Changing the Tanks Meta for the Better + Analysis

Grosnours
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2091
Joined: Mon 17 Sep 2012 23:00
Contact:

Re: Changing the Tanks Meta for the Better + Analysis

Postby Grosnours » Tue 6 May 2014 10:31

Hob_Gadling wrote:Would you like to try the details in practice? I hear there's a mod, updated last night, with that exact pricing scheme.

Sure thing.
It would be great if as much people as possible would try out this mode.
Image

User avatar
shuai-jan
Lieutenant
Posts: 1248
Joined: Sun 24 Mar 2013 15:48
Contact:

Re: Changing the Tanks Meta for the Better + Analysis

Postby shuai-jan » Tue 6 May 2014 10:33

Since I'm really missing mid tier MBTs on the field, I'd love to see those changes implemented.
Additionally we should look at sub top tier MBTs like T-80U, T-64BV, T-72B obr. 1989 and T-72B obr 1987 (USSR lineup just an example, this is true for other countries as well) wich feel slightly overpriced, not as much as mediums but enough to see top tier heavies prefered to them.

ledarsi
Master Sergeant
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat 10 Mar 2012 07:35
Contact:

Re: Changing the Tanks Meta for the Better + Analysis

Postby ledarsi » Tue 6 May 2014 10:38

Marvelous post. I agree with everything. However I do think as an interesting aside that arguably your proposed points costs could in fact be too high. Not because they wouldn't be one reasonable design, but because a design that has even lower prices for tanks might be better.

The most important feature to remember about a balancing lever like points cost is that points cost is a self-regulating system. Any given number of points in tanks should in theory be about equal utility as the same points cost in different tanks.

What this means is that it is entirely possibly to skew which units are emphasized using points cost. And in my opinion it makes perfect sense for MBT's to be highly desirable choices in a Cold War scenario. They should be abundant and inexpensive compared to a variety of other more exotic options. Particularly since tanks are more mobile and aggressive, whereas ATGM vehicles and infantry are more static and defensive in nature.

By lowering the command points cost to bring in all types of tanks, all tanks across the board will see more use. Tank costs could actually be reduced very severely without fundamentally compromising the game. Although you would obviously see a lot more tanks played. And a variety of assets that interact with tanks would actually become more focused in their role, such as gunships, tank hunters, ATGM carriers, and so on.

In fact the biggest problem with this change would almost certainly be the ridiculous amount of HE damage that a dramatically increased number of tanks can lay down against infantry. As for tanks fighting each other, the effects of cheaper tanks cancels out, but with more units in play by both sides for more interesting fights that can go down in a wide variety of ways.

Your proposed prices are a huge improvement over the massively inflated tank prices we have now. But because having more quantity of cheaper tanks cancels out for both sides in tank battles, and because of the Cold War, tank-centric doctrine Wargame is inspired by, I think tanks can go cheaper.
Last edited by ledarsi on Tue 6 May 2014 10:41, edited 1 time in total.

ninjaminnow12
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 321
Joined: Sat 23 Feb 2013 01:42
Contact:

Re: Changing the Tanks Meta for the Better + Analysis

Postby ninjaminnow12 » Tue 6 May 2014 10:40

Impeccable work, Vasily. Excellent analysis in every respect.

Bastables wrote:
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 reaction 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).

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.

True. From what I've seen, Eugen has been intentionally overpricing tanks. The ALB beta price nerf to Soviet tanks was justified, but thats a different game with fewer tank-killing units. Maybe Eugen is afraid of the early ALB T55 spams? Anyway, I would really like to hear an official opinion from Eugen on this matter. I'm inclined to believe that they are too busy trying to fix naval, but the fact that they price nerfed the T72M when the forum agreed on its ideal pricing makes me wonder if they are intentionally keeping tank prices as is.

duro909
Lieutenant
Posts: 1071
Joined: Sat 19 Jan 2013 22:16
Contact:

Re: Changing the Tanks Meta for the Better + Analysis

Postby duro909 » Tue 6 May 2014 10:48

I like this new pricing system, but there will allways be some tanks which will be not usefull or not cost effective.
At least not all of them
Image
... and Malware-free banner too!

User avatar
Raymond Saint
Lieutenant
Posts: 1088
Joined: Fri 6 Apr 2012 12:36
Location: RSFSR
Contact:

Re: Changing the Tanks Meta for the Better + Analysis

Postby Raymond Saint » Tue 6 May 2014 10:50

I am frustrated too with how new super-heavies was implemented.
Thanx for the great work, Vasily.

UPD: I am agree with price changes too. Let's make all those tanks useful!
Last edited by Raymond Saint on Tue 6 May 2014 10:55, edited 2 times in total.
Image

User avatar
Hidden Gunman
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2057
Joined: Fri 6 Apr 2012 07:47
Location: Adelaide South Australia
Contact:

Re: Changing the Tanks Meta for the Better + Analysis

Postby Hidden Gunman » Tue 6 May 2014 10:54

Excellent work guys.

The 'cake layering' approach doesn't work too well unless the base is finely balanced...the issues that we had in WALB are now magified due to the higher top end, and you guys have shown that well.
A Firefly killed Wittman...

It's a 17lbr, not a 76.2mm.

User avatar
Prettyhill
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 710
Joined: Thu 16 Feb 2012 11:52
Location: Tromsø, Norway
Contact:

Re: Changing the Tanks Meta for the Better + Analysis

Postby Prettyhill » Tue 6 May 2014 10:59

Yes!
There will always be room for debate on the premises and definitions- but your suggested changes are spot on.

Tanks should be more prevalent on the battlefield. I suspect Eugen always wanted tanks to be important part of the game, based on the plurality of models and the cold war theme. Your suggestions would be a good candidate for changing the game so that the cold war workhorses are more than armory filling.

Another aspect is that your suggestions are favourable minor bations that build their army around T72/Leopard1.
"Am i really discussing wargames here with people who have never heard of Fistful of TOWs? I guess that explains why no one has a clue as to what a wargame is then." -Sharky Ward

Bastables
Warrant Officer
Posts: 448
Joined: Fri 30 Mar 2012 05:49
Contact:

Re: Changing the Tanks Meta for the Better + Analysis

Postby Bastables » Tue 6 May 2014 10:59

ninjaminnow12 wrote:Impeccable work, Vasily. Excellent analysis in every respect.


True. From what I've seen, Eugen has been intentionally overpricing tanks. The ALB beta price nerf to Soviet tanks was justified, but thats a different game with fewer tank-killing units. Maybe Eugen is afraid of the early ALB T55 spams? Anyway, I would really like to hear an official opinion from Eugen on this matter. I'm inclined to believe that they are too busy trying to fix naval, but the fact that they price nerfed the T72M when the forum agreed on its ideal pricing makes me wonder if they are intentionally keeping tank prices as is.

Not sure it would be the same issue, as Vas, Hob, and Sha's proposal also limit number per-card and card themselves. We'd also have T55 at their original prices but with the current vision, accuracy (25%-20%) and speed nerf (60km-50km) facing off vs high ap atgm's and more dangerous top tier/"heavy" tanks. Eugen didn't just historically increase prices they also actively down graded the traits of "over performers".

User avatar
Vasily Krysov
Colonel
Posts: 2671
Joined: Mon 2 Apr 2012 09:27

Re: Changing the Tanks Meta for the Better + Analysis

Postby Vasily Krysov » Tue 6 May 2014 11:10

Prettyhill wrote:Yes!
There will always be room for debate on the premises and definitions- but your suggested changes are spot on.

Tanks should be more prevalent on the battlefield. I suspect Eugen always wanted tanks to be important part of the game, based on the plurality of models and the cold war theme. Your suggestions would be a good candidate for changing the game so that the cold war workhorses are more than armory filling.

Another aspect is that your suggestions are favourable minor bations that build their army around T72/Leopard1.


One of the best things about it in my opinion ;)

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests