Possible weapon cost changes for AB infantry

[MarKr]

One thing that has been mentioned many times over the years is that AB doc always sits on a crapload of fuel and has nothing to spend it on. One way to adress this would be to give to AB the same upgrade/unlock as Luft has but we would like to keep the plane-affecting upgrades/unlocks doctrine-specific so another thing that would be possible is to change the upgrade in WSC that lowers the weapon costs of AB so that it removes ammo costs completely and replaces them with adequate fuel costs. If something costs now 40 ammo, it would obviously NOT cost 40 fuel but we haven't thought about the correct ammo:fuel ratio yet.

It would be a unique thing for AB. This would mean that the doctrine wouldn't have to decide whether to use ammo to equip infantry with better weapons or save ammo for airstrikes, which in turn would leave more ammo for abilities/airstrikes which might cause balance issues, but it is also true that the AB doc is more reliant on airstrikes and AA can make a short work with planes so maybe it could work.

Would you like this option for the AB doctrine?

PS: Please, don't start discussions here about the HQ squad or other AB doc-related topics - there are separate topics for that.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

Great idea, however I think that performance to cost ratio of 101s has to be changed before everything else. They should cost slightly more than rifles given their current capabilities, especially in terms of the reinforcement.

[Consti255]

Would you like this option for the AB doctrine?

PS: Please, don't start discussions here about the HQ squad or other AB doc-related topics - there are separate topics for that.

Bring back HQ squad.

[Consti255]

Anyway. Great Idea! i defnitly voted for yes.

compared to other air docs AB dont got that much to spend its fuel.
RAF: Achillies and churchill
Luft: 88s and Panthers.
AB: just 76 and some hellcats or m10s.

Normally i dont think that AB struggels that much with ammo costs because of the ammo trade.
I think it comes more to the MP costs that are so damn high on AB doc. Actually everything doc specific cost you MP.
If you compare it to Luft in some cases Luft pays ammo where AB pays MP ( leig 18 vs pack howitzer drop).
Thats why the MP management on AB is so hard to master imo.
Also wanna stress out Sukins post. The 101st should be more cost effective aswell and this would be a much more needed change.

After all, i still think it is a great way to spend your fuel on and it is a great idea from you devs overall.

[Warhawks97]

Thx Markr that you picked that idea up finally.

[H.Drescher]

I think its an interesting proposal. You could also have the option for the Weapon costs reduction costing 100 MP 30 fuel or 50 fuel. Along side with a few late game options such as 101st will be dropped with Garands by default through a WSC unlock with the 2 CP unlock "Advanced Training". You could also add other stat buffs to airborne infantry from the WSC after CP gates too. Like increased view range, larger grenade range, faster Veterency gain, stronger commander buffs, ETC. A similar idea can be used for Luftwaffe as well.

I don't think the weapon upgrades on infantry should cost fuel and munitions. I think this will severely fuck the balance in unforeseen ways. Especially since this is a doctrine that has an ammo trade ability. IE, it could lead to airborne players being able to spam more howitzers, mortars, whilst being able to maintain airstrikes on top of that. ETC.

There may also be the unintended consequence of Airborne players being unable to tech into tanks earlier with these changes (unless this would be intended consequence).

[Warhawks97]

I think its an interesting proposal. You could also have the option for the Weapon costs reduction costing 100 MP 30 fuel or 50 fuel.

thats what he means.

[MarKr]

You could also add other stat buffs to airborne infantry from the WSC after CP gates too. Like increased view range, larger grenade range, faster Veterency gain, stronger commander buffs

Grenade range is increased automatically with Vet2 (or vet3, not sure right now), view range is increased as soon as the command squad is nearby, XP gain is increased with command squad at vet 2. HQ squad provides stronger bunuses when it gets more vet. Giving these bonuses directly to the squads would lead to stacking of the bonuses to stupidly high levels - vision almost as long as spotters, getting vet levels after killing 2 soldiers etc. so I don't think those buffs should be added.

I don't think the weapon upgrades on infantry should cost fuel and munitions. I think this will severely fuck the balance in unforeseen ways. Especially since this is a doctrine that has an ammo trade ability. IE, it could lead to airborne players being able to spam more howitzers, mortars, whilst being able to maintain airstrikes on top of that. ETC.

The suggestion here is that the WSC upgrade would make the weapon upgrades cost only fuel, not fuel and ammo. What you wrote about could be a problem but at the same time if you get more mortars and pack howitzers, you spend MP on them on top of the resource trade and so you're limiting yourself in terms infantry. The doctrine would certain require more careful resource management because you could get many infantry squads in the field but not enough support for them (MGs/mortars), you could get high stacks of ammo with the fuel trade but be left with few-to-none infantry to actually fight in the field.

There may also be the unintended consequence of Airborne players being unable to tech into tanks earlier with these changes (unless this would be intended consequence).

This goes also with the resource management. The upgrade would be there but each player should use their best judgement about if or when to get it.

[Warhawks97]

so the WSC upgrade costs ammo afterall and then all my weapon upgrades cost fuel

If so then i missunderstood it. Thought some of the WSC upgrades are going to cost fuel but everything else remains as it is.

That is heading into very deep and uncertain waters.


Honestly, the three major changes that could help this doc effectively with its fuel excess without causing too many issues are the following:

1. WSC upgrades like cheaper weapons are going to cost fuel instead of 80 ammo.
2. Planes just cost fuel. Simple as that.

Or indirectly,
3. when medium tanks and TD´s would cost more fuel but less MP. For example a sherman 76 costing 400/70 (random example). Or Hellcat costs 320/50.... stuff like that. This would help other non Tank but MP hungry docs to make use of their fuel and ocassionally field a tank which will always remain a vital asset in the new BK where we dont have rambo inf anymore.

[H.Drescher]

The suggestion here is that the WSC upgrade would make the weapon upgrades cost only fuel, not fuel and ammo. What you wrote about could be a problem but at the same time if you get more mortars and pack howitzers, you spend MP on them on top of the resource trade and so you're limiting yourself in terms infantry. The doctrine would certain require more careful resource management because you could get many infantry squads in the field but not enough support for them (MGs/mortars), you could get high stacks of ammo with the fuel trade but be left with few-to-none infantry to actually fight in the field.

My fear is that it may just reinforce the obnoxious artillery/ plane playstyle. The current resource trade also provides a free MG and Mortar which you can resupply cheaply with engineers. I trust your judgement in the end though.

thats what he means.

I assumed that MarKr would keep the WSC the same price as live.

[MarKr]

1. WSC upgrades like cheaper weapons are going to cost fuel instead of 80 ammo.
2. Planes just cost fuel. Simple as that.

What would be the main practical difference here? WSC upgrades and planes costing fuel means more ammo saved for weapon upgrades and abilities.

101st and 82nd weapon upgrades costing fuel means more ammo left for airstrikes and abilities.

As I said - we would like to kepp plane-related unlocks/upgrades specific for doctrines (Luft can lower ammo cost by adding fuel cost, RAF can reduce cooldowns and AB can basically transfer part of ammo cost into MP with resource trade or "lower ammo costs" of planes based on how you're looking at it). Giving AB the option to remove ammo costs for planes and give them fuel costs is what Luft has, only with stronger effect (0 ammo but higher fuel cost).

Or indirectly,
3. when medium tanks and TD´s would cost more fuel but less MP. For example a sherman 76 costing 400/70 (random example). Or Hellcat costs 320/50.... stuff like that. This would help other non Tank but MP hungry docs to make use of their fuel and ocassionally field a tank which will always remain a vital asset in the new BK where we dont have rambo inf anymore.

This change is intended to impact just AB doc, we're not looking for faction-wide changes right now.

My fear is that it may just reinforce the obnoxious artillery/ plane playstyle. The current resource trade also provides a free MG and Mortar which you can resupply cheaply with engineers. I trust your judgement in the end though.

The AB doc is intended to use those support elements (planes/arty) more heavily than other similar doctrines so it would be in line with the intention here, although they should be using exclusively those things so maybe some further cost changes would need to take place but it is fairly impossible to accurately predict the outcome here. It would go to the beta first so there would hopefully get some hands-on feedback and decide how to fine-tune it or if we should drop the idea altogether.

[Consti255]

i think Dreschers idea is kinda well aswell.
I think overall that the WSC could be more doc specific instead of more "general" upgrades to purchase.

[H.Drescher]

The AB doc is intended to use those support elements (planes/arty) more heavily than other similar doctrines so it would be in line with the intention here, although they should be using exclusively those things so maybe some further cost changes would need to take place but it is fairly impossible to accurately predict the outcome here. It would go to the beta first so there would hopefully get some hands-on feedback and decide how to fine-tune it or if we should drop the idea altogether.

Will there be a consideration of Mencius' tree shift proposal in regards to an infantry shuffle. I think airborne's infantry would greatly benefit to a more streamlined path to the HQ Squad and their personal buffs like Luftwaffe's layout. It currently feels very awkward with the current unlock path and I believe this may be apart of the perception of airbornes so called "weak" infantry.

RAF's plane cooldown was also very successful change from my perspective. Would a similar introduction then to the WSC be added for the price of fuel to further engage an infantry based + support weapons playstyle over tanks.

[Constantino]

Munitions airdrop costing fuel instead of MP is just a better solution IMO.

Alternatively, I wouldn't mind Luft lost its reduced airstrike cost upgrade to AB; I think fuel float isn't as bad in Luft because you also have great fuel sinks like Panthers. It also would feel more authentic if Luft was more ground-based relative to AB.

[Warhawks97]

101st and 82nd weapon upgrades costing fuel means more ammo left for airstrikes and abilities.

As I said - we would like to kepp plane-related unlocks/upgrades specific for doctrines (Luft can lower ammo cost by adding fuel cost, RAF can reduce cooldowns and AB can basically transfer part of ammo cost into MP with resource trade or "lower ammo costs" of planes based on how you're looking at it). Giving AB the option to remove ammo costs for planes and give them fuel costs is what Luft has, only with stronger effect (0 ammo but higher fuel cost).

Its one thing to have an airstrike you occassionally call costs like 10 fuel. That is what you get in 2 mins without any fuel point taken.
Its also different to pay only one time 40 fuel to get cheaper ammo.

But relying on fuel only to keep your units upgraded with weapons, is a whole different story. That quickly sums up at the end and might strip you of fuel completely for any kind of vehicle.

This doc should not rely on fuel like an armor doc. What we want that it does make use of it without affecting the core capabilties: inf with weapon upgrades.


So for me it stands.
Options:
1. WSC upgrade costs fuel instead of ammo
2. Planes cost a bit of fuel. Even without any major fuel point Luftwaffe can easily call planes because they cost i think max 15 fuel or so.
3. Supply drop costs a bit fuel instead of MP only.


Also that ideologoy with Luftwaffes airplane cost fuel, brits have a short cooldown and so on is weird.
Luftwaffe only benefits from it so far. RAF has a short cooldown but doesnt have the ammo to call planes in this short time anyways. Also Luftwaffe upgrades it in a building and RAF loses the firefly instead having it as an upgrade. Thats all some weird stuff.

[MarKr]

Will there be a consideration of Mencius' tree shift proposal in regards to an infantry shuffle. I think airborne's infantry would greatly benefit to a more streamlined path to the HQ Squad and their personal buffs like Luftwaffe's layout. It currently feels very awkward with the current unlock path and I believe this may be apart of the perception of airbornes so called "weak" infantry.

Not exactly what Mencius suggested but we plan a change in the unlock order for AB infantry. We also plan to try out the "veterancy" changes that have been discussed some time ago so that will have an impact on infantry performance too. We'll see how that plays out and then will see what else is needed to tweak.

RAF's plane cooldown was also very successful change from my perspective. Would a similar introduction then to the WSC be added for the price of fuel to further engage an infantry based + support weapons playstyle over tanks.

This is not planned. The intention was to give to each "air" doc a way to "improve" their airstrikes but we don't want to combine the "improvements" in docs. The point is not to make the planes absolute no brainers that can be called pretty much every time thanks to low CDs and also cost peanuts due to possible cost tweaks/resource trades.

Its one thing to have an airstrike you occassionally call costs like 10 fuel. That is what you get in 2 mins without any fuel point taken.
Its also different to pay only one time 40 fuel to get cheaper ammo.

10 fuel could probably be considered for the Recon but any damage-dealing airstrikes would go higher.

But relying on fuel only to keep your units upgraded with weapons, is a whole different story. That quickly sums up at the end and might strip you of fuel completely for any kind of vehicle.

Just because an upgrade is there it doesn't mean you just MUST get it every time. If you feel your fuel supply is not high enough to get upgrades for your units, just wait with the upgrade for later. The fuel costs for the upgrades would also play a huge role in this. The costs have not been discussed at all so don't automatically assume that one Johnson upgrade would cost you 40 fuel or whatnot.

Also that ideologoy with Luftwaffes airplane cost fuel, brits have a short cooldown and so on is weird.
Luftwaffe only benefits from it so far.

I've also already said this - the fuel costs for Luft were set more or less as test values. We heard no complaints so they stayed but if the fuel costs are too insignificant to play any role in resource management, it should be changed. It was meant to be an upgrade that requires some decision making, not a no-brainer thing.

RAF has a short cooldown but doesnt have the ammo to call planes in this short time anyways.

And yet people have reported that the unlock is useful and feels nice to have. Just because you personally don't see it as useful doesn't mean it is perceived that way in general.

Also Luftwaffe upgrades it in a building and RAF loses the firefly instead having it as an upgrade. Thats all some weird stuff.

Nothing wrong or weird with that from gameplay perspective.

[Red]

I would also be weary of the consequences if the weapon upgrades to units cost fuel.
So i believe the floated proposal of having the WSC upgrades cost fuel instead of ammo is less risky in terms of impact.
For the planes, I see this as a possible alternative to the WSC upgrades, but rather not something complementary. However, again it would be more difficult to find the right balance for this, as the priority in which airstrikes are unlocked will have an impact on the amount of times they will be used per game.
Probably the most advantageous proposal for Airborne I see as of now would be the supply drop with less MP, as as already noted MP is possibly the scarcest ressource for this doc.

I would also like to float an additional proposal:
As it has been said that Airborne has an issue with its anti tank capability, we could consider introducing an AT upgrade for fuel. Just thinking on the fly: would it be possible to give the para-dropped AT guns an upgrade which costs a nice amount of fuel but leads to a permanent supply of M93 ammo? If this had to be done for each gun individually, it would be a way to use fuel to make the para's AT guns more viable, especially in the later stages of a game.

Happy to collect your views!

[crazyace96]

would it be possible to spend fuel to reduce munitions costs on upgrades for a set amount of time? could be an ability available at the hq post supply depot.
unsure of exact numbers but could be a way to dump fuel to reduce munition cost for all unit's upgrades for a set amount of time so it would not affect airstrikes etc.

if it's impossible to code in that way please ignore.

[Warhawks97]

]I've also already said this - the fuel costs for Luft were set more or less as test values. We heard no complaints so they stayed but if the fuel costs are too insignificant to play any role in resource management, it should be changed. It was meant to be an upgrade that requires some decision making, not a no-brainer thing.

"decision making". For me its a no brainer. Everybody gets it. There is no drawback. Saving a good junk of ammo that you spend into weapons and abilties in exchange for paying a laughable ammount of fuel which so far never affected me in my vehicle production, is always a no brainer decision.

It actually allows Luft to call everything at once (already seen it in a couple of games and did it myself) and playing the "saturation attack card".

Nothing wrong or weird with that from gameplay perspective.

It is. Either all those "air doc airplane affecting things" are an upgrade or an unlock or non.

[kwok]

Just to add flavor.

Should the upgrade be something like "airdrop weapons upgrade" that tweaks this so that the weapons cost fuel and are available when in enemy territory? The flavor is it costs fuel because the plane carrying the extra weight of weapons lol.

Should these weapons be available still with MU cost prior to the upgrade? Or is this conversion a pure optional thing?
Should there be an option to still spend MU instead of FU after upgrading?

[MarKr]

I would also be weary of the consequences if the weapon upgrades to units cost fuel.

I agree that the impact could be huge but should we dismiss it just because it could have a negative impact?

So i believe the floated proposal of having the WSC upgrades cost fuel instead of ammo is less risky in terms of impact.

As I said - we're not looking for a faction-wide change here, just the AB doctrine and the point was to allow the AB doc to somehow use their excess of fuel (talking about the "AB always sits on tons of fuel and has no use for it" complaints). How will a single upgrade that costs fuel instead of ammo help to make use of the "tons of fuel"? You get the upgrade, pay the fuel one time and then you still have crapload of fuel and no use for it. The option to buy weapon upgrades for fuel would allow the player to have some continous usage for their fuel.

Probably the most advantageous proposal for Airborne I see as of now would be the supply drop with less MP, as as already noted MP is possibly the scarcest ressource for this doc.

This could be a way to go but the point of this suggsted change is not to give AB more of the resource they lack but to give some usage to the resource they have no use for.

would it be possible to spend fuel to reduce munitions costs on upgrades for a set amount of time?

It is possible to do. Won't people complain that it is just "unnecessary extra micro"?

For me its a no brainer. Everybody gets it. There is no drawback.

For the third time:

the fuel costs for Luft were set more or less as test values. We heard no complaints so they stayed but if the fuel costs are too insignificant to play any role in resource management, it should be changed.

Thanks for the report, we'll look into it.

It is. Either all those "air doc airplane affecting things" are an upgrade or an unlock or non.

And it has to be for all air docs either unlock or upgrade because...?

[Diablo]

I think the concept of sidegrades has yet to be fully understood by the community..

About the notion of affecting AB teching:
You can play and tech up just as you do now and when you reach max tech with every fuel costing unlock purchased, you might start having excess fuel. THEN you switch to fuel costing weapons to make use of this resource. Really it's that easy. Just requires the player to consciously choose the timing of the debated upgrade.
Another situation that involves the brain, would be the strategic decision to take the upgrade early (=before max tech) based on a map layout with a lot of fuel or, if you're ballsy, based on you're confidence in holding the main fuel point early on.

EDIT: And if you're really uncertain when or if at all to get the upgrade, you can always restrain yourself from clicking it all together. No nerf to anything has been proposed, really nothing would be different.

Regarding the weapon prices, if they will be something in the range of 5 & 10 fuel, I can see a viable option in taking the upgrade early; AB infantry could possibly outgun their opponents and therefore give a strong early-mid push.

[kwok]

So i believe the floated proposal of having the WSC upgrades cost fuel instead of ammo is less risky in terms of impact.

As I said - we're not looking for a faction-wide change here, just the AB doctrine and the point was to allow the AB doc to somehow use their excess of fuel (talking about the "AB always sits on tons of fuel and has no use for it" complaints). How will a single upgrade that costs fuel instead of ammo help to make use of the "tons of fuel"? You get the upgrade, pay the fuel one time and then you still have crapload of fuel and no use for it. The option to buy weapon upgrades for fuel would allow the player to have some continous usage for their fuel.

I guess it could mean another option is to make supply drops cost fuel. Basically it's a fuel trade ability. At its core that's essentially what this ability does.

The idea of doing a fuel cost to weapons sounds more intriguing than practical which as a player is something id like to experiment with. But if it ends up not testing well we always have the "easy option" of above.

I dunno. I'm just talking out options. I'm not aligning myself to a personal preference here.