I am abused, I am forgotten, I am worthless; I am the average infantryman

[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

[BigDick]

indeed...taking fuel down would nerf Armor hard, along with RE, all of PE, Blitz, and Terror...it would make infantry pretty much the default doctrine choice for Americans...

that depends on the way you build your armor company i always use all my fuel by putting in some stuff that i dont really need just because i have fuel left but actually my armor company is more limited by availability of units

to lower fuel for all would favor my armor company because there would be a panther or P4 less to deal with

[AmPM]

Some of us do not just run light vehicle spam =)

[Jazlizard]

If you want more basic infantry, why not make them cheaper? Why mess with resources that effect other things outside of the thing you want to increase the amount of?

If you want less vehicles, guess what? make vehicles cost more fuel! Reductions in fuel on a global scale hurt tanks more than light vehicles. What you'd really be doing is encouraging folks to use less tanks and more light vehicles. It also hurts other units that cost fuel that aren't really vehicles like the neble and howitzer, which will then have to be re-evaluated for fuel costs.

My point is if you mess with stuff on a global scale, you have to re-evaluate the cost of everything to make sure it's in proportion to the new value of fuel or mp, even if it's only a 10-20% reduction.

I also disagree that shorter = more intense, and there is too many jokes that come to mind with that phrase so I'll just leave it at that. The intensity of the game is primarily, and almost entirely, determined by the skill level of the teams competing against each other.

[BigDick]

Some of us do not just run light vehicle spam =)

maybe but that is how the devs want eirr be played by having 4xT17 tripple (maybe 4x buffed because of shrek nerfs) buffed (fuel 90->50, availability 2->4, doubled health with skirts)
and still 4 (lowpop) quads and cheap and always usefull 3xM8
if you add some cheap tankdestroyers and at guns your not really limited by fuel you would benefit when your opponents could field less armor but you can keep spaming light vehicles

all you need as armor are at guns light armor 2xT1 and some recrewing rifles

[LuAn]

If you want more basic infantry, why not make them cheaper? Why mess with resources that effect other things outside of the thing you want to increase the amount of?

If you want less vehicles, guess what? make vehicles cost more fuel! Reductions in fuel on a global scale hurt tanks more than light vehicles. What you'd really be doing is encouraging folks to use less tanks and more light vehicles. It also hurts other units that cost fuel that aren't really vehicles like the neble and howitzer, which will then have to be re-evaluated for fuel costs.

My point is if you mess with stuff on a global scale, you have to re-evaluate the cost of everything to make sure it's in proportion to the new value of fuel or mp, even if it's only a 10-20% reduction.

I also disagree that shorter = more intense, and there is too many jokes that come to mind with that phrase so I'll just leave it at that. The intensity of the game is primarily, and almost entirely, determined by the skill level of the teams competing against each other.

+1

[Malevolence]

If you want more basic infantry, why not make them cheaper? Why mess with resources that effect other things outside of the thing you want to increase the amount of?

If you want less vehicles, guess what? make vehicles cost more fuel! Reductions in fuel on a global scale hurt tanks more than light vehicles. What you'd really be doing is encouraging folks to use less tanks and more light vehicles. It also hurts other units that cost fuel that aren't really vehicles like the neble and howitzer, which will then have to be re-evaluated for fuel costs.

My point is if you mess with stuff on a global scale, you have to re-evaluate the cost of everything to make sure it's in proportion to the new value of fuel or mp, even if it's only a 10-20% reduction.

I also disagree that shorter = more intense, and there is too many jokes that come to mind with that phrase so I'll just leave it at that. The intensity of the game is primarily, and almost entirely, determined by the skill level of the teams competing against each other.

This man gets it. If you think that MP going up would encourage too much "spam" or such, then there's no reason to gimp vehicles to let us have more infantry. This has been my point, stop scaling back and start scaling up. Don't make people have fewer vehicles to get more infantry, that's again working at the problem from both ends which makes it very easy to overcompensate, make people ONLY get more infantry by reducing the price of infantry.

This whole "we're gonna nerf the pak AND buff the sherman!" type attitude to balance results in wildly swinging fluctuating values rather than the much more appropriate single-variable adjustments in smaller increments. One thing at a time, please...

[EIRRMod]

If you want more basic infantry, why not make them cheaper? Why mess with resources that effect other things outside of the thing you want to increase the amount of?

If you want less vehicles, guess what? make vehicles cost more fuel! Reductions in fuel on a global scale hurt tanks more than light vehicles. What you'd really be doing is encouraging folks to use less tanks and more light vehicles. It also hurts other units that cost fuel that aren't really vehicles like the neble and howitzer, which will then have to be re-evaluated for fuel costs.

My point is if you mess with stuff on a global scale, you have to re-evaluate the cost of everything to make sure it's in proportion to the new value of fuel or mp, even if it's only a 10-20% reduction.

I also disagree that shorter = more intense, and there is too many jokes that come to mind with that phrase so I'll just leave it at that. The intensity of the game is primarily, and almost entirely, determined by the skill level of the teams competing against each other.

This man gets it. If you think that MP going up would encourage too much "spam" or such, then there's no reason to gimp vehicles to let us have more infantry. This has been my point, stop scaling back and start scaling up. Don't make people have fewer vehicles to get more infantry, that's again working at the problem from both ends which makes it very easy to overcompensate, make people ONLY get more infantry by reducing the price of infantry.

This whole "we're gonna nerf the pak AND buff the sherman!" type attitude to balance results in wildly swinging fluctuating values rather than the much more appropriate single-variable adjustments in smaller increments. One thing at a time, please...

I believe this comes from too many Devs commenting on different aspects of 'what could happen'

We're not touching Resources atm.
We're not touching Advantages atm.
We're changing the Availability system (slightly) - its still the same in spirit.

So yeah, You'll find out in a couple of days ;p

[Smokaz]

Rifles could go up to 18 availability. The same pool of mainline infantry has to supply

1) Recrewing (grenadier availability is not affected by fielding recrewing volks in your company, is it?
2) Supression, anti infantry infantry, grenade suicide squads
3) Stickies (Armor doc's only at option on their infantry, the only quick response to circling tanks or crippling super tanks)

I do believe rifle roles can be understood like this.  When you consider that 8 grenadiers possib ly could woop the ass of 12 rifles with the same amount of pop on the field.