Fuel Reduction

[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

[RikiRude]

I fully agree with Dasnoob and AmPm on this.

If light vehicles are the problem increase their cost. Although I don't really see that many light vehicles myself. I only field 3 m8s, and no other light vehicles, if there was some T2/T3/T4 that really helped light vehicles then I'd def put out more.

But raise the cost of light vehicles to maybe 70FU instead of 50FU. This could go across to board to pumas, m8s, staghound, t17. Any 30FU vehicles could go up to 50FU, quad, armored car.

Of course myself, I might just get rid of my light vehicles all together and just focus on my shermans, but I'd then want to switch a T1 from mobility to sherman flank speed.

[NCOIC]

Aw stop crying bout light armor . It never seems to help me...those nasty little shreck squads kill 'em all off...

[CrazyWR]

Is it the Medium tanks that are the problem, or the light vehicles?

I have never had a problem dealing with 4-5 mediums, however 30+ light vehicles is a little broken.

I've never seen 30+ light vehicles in a game.  Not since old EIR.

[AmPM]

Really? I've had a few this time around where i have had 30+ killed post game.

My armor company can field 15 lights and 5 TDs before running out of fuel, and now that I am done with that company thats all I have to spend PP on anyway.

[CrazyWR]

Maybe, but like I said, I haven't seen it.  Most people top out at 8...thats 24 with Triple Armor.  As has been said earlier, lowering fuel simply turns a sherman into an m18 or m10...might lose a quad.  Thats about it.  But whatever, thats why I started an infantry company this morning, if people insist on nerfing armor into oblivion, no point in using it.

[gamesguy2]

Is it the Medium tanks that are the problem, or the light vehicles?

I have never had a problem dealing with 4-5 mediums, however 30+ light vehicles is a little broken.

I've never seen 30+ light vehicles in a game.  Not since old EIR.

PE can run 30 vehicles easilly.

[CrazyWR]

I meant as americans, sorry.  I suppose PE could, but I'm not sure how effective it would be.

[Tymathee]

i have to agree, changing the available fuel will only increase light vehicle spam. Just up the fuel on the light vehicles, or hard cap them.

[Sharpshooter44]

I say take the Upgunned pumas to 7 pop and the regular pumas to 8 pop again...these things are so easily spammed and have no problem racking up the kills, upgunned pumas can take on an M10 pretty easily and most light vehicles... as for the M8/ T17 / stag, up the price to 70ish fuel for the m8 / t17 and maybe up the stag by 10 fuel..

[pqumsieh]

Up the fuel cost on the quad and t17, leave the m8 atm. I've already reported this, but the m8 can only take 3 hits whereas the T17 can take 5-7 hits from a pak. This is with skirts on both vehicles + vet 1. For that reason, i never take a m8 over a t17 especially now that availability has been changed. T17 is far too superior to the m8 in almost all aspects.

PQ

Please, take not of the difference in survivability between the M8 and T17, this is the major factor at play.

[GeneralGeneralGlacko]

If everyone is whining about the heavy tank not being used, just reduce all heavy tanks fuel costs by 10-20%, making the pershing, tiger and kt more appealing.

[gamesguy2]

If everyone is whining about the heavy tank not being used, just reduce all heavy tanks fuel costs by 10-20%, making the pershing, tiger and kt more appealing.

KT and jagd dont need to be made more appealing, they are extremely powerful as it is.

The only real problem IMO is the T17, which needs a fuel increase to 90.   Quads do a lot of damage/suppression but they can't touch vehicles unlike the T17.

[VERTIGGO]

The light vehicle problem is not something that can be dealt with on a massive scale. Each one has strengths and weaknesses which must be looked at separately.

The T17's only real problem at the moment is the sandbag, which was originally only possible by vetting up in a deathmatch and hard to do in one game. It's also an arguably overpowered buff anyway, I mean doubling anythings HP changes balance enormously. However, the problem remains that it can be purchased for mun, so virtually every T17 on the field now can survive 3 AT shots (excluding all the misses) and then scurry away to repair and do it all over again. It fires twice as fast as an ostwind, which is another reason it's not meant to always have the health buff.

[RikiRude]

The light vehicle problem is not something that can be dealt with on a massive scale. Each one has strengths and weaknesses which must be looked at separately.

The T17's only real problem at the moment is the sandbag, which was originally only possible by vetting up in a deathmatch and hard to do in one game. It's also an arguably overpowered buff anyway, I mean doubling anythings HP changes balance enormously. However, the problem remains that it can be purchased for mun, so virtually every T17 on the field now can survive 3 AT shots (excluding all the misses) and then scurry away to repair and do it all over again. It fires twice as fast as an ostwind, which is another reason it's not meant to always have the health buff.

Do you have any idea of how useless m8s or T17s are without sandbags/skirts?

[o4b]

Agreed with Ampm here - why throw down a global fuel reduction when the problem is with t17s? Simply increase the fuel on the t17 and we are back in business.

@PQ - Tell me how a t17 can take 7 pak shots, that is preposterous (not including misses). Perhaps you saw a Staghound.

[CafeMilani]

The light vehicle problem is not something that can be dealt with on a massive scale. Each one has strengths and weaknesses which must be looked at separately.

The T17's only real problem at the moment is the sandbag, which was originally only possible by vetting up in a deathmatch and hard to do in one game. It's also an arguably overpowered buff anyway, I mean doubling anythings HP changes balance enormously. However, the problem remains that it can be purchased for mun, so virtually every T17 on the field now can survive 3 AT shots (excluding all the misses) and then scurry away to repair and do it all over again. It fires twice as fast as an ostwind, which is another reason it's not meant to always have the health buff.

Do you have any idea of how useless m8s or T17s are without sandbags/skirts?

very useful

[Smokaz]

Without skirts, m8s and t17s can't engage any kind of AT and would die instantly to paks. The question isn't if they need skirts, thats beyond consideration. Even LMG's seem to penetrate unskirted m8's. It's their fuel price that needs to be balanced.

[Mysthalin]

I've personally witnessed a dual LMG squad of mine kill an unskirted M8 in 4 seconds at long range, back in old EiR.

Yeah, it's not even worth to consider how crappy an M8 is without skirts... T17 was a simmilar story, getting killed in two shots by ununoctium's grandma, until it got the skirts.

IMO, there is no problem at all with light vehicle spam. To quote AmPm himself a patch or two back : use an ostwind.

[jackmccrack]

I still do not see anywhere in Unknown's post where he says the dev team will reduce company fuel.

[Ununoctium]

I've personally witnessed a dual LMG squad of mine kill an unskirted M8 in 4 seconds at long range, back in old EiR.

Yeah, it's not even worth to consider how crappy an M8 is without skirts... T17 was a simmilar story, getting killed in two shots by ununoctium's grandma My Stalin, until it got the skirts.

IMO, there is no problem at all with light vehicle spam. To quote AmPm himself a patch or two back : use an ostwind.

Corrections