Age of Strategy Forums

I propose the following.

• All tankettes are reduced by 1. All medium tanks reduce cost by 1. All heavy tanks reduce cost by 2. All super heavy tanks reduce cost by 3.
  
  For light tanks that are not tankettes, keep at 2 cost if it costs 2. If it costs 3 turns, reduce to two.
  
  Individual Exceptions apply.

The proposed cost reduction of tanks aims to
- Speed the production of unit e.g. the rate of units in field at a time.
- Reduce infantry's overall effectiveness on field.
- Streamline tank "mass production" economy

Persuasive Text:

The role of tanks ingame is hindered by the cheap cost of infantry which are more versatile and useful. Mass army battles with tanks can be more fun by increasing the quantity of tanks on field.

By reducing light tanks cost by 1, tankettes (costing 1) are now free to roam early game. Infantry will require fortifications, artillery, air or armour to cover them.

This cost ratio of tankettes to infantry mean that infantry will not be as effective early game.

However, due to the reduction of medium tank cost as well, medium tanks will be more common faster and earlier.

As more medium tanks enter the battlefield, the effectiveness of "spamming" of light tanks will decrease especially as infantry slowly transition from playing a support role to becoming a large force to be reckon with.

The introduction of medium tanks means that heavy tanks too have a role in the battlefield, thanks to the train update.

See Vehicles are too expensive!!! for ideas on how to balance other ground units that may need their prices adjusted if this idea goes ahead.


Disclaimer:

Due to the reduction of tank costs, I suggest reducing all light tank (not tankette), tank destroyer and medium tank damage by 1/4. Reduce infantry bonus by 10-15%.

TntAttack wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 3:52 am I propose the following.

• All tankettes are reduced by 1. All medium tanks reduce cost by 1. All heavy tanks reduce cost by 2. All super heavy tanks reduce cost by 3.
  
  For light tanks that are not tankettes, keep at 2 cost if it costs 2. If it costs 3 turns, reduce to two.
  
  Individual Exceptions apply.

The proposed cost reduction of tanks aims to
- Speed the production of unit e.g. the rate of units in field at a time.
- Reduce infantry's overall effectiveness on field.
- Streamline tank "mass production" economy

Persuasive Text:

The role of tanks ingame is hindered by the cheap cost of infantry which are more versatile and useful. Mass army battles with tanks can be more fun by increasing the quantity of tanks on field.

By reducing light tanks cost by 1, tankettes (costing 1) are now free to roam early game. Infantry will require fortifications, artillery, air or armour to cover them.

This cost ratio of tankettes to infantry mean that infantry will not be as effective early game.

However, due to the reduction of medium tank cost as well, medium tanks will be more common faster and earlier.

As more medium tanks enter the battlefield, the effectiveness of "spamming" of light tanks will decrease especially as infantry slowly transition from playing a support role to becoming a large force to be reckon with.

The introduction of medium tanks means that heavy tanks too have a role in the battlefield, thanks to the train update.

See Vehicles are too expensive!!! for ideas on how to balance other ground units that may need their prices adjusted if this idea goes ahead.


Disclaimer:

Due to the reduction of tank costs, I suggest reducing all light tank (not tankette), tank destroyer and medium tank damage by 1/4. Reduce infantry bonus by 10-15%.

stratego once said that there should be no units that only cost 1.

Tanks such as the Tiger I, Tiger II or the Panzer E are then all the same price.
I would find that very difficult.


Your wish to bring tanks more into the game is also very close to me.

Therefore my question would rather be that the infantry's ability to use tank grenades is nerfed.

With the train update, I would prefer that heavy and very heavy tanks can only be loaded and unloaded in cities or factories and not just from anywhere.

Jasondunkel wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 4:14 pm stratego once said that there should be no units that only cost 1.

Tanks such as the Tiger I, Tiger II or the Panzer E are then all the same price.
I would find that very difficult.


Your wish to bring tanks more into the game is also very close to me.

Therefore my question would rather be that the infantry's ability to use tank grenades is nerfed.

With the train update, I would prefer that heavy and very heavy tanks can only be loaded and unloaded in cities or factories and not just from anywhere.

Tiger I could cost 5. Note that Tiger I requires Heavy Tank Construction Tech , Tiger I E requires To Tiger I E Tech, Tiger II requires Super Heavy Tank Tech.

Basically, their costs are the same or similar E.g.
Tiger I cost 5
Tiger IE cost 5
Tiger II costs 6
But the difference is that they require research beforehand. The "research" aspect of can be our method of balancing the effectiveness of these heavy tanks from being immediately buildable.

Something I forgot to mention in the first post. Another factor we have to take into consideration is heavy tank's speed. In AoMW, heavy tanks have average 5 speed, plus more on roads. The average speed of medium tanks in AoWw is 4.

Heavy tanks in AoWw
- Too slow for actual combat
- Vulnerable to bombers
- Requires Tech Research
- Cheaper 3 turn anti tank medium tanks available

I envision heavy tanks to be powerful, slower, but greater at defending. Medium and lighter tanks will have the advantage of numbers.

Players will find it easier to enmass lighter and medium tanks, but if they are not careful, they might encounter heavy tanks.

Some other balancing with other units like vehicles, artillery and anti tank infantry is required for this to work.

As for only nerfing infantry I am not too keen. Nerfing infantry would promote some more medium tank usage, but heavy tanks are still going to be undesired.

If anything, let's research on how to increase anti tank and bazooka infantry usage, decrease SMGs role as anti tank.

@DreJaDe said no tank cost reduction is good (if i understood right), please discuss together.

TntAttack wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 2:14 am

Jasondunkel wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 4:14 pm stratego once said that there should be no units that only cost 1.

Tanks such as the Tiger I, Tiger II or the Panzer E are then all the same price.
I would find that very difficult.


Your wish to bring tanks more into the game is also very close to me.

Therefore my question would rather be that the infantry's ability to use tank grenades is nerfed.

With the train update, I would prefer that heavy and very heavy tanks can only be loaded and unloaded in cities or factories and not just from anywhere.

Tiger I could cost 5. Note that Tiger I requires Heavy Tank Construction Tech , Tiger I E requires To Tiger I E Tech, Tiger II requires Super Heavy Tank Tech.

Basically, their costs are the same or similar E.g.
Tiger I cost 5
Tiger IE cost 5
Tiger II costs 6
But the difference is that they require research beforehand. The "research" aspect of can be our method of balancing the effectiveness of these heavy tanks from being immediately buildable.

Something I forgot to mention in the first post. Another factor we have to take into consideration is heavy tank's speed. In AoMW, heavy tanks have average 5 speed, plus more on roads. The average speed of medium tanks in AoWw is 4.

Heavy tanks in AoWw
- Too slow for actual combat
- Vulnerable to bombers
- Requires Tech Research
- Cheaper 3 turn anti tank medium tanks available

I envision heavy tanks to be powerful, slower, but greater at defending. Medium and lighter tanks will have the advantage of numbers.

Players will find it easier to enmass lighter and medium tanks, but if they are not careful, they might encounter heavy tanks.

Some other balancing with other units like vehicles, artillery and anti tank infantry is required for this to work.

As for only nerfing infantry I am not too keen. Nerfing infantry would promote some more medium tank usage, but heavy tanks are still going to be undesired.

If anything, let's research on how to increase anti tank and bazooka infantry usage, decrease SMGs role as anti tank.

Like I said, I understand your approach. The fact that we have to research things makes things more difficult and is intended that way. But the tanks in this class would be something very cheap.

Heavy tanks should cost 6 rounds, but the tanks that cost more than 8 rounds could be made 1 cheaper and research could also be made one round cheaper each.

I don't like the power of the SMG grenade. I also think it's a bit too high. nerf something there.

We should definitely work on bazooka and co. Since there has been constant research on the guarantees, these guarantees can then be given more power via a short-term update and with the change.

But here I wouldn't want to include the anti-tank rifle, which is simply bad.

Heavy tanks were always slow. there's no way around it. Their heavy armor means they have a longer chance of survival. but they can only fight better to a limited extent.

What we can do in this context is to lower the bonus of the tank destroyer tanks slightly, especially compared to the heavy and very heavy tanks.

Jasondunkel wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 4:14 pm
Like I said, I understand your approach. The fact that we have to research things makes things more difficult and is intended that way. But the tanks in this class would be something very cheap.

Heavy tanks should cost 6 rounds, but the tanks that cost more than 8 rounds could be made 1 cheaper and research could also be made one round cheaper each.

I don't like the power of the SMG grenade. I also think it's a bit too high. nerf something there.

We should definitely work on bazooka and co. Since there has been constant research on the guarantees, these guarantees can then be given more power via a short-term update and with the change.

But here I wouldn't want to include the anti-tank rifle, which is simply bad.

Heavy tanks were always slow. there's no way around it. Their heavy armor means they have a longer chance of survival. but they can only fight better to a limited extent.

What we can do in this context is to lower the bonus of the tank destroyer tanks slightly, especially compared to the heavy and very heavy tanks.

A lot has changed from last tine I replied. A lot of discussion on discord, please go on discord.

I think I had a misconception about tanks in general. In the larger maps, the number of Max industry increases, and mass production of tanks becomes more worth their value.

In smaller maps, infantry spam is have the advantage, with the climax of the games ending before industry 3 (the industry where tanks are the strongest).

Tanks are going to be progressively better. The costs should not raise to reflect how advance the tank is from industry 1.
- Tanks behind research barriers should not be more expensive than similarly classed weaker tanks not locked under research.
We should reward player for researching such advance tank by making it cheaper than usual, not expensive to build and use.
Example.
Perishing tank under heavy tank research. But when researched, should around that same as Sherman Jumbo despite Perishing tank stronger and more advance than Sherman Jumbo.

I also went through almost every tank ingame for all fractions, suggesting a changed cost in discord but dev and Drejade disagreed.

Although I have moved on from absolutely "reducing all tank costs", the points I have raised I think still have merit.

1. Light Tanks (2-3 tanks)

For light tanks their current cost is between 2-3. This range is too small to properly attribute each tank's worth. The weakest of tanks e.g.Tankettes cost 2 which isn't fair considering there are better tanks worth 2 as well. Some light tanks that cost 3 have a very light stat increase from available 2 turn tanks which is also a unbalanced.

2. Heavy tanks (5+)

All tanks beyond 5 cost tend to jump decently in stats, but it vary from fraction. Also, these tanks tend to be over stat, slow and behind tech and industry. Simplified summary, doesn't mention about tank classes but the point is to highlight to disparity between cost and stats. Ideally the cost should be more proportional to tank stats, right?

The following is a revised tank cost balancing from discord, 2nd edition.

H=high imbalance, M=medium imbalance, L=low imbalance.

Italy:
- Rossini CV.3 light tank shouldn't cost 3 turns. It has a puny 9 hp and 5 base damage. Proposed to make cost 1. H
- Semovente da 47/32 AT Cost 3->1 cost, suggest 1->2 range as its self propelled artillery as well. M
- Semovente da 90/53 AT suggested 1->3 range as its a self propelled artillery as well. No MG against infantry L
- Semovente da 105/25 suggested range 1->2 as it is propelled artillery as well. Base damage reduced (affecting infantry) L
- L6/40 3 cost- 1 cost H
- L3/33 Tankette (get rid of this abomination) H
- l3/33 Flamethrower 2 cost-> 1 cost H
- Fiat M11 (get rid of it) L
- Fiat M13 3 cost->2 cost, 3-> 4 speed M
- Fiat M15, M16 3 cost-2 cost M
- Fiat 2000 Cost 5->3 cost, speed 1->3, requires heavy tank construction H
- Carro P-75, P26/40 Cost 4->3 cost M
- P43 Proposed to move to industry 2 to give Italy more tank power during then H
- Semovente da 75/18 3 cost-> 2cost M
- Semovent da 149 40, cost 6-> 5 cost, plus increase base damage stat by 5 H

Japan:
- Type 5 Nato Reduce base damage (affecting infantry) L
- Type89 I-Go 3 cost->2 cost (Speed increase? Feels a bit slow for a light tank) L
- Type97 Chin Ha 4 and upgrades 4 cost->3 cost M
- Type3 Chin-Nu 4 cost->3 cost H
- Superheavy IO 8 cost-> 6 cost, speed 2->3 H
- Type2 Ka-Mi 4 cost->3 cost M
-Type 5 Ho-Ri 7 cost->6 cost, require heavy tank construction tech H
- Type 98 ta-Se, So Ki increase bonus against infantry. L


British:
- Mk VI Bovington 2 cost->1 cost H
- Anti-tank Archer Reduce base damage (affecting infantry) L
- Black Prince 7 cost->6 cost, speed 2->3 M
- Centurion 7 cost->6 cost, speed 3->4 M
- Cruiser Mk I 3 cost->2 cost L
- Challenger 5 cost->4 cost, require heavy tank research L
- Comet 5 cost->4 cost, require heavy tank research L
- Churchill Mk IV, VII and Crocodile? Is it medium or heavy tank? Why does it require heavy tank tech when categorised as medium tank H
- Tortoise A39 7 cost->5 cost, increase base speed to 3 and damage to building and mega buildings as its an assault gun. L
- Tog I, Tog II cost -1 less each L


France:
All tankettes 1 cost M
- French Industry I 3 turn light tanks around 20 hp and under reduce cost to 2. E.g Lorraine 37L, Renault R35 and Hotchkiss h35. H
-AMX-40 4 cost->3 cost M
-Laffly W 15 TCC 3 cost -> 1 cost. Base damage -> -6 damage. Reduce bonus against tanks. H
- Char G1 and Char B1 reduce cost by 1. Char G1 require heavy tank tech to research M
- Char 2C 6 cost->5 cost, speed 2->3 M
- ARL-44 5 cost->4 cost M

USA:
- M2 Light Tank, M2A1 Cost 3->2 cost M
- M3,M5 Stuart Cost 3->2 Cost L
- M1 Combat car 2 cost-> 1 cost H
- T29 8 cost-> 7 cost L
- M6, M6 A2E1 7 turn-> 5 cost L
- T28, T28 upg 2 speed -> 3 speed M


Russia:
- Su-85, SU-100 AT (possibly move 1 tank down an era or combine unit as upgrade?) L
- Su-100y 8 cost->7 cost, light tank category to super heavy tank category H
- ISU-122 AT (category fix like above) H
- ISU-152 AT 7 cost-> 6 cost, range 1-> 2 as its also artillery L
- SU-122-2 7 cost-> 6 cost L
- T-60 2 cost-> 1 cost, 6 speed -> 5 speed M
- T-70 3 cost-> 2 cost M
- BT-7 3 cost-> 2 cost M
- A-20 3 cost-> 2 cost (only in factory, if in town return cost to 3) M
- t-35 6 cost->5 cost, 3 speed-> 2 speed L
- KV-1 Colossus (all upgs) 6 cost-> 5 cost L
- KV-85 7 cost-> 6 cost M
- IS-1, IS-2, IS-3 All cost to be 5 M
- KV-5 8 cost-> 7 cost H
- SU-122 5 cost-> 4 cost M
- SU-152 6 cost-> 5 cost M
- T-90 SPAAG 3 cost-> 2 cost if 72-K GAZ-MM anti air gun truck can be 1 cost L

German:
- Panzer I 2 cost-> 1 cost H
- Panzer II 3 cost-> 2 cost H
- Panzer 35t, 38t 3 cost-> 2 cost H
- Panzer IV ausf.D, F1, Ausf.J 4 cost-> 3 cost L
- Goliath mine 3 cost-> 1 cost H
- Panzerjager I 3 cost-> 2 cost H
- Marder II, Marder III 3 cost-> 2 cost M
- Stumpanzer I 3 cost-> 2 cost (infantry killer) M
- Stumpanzer II Bison 4 cost-> 3 cost H
- karl Gerat 041 upgrade from Karl Gerat 040 isn't really an upgrade H

Not going to agree or disagree cause I highly okay with balancing tanks although not specifically you are doing it now but here's some things that I saw... Didnt look at all btw.

Industry # is based on time they were produced.

Damage is based on their main gun

Hp is based weight

Speed is based on speed and what they can travel at full gas.

In this cases... You almost cant do anything to change that besides bonuses to change overall damage, atk turn rate and factories which what I would first want to concentrate on if I have the passion to do it lol.

Not going to comment on the cost as I have said before.

"I highly okay with balancing tanks"
you mean
a) you are ok with current balance in game
b) you are ok with changing tanks in game some way as u think they need rebalance.

DreJaDe wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 7:29 pm Not going to agree or disagree cause I highly okay with balancing tanks although not specifically you are doing it now but here's some things that I saw... Didnt look at all btw.

Industry # is based on time they were produced.

Damage is based on their main gun

Hp is based weight

Speed is based on speed and what they can travel at full gas.

In this cases... You almost cant do anything to change that besides bonuses to change overall damage, atk turn rate and factories which what I would first want to concentrate on if I have the passion to do it lol.

Not going to comment on the cost as I have said before.

From this I infer you wish to support a more "realistic" tank rebalancing that follows on the set of rules you mentioned above? I will be honest, I think you are too focused on emphasising realism over in game balancing.

I have nothing wrong with your metric, except that it wouldn't accurately translate over into in game stats and mechanics. If you are working on a better alternative idea, can your idea co-exist with mine or does mine negate it?

Also, Stratego what do you think of the idea? Do you have any problems with units now costing 1 turn? (I want to adjust other units later as well, so tankettes wouldn't be the only unit to cost 1.) I know there is the potential issue of unit spam in tc, so we could

1. Adjust infantry grenade (not anti tank grenade) to deal some damage to light tanks and light vehicles.
or
2. Restrict tankettes to tank factory only (last resort)

But all the few tankettes in game are really vulnerable. So no drastic measure I think so far. Esp since I plan to suggest more anti tank counter rebalancing in the future.

We also have peasants in aos that cost 1 turn, if the stat of 1 turn light tanks r comparable to aos 1 turn peasants then it might work i guess

TntAttack wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2023 7:12 am From this I infer you wish to support a more "realistic" tank rebalancing that follows on the set of rules you mentioned above? I will be honest, I think you are too focused on emphasising realism over in game balancing.

Not mine. It was theirs. I just said it so that you wont do it just based what can be balanced in game.

TntAttack wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2023 7:12 am I have nothing wrong with your metric, except that it wouldn't accurately translate over into in game stats and mechanics. If you are working on a better alternative idea, can your idea co-exist with mine or does mine negate it?

Or is it?

Is there really something wrong with current cost of Panzer 1, 2, 3 and 4?

For me, the contention is not the cost. It's those bonuses like pz 35t, 38t which is what's not fine for me.

Current balance of pz1 isnt even bad against inf. It can 1 hit mant basic inf besides some.

And inf+truck is basically 5 turn to be better vs a 2 turn tank.

Now imagine 5 turn combo vs 1 turn tank... Yeah, it can be balanced around tank but really?

godOfKings wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2023 8:30 am We also have peasants in aos that cost 1 turn, if the stat of 1 turn light tanks r comparable to aos 1 turn peasants then it might work i guess

Aoww stats are weird

But there are some light tanks that have bad stats and there are some with good ones.

Stratego (dev) wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 7:35 pm "I highly okay with balancing tanks"
you mean
a) you are ok with current balance in game
b) you are ok with changing tanks in game some way as u think they need balance change.

@DreJaDe please answer this - so i know - thankS!

Drejade I didn't fully understand you example with the 5 infantry truck combo but it's besides the point.

- Panzer I and Panzer II has big gap between other tankettes.
- T-50 and t-70 slightly better but 2nd industry.
- VK leopard is broken

What rule or distinction from tanks that have 2 attack per turn and those without? I noticed all tankettes had 2 attack, but the Panzer I, panzer II, T-50, t-70 and VK leopard are considered light tanks but have 2 attacks per turn.

I also just read on wiki that the role of tankettes was replaced by armoured cars. Which explains why armoured cars have 2 attacks per turn.

Should some smaller light tanks have 2 attacks per turn, and what is the consensus for it?

TntAttack wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2023 1:27 pm What rule or distinction from tanks that have 2 attack per turn and those without? I noticed all tankettes had 2 attack, but the Panzer I, panzer II, T-50, t-70 and VK leopard are considered light tanks but have 2 attacks per turn.

Its supposedly the Rate of fire or the main gun is a machine gun.

Pz1 and 2 have machine gun as their main gun

Vk leopard was a mistake. Id like to think so.

Its not about whether its a tankette or not. Its the gun supposedly.

DreJaDe wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2023 11:27 pm

TntAttack wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2023 1:27 pm What rule or distinction from tanks that have 2 attack per turn and those without? I noticed all tankettes had 2 attack, but the Panzer I, panzer II, T-50, t-70 and VK leopard are considered light tanks but have 2 attacks per turn.

Its supposedly the Rate of fire or the main gun is a machine gun.

Pz1 and 2 have machine gun as their main gun

Vk leopard was a mistake. Id like to think so.

Its not about whether its a tankette or not. Its the gun supposedly.

How about this for all 1 turn tanks of all nations.

Germans have pz1
Us have M1 Combat car
Japan has Type94
Russia has t-26, t-50, t-60
France has Laffy WC, Renault FT17
Italy L6/40 and Rossini Cv.3
Britain has MV VI Bovington.

Adjustments:
T-26 light tank base damage 15 -> 7, add bonus 150% against vehicle light, 100% bonus againt light tank, 50% against infantry. Note this unit doesn't have 2 attack. (Total damage against infantry 10 per attack)
Panzer 1 base damage 6->5 attack bonus 200%->100% (10 damage per attack against infantry, total 20)
Not 1 turn cost, for comparison Panzer 2 no change (12 damage per attack, total 24)
Rossini CV.3 base damage 5 -> 4, infantry bonus 200%->100% (total damage to infantry is 8+8= 16)
Laffy WC base damage 13 -> 8, light tank bonus 100%, light vehicles 150%, medium tank bonus 50%, no bonus against heavy tanks. (Total damage to infantry 8, light vehicles 20, light tanks 16, medium tanks 12)
Bovington VI (total damage to infantry is 8+8=16)
Renault FT17 base damage 3-> 4, infantry bonus 20%->150%, add light vehicle bonus 200%. (Total damage to infantry 10, light vehicles 12)

Industry 2 1 turn tanks:
t-50 base damage 15-> 7, infantry bonus 200%->100, light vehicle 50%. (Total damage to infantry 14+14=28, light vehicle 10+10=20)
t-70 base damage 9->8, infantry bonus 200% -> 100%, light vehicles 50% (total damage to infantry 16+16=32, light vehicles 12+12=24)
L6/40 Base damage 8-> 7 damage infantry bonus 200 -> 100%, add light vehicle bonus 50% (total damage against infantry is 14+14=28) Important. Is 1940 considered first industry or second? I want to move this unit to industry 1 because current Italian industry 1 tankette is too weak compared to other nations. Decrease base attack by 1 if its in industry 1.

TntAttack wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 2:55 am T-26 light tank base damage 15 -> 7,

If you can convince @Stratego (dev)

As I said before. Damage is based on their main gun... They have spreadsheet to calculate the damage.

This is why most of my balance contention is mostly on the info they put in there or bonus.

Also, this is important for damage.

T26 has a 45mm gun. A 7 damage woudnt penetrate tank armor in game and will need bonus which is not ideal.

Stratego (dev) wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2023 1:10 pm

Stratego (dev) wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 7:35 pm "I highly okay with balancing tanks"
you mean
a) you are ok with current balance in game
b) you are ok with changing tanks in game some way as u think they need balance change.

@DreJaDe please answer this - so i know - thankS!

please

Stratego (dev) wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 5:06 am

Stratego (dev) wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2023 1:10 pm

Stratego (dev) wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 7:35 pm "I highly okay with balancing tanks"
you mean
a) you are ok with current balance in game
b) you are ok with changing tanks in game some way as u think they need balance change.

@DreJaDe please answer this - so i know - thankS!

please

Sorry, keep missing that.

Kinda both.

Its not like the game is totally imabalanced overall but there are many units that or OP like the leopard tank on germany.

DreJaDe wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 6:28 am

Stratego (dev) wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 5:06 am

Stratego (dev) wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2023 1:10 pm

@DreJaDe please answer this - so i know - thankS!

please

Sorry, keep missing that.

Kinda both.

Its not like the game is totally imabalanced overall but there are many units that or OP like the leopard tank on germany.

ok than i open new topic for leopard

Stratego (dev) wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 11:11 am

DreJaDe wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 6:28 am

Stratego (dev) wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 5:06 am

please

Sorry, keep missing that.

Kinda both.

Its not like the game is totally imabalanced overall but there are many units that or OP like the leopard tank on germany.

ok than i open new topic for leopard

Can I get official confirmation that this idea is rejected? Esp what part is unacceptable? Drejade may of singled out only one "unbalanced unit", but I have listed many important changes above, where the imbalance isn't as crazy but very noticeable. (I even ranked them according to imbalance)

So recap of my proposed changes.

1. New 1 turn tankette and minor exception class units

List of units proposed to have 1 turn cost:
Germans have pz1, Goliath mine
Us have M1 Combat car
Japan has Type94
Russia has t-26, t-50, t-60
France has Laffy WC (not tankette), Renault FT17
Italy L6/40, Rossini Cv.3, I3/43
Britain has MV VI Bovington

Adjustments:
- T-26 light tank base damage 15 -> 9, add bonus 150% against vehicle light, 100% bonus againt light tank, 50% against infantry, 50% against medium tanks. Note this unit doesn't have 2 attack. (Total damage against infantry 10 per attack)
- Panzer 1 base damage 6->5 attack bonus 200%->100% (10 damage per attack against infantry, total 20)
Not 1 turn cost, for comparison Panzer 2 no change (12 damage per attack, total 24)
- Rossini CV.3 base damage 5 -> 4, infantry bonus 200%->100% (total damage to infantry is 8+8= 16)
- L3/33 base damage 2-> 4, action 1-> 2. Bonus remains the same. (Total infantry damage 8+8=16)
- Laffy WC base damage 13 -> 8, light tank bonus 100%, light vehicles 150%, medium tank bonus 50%, no bonus against heavy tanks. (Total damage to infantry 8, light vehicles 20, light tanks 16, medium tanks 12)
- Bovington VI (total damage to infantry is 8+8=16)
- Renault FT17 base damage 3-> 4, infantry bonus 20%->150%, add light vehicle bonus 200%. (Total damage to infantry 10, light vehicles 12)

Industry 2 1 turn tanks:
- t-50 base damage 15-> 7, infantry bonus 200%->100, light vehicle 50%. (Total damage to infantry 14+14=28, light vehicle 10+10=20)
- t-60 base damage 9->8, infantry bonus 200% -> 100%, light vehicles 50% (total damage to infantry 16+16=32, light vehicles 12+12=24)
- L6/40 Base damage 8-> 7 damage infantry bonus 200 -> 100%, add light vehicle bonus 50% (total damage against infantry is 14+14=28) Important. Is 1940 considered first industry or second? I want to move this unit to industry 1 because current Italian industry 1 tankette is too weak compared to other nations. Decrease base attack by 1 if its in industry 1.
- Goliath mine 3 cost-> 1 cost H

2. Light, Medium, other tanks
H=high imbalance, M=medium imbalance, L=low imbalance

Italy:
- Semovente da 47/32 AT Cost 3->1 cost, suggest 1->2 range as its self propelled artillery as well. M
- Semovente da 90/53 AT suggested 1->3 range as its a self propelled artillery as well. No MG against infantry L
- Semovente da 105/25 suggested range 1->2 as it is propelled artillery as well. Base damage reduced (affecting infantry) L
- Fiat M11 (get rid of it) L
- Fiat M13 3 cost->2 cost, 3-> 4 speed M
- Fiat M15, M16 3 cost-2 cost M
- Semovente da 75/18 3 cost-> 2cost M
- Semovent da 149 40, cost 6-> 5 cost, plus increase base damage stat by 5 H

Japan:
- Type 5 Nato Reduce base damage (affecting infantry) L
- Type89 I-Go 3 cost->2 cost (Speed increase? Feels a bit slow for a light tank) L
- Type97 Chin Ha 4 and upgrades 4 cost->3 cost M
- Type3 Chin-Nu 4 cost->3 cost H
- Type2 Ka-Mi 4 cost->3 cost M
- Type 98 ta-Se, So Ki increase bonus against infantry. L

British:
- Anti-tank Archer Reduce base damage (affecting infantry) L
- Cruiser Mk I 3 cost->2 cost L

France:
- French Industry I 3 turn light tanks around 20 hp and under reduce cost to 2. E.g Lorraine 37L, Renault R35 and Hotchkiss h35. H
-AMX-40 4 cost->3 cost M

USA:
- M2 Light Tank, M2A1 Cost 3->2 cost M
- M3,M5 Stuart Cost 3->2 Cost L

Russia:
- Su-85, SU-100 AT (possibly move 1 tank down an era or combine unit as upgrade?) L
- T-70 3 cost-> 2 cost M
- BT-7 3 cost-> 2 cost M
- A-20 3 cost-> 2 cost (only in factory, if in town return cost to 3) M
- T-90 SPAAG 3 cost-> 2 cost if 72-K GAZ-MM anti air gun truck can be 1 cost L

German:
Panzer II 3 cost-> 2 cost H
- Panzer 35t, 38t 3 cost-> 2 cost H
- Panzer IV ausf.D, F1, Ausf.J 4 cost-> 3 cost L
- Panzerjager I 3 cost-> 2 cost H
- Marder II, Marder III 3 cost-> 2 cost M
- Stumpanzer I 3 cost-> 2 cost (infantry killer) M
- Stumpanzer II Bison 4 cost-> 3 cost H


3. Heavy tanks

Italy:
- Carro P-75, P26/40 Cost 4->3 cost M
- Fiat 2000 Cost 5->3 cost, speed 1->3, requires heavy tank construction H
- P43 Proposed to move to industry 2 to give Italy more tank power during then H


Japan:
- Superheavy IO 8 cost-> 6 cost, speed 2->3 H
- Type 5 Ho-Ri 7 cost->6 cost, require heavy tank construction tech H

British:
- Challenger 5 cost->4 cost, require heavy tank research L
- Comet 5 cost->4 cost, require heavy tank research L
- Churchill Mk IV, VII and Crocodile? Is it medium or heavy tank? Why does it require heavy tank tech when categorised as medium tank H
- Black Prince 7 cost->6 cost, speed 2->3 M
- Centurion 7 cost->6 cost, speed 3->4 M
- Tortoise A39 7 cost->5 cost, increase base speed to 3 and damage to building and mega buildings as its an assault gun. L
- Tog I, Tog II cost -1 less each L


France:
- Char G1 and Char B1 reduce cost by 1. Char G1 and Char B1 require heavy tank tech to research M
- Char 2C 6 cost->5 cost, speed 2->3 M
- ARL-44 5 cost->4 cost M

USA:
- T29 8 cost-> 7 cost L
- M6, M6 A2E1 7 turn-> 5 cost L
- T28, T28 upg 2 speed -> 3 speed M


Russia:
- Su-100y 8 cost->7 cost, light tank category to super heavy tank category H
- ISU-122 AT (category fix like above) H
- ISU-152 AT 7 cost-> 6 cost, range 1-> 2 as its also artillery L
- SU-122-2 7 cost-> 6 cost L
- t-35 6 cost->5 cost, 3 speed-> 2 speed L
- KV-1 Colossus (all upgs) 6 cost-> 5 cost L
- KV-85 7 cost-> 6 cost M
- IS-1, IS-2, IS-3 All cost to be 5 M
- KV-5 8 cost-> 7 cost H
- SU-122 5 cost-> 4 cost M
- SU-152 6 cost-> 5 cost M

German:
- karl Gerat 041 upgrade from Karl Gerat 040 isn't really an upgrade H

i am not sure where are we. but one i sure: i need Drejade, Jasondunkel to have thoughts on it before doing anything.
also best result for me (to be more safe) is not a total overhaul , but like fixing the few not good ones (eg. leopard, and maybe your mentioned very slow heavytank speeds)

but again, i can not decide alone as i am kinda getting low in knowledge of this game balance - and i feel jason and dreja can be a good partner to argue and finalize the plan.

(i have too many alternatives to run so i have to sacrifice my "deep" knowledge - in almost all - alternatives.)