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

[Baine]

I had rather

Mortar - > 5 pop,
MG -> 3 pop, because honestly you need more of them on the field, most of the time 2, everything else would totally benefit players who like to blob and charge (both sides)
ATG -> 6 pop is fine for me

But then again, we would have to test this, because ATGs at 6 pop might be too much, and only favour light vehicle/tank/heavy tank spam.

[Bubz]

57mm 6 pop would make americans harder to play because their AT power is just that, while wehrmahct can counter allied tanks with its own tanks.

[Smokaz]

I somewhat disagree, the current sticky range is kinda bullshit good with vet, actually at times I feel its downright disgustingly easy to land one and 57mm AP rounds still cuts 1/4 of a panthers hp off in 1 shot. Well managed 57mms will be more important and using your at together for maximum effect. Nobody can put up the excuse that they dont have access to infantry based AT anymore with the current reinforcement packs.

Paks and 81mm mortars are among the greatest threats to american at guns, and with this change we will see less of them as we see less of 57mms.

In the long run you have remember that tank reapers, airborne buffs and AP rounds for armor + tungsten gives allied tanks that extra edge. It's gonna be pretty even. This "Heavy tank" spam sounds pretty st00pid to me. Double KT, Double Tiger, Double Panther type of companies put all of their eggs in one basket against a well-placed sticky or mine.

You'd be hard pressed to talk about your personal hardships playing americans with your 20 - 0 stats unless you have been stacking hardcore on this unrevealed smurf of yours.

[AmPM]

An UN Upgunned Sherman is hardly worse than a P4. Its a 4% pen difference and a 36hp bonus to the Sherman.

An Upgunned beats the hell out of a P4.

[gamesguy2]

An UN Upgunned Sherman is hardly worse than a P4. Its a 4% pen difference and a 36hp bonus to the Sherman.

An Upgunned beats the hell out of a P4.

You're forgetting the P4 has faster rof.

I somewhat disagree, the current sticky range is kinda bullshit good with vet, actually at times I feel its downright disgustingly easy to land one and 57mm AP rounds still cuts 1/4 of a panthers hp off in 1 shot. Well managed 57mms will be more important and using your at together for maximum effect. Nobody can put up the excuse that they dont have access to infantry based AT anymore with the current reinforcement packs.

I think going straight from 4 to 6 is too drastic, I'd rather we just increase the pop cost by 1 on mg/mortar/atg and see how it goes.

6 is the same as the marder, which signficantly outdamages both ATGs and has much better mobility and survivability.

[Smokaz]

CCT + Shermans are also still possible, albeit only for brits

[Bubz]

Is this a problem with supports or with the panther? Because I really can't see the problem with support population, keep in mind that the so beloved grenadier spam+tanks/brit blob will only benifit from this change since one of their counters (hmg) will cost more pop, as someone else already stated.
If you wanna hit those who only support spam to win I don't think you should ask for a nerf that would affect all the players, even those who don't usually support spam, ask for a price increase or stats/availability nerf instead.

On the other hand forcing to a reinforcement package to be able to have enough AT power shouldn't be considered, I keep thinking that the 57mm is the core of the U.S. army and a nerf (+2 pop) to it (even if it implies a nerf to pak38-50mms -.- too) is going to punish americans most.

Going back to stickies, they become useful with vet 2, but first you need to vet up your rifles, which are highly exposed to insta death, then it won't be so different to schrek range, as you kite schreks with shermans you should kite rifles with axis tanks.

I am not saying that you didn't have a good idea or raised a good point, but still there are two sides of the same coin.

[Latios418]

(even if it implies a nerf to pak38mms too)

Fyi it's a Pak38 50mm, not 38mm ^^

As for the topic at hand, I'm undecided. 4 pop is ridiculously low for AT Guns considering how effectively they do their job, but it's also the centerpiece of anti-tank for US.

[Baine]

Oh wow, Bubz, i'm impressed, couldn't have said it better.
And i have to say i don't see support spam, as it obviously is something you have to clearly define here, Smokaz.

There are players who rely on those, that lack in other departments, and the other way round, at the moment i have to say i really like the balance the support weapons have. Mortars are the only thing that comes to my mind when thinking about pop increase.

On a side note, I'm not sure if your view on support "spam" is the same other players have. Seeing as in one of your broadcasts yesterday you already said "damn Hmg spam" after seeing 1 or 2 Hmgs in two houses, while you had like 2 1/2 rifles 2 rangers and 1 atg, so you got countered.

I'm not saying that everything you said in here is because of this, as you have several good points, I'm just saying people had to take a more objective look at things, especially support weapon spam, I mean, you need those for support, that's the name.

[Schultz]

Indeed, you cant increase mg pop without taking in consideration brit blobs for example. How does that balance itself ?
The support spam argument usually comes with the frustration to beat the 1 mg-mortar-atg combination.
Any serious nerf to that, will possibly lead people to focus more on blob tactics. Much how many brit players play now.
So while thats a thought, theres clearly some issues around it.
You want to increase pop, increase pop on all infantry as well.

[Akranadas]

Indeed, you cant increase mg pop without taking in consideration brit blobs for example. How does that balance itself ?
The support spam argument usually comes with the frustration to beat the 1 mg-mortar-atg combination.
Any serious nerf to that, will possibly lead people to focus more on blob tactics. Much how many brit players play now.
So while thats a thought, theres clearly some issues around it.
You want to increase pop, increase pop on all infantry as well.

Increase the Population on Officers, Brit blobs averted.

[Sach]

I blob my brits a lot and rarely use officers cos they tend to die. I must admit I do get blob suppressed fairly often though.

[Malevolence]

A price reduction seems reasonable and should be considered if this change is implemented

I would go so far as to say that if we move MGs up to 4 pop I would add one or two more to availability. As it is the Machineguns are counteracted by their small numbers and reasonably high cost coupled with very specific use - when you start taking one advantage away, you have to counterbalance by taking away a disadvantage.

Mortar at 4 pop seems like a sweet spot to me. AT to 5 is possible, but we would have to reduce cost and/or re-implement gun XP. MG should stay as it is IMO.

[Bubz]

when you start taking one advantage away, you have to counterbalance by taking away a disadvantage.

regardless of the topic of the thread, you're completly wrong, when you try to balance something by nerfing or buffing it, you shouldn't counterbalance it with another buff/nerf or your previous change would be useless.

[Malevolence]

regardless of the topic of the thread, you're completly wrong, when you try to balance something by nerfing or buffing it, you shouldn't counterbalance it with another buff/nerf or your previous change would be useless.

Regardless of your thought, I am completely right. The point here is not to "nerf" or "buff", but to change the use and amount of a unit. I feel that their amount of "power" is perfectly fine, but could use some tweaking to the method of deployment, ergo I recommend increasing pop, but giving them some other slight advantage to make up for it in order to conform to my personal sense of balance.

Seems you don't much get the concept of "advantages" and "disadvantages". A unit, ideally, should have a balance of advantages and disadvantages. In this case, the advantages and disadvantages are not balanced, and I recommend making both less pronounced (less pop efficient, but more cost efficient) in an effort to create the proper feel for the unit.

[Bubz]

In my opinion if something is imbalanced it deserved to be nerfed 1 way only, not buffed in other aspects, on the other hand if you mean adjusting a unit which is already balanced on its own, I completly agree.

There was a pretty clear example some months ago about the pak38, since the pak was really strong with its old cloack ability it got nerfed, logically they didn't change the price because that would have meant giving it a buff which could counterbalance the intended nerf, that would have made useless removing cloack while moving.

Another example. Panther is too strong -assuming that's true - it gets its population doubled but it now costs half the resources, I think you would agree that the problem hasn't been resolved.

I didn't mean to attack you in any way, but now I hope I have expressed correctly.

[Malevolence]

Another example. Panther is too strong -assuming that's true - it gets its population doubled but it now costs half the resources, I think you would agree that the problem hasn't been resolved.

In this particular situation, it depends on how the Panther is too strong. If it is simply too good at everything, nerfing one thing is obviously the only way to go. However, if it costs half as much, but takes twice the pop, this is not necessarily an advantage. A 24 pop panther that costs as much as an M10 for example obviously has the downside that it is now a lot less pop efficient against AT guns, but it is now advantaged in another way.

If it is too good at everything, then nerfing one aspect is the only way to lower its effectiveness. However, if it is too good at a specific thing, you can nerf it being too good at that, while simultaneously giving a minor buff to another aspect of the unit to ensure it remains useful. In the case of the Panther if it was too pop-efficient, you could double the pop, but then halve the cost to make it still good at something (being COST-efficient at destroying tanks, in this case).

[EliteGren]

logically they didn't change the price

They did, a Pak costs 120 munitions now.

[Bubz]

Well nvm, thought it was 120 before the change.
As example stick to vcoh changes where a nerf is not always followed by a buff, that's what I meant.

[Unkn0wn]

The price was changed to reflect the PAK's ingame strength being weakened.
That doesn't mean -1 +1 = 0. Its cost was never the original issue to begin with, its ingame performance (being able to move while cloaked and being able to fire multiple shots from cloaked) was.  And theoretically that would be - 1 - 1 + 1 = -1.