[US] Structural changes

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
Post Reply
User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 745
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

[US] Structural changes

Post by mofetagalactica »

This is my suggestion about structural changes for default US, Units available, new prices, etc.

US forces
Image

Headquarters Starts with 55 Fuel on HRes
Units available:

Image
Image
Image
Image

Barracks | Requirements: Nothing | Price: 150MP 15 Fuel

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image



Motor Pool | Requirements: None| Price: 300 MP 15 Fuel

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
----------------------------------------------------------
Unlocked after building WSC:

ImageM5 Stuart Light Tank -New price- 350 MP/30 Fuel (315 MP/30 Fuel after Upgraded Production Level I in Tank Depot)
Image M24 Chaffee Light Tank - New Price 350MP/35 Fuel (315MP/30 Fuel after Upgraded Production Level I in Tank Depot)
ImageM8 Armored Car - 330 MP/30 Fuel (300 MP/25 Fuel after Upgraded Production Level I in Tank Depot)
Image
Image
ImageMotorpool upgrade REMOVED

Weapon Support Center | Requirement: Motorpool | Price: 100 MP 30 Fuel

50. cal upgrade New price: 125MP 80 Ammo not longer requires Fuel
Image
Image
Image
Image

Tank Depot | Requirements: WSC | 300 MP 50 Fuel

Image
Image Upgraded Production Level I - 35 Fuel

Supply Yard | Requirements: NONE | 100 MP 20 Fuel

Image| Level 1 Production - New price - 100 MP/25 Fuel
Image|| Level 2 Production - New price - 150 MP/30 Fuel
Image|| Level 3 Production - New price 150 MP/35 Fuel
Image|| Improved Fuel Supply - 75 MP/25 Fuel
Image|| Improved Fuel Supply (Level Two) - New price - 150 MP/30 Fuel (Armor Only)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, i didn't drop any random numbers at it, i've had in mind their current counter parts and tier of units available for the time you can get the buildings, this is pretty close to what current WH is in terms of teching.


I will make a post about CW later.
Last edited by mofetagalactica on 19 Oct 2020, 17:09, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 5395
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: [US] Structural changes

Post by Warhawks97 »

like it.

But why does WSC requires motorpool?


Just asking.


And could the chaffe be in the Tank depot or available after it?

It would cost not more than a stuart in return and these two tanks wouldnt be reward units anymore.
Build more AA Walderschmidt

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 745
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: [US] Structural changes

Post by mofetagalactica »

Warhawks97 wrote:
19 Oct 2020, 13:03
like it.

But why does WSC requires motorpool?


Just asking.


And could the chaffe be in the Tank depot or available after it?

It would cost not more than a stuart in return and these two tanks wouldnt be reward units anymore.
- Why does WSC requires motorpool?

I needed to add some time into teching without blocking the production of light vehicles, wich is why i removed motorpool upgrade, supply yard as sepparated building and made the WSC the building that makes you tier up into building Tank depot.

And could the chaffe be in the Tank depot or available after it?

-I tried not to touch units by themselves, but its true, i did think about chaffe being available in tank depot, but the problem is with his current firepower, armor and price just gets outclassed by the 75mm sherman, so that pretty much killed the idea.

But its true i also think the same, chaffe could be cheaper at least in terms of MP for 350.

-Added up some missing descriptions and something missing.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 5395
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: [US] Structural changes

Post by Warhawks97 »

mofetagalactica wrote:
19 Oct 2020, 17:11



- Why does WSC requires motorpool?

I needed to add some time into teching without blocking the production of light vehicles, wich is why i removed motorpool upgrade, supply yard as sepparated building and made the WSC the building that makes you tier up into building Tank depot.

Ok, what about keeping the motorpool unpgrade (Lower cost?) and let the WSC and supply yard as completely independent buildings only required for upgrades and to unlock certain units?

Just a thought.

And could the chaffe be in the Tank depot or available after it?

-I tried not to touch units by themselves, but its true, i did think about chaffe being available in tank depot, but the problem is with his current firepower, armor and price just gets outclassed by the 75mm sherman, so that pretty much killed the idea.

But its true i also think the same, chaffe could be cheaper at least in terms of MP for 350.

-Added up some missing descriptions and something missing.


Lets see how US guns get fixed. Perhaps 75 mm shermans and thus this tank can in future penetrate early Tank IV models of the E and F series and to some degree H.

This tank could become a light mobile 350 MP tank that can use ambush and mobility. Would in particular be usefull in inf focused docs that need some support with german early medium tanks and light vehicles. A cheap general purpose light tank to support other units when neither sherman nor M10 is required.
Build more AA Walderschmidt

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 2516
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: [US] Structural changes

Post by kwok »

This is pretty accelerated. The sct car will become buildable at 45 fu or even 30. Meanwhile for WM the first vehicle even being available (not even buildable because of fuel costs) comes at 55 fuel. This feels like people will fall into the "rush 50cal sct car/quad ht" formula.

What's the reason for these changes?

I still believe a big reason that axis (both WM and PE) are so easy to play right now is because the k98s basically make it so no other infantry other than volks and pgren are necessary in the opening to get full map control. next patch will probably see a slight nerf to that to see if things get a little better from an early game inf vs inf balance. that will probably send small ripple effects down the tiering.
Tarakancheg: I want volkssturmm to upgrade to knights cross holders at vet 5 so that I can just show players how bad they are.

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 745
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: [US] Structural changes

Post by mofetagalactica »

Warhawks97 wrote:
19 Oct 2020, 19:11
This tank could become a light mobile 350 MP tank that can use ambush and mobility. Would in particular be usefull in inf focused docs that need some support with german early medium tanks and light vehicles. A cheap general purpose light tank to support other units when neither sherman nor M10 is required.
If that day ever arrives after implementing this system, i would heavily suggest to make sherman 75mm a little more expensive as counter balance, since you can get upkeep upgrades easier with this.

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 745
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: [US] Structural changes

Post by mofetagalactica »

kwok wrote:
19 Oct 2020, 19:24
This is pretty accelerated. The sct car will become buildable at 45 fu or even 30. Meanwhile for WM the first vehicle even being available (not even buildable because of fuel costs) comes at 55 fuel. This feels like people will fall into the "rush 50cal sct car/quad ht" formula.
Vehicles available right from the start for WH to deal with this at the same time this comes:

-Pz 28mm Halftrack (def)
-37mm Halftrack (blitz)
-Gepard (def)
-Halftrack 20mm (propaganda)

PE (starts with 60 f):

x 2 Pzb 28mm Scout car (a pretty commong sight)

kwok wrote:
19 Oct 2020, 19:24
I still believe a big reason that axis (both WM and PE) are so easy to play right now is because the k98s basically make it so no other infantry other than volks and pgren are necessary in the opening to get full map control. next patch will probably see a slight nerf to that to see if things get a little better from an early game inf vs inf balance. that will probably send small ripple effects down the tiering.
Maybe, i've also made a suggestion for axis to play more around their upgrades (by having a little bit cheaper and easy access to mg34/42 upgrades) after making the kars back to old stats, wich should also be historically accurate, since their strats were based around such weapons.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 2516
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: [US] Structural changes

Post by kwok »

kwok wrote:
19 Oct 2020, 19:24

What's the reason for these changes?
I might personally know but would like it said "outloud" please.
Tarakancheg: I want volkssturmm to upgrade to knights cross holders at vet 5 so that I can just show players how bad they are.

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 745
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: [US] Structural changes

Post by mofetagalactica »

kwok wrote:
19 Oct 2020, 20:36
kwok wrote:
19 Oct 2020, 19:24

What's the reason for these changes?
I might personally know but would like it said "outloud" please.
The idea is to:

Force the axis players to avoid skipping early phases as fast as possible by forcing them to fight longer againts US early vehicles. This would also give some new strategy opens once you fail at early phases with US since it wouldn't make you fall years and years behind the teching clock giving a little more chances to regular players to comeback as allies.
It also stops Axis from snowballing to hard in the game once they won the early phase and also "rush teched" into mediums tank tier.

F31.58
Posts: 97
Joined: 25 Sep 2020, 15:31

Re: [US] Structural changes

Post by F31.58 »

For 1v1 in big maps, I can spot already longer fights on armored vehicles/light tanks stage, tho this really not a big thing in tighter maps.
As for k96 changes, I don't really agree, because this will not make much sense. Changing and standartizing tech costs, however, will make sure that things will come in par. I would personally would be interested to see things implemented in EF mod already - choice between side tech to improve to current tier (more cheap way) or opening next tier (more expensive way).

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 745
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: [US] Structural changes

Post by mofetagalactica »

bump

Constantino
Posts: 63
Joined: 16 Jun 2019, 12:58

Re: [US] Structural changes

Post by Constantino »

I agree with increasing US starting fuel.

Also, I strongly agree with replacing fuel cost to munition for .50 cal; it should also be a global upgrade.

Upgraded bazooka should also be available to all US docs for balance as the faction as a whole really struggles against heavier German tanks.

I like the Supply Yard suggestion, but I think it should at least require Barracks or Motorpool

Post Reply