¿Wich rewards should stay?
So far the only thing that would kinda break the game would be to make jackson/jumbo - stupa/grille - sp/pa non rewards, but anything else beside those shouldn't be locked behing reward at all.
Rewards
Re: Rewards
Agreedmofetagalactica wrote:¿Wich rewards should stay?
So far the only thing that would kinda break the game would be to make jackson/jumbo - stupa/grille - sp/pa non rewards, but anything else beside those shouldn't be locked behing reward at all.
Re: Rewards
A thing to also consider is getting rid of these choices would mostly benefit Axis as they have more reward vehicles which are useful in various game stages and are available (mostly) to all doctrines or 2 out of 3. Making them available at the same time would mostly mean more strategic options for Axis while mostly unchanged strategic options for Allies because except for the SP/PA, Jumbo/Jack the others don't really have such an impact on the game. Nobody will use Wasp even if it is non-reward. Choice between CTA and Kangaroo isn't all that much consequntial, especially when people don't use transports that much. Tetrarchs are doctrine-limited and given how late they come, the 2 pounder version isn't all that useful anymore so the howitzer version is more appealing anyway.
As for Axis:
1) 250/8 vs 37mm HT - 37mm has the treadbreaker ability and also the rocket ability so this is a choice between anti-infantry HT and a HT that can make life miserable even against mid and late game tanks. Should stay.
2) TH doctrine will be reworked so hard to say about the PIV H/J.
3) JPIV and Hetzer are very similar units. I would rather see them assigned to specific doctrines than have both available at the same time because people would most often go for Hetzer anyway.
4) Marder I and III are different in their (in)ability to camo. However, the Marders have so weak armor that using them without camo is sort of suicidal. Even if we change them to be available at the same time, I doubt people will use Marder I simply because of how fragile it is. Maeder I would need some other change to become useful (like some ability or something other special that would make it more appealing).
5) 234/4 vs AT gun - I could agree here because nobody really chooses the AT gun. The mobility of the vehicle is too much of an advantage.
6) 250/9 vs 222 - again, the units are so similar that making them available at the same time in one doctrine won't make the current less prefered choice more popular. Rather assign them to specific doctrines.
7) 251/22 vs AT gun - same as point 6)
8) Don't see a reason for this one appart from "just because". The cheaper one has the "reinforce near me" ability. Their price difference isn't all that big (iirc 25MP 5F) so if you can afford one, you can afford the other. You know what you're getting when you're making the choice in the reward menu.
9) StuPa/Grille are no longer rewards. Or I am not sure now...did we forget to remove the option for Def doc in beta? If so, it will be removed. There is still the StuH/StuPa choice - here I think that players usually know how much resources each map has so they can make quite good choice before the game, also these are anti-camper unit so not even something you would need to use in every single game.
10) StuG III and IV have quite different roles making both available at the same time would expand the options of BK doctrine, especially if a single unlock gives access to both of them.
11) 234/2 vs 234/3 are again "AT vs Anti-infantry" choices. I don't see why they should be available at the same time.
12) Bike/Schwimm is "more durable vs better recon" one is more useful in early game one more later. I don't think both should be available at the same time.
So as I said - just canceling the options and making them available simultaneously would be a flat buff for Axis.
As for Axis:
1) 250/8 vs 37mm HT - 37mm has the treadbreaker ability and also the rocket ability so this is a choice between anti-infantry HT and a HT that can make life miserable even against mid and late game tanks. Should stay.
2) TH doctrine will be reworked so hard to say about the PIV H/J.
3) JPIV and Hetzer are very similar units. I would rather see them assigned to specific doctrines than have both available at the same time because people would most often go for Hetzer anyway.
4) Marder I and III are different in their (in)ability to camo. However, the Marders have so weak armor that using them without camo is sort of suicidal. Even if we change them to be available at the same time, I doubt people will use Marder I simply because of how fragile it is. Maeder I would need some other change to become useful (like some ability or something other special that would make it more appealing).
5) 234/4 vs AT gun - I could agree here because nobody really chooses the AT gun. The mobility of the vehicle is too much of an advantage.
6) 250/9 vs 222 - again, the units are so similar that making them available at the same time in one doctrine won't make the current less prefered choice more popular. Rather assign them to specific doctrines.
7) 251/22 vs AT gun - same as point 6)
8) Don't see a reason for this one appart from "just because". The cheaper one has the "reinforce near me" ability. Their price difference isn't all that big (iirc 25MP 5F) so if you can afford one, you can afford the other. You know what you're getting when you're making the choice in the reward menu.
9) StuPa/Grille are no longer rewards. Or I am not sure now...did we forget to remove the option for Def doc in beta? If so, it will be removed. There is still the StuH/StuPa choice - here I think that players usually know how much resources each map has so they can make quite good choice before the game, also these are anti-camper unit so not even something you would need to use in every single game.
10) StuG III and IV have quite different roles making both available at the same time would expand the options of BK doctrine, especially if a single unlock gives access to both of them.
11) 234/2 vs 234/3 are again "AT vs Anti-infantry" choices. I don't see why they should be available at the same time.
12) Bike/Schwimm is "more durable vs better recon" one is more useful in early game one more later. I don't think both should be available at the same time.
So as I said - just canceling the options and making them available simultaneously would be a flat buff for Axis.
Re: Rewards
the difference between early tiger1 and late tiger1 is 25 mp and 80 fuel because tiger1 late version is locked behind 75 fuel production upgrade of the tank factory......so if you can afford one, does not mean you can afford the other.MarKr wrote:Don't see a reason for this one appart from "just because". The cheaper one has the "reinforce near me" ability. Their price difference isn't all that big (iirc 25MP 5F) so if you can afford one, you can afford the other. You know what you're getting when you're making the choice in the reward menu.
i think no problems to allow both tigers available for the player in propaganda doctrine.
and pershing ace should be available after super pershing is dead.
-
Warhawks97
- Posts: 5395
- Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
- Location: Germany
Re: Rewards
MarKr wrote: As for Axis:
1) 250/8 vs 37mm HT - 37mm has the treadbreaker ability and also the rocket ability so this is a choice between anti-infantry HT and a HT that can make life miserable even against mid and late game tanks. Should stay.
Why does treadbreaker exists afterall?
one is good for defending some remote areas as you just put it into ambush. The other is better in support of infantry with its MG and HE rounds.4) Marder I and III are different in their (in)ability to camo. However, the Marders have so weak armor that using them without camo is sort of suicidal. Even if we change them to be available at the same time, I doubt people will use Marder I simply because of how fragile it is. Maeder I would need some other change to become useful (like some ability or something other special that would make it more appealing).
The Marder I should be for def and SE doc. Others get marder. Only SE can perhaps build both.
I thought that this thing will become a Luftwaffe only unit without being reward unit.5) 234/4 vs AT gun - I could agree here because nobody really chooses the AT gun. The mobility of the vehicle is too much of an advantage.
Tigers should allow inf to reinforce. Thats beats mode enabling it to rebuild and refresh its meatshield and even repair units. Thats sick given that fact what HP and Firepower and other ability it has.8) Don't see a reason for this one appart from "just because". The cheaper one has the "reinforce near me" ability. Their price difference isn't all that big (iirc 25MP 5F) so if you can afford one, you can afford the other. You know what you're getting when you're making the choice in the reward menu.
It doesnt fit at all into your attempt to make units more purpose focused. These things can use various abilities already, active and passively.
does stug III needs also that 2 CP unlock? I thought only stug IV does.10) StuG III and IV have quite different roles making both available at the same time would expand the options of BK doctrine, especially if a single unlock gives access to both of them.
doctrinal i would say. That would be the best way to go with. All 234 units should be doctrinal among PE and WH. The 234 with 50 mm gun can become a nice add on for the new PE armor doc adding flexible AT to counter enemie mobile units better or acting also as some sort of command support vehicles.11) 234/2 vs 234/3 are again "AT vs Anti-infantry" choices. I don't see why they should be available at the same time.
schwimm should be a PE thing, Bike a WH thing. Thats my thought on it.12) Bike/Schwimm is "more durable vs better recon" one is more useful in early game one more later. I don't think both should be available at the same time.
Getting back to the 234 series. There are 4 types.
234/1 is with 20 mm,
/2 is with 50 mm,
/3 with 75 mm stubby and
/4 with 75 mm Pak 40.
It would make a lot more sense to give them to the doctrines that need them.
BK: 234/1. That doc is about flexibility and does not have any other vehicle with 20 mm gun available.
Terror: 234/3. That doc does have a 20 mm vehicles now (250/9) and could need some sort of infantry support vehicle capable to fire HE rounds.
Luftwaffe: 234/4. That doc is about flexibility and thus requires a AT unit that can keep up with the others. It does not have many TD´s in future if any at all.
New TH doc: The 234/2 with 50 mm gun could be quite usefull when it gets abilities that can be unlocked (eg arty strike or so). The 50 mm would also be a nice support against light and fast enemie vehicles that are dancing with your inf and tanks.
Build more AA Walderschmidt
Re: Rewards
This type of "argument" is usually used just to make some cost issue look more severe. But really, nobody ever says "Riflemen cost 405MP 15F (Squad cost + Barracks cost)". With this type of thinking you would need to say that Tiger costs "barracks + 1st phase upgrade + 2nd building + 2nd upgrade + tank factory + 3rd upgrade + heavy tank factory (+ costs of all the units and abilities you need to get/use in order to even survive into the phase of the game where you can get a Tiger)"Viper wrote:the difference between early tiger1 and late tiger1 is 25 mp and 80 fuel because tiger1 late version is locked behind 75 fuel production upgrade of the tank factory......so if you can afford one, does not mean you can afford the other.
So yes, you need one more upgrade to get the late Tiger but counting the upgrade cost into the unit cost is silly. What I said still applies - when you choose one or the other in the reward menu, you know that late version requires an upgrade and since players usually know what resources are available on maps, you can just go for the early tiger if you know that given map has less fuel.