, a possible solution would be to allow an officer to be trained and deployed at a speed comparable to other infantry, and then once he is deployed, the corresponding command post begins unlocking at a speed which maintains all timing requirements and only as long as the officer is alive.

    To solve the other problem you described, I had another idea which I've been thinking about. That is, once you have one officer deployed, the other officer becomes optional when you want to unlock that command post and the unlocking requirement comes at a reduced fuel cost. But, again, it doesn't make sense for the officer to not deploy. Maybe we can imagine he's inside the command post and not deployed, organising things and giving orders. Maybe you could call it something like "Research Lieutenant/Captain Stationing". And then, once that command post becomes unlocked, if you want to then call him in, he has no training time, just deploys, and then a cooldown like with commander off-map call-in abilities. A Major coming in is not an issue since he's only 3 pop and serves some critical functions distinct from Riflemen. These are all just ideas.

    We are off-topic and at risk of hijacking the OPs thread, I suggest that, if we want to talk further about this topic, a new thread should be created. If you are doing so, please link it here so we can easily follow the rest of the discussion. Thank you for your great points and discussion.

  • #9
    11 months ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 2,007
    edited February 2020

    @Thundercracker Your overly long example fails to factor in the cost of the tanks themselves, thus rendering it inaccurate and frankly rather worthless. Factor in the tanks. Tech does not grant units (unless youre the US) and they dont get built for free, so omitting that factor is inacceptable.

  • #10
    11 months ago

    Hi @Hingie. I think you are wrong on all of your points. My example is firstly not overly long considering how complex the issue is. It's not "rather worthless"; even if you want to create a straw man argument, I did the analysis and now you can easily add in the tanks, 90 for a T-34/76 and 120 for a Panzer IV, happy? The problem is that you now have to discuss the balance of the tanks, if you want to add them in there. But everyone knows a Panzer IV is superior to a T-34/76, but you pay more Fuel for it, that's a different balance discussion (your straw man). A T-34/76 coming in earlier, because of its lower Fuel cost, is very little advantage if a superior tank is shortly coming in from Wehrmacht. Now this, this would be an overly long example/discussion and a worthless discussion because everyone knows you are getting what you pay for; 30 extra Fuel for a superior tank. If the first Wehrmacht Panzer IV cost 145 Fuel and then 120 Fuel for every tank after that, you MIGHT have a point, but I would have factored in an extra 25 Fuel in the Fuel teching cost in my analysis. If the Soviets had access to a 120 Fuel tank then Wehrmacht would get their tank earlier, or we could extend the discussion to something similar to a Panzer IV like an M4A3(76) Sherman or talk about a KV-1 which is, what, 140 Fuel? So it would come in later than a Panzer IV (the KV-1). Does this mean, if Fuel teching requirements were equal, that Soviets are at a disadvantage when deploying a KV-1 simply because it costs more Fuel and thus takes longer to deploy? At what point would you then say it is an advantage/tactical advantage to deploy a KV-1 as Soviets, considering you can instead build a T-34/76 much faster given its lower Fuel requirements? And then after getting that first T-34/76 you can then build another one faster than a KV-1 and so on. You're not being fair at all or rational. Soviets get a T-70, that clinches it, they get tanks much earlier, you're right. My analysis is perfectly accurate (in its approach, if I made a mistake with some numbers please point it out) and you are creating a straw man. The discussion I raised is for each faction to be teched up, with respect to Fuel requirement, in a position to deploy their primary medium tanks. Not the Fuel cost of the various tanks and their balance with respect to that. If you want to discuss that, go ahead. Add in tanks and write a further analysis on top of mine, rather than just calling the work I did inaccurate, worthless and "inacceptable". Go ahead "Factor in the tanks" and give us your analysis. I suspect there is a very specific reason you didn't do the analysis yourself, I mean, why didn't you? It's clear you just want to discount the objective fact that Wehrmacht enjoy an unfair Fuel advantage.

    @Hingie said:
    ... Tech does not grant units ...

    I understand what you meant by this, but can you explain to me the purpose and effect of teching?

  • #11
    11 months ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 2,007
    edited February 2020

    @Thundercracker said:
    My example is firstly not overly long considering how complex the issue is.

    Your post is over 2000 words long. You couldve condensed it down to half that, at the very least. Im not saying this out of spite or malice, but most people wont read that wall of text in its entirety. The length of your post does your argument a disservice.

    It's not "rather worthless"

    But it is. The point you tried to bring across was that the Wehrmacht gets tanks out cheaper than Soviets. You forgot to add in the factor that tanks are not free however. You omitted an entire factor in the equation basically invalidating your results. If we add in the tank costs, the picture is different.

    Your example 1 then becomes:

    Soviets: 10+85+90+90= 275
    Wehrmacht: 10+40+90+15+120= 275

    Wehrmacht gets its first medium out at the same time as Soviets. The balance of the tanks is irrelevant in this context, because it did not feature in your post.

    @Hingie said:
    ... Tech does not grant units ...

    I understand what you meant by this, but can you explain to me the purpose and effect of teching?

    It makes new units available for purchase. It grants only access to units, not units themselves. Otherwise youd get free stuff when completing a Tech step.

    And I did not do the calculating because I simply cant be bothered. Those times are way behind me. I rarely participate anymore, the heyday of my activity here is over.

  • #12
    11 months ago
    38Lightning38Lightni… Posts: 512
    edited February 2020
    @Hingie you make no sense.
    Tech cost+tank cost = a timeing issue
    So timeing needs to be a factor which is controlled directly by tech cost.

    Even usf has tech locked you cannot even get major until you unlock one of the other buildings and also pay the 50mp 20fuel and they suffer the most fuel disadvantage.
    315 fuel cost to have equivalent tech to Sherman.
    Which is another topic.


    Perhaps their needs to be a building constructed before panzer4 building can be constructed rather than increasing resource costs to bring it in line with the other factions or some combination or redistribution of this.
    Closing soviet tech gap atleast.
  • #13
    11 months ago

    I already defeated your argument, even though it was a straw man and I didn't have to. Everyone can see that, including you. You clearly just want an advantage to Wehrmacht no matter the cost, so you are just coming here trying to make my objective analysis look bad by just saying negative things about it with no argument except until now. I fully expected this, that the pro-Wehrmacht people will start jumping up and down, but if this is the best you have, good luck. Wehrmacht has a Fuel advantage when it comes to the teching cost requirement for them to be able to deploy their armour from the SAK compared to other equivalent buildings/tech requirements of other factions, you can't deny that whatsoever. You want to narrow the argument to just a T-34/76 and the Panzer IV, but we shouldn't narrow it down to just tanks, but also include assault guns such as the stug III, which I believe is 90 Fuel. So why don't you have a look at that also? I don't know, maybe because your example is inaccurate, worthless and unacceptable. All you did was lie about what my argument was, another straw man:

    @Thundercracker said:

    ... Wehrmacht gets access to tanks sooner than any other faction ...

    ... with lower teching Fuel costs than any other faction for their primary medium tanks to become available ...

     

    @Hingie said:
    The point you tried to bring across was that the Wehrmacht gets tanks out cheaper than Soviets.

    Funny how you are playing semantics here, you're grasping at straws. You are saying I argued something else, than what I was actually talking about, and then saying how I am wrong; it's the very definition of a straw man argument. You may think no one wants to read a detailed analysis about Company of Heroes 2 balance issues but I doubt they want to read empty comments such as yours that are a waste of space, either. If your objective here was to have people discount this thread, in order to maintain Wehrmacht's unfair Fuel advantage, you're not doing very well, you're just drawing more attention to it.

    You brought up tanks into a balance thread and want to completely ignore the balance of tanks? Good luck. This is quite comical actually. I mean, I can't believe what I am reading here, you want to invalidate my “argument” by saying that I didn't factor in the Fuel costs of the tanks and then at the same time say the balance of tanks is irrelevant in this context since it didn't feature in my post? Are you insane? You now added tanks in, NOT ME, now you have to discuss it. They are a feature of your post, you brought them in, it’s now in context. I ALREADY EXPLAINED THIS:

    @Thundercracker said:
    The problem is that you now have to discuss the balance of the tanks, if you want to add them in there.

    YOU WANTED TO BRING THEM IN, I DIDN'T, and furthermore you want to use them as an argument. You want to call my example worthless and then use it for your own straw man... a worthless argument that you found worth in, funny (or insane). I can't believe what I am reading here. Tank/armour balance is a pointless discussion to my analysis; it's clear that Relic balances tanks separately from teching costs with the relative Manpower, Fuel and Population requirements being adjusted with respect to the performance of the various tanks: Not geared towards some stupid narrow minded straw man argument that only takes into account one scenario and wants to call the second that a tank arrives into the battlefield as the point of a balance, while ignoring build time factors.

    @Hingie said:
    The length of your post does your argument a disservice.

    Completely false: Firstly I did an analysis, and yes there was arguing about some balance in there, and the tech paths and tactics, but they were just to make clear what was being compared. Either way arguments are not invalidated by word count; I'm not going to pander to people who are trying to affect things with non-researched one line posts. I put up 3 headings and an appendix, you could have ignored 3/4 of those and just read about the imbalance you want to cover up and try to pretend doesn't exist.

    All you did is validate my analysis with your easy addition of the Fuel costs of tanks into the equation. You proved that, in Example 1, a T-34/76 is theoretically going to come in at the same time as a Panzer IV, in terms of Fuel cost and assuming even fuel income for both factions. And I don't think there is anyone on this forum who would say a T-34/76 is a match for a Panzer IV (in the game of CoH 2). So, good work, thank you for showing Wehrmacht are getting a superior tank out at the same time as Soviets, but did you factor in the build time into your overly short example? It's so crazy; you want me to condense down my analysis but at the same time add tanks in there. This is unreal. You're making unreasonable contradictory requests to try and sum up an effigy of an argument.

    @Hingie said:
    It makes new units available for purchase. It grants only access to units, not units themselves. Otherwise youd get free stuff when completing a Tech step.

    It does not grant units but grants units, got it.

    @38Lightning. Thank you. It's not a simple discussion, but when someone takes the time to do the research it's easier to view the problem more clearly; when it is narrowed down and other pointless factors moved out of the way. Someone can easily come and now add timing factors into the consideration. Something Relic worries a lot about, if we read the changelog about some of their balancing concerns with US Forces officer teching/light vehicle timing in some of the more recent notes.

  • #14
    11 months ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 2,007
    edited February 2020

    @38Lightning: First of all, I am not debating whether there is or isnt a timing issue at hand. Thats not a discussion I care to partake in. I merely critizised the methodology Thundercracker employed to ascertain if there is one. Note, however, that his examples do not feature tank costs. They are based solely on the tech costs. Why that matters I shall explain below.

    @Thundercracker: I provided an argument why your analysis is faulty. As to whether Wehrmacht has a fuel advantage, see above. Not an aspect by itself I am going to debate. You can and in fact should factor in other vehicles as well, not only the medium tanks. I focused on them because you referred specifically to them in your post as follows: "I would like to focus the discussion on the various faction's ability to field their first primary medium tank, by unlocking it through tech[...]".

    Your argument was that Wehrmacht gets tanks sooner than other factions, then primarily focused on soviets. Thus I did as well. The examples provided by you were lacking however, because tech itself does not provide you with a tank. Your analysis is verbose, not detailed. If my comment is a waste of space you ought to not reply to it.

    I brought up the cost of tanks, not their balance. That is a related, but not intrinsically linked set of factors which deserve their own discussion. I am not debating the balance between the tanks here because you did not factor it in your original comment and I provided, again, a critique of your methodology around the analysis of timing. Your explanation is not satisfactory because it is not pertinent to the argument I made.

    You have to bring in their costs. You cannot speak about the timing of tank arrival by leaving out the cost of tanks. And again, on the danger of repeating myself ad nauseam, Tech alone does not provide units. You do not suddenly get a tank on the field ex nihilo only because you built its tech structure. Once the structure is built, time has to pass for you to accumulate the ressources to then procure the vehicle. That adds to the time it takes to get a tank operational. You yourself said that youd like to focus on the ability to field a tank. You cannot field a tank without paying its costs.

    If one can ignore 3/4s of your post and the key question can still be extrapolated from it without detraction or significant ommission of supportive arguments, I would argue that the parts which can be ignored are superfluous. Good research is concise. The balance between the T-34 and the Pz IV is not relevant for the original argument you were trying to get across, thus it still isnt for me.

    You should try to not omit important words within other peoples replies. I said that tech grants Access to units. It makes them available for purchase. It does not provide you with battle-ready units by itself.

  • #15
    11 months ago
    @Hingie ok so you factored in the tank cost to correct his methodology that's fine.

    So to continue on what would be the precieved cause of earlier produced medium tanks?
  • #16
    11 months ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 2,007
    edited February 2020

    @38Lightning said:
    So to continue on what would be the precieved cause of earlier produced medium tanks?

    No idea. Perhaps the easier availability of Panzergrenadiers makes skipping T2 a more attractive tactic? But even then, at least against Soviets, the timing difference should not be very pronounced - other factions might have a more marked experience, though I cannot comment there. The situation might be made more visible by the fact that the light vehicles Wehr can field are not essential (or that impressive), limiting fuel costs before the arrival of tanks.

  • #17
    11 months ago

    @Hingie said:
    You can and in fact should factor in other vehicles as well, not only the medium tanks.

    Example 1 T-34/76 Soviets, Stug III Wehrmacht

    Special Rifle Command -> Tankoviy Battalion Command -> Mechanized Armor Kampaneya -> T-34/76
    10 + 85 + 90 + 90 = 275 Fuel

    Infantrie Kompanie -> Battle Phase 1 -> Battle Phase 2 -> SAK -> Stug II
    10 + 40 + 90 + 15 + 90 = 245 Fuel

    30 Fuel advantage to Wehrmacht for unlocking medium armour/equivalent tech to Soviets and producing first equivalent Fuel cost armoured vehicle with respect to Fuel costs for both teching and production.

    The rest of your argument is a verbose straw man and semantics that were already refuted. What am I even saying here? "Argument"? LOL. So, you twisted my words here:

    @Thundercracker said:
    ... I would like to focus the discussion on the various faction's ability to field their first primary medium tank, by unlocking it through tech, in terms of Fuel cost: ...

    I made it very clear what I was talking about: "ABILITY", "BY UNLOCKING IT THROUGH TECH". And then you sit there and talk about how teching is different to building an armoured vehicle, yet you tell ME I can't talk about teching costs, good one. You ignored 2 of the other statements I quoted:

    @Thundercracker said:
    ... Wehrmacht gets access to tanks sooner than any other faction ...
    @Thundercracker said:
    ... with lower teching Fuel costs than any other faction for their primary medium tanks to become available ...

    ACCESS, TECHING FUEL COSTS, AVAILABLE, keywords you completely ignore. By doing this you then put the argument into a straw man position where you think you are saying my argument is false when it wasn't even about what you are saying it is. You tried to say that I am talking about the teching Fuel costs plus armoured vehicle costs. Even though you can still play around with this word, I said: ACCESS ACCESS ACCESS. Talk about:

    @Hingie said:
    You should try to not omit important words within other peoples replies

    Now, you continue to say I didn't bring in the Fuel cost of tanks, despite the fact that I did add tanks in there in my first reply to you. I added them in there, and I also added a KV-1 in there (you ignored it) and an M4A3(76) Sherman, which is 125 Fuel, last time I checked. You ignored it all, and I don't even know what you are talking about now.

    @Hingie said:
    I said that tech grants Access to units. It makes them available for purchase. It does not provide you with battle-ready units by itself.

    You failed to see what I pointed out here, it's quite funny actually: I pointed out that you were playing word games; you said tech doesn't grant units in your first post, then said it "grants access to units", which is why your argument is completely flawed, other than being a straw man. You said it grants units but it doesn't grant units. I just got you to say grant twice, which was funny. It grants access to the units but it doesn't build the units. Those two are distinct, but it's all a word game for you, in order to try and create a straw man. That's why you are fighting so hard to argue your semantics; if you can't create the straw man in the first place, you can't then defeat it to give the appearance you won the argument.

    @Hingie said:
    Your argument was that Wehrmacht gets tanks sooner, ...

    Complete lie, I was very careful with my words. I stuck with the Fuel teching costs to make them available, you even QUOTE IT YOURSELF ("by unlocking it through tech"), not to "grant" them (I'm sure anyone reading this is confused at the word "grant" by now, lol, just using Hingie's words). This is insane.

    @Hingie said:
    ... then primarily focused on soviets. Thus I did as well. ...

    No, all you did was NOT read what I wrote and simply take the first example, when I called you out, in a rush to sum up an argument to back up all the false claims of your OP ("inaccurate", "worthless" and "inacceptable"). That's very clear, lol. Especially since, in my second example, if you ignore the paragraph below it, the Fuel disparity is much less and would be a better example for a pro-Wehrmacht bias player to use to give an appearance that there is no imbalance.

    @Hingie said:
    ... I provided, again, a critique of your methodology ...

    Where? I don't see it.
     

    @Hingie said:
    You cannot speak about the timing of tank arrival by leaving out the cost of tanks

    @Thundercracker said:
    ... Wehrmacht gets access to tanks sooner than any other faction ...

    ACCESS, WORDS, READ. Also I narrowed it down to Fuel costs, I have to write this in here since you're probably now going to take this out of context.

    @Hingie said:
    Good research is concise.

    No, not your definition of "concise". I really doubt you know anything about research, go try and submit a one page thesis at a tertiary institution and omit an Appendix. By the way, the first part of my OP was to do with another question relating to what the OP said and one of the headings was a short "Final Comments". So let's change what I said earlier, ignore 1/2 of the headings, which you should do already since the other is an Appendix, so your argument about that is false. I was just trying to explain to you that it wasn't as big as it looks, to someone who doesn't want to read a lot, or not at all in this case, they could just go find exactly what they wanted to read. E.g. someone who wants to know what the effect is of the Wehrmacht teching change could find 2 detailed, but concise, paragraphs on it. Even the OP was confused as to the effect, which is an example of where being concise isn't a positive; the changelog is very concise, but people are still confused, and I don't blame the OP for being confused either. Someone who wants to look at the FUEL TECHING COST, FUEL TECHING COST, FUEL TECHING COST balance for Wehrmacht versus US Forces can easily go to the subheadings in the Appendix I offered, or ignore it if they don't care. Perhaps they are pro-Wehrmacht bias and don't care at all about my whole post except for the first heading, where they will see they now have been given a back teching advantage, so they have reduced risk now when rushing to BP 3. Well, I guess they do care, only the conclusion, not the details, and need to come and call people's work "inaccurate", "worthless" and "inacceptable" to protect their advantage.

    @Hingie said:
    I said that tech grants Access to units. ...

    @Thundercracker said:
    ... Wehrmacht gets access to tanks sooner ...

    What are you trying to pull here? This is the most clear example that you are creating a straw man. Take a good long hard look at this before you write your next "rather worthless" post.

    @Hingie
    All you did is prove that, when it comes to the Fuel costs of teching for Soviets versus Wehrmacht that there is a Fuel advantage to Wehrmacht. Please feel free to keep bumping this thread to the top so that it's more likely the devs look at it and change the unfair advantage you are trying to maintain. In your next post please be more concise so we can much more easily point out your lies, contradictions and straw men etc. Thank you.

  • #18
    11 months ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 2,007
    edited February 2020

    @Thundercracker Well, done, now carry on. If "good research" is what youre after, as you so adamantly claim, you will keep on comparing a varierty of scenarios. It might also be prudent to compare vehicles to their relative counterparts, for example the Stug timing relative to an SU-76 and SU-85, seeing how they share a similar role. Please refrain from referring to my replies as "verbose", while yourself replaying to a 500 word post with a 1300 long one. Otherwise you look rather silly.

    You wrote "[...]I would like to focus the discussion on the various faction's ability to field their first primary medium tank, by unlocking it through tech [...]". A tank cannot be fielded without paying for its cost. If truly all you wanted to discuss was the potential for procurement through tech unlock, I cannot help but wonder how from that alone you extrapolate that Wehr has tanks afield quicker than other factions. As I was able to prove with but one example your sets of data are misleading and do not represent actual arrival times of vehicles.

    Availability or access of procurement of vehicles is but a factor to determine arrival time of vehicles. But if that was all you wanted to prove, then ok I guess. Its just not information that by itself is helpful to determine OPs question. For that your results need to be processed further.

    You did not in your original post. In case I did not make it clear, this is still about the methodology applied by you in your original analysis. Subsequent adjustments, such as they are, can be taken into consideration once they are applied to a wider set of examples and you include the result of that incorporation into your assesment.

    Failing to see what you want to point out is, given the volume of your words and the obtuseness of their writer, an easy thing to do. I stand by that statement. Access to units is something different than units themselves. You only analyzed access, which is not enough to determine timing, the latter being the real parameter in question here.

    I seem not to be the only one interpreting your "carefully chosen words" wrongly. From his reply to me, I understand @38Lightning has found himself in a similar situation.

    You did focus on Soviets. The entirety of your chapter "It Seems Wehrmacht gets Tanks Much faster" deals only with Soviets vs Wehrmacht. Its apparently the central part of your post, thus it stands to reason its the focal point of your argument. Tell me, if my goal is to promote the idea Wehrmacht is fine and bias is my sole motivator, why did I not chose the better example then? I may be a fanboy, but even my Archnemesis Katitof would agree Im not so sloppy as to leave a juicy target like that unexploited. The reason is that I am still not here to prove anything for Wehrmacht. Im here to prove that your way of approaching the question of timing is flawed and needs adjustment.

    If you dont see it, I would suggest an appointment with an optometrist.

    See above.

    First of all, this is not university, so one should focuse on being intelligible and keep ones aguments clear and as short as possible. Much like in politics, and one could argue science as well. Second of all, if you submit a paper but most of it is unrelated, or only tangentially related to the question your paper is supposed to be answering, and the ommission of these parts in no way detracts from the clarity of you analysis, you wrote a lot of void space. Not to mention in this case you brough forth an incomplete procedure that lead to a distorted answer. Being concise is not the same as being only brief. Two different words, two different meanings.

    I fail to understand how you think I have proven that, seeing how I did not make it a topic of my posts and did not provide numbers but my one example, which actually disproves a timing inequality. I doubt the devs read any of this.

  • #19
    11 months ago

    @Hingie
    Thanks for the bump.

    @Hingie said:
    @Thundercracker Well, done, now carry on. ...

    Okay, so you realise you were lying, good, I did factor it in once you asked me. I am not going to carry on, because the relative Fuel costs of vehicles is not pertinent to the balance of Fuel teching costs. It's a straw man. Mediums are balanced by their relative Manpower cost, Fuel cost and Population requirements. I think I know where you are confused actually, it's my heading that says "It Seems Wehrmacht gets Tanks Much faster", that is a direct quote from the OP and I replaced "OST" with "Wehrmacht". Your argument is with him, not me, I focused on Fuel Teching costs. I made sure to be very specific about what I was talking about but 3 clear quotes were not enough, and you are still misinterpreting one of them :(. My topic, which you want to keep changing to something else, simply shows the Fuel teching costs in a number of Scenarios. Exactly as you described, you need to accumulate Fuel; if one faction has to accumulate more Fuel it will take longer to get a vehicle out, IF the vehicles have the same Fuel cost. That's why your argument is dumb, Relic has balanced the vehicle Fuel cost so you get what you pay for. That's why not every vehicle costs the same, can you not even understand that? I'm guessing this is a joke. If anyone thinks I am paying him to do this (bump the thread), I'm not, he's doing it by himself. I really don't care if Wehrmacht is imbalanced, my main problem is losing the Airlanding Officer, but it would be a bonus if I wasn't always at a Fuel disadvantage as Allies and advantage as Wehrmacht.

    @Hingie said:
    Please refrain from referring to my replies as "verbose", while yourself replaying to a 500 word post with a 1300 long one. Otherwise you look rather silly.

    Please refer to:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
    I wanted to refute all your lies etc., it takes a while. The world has physical limits, if I want to correct all your lies it takes some time. We did clear up one of them above.

    @Hingie said:
    You wrote "[...]I would like to focus the discussion on the various faction's ability to field their first primary medium tank, by unlocking it through tech [...]". A tank cannot be fielded without paying for its cost. ...

    "... ability to field ... by unlocking it through tech ..."
    "... ability to field ... by unlocking it through tech ..."
    "... ability to field ... by unlocking it through tech ..."
    "... ability to field ... by unlocking it through tech ..."
    "... ability to field ... by unlocking it through tech ..."

    @Hingie said:
    If truly all you wanted to discuss was the potential for procurement through tech unlock, I cannot help but wonder how from that alone you extrapolate that Wehr has tanks afield quicker than other factions. As I was able to prove with but one example your sets of data are misleading and do not represent actual arrival times of vehicles.

    See above, and see Example 1 with a T-34/76 and stug.

    @Hingie said:
    Availability or access of procurement of vehicles is but a factor to determine arrival time of vehicles. But if that was all you wanted to prove, then ok I guess. Its just not information that by itself is helpful to determine OPs question. For that your results need to be processed further.

    Wait did you just realise I was right midway while writing this post? lol.

    @Hingie said:
    You did not in your original post. In case I did not make it clear, this is still about the methodology applied by you in your original analysis. Subsequent adjustments, such as they are, can be taken into consideration once they are applied to a wider set of examples and you include the result of that incorporation into your assesment.

    No, sorry, these additions were something you called for and completely unnecessary. If a faction has to pay less to tech up, it's obvious to anyone that they will be able to procure anything that costs Fuel faster than if they did not pay less, it's implied. I could have talked about an assumption, which is something very obvious to most people, and that is that the vehicles are balanced by cost and population requirement independent of teching. I could have written that assumption, but it's obvious and would have wasted time. As I said, if the first Panzer IV cost 145 Fuel and all subsequent Panzer IVs cost 120 Fuel I would have factored it into the Fuel teching costs (25 more Fuel). I don't expect that someone would know such little about how the game's basic resource mechanics work that they could not see this. This is why I assume you are just here for pro-Wehrmacht imbalance, and I was right, you admitted being a fanboy. That is unless you don't understand the way resource and purchasing work at a fundamental level. If not, in this game, usually what happens is you purchase stuff with Manpower, Munitions and Fuel. In almost all cases you will find that resource turns into your army value equivalently, which you can see as a graph in game. Between the factions, Manpower, Munitions and Fuel is meant to trade evenly. You spend 300 Manpower for Wehrmacht and 300 Manpower for Soviets and you are meant to get something equivalent, generally speaking. There are some exceptions, Panzergrenadier Panzerschrecks are the same munitions cost as Bazookas and PIATs but they perform much better, however Panzergrenadiers are supposed to be elite infantry and they make Bazookas more powerful in the hands of Rangers, for example.

    @Hingie said:
    Failing to see what you want to point out is, given the volume of your words and the obtuseness of their writer, an easy thing to do. I stand by that statement. Access to units is something different than units themselves. You only analyzed access, which is not enough to determine timing, the latter being the real parameter in question here.

    Ad hominem. It is enough, as I said, the costs and population requirements of vehicles are balanced relative to each other independent of teching costs. As far as I can see, anyway. Anyone want to argue 90 Fuel for a T-34/76 is too cheap versus 120 Fuel for a Panzer IV?

    @Hingie said:
    I seem not to be the only one interpreting your "carefully chosen words" wrongly. From his reply to me, I understand @38Lightning has found himself in a similar situation.

    That's a lie, he said you make no sense, in the first reply. In the second reply he was was directly replying to your straw man on its terms, which when we followed your path of the addition of vehicle Fuel costs, we saw that there was an imbalance.

    @Hingie said:
    You did focus on Soviets. The entirety of your chapter "It Seems Wehrmacht gets Tanks Much faster" deals only with Soviets vs Wehrmacht. Its apparently the central part of your post, thus it stands to reason its the focal point of your argument.

    Yes, but you're not getting what I was talking about there. I was pointing out you didn't even read what I wrote, you just wanted to come here and protect a Wehrmacht imbalance, so, when I called you out, to actually give an argument to back up your claims of "inaccurate", "worthless" and "inacceptable", I'm guessing you just grabbed the first example you could see and read to try and give an argument. And when I say "didn't even read", I mean you probably read a bit and freaked out and came to the defence of Wehrmacht.

    @Hingie said:
    Tell me, if my goal is to promote the idea Wehrmacht is fine and bias is my sole motivator, why did I not chose the better example then?

    Because you were too lazy and probably didn't think I'd call you out, so you rushed a defence for your unfounded claims and most likely didn't get past my first example when you got scared about your Wehrmacht imbalance.

    @Hingie said:
    Being concise is not the same as being only brief. Two different words, two different meanings.

    Probably the only thing you said that made sense.

    @Hingie said:
    I fail to understand how you think I have proven that, seeing how I did not make it a topic of my posts and did not provide numbers but my one example, which actually disproves a timing inequality. I doubt the devs read any of this.

    It does prove a timing inequality. Wehrmacht are getting a superior tank at the same time as Soviets. That's imbalanced by the very definition. This is only possible because of the lower Fuel Teching requirements for Wehrmacht compared to Soviets. All of this extra stuff you wanted to go through was obvious, unnecesary and would have made my OP much longer. However, I think it's valuable to be able to educate you by following through on the implications of higher Fuel teching costs. As 38Lightning said (and we can trust him, you quoted him as if he was a reliable source in your post):

    @38Lightning said:
    @Hingie you make no sense.
    Tech cost+tank cost = a timeing issue
    So timeing needs to be a factor which is controlled directly by tech cost.

    Oh wait, so 38Lightning sees it exactly the same way I do? What? Where's that optometrist Hingie? I think I'm reading this wrong since you said he interpreted me wrongly, I must have the wrong quote here, damn.

  • #20
    11 months ago
    From what I get out of all of this.

    Yes @Thundercracker started out only showing the tech cost and yes had an appendix showing more than one faction.

    @Hingie brought up the point that the methodology was flawed due to not incorporateing tank cost as it effects timeing which is also true.

    I think the original intent was to show an imbalance in what it takes just to unlock your stuff and @Thundercracker purposely left out the cost of tanks/units knowing the tanks/units would inherently cost more based off their relative strength per classification of unit typ and balance design/usage which their for directly effects timeing just by this nature which as @Hingie knows that the balance of the units is directly tied to any timeing issues and the balance of units would require even further elaborating on the subject as well as units placement within the branches of the tech tiers like panzergens in main building as example which effects strategy and their for timeing as it is not a simple matter indeed nor easy to dictate just how long a player maintains a strategic unit before countermeasures and strategic solutions are available and fuel cost In a tech tier may be the absolute direct controle factor In timeing but again for how long is a strategic advantage held like the early soviet clown car strategy you might have to add extra fuel just to slow down the timeing which may seem unfair at first glance
    But would you want to add that cost to the unit? Or add a longer build time? How els do you controle said timeing?
    In order to close the gap of fuel cost we would need to examine everything includeing tech structure like they did with usf for example adding in essentially dividers to known strategic usage of units in the form of the mechanized unlocks for light vehicles so as to reduce the cost of the officers themselves and break up the tech tree to better controle timeing and unit placement within the structure.

    but i think we all agree you would atleast need to start off at the foundation.

    And for instance if the panzer does arrive at the exact same time as the t34 is that a strategic advantage or disadvantage for said sides and what are they giveing up in the process to get to that point strategically to achieve said timeing and are they fair trade offs.
  • #21
    11 months ago

    @38Lightning 5/5, beautiful. Thank you. This is why I had a discussion underneath each of my examples. I explained the trade off of the different tech decisions, in my OP, with a paragraph underneath. It's important. Soviet versus Wehrmacht tech is very strange. They both have light vehicles but I'd say the Soviet's light vehicles (except for half-tracks) are a tier above in quality (ignoring commander specific units). But Soviets don't get the super tier that's available to Wehrmacht with Battle Phase 3. But then Wehrmacht needs that for rocket artillery. This asymmetry makes the game very interesting. As I said, my obvious assumption is that vehicles are balanced by their costs. In my experience that is the case, and I think it's a good assumption. Furthermore, I think it's an obvious assumption/fact when studying the game and the Changelog. When you look at the US Forces changes, they increased the build time of M2HB .50 cal Machine Gun Team to maintain timing, but I feel like that was a messy/bad solution. This is a result of the strange/unique teching of US Forces, which should be maintained, but they should instead use a solution such as the one I provided in an earlier post. Also, sorry for bringing you into this mess, @38Lightning, I didn't want to bother you, he did.

    Now, I realised I actually made a mistake in my analysis for Oberkommando West. This affects one of the conclusions I made. I don't want to edit that post since I've seen posts disappear from editing. I failed to factor in the fact that Oberkommando West has 10 less starting Fuel than all the other factions. This changes the final conclusions as such:

    Oberkommando West Example 1

    30 Fuel or 10 Fuel disadvantage compared to Wehrmacht
    +15 Fuel for Oberkommando West if they get Field Medics upgrade for Battlegroup Headquarters

    Oberkommando West Example 2

    50 Fuel or 30 Fuel disadvantage compared to Wehrmacht

    I think this is the best way to factor in this starting Fuel difference. Also I should change:

    @Thundercracker said:
    ... (except for a couple of teching scenarios) ...

    to "except for one teching scenario". That is, as far as I can see, if there's another teching scenario please submit it. Well, you can omit the Weapon Racks from the British Forces, but, come on, really? Also you can find parity with Wehrmacht if you omit both the the Ambulance and Weapon Racks at the same time for the US Forces; but again, really?

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

  • © SEGA. SEGA, the SEGA logo, Relic Entertainment, the Relic Entertainment logo, Company of Heroes and the Company of Heroes logo are either trademarks or registered trademarks of SEGA Holdings Co., Ltd. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. SEGA is registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

DeutschEnglishEspañolFrançaisItalianoРусский