ATG prices and other subjects

[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]

So last night a bunch of us had a discussion on the state of EIR and came to an agreement that certain things could use some tweaking.  Hopefully this will get things moving on that, and this thread won't get derailed.

1) ATG spam is getting ridiculous.  I am one of the biggest offenders.  But with the lack of an AB doctrine and the new reward points meaning more cool tanks, it seems every allied company is running at least 4 ATGs if not 5 or 6.  In old EIR, with 10000 MP and more of the other resources besides, it was common even then to only run 3.  The fact everyone has 4+ now leads me to suggest a price hike for ATGs, perhaps to 140 muni.  Obviously this would have to be mirrored in the prices of other at options for other factions.  The 17pdr is already 160 muni, so if we matched up other atgs to that, it would be reasonable I think.

2) G43s are breaking gameplay, especially when combined with the PE mgs some idiot gave them.  The new vcoh patch changed g43 suppression to be instantaneous.  This does not work in EIR gameplay, where there is no HQ to retreat to.  A suppressed squad generally is a finished squad.  Not always, but as a general rule.  The g43 suppression needs to be fixed to something else.  And PE needs the mgs removed.  It already has a ton of amazing AI choices, giving them an MG makes them hilariously OP.  TH doctrine is just fine without one somehow, but SE and Luft apparently need one?  Doubtful.  But the main issue is fixing the g43s.

3) Tigers, Pershings, and the lack of medium armor.  It was suggested during the discussions that limiting the Tigers and Pershings to just one would help encourage people to use more medium armor again.  These days, its very rare to see Shermans or P4s.  Lots of people are running tank destroyer spam or dual heavies, or 3 panthers, but almost nobody is using p4s or shermans.  Something should be done to bring those units back.  Tank destroyers need a price increase too I think, and that might lead to more medium tanks.  I don't know.

4) Fix doctrines.  Too many doctrines these days in EIR try to allow people to be good at everything.  They used to be specialized.  These days, instead of the old carbines t4 that buffed riflemen, you get a t4 that buffs Shermans.  In Infantry Doctrine.  Thats absurd.  There is a TH t4 that buffs 8 different things.  Again, ridiculous.  I know making doctrines isn't easy, but surely we can do better than this.  Infantry and Defensive doctrine should buff infantry, TH doctrine and Armor and Blitz should buff vehicles and so on. 

I think fixing these things would go a long way to making EIR a better mod.  But I'm sure plenty will disagree with me.  Feel free to post your thoughts.

[Katusha]

agreed ATG spam (especially with riflespam) is just dumb, and that in my opinion causes the lack of medium tanks, since literally nowadays maps are just covered with atgs, they are too abundant, and too effective for their price

I feel like luft MG should stay, but SE 4-man MG seems so random and doesn't even fit with the doctrine. At least the ambush MG fits in luft

[PonySlaystation]

1: AT Guns are not really hard to counter. One dead ATG is a lot of resources already, it does not need to be increased. If someone has more than one ATG on then that can be a big disadvantage for that guy if you just bring on some infantry. It's not really "spam ATGs and win" it requires skill, micro and planning to use them effectively, they are one of the base units in EIR. Making them less common would just be gay, there would be no real hard-counters to tanks.

3: I see medium tanks all the time. Maybe we should limit medium tanks so we can see more heavies on the field?

[skaffa]

If you want new doctrines, the only way they will ever come is if you put up some drafts yourself, they will not just show up out of nowhere.

Limiting heavies is bad, like in vcoh, many people dislike it and want it back, fighting 2 tigers is pretty annoying but its also fun for many people.

[BigDick]

i agree to atgs they are way to cheap

but i disagree to suppression options PE get

the metagame changed that many running rangers and PE can't hold any territory without infantry/mg based suppression against such kind of companies

the scoutcar upgrade is maybe a nice idea but will be completely raped by ATGs and infantry based AT

and i disagree about suppressed squad is dead squad...you probably mixed that with pinned squad of bar suppression where squad neither can fire back nor move

[Mysthalin]

Meh, double heavies is alright IMO. The problem is the fact the heavies themselves are way too cheap in manpower and munitions, which allows you to field RIDICULOUS ammounts of support for them.

I mean, I remember my last double pershing company. It had more riflemen and ATGs than my actual infantry company, because that one had to make use of shermans and M10s for tank-based goodies.


Agreed about ATGs as well, to be fair. They're ridiculously cheap - especially compared to, say, RRs or panzershreks.

[RikiRude]

there are tons of atgs because we face so much heavy armor.

just TRY to get players to agree to just one pershing or tiger! raise FU price so it makes players really consider getting two heavies, also, increase their repair price.

that will make people want more mediums, and in turn maybe seeing more mediums means less atgs.

also, give that P4 some luff!

also i always see PE with P4s and US with sherms, but not CW with croms, i think if anything its a lack of P4s you see.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

I've had a few run-ins with G43 suppression and I can say I was not amused. It took a whole 0.5 seconds to all but kill my Rangers. It's like an I-win button for infantry engagements. It might be alright if you reduced the amount of suppression so that it's not instantaneous.

[PonySlaystation]

Meh, double heavies is alright IMO. The problem is the fact the heavies themselves are way too cheap in manpower and munitions, which allows you to field RIDICULOUS ammounts of support for them.

I mean, I remember my last double pershing company. It had more riflemen and ATGs than my actual infantry company, because that one had to make use of shermans and M10s for tank-based goodies.

I agree, same thing with my armor coy.

Agreed about ATGs as well, to be fair. They're ridiculously cheap - especially compared to, say, RRs or panzershreks.

Then the problem lies in the RR and Shreck price not the ATGs. ATGs are perfectly balanced.

[RikiRude]

Meh, double heavies is alright IMO. The problem is the fact the heavies themselves are way too cheap in manpower and munitions, which allows you to field RIDICULOUS ammounts of support for them.

I mean, I remember my last double pershing company. It had more riflemen and ATGs than my actual infantry company, because that one had to make use of shermans and M10s for tank-based goodies.


Agreed about ATGs as well, to be fair. They're ridiculously cheap - especially compared to, say, RRs or panzershreks.

good points. same here. 2x pershings and a calli, loads up upgraded rifles and atgs. i won every game i played with that company, it got boring incredibly quick.

pak is 120 mu, same mu as schreck, seems off.

[Unkn0wn]

Ironically 1 and 3 are interlinked. People spam ATGs because everyone runs heavies and everyone runs heavies because everyone spams ATGs. Mind you, US 'spamming' ATGs (4 - 5 in company) is nothing new, and is quite 'normal' by all standards because its the backbone of any US company. (Due to the absence of general infantry AT). What IS new is that Axis too have resorted to similar tactics, relying more on Paks/Marders & 50mm HTs than on panzerschrecks for general duty AT. It has to do more with metagame than it has to do with balance.

In regards to 2. We are well aware of this issue, G43 suppression is indeed pretty broken for EIR gameplay and we will probably be 'reworking' it in the next patch so it fits in better with the other suppression platforms. (Quite frankly I don't know what Relic was smoking when they made G43s instasuppress and completely disregard the effects of smoke and cover)

As for 4. The general design of these doctrines is exactly that they are no longer supposed to be focussed on just one or two units. I.e it's unacceptable for a doctrine like Luftwaffe to just buff fallschirmjaegers for example. Hence why a wider variety of units gets buffed, though there's still supposed to be a 'theme' and 'specialisation' to it.  I'll acknowledge though that some of the doctrines take this a little too far, either by buffing too many different units on an insignificant level or by what appears to be 'randomly buffing' a select amount of units without any general idea behind it. We'll be addressing some of these things once we're done implementing the remaining doctrines, so you can definitely expect some changes to happen in most doctrines. It's important that we keep in mind that they're not finalised.

[RikiRude]

I agree, same thing with my armor coy.

Then the problem lies in the RR and Shreck price not the ATGs. ATGs are perfectly balanced.

you can't make them any cheaper though, that would be crazy! so yeah atg price would need to be upped if anything.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

I wholeheartedly agree that man-portable AT is overpriced for it's current effectiveness.

[PonySlaystation]

you can't make them any cheaper though, that would be crazy! so yeah atg price would need to be upped if anything.

Of course you can make them cheaper, if it's only a very small change then it won't affect the balance. Handheld AT are generally not strong enough to be able to stand on their own and are supposed to be used in conjunction with ATGs.

[Unkn0wn]

Of course you can make them cheaper, if it's only a very small change then it won't affect the balance. Handheld AT are generally not strong enough to be able to stand on their own and are supposed to be used in conjunction with ATGs.

Cheap infantry AT easily becomes a problem of its own when players start fielding it en masse in blobs. Though I personally much rather fight blobs of schrecks over walls of PAKs.

It's possibly a little bit of both, I think the AT & infantry AT prices need to be differentiated a little more. It's quite remarkable that schrecks are at the same price as pak38s when I don't think anyone in their right mind would pick a schreck as his 'backbone AT' over something as solid (and recrewable) as a PAK.

[PonySlaystation]

Cheap infantry AT easily becomes a problem of its own when players start fielding it en masse in blobs. Though I personally much rather fight blobs of schrecks any day over walls of PAKs.

It's possible a little bit of both, I think the AT & infantry AT prices need to be differentiated a little more. It's quite remarkable that schrecks are at the same price as pak38s when I don't think anyone in their right mind would pick a schreck as his 'backbone AT' over something as sold (and recrewable) as a PAK.

Well if all the grenadiers have shrecks then they will have reduced anti-infantry effectiveness and if they're not supported by paks they can still be kited by vehicles.

[RoyalHants]

2 of those problems are interlocking

atg spam and heavies

when facing heavies you NEED more atgs because you bound to get rushed or storm shrecked while with p4s you atgs survive longer

[Poppi]

Meh, double heavies is alright IMO. The problem is the fact the heavies themselves are way too cheap in manpower and munitions, which allows you to field RIDICULOUS ammounts of support for them.

I mean, I remember my last double pershing company. It had more riflemen and ATGs than my actual infantry company, because that one had to make use of shermans and M10s for tank-based goodies.


Agreed about ATGs as well, to be fair. They're ridiculously cheap - especially compared to, say, RRs or panzershreks.

ya i posted about this too.
When i create an infantry company mostly inf with bars and stickies and ATG. But create an armor company i get Pershings, Calli, and HVAP m10s. And pretty much the same amount of inf w/bars and stickies and ATG as my inf doc does.

ATG and price
I make an inf company. Rangers & inf for AI and ATG and m10s is really all there is for AT. So to hike up ATG price??? then your starting to take away MP and MU which is vital for inf doc leaving the doc pretty useless. Considering how easy it is for heavy tank to roll right over or for faster vehicles to go around an ATG i dont see a problem with them. Maybe take away MU and add the cost of Fuel? Unless you want to make m10s cheaper or more powerful, ya i GOT to bring 5 ATGs to the field.

And when if axis are vsing a defensive line all they need to do is combo shrek with heavies. Shreks can take out ATG or AT vehicles or AI vehicles(since US has no strong AI vehicle with splash to stop them) and heavies can follow or lead and take out tanks AND infantry and MG placements. And if heavy gets taken out there is tons of upgraded inf in the company left.

the doc thing about original poster was complaining about. Yes and no. Maybe he is just doesnt like the way things are grouped or maybe the way docs are handled?
Like how will you feel if inf doc got a m10/m18 buff... but in the T4 tank reapers? That would make sense. Or should inf doc just be about inf? If thats the case they need better means of defending themselves against armor and blobs of inf. Which as is an armor company does both better anyways. Until zooks pose a problem to vehicles that approach them (like how a faust or shrek does), inf is easily killed off.

[Malgoroth]

I don't use shrecks for the simple fact that the platform they're on sucks balls against vehicles. Why pay 120 munis for a shreck on a 4 man gren squad that gets curb stomped because they have neither the speed, nor the armor (skin and cloth doesn't protect them from fucking troll explosions all that well) to survive an engagement with, say, a sherman. They can't catch kiting vehicles (they'd be stupid to chase) and they suffer attrition much to rapidly being only 4 guys. The only platform shrecks are half decent on is storms/falls (with cloak they can get close so the shit accuracy of the shreck wont jew you), and tankbusters in a HT (speed enough to get close, and added armor so they wont get blown to fucking tiny ass pieces in the blink of an eye). But shrecks on grens?? The only time that was ever feasible was when pervitin pills gave grenadiers sprint so they could close distance quickly. So much for that though. People whined like women and now it's gone.
Buy a god damn pak and save yourself the headache. That 120 munitions will pay itself back in consistent damage because it'll at least regularly hit something, unlike the hand-held counterpart that will annihilate every bit of the map from trees and fences to little fucking pebbles on the ground between it and its target before it ever hits what your shooting at.

GOD I hate panzerschrecks.  

Thus... why you see more ATGs from the axis.

As for the allies... Why not spam 5 AT guns? Infantry upgrades are cheap as shit, so it's not like you'd be losing anything. 80 munis for BARs with taint rippingly brutal DPS AND the ability to suppress multiple squads at once?? Why the hell not!? G43s can suppress A squad. BARs? Like 3. At once. They lol at axis bravery. Shit, my LMG 42s are 70 munis and unless they're in cover and someone is dumb enough to charge it while it's stationary they mostly just get killed. That also means no MGs. Why get an MG when 80 munis on a rifle squad turns it into a more mobile, more damaging 6 man MG team on roids? Axis NEED to pay the munitions for MGs... and mortars too for that matter. Allied mortars? Why bother? Infantry gets the howie. Armor gets the Cally (Airborne gets a ticket to hell because airborne players have no soul), and those things cost fuel. SUPER mortars basically. So, they aren't spending the extra manpower or munis on mortars/mgs which leaves manpower and munis aplenty for ATGs and riflemen. Endless hordes of riflemen. Lose an ATG? Recrew it. You think I'ma bring medium tanks on the field against a maginot line of ATGs/stickies/arty and whatever other hellish nightmares the allies have lined up for me? You must be out of yo god damned mind. At least heavies can take a hit or two and not be totally fucked unlike the hapless P4.

Wanna fix it? All on map arty pieces need to have a muni cost associated with them. Callies/25s/105s/whatever. Even offmaps. Make it to where getting the artillery isn't as "duh" as it is now and make it something the players will actually have to make sacrifices for. Make the cally also cost (ballpark) 200 munis. That's 2 BARs and a salvo of AP rounds. That's a couple of stickies, That's an ATG and a couple of nades. Or just a plain fuckton of grenades. I'd feel that shit. Picking the arty would be something I had to think about rather than "LOL I GOTZ THE FUEL OK!!!"
The shreck... price decrease. 90 munis for grenadiers. 100 on tank busters. That way it'll actually fit into the only job it's HALF DECENT at fulfilling - which is cover the flanks of tanks and ATGs. Look at the only alternative for wehr... Volks. 50 munis and less manpower and they do the same damn job. AND in a pinch, they can recrew 2 support weapons. Shreck grens can't recrew anything. You spent 120 fucking munitions on that squad. Fuck recrewing an MG. That's a fucking 120 munition MG! That's not even including the cost of a health pack, which if you don't have one on every single gren squad then your doing something painfully wrong. ..or your defensive. But whatever.

/rant.

[WildZontar]

Coming from my view, I can see as to why Americans spam ATGs,  that's pretty much the only hard counter (Besides HVAP/Non-HVAP pershing) to Axis armor.

Zooks don't work well enough to be effective consistently on medium tanks.
AB doctrine hasn't been included all that much, but their RR's are still decent.
AT Rifles from Armor are only decent against LV's and rear armor of medium tanks.


Plus, Allied vehicles are more meant for Anti-Infantry roles than AT roles. [ IE: Sherman, there is no way in hell I would use a Sherman to fight off a P4, it's a losing battle that will slowly drag out] <--- HERP DERP IGNORE THAT, I've been proven wrong, or told the correctly information.  M10 is the only tank that could really take on an Axis tank, but the problems remains with it's weak armor that almost every Axis vehicle will penetrate. Hellcat would work, but it has lesser penetration to make up for it's heavier armor and cloaking ability, yet how many Hellcats have you seen in the past few games?


I also would like to note I hadn't read a single post besides the very first one, so I'm probably way off topic from whatever agreement you guys are trying to discuss.