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

[CrazyWR]

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.

sure, but it reduces the options of how to play Armor doc...

[Warlight]

Options to play armour doc: 

1. Spam t17s and ATGs.

2. Use, god forbid, actual tanks and tank destroyers. 

I know your not playing armour so you can spam Bar Squads. 

BTW, I'm going to start playing Ami-armour just to see how "fail" it really is.

[CrazyWR]

You shouldn't be forced to use tank destroyers though.  I know lots of Wehr players use p4's mostly to engage infantry and use storms/paks to keep away tanks.

[Smokaz]

You should be forced to use tank destroyers if this was implemented and you refused to cough up fuel for a 57mm. The tank destroyers outrange the p4, it is not a issue. The m18 beats up the p4 hardcore used correctly. They dont need to slug it out. The only axis tank I see getting buffed by this is the Stug - oooh, that sounds horribly OP. And maybe the King Tiger, since its such a beast against tanks. The american tank destroyers would definitely be buffed because the pak is a much bigger threat to them than shreks.

There's other issues with Armor however that will need to be resolved for this to work out. Like how they get no buffs to ther infantry or support weapons worth of notice. Keep it moving should definitely have a mirror armor ability.

In the end its a great idea that would help balance out some the very powerful builds armor can get, but that needs a lot of work to be implemented.

[lionel23]

For your info, I field no M10s or Halftracks in my force at all, and I float around 600+ fuel also.  So if we do make AT guns cost a lot, it better mean I should be seeing less AT guns or tanks from axis players then under this proposal?

But as Warlight pointed out, you're gimping and forcing Armor-oriented to spam more light vehicles (being they are half the cost roughly of armor) and ATGs, and just avoid the medium tanks and pick at them with ATGs (Since allied armor is generally not as resilient as their axis counterpart).  You'll field so few actual tanks and destroyers that basically many doctrines and armies focused on anti tank will become pointless, because it will reduce the number of tanks on the field from non-tank forces, and basically its one side with tanks and one side with mass AT guns.

Now if we do 'balance' armor on both sides, I would expect to see increased survivability for all allied armor to compare with the sturdy axis armor, since there will be fewer of them on the field with this change with combined arms (armor needs to be able to stand unsupported and not rely on ATG support to balance the change).  From an axis perspective, man they have the biggest selection of tanks and I better see (if the trend continues) no pak guns from current P4/Panther spammers if that's what this is change is intended to do.  I also think it'll hurt axis more than allies, since both my CW and US companies do not use ATGs to any real extent, and while I would cheer at the thought of less paks and tanks on the field from the axis (less harder stuff for me to kill), I just seriously believe this would weaken their factions significantly.

[Warlight]

For your info, I field no M10s or Halftracks in my force at all, and I float around 600+ fuel also.  So if we do make AT guns cost a lot, it better mean I should be seeing less AT guns or tanks from axis players then under this proposal?

My apologies, many infantry players do use some tanks/halftracks.  As you stated it won't hardly effect you, your already wastinge that fuel.

Exactly, you'll see less AT guns fro those people who spam double KT's Tigers.  Some axis players will still split it up.  Some Tanks, some Paks.  But players who get all sorts of buffs for their tanks, like German steal, mobile repairs, heat rounds, they will spam P4's like they used to, and they will pay for it by having less paks. 

But as Warlight pointed out, you're gimping and forcing Armor-oriented to spam more light vehicles (being they are half the cost roughly of armor) and ATGs, and just avoid the medium tanks and pick at them with ATGs (Since allied armor is generally not as resilient as their axis counterpart).  

Isn't this whats happening anyway?  Armour players spamming light vehicles and ATGs.  In fact it should encourage people to use their shermans.  If your player armour, you better be accused of sherman and tank destroyer spam. 

Now sure, allied armour is "less durable" but it can win.  Hell an M18, used right can easily kill a p4.  That or I got some lucky bounces.  But basicaly a cloak ambush and some kiting and BOOM, dead P4.  Light damage to the m18. 

You'll field so few actual tanks and destroyers that basically many doctrines and armies focused on anti tank will become pointless, because it will reduce the number of tanks on the field from non-tank forces, and basically its one side with tanks and one side with mass AT guns.

This already tends to happen.  When the current option to stop Light armour spam is reduce the amount of fuel you get overall, this is where things are heading. 

ATG's have so much free time, they are used to kill machine guns more often than tanks these days.  Also, this encourages team work.. An armour player and a infantry payer can work off each other.  The tank player using his buddies ATG's to fall back on.  If this reduces the amount of total tanks and ATG's on teh field thats not even a problem, it makes room for things like halftracks and other weapons that arn't generaly usefull.

It gives hand held AT a bigger role as well.  And there will be more if it, becaue there should be fewer ATG's.

Now if we do 'balance' armor on both sides, I would expect to see increased survivability for all allied armor to compare with the sturdy axis armor, since there will be fewer of them on the field with this change with combined arms (armor needs to be able to stand unsupported and not rely on ATG support to balance the change).  From an axis perspective, man they have the biggest selection of tanks and I better see (if the trend continues) no pak guns from current P4/Panther spammers if that's what this is change is intended to do.

Balance doesn't have to equate to mirrored tanks.  American tanks are plenty tuff enough to duke it out with p4s.  Its just most of the time there is an ATG present to stop them.  THe only tanks that shermans really don't stand a chance against are Panthers and Tigers.  And as it is you can get 2 Shermans for just about the cost of a panther and that is how it should be. 

Yes, you would see fewer ATG's from the axis tank spammers.  But you'll see better equiped infantry too.  Hel you might even see the return of the shreck, on something other than storms, or in "Jesusmysaviors" blobs.

I also think it'll hurt axis more than allies, since both my CW and US companies do not use ATGs to any real extent, and while I would cheer at the thought of less paks and tanks on the field from the axis (less harder stuff for me to kill), I just seriously believe this would weaken their factions significantly.

I just don't agree about, it making them weaker.  Just encourage them to use other things than ATGs.

[Illegal_Carrot]

I just don't agree about, it making them weaker.  Just encourage them to use other things than ATGs.

Schrecks are shit, StuGs are shit, 50mm Pumas can't handle real armor, and P4s/Panther are too expensive to be a Wehr battalion's main AT.
PaKs are really all that's left, until Schrecks/StuGs become viable again. Please don't take this away form me too.

[lionel23]

Hmmm... in that case Warlight, might be an interesting change if it forces a mixup of the axis side, though I am partial to allied myself, was discussing this from both their viewpoints.  I can't help but wonder, however, if this will make axis significantly harder to stop armor and light vehicles due to a lightening of their AT capabilities.

[Mysthalin]

I personally simply and blatantly disagree.
tripple cost units have never been a good idea of balancing things (salan's vEiR patch with grenades costing manpower), and adding fuel costs to ATGs would not help limit armor spam at all. What it would do, is make a person drop out a single M10 out of their build(with the proposed pricing), and give 3 more stickies to the player. It would be a crude work-around that would result, at best, in the punishement of BALANCED companies, not gimmicky ones.
For infantry companies, it would just allow you to buy a thompson for one of your rangers, taking away a howitzer/M10. Airborne would be largely un-affected, due to them relying on RRs, instead(how would you explain a fuel cost for air-droppd ATGs without giving one to airborne themselves?). And if said airborne actually use ATGs, it would only add more RRs to be blobbed, or grenades for the RRs to defend themselves. For brits... well, brits would just have to sell a cromwell or churchill Mk 4, and get more PIATs.

In short - it would add more problems than it would fix. It would begin by adding un-necessary complexity to an already VERY complex game, shunning newbies yet again, as well as encourage infantry blobs(not tactical use, not by far - upgraded blobs).

Furthermore, the proposed pricing is pretty off-key.
Why should the 57mm cost more than the pak, when it is, in fact, inferior? You may argue that it's "10 FU for 10 MU", but count the percental values of 10 MU and 10 FU in regards to the overall MU and FU given to each company. You will find that the FU is more valuable.

I would also like to add that the 50mm is already a hybrid at 100 MU, 30 FU, IIRC.

[GeneralGlacko]

They started with the 50mm and they should keep on going with the atg's seeing as how pe has no support weapons but the closest thing to them is at triple cost 

[gamesguy2]

They started with the 50mm and they should keep on going with the atg's seeing as how pe has no support weapons but the closest thing to them is at triple cost 

Soon as the regular ATGs gain 5x hp against small arms fire and become self-propelled.

[GeneralGlacko]

They started with the 50mm and they should keep on going with the atg's seeing as how pe has no support weapons but the closest thing to them is at triple cost 

Soon as the regular ATGs gain 5x hp against small arms fire and become self-propelled.

When 50mm ht's become invulnerable to stun and button.

[CrazyWR]

learn to kite

[GeneralGlacko]

Course i always get to rely on my faithful clown cars to save me 

[Demon767]

sry i didnt read the rest of the posts, but i dont think ATG should cost fuel, saying it has to be used by motovehicles or w/e which sosts fuel, can than be *technically* used by everything else. Do you expect Soldiers to walk from berlin to normandy, how did the americans and british get to the normandy shores? how did they travel, not by complete foot.  so yea i dont think it needs any cost increase, they are fine as they are imo.

what IM worried bout is Zooks, i remeber when i was a nub and i thought they are OP, man they are the least of my worries now.

and if you dont believe a upgunned sherman cant duke it out and nearly kill a p4 than you shouldnt be posting suggestions. man thats really fundemental if your trying to suggest this.

[Nijo]

i am playing a American armor doctrin with some sucesses now for a while and use at guns mainly for axis tanks.

Its true i can deal with a combination of stickys and Shermans with most of the axis medium tanks. But every heavyer Tank like Panther, Tiger, KT, Jagd or even the Marder, or Stug can be a problem. So i have to use this guns if i dont wont to use my paper tanks wich are not that usefull in my eyes.

Shermans are the only way for me to realy counter axis elit infantry and by taking some out to get the fuel for at guns... i dont know if that will work.

[AmPM]

i am playing a American armor doctrin with some sucesses now for a while and use at guns mainly for axis tanks.

Its true i can deal with a combination of stickys and Shermans with most of the axis medium tanks. But every heavyer Tank like Panther, Tiger, KT, Jagd or even the Marder, or Stug can be a problem. So i have to use this guns if i dont wont to use my paper tanks wich are not that usefull in my eyes.

Shermans are the only way for me to realy counter axis elit infantry and by taking some out to get the fuel for at guns... i dont know if that will work.

Why do people say this? Shermans have more health than a P4....

[CrazyWR]

Maybe, but they get penetrated by virtually everything axis has...P4's can bounce shots more often...

[Unkn0wn]

It's true, as US you're best off using shermans primarily for AI duty and ATGs for AT duty.

[NightRain]

It's true, as US you're best off using shermans primarily for AI duty and ATGs for AT duty.

And infantry only for capping right?

In my opinnion Sherman works as a good All-Arounder just like the P4. P4 does its job better in Anti-tank than Sherman but in my opinnion Sherman's ability to Insta gib a whole squad (favorite thing for Ally player that makes their toes curl) is just a  thing I like in that tank. It is decent vs basic Medium tanks, Assault guns and Light Recon units and halftracks