Unkn0wn
No longer retired
 Posts: 18377
|
|
« Reply #40 on: March 24, 2010, 08:19:23 am » |
|
In that case aloha, they'll have freed up a lot more fuel than they lost but will be unable to spend it on more light vehicles as they have probably already hit the vehicle availability ceiling.
And less vehicles over all is a good thing regardless. This change wasn't exclusively aimed at light vehicles.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Smokaz
Honoured Member
 Posts: 11418
|
|
« Reply #41 on: March 24, 2010, 08:19:56 am » |
|
Only a problem if players feel that you never need a sherman more than t17s.. i thought the upguns are pretty good now, but if people still feel the t17 is superior to a sherman in all situations.. yikes.
Current t17 to sherman ratio is like, 2 1/2 t17s per sherman anyways? fuel-price?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
SlippedHerTheBigOne: big penis puma
SlippedHerTheBigOne: and i have no repairkits
SlippedHerTheBigOne: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
|
|
|
Duckordie
Community Mapper
 Posts: 1687
|
|
« Reply #42 on: March 24, 2010, 08:20:51 am » |
|
How much Flue is one Tiger / Pershing?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
^<-- Duck ™ and ©
We need more axis players!:
|
|
|
skaffa
Honoured Member
Posts: 3130
The very best player of one of the four factions.
|
|
« Reply #43 on: March 24, 2010, 08:21:08 am » |
|
And less vehicles over all is a good thing regardless.
Not for PE  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
bad luck skaffa> creates best and most played eir maps
> hated for creating best and most played eir maps
47k new all time record?
Don't knock it til uve tried it bitchface, this isn't anything like salads version. Besides u said a semois conversion would never work, now look that's the most played map, ohgodwhy.jpg r u map lead |
|
|
Smokaz
Honoured Member
Posts: 11418
|
|
« Reply #44 on: March 24, 2010, 08:21:37 am » |
|
545 for pershing, 550 for tiger I think?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Unkn0wn
No longer retired
Posts: 18377
|
|
« Reply #45 on: March 24, 2010, 08:23:20 am » |
|
And less vehicles over all is a good thing regardless.
Not for PE If everyone gets less vehicles then PE will also need less AT vehicles to counter those vehicles. Changing the fuel ratios doesn't affect PE more than it does any other factions. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Mysthalin
Tired King of Stats
Posts: 9028
|
|
« Reply #46 on: March 24, 2010, 08:24:00 am » |
|
I had to give up a marder with this change  . |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Duckordie
Community Mapper
Posts: 1687
|
|
« Reply #47 on: March 24, 2010, 08:24:50 am » |
|
Lame... lol
Starting fule AND Bonus fuel should add up to 1100-1200 (So you need to buy bonus fuel to get 2 Pershing/Tigers on the field), they are that good.
Now its like, yeah we have 2 heavy tanks... And some other tank stuff.
Change with 100 less fuel total and max. Is no big deal.
I do believe it hurts PE and the Brits a bit more.
But the Allies and Axis wont take so much off it, for me its just one less nebble.
I thot many Pershing's/Tigers and T17 where the major problem.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 24, 2010, 08:28:01 am by Duckordie »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Unkn0wn
No longer retired
Posts: 18377
|
|
« Reply #48 on: March 24, 2010, 08:27:39 am » |
|
What you are suggesting is quite a dramatic decrease of the starting fuel Duck.
This is already one minor reduction, another might follow, be happy with what you get.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Duckordie
Community Mapper
Posts: 1687
|
|
« Reply #49 on: March 24, 2010, 08:30:38 am » |
|
What you are suggesting is quite a dramatic decrease of the starting fuel Duck.
This is already one minor reduction, another might follow, be happy with what you get.
No, I dont Complain, I just making my input. I am happy we are walking in the right way. I am just saying 100 fuel, will make a more impact on PE and Brits. I still can field 2 Panthers and some other stuff. I hope in the end that I only can field 1. But... I like to roll and own with those 2 vet 3 panthers. They are win |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
deadbolt
Probably Banned
EIR Veteran Posts: 4410
|
|
« Reply #50 on: March 24, 2010, 08:58:11 am » |
|
We mappers are totally pushed away. We should make an mapper union and go on strike  stfu u dont even help fellow mappers and whine all the time. stfu deadbolt i help all the time, but if you act like that i might change. i didnt say u dick, it was at duckordie, ive asked him shit in vent and all i get is *the chat session has been closed* |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 DERDBERTLike Jesus, Keeps died for us
He made a funny thread for bear, and got banned.
Now bear makes his own funny thread. It's unsurprisingly not funny.
Keeps died for our funny threads.
|
|
|
| COHCommando
|
|
« Reply #51 on: March 24, 2010, 09:07:51 am » |
|
well after i updated and i am commandos the commandos in my laucher disapperad now i have 555 mp 260 mu left in my company but it wont let me get anything more
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Unkn0wn
No longer retired
Posts: 18377
|
|
« Reply #52 on: March 24, 2010, 09:08:39 am » |
|
It doesn't let you buy any units? You need to repurchase the commando doctrine ability if you want commandos.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| COHCommando
|
|
« Reply #53 on: March 24, 2010, 09:11:48 am » |
|
fixed it some how
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 24, 2010, 09:15:46 am by COHCommando »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
CafeMilani
Aloha
 Posts: 2994
|
|
« Reply #54 on: March 24, 2010, 09:46:52 am » |
|
what do panzer pioneers exactly do, how much HP do they have, how many squadmembers etcetc ?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| BigDick
|
|
« Reply #55 on: March 24, 2010, 09:57:53 am » |
|
less fuel nerfs tanks and buffs light vehicles imho
You do realise that's not necessarily correct right? If we assume players buy tanks first and spend remaining amounts of fuel on light vehicles they will have less light vehicles when decreasing the fuel in small amount. If you're at -50 fuel because of this change, it seems more likely that you'll sell a light vehicle than that you'd sell a tank. (If you sell a tank, you'd have to get more light vehicles with the fuel you free up, but availability will probably limit you from doing so) wrong if i don't have much fuel but much menpower i need to spend my menpower for something and human wave doctrines with vanilla infantry just becomes to a meatgrinder so i'll have the same amount of infantry but i use the more menpower but less fuel for vehicles that have a lower fuel:menpower ratio when i had much fuel and less menpower i decided me against pumas and got a panther/p4s because they had a better fuel:mp ratio and and i was to low on mp to get tanks, vehicles and inf now im to low on fuel while having shitloads of MP => many light vehicles and armor that are cheap in fuel |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Unkn0wn
No longer retired
Posts: 18377
|
|
« Reply #56 on: March 24, 2010, 10:01:21 am » |
|
I love how you're making a -50 reduction on base fuel out to be something that massively alters company compositions.
The fuel to manpower ratio went from 0.15625 to 0.15. A whopping 0.00625!
Or put the other way around, MP to F ratio went from 6.4 to 6.66
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 24, 2010, 10:14:46 am by Unkn0wn »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| BigDick
|
|
« Reply #57 on: March 24, 2010, 10:12:39 am » |
|
-50 base fuel
-75 fuel advantage
=-125 fuel
+100MP advantage
i don't say that its a very big change but its a fail change in wrong direction
coh:
tanks counter light vehicles and infantry
light vehicles counter infantry and support weapons
special AT infantry and support weapons counter tanks
to counter armor using armor is fail anyways except using tankdestroyers
do your math
before lowering fuel all i needed in my armor company where T17, AT guns some recrew rifles
the remaining fuel i spent into some shermans
now the company still remains the samr except that i get a sherman less and my light armor has not to fear so many counters (enemy tanks)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Smokaz
Honoured Member
Posts: 11418
|
|
« Reply #58 on: March 24, 2010, 10:16:48 am » |
|
Yes, but thats your company design to keep those t17s no matter what the total fuel is.
Unless you think t17s are always better to have than shermans, there's no problem. Keep in mind that only armor gets t17s, so you'll have to compare sherman and t17 power within the armor doctrine.
Is it your view, that no matter what armor doctrine abilities you have other than the t17, the t17 is a superior addition to your company over the sherman?
What if you are facing a four PIV company with a ostwind? They'll have their own AT and infantry in support against your t17 spam + support. Is t17s *always* better? Thats where a possible, note, possible problem could lie. And so far I'm not convinced.
You are paying more manpower for the t17 when you spend the same amount of fuel in t17s as you would in shermans.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 24, 2010, 10:20:20 am by Smokaz »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| BigDick
|
|
« Reply #59 on: March 24, 2010, 10:23:35 am » |
|
i would not use shermans to counter tanks same as i dont use P4 to counter tanks
as us i counter tanks using at guns with ap rounds M10 so it means yes i would take a M10 and 2xT17 over a sherman and 2 rifles any day if i have not tons of fuel left
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
