Please vote: Mech unit cost

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:31 am

Mech units seem to be quite popular and somewhat more powerful than originally intended. Should we maybe increase the mech cost from 50.

1, Mech cost
a. 50
b. 55
c. 60

Should we maybe increase the armor cost as well?

2. Armor cost
a. 80
b. 85
c. 90

Please vote.

zechi · Post by **zechi** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 8:01 am

Stauffenberg wrote:Mech units seem to be quite popular and somewhat more powerful than originally intended. Should we maybe increase the mech cost from 50.

1, Mech cost
a. 50
b. 55
c. 60

Should we maybe increase the armor cost as well?

2. Armor cost
a. 80
b. 85
c. 90

Please vote.

I don't think this should be changed at all. From my point of view the cost is about right.

PanzerGeneral · Post by **PanzerGeneral** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 8:14 am

I agree with zechi. The cost is right from my viewpoint.

rkr1958 · Post by **rkr1958** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:06 am

I don't think we should increase either. It's difficult already for me to build up for Barbarossa.

PionUrpo · Post by **PionUrpo** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:26 am

Ditto for me, I wouldn't change these.

gerones · Post by **gerones** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:02 pm

No changes here.

gerones · Post by **gerones** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:09 pm

Anyway, I like the proposal made for a guy in the general CEAW GS forum (Barbarossa strategies thread):

shawkhan wrote: I also think it strange that price doesn't increase with tech levels. Tiger tanks costing as much as the PzIs and PzIIs with which Germany began the war? I think not.
If the value of units could be tied to their tech level, it would be nice to see certain units start at a much lower cost initially, allowing the Axis to build historical amounts of air/naval/mech/armor units with increasing costs affecting their ability to upgrade them as tech levels rise.

This makes pretty much sense to me and may be something we could take a look at.

Morris · Post by **Morris** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 1:11 pm

NO !!! Please !

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 2:47 pm

Since Morris says such a strong no I guess this is a good indication that YES is probably the best way to thwart his strategy.

supermax · Post by **supermax** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 2:53 pm

Yes, i agree.

Mech and armor should not be too present on the battlefield. They should be valuable units, and costly like in real life.

Lets not forget that the mainstay of all armies in World War 2 was Infantry, not tanks.

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 3:17 pm

rkr1958 wrote:I don't think we should increase either. It's difficult already for me to build up for Barbarossa.

If we reduce the cost for fighter, tactical bomber units and subs then Germany should be able to afford slightly more expensive armor and mechs.

I think that the main balance issue in GS v2.01 is that there are too many armor and mech units on the map for each side compared to what the real armies had. The reason players build this units is that they're so much more powerful on the offense than the regular corps units.

E. g. mech units are only 15 PP's more expensive than corps units and they can be researched to be quite powerful, especially against cities. So bumping the cost to 55 seems to indicate the difference in firepower a bit.

If we would drop the fighter cost to 90 and tactical bombers to 100 then I think bumping the armor cost to 85 is probably a good idea. Armor units are quite powerful and especially in the end game they become very powerful compared to corps units.

Having variable coast based will probably complicate the game quite a bit for little gain even though I see the reasoning behind it.

We have to be very careful about not creating inflation in units by making subs, fighters and tactical bombers cheaper without letting any units becoming more expensive. Since we want fewer mech and armor units on the map then I think this could be a good idea.

So I keep my proposal to make the altered cost:
Mech: 55
Armor: 85 (or even 90)

If we don't up these costs then I think fighers should still cost 100 and tactical bombers 110. Strategic bombers will be increased to 110 and I will up the shock attack slightly. If we drop the tactical bomber to 100 then I will drop a stat or two in the areas they're not meant for like strategic attack. If we drop the fighter to 90 then I might consider doing the same for fighters as well.

What I want is the balance in cost between air and land units so we don't create inflation here. I think that the most powerful land units should cost as much as the cheapest air units. This is normal in most wargames. Armor units can get a ground attack above 10 late in the game while the corps is stuck with 5. Mechs can at least get 7.

amcdonel · Post by **amcdonel** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:01 am

I agree with Stauffenberg - higher prices.

Morris · Post by **Morris** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 3:00 am

if the plane price adjust as borger's idea , I will vote yes .

Crazygunner1 · Post by **Crazygunner1** » Tue Nov 01, 2011 11:34 am

Won´t this just affect the Axis manpower even harder since less tanks and mechs will be built and more infantry on the map with higher losses and manpower costs?

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Tue Nov 01, 2011 12:01 pm

Not necessarily. The mechs and armor are slightly more expensive, but the fighters and tac bombers are less expensive so it should even out.

Please vote: Mech unit cost

Please vote: Mech unit cost

Re: Please vote: Mech unit cost