Give ATGs a Fuel Cost

[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

[Warlight]

An ATG is basically a gun with wheels, they are big and heavy, and while its possible for you to take a platoon of guys and push the damn thing from Normandy to Berlin, I know that's now how things got done.  They all had a jeep, truck, halftrack, to pull them.  So, give ATGs a Fuel Cost.  I think part of our problem is having this idea of a "non-fuel based anti-tank option."
   
Firstly, that you can put all your fuel into Anti-infantry vehicles, and everything else into "no fuel Anti-tank"  means you can spam vehicles and then cover their weakness too.  Spam as it turns out, is a valid tactic, our problem is that we don't have any downsides to it.  You can spam something that works real well but has a weakness, and then spam the counter to its weakness (an example being; T17's and ATGs as Smokaz tested). 
 
Antitank has two categories right now.
 
Munitions Based- Zook, RR, Shreck, Faust, ATG (All sorts)
 
Fuel Based- Sherman, P4, StuG, 50mm (kinda mostly) and so on.

 
It should really be split into three categories.
 
Munitions based- Zook, RR, Shreck, Faust...
 
Hybrid- ATG, 50mmHT...
 
Fuel Based- Sherman, P4, Stug...
 
On a side note, the Sherman should be split into two units like that Puma, upgunned and non-upgunned. 
 
So a Pak 38 should cost something like- 380 Manpower 80 Munitions and 40 Fuel
 
And an 57mm should cost- 380 Manpower, 60 Munitions and 50 Fuel

Hell if I had my way I'd make you buy a Half track for each ATG just to make sure it got to the field, but a fuel cost does the same thing.  Representing that truck that pulled it here from the beach/factory.
 
What does this do to current company builds? 
 
Infantry players, will now use up more of their fuel because they already use ATG's They'll get an extra BAR or Zook out of the deal. 
 
Airbourne players, if they use ATG's will get maybe another RR or demo-charge or bar out of the deal as well. 
 
Armour players, Will find it more difficult to spam T-17's and ATG's, they will have to make a choice. 
 
On the axis side, because the factions are almost all the same, you'll see either more Paks or More Tanks but you shouldn't see lots of both. 
 
 
But there is on little snag, I have this nagging feeling, that making ATG's cost fuel will somehow hurt vehicle based companies and help infantry based companies.  And short of having tanks that can CAP, infantry generally wins battles. 
 
Perhaps, rather than trading fuel for munitions, ATG's should keep their full munitions cost, AND cost fuel.
 
So a Pak 38 should cost something like- 380 Manpower 120 Munitions and 40 Fuel
 
And an 57mm should cost- 380 Manpower, 110 Munitions and 50 Fuel
 
That's all I have for now, try to keep things civil, eh? 

[Draken]

Mmmm that would be godlike for my company since I got 600 fuel floating.

It's really hard to tell how it would change balance of the game without testing it in practice, but it would make weaker companies relying on armor spam and make infantry companies more powerfull, well I would like it, in version with split of ther resource between fuel and munitions. Ideal for my company would be only fuel cost, I would have extra 550 munitions ;-).

PS: This should be in balance section instead of here.

[Warlight]

Mmmm that would be godlike for my company since I got 600 fuel floating.

It's really hard to tell how it would change balance of the game without testing it in practice, but it would make weaker companies relying on armor spam and make infantry companies more powerfull, well I would like it, in version with split of ther resource between fuel and munitions. Ideal for my company would be only fuel cost, I would have extra 550 munitions ;-).

Thats why I mentioned at the end, they should probubly keep their muni-cost.  But you'd also have less wasted fuel.  But we arn't complaning about infantry companies as much.  Its that I can kill you infantry with a Puma/AC/t17 and when you bring out a good coutner, I just run back to my ATG spam kill your tank.  Then charge in again.

Also I quite honestly think we have to many ATG's floating around and not near enough vehicles.

PS: This should be in balance section instead of here.

I think its more suggestion-ish.  Balance would come in the when we try to figure out the new costs maybe?  Either way.

[Smokaz]

If there's a concensus that theres too many a guns being fielded without companies takinga hit on other areas, why not increase manpower cost on the 57 and the pak? They can be remanned after all.

[Unkn0wn]

The only reason why people would field a lot of ATGs is because they feel the need to, less vehicles/tanks and people would field less ATGs. Upping the price on ATGs would only shift the game even further towards being vehicle/tank field domination. You could argue that there woukd be more tank to tank combat but tank to tank combat simply isn't 'balanced' as it hugely favours the Wehrmacht in particular.

[Draken]

If there's a concensus that theres too many heavy tanks being fielded without companies takinga hit on other areas, why not increase manpower cost on the Jagd and the KT?

Sorry for aloha style.

I have 5 atgs (all with ap rounds), and they are barerly enough if there are heavy tanks in my games, when jagd can 2 shot atgs. And paks will always win 1v1 with atgs.

[Pak88mm]

mass allied light armor spam beats all. so 50mms are needed and even then arent as good. 57mms cant really beat kts and tigers once they hit the field. but at spam has become the norm due to alot people going ape shit on spamming light armor allied exclusive of course. also the huge cost of shcrecks is not worth the headache of watching them die to all allied light armor.

[Pak88mm]

If there's a concensus that theres too many heavy tanks being fielded without companies takinga hit on other areas, why not increase manpower cost on the Jagd and the KT?

Sorry for aloha style.

I have 5 atgs (all with ap rounds), and they are barerly enough if there are heavy tanks in my games, when jagd can 2 shot atgs. And paks will always win 1v1 with atgs.

its totally random paks vs 57mm. i sniped my fair share of either so its not a bias thing at all. but i agree that 57mms cant stand up to heavy axis armor late game with good support. reason why im going reapers.

[Draken]

you gonna win in 95% cases 1v1 with atgs, just take first shoot with uncloaked pak, then cloak fast, and you have 2 shots more fired then atg, you can aswell get out of range and do that again, since atg reload is slower then paks.

[Warlight]

If there's a concensus that theres too many a guns being fielded without companies takinga hit on other areas, why not increase manpower cost on the 57 and the pak? They can be remanned after all.

Because if you increase the manpower, that reduces the amount of infantry.  We don't want to reduce the amount of infantry.  What we want to to keep teh same amount of infantry and eitehr reduce teh amount of ATG's or Tanks a player can field.  You get one ore the other.

The only reason why people would field a lot of ATGs is because they feel the need to, less vehicles/tanks and people would field less ATGs. Upping the price on ATGs would only shift the game even further towards being vehicle/tank field domination. You could argue that there woukd be more tank to tank combat but tank to tank combat simply isn't 'balanced' as it hugely favours the Wehrmacht in particular.

Lets look at the heavy tank.  It uses lots of fuel.  If I make a Two KT company, or a Two Tiger company, I still can get PaKs at not cost to my heavy tanks.  early game there is no weakness.  A heavy tank like a light vehicle can still fall back to its ATG support if it gets in trouble.  If I run Two KT's how much fuel will I have to spend on Paks after that.

Not much, if any.

Sure I could go level three Fuel advantage, and might be able to squeeze a few in but arguably Munitions and Manpower are still much much better. 

And its true encouraging tank-tank conflict favors the axis.  But, who says we can't change that too?

Split the sherman into two units.  Up gun has current Population and stats.  non-upgun drops to 10 pop and becomes cheaper.  Then make sherman repairs a little cheaper.

Between stickies, Shrermans and Tank Destroyers, there isn't any thing allied players working together can't beat.  Its when you have teams of people that things get interasting. 

EDIT: ATG vs Pak in a who beats who contest is a valid but somewhat unrealated argument.  So lets not get drawn onto that to much.

[lionel23]

I agree with Draken on the issue that Pak guns take out 57mm most of the time (57mm can still kill them, but generally the cloak shots and faster reload benefits axis more).

I'm doing Reapers too as I find AT guns just too much a weak point in the army when a bunch of TR bazookas can put the fear of God into axis armor and they can't easily lose the weapon.

But I'm against any fuel cost for AT guns.  They don't come out on trucks, and yes realistically they would be on trucks and stuff, but who's to say they didn't come from a staging area just off the battlefield?  And by adding a fuel cost in, you'll either see way less tanks (due to them taking AT guns to deal with heavier tanks for allies, or axis taking paks and losing out on having Stugs/P4s/Panthers on the field) or even more tank dominated battlefields (with more armor, but allied armor sucks in comparison to axis heavy armor as Unknown points out, since Axis have better late-game armor than the allies).

And I see Warlight beat me to posting just before I did, so let me update this post on his.  I do like the idea of two different cost shermans, a 10 pop and 12 pop one. But on the issue that allies players working together can beat anything... what about an axis team that also works together?  If you had to put it one on one, skill even on all sides, the strength and power of axis armor is still way better than allied armor, and it'll come down to allied infantry and maybe some lures with ATGs to win the day.  Especially if the enemy has (say a 3v3) a bunch of King Tigers, Double Jadgs that can snipe Allied ATGs, ect.. and all fielded at the same time can seriously deplete AT strength for most allied armies.

[Warlight]

Player skill is always the wild card, the thing we can't fix with balance. 

Obviously I don't think the same as you.  But just hold up a second and think about a game where the axis have no PaK guns and only tanks.  How would you deal with that. 

Especialy if the devs go through with reducing the amount of over all fuel.  I hesitate to call you closed minded.  But it seems you always fall back to something that I just explained.

Yes, A KT can shoot the crew off an ATG, yes a pak might win a fight verses an ATG, Yes a Jagd can kill ONE ATG. 

Solution:  Reduce the tanks accuracy vs. ATGs some more.  The point is, it hurts more than just allied players.  Without early game pak or paks, an axis player has to reley on shreks for his AT.  This isn't the best option.  Late game, relying on a tiger or KT for all of your AT means you need to blob.  Thats makes you weak against on and off map artillery, and being enveloped.  Refer to the myriod of backcapping threads. 

As germans: If your going to spam heavy tanks, your going to pay for it by not having and cheap and effective AT to cover the rest of the map.

As allies: If your going to spam Light vehicles/Tanks your not going to have any  effective ATGs to cover the rest of the map.

As allies: If your going to spam ATG's your not going to have any light vehicles or tanks to help you deal with axis infantry.  Though rifles with bars and grandes are awful good at dealing with axis infantry.

[Draken]

Well now after thinking a while, your point of view Warlight may be solution to fix armor spam, but it's to complicated.

[CrazyWR]

this is essentially a huge buff to infantry doctrine and a nerf to armor doc, and their comparative doctrines for other factions...

[Ununoctium]

this is essentially a huge buff to infantry doctrine and a nerf to armor doc, and their comparative doctrines for other factions...

well no really. this is a nerf to fuel hungry tanks and a buff to the muni hungry ones. but if everyone has less tanks and more AT then this doublewhammy punches armour in the gut. so the nerfing should be cut down 50%

[lionel23]

I feel this is also a huge nerf to armor companies (who are about their tanks) while my infantry company it won't affect in the slightest since I don't really use fuel that much.  So it weakens the amount of armor and vehicles all around and yet I still get my full compliment of infantry to out-attrition the enemy through use of BAR spam?  Guess also no need to get sticky bombs either and stick with the better fuel-to-effective M10 to deal with that one axis tank or two...

And Warlight, what stops players, even with reduced accuracy against AT guns, from ground firing at them?  I don't believe accuracy penalties affect that from what I read in some other threads in these forums before, but I could be mistaken.

But hey, we can make AT guns cost 50 fuel and it won't hurt my infantry company at all, maybe it would be better to see less PAKs and axis armor on the field, though I'd feel bad for Allied armor companies 

[Warlight]

I feel this is also a huge nerf to armor companies (who are about their tanks) while my infantry company it won't affect in the slightest since I don't really use fuel that much.  So it weakens the amount of armor and vehicles all around and yet I still get my full compliment of infantry to out-attrition the enemy through use of BAR spam?  Guess also no need to get sticky bombs either and stick with the better fuel-to-effective M10 to deal with that one axis tank or two...

So a tank based player needs ATG's to deal with infantry players?  I'm not saying increase the cost on tanks.  If anything, it means that when armour players go at it, they will be using tanks.  And when an armour based player goes against infantry, he'll be facing infantry with ATGs, not infantry with ATGs AND Tanks.  Infantry will need to choose between non-docternal armour, a OR ATG's they don't get both. 

Just because something dosn't effect your company build right now dosn't make it a buff for you.

And Warlight, what stops players, even with reduced accuracy against AT guns, from ground firing at them?  I don't believe accuracy penalties affect that from what I read in some other threads in these forums before, but I could be mistaken.

Heavy you ever tried ground firing a ATG to death?  With attack ground.  Its still a pain in the ass.  The only unit I've ever known to be more accurate when used that way is the STuH.  Its just not an option. 

But hey, we can make AT guns cost 50 fuel and it won't hurt my infantry company at all, maybe it would be better to see less PAKs and axis armor on the field, though I'd feel bad for Allied armor companies 

Your right, it dosn't effect you, you just might not be able to afford some of those half tracks or suiside M10's or that Extra howitzer.  Does that mean your getting buffed?  If anything you'll see more tanks coming at you, and more infantry with munitions upgrades.  Because that MP and MUNI that would go into a armour players ATG's now goes into putting those fuel advantages to good use.  Or buying that LMG to let him better deal with your rifles.

If a guy is going for tanks, he doesn't need PaKs to snipe your Ranger captains or your BAR Rifles.  Thats why he has tanks...

There is also no reason to think that allied armour is that much inferior to axis armour.  Especialy with Unk0wn flaunting around the server that his shermans no longer fear anything, definatly not tigers.  But you know what they do fear... PaKs.  What good is your T4 super m18 when when it still get killed so easily by PaKs.  Remember the thread where I asked people to play without ATGs, and so many people posted that "yea dude, I already don't use that many."

An american armour player who gets so many buffs to make his tanks so good, doesn't need ATG's to deal with infantry.  HE has TANKS.  Remember?

I'll quote you again

who are about their tanks

You assume that if a guy wants to play with tanks, who is going to buff his tanks, who played a doctrain for his tanks...  is going to choose ATG's that cost fuel over... his tanks.

You should get one or the other, not lots of both.

[CrazyWR]

My infantry company has 600 fuel left over.  I'm fairly certain you can up the fuel price on AT guns to 100 and I'd still be just fine.  My armor company would be screwed though.  Also, American armor vs Wehrmacht Armor = fail for Amis every time. 

[Smokaz]

If this affected americans and wehr equally, how would armor be in the most trouble? Their tanks are the most capable of out all of the 3 american doctrines. The american tank destroyers are exellent all over, with the noticable exception of the m10 being hard to use - but not because of shreks, but because of paks.

I like this idea mainly because I think it would make AT guns more precious and allow for more tank on tank fights.

I'd rather have this implemented and axis/alilied tanks tuned into being balanced against each other. Its not a big fuel price addition thats being proposed either. A fuel advantage or two would even it out if you still wanna field tons of at guns next to tons of tanks.

[Warlight]

My infantry company has 600 fuel left over.  I'm fairly certain you can up the fuel price on AT guns to 100 and I'd still be just fine.  My armor company would be screwed though.  Also, American armor vs Wehrmacht Armor = fail for Amis every time. 

I'm trying not to instantly answer everone all the time, but:

A  American armour plays differant for sure, but it is far from fail.  Every one says that an UP-Gunned Sherman beats or Equals a P4 everytime, Or am I hearing wrong?  So a sherman plus a Tank destroyer ought to be able to own a P4.  Same with Mark six Churchil, beats a P4.  Also, when a guy knows that the armour player won't have any ATGs, won't that make it that much easier to bate him into a cloaked M18?  

It sounds most like people are afreid to really put the armour doctrain buffs to the test, buy lossing that "safety net of ATGs."

B  Split the shermans into two groups.  Maybe reduce their fuel a bit.  Shermans out numberd German tanks, so make it so they can.

And please just once, think about what I am preposing, think about it.  Now if you had to put this into practice how would you do it.  Raise lower the fuel cost, raise lower the Muni-cost.  Pretend that no mater what, ATG's are going to cost fuel.    How would you change it, and what else would need to change in order to make it happen.  

Try to post more than:
"Ami-armour is fail"