50cals behind supply yards

[kwok]

Okay... I'm sick of players saying the 50cal isn't the problem when 99% of the replays ive been watching and 99% of the games I've played have the US player rushing greyhound 50cals and getting them to vet 2. When ever I play US and i rush greyhounds, it's like easy mode and im able to take on players much better than me.

I know there's a solution around them, but that's basically going blitz doc and getting AT rifles and rushing the puma. But if you're forced picked into a doctrine to face a faction... I don't think that's balanced.

The weapon is literally designed and capable of taking on t2, t3, and sometimes t4 units... WHY would you make it available essentially right at the very beginning of T2 where the opponent might still be strapped behind T1?

So played a few house rule games with some players and wow... people were able to win with propaganda doc? The games lasted more than 15 minutes? The games actually had some back and forth? The greyhound wasn't immediately rushed in every game?

Sadly I only have 1 replay saved of this. It wasn't a very fair replay beacuse the opponent made a harsh mistake. I played a few games though, just no replay.

4p_alsace moselle.2019-10-17.11-06-11.rec

(485.12 KiB) Downloaded 32 times

My proposal:
50cal upgrades (so for greyhounds and tanks) locked behind supply yard.
50cal values will NOT be touched since everyone is just jerking off to the idea of 50cals punching holes through everything.

[Warhawks97]

I dont get all that talking about the cal 50 when WH docs (eg propaganda) has access to 20 mm vehicles (recently introduced) right from the start. And those can totally anhiliate everything as well.


Never ever has a weapon been accused when only a few units that coincidentially had this weapon performed too well. Like when PE scout cars dominated US over years nobody blaimed the top mounted MG42.

So it always comes down to a unit. Certain unit features paired with a certain weapon are simply a powerfull combo. But its only that combo that makes them strong.




And to be honest, i have no idea what i shall vote here. Yes, i can agree that cal 50 upgrades could be later available. But i (and others) are still hoping that the supply yard (and even WSC) become more independent buildings that can be build when needed.

So we should be able to vote:

1. Cal. 50 upgrades require Supply Yard.
2. Cal. 50 upgrades require Motorpool upgrade.
3. Cal. 50 upgrades require WSC to be build.

(5. Cal. 50 upgrades require Tank Depot)
(6. Cal. 50 upgrades require a unlock in the WSC)


Personally, i would vote for Motorpool upgrade to be required. The cal 50 is strong but not as strong that it would require a 100% tec. Shermans will suffer from it when people get first shermans before supply yard.

[MarKr]

@Hawks: I noticed that you often use as an argument "Axis had this for years and now it is wrong that Allies have it?". I can see what you mean but is it really a relevant argument? I mean, sure, Axis had a similar thing in their arsenal for...let's say...6 years so we should keep this new overperforming thing in the arsenal of Allies for 6 years and only then try to balance it?
If something is overperforming (and if some unit is used 99% of the time and players don't even consider building anything else), there probably is something off about that unit and it should be addressed.

You also speak of 20mm vehicles of Axis that are comparable to Greyhounds. To what extend are they comparable? They have the 20mm cannon (which would be comparable to the .50cal) but Greyhound has its main cannon and .50cal is an additional weapon. Greyhounds with the .50cal upgrade can kill Axis early vehicles faster than the Axis can kill the Greyhound (because of the combination of light AT gun and .50cal) and can effectively kill infantry too (because of the .50cal) so they are good light vehicle killers and also good infantry killers. Axis vehicles with 20mm cannons are good infantry killers but compared to Greyhounds, they are worse at killing light vehicles.

Also kwok's suggestion says to delay UPGRADES of vehicles, not all .50cal vehicles. This means that Jeeps, M20 and other stuff that uses .50cal by default would still be available as it is now.

[Warhawks97]

@Hawks: I noticed that you often use as an argument "Axis had this for years and now it is wrong that Allies have it?". I can see what you mean but is it really a relevant argument? I mean, sure, Axis had a similar thing in their arsenal for...let's say...6 years so we should keep this new overperforming thing in the arsenal of Allies for 6 years and only then try to balance it?

you didnt get the point.
I used it as example when a unit in combo with a certain weapon dominated, but nobody blamed the weapon. But now we accuse a weapon and not the unit and thats wrong. Thats all i said.

as you said yourself:

If something is overperforming (and if some unit is used 99% of the time and players don't even consider building anything else), there probably is something off about that unit and it should be addressed.

I am just trying to defend a working weapon.

You also speak of 20mm vehicles of Axis that are comparable to Greyhounds. To what extend are they comparable? They have the 20mm cannon (which would be comparable to the .50cal) but Greyhound has its main cannon and .50cal is an additional weapon. Greyhounds with the .50cal upgrade can kill Axis early vehicles faster than the Axis can kill the Greyhound (because of the combination of light AT gun and .50cal) and can effectively kill infantry too (because of the .50cal) so they are good light vehicle killers and also good infantry killers. Axis vehicles with 20mm cannons are good infantry killers but compared to Greyhounds, they are worse at killing light vehicles.

The 20 mm are earlier available in current set up. Their vehicles cost also less.
I wouldnt even mind small cost reductions on certain units (not Puma).

Also kwok's suggestion says to delay UPGRADES of vehicles, not all .50cal vehicles. This means that Jeeps, M20 and other stuff that uses .50cal by default would still be available as it is now.

And it should be delayed for the certain vehicle which is the greyhound. Locking it behind supply yard would also affect shermans as those are often build before the supply yard.


So i am fine with delaying the cal 50 for greyhound. Just that we should ask first where to place it, not throwing the supply yard into the ring just like that. I think locking behind motorpool upgrade would already delay it enough.

Edit:

ya, in theory we can only delay cal 50 for the greyhound and not the sherman. But i still think that it would hit the greyhound a bit too hard when it would require supply yard to get the cal 50. Thats currently an additional 80 fuel (?) to get the cal 50 on it.

If the supply yard becomes an independent building, it would be an option.

[MarKr]

I am just trying to defend a working weapon.

Is the weapon working because of its stats or because it can be slapped on Greyhounds and Shermans? You will still have the weapon with unchanged performance on other units. Only the upgrade that adds killing power to units that don't necessarily need it is the issue here.

If you want an armored car with AT gun, go for Greyhound. If you want an armored car with .50cal, go for M20. If you want an armored car with both, you need to wait.

[Warhawks97]

Alright. But the Topic/Poll got a wrong name then. It addresses all cal 50´s and the poll is about greyhound and tanks cal 50. Most tanks are only available after supply yard is up. But the regular sherman should not wait for the supply yard to get its cal 50 which is an essential tool of survival.

[kwok]

I can update the poll, but it will erase votes. Will make a judgement call if a new vote is necessary based on votes here.

[MarKr]

I don't think reseting the poll is needed. The poll says specifically that it is only for upgrades and the first post in its summary at the end says the same.

[MenciusMoldbug]

I'd like it if 50cals for greyhound got delayed and they got HE rounds instead when you immediately build them. Always wanted a 37mm light vehicle with HE rounds and a 50cal on top. Would be amazing to use late game honestly. Maybe even give greyhound canister rounds like the staghound has it.

[mofetagalactica]

I'd like it if 50cals for greyhound got delayed and they got HE rounds instead when you immediately build them. Always wanted a 37mm light vehicle with HE rounds and a 50cal on top. Would be amazing to use late game honestly. Maybe even give greyhound canister rounds like the staghound has it.

Agree agree, i would still go for delaying 50 cals until motorpool upgrade or supply yard buildable as an independent building.

So far we have tested games on bigger maps that how the community usually plays, that means 1v1 on 2v2 maps, where greyhound can be a pain in the ass if it has too much space to move around to flank AT guns, wich will usually dosn't happen on 2v2 with a "2v2" map.

We played with these rules a few times, when i tried to play without the 50cal upgrade i got obliterated, same when you played with US with the same rules, so be aware of that afterall greyhound still a slow firing 37mm AT vehicle that can be blow up by their counterparts 37mm WH HT 'cause it has a way faster ROF.

If you still wanna go with the delay of 50cals upgrade then you will have to doublecheck all of the 37mm stats againts vehicles/tanks and any new feature so it just dosn't become a worst version of the 57mm Halftrack.

[Warhawks97]

The Canister shot is one thing and would be cool to have to give Greyhound at least some means to deal with inf before enter late game.

But HE might be too brutal. Otherwise, we do have 50 mm and 75 mm stubby guns mounted on fast axis vehicles. So that would really be worth a try. But HE rounds would be an upgrade like german 50 mm puma and not a cheap 15 amm switch.

At the end you will get a greyhound with skirts, cal 50 and HE rounds but it would cost quite a lot of ammo that would get lost quickly once not carefull.



The 37 mm guns are finally fine. They got reworked and standardized. Which brings me to another question: Can Stuart get AP rounds to become as effective as the small 37 mm AT gun? that would add nice utility to stuart, esspecially in close range engagments with lower tier Tank IV´s.

[CGarr]

I understand and agree with the reasoning for changing 50 cal availability on the greyhound but I don't see why they should be delayed on shermans, if anything stubby pz3's and pz4's should also have an MG upgrade available as soon as they are made. Shermans are currently trash against anything with a 75mm or larger gun as most tanks with guns that big cant be penned by the M4 sherman reliably, and even against 50mm armed light vehicles they sometimes lose, so unless the sherman 75mm gun is getting buffed to make it a reliable multi-role unit I don't see why their anti-inf abilities should also take a significant hit.

With the prevalence of high-health AT weapon bearing inf squads (especially on Axis) it doesn't make sense for a tank with the intended role of killing infantry from range to be made worse at that job in a way that makes it much more vulnerable to said inf, as unless you're getting lucky 1 shot wipes on everything you are probably going to get hit by a rocket if you engage inf purely with HE. Axis HE tanks have this issue too, although I assume there is no model with a top MG for the tanks in question.

[MarKr]

Is the .50cal really what makes the M4 good vs infantry? If you remember the time before .50cal buffs, the M4 was considered one of the best ways to kill Axis infantry. Back then it was built with a .50cal but the MG could barely kill anything. The effectiveness of the HE shells was not lowered so in terms of raw infantry-killing power the "M4 before .50cal buff " was about the same as the "M4 without .50cal", yet delaying the .50cal for the tank means it takes a "significant hit into anti-inf abilities"?
The .50cal on the tank is a bonus, not a core component of its anti-infantry capabilities.

[Walderschmidt]

With a Sherman that has HE and a .50, the only infantry I am afraid of are shrek squads that I can’t see in a building.

Wald

[Warhawks97]

Is the .50cal really what makes the M4 good vs infantry? If you remember the time before .50cal buffs, the M4 was considered one of the best ways to kill Axis infantry. Back then it was built with a .50cal but the MG could barely kill anything. The effectiveness of the HE shells was not lowered so in terms of raw infantry-killing power the "M4 before .50cal buff " was about the same as the "M4 without .50cal", yet delaying the .50cal for the tank means it takes a "significant hit into anti-inf abilities"?
The .50cal on the tank is a bonus, not a core component of its anti-infantry capabilities.

it was the best out there, yes, but often enough got a shot in the face. The HE reduced the HP down to a level where the cal 50 could give the last killing blow.


Anyways. If shermans get compensated and become better in their firepower, i would be ok. But as long as the regular sherman is purely anti inf with worse anti tank stats than a 57 mm AT gun, i would want to keep at least the cal 50. The advantage of the sherman is that you get it way faster than a 76 sherman bc you dont need CP and supply yard. What would be the reason to go for a 75 mm sherman quickly when its unable to handle the new cheap and early Tank IV´s/ III´s and also cut down in their ability to fight inf.

Fix sherman guns (75 mm can pen early model tank IV´s, 76 can pen late model tank IV´s) and the anti inf power isnt the only reason to get the sherman anymore.

[kwok]

okay, interesting vote. i think that having 50cal upgrades behind the SY is fine, but looks like there's more ideas on what can be put specifically onto greyhounds so that they don't become obsolete after this change.

I think this goes into a bigger question of what is the greyhound meant for? At t2, there are a mobile options for anti-tank (57mm HT) and anti-inf (quad HT). If the greyhound is meant to be a multi-role then it'd need to be worse than the other two at the respective capabilities on principle otherwise it will make the other units obsolete. Does the greyhound REALLY need more anti-inf capability? It will be a tricky balance between the greyhound and the quad HT. Another idea is to add a different kind of utility to the greyhound. I got no ideas.

[Warhawks97]

There remain maaaaany differences. Even if greyhound has HE, shrappnel and cal 50, there remains a big difference between that one and M16. Greyhound will be a ammo heavy vehicle while M16 is good right the way it comes out.

Then there is speed difference, HP difference, the fact that greyhound is far less likely to get damaged engine when it gets hit in the front which is often a death sentence for many HT.... M16 has AA capabilties, Greyhound not really. Greyhound can lay mines... the list is soo long. I am not worried that greyhound and M16 will interfere in their roles or that greyhound interfere with AT guns (there is a big difference between 57 mm and 37 mm guns).

And if the stuart would get APs rounds like the AT gun, it would also make a difference. Let alone that stuart can get a tank commander (and call arty this way in armor doc) or that Greyhound can be used to cap points in that doc.



I think i make a quick list:


M16:

- Doesnt cost ammo or requires upgrades
- can be used as AA
- suppresses better
- As a HT its engine is vulnerable to get destroyed right by the first hit
- Is a HT and slower than greyhound
- Caps points in armor doc.



Greyhound with suggested stuff:


- Costs lots of ammo to be fully capable (skirts, cal 50 and perhaps HE in future)
- Is fast
- can lay mines
- More jack of all trades but master in non
- when cal 50 is delayed to end phase, it reaches full potential later than stuart or M16
- Can cap points in armor doc


Stuart (with suggested changes):


- Can bounce 37 mm AT guns
- can use tank commander (and thus call arty in armor doc)
- With AP rounds it could be used to counter earlier tank IV versions and largely improve its flanking potential


HT with 57 mm AT:

- Most potent AT weapon of all mentioned units here.
- The 57 mm and ambush are largely superior to any 37 mm gun in all aspects
- Can ambush
- cheaper than any other unit in this list
- Can cap points in armor doc




I think no matter what we add to greyhound or what we delay, these four units wont interfere in their intended roles. The Greyhound might be the most flexible unit but also high risk high reward.

[mofetagalactica]

Warhawks is right about his description of the units, i also think that this change was only offered for the sake of making the Vsturms a little more usefull and not having enought tested team games with/without these 50cal. rules applied with community standards (2v2 on 2v2 maps).

The problems that will bring this is that you're going to be left with less appealing greyhounds blowed up even more by bk doc players that wouldn't be afraid to run over into that thing with AT rifles. And you're also going to force US players to play with more camp units such as AA's halftracks and 57mm halftracks.

If you still have problems with 50 cals jeeps and greyhound 50cal just lock them up behind motorpool upgrade, do the same thing that you did with older pools where we had 2 options with a good numbers of voters and instead of chosing between both of them, you pick a middle spot between the choices (for example on the ammo upkeep pool, where we had a certain winner and you still picked the middle spot between the 2 most voted options, ¿we're going to expect the same here?)

[Warhawks97]

- .50cal upgrades for Greyhounds, Shermans and Hellcats now require a global upgrade from the Weapon Support Center (100MP 30F)

Make it cost ammo, not fuel. 30 fuel is a big punishment and might make it impossible to get cal 50´s in mid stages. You would fall far back in teching.

[CGarr]

I'd like it if 50cals for greyhound got delayed and they got HE rounds instead when you immediately build them. Always wanted a 37mm light vehicle with HE rounds and a 50cal on top. Would be amazing to use late game honestly. Maybe even give greyhound canister rounds like the staghound has it.

Agree agree, i would still go for delaying 50 cals until motorpool upgrade or supply yard buildable as an independent building.

So far we have tested games on bigger maps that how the community usually plays, that means 1v1 on 2v2 maps, where greyhound can be a pain in the ass if it has too much space to move around to flank AT guns, wich will usually dosn't happen on 2v2 with a "2v2" map.

We played with these rules a few times, when i tried to play without the 50cal upgrade i got obliterated, same when you played with US with the same rules, so be aware of that afterall greyhound still a slow firing 37mm AT vehicle that can be blow up by their counterparts 37mm WH HT 'cause it has a way faster ROF.

If you still wanna go with the delay of 50cals upgrade then you will have to doublecheck all of the 37mm stats againts vehicles/tanks and any new feature so it just dosn't become a worst version of the 57mm Halftrack.

I think an HE swap like on the stuart would be preferable so that the greyhound is either a fast turreted anti-inf or fast turret anti-vehicle unit. Greyhound is the only unit that the 50cal is exceptionally obnoxious on, shermans are slow and come out at the same time as much more capable AT units. Canister shot is cool but sometimes annoying to use since its a targeted ability and bugs out somewhat often as a result, at least in my experience. You can also just get a bad RNG roll with it, which while rare, can be really obnoxious to deal with considering you have to pay a considerable muni price to fire it. Lastly, a toggle would allow for better counterplay, especially with a comparable cooldown to the stuart. Axis players would be able to plan their engagements against the greyhound according to what it has loaded rather than having to deal with a strong multi-role light vehicle, which is what seems to be the issue with the 50 currently. It'd also give greyhounds more reason to be built late game, serving as an alternative to shermans that trades weaker HE and durability for more mobility.