[ALL] Manpower Cost of Vehicles

[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

[DarkSoldierX]

I believe that the manpower cost between choosing the many vehicles or the few vehicles is not balanced.

I am talking about whether someone chooses many light vehicles vs few medium/heavy vehicles.

Here is examples of what im talking about using similar fuel cost-

Axis Panzer Elite Tankhunters-

3 Hetzers 1,140 MP 630 fuel
                vs
1 Jagdpanther 780 MP and 660 fuel
______________________________
A more closer example....

Allied American Armour-

3 T17s 900 MP 240 fuel(which now suck anyway)
                vs
1 Sherman 395 MP 240 fuel



To further show my argument, lighter vehicles and mediums require more munitions to be properly functional compared to the heavy tanks.

Example = A P4 IST REQUIRES skirts (60 mun) and a repair (40 mun) for a total of 100 munitions.

A tiger/pershing just needs his repair to be effective.
(buy a few P4's to get even close to the tigers fuel cost will send you way above his mun cost)
If heavies are cheaper in manpower and munitions the person with alot of LV and meds wont be as effective.

I am proposing mediums and cheap heavies get a 15% increase in manpower.(Shermans, P4,firefly,hetzer non-flame church,ect) And that norm heavies and superheavies get a 25% increase in manpower cost due to them not costing nearly as many munitions vs lower units.(Jumbo,Panther,Croc Church, jagdpanther, Tiger varients, ect)

[PonySlaystation]

I think Light Vehicles should cost slightly less manpower. Other than that I cannot agree. Three Hetzers is a lot better than one Jagd.

[DarkSoldierX]

I think Light Vehicles should cost slightly less manpower. Other than that I cannot agree. Three Hetzers is a lot better than one Jagd.

I think you forgot the Pgrens and scoutcars that you get with that extra money.

[AmPM]

I think the biggest issue is the Mu investment for Medium armor.

[RikiRude]

I think the biggest issue is the Mu investment for Medium armor.

ditto. either repair for for heavy tanks needs to be increased a bit or upgrades need to be cheaper.

i agree MP on LVs and such should go down too.

why get 3 shermans with upgrades .50 + upguns = about 300mu, when you can get a pershing and not spend any mu w/o repairs. is 3 units better than one when your call in timer increases with each one?

notice how the greyhound .50 is cheaper than sherman since its on a more fragile unit.

[PonySlaystation]

Well armor is already limited by their fuel cost so I think the muni cost for medium tanks should just go down a little.

[AmPM]

ditto. either repair for for heavy tanks needs to be increased a bit or upgrades need to be cheaper.

i agree MP on LVs and such should go down too.

why get 3 shermans with upgrades .50 + upguns = about 300mu, when you can get a pershing and not spend any mu w/o repairs. is 3 units better than one when your call in timer increases with each one?

notice how the greyhound .50 is cheaper than sherman since its on a more fragile unit.

If you base vehicle price on MP efficiency then they all need to go way up.

2x Gren squads is 480mp, which is more than a medium tank.

That is not the way to look at it.

When looking at cost look at its use on field, how much Pop it costs, if it can cap, and it's ability to do it's job.

[Demon767]

tbh, light veh builds, medium veh builds and heavy veh builds have always been balanced in how they perform.


So you want to promote LV spam even more? this change will significantly improve LV spam due to medium/heavy builds having even less infantry, and we all know the implications of LV spam, at the end of the game if the LV performed well they roll over in end game with infantry.

The numbers you present are neglible, its like you haven't played eirr before.

[BigDick]

to say light vehicles generally are to expensive in manpower is just stupid and retarded

an m8 is 280 or 290 MP thats less than 1.5 riflesquads (if considering upgrades you could upgrade one rifle with bar and the m8 with almost everything)
it would be stupid not to get an m8 if you have the fuel left
that thing can rape much more than just 1.5 rifles while being more generalist

then there are light vehicles that may look to expensive (like puma) but thats not because they are to expensive in menpower but more because they are just shit with poor battlefield performance

a gren squad kills often more than a 20mm puma while being cheaper in everything

[smurfORnot]

You want Tiger to cost more?! Without aces,who are now like 50% weaker since they gave double buffs,that thing is one big piece of FAIL. One of the worst axis tanks you can get.

[DarkSoldierX]

tbh, light veh builds, medium veh builds and heavy veh builds have always been balanced in how they perform.


So you want to promote LV spam even more? this change will significantly improve LV spam due to medium/heavy builds having even less infantry, and we all know the implications of LV spam, at the end of the game if the LV performed well they roll over in end game with infantry.

The numbers you present are neglible, its like you haven't played eirr before.

They are not balanced in the sense that LV and mediums are nowhere near as pop efficient as the heavies.

And you say mediums and heavies "having even less infantry" like they already are low on infantry compared to a LV build which is clearly false shown in my evidence.

And your whole "at end game if LV performed well" objection is inert, If the heavy performed well he'd be in the exact same state.... and with my evidence with more infantry.

Plus it is known that anti-tank LV's arnt performing as well (Hotchkiss 50mm) or they require heavy munitions to work (tetartch) and they still wont be pop efficient.

You want Tiger to cost more?! Without aces,who are now like 50% weaker since they gave double buffs,that thing is one big piece of FAIL. One of the worst axis tanks you can get.

Lol your calling tiger worst axis tank they can get. All I can say is lol.... epic lol.

to say light vehicles generally are to expensive in manpower is just stupid and retarded

an m8 is 280 or 290 MP thats less than 1.5 riflesquads (if considering upgrades you could upgrade one rifle with bar and the m8 with almost everything)
it would be stupid not to get an m8 if you have the fuel left
that thing can rape much more than just 1.5 rifles while being more generalist

then there are light vehicles that may look to expensive (like puma) but thats not because they are to expensive in menpower but more because they are just shit with poor battlefield performance

a gren squad kills often more than a 20mm puma while being cheaper in everything

I'm not saying you shouldn't buy that extra M8. I am not saying LV's should be cheaper in MP, I am saying mediums should be very slightly more costly in MP, and heavies should be significantly more costly in MP.

[smurfORnot]

Lol your calling tiger worst axis tank they can get. All I can say is lol.... epic lol.

actually quite a bit of good players agrees with this one,tiger withouth aces and buffs it is shitty tank...if you have used one,you'd knew that...

[DarkSoldierX]

actually quite a bit of good players agrees with this one,tiger withouth aces and buffs it is shitty tank...if you have used one,you'd knew that...

And people say the same about pershing, P4, KT, IST, Hummel, ect.

Plus this proposal doesn't just nerf tiger so your objection is inert.

[PonySlaystation]

to say light vehicles generally are to expensive in manpower is just stupid and retarded

an m8 is 280 or 290 MP thats less than 1.5 riflesquads (if considering upgrades you could upgrade one rifle with bar and the m8 with almost everything)
it would be stupid not to get an m8 if you have the fuel left
that thing can rape much more than just 1.5 rifles while being more generalist

then there are light vehicles that may look to expensive (like puma) but thats not because they are to expensive in menpower but more because they are just shit with poor battlefield performance

a gren squad kills often more than a 20mm puma while being cheaper in everything

I think it would make sense if LV were a bit less expensive. Right now if you have the fuel for it you can just buy tanks instead for just 100 manpower more.

Different LV also perform very differently. The Puma and Stuart could use a price a decrease in manpower while the M8 and T17 are fine at their current pricing.

[Demon767]

They are not balanced in the sense that LV and mediums are nowhere near as pop efficient as the heavies.

And you say mediums and heavies "having even less infantry" like they already are low on infantry compared to a LV build which is clearly false shown in my evidence.

And your whole "at end game if LV performed well" objection is inert, If the heavy performed well he'd be in the exact same state.... and with my evidence with more infantry.

Plus it is known that anti-tank LV's arnt performing as well (Hotchkiss 50mm) or they require heavy munitions to work (tetartch) and they still wont be pop efficient.Lol your calling tiger worst axis tank they can get. All I can say is lol.... epic lol.

I'm not saying you shouldn't buy that extra M8. I am not saying LV's should be cheaper in MP, I am saying mediums should be very slightly more costly in MP, and heavies should be significantly more costly in MP.

I'm gonna call into question this guys actual experience with LV spam cuz there is no point in arguing about EIRR strategy with this guy if the only thing we will be doing is arguing the complete opposite of eachother.

[Mister Schmidt]

I'm gonna call into question this guys actual experience with LV spam cuz there is no point in arguing about EIRR strategy with this guy if the only thing we will be doing is arguing the complete opposite of eachother.

Demon...

You do know what an argument is, right?

[Demon767]

I will explain for you

For him to prove his point he must state the exact contrast to my argument, believing that if he has the 'last words' then he will be the winner. What does that give you? it means that it will only turn into mud wrestling, just without the women.

I stated that the builds are balanced, his argument relies on that being incorrect, so he said that.
I stated that the strategy of LV spam is to have more infantry end game, he stated that premise was false.

as you can see, for him to appear right, he must be completely subjective against the points i have put forward, what is there to argue further when all he has done was reiterate his OP however rewording it and putting a quote of me talking?

[Mysthalin]

To be fair demon, as an avid light vehicle spammer I can with quite significant certainty tell you that the point of LVS is not infantry-dominance late-game, but consistent dominance in armour throughout the game. You are meant to zip around the battlefield, focusing on the enemy AT first and foremost so that you eventually wear the enemy down with faster units that are fragile, but can quickly concentrate firepower.


It's not about overrunning the enemy in the end with infantry. You will simply not have enough manpower for that.

[Mister Schmidt]

I will explain for you

For him to prove his point he must state the exact contrast to my argument, believing that if he has the 'last words' then he will be the winner. What does that give you? it means that it will only turn into mud wrestling, just without the women.

I stated that the builds are balanced, his argument relies on that being incorrect, so he said that.
I stated that the strategy of LV spam is to have more infantry end game, he stated that premise was false.

as you can see, for him to appear right, he must be completely subjective against the points i have put forward, what is there to argue further when all he has done was reiterate his OP however rewording it and putting a quote of me talking?

THATS WHAT AN ARGUMENT IS.

[DarkSoldierX]

I will explain for you

For him to prove his point he must state the exact contrast to my argument, believing that if he has the 'last words' then he will be the winner. What does that give you? it means that it will only turn into mud wrestling, just without the women.

I stated that the builds are balanced, his argument relies on that being incorrect, so he said that.
I stated that the strategy of LV spam is to have more infantry end game, he stated that premise was false.

as you can see, for him to appear right, he must be completely subjective against the points i have put forward, what is there to argue further when all he has done was reiterate his OP however rewording it and putting a quote of me talking?

What is one supposed to argue if he cant do that?

That pumpkins are blue and purple?


The thing is, with these numbers I present, they can only be 100% true. If one spends more fuel on many lighter vehicles he DOES have less manpower than one with the few heavy vehicles. It is fact, my numbers don't lie, if you think my math is wrong tell me I can fix it.

Another thing to be taken into consideration is that it is harder to micro the many than to micro the few.