Company of Heroes

manpower is overpowered

Reply to this topic Start new topic
# 1Breegull Apr 4 2012, 13:11 PM
It seems to me this patch that manpower has become too important. Fuel rarely seems to be the limiting factor in teching decisions, which disrupts the flow of the game. Map control has taken a back seat to bleeding your opponents mp. Early snipers are all the rage for this reason and I have found as wehr that going t1>t2>t3 without vet is extremely effective. Rather than going off on a rant I'd like to open the discussion to the community and hear your thoughts on this.

Posts: 129

Game: Company of Heroes

+
# 2LeiwoUnion Apr 4 2012, 13:23 PM
Haha, and I thought I've seen it all. In any case, manpower has always been the most important resource, period.

Posts: 1,615

Game: Company of Heroes

+
# 3Tommy. Apr 4 2012, 14:10 PM
Manpower....is overpowered?

That's not a unit, or even an ability or a faction. It's a concept.

This is what the balance forum has come to; a concept is overpowered.

Posts: 3,040

Clan: Wheres My Demo

Game: Company of Heroes 2

+
# 4Doomlord52 Apr 4 2012, 19:13 PM
You know whats even more OP? Building units. Its like, im doing FINE until the other team starts building units - they're all OP. Most of the cheap ones can even CAP. WTF is that?

Posts: 818

Game: Company of Heroes

+
# 5Moon Pine Apr 4 2012, 19:14 PM
As far as I can remember, the most important resource in CoH was always manpower.

This is even more serious for Allies, especially for US - an failed full assault = multiple riflemen kia = cripple on tech = owned by Puma or Panzer IV.

Posts: 266

Game: Dawn of War 2

+
# 6cr4wler Apr 5 2012, 16:37 PM
i completely agree, manpower is OP! as is munitions (you can buy mines, nades, arty and a plethora of other shit with it, i mean srsly, wtf?!) and not to mention fuel! (ever tried fighting a panther with jeeps only?) and i'm wondering why nobody ever mentioned this, but MICRO is OP as SHIT! an ostwind can drive away from my rifles trying to throw stickies?! this is outrageous!

is there ANYTHING in this game that isnt OP?

Posts: 351

Clan: Heavy Love Artillery

Game: Company of Heroes

+
# 7Doomlord52 Apr 6 2012, 00:32 AM
QUOTE(cr4wler @ Apr 5 2012, 16:37 PM) *

is there ANYTHING in this game that isnt OP?


I believe there is a fence near the top part of Semois that is pretty balanced.

Posts: 818

Game: Company of Heroes

+
# 8sumpf riese Apr 6 2012, 07:13 AM
we could remove this terrible imbalance by rewarding the loss of manpower, like the first person to lose 1000 mp worth of units in a game wins.

This way heavy use of snipers would be nerfed, since it would only bring your opponent closer to victory... On the other hand there is no easier way to lose 1000 manpower than to run 3 snipers into a mine so this change would also nerf those imbalanced mines. This change would even punish the use of any other op unit! for all factions! no more stagspam, no more grenblobs, no more sniperspam, no more early acs, no more baserushing p4s no more basearty... man this sure would make it a great game.

Thank you, OP for giving us this great insight, it is all so clear now how to fix this broken game... It was so easy that i didnt even think of it before...

Posts: 163

Game: Company of Heroes

+
# 9oogliebooglie Apr 6 2012, 18:13 PM
Seems no one got OPs point. He's trying to say that fuel has become extremely unimportant compared to manpower. For example fast ACs are limited by manpower, not fuel. There are a bunch of viable strats that require practically no fuel. Personally I agree with this. The fuel heavy strats offer no significant advantage over the manpower heavy strats. For example going t2 t4 with wehr and getting KCH, p4s, and panthers is barely better than relying on vetted grens with pumas, paks, and snipers for support. Same goes for US, which can do just fine with rifles, AT guns, and snipers without having to touch the TD.

Unless you're dominating the opposing player, there's no real point to getting tanks (except PE panthers and brits, which rely on tanks).

Posts: 601

Game: Company of Heroes

+
# 10cr4wler Apr 6 2012, 21:27 PM
if you dont think fuel is important, dont bother capping/defending it and go for other shit instead. problem solved. /thread.

Posts: 351

Clan: Heavy Love Artillery

Game: Company of Heroes

+
# 11sumpf riese Apr 7 2012, 02:06 AM
QUOTE(oogliebooglie @ Apr 6 2012, 20:13 PM) *

(...) For example going t2 t4 with wehr and getting KCH, p4s, and panthers is barely better than relying on vetted grens with pumas, paks, and snipers for support. Same goes for US, which can do just fine with rifles, AT guns, and snipers without having to touch the TD.

This is plain wrong. wehr t4 is extremely powerfull and can be gamechanging. A single ostwind can have the blob-stopping power of a whole grenblob if used right. Same goes for US. As long as you dont mistake your sherman for a KT and rush in expecting to survive it is a damn effective allround unit that will deal constant damage to grens, protect your at guns and help against tanks. Us CAN do just fine with rifles, at guns and snipers but they do much better with support of armour and munition heavy doctrine abilies. And if you let your opponent get to t4, vetted kch will counter everything you have if you dont have any vehicles.

Lets not forget about vet. You cant tell me that having the 150 fuel to get your grens vet 3 isnt worth it. And you cant tell me that the 100 fuel you spend for the supply yard + first upgrade isnt worth it after a few minutes.

Go ahead and play your games disregarding fuel if it doesnt seem too important. At one point you will hit a wall and realize that fuel may not be as important as you thought, but still it has its priority. The important thing is to use what you can get... If you have a shitload of fuel go for t4 and own, if you dont go for a more basic strategy.

Posts: 163

Game: Company of Heroes

+
# 12Breegull Apr 7 2012, 02:41 AM
QUOTE(oogliebooglie @ Apr 7 2012, 04:13 AM) *

Seems no one got OPs point. He's trying to say that fuel has become extremely unimportant compared to manpower....

This.
Harassing fuel and controlling most of the fuel on the map (say 2/3 medium points on langres) doesn't seem as rewarding as it should be. Even when I go T4 as wehr or US most of the time the limiting factor is mp, not fuel. In an even game, wehr t4 needs artillery and/or sniper support to de crew the US players AT guns. You will also need a strong force that allows you to tech up without being pushed off the map. When choosing to vet up my units as wehr, the decision rarely is an opportunity cost on fuel purchases, but rather becomes about what units I could field instead.

Posts: 129

Game: Company of Heroes

+
# 13cr4wler Apr 7 2012, 07:17 AM
QUOTE(Breegull @ Apr 7 2012, 02:41 AM) *

This.
Harassing fuel and controlling most of the fuel on the map (say 2/3 medium points on langres) doesn't seem as rewarding as it should be. Even when I go T4 as wehr or US most of the time the limiting factor is mp, not fuel. In an even game, wehr t4 needs artillery and/or sniper support to de crew the US players AT guns. You will also need a strong force that allows you to tech up without being pushed off the map. When choosing to vet up my units as wehr, the decision rarely is an opportunity cost on fuel purchases, but rather becomes about what units I could field instead.



wehr t4 also has KCH that decrew paks in like 2 seconds and almost completely ignore snipers/rifles shooting at them whilst doing so.
if you keep spending your manpower reinforcing shit or getting more low tier units, of course manpower will limit you. thats how this game has always worked. and your opponent has the exact same issues as you. if he handles it better than you, then you obviously got outplayed.

Posts: 351

Clan: Heavy Love Artillery

Game: Company of Heroes

+
# 14DaRealRocky May 7 2012, 12:02 PM
QUOTE(Breegull @ Apr 4 2012, 15:11 PM) *

It seems to me this patch that manpower has become too important. Fuel rarely seems to be the limiting factor in teching decisions, which disrupts the flow of the game. Map control has taken a back seat to bleeding your opponents mp. Early snipers are all the rage for this reason and I have found as wehr that going t1>t2>t3 without vet is extremely effective. Rather than going off on a rant I'd like to open the discussion to the community and hear your thoughts on this.


It's also something I already noticed in beta testing a year ago. The importance of T4's isn't important. (For USA it's useful, but the only limiting factor is mp). For Wehr t4 Fuel could actually be a limiting resource. But T4 (units) just isn't worth it over t1-t2-t3 strategies, with more units.

Posts: 4,711

Clan: SoldiersofLiberty

Game: Company of Heroes

+
# 15RonaldDumsfeld May 7 2012, 15:33 PM
It's easy to take the piss but I can see where the OP is coming from.

To be fair to Rocky as well he was vocal about the effect such a massive manpower income advantage axis has in this patch way back in the beta. Several other good players, such as Gunnermate, said the same before they quit after the patcg dropped.

As axis it's possible to simply swamp US with your 20% manpower advantage early game and even the US player does win superior map control there really isn't much he can tech too that does enough damage that cannot be countered for a fraction of the cost.

Some of you are being deliberately disingenuous. The OP didn't mean manpower per se is overpowered. It's the fact that axis gets so much of it that makes the game balance difficult.

Not that I mind really. One side or the other has to be slightly better due to the complexity of the game mechanics and it works out better if that side is axis. CoH:O proved that. Which is why it got inplemented in regular CoH as well. people will always prefer to play as US because of the greater creative challenge.

Posts: 4,444

Clan: Stomach Battalion

Game: Company of Heroes

+
# 16Naeras May 7 2012, 17:42 PM
CoH needs more minerals.

ps: I agree.

This post has been edited by Naeras: May 7 2012, 18:43 PM

Posts: 4,463

Game: Company of Heroes

+
# 17Star Ocean May 9 2012, 06:57 AM
Does anyone know the reason axis armies get more manpower?

Lower squad numbers/vulnerable weapon teams possibly?

Posts: 3,911

Clan: H2

Game: CNC Zero Hour

+
# 18LeiwoUnion May 9 2012, 09:07 AM
Low infantry upkeep and low volk reinforce cost for wehr and low all around upkeep for PE. That's about it.

Posts: 1,615

Game: Company of Heroes

+
# 19Iskierka May 9 2012, 09:09 AM
I always thought of it as another tool to ensure axis got the lategame advantage, that adds up slowly from the early game.
A bit too early you may argue.

Posts: 789

Game: Company of Heroes

+
# 20Star Ocean May 9 2012, 10:27 AM
QUOTE(LeiwoUnion @ May 9 2012, 10:07 AM) *

Low infantry upkeep and low volk reinforce cost for wehr and low all around upkeep for PE. That's about it.


Sorry, what I meant to ask was the reasoning behind giving axis armies less upkeep. Because rifles are better early maybe?

Posts: 3,911

Clan: H2

Game: CNC Zero Hour

+

1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)