[All] Light Vehicle Metagame

[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

[Smokaz]

Don't pretend you have everyone behind you regarding the t17, Wind.

And the strats have been spam of it, not it being used as part of a bigger force. Edit: as part of a even a diversity of other vehicles, even though this would probably be viable.

Support for it is suicide rifles and atgs, and mb some other variations.

Even if incremental costs might not solve t17, it's not a unit which is OP when its fielded singular on the field. It might overperform for cost, but the "victory builds" favor a lot of it. On this we can agree at least.

[TheWindCriesMary]

Don't pretend you have everyone behind you regarding the t17, Wind.  

I haven't pretended that everyone is behind me nor is that a basis of any part of my argument.

The unit has already been demonstrated to be OP. People don't need to be behind that. Like I said above, public opinion or awareness has very little value in determining if a unit is OP or not. It can sometimes be a clue, but it is not a requisite.

And the strats have been spam of it, not it being used as part of a bigger force. Edit: as part of a even a diversity of other vehicles, even though this would probably be viable.

This is also not accurate. Likely (but not necessarily) because you haven't been active enough in the current metagame and therefore have not likely been exposed to the brilliant combo T17s + greyhounds or t17s+wolverines make. Or how effective even 1-3 T17s can be in a company for their cost, contributions and capabilities. Again, though, this does not preclude the unit being overpowered. What makes it overpowered is it's incredible versatility on top of being able to cap. You can literally stack up all its capabilities with that bottom T4 and prevent any solid argument that it is balanced.

Even if incremental costs might not solve t17, it's not a unit which is OP when its fielded singular on the field. It might overperform for cost, but the "victory builds" favor a lot of it. On this we can agree at least.

Incremental costs is not the solution I proposed. It would be strange if it was as increasing or lowering the cost of units is, in my opinion (one voiced multiple times here on this forum) the worst way to balance. It's not a solve.

[PonySlaystation]

T17 - Not a problem unless it is spammed. Nerfing or changing it would be over nerfing it for a player that only uses 1 or 2

Panzerschrecks in PE halftracks - Not a problem unless it is spammed. Nerfing or changing it would be over nerfing it for a player that only uses 1 or 2

Eh no, 1 or 2 is just as powerful, just for a shorter duration of the game. Both are very pop effective and extremely deadly units.

[Smokaz]

Are you guys saying that axis dont have good enough AT counters vs t17s?

[TheWindCriesMary]

Are you guys saying that axis dont have good enough AT counters vs t17s?

No. Making other units stronger to compensate for one unit being too good is changing a whole room's wallpaper to suit the ugly cupboards instead of just fixing the damn cupboards.

Axis at capabilities are fine. What isn't fine is a super cheap, super effective unit that is way too effective at way too many roles. (hold territory, harass flanks, decimate enemy inf, clear out support weapons, scout, cap territory, roam backfield, hunt cappers, fight lv's effectively  etc).

 Even just mitigating or removing some of these capabilities slightly would help. For ~100 fuel, ~100 muni and 300ish MP it's too much to have that much speed, dodge, firepower AND capping AND repairing 2x on the move.

There is no sound reason for this unit to possess all these capabilities.

[XIIcorps]

You realise 50mm pumas rape t17s.

And shreck hits put them near enough half hp.

[aeroblade56]

A single T17 will out perform a fully upgraded sherman any day of the week without a problem.

[TheWindCriesMary]

You realise 50mm pumas rape t17s.

And shreck hits put them near enough half hp.

The Puma 50mm is a dedicated light vehicle/light armour hunter. It performs that role marginally well. It isn't terribly succesful at much else. The t17, on the other hand, has a multitude of roles that it performs extremely well.

One unit consistently, even in only semi skilled hands, earns far beyond its cost and far beyond the consistent performance of units many times more expensive than it. The other, only sometimes earns its costs (as it is balanced).

If you want to know which is which, here's an experiment:

Document the kills of all the 50mm pumas you see in the next 5 games you play where they are present. Then document the same metric for each of the T17s you see in your next 5 games where they are present.

You won't be able to document the in-game contribution beyond this metric (which the T17 would vastly over achieve any way with its capping abilities and abillities to remove AT or suppressions assets to allow other units to reap major kills (shermans, pershings etc.) but you'll get a clear picture of what the difference is all the same.

I'm willing to bet a great deal the results will be eye opening for you.

[TheWindCriesMary]

A single T17 will out perform a fully upgraded sherman any day of the week without a problem.

This strikes to the heart of the problem. I challenge anyone in this thread who is trying to argue that the T17 isn't currently far too effective to run this comparison for themselves 5-10 times  in the current metagame and come back with the same level of conviction they're showing here that the T17 is fine.

[XIIcorps]

The only thing making them out perfom is the ability to cap.
This makes fielding infantry redundant.

[TheWindCriesMary]

The only thing making them out perfom is the ability to cap.
This makes fielding infantry redundant.

Incorrect. That aggravates their inbalance and contributes significantly, but is not the cause.

What makes them outperform is that they can effortlessly, in even moderately skilled hands, accrue an ingame contribution far exceeding what is reasonable and logical for their cost, their role and their intended level.

They are too fast, far too effective at dodging, far too devastating to infantry and far too useful at the moment compared to their equivalents that have the same intended role both within the allied side and beyond.

[tank130]

T17 is absolutely fine in it's current state. If you feel some doctrine buffs are putting it over the top, then that is a doctrine imbalance, not a unit imbalance.

Wind, you also stated "the current meta game" which clearly involves the removal of pool. As you specifically stated yourself, in a small community it may take time for a problem to become noticeable. We are just now seeing the problem with unlimited pool.

There have been a lot of positive things to come out of having no form of pool in the mod: limitless potential for creativity and innovation, new and interesting strats, unexpected combinations and a greater level of personal flair in making companies.

But one thing this has also highlighted is the power of light vehicles to, in the right circumstances, dominate the metagame.

As anyone who has seen (or been) an experienced player using LVs in large numbers can tell you (flammens, AC's, T17s, hotches, Greyhounds) these units have the very real potential to earn drastically more than their cost in games when used in overwhelming numbers. As an EiR engagement is typically a delicate balancing act between not what you have in your company, but how adaptable what you have on the field is to changing circumstances and waves of enemy units (you may wipe out an opponents all tank core with a pure AT call in only to find his second wave is pure anti-inf as an example).

You also suggested an incremental cost for multiple uses of the same unit.

- Scale price based on amount of a specific unit (your 8th AC costs more than your 4th)

A combination of doctrine buffs and the ability to field way too many in a company has raised an issue.

It appears now you are changing direction and making this an issue about the unit balance of the T17 specifically. If that is your point, then perhaps a new thread is in order?

[CrazyWR]

Yeah I did like 16 AC's the other day on top of 8 dual shrek clown cars, all with reduced inc. damage, speed, overdrive cooldown AND trip moving repairs.


That is too much evil for any one man to possess.  Same with dem flammens

you realize this is all countered by a jumbo, a ranger blob, or a pershing right?  Sorry but building a gimmick company like that does not mean it is unbeatable, simply that it will beat unprepared companies.  Brits with button or churchills will dominate you as well.  Light vehicle companies take advantage of hit and run tactics, as long as you don't have to chase them, you should have plenty of success. 

T17s were fine until they got changed by Myst.  He switched them to more of a magazine type gun instead of the old system with constantly fire/reload/fire/reload. Now it is fire/fire/fire/fire/reload/reload/reload...and in the reload time, you just drive off, after machine gunning something.  Simply reverting that change will go a long way towards balancing t17s. 

Scaling of costs, which was mentioned earlier in this thread as well, is not the right idea.  It effectively returns pools, since you cannot have a lot of one unit if that is what you choose to base your company around.  If I was airborne and wanted 30 airborne squads to drop in all over the map to harass, I should be able to do that.  If you have scaling costs, I'm likely to only get 18 or 20 for the same amount of MP.  That is silly. 

Simply because people only bring one counter to a certain type of unit and then get overrun once they run out does not mean the unit should be nerfed. It means people should build companies that are able to handle at least a little bit more than they are used to in the past.  If I built a company with 5 snipers, and my enemy had 1 callin of 3 bikes, which then kills one sniper, but dies, at which point he cannot effectively counter my snipers, should we nerf snipers?  No, we should realize I put a huge investment in one unit, and it paid off.  Against another person who has 2 snipers of their own, plus 4-6 bikes, my company will be in deep trouble without a lot of luck, and I'll be playing down 1000 munitions. 

[TheWindCriesMary]

you realize this is all countered by a jumbo, a ranger blob, or a pershing right?

I don't realize that because it's not right. 5 AC's will beat a ranger blob with their super speed and reduced inc. damage every time. How? Engage at max range (beneficial to AC's with their low scatter cannon rounds), kill a few rangers and then kite. This is VERY effective with a super fast, good range unit like ACs. Add on to that their reduced overdrive cooldown, tripple repairs with the TH t4 (on the move) and the significant reduced damage they take from handheld with the TH t3 and you're laughing. You're also forcing the ranger blob to have to stay together which means a ton of resources are stuck in a slow, plodding blob vulnerable to arty and unable to cap effectively. Meanwhile the ACs can roam around choosing their battles every time and effortlessly whizzing away when trouble approaches.

As for Jumbo's or pershings, give me 2 dual shrek clown cars with trip moving repairs and reduced damage from tanks (again, same T3) versus one of these any day. A decently skilled user will make a mockery of them.

 Sorry but building a gimmick company like that does not mean it is unbeatable, simply that it will beat unprepared companies.  Brits with button or churchills will dominate you as well.

Button isn't in the current metagame. You should play Brits more to get a feel for where they're at.

The real counter you should have mentioned is Boys AT rifles. They are effective vs AC's but not in the numbers we're talking here as then you have almost all your pop taken up by a slow moving, poor AI unit while AC's zip around to vulnerable areas of the map and wreak havoc at will.

T17s were fine until they got changed by Myst.  He switched them to more of a magazine type gun instead of the old system with constantly fire/reload/fire/reload. Now it is fire/fire/fire/fire/reload/reload/reload...and in the reload time, you just drive off, after machine gunning something.  Simply reverting that change will go a long way towards balancing t17s.  

I agree with you on this. They fire far too frequently inbetween reloads and this is contributing to their current level of overpoweredness. That's not to say this has to be changed, but it wouldn't be a bad starting point at all.

Scaling of costs, which was mentioned earlier in this thread as well, is not the right idea.  It effectively returns pools, since you cannot have a lot of one unit if that is what you choose to base your company around.

This isn't actually true. The whole point is you CAN have a lot of the unit, it will just be more expensive to do so. Obviously this wouldn't need to be implemented for infantry, but for LV's and heavy tanks and other specialized units it is certainly a possibile good step.

Simply because people only bring one counter to a certain type of unit and then get overrun once they run out does not mean the unit should be nerfed.

You're right, but that's not what is being advocated. Some units are yielded far too efficient performance in the current meta. I agree that no pool on the whole has more pros than cons, but that doesn't mean any and all cons should never be adjusted as needed. LV dominance at the moment doesn't need some massive knee jerk reaction. But It would be beneficial to start finding small, useful increments to adjust to restore balance in some meaningful way.

[AmPM]

In regards to increasing costs based on amount of a single unit, why not have it apply to infantry? Why should a LV or Armored company be hit harder than a company based around infantry spam by new build restrictions?

[TheWindCriesMary]

It's a fair question. I would say at this point I'm not tied to the idea of making units cost more as more are included in an army, though it is one potential solution I think is useful to add to the brainstorm. The reason being in the first few lines of the original post in this thread: the benefits of having no pool do and have proven to outweigh the cons of having pool.

With that being said, there are a few extremes (T17s as the prime example) where a unit that is too cost effective as it is can have its inbalance compounded by having so many in a company.

Perhaps the easiest solution is simply to adjust the units individually.

[Smokaz]

Tank and wind, don't flame each other. Stay on target (t17, pool). If it continues I will lock it again.

[TheWindCriesMary]

Thanks Smokaz, will do.


@Crazy: You're a supporter of no pool (and I am too) and you make a good point about scaling costs potentially being the same devil in a different cloak. Are there any solutions you think that address the problem of 23 AC's or 30 flammens and how that can be almost impossible to prepare for?

[XIIcorps]

Thanks Smokaz, will do.


@Crazy: You're a supporter of no pool (and I am too) and you make a good point about scaling costs potentially being the same devil in a different cloak. Are there any solutions you think that address the problem of 23 AC's or 30 flammens and how that can be almost impossible to prepare for?

They are exclusively AI units so wouldnt a vehicle or tank based AT unit be a viable counter ?

Not to mention Armor doctrine being the only one whose LVs being the ones who can capture.

[Hicks58]

Sounds like either the pop or price of LV's need to go up.