Does an Army march on its Stomach? Logistics in EF

I am not a high level player, nor do I expect I will ever devote the time necessary to become one. One of the most annoying problems in vCoH is the inability to transfer resources from one category to another. Sometimes my popcap is too low to take advantage of MP surpluses. Sometimes 1000s of FP are available. More Munis can always be used.
THe CPU always has a large bonus in MP that result in Spams. I would like to suggest a logistics squad, activated from the T0 HQ to allow transfer resource points back and forth between the three categories. It would not be necessary to have an equal exchange rate as is the case in Normandy 44 mod. Both Ostheer and Soviets should have the same capability. It would be nice for all factions as well but We know thats not going to happen.

Interesting proposition (reminds me of A.O.E.), but since it's only for 1 or 2 factions, i fear it would be dreadfully unbalanced. :(

The Americans do have a similar system though, with O.P.s, and the Supply Yard.

Sadly you are probably correct. The Amis and Wher have limited capabilities in this regard, The RMC rewards faction could be easily modified. PE would require a rewards faction. I think this would be a good idea to correct some of the shortcomings in PE but since success against PE depends greatly on denying it FPs it might create an entirely different balance issue.

+1 to the idea. I often end game with 400+ fuel surplus.

The problem with Fuel is that you will often spend so much Manpower on squads, reinforcing, and off-map units that your purchasing of non-doctrinal armor is restricted only by your Manpower reserves come late-game. The only time i have to watch my Fuel supplies is in the beginning, and when i am losing late-game.

I pretty much always have a use for more Munitions, though. :P

So do we,pariah ,So do we. But having a complex exchange system is not right for a game like this where everything is so dynamic.

I know. I just think relic could have done a better job balancing the resources, giving Fuel more use. :(

I always thought the lightest of the light vehicles (such as the Jeep) should cost a small amount of Fuel (maybe about 5), and be a little more effective in combat to compensate.

Tankbuster wrote:
So do we,pariah ,So do we. But having a complex exchange system is not right for a game like this where everything is so dynamic.

Take a look at the Normandy 44 Mod. It is not a complex system.

http://www.moddb.com/mods/normandy-1944-european-theater1/downloads/european-theater-1944-ver-17-full-auto-install

Last edited July 26, 2011 at 4:17 PM by Otto 213

How different is Normandy '44 to the standard Company Of Heroes gameplay?

Normandy 44 requires you to select a doctrine up front. This represents an historical division and its TO&E. A further doctrinal selection later on adds further Historical units in support of your initial selection. All units have some sort of hard popcap but many more unit types are available. 10m squads in general, call-ins are generally battle groups. higher resources lower muni costs. Looks pretty good so far But it is stand alone. IE not vCoH compatible like EF.

Sounds like a pretty cool mod, but i think it's too different to compare the resources of that game to standard Company Of Heroes and Eastern Front.

But it is not updated to the latest coh update

---

Post Merge: [time]1311702439[/time]

---

But it is not updated to the latest coh update

Hi Ryxxen. Welcome to the community! I think Normandy 44 is compatible with 2.602. THe readme says it is and it certainly works on my 2.602 set-up.

Is this the 1,7 updated version

This would make the gameplay unnecessarily complicated. People would capture munitions and trade them for fuel.

Tankbuster wrote:
This would make the gameplay unnecessarily complicated. People would capture munitions and trade them for fuel.

SU would even have an unfair advantage then. Their munitions handicap wouldn't be there anymore and they could easily come by upgrades/abilities faster.

That would make Red Guard happy. ;D

MaxiKing6 wrote:

Tankbuster wrote:
This would make the gameplay unnecessarily complicated. People would capture munitions and trade them for fuel.

SU would even have an unfair advantage then. Their munitions handicap wouldn't be there anymore and they could easily come by upgrades/abilities faster.

I think you all are talking about Tactics. I am talking about Strategic Advantage. My faction may have disadvantages in any particular game. Rather than try to obtain total map control Resource Switching would allow me to concentrate on denying my opponent the resources (I think), he needs and converting them to the resources I need.

I like the idea, but CoH is a very fast paced game, time taken to switch resources could be a distraction. however it does open up different strategies to go for.

added to that balancing would have to be redone all over again for all factions, it might just be creating an extra workload where it's simply not necessary.

However if there was a system like this in coh, i'd be very interested to see how it worked.

Mad wrote:
I like the idea, but CoH is a very fast paced game, time taken to switch resources could be a distraction.

No more distracting than switching unit pools. ;)

@pariah: +1. Switching pools potentially doubles the number of counters, (units) available. Resource switching would add 6 ways to balance your resource pool. Conceptually it is no different than Wher or Sovs speeding up production by trading some popcap for time.

It would take away  many competitive game play away, such as a race for fuel, map domination, etc.

@Seeme: I must disagree emphatically. Nothing in the proposal takes anything away from competitive aspects of the game. Please explain your assertion. What I hear you saying is "Manpower Blitz" makes the game less competitive.

Manpower Blitz is almost never used in competitive games. It is not a good power.

I'm suprised at the quality of Seeme's answer. He's learning! The resources are divided up into separate categories for a reason. This isn't like AOE where food, wood, gold etc. are just different versions of the same thing - a number used to purchase units. In CoH manpower, munitions and fuel all serve a very different gameplay purpose.

I agree with Seeme and Dennis here. I never really like the Manpower Blitz. I understand it's supposed to be used to quickly get a Tiger, but still...

Yeah 150 Munitions traded for an instant 800MP with reduced income for a few minutes isn't a very good deal.

Generally, yeah, but sometimes you just need to get a Tiger out quickly...

pariah wrote:
Generally, yeah, but sometimes you just need to get a Tiger out quickly...

Then you better make damn sure you have other troops to support that tiger because the dropped income makes it tough to get any units on the field. It's appropriate if you're really in a tight spot and you just need that extra tiger for backup but if you use it for the sole purpose of getting a tiger with no other troops on the field it's like shooting yourself in the foot.

The good news is that Blitzkrieg is not an ammo heavy doctrine, unless you spam assualt nades. Those are nice for disrupting blobs and cleaning up with vet MP40 volks or even MP44 Storms/KCH. The Blitzkrieg ability is rarely used because of it's steep ammo cost and unless you're sitting on piles and piles of ammo. Otherwise it's a nice ability.

I always thought the right hand side of Blitz was broken anyway.

I find it can come in handy when i've spent all my Manpower on reinforcing, or producing units, and i need to get a Tiger right now to counter some armor or something. For the most part, though, it's not a very good ability...

lol Manpower Blitz is like what people say about smoking.  Do it once and its easy to find yourself unwillingly doing it again.  Good micro and unit preservation should be your source of a healthy manpower pool instead of this ability.  I know people like to use this ability for the Tiger, but IMO this ability is sometimes better used on a mix of units instead of a single Tiger.  The impact of another 2 Grenadiers and a PAK are sometimes even more useful than a single Tiger.

Or a StuH 42 and Stormtroopers ;D

A Pak being useful?! HA!

I agree with everything else, though. :P

It kills Jeeps with insane rate  ::)

Double shrecked Stormies are insanely muni expenisve and can be really painful when attackig straight from infiltration.

cephalos wrote:
It kills Jeeps with insane rate  ::)

Perhaps... If it decides to fire. :P

I never understood why the 50 mm pak 38 was included ingame instead of the 75 mm pak 40. Still Ninja paks are very good defensive weapons. Support them with grenadiers. Free grenadiers if you have medic bunkers.

Tankbuster wrote:
I never understood why the 50 mm pak 38 was included ingame instead of the 75 mm pak 40. Still Ninja paks are very good defensive weapons. Support them with grenadiers. Free grenadiers if you have medic bunkers.

Becouse PAK 40 was allmost as heavy as 17lbs and would have to be build instead of being towed from base... and germans allready have a buildable AT gun.

Pak 38 has a very high rate of fire. I had many games where (as allies) a captured PAK saved my ass, and I didnt even have camo.
IMO in most cases its better than a 57mm or an 17lbs emplacement. Also US offensive vet is much better for AT guns than WH def vechicle vet. Thats also why I rarelly go for WH T2.

Does anyone know if LTs give vet bonuses to AT guns or just gain their experience providivg no bonuses - like when using Commandos?

Last edited August 2, 2011 at 7:13 AM by Paciat

Paciat wrote:

Tankbuster wrote:Does anyone know if LTs give vet bonuses to AT guns or just gain their experience providivg no bonuses - like when using Commandos?

I do not know for sure, but I recall reading that Vet effects of  the CW leaders only affected infantry units and that vehicle vet effects were related only to command tank vet. An AT gun is considered a vehicle no?

Regarding AT gun caliber; bigger is not always better. The Zis 2, IIRCa 47mm cannon was capable of penetrating the armor of a Tiger I. After the advent of the Tiger, Stalin ordered production of the Zis 2 to resume. T34s were going to be equipped with them but ther was a technical problem which prevented this. I always wondered why the DevTeam chose the Zis2 over the 76.2mm AT. I guess somebody knew.

I don't think captured AT guns are affected by LTs but rather by the CCT as Otto said. MG42s on the other hand are godly under the effects of LTs.

pariah wrote:
A Pak being useful?! HA!

IMO PAK is the single best AT unit in the whole game; better than Flak 88 most of the time.  When there's 2-3 snipers on the field and fucking British artillery shells dropping here and there like shit pieces from a bad case of diarrhea, you'd wish you never built an 88 sometimes.  I only use Flak 88 as PE because they have no PAK.  I almost never go Defensive Doctrine as Wehr, and when I do, I do it for FTFL and not specifically for Flak 88.

Never look down on this unit.  Back in the day when I was still a Storms-spamming noob who got strafed to death or got crushed by M10 Armor Doctrine horde, my friend / sifu who taught me all about CoH showed me the Grens+PAK+Med bunker way, and it has served me well since then.  ;D

O.K., Mr. A-T-Guns-Are-Useful, answer me this: How do you get them to do things, such as moving and attacking? ;)

Moving: using your mouse and such and clicking with it.
Attacking: just set it up facing the right way, cloak it, and don't put it on hold fire. That way they should do their job pretty well.

In theory, yes, but they often don't. That's really the main reason i would like robotnik to take a look at the A.I., and see what can be done...

Paks work fine for me?

GodlikeDennis wrote:
Paks work fine for me?

+1

Maybe he mens the pak misses alot ??? If its not firing on its target it could be out of its firing arc. Then you have to reposition it. Otherwise it does its role or killing armor fairly well ;)

Ambushing with two Paks gives a sense of satisfaction. Your opponent's  t-34 flounders around trying to get your 1st pak while the second pak hits its juicy rear with its tungsten core shells.

How can you complain that your pak misses to much?

Seeme wrote:
How can you complain that your pak misses to much?

Exactly. Although i think they should have a bit more accuracy v.s. stationary infantry, their accuracy is good.

My problem with A-T Guns is what's been stated earlier - They often don't move, turn, or fire. ::)

pariah wrote:

Seeme wrote:
How can you complain that your pak misses to much?

Exactly. Although i think they should have a bit more accuracy v.s. stationary infantry, their accuracy is good... My problem with A-T Guns is what's been stated earlier - They often don't move, turn, or fire. ::)

I have similar problems with auto-fire and ATs.

Didn't AT fire at infantry get a general nerf in 2.602 and EF_1.40? IIRC received accuracy is reduced to .015 or some such. It is also not clear to me if Tank fire vs ATs has a similarly low accuracy.

Otto 213 you never had 88 shells fired on your soft infantrymen. One and half conscripts squads become manure in the time it takes to read the 1st line.