Tech Increase Decreases Price for Support/Trash Units

[Walderschmidt]

We all have been there in the late game where everyone has a mix of tanks and inf, but almost no matter what, it turns into a who can get the best tank and micro it the best.

With a decent income, it's not really worth it to get an AT gun for 270mp or 360mp, when you can get an infantry squad with a bazooka or shrek. It's not worth it to get an HMG for 320 mp when you can get a tank for about 350 mp and small amount of fuel. At the end tech of the game, fuel costs start to be trivial.

And when it comes to Chaffee/Stuart verses a Sherman, why would you settle for anything less? Why get a 50mm Puma when you can get PIV for slightly higher MP cost and slightly higher fuel cost? I mean, after the buildings are built, the fuel cost increase and mp cost increase is negligible.

So what I want to suggest is a slightly cost decrease for lower tier units once a certain tech is reached. What do you guys think?

I hope I explained this well enough.

Wald

[Warhawks97]

I think its worth a try.

As said in the other topic, it can be linked to already exisiting tec ups. For WH it can be tied to HQ upgrades, for US to supply yard and its upgrades and for PE and CW, well we would have to see.


It would mainly affect certain support weapons like HMGs and mortars and certain vehicles. The max ammount of cost drop would probably be arround 30-50 MP.

[crazzy501]

like this. I nevah use puma 50mm after BK v4.8, just coz it's waste of res in comparison with lets say P4 J2. And that's can be say in somewhere about half of units

[mofetagalactica]

+1

[Rubytooth_UA]

Absolutely agree with this point of view. Mgs, mortars, infantry (not elite) should receive 20-25% discount after tier3 reached. Other way they are ineffective compare to the elites and tanks. We dont see this units in the mid game because they became extremely expensive compare to the rest high grade units.

[kwok]

ive been thinking about his a lot, i think it will lead to much easier snowballing and advantages to the player who is already "ahead", turning BK more into a game about faster build orders instead of combat tactics.

it gives the player who is winning in fuel more advantage not only by having access to a higher tier of units than the opponent but also access to easily replace lost units in the earlier stages. meanwhile the losing player, who already is probably down units, will need to pay more just to rebuild to catch up with the winning player.

for that reason, i'm really reluctant that this idea will go well. i understand the intent but i dont think this is the way.

[Walderschmidt]

ive been thinking about his a lot, i think it will lead to much easier snowballing and advantages to the player who is already "ahead", turning BK more into a game about faster build orders instead of combat tactics.

it gives the player who is winning in fuel more advantage not only by having access to a higher tier of units than the opponent but also access to easily replace lost units in the earlier stages. meanwhile the losing player, who already is probably down units, will need to pay more just to rebuild to catch up with the winning player.

for that reason, i'm really reluctant that this idea will go well. i understand the intent but i dont think this is the way.

Do you think that restricting this change to only support units (MGs, AT Guns, and Mortars) would still accomplish the intended effect while mitigating your concern?

At least, with support weapons the winning player would likely not benefit much given he would have to sacrifice momentum to bring up slightly cheaper units to the front.

On top of that maybe it could be in tiers?

T3 = 10% off, T4 = 20% off?

Wald

[kwok]

If i'm winning in tech and want to rush to end-game units before my opponent can get end-game counters, i'm going to get units optimizing a balance between cost efficiency and camping effectiveness to max my chances of holding out while still getting enough resources to hit end-game. today, players can't do it as well because the losing opponent can catch up with next tier units which will over power my cheap camp units. if those campy early tier units become even cheaper, it makes them more cost effective at stalling for the late game. so for example, say i'm US and i'm winning tier 1 and 2. I want to hit pershings asap but there's a worry of a panzer iii spam coming my way to ruin that build order. making 76 AT guns is too immobile and expensive to counter spam, normally i'll NEED to push out at least a 76 sherman to keep my lead over whatever axis might throw out. if 76 AT guns becomes cheaper, i can push 2 AT guns out to make up for the immobility instead of a 76 sherman and keep stalling.

if the cost reduction is too much it'll just lead to more campy games and snowballing winners. if the cost reduction is too little then what's the point?

[Warhawks97]

Even if we assume that the cost drop will max be like 20 MP for AT guns and light vehicles and for HMGs and mortars 30 MP and for basic inf also 30 MP, i would say your scenario of spamming cheaper camp stuff wont happen.

I mean a few US vehicles get cost drop later on and does it seem to you that these vehicles will stall a game or get spammed in incredible numbers?
Not at all.


Right now many of these units just disappear. Esspecially mortar and HMG crews just vanish by random arty strikes, missile barrages or even by friendly tanks that accidentially drive over it (dear, i dont even count how many allied weapon crews i crushed by accident).

But that small drop of 30 (very max would be 40 i think) MP would place these weapons at a point where they might become a viable option again in the late game.





Also, the winning faction will be at an res advantage anyways. But the loser side would have an additional option to what spend the res for. Right now they can decide to get units uncapable of making a comeback or investing into tec to unlock elite untis which they wont be able to field anyways and if, then only once.


Like someone decides to upgrade for getting a single Tiger ace. But the tec would not just enable them to give them a "Perhaps Tiger Ace" (or whatever "Perhaps unit" which might even fail to achieve what it was supposed to to. The tec up would now be a vialble option to get replace basic units and weapon crews a bit easier to keep in the game a bit longer,

[Walderschmidt]

I think this is worth a beta test at least.

It's a concept worth exploring.

Wald

[Diablo]

ive been thinking about his a lot, i think it will lead to much easier snowballing and advantages to the player who is already "ahead", turning BK more into a game about faster build orders instead of combat tactics.

How about a global price reduction on early game equipment for both sides at the 20 or 30 min mark?

Not sure if this is even possible, but atleast it would seem not to favor any side.

[Warhawks97]

Nah, not making it depending on a ammount of time played.

Its like: "Get ready for level 2 in 10,9,8......2,1,0".

It should be part of a players strategy and preferences rather than set to a certain time. And as said, i dont think any side gets an advantage of it. defenders would actually gain something from spending their last res into teching.

[CGarr]

What if we just give these trash units free vet once the tank buildings of their respective doctrines are built (tank Depot, panzer factory, armor truck, either of the 2 PE tank buildings). Vet would keep them relevant later in the game without really affecting their spammability.

[Warhawks97]

Its too unrelated. Like oh, the Tank Depot is up, our inf weapon crews are now better trained. Vet upgrades should always be related to special training unlocks. And even with vet, a mortar for 330 MP with vet 1 dies to an random arty shell just like a 330 MP mortar with vet 0. So it wouldnt make it more appealing.

[TANEBIRD]

It seems like a good idea to me.