Artillery Ammo Upkeep Discussion

[kwok]

Discuss here please

[Black Panther]

I don't like it

[Warhawks97]

half the upkeep.

[MarKr]

It is nice that you guys contributed to the topic with your posts but would it be possible to get some reasons for your oppinions?

The reason for introducing the upkeeps was to make player think about "do I really need an/another arty unit?" instead of "I'm gonna build this nebel becasue...why not...bombing stuff all over the map is fun for me".
I think the upkeeps at their current rate fulfill their purpose, making players consider the ammount of map resources when they decide if or what arty unit they should get. Going to half of the current upkeeps might remove or vastly negate the "do I really need this unit?" factor and more back towards the "why not?" approach.

Long story short: "I don't like it because it limits me in shooting my arty and I love shooting arty everywhere" isn't a too good reason to change anything as that was the point of the change.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Arty was fine after arty changes.. the source of the issue was 105mm howitzers, they were over-performing after you buffed them.

Later, you came up with adding ammo upkeeps to limit every arty in the game.. instead of just fixing the howitzers.
Apparently unaware that camping would become a severe issue as a result of this change, since you didn't restrict camping tactics in return.

Regardless;
The concept itself is still good.. no one is against adding ammo upkeeps to limit arty use.
However, the percentage of the ammo upkeep(s) is very arguable.. and now, most players are telling you it's over the top.

Thus, ammo upkeeps are fine to stay (of course) but less drastic upkeep values than what they are currently.

[MarKr]

As far as I can remember, the actual problem with the howitzers was that people "shared" them across doctrines and so there were many of them in each team and the ammount of the howitzers was the problem, not the performance of each individual one.

Anyway, I haven't seen any "heavy camping" in the beta replays uploaded to his forum. In those replays, some of which were played on smaller maps with relatively low resources, used on-map arty units (if the game got to a stage where it was needed/viable to use). So I wouldn't say that arty is unuseable, but it is definitely not overused or used unnecesarily - which is a good thing.

And yes, I know players are complaining but I am asking what is the source of the complaints. If someone doesn't like the upkeeps because he builds three 105 howitzers on a small map with limited resources and then he doesn't have enough ammo to shoot them or to use any ability, then the problem is not the upkeeps but poor decisions of the player.

[mofetagalactica]

Half the upkeep, the system works.

[Krieger Blitzer]

As far as I can remember, the actual problem with the howitzers was that people "shared" them across doctrines and so there were many of them in each team and the ammount of the howitzers was the problem, not the performance of each individual one.

The problem was more of both, actually.. but mainly the performance of the howitzers, as their basic rate of fire became too raid, with great accuracy, cheap price and low barrage cost, yet landing many shells per barrage.. not to mention now howitzers are un-limited as well.

Here are 2 old posts concerning 105mm howitzers;

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3237

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3066

So, right now.. just as everybody said, the ammo upkeeps need to be halved, but probably 105mm howitzers should keep the highest upkeep value.

[MarKr]

Yes, they are technically unlimited but good luck building 3 or more of them and being able to shoot them all - three 105 howitzers mean 45 ammo upkeep which is on many maps more than half of your overall ammo income. The upkeep works as a self-regulation.
If you can afford to feed even one 105 howitzer, then you can just as well afford two pack howitzers which will cost you less in upkeep than one 105 howitzer and together they can deal with emplacements or infantry clusters quite well too. Sure, they wouldn't do too well against tanks but that is the decision making I was talking about - do you need the 105 to shoot at the only two emplacements that the opponent has? Do you need the 105 to shoot at one or two infantry squads here or there? If the answer is "no" then you don't need the 105 and you're better off with a pack howitzer. If the answer is "yes" then fine, go for the 105, I dare to say that feeding one 105 howitzer isn't a big issue even on small maps. Then, ofcourse, rises the question "do you really need two 105 howitzers"?

Anyway:

just as everybody said, the ammo upkeeps need to be halved

So far people said that they want lower upkeeps but nobody said why. There is literarly not a single gameplay reason mentioned here about why they need to be lower. Even a quick search through the topics:

Ammo upkeep being half would be boss.

Opinion given, no reason stated.

delay 76 shermans and less ammo upkeep is necessary.

Opinion given, no reason stated.

The problem with upkeep is just building it, like taking a loan with high percentage. It would be less a pain, if you just could rise the ammo required for each ability activation. Even if you get more cap points with munies, to allow yourself something better, your old stuff must be sent to die and most of the times, it's just not cost-effective, not even talking about how this is affect your game, saving yourself even more on basic stuff, like bars for riflemen or armor skirts of Stug.

OK, here IS some reason but it just says it is inconvenient because you must build arty units when you need them and not just whenever you want.
The only other reason I could find, mentioned by more players, can be summarized by this quote:

about ammo upkeep, its just too high. You get a unit on a map with 30 ammo per min and you cant do shit and all gets locked down. Halfing the upkeep would do the job. You want to prevent spam, not the entire usage

But even that was disproved by replays where players used on-map artillery units and they still had enough ammo for getting upgrades for units and using abilities (including offmap arty) - even on relatively small maps like Bizory which have quite limited resources and no high ammo points.

[Krieger Blitzer]

To me, as i already stated.. the biggest game-play reason for lowering the upkeep values.. is camping.
Which is something that i don't even need to prove... You limited the use of arty with such high upkeeps, yet; the camping tactics were untouched.

This is the biggest game-play reason.. what makes you think the exact upkeep values you made are the best?
Players who tested, are all saying that the upkeep values are over the top.. they don't need to be removed however, but just halved.

Don't tell me you are going to re-work defensive tools as a result or try to reduce camping in return.. because that's not the issue.
just the arty became way too limited in use, that's the actual issue.

[MarKr]

I am not saying they are the best, if you search the forun you'll find my post saying that the values can be changed. I am only looking for reasons that players have to request this change because "I don't like it" is not a good ground for a gameplay changes.
As I said - not a single beta game posted here shows any signs of heavy camping. Actually one of the recent posts says:

-Hard camping isn't that usefull as it used to be after Stupa/Bunkers/Ammo upkeep changes.

This quote suggests that the upkeeps help reduce hard camping.

[mofetagalactica]

I am not saying they are the best, if you search the forun you'll find my post saying that the values can be changed. I am only looking for reasons that players have to request this change because "I don't like it" is not a good ground for a gameplay changes.
As I said - not a single beta game posted here shows any signs of heavy camping. Actually one of the recent posts says:

-Hard camping isn't that usefull as it used to be after Stupa/Bunkers/Ammo upkeep changes.

This quote suggests that the upkeeps help reduce hard camping.

This was already explained in another post but mostly the reasons of why should be tweaked are because the current ammo upkeeps have a really impact on upgrade/doctrine & basic habilities that are very important for certain doctrines such as propaganda/blitzkrieg/defensive/armor.
Honestly no-ones has a exact number of what should be the new upkeeps and halving them may bring new problems or not, i would still go for halving them at least for units that aren't considered heavy artillery (hummel, static howitzers,priests).

[MarKr]

This was already explained in another post but mostly the reasons of why should be tweaked are because the current ammo upkeeps have a really impact on upgrade/doctrine & basic habilities that are very important for certain doctrines such as Propaganda / blitzkrieg/ defensive/ armor.

I think that this was mentioned in this topic (mainly page 2). I would say the situation is still the same - the upkeeps are meant to push people into thinking if they really NEED arty units and if there maybe isn't a more resource-effective way to deal with problems, because the arty will limit usage of your other abilities and upgrades - as far as I can tell, it does exactly this so it fulfills its purpose. I have not seen a single game where the situation would be as serious as people in their posts describe it - "I built some arty and I couldn't use any abilities or upgrade any unit". In every game I watched (I men, those that had some arty units used), there were upgraded units and there were abilities used. I would like to see some replay with this problem shown, I really would, because at this point it kinda looks like people want to change it because it is easier to use arty than other available options but the arty drains ammo income so people cannot use any ability anytime they want, which is not game-breaking but just inconvenient.

All I'm asking for are some replays that will show the problem in action - I've been asking for such replays even back then in the linked topic (so 3 months ago) but, if I remember correctly, nobody has posted any.

[Walderschmidt]

Is there anyway to make it so you could ungarrison arty without expending muni (ie) grenades to decrew them if you want to increase muni income?

Wald

[Warhawks97]

You want reasons? alright.

Why ammo upkeep should be halfed:

1. It can really hamper the gameplay when you can use less abilties for your units and when you can buy less upgrades. You have to spare it by not upgrading tanks with ammo (i see that quite often), in particular those who need 90 ammo to buy HE. As for me, i often dont buy tank upgrades anymore or as armor doc, when i need calli or something, i also have to get the ammo package asap. So people do use arty afterall, but they have to spare a lot elsewhere which decreases other units efficiency. Its more like that you have to decide: Only arty and all other units go into the field "nacked", or no arty at all and hope your upgraded forces get the job done.

2. Destruction of own arty units. In games situations occure where arty is really needed except you can afford to take lots of losses. But when the arty did the job, players sometimes sacrafice their own arty units like rushing them into enemie units. Sometimes even veted calli jeeps get sacraficed in order to make place for other units. But later you might need to rebuild them. And thats crazy. Upkeep should never force players to waste a unit just in to be able to get other units.

3. Unlike fuel and MP, that is usually only needed for production, abilties require ammo all over the place. Halfing your ammo income due to upkeep also means halfing your ability to use abilities. Imagine someone would have to destroy his own Tiger/Pershing just in order to allow his units to throw grenades or to use any ability. That would be stupid as well.

4. Summing it up: If you push your MP and fuel income (in theory) down to zero, you will only be unable to build more units, but you can still use what you have. If you push down your ammo income down to zero, you cant use what you already have or only in a very restricted fahion. And thats where the upkeep fails a bit. Its there to restrict the speed in which your army size growth, not to restrict the usage of abilities.


So, if you want, increase barrage costs for units or certain units, but decrease the ammo upkeep so that we can upgrade our units and that we can use abilties properly.


Edit:

I have not seen a single game where the situation would be as serious as people in their posts describe it - "I built some arty and I couldn't use any abilities or upgrade any unit". In every game I watched (I men, those that had some arty units used), there were upgraded units and there were abilities used. I would like to see some replay with this problem shown, I really would, because at this point it kinda looks like people want to change it because it is easier to use arty than other available options but the arty drains ammo income so people cannot use any ability anytime they want, which is not game-breaking but just inconvenient.

All I'm asking for are some replays that will show the problem in action - I've been asking for such replays even back then in the linked topic (so 3 months ago) but, if I remember correctly, nobody has posted any.

You have seen upgraded units, but as for me i didnt and dont fully upgrade units. Usually one upgrade per squad or no ammo for tanks. At la fiere we had map controle, a very good one and we have even upgraded the small ammo posts (figree did it). Being forced to put an OP on every point was rare in the past, common today once you field just a single light arty unit.

But if you have less map controle, arty becomes even more important to make up for the inferior overall income and to balance out the masses that can be thrown at you. And also important to break the grip the enemie got on you. But those will find huge difficulties finding enough ammo to use their arty at all, thus comebacks became essentially harder, while those who controle the map can literally "camp down" the enemie easily and barrage them with arty as only they can afford it.

[MarKr]

But if you have less map controle, arty becomes even more important to make up for the inferior overall income and to balance out the masses that can be thrown at you. And also important to break the grip the enemie got on you. But those will find huge difficulties finding enough ammo to use their arty at all, thus comebacks became essentially harder, while those who controle the map can literally "camp down" the enemie easily and barrage them with arty as only they can afford it.

This is probably the only point I could agree on in a way. However, I would say that if your opponent had control over bigger part of a map, it has always put you into a disadvantage. If the enemy "had a grip on you" in the past, you would have less resources too so you would probably not be able to arty yourself from the grip very easily either. So this doesn't sound like something that would be caused by the upkeeps. I am not saying that the upkeeps have not changed these situations at all, though.

The other points don't quite cut it...

1. It can really hamper the gameplay when you can use less abilties for your units and when you can buy less upgrades.(...)

Yes, but upkeeps are applied to all factions and all doctrines so if you go with arty and your opponent does it too, then you both are limited on unit upgrades and ability usage. If you build arty but he doesn't, then you are limited on abilities and upgrades, he is not. But you have an arty unit which can make a short work with his upgraded stuff - he does not have this option. If both of you decide to go without arty then both of you have upgraded units and abilities but none of you has the advantage that arty provides - same applies to everyone.

Its more like that you have to decide: Only arty and all other units go into the field "nacked", or no arty at all and hope your upgraded forces get the job done.
(...)
You have seen upgraded units, but as for me i didnt and dont fully upgrade units. Usually one upgrade per squad or no ammo for tanks.

The need to make choices of this kind was mentioned as an intention. Apart from the fact that the "naked" part is obvious exaggeration because you said it on your own that you can still afford to get about one upgrade per squad. Do you really need to have all or most units fully upgraded to win a game? Especially in conjuction with my previous point - if both you and your opponent have arty, then neither of you have fully upgraded units.

This reason seems to be basically just "it's inconvenient for me because I cannot use everything I want".

2. Destruction of own arty units. In games situations occure where arty is really needed except you can afford to take lots of losses.

If you need to use arty for situational strikes at defensive structures here and there or grouped enemy units, can't you use the offmaps for that?

And thats crazy. Upkeep should never force players to waste a unit just in to be able to get other units.

Are you telling me that nobody has ever sent a vehicle, which they no longer needed, to its death just to get rid of the fuel upkeep of the vehicle which was at that time just dead weight?

3. Unlike fuel and MP, that is usually only needed for production, abilties require ammo all over the place.

Yes, and vast majority of maps has more ammo income than fuel income + the maximum possible ammo reserve is higher than the fuel reserve for this reason.

Halfing your ammo income due to upkeep also means halfing your ability to use abilities. Imagine someone would have to destroy his own Tiger/Pershing just in order to allow his units to throw grenades or to use any ability. That would be stupid as well.

In your example you make two different sources dependent on each other which is not the case in the game. More accurate would be: "Imagine someone would have to destroy his own Pershing/Tiger to get rid of the fuell upkeep and to be able to build other vehicles which would be more useful in that situation.". This does not happen because vehicles are not situational tools but rather things that remain useful for longer periods of time so their upkeep is more worthwhile - which would have been a lot better argument in this discussion.

And thats where the upkeep fails a bit. Its there to restrict the speed in which your army size growth, not to restrict the usage of abilities.

Has this been officially stated somewhere or is it just your personal opinion? Because I think it has been officially stated that the upkeeps should push players into making decisions - when a player thinks about getting arty, they should ask themselves "can I feed it? won't it limit me too much with my current ammo income?" If they come to a conclusion that it WILL limit them too much, then they should go for other options. If they come to a conclusion that upsides outweight the downsides, they should get the arty.

At la fiere we had map controle, a very good one and we have even upgraded the small ammo posts (figree did it). Being forced to put an OP on every point was rare in the past, common today once you field just a single light arty unit.

Is it a bad thing that players try to squeeze the maximum amount of resources from points?

[Warhawks97]

This is probably the only point I could agree on in a way. However, I would say that if your opponent had control over bigger part of a map, it has always put you into a disadvantage. If the enemy "had a grip on you" in the past, you would have less resources too so you would probably not be able to arty yourself from the grip very easily either. So this doesn't sound like something that would be caused by the upkeeps. I am not saying that the upkeeps have not changed these situations at all, though.

It does. Its not rare that one side might got stricken down to like two 10 ammo points, making 20 in total. The enemie gets lets say like 50. But when you pay like 7 upkeep for a single unit, the attacker can still afford multiple and bomb you, just like before. He has an ammo excess anyway at this time.
But as a defender, with just 13 income or less, what you gonna do? At that time you need arty as support when attacking, everything else is suicide. And its a different whether that one guy with howitzer can fire every 2-3 mins or just every 5 mins to support your breakout attempts.

So its a huge point, esspecially as those who have controle and high res income can cluster emplacments on every spot that need to be cleared by arty/nades/HE rounds/explosives.... or do you want us to wait untill the emplacments die by rifle fire and normal tank shots?
So besides one barrage every 5 mins, there is nothing that one guy can do to help his team fighting their way out of the grip.

The need to make choices of this kind was mentioned as an intention. Apart from the fact that the "naked" part is obvious exaggeration because you said it on your own that you can still afford to get about one upgrade per squad. Do you really need to have all or most units fully upgraded to win a game? Especially in conjuction with my previous point - if both you and your opponent have arty, then neither of you have fully upgraded units.
This reason seems to be basically just "it's inconvenient for me because I cannot use everything I want".

Well, i never fully upgraded units to full extend as it was a high risk. But i never had to also OP every little point to do anything.

upkeeps are there to restrict spam and spam abuse. But this now is more a question of: Arty or other stuff. There is no crime to posses one arty unit, esspecially small onces. But now it feels like we commit a crime when using one.

If you need to use arty for situational strikes at defensive structures here and there or grouped enemy units, can't you use the offmaps for that?

Situations in games change fast. Sometimes there is a need to have some sort of prolonged barrages to soften strong points over time. Like 2 or 3 barrages. But then you might not need the unit for quite a long time. Defenses are usually not clustered at one point, esspecially when they are well prepared. So you cant afford to waste 150 ammo on a single target. Good defenses are not grouped together, that would be too easy and those do really not require more than one strike to finish all off.


[quote} Are you telling me that nobody has ever sent a vehicle, which they no longer needed, to its death just to get rid of the fuel upkeep of the vehicle which was at that time just dead weight?[/quote]


Vehicles cost no fuel and wasting any tank would be a stupid move. There is no relation between wasting a 400 MP and 70 fuel tank to spare 9 MP per min and like 2 or 3 fuel when considering when MP income rate is something like 280 and fuel like 24. But sparing 7 ammo out of 30 or 25 is a big deal when you have to waste a 300 MP arty unit.

So no, ive never seen people purposely wasting units like that.

Yes, and vast majority of maps has more ammo income than fuel income + the maximum possible ammo reserve is higher than the fuel reserve for this reason.

Depends, the new reworked maps does not necessarily. And fuel as 5 basic income. But the ammo upkeep in relation to fuel upkeep does not reflect that.

Also, i dont need fuel for any ability, so can use what i already have. Ammo is needed for so much more and in basically every occuring battle. Thats why there is more ammo than fuel on maps, simply bc you need it even when you already got the units you wanted.

In your example you make two different sources dependent on each other which is not the case in the game. More accurate would be: "Imagine someone would have to destroy his own Pershing/Tiger to get rid of the fuell upkeep and to be able to build other vehicles which would be more useful in that situation.". This does not happen because vehicles are not situational tools but rather things that remain useful for longer periods of time so their upkeep is more worthwhile - which would have been a lot better argument in this discussion.

I am talking about "get rid of a unit to be able to use those i have" not about "get rid of a unit to get one i need more".


And yes about your last sentence. But that means: "A unit that cost upkeep can fight for me". And not "A unit that costs upkeep can´t fight for me". I think no one in real life wants to pay for something he cant use. Imagine you pay for netflix but you cant use it. Thats odd.

Has this been officially stated somewhere or is it just your personal opinion? Because I think it has been officially stated that the upkeeps should push players into making decisions - when a player thinks about getting arty, they should ask themselves "can I feed it? won't it limit me too much with my current ammo income?" If they come to a conclusion that it WILL limit them too much, then they should go for other options. If they come to a conclusion that upsides outweight the downsides, they should get the arty.

In every strategy game, when you read manuals (i remember something in DOW II) and guides, it tells you that you have to keep an eye on that in the long run and that you should be carefully what and when to build a unit or when it makes sense not to build them and how many.

Yes, arty upkeep falls under this category. But type of upkeep doesnt allow you to build ever more at the same growth rate. Like you cant build your third panther as quickly as you could the second and so on.
But this upkeep does not only puts you in the decision of how many more units can i get, but rather can i use all my other already existing units and their abilties?


The question whether i can feed them or not is answered by the barrage costs already. And it existed long before. I saw many players having lots of arty units but never having enough to feed both. One great example over years was the Hummel. People saved ammo, got two right away and quickly barraged themselves into oblivion. I for my part never got two Hummels simply bc it was better to keep one high vet Hummel constantly shooting. The second just ate my MP income.

This right now is like triple taxation. If you have too much arty, it eats your MP, they eat up ammo by barrage costs and eat up ammo by the upkeep. There is no other example of such triple taxation and punishment/restriction.

Ressources that suffer from upkeep are not needed anymore once you got the unit. You got a Tiger? nice you dont need fuel and MP anymore to make it shoot or drive. Ammo is simply a different sort of ressource in the game.
I think its even stated in the vcoh guide or when ressource types were explained.

Is it a bad thing that players try to squeeze the maximum amount of resources from points?

In this case its like the fourth punishment. MP upkeep, Barrage cost, ammo upkeep and spending lots of further MP to keep it using. In case its an SPG, even punishment number five.
I dont think that anything deserves five punishments. Unless its Chuck Norris perhaps.




So, what to do?

1. Since it costs that much upkeep, barrges could be free. But then people would say: "Well, i pay for it: Flatrate shooting".
2. Increase build cost and MP upkeep cost? Howitzers for instance are a high tec tool of its time. They take months to be build (i read 6 months for one axis 105 barrel), they worn out and need barrel replacments over time. And it takes time to teach the crew operating it properly. Extensive training.

So why are arty units afterall that cheap to get? I mean lets take a look at calli jeep. Admitted, such weapons are rather "cheap designs" compared to guns. But why it costs just 300 MP? What it offers is far above that what it costs, let alone its mobility. 350 MP would be the minimum.

Same goes for larger artillery pieces. In vcoh they cost 400 or 450 MP and are far less a threat. They cost as much as a sherman there.


3. Barrage cost. That way people have to ask themselves: Can i use it or should it? And not: "Can i operate my other units when i build this one?".

4. When it comes to vehicle artillery: Why dont they cost fuel upkeep? (Vehicles in general cost no fuel upkeep). Like when getting double Maultier or so, you pay fuel to operate it and thus hampering your tank production.



These are levers you can use aside from setting ammo upkeep that high that it prevents you from operating other existing stuff properly.



Edit: For point 2: I mean, take a look. The Calli jeep costs like 3 MP or 4 MP upkeep, but 6 - 8 ammo. Does that look right for you? Tell me which res is more available, MP or ammo?

Edit II: Calli sherman 8 ammo and 9 MP (with supply yard). I think that shows the dimensions of the ammo upkeep.

[Black Panther]

build arty for a purpose of making breakthrough > makes your whole army fights with shortages of ammunition like in 1941-42 Eastern Front style
just half the ammo upkeep, jeez
I don't want make arty at all, if it will turn my army into invalids

[kwok]

First of all, don't act surprised Markr asks for this because what he says is true. Even though I personally was skeptical with the ammo upkeeps at first I have to agree with how he investigates the issue from a "i only know what I can see". When replays, esepcially ones like Warhawks posted literally named "mobile warfare", come in and basically show one artillery is still used non-excessively on a traditionally arty part map but there is no camping then we have to assume the upkeeps met their objectives. Even classically defensive units were used offensive, like the dual-stug push during the midgame of warhawks' replay (by the way side note because people keep saying stugs got nerfed or whatever... one stug killed a 76 and m10 alone on the offensive that game).

The irony is that the arty upkeep punishes camping according replays. For example, like Tiger posts on youtube showing extremely campy players essentially getting overwhelmed because they aren't trying to push but instead sit back like traditional 4.5 versions of axis players. Double MG and mortar opening without even trying to contest middle munitions until the 10 minute mark? Double pak gun mid game guarding the high fuel point near the base? Immediate rush to stug? I don't know if artillery was intended to be use this game but couldn't because of upkeeps... but I wouldn't say that the player SHOULD be allowed to use arty in that situation...


I thank warhawks for his reasons, I think they are well written and what we were looking for. Not "I don't like it..."
I'm still aligned with Markr though in terms of of the arguments, only one seems to stand out (the others I think Markr addressed). So I'll discuss that one only.

The biggest argument for reduced upkeep is that a player who is behind will become more behind because they will not have the resources to properly field a composition to fight back with indirect fire.
I would say the obvious argument about that is upkeep in general is made in place to prevent snowballing. While it's true a player who is behind won't be able to field a fully capable force, the advantaged player ALSO is held back from snowballing their position. That in essence is the whole POINT of ALL upkeep. That being said, we DO want to find a solution to allow for comebacks.

An idea would be only a slight munition upkeep reduction (for example 25% instead of 50%) as well as a base munition income that doesn't require capture points under the same principle as a base fuel income.
The estimated base munition income would be approximately the cost of fielding a single artillery unit. Can we look at this as a solution instead? Options would be something like:

1. Base income = large arty unit, no global upkeep reduction
2. Base income = medium arty unit, 15% global upkeep reduction
3. Base income = small arty unit, 25% global upkeep reduction

[Walderschmidt]

I really like this idea, Kwok ^

Wald

[mofetagalactica]

Any reduction to current ammo upkeeps is well welcome.

[Warhawks97]

Base ammo income doesnt sound soooo bad. Still, i think we cant treat ammo as we treat MP and fuel for the reasons i mentioned above (two are just for building stuff, the other is very important to use stuff).


I would make it like it is with fuel. You get 5 basic ammo income, ammo upkeep gets halfed for arty and other costs (build, upkeep and barrage costs) can be increased. For example i would be easily willing to pay as much MP and ammo as i do for a sherman to build a 105 howitzer. Thats how it worked quite well in vcoh. Units like the calli jeep in particular could cost at least 350 MP to build, perhaps like 6 MP upkeep and some fuel. As i said, i think all vehicles should cost a minimum fuel upkeep which would include those with rocket launchers mounted on it. (as a side effect it could even lower the ammount of spam jeep/recce/M20´s as a side effect).


And that "mobile warfare" game was mobile probably beccause it was played on a 3 vs 3 map with just 4 players. I think a third player on each side would have ended in a camp game for sure after we lost many vehicles to that 75 mm Puma. So i think that games got more mobile can be attributed rather to such facts. But the good old camp maps would end up in camp games afterall (eg 3 vs 3 road to cherbourgh and so on).



Edit: What i forgot: The upkeep pain is highest when you use assault arty units. They arent really the typcial type of arty and are there to support your infantry during attacks. They dont work alone. But the units accompanying assault artys lack equipment necessary to do the job or the overall offense gets hurt sometimes. These might get excluded from the ammo upkeep altogether.

[kwok]

And that "mobile warfare" game was mobile probably beccause it was played on a 3 vs 3 map with just 4 players. I think a third player on each side would have ended in a camp game for sure after we lost many vehicles to that 75 mm Puma. So i think that games got more mobile can be attributed rather to such facts. But the good old camp maps would end up in camp games afterall (eg 3 vs 3 road to cherbourgh and so on).

[sarcasm] oh my gosh, i wonder why when playing on big maps it wasn't so campy?? [/sarcasm]

[CGarr]

First of all, don't act surprised Markr asks for this because what he says is true. Even though I personally was skeptical with the ammo upkeeps at first I have to agree with how he investigates the issue from a "i only know what I can see". When replays, esepcially ones like Warhawks posted literally named "mobile warfare", come in and basically show one artillery is still used non-excessively on a traditionally arty part map but there is no camping then we have to assume the upkeeps met their objectives. Even classically defensive units were used offensive, like the dual-stug push during the midgame of warhawks' replay (by the way side note because people keep saying stugs got nerfed or whatever... one stug killed a 76 and m10 alone on the offensive that game).

The irony is that the arty upkeep punishes camping according replays. For example, like Tiger posts on youtube showing extremely campy players essentially getting overwhelmed because they aren't trying to push but instead sit back like traditional 4.5 versions of axis players. Double MG and mortar opening without even trying to contest middle munitions until the 10 minute mark? Double pak gun mid game guarding the high fuel point near the base? Immediate rush to stug? I don't know if artillery was intended to be use this game but couldn't because of upkeeps... but I wouldn't say that the player SHOULD be allowed to use arty in that situation...


I thank warhawks for his reasons, I think they are well written and what we were looking for. Not "I don't like it..."
I'm still aligned with Markr though in terms of of the arguments, only one seems to stand out (the others I think Markr addressed). So I'll discuss that one only.

The biggest argument for reduced upkeep is that a player who is behind will become more behind because they will not have the resources to properly field a composition to fight back with indirect fire.
I would say the obvious argument about that is upkeep in general is made in place to prevent snowballing. While it's true a player who is behind won't be able to field a fully capable force, the advantaged player ALSO is held back from snowballing their position. That in essence is the whole POINT of ALL upkeep. That being said, we DO want to find a solution to allow for comebacks.

An idea would be only a slight munition upkeep reduction (for example 25% instead of 50%) as well as a base munition income that doesn't require capture points under the same principle as a base fuel income.
The estimated base munition income would be approximately the cost of fielding a single artillery unit. Can we look at this as a solution instead? Options would be something like:

1. Base income = large arty unit, no global upkeep reduction
2. Base income = medium arty unit, 15% global upkeep reduction
3. Base income = small arty unit, 25% global upkeep reduction

I think building on this solution would be the best compromise for approaching the balance of munitions upkeep costs, along with Warhawks' note on short range assault arty units like stuh's not having upkeep costs since they are more likely to die and have to be rebuilt, the initial and use costs are enough.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

Ammo upkeep is completely ridiculous idea that ruins the gameplay, please be sane and remove it completely. There were enough reasons mentioned here.