Increasing pop on mgs, mortars and at guns

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Smokaz]

A lot of players think that increasing support weapon population costs would help making the big pop tanks more powerful, from currently being looked upon as pretty weak considering how big a investment in both company resources and PPs they are.

Another hoped effect of this would be the weakening of support spam and by "support spam" I mean heavy employment of mg, mortar & at gun combos. Most of you know what this is, and how frustrating it can be to play against it and how lazy it can be to manage.

Lets presume that we are going through with this. Go in your company, and look at your current core or support units and think about how well they usually perform against the units which they are supposed to counter in a specialist manner, not how well they generally do against everything. Cause this is how a well-managed combined arms support spam works: They engage their intended targets in a very cost-effective way. Mgs not taking much fire back from supress inf, tanks being cut down to half health from at guns.

Now write a post here stating what you think their population cost should be increased to for mg teams (all currently 3), mortar teams (all currently 3) and at guns (all currently 4).

I think at guns are a bigger problem than mgs, but that all the support types need a significant increase overall

Mortars -> 5 pop
Mgs -> 4  pop
At guns -> 6 pop

Discuss

[gamesguy2]

I agree, 6 pop for AT guns, 4 pop for MGs, 5 for mortars.   Decrease the cost of those units by a small amount(10-20%?).

[AmPM]

Agreed, support spam is getting old real fast, especially with Supply Drops giving out a ton of freebies.

At the modified pop use, they would still counter their opponent in a pop and cost efficient manner, but would limit your followup offensive abilities considerably if spammed.

Think about it this way.

With the modified pop, you would be using a further 5 pop for a trio of HMG, Mortar, ATG. Meaning you are down 1 rifle/gren/whatever squad. So you can still fight defensively from a static position just fine, its the followup counter move that you are weak against (taking/retaking/defending flanks).

In all ways, a positive improvement for gameplay requiring more thought into the disposition of troops and support.

Also makes heavy Armor more viable with a drop in AT on field, no more 4-5 ATG walls + HMG + Mortar + AT Infantry

[Fr3ek]

Agreed.

Increased pop cap would make it more difficult to take the defensive position & turn it into a doom fortress.. You would have to focus your call ins for offense or defense a bit more.

[Rocksitter]

 Indeed this sounds like a good idea at guns are real cost effective when you have 3 for 12 pop you can take down any armor on the field and still have pop to get some other units to help...

[Scaevola]

So it would make campy player play campier? And that's a desirable effect?

[SaintPauli]

I agree, 6 pop for AT guns, 4 pop for MGs, 5 for mortars.   Decrease the cost of those units by a small amount(10-20%?).

+1

[brn4meplz]

Indeed this sounds like a good idea at guns are real cost effective when you have 3 for 12 pop you can take down any armor on the field and still have pop to get some other units to help...

You get access to 4 ATG's before paying PP to field them. If you have 3 to bring out to counter a Heavy tank your opponent didn't pace himself all game and deserved the loss.

ATG's serve 1 purpose, combating armor. They are supposed to be effective at it and pop effective, if you make them higher in population you might as well Field a Panzer 4 instead of 2 ATG's because at least with he P4 you can fight infantry.

[wildsolus]

played a short game where the opposing player had grens with +9 and +6 for AT as first player with reinforcements mode cause of supply drops lol

[SaintPauli]

So it would make campy player play campier? And that's a desirable effect?

No it will make campy players (like me) less campy because standard infantry and heavy tanks (break trough weapons) will be more viable.

[Fr3ek]

AFAIK, the basic idea behind increasing pop cap for support weapons is to make it so that once your do0m fort gets penetrated, you won't have as much of a reserve force of inf/tanks or whatever to react. 

Oh, and I do agree with the idea of a slight cost reduction.

[AmPM]

Exactly, its still the most efficient hard counter, they are still recrewable, its just less flexible.

[bbsmith]

Why not just decrease the availability?

[AmPM]

Because that solves nothing in the long term, its a problem with on field concentration of power. In amounts so pop efficient that nothing else really comes close.

Decreasing availability leads to just oversupplying. Like right now, I have all my Advantages, and a few doctrines and still float 90+ PPs. What do I care if they cost a little bit of PP, I can just retreat the crew and reman with Volks/Rifles.

Increasing Pop decreases on field firepower, making you have to choose between a static gameplay style, and something more mobile.

[Jazlizard]

All this is gonna really do is make the brits and PE more powerful, as they don't rely on any of these to do much of anything and are generally only countered by the use of these.

An axis mortar already costs 480MP and 65mun. Manpower wise that's 2 gren squads. Or ~6% of your starting MP (without advantages) and about 3% of your munitions. Nothing to sneeze at.
 
Now lets examine a Pak38, 400MP 120mun.  So about 5% of your MP and about 6% of your munitions.

So by taking out a pak and a mortar you have wiped out 11% of someone's MP and almost 10% of their munitions in 2 units that require support to keep alive.

I'm sorry but I gotta say no to these.

However, MG's are a little on the cheap side, but it's a fine line you walk with them as infantry are a major part of the game, make this unit more rare and you'll soon find the recent infantry spam (at least from the allied side) to be mild compared to what happens after. For me I'd be most willing to tweak this unit, but as is, you can only get 4 before you start paying PP for them.

As for being recrewable, you can always take them for yourself or blow them up.

These changes affect wher more then anyone else and everyone knows it, the axis have always relied on their support weapons, even in vcoh, to help balance things out.

[Malevolence]

Mortars -> 5 pop
Mgs -> 4  pop
At guns -> 6 pop

Disagree, AT guns -> 5 pop.
Mortar stays 4.

[Fr3ek]

@ Jaz, this won't nerf the support weapons, they'll cost the same and do the same damage/etc.  You'll just not be able to put as many on field at once.

Just supplement them with normal troops & good positioning (instead of a mass of overlapping do0m). 

[Scaevola]

@ Jaz, this won't nerf the support weapons, they'll cost the same and do the same damage/etc.  You'll just not be able to put as many on field at once.

Just supplement them with normal troops & good positioning (instead of a mass of overlapping do0m). 

You do realize what a nerf is right? 

[Tymathee]

@ Jaz, this won't nerf the support weapons, they'll cost the same and do the same damage/etc.  You'll just not be able to put as many on field at once.

Just supplement them with normal troops & good positioning (instead of a mass of overlapping do0m). 

a nerf is any change to the weapon to make it less of a threat, so yeah it's a nerf. and like jaz said, this would make brits and pe really powerful vs ami and wehr.

[RikiRude]

i think mortars should be reduced to 2 in reserve, not 3, and i think US mortars should be 3 pop while her stay at 4 pop. im still contemplating how good it would be to have AT guns and stuff a little higher. its hard to consider because since tank pop went down recently im not sure if it would be a good idea to increase ATG pop, but I also think something that cuts back on support spam may be a very good thing.