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]

Nah, you're b est off using a t17 to cap with armor doc, but Sherman's are best vs infantry, while the 57s, m18s, and m10s take care of the tanks...

[Mysthalin]

I'm just using hordes of riflemen with stickies to disable every single axis tank that comes my way with the sheer mass of mangled bone, and I keep a few ATGs around just to scare off the no-engine tanks from coming to me. I don't know how I deal with infantry, though - it is a mystery I have not yet found an answer to. I think I calli them most of the time :S.

[CrazyWR]

nvm

[Nijo]

you got me wrong AMPM ^^

with the part you quoted i wanted to say that i hate M10's

[BigDick]

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

thats wrong

the basic penetration of paks vs shermans (except first strike) is the same as at57mm vs p4
buy AP rounds and you will dominate P4s (insane penetration and damage)
the penetration of marder is even worse
the penetration of p4 and non upgunned sherman is very similar (depending on range)
an upgunned sherman totally dominate a P4
shreks have a good penetration but they just don't hit if you know how to kite...

a (nonupgunned)sherman is equal to P4 used as AI not AT the AT are AT guns and Paks

to waste a P4 in a fight vs M10 (were you have good chances to win with a little % of health left) is not like it is intended

to say armor get hit harder by fuel costs on AT guns than e.g. a 5xP4 blitz company is not true

you just need to spend some munition you would save by purchasing AT guns into upgunns and get some tankdestroyers instead of only shermans

but actually i don't like the idea with fuel costs on at guns

if you want stop spaming light vehicles than make them more expensive in fuel or manpower
if you want to stop fielding much heavy armor (like 2-3 pershings/2 tiger/2KT/2jagd) set a hardcap of all heavys of 1
it isnt that people who unlocked heavys cannot spend their fuel on other things

and we don't need to introduce fuel costs for AT guns to prevent that someone spams vehicles and tanks and has enough AT guns to deal with armor too

[wildsolus]

Sherman's ability to Insta gib a whole squad

what?

[Warlight]

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.

80% of vehicles are already triple cost, MP, Muni, and Fuel.  Unless your buying an m10 for a suicide mission.  Sherman upgrades, P4 upgrades.  Perhaps they should cost fuel, by your logic.  And secondly I've come to this realisation: the only immicky companies are like puddins, or JMS, Spam Stuhs and Shreck blobs.  BUt a company that takes 9 stugs, and balanced infantry isn't a gimmick.  Because that would make all themed or realisticly organized companies a gimmick.  I just don't agree with that any more.  But I feel if your going to go down that path, you ought to have to choose between tanks, or ATGs.

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.

Yes, an airbourne ATG would need to cost fuel, if someone took them, which by your tone I assume you mean they probubly won't.  And this isn't a way to fix RR blobbers, (I do think they need to be toned down) but we are talking about ATGuns in this thread.  And yes, you just pointed out that people would either have to sell tanks to take AT guns or get more handheld.  And that is the goal.

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).

Name some other problems, not just the complexity thing.  Would it reduce the total number of vehicles and tanks on the field?  Would it reduce the number of ATG and vehicles a single player could field? Is that a problem? 

And added complexity?  When new player is making his company, hes probubly more suprised when he can't put more than 25 pop in a box than his concerned with what his resources are doing.  The addition of company starter army builds would fix this in a heart beat.

I spose it might encourage the infantry blob covered by the ATG crawl, or the infnatry blob covered by a Tank, we arn't going to get rid of blobs, not with this fuel increase, or any other thing you can think off.  Blobs are cause by the need to have all yuor powe at one point, or buy lack of good micro on a players part. If anything it makes it harder, nock out a blbs tank, and you can go in their with your tank, and vice versa (don't go to far into blob tactics, thats not why we are here). 

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.

I'm not here to argue the new pricing of ATG's I also don't feel that the 57mm is any worse than the pak, theres to much theary argument around that.  So please to don't bring that up.  But needless to say, those values can be changed, perhaps if this gets implemented we can have anew battle of wills on the balance forum.

And the 50mm, costs 300, 110, 40.  Just imagion all your ATG costing similar, and how that would effect your army.

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.

I'm sure somebody did. 

But the bigger problem is having your tanks, and then protecting them with ATGs too.  I understand that not all tanks were created equal, but all tanks can fight each other.  This change would just mean that you'd have to use your tanks on enemy tanks, or not use them at all (At the very least you would no longer be able to spam both tanks and ATGs). 

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.

Why are you worried about zooks?

And I beleive a upgunned sherman can duke it out with a P4.  I've done it now.  I beleived it before.  If you berlieve that proper american tank tactics can't beat german tanks than... well whatever.  I'm not goign to insult people about it.

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.

Yes, you can use american tanks to counter german ones, I think someone answer that qustion right after your post, shermans having more health than P4s.  It seems the biggest opposition to this comes from people who don't know if their tank micro is good enough, or they don't know if they will be abel to handle tank on tank.  And it might be difficult, but not impossible. 

And yes this is part of a bigger pictures, there would need to be some changes done to the sherman in order to make this fare, heck the more i think about it the sherman upgun could drop to 10 and the stubbie sherm could go to 8 poulation (if thats really nessisary to make them competative). 

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.

And this is not how it should be, shermans fought tanks in real life, not KCHs; well maybe KCH who were driving tanks but thats beside the point.

but actually i don't like the idea with fuel costs on at guns

if you want stop spaming light vehicles than make them more expensive in fuel or manpower
if you want to stop fielding much heavy armor (like 2-3 pershings/2 tiger/2KT/2jagd) set a hardcap of all heavys of 1
it isnt that people who unlocked heavys cannot spend their fuel on other things

and we don't need to introduce fuel costs for AT guns to prevent that someone spams vehicles and tanks and has enough AT guns to deal with armor too

We can do both, increase the cost and give ATG's a fuel cost.  But, I'm not trying to stop the spamming of T17s, thats a player choice, I'm trying to give that stratagy a downside. If you want to play a light armour company, you won't have any anti-tank guns, and will ahve to relay on your team mates to cover your back. 

Same with dual super heavy tanks.  Funny thing is about the Jagd, is people only got it when they had teh lvl 8 companies given to them, homw many times do you see double jagd companies these days?  But to the point, if people want to put all theyer eggs in one basket, they should be able to, but they will pay for it by having to rely on handheld AT when they big toys arn't around.

I want this to change, because the game dynamic needs to change.  We are too oriented on hide behind the MG/ATG/Morter tactics, this isn't world war one.  Everyone camps, and armies like PE, who have no camping tools are at a general disadvantage. 

[BigDick]

i can feel your pain against many AT guns playing PE because i know exactly how hard it is

but isn't the solution better to change something that pe is not that vulnerable to at gun crawl than giving at guns a fuel cost?

do you think something changes people will still have AT guns and light/cheap vehicles (that is what pe really hurts beside handheld at...not the shermans or pershings)

[Mysthalin]

80% of vehicles are already triple cost, MP, Muni, and Fuel.

I can think of only two - the quad, and the flamm HT. All other units have one or two resources in their costs, with their upgrades costing a third resource(munitions). Paying seperately for upgrades is different than paying for things in three types of resources, and it creates an unnecesarry mind-ache.

sell tanks to take AT guns or get more handheld. <...> name some other problems other than complexity

Sell 1 tank for having 5 ATGs and get 8 grenades, 3-4 LMGs, 2 thompsons out of the bargain. What does this change? Absolutely nothing, just even MORE upgraded infantry running around. More shrek blobs, more RR blobs, more thompson rangers blobs - all those are, IMO, problems, that would come out of your proposed change.

Would it reduce the total number of vehicles and tanks on the field?  Would it reduce the number of ATG and vehicles a single player could field? Is that a problem?

Yes, it would take away 1 M10/Sherman from my 6-8 T17/3-5 ATG company, while taking away 1 P4/StuG from my enemy's. It would not fix light vehicle spam supported by ATGs, not in the least, it would just mean I'm giving up 1 tank that is not even a centerpiece in my battalion for something that may well be exactly a centerpiece from the enemie's battalion.

[Warlight]

i can feel your pain against many AT guns playing PE because i know exactly how hard it is

but isn't the solution better to change something that pe is not that vulnerable to at gun crawl than giving at guns a fuel cost?

do you think something changes people will still have AT guns and light/cheap vehicles (that is what pe really hurts beside handheld at...not the shermans or pershings)

Well, they might I suppose, still have cheap vehicles and AT guns.  The cost of both should go up.  Its this though or the devs do somthing like lower the available fuel, witch they annoinced they might already do.

I can't quite get what yuor saying about making PE better though.  Mainly because the sentance confuses me.

I can think of only two - the quad, and the flamm HT. All other units have one or two resources in their costs, with their upgrades costing a third resource(munitions). Paying seperately for upgrades is different than paying for things in three types of resources, and it creates an unnecesarry mind-ache.

All vehicles have to buy munitions based up grades.  Well, not really, but the fact that vehicles up grades cost munitions and fuel makes them triple cost.  Whether they start that way, or end that way.  Its the same thing.

Sell 1 tank for having 5 ATGs and get 8 grenades, 3-4 LMGs, 2 thompsons out of the bargain. What does this change? Absolutely nothing, just even MORE upgraded infantry running around. More shrek blobs, more RR blobs, more thompson rangers blobs - all those are, IMO, problems, that would come out of your proposed change.

Well maybe ATGs ned a higher fuel cost, or they need to be moved form support to armour, since they'er job is to kill armour.  You two convinced that you must say no.  Whether we keep at guns costing the same, or give a discount can be changed.  Infantry blobs excist eitehr way.  you won't see an increase in them, if a person takes tanks. He'll be spending that extra muni on those.  If he dosn't take tanks, he won't have it anyway, because he wil still spend them on ATGs. 

Yes, it would take away 1 M10/Sherman from my 6-8 T17/3-5 ATG company, while taking away 1 P4/StuG from my enemy's. It would not fix light vehicle spam supported by ATGs, not in the least, it would just mean I'm giving up 1 tank that is not even a centerpiece in my battalion for something that may well be exactly a centerpiece from the enemie's battalion.

Did you do the math? Maybe make ATGs cost 60 fuel, for they'er effectiveness against tanks, is about equal to a t17's against infantry.  But of course your t17/atg company is the thing we are trying to hurt here, if it dosn't hurt you yet maybe we need to up the costs some more.  This game dosn't have any downsides for it most powerful stratagies.

I think a person should be able to spam things, just not be abloe to spam combinations of things that privde to many strangths, and not enough weaknesses.

[Sharpshooter44]

Warlight I have one thing to say, stop posting a bunch of crap about crap you know nothing about..seriously stop trying to be ''Mr. Know It all'' You are replying to a million different things and failing to answer most of them with a remotely correct answer, slow down.

[Mysthalin]

What is the exact reasoning behind further increasing ATG cost from what you suggest when you want to limit armor spam?
Make them cost more - make sure less are fielded, thus only buffing LVS + M18/M10 armies.
Make them cost too much - make sure that noone will buy them at all, making panthers uber pwn on a whole new level. Two more new problems.

There is a reason the ATGs have stayed at only muni and MP costs for a very, VERY long time.
As for every vehicle needing to buy muni-based upgrades : pumas, shermans, cromwells, fireflies, churchils, P4s, panthers, IHTs, etc. - basically every vehicle except greyhounds, T17s, stags and LATHTs need no upgrades to retain their combat efficiency, leaving only the repair kit(quite optional) to be bought

[Demon767]

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?

i dont know about you but you sounded sarcastic and beliving it wasnt true


and im worried about zooks because there frontal penetration is pathetic.

[Warlight]

What is the exact reasoning behind further increasing ATG cost from what you suggest when you want to limit armor spam?
Make them cost more - make sure less are fielded, thus only buffing LVS + M18/M10 armies.
Make them cost too much - make sure that noone will buy them at all, making panthers uber pwn on a whole new level. Two more new problems.

There is a reason the ATGs have stayed at only muni and MP costs for a very, VERY long time.
As for every vehicle needing to buy muni-based upgrades : pumas, shermans, cromwells, fireflies, churchils, P4s, panthers, IHTs, etc. - basically every vehicle except greyhounds, T17s, stags and LATHTs need no upgrades to retain their combat efficiency, leaving only the repair kit(quite optional) to be bought

I'm not trying to limit armour spam.  Just Armour spam AND ATG Spam.  You Do realise that when I say ATG I mean 57mm, Pak 38, and 6lbder.  This isn't to debuff americans/allies.  YOu don't need both, in an army, thats just contirbuting to our current campout. 

All those vehicles, minus teh Puma, and IHTs are seen quite frequently with munistions based upgrades.  Overdrive on cromwells, mineflails on shermans, 50calls on shermans, smoke canisters on shermans, skirts on P4/panthers.  All of them have munitions based upgrades that people consider vital to them being usefull units.  Optional sure, but they do indeed end up being tirple cost units when you take them.

Warlight I have one thing to say, stop posting a bunch of crap about crap you know nothing about..seriously stop trying to be ''Mr. Know It all'' You are replying to a million different things and failing to answer most of them with a remotely correct answer, slow down.

I'll take this into consideration.  But if you would kindly point out things I've not answered "correctly" then please point them out, and I'll have anotehr go at it.
 

[CrazyWR]

Campout?  I feel like less armor means more camping out, less ATG's would mean less campout though.

[VERTIGGO]

ATGs fall under the category of "man pack AT" in my book because A: they're slow, and B: they're easily disabled by an reasonable anti infantry. ATGs can never perform the role of vehicles.

[Armfelt]

Oh my gosh, If ATGs would take fuel, then it would be the same for eg. paratroopers and Panzergrenadiers, because they use vehicles to get to the front...

If someone want to neutralize the AT, he will succeed.

[Tymathee]

[fallensoldier7]

ATGs fall under the category of "man pack AT" in my book because A: they're slow, and B: they're easily disabled by an reasonable anti infantry. ATGs can never perform the role of vehicles.

Man packed AT isn't slow though and easily disabled by reasonable anti-infantry (at least rangers and AB aren't).  I think ATGs are in their own category.

[Tymathee]

atg's are fine and have always had a high mp and mu cost i doubt anyone carries more than 4 or 5 in their company, i dont find this spam.