Upkeep

[Warhawks97]

This is taken from this topic:
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2262

I want to prevent that we fill that topic with stuff the topic wasnt made for. So i simply continue it here.

Res management its already a clusterfuck of inbalances anyway, i dont even know if devs are balancing upkeep if units, because i have seen some units eating too much MP.

Well. Upkeep is a different story. But yeah, glad people notice it. The lowest MP upkeep has WH followed by brits (brits tank have sometimes lower less MP upkeep but much more fuel). Then comes PE and finally US which get on a same level with PE when supply yard is up and on same level to WH when first upgrade is up and usually the best when all are up except in terms of fuel upkeep of tanks where axis remain vastly superior. Snipers and recons however keep more expensive than axis one.

I wasn't there when the upkeeps were set in the first place but in general I would say they are set to keep playing viable for all factions in connection to their units costs and intended playstyle. WM and CW have expensive units but lower upkeep, while US have higher upkeep and cheaper units, PE being between. If you set upkeep the same for everyone, let's say the high US upkeep, then in early game WM/CW will have expensive units and high upkeep and so they will be able to field less units and every loss will be more painful than now, and later in the game US will upgrade upkeep and gain huge advantage in this field compared to other factions. On the other hand if you set it low for for everyone then again US will be able to spamm even more and later again with upgrades.

Some upkeep values are however set wrong due to mistakes - e.g. Hetzers take 1MP upkeep instead of 10 or Comets have about 7MP upkeep. This was reported to us recently and it will be fixed in the next patch.

They are taken from vcoh in a few (or many) cases. The huge upkeep gap between US sniper/recon and axis one has no real reason. Axis snipers can kill expensive CW commandos and allis snipers expensive axis fallis. Both can also kill just cheap stuff like volks and rifles.

The unit cost thing is also not really a true argument. Rangers might be slightly cheaper than WH grens, but also way worse when it comes to their basic stats (but also later as upgraded stats). Basically, WM and US are quite similiar in some aspects. Both can win with cheap units or expensive units.

That PE is in between cost/upkeep of WH/CW and US is also not true. Their inf belonged for quite a long time to the most expensive producable units (eg heavy assault grens) without any options to buy cheaper inf units like WH or US can do. At the same time their rifle stats were worse than those of WH grens. Basically saying: PE payed more in prod cost and upkeep while getting worse stats than WH. This got changed recently (cost drop) and will be (rifle stats improvments).

The fuel upkeep was based on a page with stats of vehicles (just as they did with gun penetration drops, just that they used the worse possible stats for US guns while using stats of shots that werent used at this time anymore, but this is not a problem balance wise, rather better in terms of gameplay). Sadly they used onraod fuel consumption (liter per kilometer is what a unit cost in upkeep) for axis tanks but offroad for allis tanks. For axis this page simply didnt provide off-road fuel consumption stats for some tanks. As a result a tank IV (battle tank and TD based on it) cost almost nothing in fuel upkeep, shermans more than panthers.

@markr. That Hetzer thing got recently reported? I admit that i was unaware of the comet but that hetzer thing has got mentioned already in 2015 or 16 when i am correct.

Regarding brits tanks: their MP upkeep in general is pretty low but their fuel upkeep in return very high in some cases.



Short story: Upkeep is nothing "that cant be changed" and it has no real "reason" to be as it is. Its a mixury of vcoh ukpeep stats, randomly set values or taken from pages, just with "very selective" numbers that were used.

[MarKr]

@markr. That Hetzer thing got recently reported? I admit that i was unaware of the comet but that hetzer thing has got mentioned already in 2015 or 16 when i am correct.

I don't recall it so maybe it was before I got to the team? Anyway if it was reported then it probably slipped the net. It will be fixed.

[mofetagalactica]

MarKr wrote:
I wasn't there when the upkeeps were set in the first place but in general I would say they are set to keep playing viable for all factions in connection to their units costs and intended playstyle. WM and CW have expensive units but lower upkeep, while US have higher upkeep and cheaper units

You can't really say that a unit its cheaper than another if it has way more upkeep, i would really recommend to start watching at the upkeep cost of units to have more balance between the real cost of units and their performance, so please i would like too start seeing more changes to upkeep units in changelogs.

[kwok]

Could do the coh2 system, blanket upkeep across all, progressively bracketed based on the popcap.

[drivebyhobo]

I wasn't there when the upkeeps were set in the first place but in general I would say they are set to keep playing viable for all factions in connection to their units costs and intended playstyle. WM and CW have expensive units but lower upkeep, while US have higher upkeep and cheaper units

Would it be possible for detailed unit information like upkeep to be listed in the recruitment tooltip in addition to resource cost and pop cap cost? I think overall the tooltips could be more helpful as the only way to understand how a unit will perform is through anecdotal experience and even then, that often betrays long time players when their experiences become dated.

[Warhawks97]

Well. To get the full picture then we would have to see the reinforce cost as well. The ammount of work would be massive i think. Also the upkeep cost are sometimes (or usually) very long decimal numbers.

Generally there are just two (or three) things that bother me in terms of upkeep:

1. That axis tanks (esspecially all those on tank IV chassis but also panthers) have such low fuel upkeep that makes them effectively way cheaper than shermans. Esspecially that Tank IV H vs e8 thing of Bk and armor doc. And all this just bc the old devs used on-road consumption values for axis tanks and offroad for allis.
2. That WH inf has such a low upkeep when compared to PE for example. WH just looks expensive but they have vastly the best cost- efficiency ratio (unit stats/ upkeep ratio) of all factions. That faction combines cheap producable units (volks) with cheapest reinforce cost (volks but also grens compared to units with similiar stats like enfield commandos) with superior stats (volks beat everything in its price class but also more costly units, grens everything in their price class).
(3. The extrem upkeep of US recons)

[drivebyhobo]

Also the upkeep cost are sometimes (or usually) very long decimal numbers.

That shouldn't be an obstacle. Manpower, ammo and fuel are all decimal values but are truncated before display. I'm just wondering if its possible for the tooltip to be changed to display more than resource cost and pop cap.

[MarKr]

You can't really say that a unit its cheaper than another if it has way more upkeep, i would really recommend to start watching at the upkeep cost of units to have more balance between the real cost of units and their performance, so please i would like too start seeing more changes to upkeep units in changelogs.

I don't think it is necessary unless in cases such as the Hetzers where the upkeep was ridiculously low due to an error. Because honestly, do you know what the unit upkeep is apart from "WM/CW have lower upkeep, US higher and PE is in between"? It is just something that someone said based on numbers they saw in Corsix and suddenly it is a problem? People such as Tiger kept bringing up arguments such as "omg omg omg my Tiger costs X and it gets destroyed by some stupid unit that costs Y?!?!?!?!?!?" (Y < X) - not considering upkeep all. And people often sided with him and those who did not side with him seldom mentioned upkeep either.
It is simply another example of how something that was not a concern for years "becomes a problem" when someone sees numbers differ more than little. Things are never like "just unify the numbers and that's it" - that is never IT. There is always tons of other stuff connected to it and this stuff becomes obvious only after the change. And then it starts - "now with the upkeep changes X is too OP!!! They can spamm (unit) and ovewhelm Y! This needs balancing!" so because of "just" upkeep we now need to change poerformance of some units...let's say we do that...then it comes again: "after the changes to unit X it is now OK vs Y, but X is now absolutely useless vs Z! This needs balancing!" so let's say we change that too. Guess what... "After recent changes of X vs Z, Z became somewhat "meh", also now A is messed up!"...you get the picture. It is a bit exagerated example but in my experience that is how it in the end ends up.
So really, why are suddenly upkeeps such a problem after years when they were not a problem?

Would it be possible for detailed unit information like upkeep to be listed in the recruitment tooltip in addition to resource cost and pop cap cost?

I think it is not possible via Corsix, maybe via external scripting but I cannot be sure of that either. Also the upkeep is not simply an integer number. The upkeep of all units you have counts together and then rounds to integer. So if a unit has fuel upkeep of 3.3 it is possible that you build that unit and your upkeep goes down by 4 because upkeep of the rest of the units was X.2 so after adding it you end up with Y.5 and that rounds UP. But in other situation when you build the same unit the upkeep might go down by 3 because the rest of your units has together upkeep of X.1 so after adding it is Y.4 and that rounds DOWN. So in the end such display of upkeep would be for many people confusing.

[Warhawks97]

Its nothing that is "suddenly". Since the introduction of upkeep it caused trouble (remember the old time when armor doc could get three tanks, jumbo, sherman, hellcat and then upkeep prevented further production) and got fixed already in some occassions. That a US recon cost idk, 10 upkeep ( a mjor drawback in the early stages) and thus more than some tanks and strong infantry units is something that bugs me for at least two years already

That a Panther is like three upkeep (arround as much as an easy eight after fuel upkeep reduction upgrade) is also something i could call an issue.
We somewhere had discussions that were arround "axis offensive" gameplay blamed as (forgot the correct words from sukin) "offensive defensive" (?). I think this is to some degree related to exactly this. If we take panthers as example: High build cost makes players largely afraid to use it really offensively and instead using it as mobile defensive AT/anti inf unit. Meanwhile the relatively low upkeep does not prevent that panthers can be "piled up" over time. A reshape of cost/upkeep in this regard could adress this issue. Players would use the panthers more aggressively when build cost wouldnt be as high as those of super heavies and more closer to medium tanks. Meanwhile it would become difficult to create and maintain an entire "Panther fleet" on the long term as the fielding of lets say two panthers could reduce the MP income by like 40 per minute or more than the fuel upkeep by approx 10-12.
As alli you know that panthers can be costly losses, but also that time is against you. If you dont manage to crack some of them in time, then you know several more will follow. With a change of build cost and upkeep you would know that a new panther will arrive soon, but also that its unlikely to face entire fleets that become so strong over time that barely anything can stand them.

Ive personally been playing arround a lot with upkeep/build cost (before i could actually calculate the exact upkeep via corxis numbers and instead checked it in test games) with mates to see the impact on gameplay. And the panther as specfic example: It helped the gameplay and dynamic a lot when panthers were easier to replace, but harder to massed up into fleet scale. And if anything was difficult on the panther, it was not so much the production rather than maintaining an ammount of them. In BK its the very opposite and gives the axis (WH or WM, whatever term you prever) a rather undefined or unspecific gameplay feeling (that combined with unclear doctrine design and roles).

[mofetagalactica]

suddenly it is a problem?

¿Whats so wrong about that? If it weren't for that there will be lot of stuffs unbalanced without notice.

[MarKr]

My point is that if Hawks did not mention the differences people would hardly notice - how many "unit X has too high upkeep" posts have you seen on the forum in...let's say...last year? If people don't notice something without someone specifically pointing at it, how come it is "unbalanced"?

And how exactely will any changes in this help balancing things? I don't really think that different upkeep rates lead to unbalanced gameplay in the first place...if some infantry unit had upkeep of 60 while comparable unit had 10, then change is probably at place but with the current differences? Not really.

[Warhawks97]

You have already worked with upkeep changes to fix early game issues for US as it was usual that they had approx 500-700 MP less gathered within the first 20 mins of gameplay. You fixed that by adding parts of the upkeep reduction of the last supply yard upgrade to the standard upkeep of units and thus reducing it. The last upgrade in return gives you less upkeep reduction (in percentage) as the first one iirc.

I have made these three points not mainly bc of urgent balance issues but the gameplay. Balance is one thing that causes players to complain. But another factor is the gameplay. And what i said regarding this matter is 1. Axis tanks (tank IV´s and tank IV based tanks and in particular Panthers) have an too low fuel upkeep that is often not even half of that from US (paper tanks, co called mediums) and sometimes just a third that of CW tanks. 2. Core axis units, esspecially Panthers but also Grens could have a cost drop in return for an increased upkeep. Axis would less often complain that their costly x billion dollar babies die from a one dollar paper tank with glass canon, Allis in return would less often complain that axis camp arround with panthers and arty until they bashed the defense and have gathered so many Panthers that their force is literally unbeatable anymore (at least not in terms of quantity).

I mean how much costs a Panther G currently? arround 900 MP and more than 150 fuel? And what are the complains? OMG a 360 MP e8, 320 MP M10 or 430 MP M10 achilles or 550 MP firefly killed it "easily" oneshot. Random suggestion: How would the situation be if a panther would cost just like 680 MP and 120 fuel? But in return 20 and more MP upkeep (atm its below 20 iirc) and 5-6 fuel (currently its arround 3 or so, at least not over 4. I havent checked corsix yet). The usuage of this tank would be more straight forward, less campy untill enough arty and panthers have been fielded and survived. Doctrines, in particluar Terror or BK, could thus also get a good solid base for future structure, design, roles and goals. Also a lucky shot would be by far less annyoing and not a reason to instantly create a youtube video called "M10 of doom" whenever a trash unit kills an omg super Panther. (i know it was a KT in this particular matter).


And yes, that a US recon has an higher upkeep than an entire axis infantry squad is just....just as cool as a hetzer with 1MP upkeep.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Also a lucky shot would be by far less annyoing and not a reason to instantly create a youtube video called "M10 of doom" whenever a trash unit kills an omg super Panther. (i know it was a KT in this particular matter).

Ya, just reminding that the KT died with 2 shots though, and at max range! The problem also is that it actually happens quite often when using the so called "hit and run tactics" ability. But ya; would be surely less confusing if it was 1 shot.. because 1 shot would be more understandable as 5% lucky hit. However, it was 2 shots somehow...

Edit:

Random suggestion: How would the situation be if a panther would cost just like 680 MP and 120 fuel? But in return more upkeep........

Generally less basic price and in return more upkeep cost? This is something I would totally have to agree!

[MarKr]

You have already worked with upkeep changes to fix early game issues for US as it was usual that they had approx 500-700 MP less gathered within the first 20 mins of gameplay. You fixed that by adding parts of the upkeep reduction of the last supply yard upgrade to the standard upkeep of units and thus reducing it. The last upgrade in return gives you less upkeep reduction (in percentage) as the first one iirc.

As I said, problems get fixed, current upkeeps are not problem, so no need to change them.

Random suggestion: How would the situation be if a panther would cost just like 680 MP and 120 fuel? But in return 20 and more MP upkeep (atm its below 20 iirc) and 5-6 fuel (currently its arround 3 or so, at least not over 4. I havent checked corsix yet). The usuage of this tank would be more straight forward, less campy untill enough arty and panthers have been fielded and survived. Doctrines, in particluar Terror or BK, could thus also get a good solid base for future structure, design, roles and goals. Also a lucky shot would be by far less annyoing(...)

So...in one case you accumulate more resources, but also spend more resources on the tank, in the other case you accumulate less resources but also spend less resources...so purely in matter of one unit it makes no difference, but in matter of whole doctrine you just get more resources for buiding other units. Why should we give to any faction such a buff without any counterweight?

[Warhawks97]

Idk if i would consider it as "buff". Its just different. I am not sure if you got what i was actually aiming at. Lower build cost usually tends to more dynamic games as players are less "Hyper sensitive" in order not to lose such costly units for which they waited ages to a random death shot of glass canons. However they can get a huge ammount of these units by doing not much with them. The other way arround would make replacing units easier, but not creating armies of them.

Basically the principle is similiar as in vcoh (?), just that fuel upkeep doesnt exist to prevent insane panther spams.

[MarKr]

I understood that but what you say is what I said...example (again completely made up):
You have 1200MP (+180 income) and 160 Fuel (+17 income)
Now situation number 1) :
You buy one Panther for 900MP 150F; you are left with 300MP and 10Fuel in resource pool and your income is now +165MP and +14Fuel.
- After 5 minutes with current income you gather 825MP and 70F
- Your resource pool is thus 1125MP and 80F
- In order to buy another Panther (to gather enough fuel) you need to wait additional 5 minutes

Situation number 2) :
You buy one Panther for 680MP 120F; you are left with 520MP and 40Fuel in resource pool and your income is now +155MP and +11Fuel.
- After 5 minutes with current income you gather 755MP and 55F
- Your resource pool is thus 1275MP and 95F
- In order to buy another Panther (to gather enough fuel) you need to wait additional 3 minutes

(Let's assume that in those 5 minutes you don't buy more units (unrealistic but for the sake of the example) because in that case you would drain the resource pool and change income rates)

So your suggestion would actually enable to field more of those tanks more quickly, which is a buff. But even if the upkeeps in the second case were set in such a way that you would also need to wait 5 minutes to gather enough fuel for another Panther, then what is really the difference? If in both cases you need to wait the same time to afford the unit, does it really matter if it gets "one shot by glass cannon" in first or second case? The only difference might be some sort of psychological effect in player's mind that the raw cost difference between the Panther and "glass cannon" would be lower but from practical point of view nothing really changes.

[Warhawks97]

The only difference might be some sort of psychological effect in player's mind that the raw cost difference between the Panther and "glass cannon" would be lower but from practical point of view nothing really changes.

this is one major difference. Esspecially since many to calculate with exactly these raw numbers and expect a certain strenght of it.
Also it was a random example. It would be set in a way that scenario two would take a bit longer to get a second (Panther)unit.
Also, with an ammount of ressources saved (not producing a unit) you can get quite a decent army, but then your upkeep is largely drain. So you go more forward or you lose in the attrition.
And in case you really lose one right in the first combat you are "upkeep free" and yes thus a replacment would come quicker, thats true.

The strategic investment and the moment you do it would become more crucial rather than just "i have the money, i buy it".

But well. I dont want to bother arround with it too much. I think you have lots of other stuff to do as well. And as i said, its just more or less these things, fuel ukpeep of some german tanks, Grens (slight cost-upkeep trade) and Panther as cruical core unit for WM in late games.