Changing the Tanks Meta for the Better + Analysis

Changing the Tanks Meta for the Better + Analysis

Postby Vasily Krysov » Tue 6 May 2014 09:23

Changing the Tanks Meta
By Vasily Krysov and Shan Revan, with contributions from Hob Gadling and Hubis.

Introduction
Right now it is no secret that the tank meta is quite out of whack. We see the best of the best space tanks paired up with straight up WW2 surplus crap. This is a problem thematically, for gameplay and authenticity. We’re sure everyone would like to see more Pattons, T-72’s and Leopards (and tigers, OH MY!) driving around killing things and exploding.

It is our position that with the correct use of pricing before anything else, without having to introduce new systems or program in gimmicks, we can fix medium tanks to being useful. In this analysis we will be using the USSR tank section in many examples as it is the most complete and comprehensive selection.

Current Situation
Deck Pressures
First we’re going to talk about Activation Point pressure. Or rather the near total lack thereof in the tank category (Which is mostly why armoured decks are kind of a bad deal at the moment). Why then, is the tank category so lacking in AP pressure, when the Infantry section is practically boiling over? Simple: Infantry fulfill a lot of different roles, and many of them are highly desirable. Tanks on the other hand really only have two roles, three if you're being generous. That is, the infantry support tank, the dedicated tank hunter, and maybe something that is adequate at both.

The infantry support tank doesn't have much in the way of requirements. If it can lob HE at enemy infantry from out of range, and kill light vehicles, then it's good enough. Really then the biggest concern is getting as many as possible, for as little as possible. Is it really any wonder then why tanks from the 1940's roam over the fields and forests of Asia in numbers that put Kursk to shame? Extremely cheap, extremely cost efficient, and often available in numbers that rival infantry militia, they're an obvious choice for the min-maxer. Especially the old Centurion Mk.V, who does all that, with both armour and gun not much worse than a Leo1A1’s or T72’s! Supplement these guys with some fast light guns and autocannons from the VEH section and you've honestly got most bases covered at the moment.

At the other end of the spectrum you've got the dedicated tank killers. If you're feeling especially min-maxy, and good at microing, then a card or two of your favourite super-heavies are the obvious choice. For those who don't feel like inviting ATGM plane hordes down upon them, it can often be worthwhile stepping down a few levels, saving a bunch of pts and calling it a day, after all, there are plenty of hard-counters to these units that are probably cheaper, and probably more versatile anyway.

Then we have the vast middle ground. There are, and have been, some definite good deals in this section, but for the vast majority of them, they simply don't offer much more ability in killing infantry or light vehicles than the left-overs from WW2 and the VEH section, and they don't really kill tanks very efficiently either. For the majority of these tanks, even if they do have adequate availability, their performance just doesn't match up to the asking price.

It should be noted that over-priced units with high-availability creates an illusion of balance in the sense of the price being compensated for by the availability. This however is a fallacy, because frequently the price prohibits you from actually making use of the extra availability, and even when it doesn't, there are opportunity costs associated with it, which can be pretty big.

The end result is you frequently don't even need the five slots offered to you and probably don't actually need more than thee, saving the AP for some fast light gun platforms like Zhalos or Sagaies.

On the other hand, the tank category suffers very highly from price:performance pressures. Partly because there are no AP pressures to offset this, partly because there’s so few roles and partly because so many tanks are mis-priced.

As we’ve discussed before, there’s really only room for three roles. The first one, as we’ve mentioned prioritises getting numbers out there for coverage and support. Cheap and available is the name of the game here to the point that little else matters. What they lack in any one category is made up for in numbers and price efficiency. We've also discussed the second type, the “tank killer” option. Generally money is no expense here. Quality over quantity and all that. The third type I’ve mentioned can exist is the middle ground. Something that is cost-effective at doing both.

The problem however, is there simply isn’t anything that is “cost effective” at doing both, and whenever there has been, it has been “nerfed into line” with the others, despite often wide community agreement that it should set the new standard. This is the realm of the Medium tank. The medium tank should probably be the bulk of our forces, valued for their versatility and cost efficiency, but worse than at any one role than the dedicated options. In theory, they have the versatility - the stats make them okay tank killers, and okay infantry support. The problem comes down to efficiency.

The whole selling point of the medium tank is its efficiency, but at their current price schemes, they simply aren’t efficient! For the price of two medium tanks, you can buy 10 to 20 support tanks, which will completely outclass it in support roles, and probably even anti-tank abilities. On the other hand for the same price you could buy a top-tier tank-killer and be more than doubly effective at killing enemy tanks. In the same way line infantry need to be the most cost efficient option if you want them to exist as a useful role, so do medium tanks. They need to be not just exactly priced at their exact performance value, consciously go a step beyond, and to be made just a little bit OP in price efficiency, whilst maintaining adequate availability. Suddenly we will see medium tanks become the main force. Suddenly the other options are there to support and protect each-other.


Tanks Vs Tanks
There are three themes to tanks:
1- If you make them dirt cheap and very AP efficient, they will always have value in any deck for spamming.
2- If you make them not-dirt cheap/price efficient and keep very AP efficient it is just over-paying for a tonne of turds, which makes it even worse when you don't get any other choices.
3-If you make them very price efficient but not AP efficient that means any deck which has access to better tanks will preference those, and any deck that doesn't will have the extra slots to spare to take more cheap tanks.

That broadly describes the situation of tanks as it currently stands. We have lights that are cheap spam, mediums that are not worth their cost and heavy tanks that deliver excellent returns on their initial investment with their firepower. To what I have seen on the public forum and elsewhere, everyone finds this to be an undesirable state of affairs.

The start of this is probably the misguided idea that the old reservist tanks should be in any way “competitive” relative to other tanks. They should be quite literally obsolete if you have access to better options. Stat-wise they are in fact very obsolete already - however, naively in the name of balance people attempt to make them "viable" against stuff they shouldn't be viable against in main decks.

By doing this, all that has been accomplished is that the medium tanks are now priced out of their actual effectiveness relative to the heavy tanks. Sure, the Medium might be worth the extra 20 points over the light tanks, but it certainly isn’t worth that relative to it’s predator. This is important as the main guiding principle should be “what will you get for approximately 160pts of this unit” instead of “is this tank worth +5 on an individual basis to another tank”. Another way of putting it, is that the pricing should scale downwards from a “zero point”, not scale upwards. Key to this point is how the relationship between AP and AV functions:

Image

As we can see in the chart, as the difference between AP/AV grows, it actually becomes less important than the first few points.So to make an example, the M1A2(24AP) will treat a T-80B(14AV) the same as a T-55(7AV), yet the latter costs only a fifth of the former. This means that for the purpose of “catching shells” the T-55A is far better than any of the mediums between them and the T-80B.Being able to take 10 shells in total, to the T-80B’s 2. Interestingly, the T-34/85 is actually no better than the T-55 as it is one shot due to having only 3AV, so 10 of them will take 10 shells. However that is against the extreme case of 24AP KE damage. If we reduce that to 20 or under AP< then the T-34/85 becomes the better shell catcher. This is primarily why the Centurion Mk.5 is so popular, at 15pts for 9AV, it makes it the best damn shell catcher in the game, bar none. The rest of it’s stats don’t matter at all since it’s only going to see either not-tanks or other chaff that has no armor, or it will be facing the top shelf heavies that it would never have a hope against in the first place.

So this creates the current conundrum, the medium tank either isn’t good enough to fight properly in all cases(heavies), or it simple is not cost effective for the purpose of providing mass in which to absorb damage(lights).

Another factor is that in RD, the addition of the new “uber heavies” has raised the quality ceiling even higher and has now reshuffled the roles of a number of tanks. As an example, it used to be that the T-72B1 with it’s 18AP was effectively a “pocket heavy” that only needed to slightly close the distance in order to penetrate even the heaviest NATO tanks. Now however it is woefully unable to perform against the new breed of tanks with more than 20AV/AP and increased accuracy, which will be able to stomp them with little danger with only a slightly higher cost involved. While they are still decent budget tanks, their real utility has dropped and needs to be accounted for.

Tanks in the Wild
But of course, not everything in the game is a tank. Most of what it will be facing is light ground targets, aircraft and helicopters. Once we consider the effects of the latter two, the situation of tanks becomes even more dire. Any attack in numbers will be countered with bombers and any actual penetration of the line will be countered with fresh reserves and helicopters. This plays into the current meta, you simply must go by helicopter or by wheels in order to get to the merge point. One would assume that due to the slower speed of tracked vehicles, they would correspondingly be more powerful so that when they do reach the front, they are able to shift it with raw power. This is not the case however funnily enough, simply due to the new deck system and the changes to SAM systems.

It used to be that you could overload your deck in the support category if you so choose in order to get the variety of tools needed to change the battle. But now you are stuck in a quandary with no good choices. If you skimp on AA, then the obvious happens. If you skimp on artillery then you can’t soften up positions or use smoke. If you skimp on rocket artillery you are basically throwing your tanks against the wall of unsuppressed enemies in their defensive positions.

Once we consider the whole cornucopia of LAWs, RPGs, and ATGMs threatening tanks, we’ll find that tanks have a rather brittle and short-lived life unless their armor matches their threats.

“The tank’s fast but the armor’s crap!”
-Sardonic tankmen saying after T-34 armor was surpassed


A short list:
-ATGM (ground)
-ATGM(helo)
-ATGM(air)
-RPG’s
-Other tanks
-Cluster bombs
-HE bombs
-Tank destroyers
-Unsecured Forests
-Unsecured Cities
-Tanks are far more affected by bad morale due to how cannons work

Essentially, the tank was public enemy No.1 for almost every single other arm on the battlefield. However this is someway of a swing and a miss in game as there is a sore absence of tanks to actually shoot at aside from cheap spam and heavy tanks. The point of this however is to say something simple: even if we make tanks much more competitive than they are now, there will still be a hell of a lot of things stopping them from overrunning the enemy.

The Price-Point-Problem
It is a well earned point of pride for Eugen that there are so many units in the game; and tanks make up more than 10% of the full armoury list coming in at 164 units out of 1472 in the Tank category. That’s a lot of tanks! It’s a lot of tanks, that have to be distributed in price over a scale of 5-180pts. That doesn’t sound too bad until you realise the 5pt interval makes that only 35 discrete price points to distribute 164 tanks! Fortunately, many of these tanks are duplicates of each other, but even if we generously assume that ¾ of the tank category are replicas, that still means there are over 40 unique tank-forms to distribute over 35 price-points. Not too bad, but not too good, especially considering there’s probably a few more unique tanks than our generous assumption would portray.

Image
Fig.1 This shows the current categories of tanks for the USSR line. As one can see, some tanks are totally out of place (T-72B does not belong with the heavies!) and another question is, how many of these tanks are considered worth the price? Not many I’d wager. Most of the Medium tank band is seldom seen in the wild.

So what is the consequence of this? Quite simply, a lot of tanks have to share prices when they probably shouldn't. In other words, no matter how we distribute them, a lot of tanks are going to be mis-priced compared to their performance. The trick to solving it, is consciously making a decision on what to "unfairly" price and acting accordingly. I say unfairly, because it can go both ways, they can be priced lower than they should - giving them the advantage, or higher, making them undesirable compared to their peers. Expanding on this, we must realise the repercussions of this are not solely inflicted upon the tanks which get priced “unfairly”. Fortunately, price isn't the only balance mechanism alone, but it's still a big issue to consider.

The matter of Inertia
Another severe problem is that simply put, tanks are slow.They will take between 3 to 4 minutes or even more to get to the front line. Artillery, helicopters and aircraft can be on station within seconds to counter any of their moves. So to me we can almost express the total power of these arms mathematically:

Speed*Strength = Power

So for tanks, the only way to have them be equal against the enemy’s supporting arms is to have a stronger concentration at the time of the attack. But that then plugs into the economy, 1000pts to start with + 1050pts per 10mins in your standard conquest match. If we account of attrition, competing costs and so on, there is only a small fraction in which to invest on tanks. Currently, putting 500pts on tanks would get you only a small quantity of these units to the point that the enemy will get the points to buy a hard-counter amount of air power in the time it takes for your forces to drive to the frontline! This is clearly seen in the opening stages of conquest when you are “making the merge”, by the time this occurs both sides have amassed roughly 150 points, enough to get a “nuke bomber” that can decimate or outright annihilate the starting force. So the first thing that must be done every time is to spread out the opening group before everything else. Heaven help you if the enemy manages to land an F-111C load on your forces.

Later in the game, this is shown in how the enemy will “panic button” air power against any given attack. Which places people in a dammed if you do damned if you don’t: either your attack is concentrated enough to break through, and gets bombed, or it is too diffuse and can’t make headway, and still gets bombed. Tank forces are currently unable to roll with the punches like they should.

So with all of these hares running wild and destroying everything, tanks and tracks need to be the winners of “slowly but surely”. To do this they just need to put on a few extra pounds so they can really punch out the featherweights around them.
Last edited by Vasily Krysov on Tue 6 May 2014 10:15, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Vasily Krysov
Colonel
 
Posts: 2691
Joined: Mon 2 Apr 2012 09:27

Re: Changing the Tanks Meta for the Better + Analysis

Postby Vasily Krysov » Tue 6 May 2014 09:23

Proposed Changes
Price Cuts and Availability Changes
Please follow this link to see the prices and numbers while you read this. Included is USA and EuroCorps examples of changes.
Image

My thinking here is generally that all tanks are too expensive, but because of the price ranges this matters way more at the bottom-end than anywhere else. One thing I've noticed is that "cheap but plentiful" doesn't help if the price/performance is bad, and "cheap and efficient" can just lead to unit spam if there's any sizable availability. Unfortunately, you can't make high-end tanks be point-inefficient, even if they are AP-efficient, because they just won't get taken or called in when mediums are equally good.

I think "Cheap and point-efficient" should probably have to pay an AP cost, in the form of having more cards of lower-availability. Your "Medium" tanks would be much more AP efficient (more points/card), and be point-efficient versus low-end units and well-priced versus mid- and high-end ones.

In general, it feels like efficiency is a bit harder to measure since it depends what they're fighting, medium tanks should be efficient versus light targets, but swarming them should not really be viable against heavier tanks. I think that "low-end" tanks should be cost-inefficient relative to medium tanks (so almost the same price); however, they should be very AP-efficient, meaning it is easy to add them to a deck.

Medium tanks should be much more price-efficient (almost as cheap as light tanks are now) but should have much less availability, meaning that you must burn a lot of AP if you plan on using them carelessly. You can expand 2-card tanks to 3-card tanks of reduced availability, and I think the change would be both balanced and still make both tank fighting and deck building more interesting.

Pricing medium tanks in the same range as infantry+IFV groups ($35-50 pts) seems very reasonable to me, so long as availability is such that they can't simply be spammed everywhere. Even in that case, I question how effective the tactic would be -- maps are much larger now than in EE, so the ability to detect a tank push early and then respond accordingly is much greater. Tanks used in such a fashion will just cause the enemy to concentrate air power on you.

Finally, low end heavy tanks need to be more price efficient, but at minimal availability (much like they are now). They don’t need nearly as much help as their inherent armor and firepower advantages are an active depressant against their lower brothers. Eg, that armor advantage is something that can be carefully wielded so that the lower tanks never even get a shot off. This brings another point, now that the ceiling of AP and AV has been extended with the new tanks, the cost of those below them need to be lessened to accommodate the new pressure of a greater apex predator.

So this results in a threefold idea:
1) Price. Top end is priced at its "correct" value. Tier below is priced at 30% off plus a little (because at equal prices quantity beats quality). Tier below that is priced at 30% off the previous tier plus a little. After that it starts to get crowded, but that's the general idea.
Some parts of the pricing curve are (slightly) OP by design. The peak should be at about medium and lower heavy tanks.

2) Availability. Bottom end has relatively terrible availability to compensate for their game-breakingly cheap prices. Problem of small numbers: 10->15 points is 50% increase, which is a lot. Top end has very low absolute availability but is in line with rest of the curve.
Once again the curve peaks at about medium and lower heavy tanks to make them more of a value proposition. High end is useful because it's very powerful, low end is useful because it's cheap. Middle must be slightly OP (read: above the curve) by design to promote their use.

3) Veterancy. This ties into general availability. Two types of people: trained and professionals, reflected by their base veterancy level (trained or hardened). Trained people use worse equipment but are more numerous, professionals come in smaller numbers. In practical terms this means base card values of 500 and 350 points of units, respectively. Upvetting units within a category reduces availability by 66% or 50%, respectively.
Soviets get relatively less vets but relatively more tanks overall, especially in the prime area of price-efficency. Since veterancy is very valuable on high unit-cost items, generally speaking you pay high availability cost for veterans. Eurocorps gets a small break here due to their tank lineup having no premium heavy tanks..

I also think Eugen balances too much based on price (i.e. "Destruction Value") and not enough on Availability (which tends to matter much more in Conquest than Destruction). We don't have enough tanks where "availability" is really a value in itself.

Conclusion
Presently the Tank category is in poor shape. The complete lack of Activation-Point-Pressure makes the choices uninteresting and easy. Worse still it largely invalidates the main bonus of the Armoured deck type restriction. Without AP-pressures offsetting it, huge swaths of available tanks are rendered scrap under the crushing Price-Performance pressure. This is made worse by the real-value of all tanks being effectively reduced by the introduction of new tanks that kill even more efficiently, and re-arranging the relative roles of tanks.

The naive idea that we can balance all tanks, for all decks needs to go and we need to make an active decision on what to discard from general use, in order to free up room for more desirable elements. Those of us who have contributed to this document feel that for a game set in the late 1980’s, we should probably shouldn’t be seeing many tanks that wouldn’t feel out of place in a WW2 game, nor should they be desirable to take unless there are no better options. Rather we believe a game set in the late cold war, should make use of the cold-war all-star line up it features as the main forces we actually want to use in the game. Because by the game’s timeline the cheap mass tanks should be M60’s, T-72’s, Leopards and Chieftains, not M48’s, T-34’s and Centurions. Thematic consistency is inherently appealing.

Many changes in Red Dragon have been made in the name of maneuver warfare, bigger maps, stronger weapons to punish emplacements, less forward zones to instantly counter an offensive, and to varying degrees this has worked. However the true centrepiece of maneuver warfare, the Main Battle Tank is tragically missing. In its place we substitute cheap and mobile APCs and light wheeled tanks, backed up by a joint convention of the “87th WW2 reenactment brigade” and the “501st Star Wars Legion”.

Medium tanks are a missing piece to the current gameplay and they are sorely missed. Not only that, it is throwing the game’s “ecology” out of balance as a major part of the system is now virtually non-existent. Rather than introduce new mechanics, change old ones or add in some new gimmick, the solution is simple: give a bread and butter unit a bread and butter price. This way we can truly start to see them used as a part of combined arms forces and the game can move another step towards the ideal “mobile maneuver warfare” which is fun and engaging for everyone involved.

Because really, what we are all playing this game for is fun, and the more dimensions for fun to occur, the better the game is. Infantry needs tweaking but is pretty solid, jets work well and even the naval warfare is working well now. So let’s add an armored dimension to it!
Last edited by Vasily Krysov on Tue 6 May 2014 09:45, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Vasily Krysov
Colonel
 
Posts: 2691
Joined: Mon 2 Apr 2012 09:27

Re: Changing the Tanks Meta for the Better + Analysis

Postby ShanRevan » Tue 6 May 2014 09:26

Yep. This is a tank thread all right.

edit: I wrote the good bits ;)
Last edited by ShanRevan on Tue 6 May 2014 09:32, edited 1 time in total.
ShanRevan
Chief Warrant Officer
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon 10 Feb 2014 04:46

Re: Changing the Tanks Meta for the Better + Analysis

Postby Guggy » Tue 6 May 2014 09:32

The math doesnt lie. Sometimes I wish it did, but it refuses to coincide with my wishes.

My ONLY possible problem is the definition of Medium/Heavy tanks. It may come down to individual members of each category being misplaced and needing fine-tuning. That aside, the idea is sound.
Image
Vasily Krysov wrote:People need to think about "the meta" as if it was an ecology. If brainless spam is a problem, eg, a species has become overabundant... their natural predators are insufficient.
Guggy
General
 
Posts: 6859
Joined: Thu 17 Nov 2011 02:53
Location: peaceful skeleton realm

Re: Changing the Tanks Meta for the Better + Analysis

Postby Vasily Krysov » Tue 6 May 2014 09:37

Guggy wrote:The math doesnt lie. Sometimes I wish it did, but it refuses to coincide with my wishes.

My ONLY possible problem is the definition of Medium/Heavy tanks. It may come down to individual members of each category being misplaced and needing fine-tuning. That aside, the idea is sound.


But of course, medium/heavy is an arbitrary definition, tanks need to be priced so that they correspond to their usefulness.
User avatar
Vasily Krysov
Colonel
 
Posts: 2691
Joined: Mon 2 Apr 2012 09:27

Re: Changing the Tanks Meta for the Better + Analysis

Postby raventhefuhrer » Tue 6 May 2014 09:56

Read through the whole thing, and the observations are basically correct and sound, as are the solutions.

I don't, however, see them as being implemented. Eugen has consistently stuck to a very linear (I say simplistic) approach to unit pricing that follows a clear pricing pattern, with their nice little 5 point increments to pricing, or 4 unit increments to availability, and so on. In my view, relatively little thought is given to how units interact with each other and fit into the larger scheme of the meta, or the deck. I've been convinced of this since the Canadian Cougar in ALB was priced at 25 points, compared to the British Scorpion, purely on the basis of 10 or 20 km/h of offroad speed. Prices have been based on an arbitrary value assigned to different traits (usually an overpriced value, like with ATGMs on tanks, or stabilizers), and to implement your ideas would take a pretty radical re-evaluation of what they have right now, and open up the possibility of requiring similar radical changes to other pricing structures in the future. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing either, I just can't see Eugen going for it.

I want to emphasize that I do like your spreadsheets with hypothetical pricing changes. I think some tweaks could obviously be done, but the basic idea is good and it tamps down on a lot of the more outrageously priced - Leopard1A5 comes to mind, most of the T-72 line, and so on. My only qualifier is that, if this change is done, you have to make 10 point line infantry the standard, even for 1990 variants, except in special cases like for example Mot-Schutzen.
Image<- Click if you're a new player! My YouTube Channel is Raven Wargaming. Message me to request videos on certain topics.
User avatar
raventhefuhrer
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 2187
Joined: Wed 15 May 2013 08:47

Re: Changing the Tanks Meta for the Better + Analysis

Postby Grosnours » Tue 6 May 2014 10:07

Little amount of cheap stuff, vast amount of medium tank with not-too-high price and few high end tanks ?
Count me in.

The important thing now is to have Eugen agree on the overall principle, and then we can see for the exact details (devil in the details, I know).

Let's see what this sound and well articulated thread will net as results.
Image
Grosnours
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 2062
Joined: Mon 17 Sep 2012 23:00

Re: Changing the Tanks Meta for the Better + Analysis

Postby Hob_Gadling » Tue 6 May 2014 10:16

Grosnours wrote:The important thing now is to have Eugen agree on the overall principle, and then we can see for the exact details (devil in the details, I know).


Would you like to try the details in practice? I hear there's a mod, updated last night, with that exact pricing scheme.
User avatar
Hob_Gadling
Captain
 
Posts: 1555
Joined: Tue 14 Feb 2012 00:15

Re: Changing the Tanks Meta for the Better + Analysis

Postby Bastables » Tue 6 May 2014 10:19

raventhefuhrer wrote:Read through the whole thing, and the observations are basically correct and sound, as are the solutions.

I don't, however, see them as being implemented. Eugen has consistently stuck to a very linear (I say simplistic) approach to unit pricing that follows a clear pricing pattern, with their nice little 5 point increments to pricing, or 4 unit increments to availability, and so on. In my view, relatively little thought is given to how units interact with each other and fit into the larger scheme of the meta, or the deck. I've been convinced of this since the Canadian Cougar in ALB was priced at 25 points, compared to the British Scorpion, purely on the basis of 10 or 20 km/h of offroad speed. Prices have been based on an arbitrary value assigned to different traits (usually an overpriced value, like with ATGMs on tanks, or stabilizers), and to implement your ideas would take a pretty radical re-evaluation of what they have right now, and open up the possibility of requiring similar radical changes to other pricing structures in the future. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing either, I just can't see Eugen going for it.

I want to emphasize that I do like your spreadsheets with hypothetical pricing changes. I think some tweaks could obviously be done, but the basic idea is good and it tamps down on a lot of the more outrageously priced - Leopard1A5 comes to mind, most of the T-72 line, and so on. My only qualifier is that, if this change is done, you have to make 10 point line infantry the standard, even for 1990 variants, except in special cases like for example Mot-Schutzen.

Not sure this is at all true as a quick look at the proposed T55/A/AM line pricing brings them back to EE or pre patch ALB prices. The T64B and BM pricing is in line with pre patch ALB as well. The price inflation of cost effective tanks in ALB does not follow a hardline of pricing for "traits" and seems to be more a impulse to actively make tank's less cost effective over the course of ALB.

Eugen actually seems to have made a conscious decision during ALB to price tanks out of cost effectiveness. One can see this especially with the price inflation of the T55s in ALB that also were compounded with vision and accuracy nerfs (accuracy nerfs were then semi rolled back) You can also look to the price inflation of T80U(150-160-170), T72B1(90-100) and the T64BV1 (115-125) due to caterwauling about them being op for price.

The problem is that allied with making tanks cost inefficient is that there are many more things that can kill them now (bar the old EE apc combat drop at law/rpg range). EE also had a neat if unrealistic little equaliser that the frontal AV would only come into play from shots coming in the front 30degs anything off that angle would mean side armour hits; as opposed to the 45deg "fix" in ALB.

I really do agree with the price dropping to make tanks more cost effective and more likely to be deployed en mass again as per EE.
Last edited by Bastables on Tue 6 May 2014 10:41, edited 3 times in total.
Bastables
Warrant Officer
 
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri 30 Mar 2012 05:49

Re: Changing the Tanks Meta for the Better + Analysis

Postby elitesix » Tue 6 May 2014 10:26

+1.

Very good points on balance, tanks definitely need to be moved downward in point cost along with availability finesse to get tanks working in the categories of light, medium, and heavy. They're simply overpriced with all the counters around. I hope Eugen takes this analysis seriously.
elitesix
Corporal
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat 14 Apr 2012 05:29

Next

Return to Wargame : Red Dragon

Who is online