Artillery Ammo Upkeep Discussion
Posted: 08 Oct 2019, 20:47
Discuss here please
Official Blitzkrieg Mod Forum
http://forum.bkmod.net/
The problem was more of both, actually.. but mainly the performance of the howitzers, as their basic rate of fire became too raid, with great accuracy, cheap price and low barrage cost, yet landing many shells per barrage.. not to mention now howitzers are un-limited as well.MarKr wrote:As far as I can remember, the actual problem with the howitzers was that people "shared" them across doctrines and so there were many of them in each team and the ammount of the howitzers was the problem, not the performance of each individual one.
So far people said that they want lower upkeeps but nobody said why. There is literarly not a single gameplay reason mentioned here about why they need to be lower. Even a quick search through the topics:Tiger1996 wrote:just as everybody said, the ammo upkeeps need to be halved
Opinion given, no reason stated.Walderschmidt wrote:Ammo upkeep being half would be boss.
Opinion given, no reason stated.Warhawks97 wrote:delay 76 shermans and less ammo upkeep is necessary.
OK, here IS some reason but it just says it is inconvenient because you must build arty units when you need them and not just whenever you want.Black Panther wrote:The problem with upkeep is just building it, like taking a loan with high percentage. It would be less a pain, if you just could rise the ammo required for each ability activation. Even if you get more cap points with munies, to allow yourself something better, your old stuff must be sent to die and most of the times, it's just not cost-effective, not even talking about how this is affect your game, saving yourself even more on basic stuff, like bars for riflemen or armor skirts of Stug.
But even that was disproved by replays where players used on-map artillery units and they still had enough ammo for getting upgrades for units and using abilities (including offmap arty) - even on relatively small maps like Bizory which have quite limited resources and no high ammo points.Warhawks97 wrote:about ammo upkeep, its just too high. You get a unit on a map with 30 ammo per min and you cant do shit and all gets locked down. Halfing the upkeep would do the job. You want to prevent spam, not the entire usage
This quote suggests that the upkeeps help reduce hard camping.mofetagalactica wrote:-Hard camping isn't that usefull as it used to be after Stupa/Bunkers/Ammo upkeep changes.
This was already explained in another post but mostly the reasons of why should be tweaked are because the current ammo upkeeps have a really impact on upgrade/doctrine & basic habilities that are very important for certain doctrines such as propaganda/blitzkrieg/defensive/armor.MarKr wrote:I am not saying they are the best, if you search the forun you'll find my post saying that the values can be changed. I am only looking for reasons that players have to request this change because "I don't like it" is not a good ground for a gameplay changes.
As I said - not a single beta game posted here shows any signs of heavy camping. Actually one of the recent posts says:This quote suggests that the upkeeps help reduce hard camping.mofetagalactica wrote:-Hard camping isn't that usefull as it used to be after Stupa/Bunkers/Ammo upkeep changes.
I think that this was mentioned in this topic (mainly page 2). I would say the situation is still the same - the upkeeps are meant to push people into thinking if they really NEED arty units and if there maybe isn't a more resource-effective way to deal with problems, because the arty will limit usage of your other abilities and upgrades - as far as I can tell, it does exactly this so it fulfills its purpose. I have not seen a single game where the situation would be as serious as people in their posts describe it - "I built some arty and I couldn't use any abilities or upgrade any unit". In every game I watched (I men, those that had some arty units used), there were upgraded units and there were abilities used. I would like to see some replay with this problem shown, I really would, because at this point it kinda looks like people want to change it because it is easier to use arty than other available options but the arty drains ammo income so people cannot use any ability anytime they want, which is not game-breaking but just inconvenient.mofetagalactica wrote:This was already explained in another post but mostly the reasons of why should be tweaked are because the current ammo upkeeps have a really impact on upgrade/doctrine & basic habilities that are very important for certain doctrines such as Propaganda / blitzkrieg/ defensive/ armor.
MarKr wrote: I have not seen a single game where the situation would be as serious as people in their posts describe it - "I built some arty and I couldn't use any abilities or upgrade any unit". In every game I watched (I men, those that had some arty units used), there were upgraded units and there were abilities used. I would like to see some replay with this problem shown, I really would, because at this point it kinda looks like people want to change it because it is easier to use arty than other available options but the arty drains ammo income so people cannot use any ability anytime they want, which is not game-breaking but just inconvenient.
All I'm asking for are some replays that will show the problem in action - I've been asking for such replays even back then in the linked topic (so 3 months ago) but, if I remember correctly, nobody has posted any.
This is probably the only point I could agree on in a way. However, I would say that if your opponent had control over bigger part of a map, it has always put you into a disadvantage. If the enemy "had a grip on you" in the past, you would have less resources too so you would probably not be able to arty yourself from the grip very easily either. So this doesn't sound like something that would be caused by the upkeeps. I am not saying that the upkeeps have not changed these situations at all, though.Warhawks97 wrote:But if you have less map controle, arty becomes even more important to make up for the inferior overall income and to balance out the masses that can be thrown at you. And also important to break the grip the enemie got on you. But those will find huge difficulties finding enough ammo to use their arty at all, thus comebacks became essentially harder, while those who controle the map can literally "camp down" the enemie easily and barrage them with arty as only they can afford it.
Yes, but upkeeps are applied to all factions and all doctrines so if you go with arty and your opponent does it too, then you both are limited on unit upgrades and ability usage. If you build arty but he doesn't, then you are limited on abilities and upgrades, he is not. But you have an arty unit which can make a short work with his upgraded stuff - he does not have this option. If both of you decide to go without arty then both of you have upgraded units and abilities but none of you has the advantage that arty provides - same applies to everyone.Warhawks97 wrote:1. It can really hamper the gameplay when you can use less abilties for your units and when you can buy less upgrades.(...)
The need to make choices of this kind was mentioned as an intention. Apart from the fact that the "naked" part is obvious exaggeration because you said it on your own that you can still afford to get about one upgrade per squad. Do you really need to have all or most units fully upgraded to win a game? Especially in conjuction with my previous point - if both you and your opponent have arty, then neither of you have fully upgraded units.Warhawks97 wrote:Its more like that you have to decide: Only arty and all other units go into the field "nacked", or no arty at all and hope your upgraded forces get the job done.
(...)
You have seen upgraded units, but as for me i didnt and dont fully upgrade units. Usually one upgrade per squad or no ammo for tanks.
If you need to use arty for situational strikes at defensive structures here and there or grouped enemy units, can't you use the offmaps for that?Warhawks97 wrote:2. Destruction of own arty units. In games situations occure where arty is really needed except you can afford to take lots of losses.
Are you telling me that nobody has ever sent a vehicle, which they no longer needed, to its death just to get rid of the fuel upkeep of the vehicle which was at that time just dead weight?Warhawks97 wrote:And thats crazy. Upkeep should never force players to waste a unit just in to be able to get other units.
Yes, and vast majority of maps has more ammo income than fuel income + the maximum possible ammo reserve is higher than the fuel reserve for this reason.Warhawks97 wrote:3. Unlike fuel and MP, that is usually only needed for production, abilties require ammo all over the place.
In your example you make two different sources dependent on each other which is not the case in the game. More accurate would be: "Imagine someone would have to destroy his own Pershing/Tiger to get rid of the fuell upkeep and to be able to build other vehicles which would be more useful in that situation.". This does not happen because vehicles are not situational tools but rather things that remain useful for longer periods of time so their upkeep is more worthwhile - which would have been a lot better argument in this discussion.Warhawks97 wrote:Halfing your ammo income due to upkeep also means halfing your ability to use abilities. Imagine someone would have to destroy his own Tiger/Pershing just in order to allow his units to throw grenades or to use any ability. That would be stupid as well.
Has this been officially stated somewhere or is it just your personal opinion? Because I think it has been officially stated that the upkeeps should push players into making decisions - when a player thinks about getting arty, they should ask themselves "can I feed it? won't it limit me too much with my current ammo income?" If they come to a conclusion that it WILL limit them too much, then they should go for other options. If they come to a conclusion that upsides outweight the downsides, they should get the arty.Warhawks97 wrote:And thats where the upkeep fails a bit. Its there to restrict the speed in which your army size growth, not to restrict the usage of abilities.
Is it a bad thing that players try to squeeze the maximum amount of resources from points?Warhawks97 wrote:At la fiere we had map controle, a very good one and we have even upgraded the small ammo posts (figree did it). Being forced to put an OP on every point was rare in the past, common today once you field just a single light arty unit.
MarKr wrote:This is probably the only point I could agree on in a way. However, I would say that if your opponent had control over bigger part of a map, it has always put you into a disadvantage. If the enemy "had a grip on you" in the past, you would have less resources too so you would probably not be able to arty yourself from the grip very easily either. So this doesn't sound like something that would be caused by the upkeeps. I am not saying that the upkeeps have not changed these situations at all, though.
The need to make choices of this kind was mentioned as an intention. Apart from the fact that the "naked" part is obvious exaggeration because you said it on your own that you can still afford to get about one upgrade per squad. Do you really need to have all or most units fully upgraded to win a game? Especially in conjuction with my previous point - if both you and your opponent have arty, then neither of you have fully upgraded units.
This reason seems to be basically just "it's inconvenient for me because I cannot use everything I want".
If you need to use arty for situational strikes at defensive structures here and there or grouped enemy units, can't you use the offmaps for that?
Yes, and vast majority of maps has more ammo income than fuel income + the maximum possible ammo reserve is higher than the fuel reserve for this reason.
In your example you make two different sources dependent on each other which is not the case in the game. More accurate would be: "Imagine someone would have to destroy his own Pershing/Tiger to get rid of the fuell upkeep and to be able to build other vehicles which would be more useful in that situation.". This does not happen because vehicles are not situational tools but rather things that remain useful for longer periods of time so their upkeep is more worthwhile - which would have been a lot better argument in this discussion.
Has this been officially stated somewhere or is it just your personal opinion? Because I think it has been officially stated that the upkeeps should push players into making decisions - when a player thinks about getting arty, they should ask themselves "can I feed it? won't it limit me too much with my current ammo income?" If they come to a conclusion that it WILL limit them too much, then they should go for other options. If they come to a conclusion that upsides outweight the downsides, they should get the arty.
In this case its like the fourth punishment. MP upkeep, Barrage cost, ammo upkeep and spending lots of further MP to keep it using. In case its an SPG, even punishment number five.Is it a bad thing that players try to squeeze the maximum amount of resources from points?
[sarcasm] oh my gosh, i wonder why when playing on big maps it wasn't so campy?? [/sarcasm]Warhawks97 wrote:
And that "mobile warfare" game was mobile probably beccause it was played on a 3 vs 3 map with just 4 players. I think a third player on each side would have ended in a camp game for sure after we lost many vehicles to that 75 mm Puma. So i think that games got more mobile can be attributed rather to such facts. But the good old camp maps would end up in camp games afterall (eg 3 vs 3 road to cherbourgh and so on).
kwok wrote:First of all, don't act surprised Markr asks for this because what he says is true. Even though I personally was skeptical with the ammo upkeeps at first I have to agree with how he investigates the issue from a "i only know what I can see". When replays, esepcially ones like Warhawks posted literally named "mobile warfare", come in and basically show one artillery is still used non-excessively on a traditionally arty part map but there is no camping then we have to assume the upkeeps met their objectives. Even classically defensive units were used offensive, like the dual-stug push during the midgame of warhawks' replay (by the way side note because people keep saying stugs got nerfed or whatever... one stug killed a 76 and m10 alone on the offensive that game).
The irony is that the arty upkeep punishes camping according replays. For example, like Tiger posts on youtube showing extremely campy players essentially getting overwhelmed because they aren't trying to push but instead sit back like traditional 4.5 versions of axis players. Double MG and mortar opening without even trying to contest middle munitions until the 10 minute mark? Double pak gun mid game guarding the high fuel point near the base? Immediate rush to stug? I don't know if artillery was intended to be use this game but couldn't because of upkeeps... but I wouldn't say that the player SHOULD be allowed to use arty in that situation...
I thank warhawks for his reasons, I think they are well written and what we were looking for. Not "I don't like it..."
I'm still aligned with Markr though in terms of of the arguments, only one seems to stand out (the others I think Markr addressed). So I'll discuss that one only.
The biggest argument for reduced upkeep is that a player who is behind will become more behind because they will not have the resources to properly field a composition to fight back with indirect fire.
I would say the obvious argument about that is upkeep in general is made in place to prevent snowballing. While it's true a player who is behind won't be able to field a fully capable force, the advantaged player ALSO is held back from snowballing their position. That in essence is the whole POINT of ALL upkeep. That being said, we DO want to find a solution to allow for comebacks.
An idea would be only a slight munition upkeep reduction (for example 25% instead of 50%) as well as a base munition income that doesn't require capture points under the same principle as a base fuel income.
The estimated base munition income would be approximately the cost of fielding a single artillery unit. Can we look at this as a solution instead? Options would be something like:
1. Base income = large arty unit, no global upkeep reduction
2. Base income = medium arty unit, 15% global upkeep reduction
3. Base income = small arty unit, 25% global upkeep reduction