Page 1 of 1
Fix the tank prices!
Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:14 pm
I'm sure we're all aware that the tank prices are screwy. The best French tank for example is not the most expensive tank, no, a slower tank with less armour and a worse gun is... but it has one more crew.
Suggestions on a better pricing structure?
Perhaps for each tank you buy the next one should be more expensive (e.g. if you buy a second Sherman, since Shermans were common, the price remains unchanged, but buy a King Tiger and it doubles?), as well as preserving a little historical accuracy, it would also help cut down on tank blitz.
Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 10:48 pm
There is no reason for better tanks to cost more. More <> better. just because something costs more doesn't mean it's better. For example, the Edsile (SP?) was an expensive luxury car, but it sucked eggs.
I do like the idea of tank prices icreasing with each successive tank purchase though.
Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 7:53 pm
There is a good reason for something to cost more... balance. The costs in this game are purely for balance reasons, therefore tanks should be priced appropriately.
Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 10:10 pm
I agree, which is why I like the prospect of increasing prices for successive purchases. However, historical accuracy should be accounted for as well. It could be argued that rare tanks should cost more to prevent you from fielding 5 Elefants. Think about it...with only 90 ever produced, how would you be so "lucky" to get 5 of them?
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:04 am
Why not simply have a limit to each type of unit you can get? Even if the rare tanks did cost a little more, and their price did go up, you still can get 5 of them.
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 12:21 pm
Tim_Myth wrote:I agree, which is why I like the prospect of increasing prices for successive purchases. However, historical accuracy should be accounted for as well. It could be argued that rare tanks should cost more to prevent you from fielding 5 Elefants. Think about it...with only 90 ever produced, how would you be so "lucky" to get 5 of them?
I can buy an army of nothing but flamethrowers... right, now we've dispatched with the pretence of historical accuracy would you care to assist in a real solution?
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 10:14 pm
What is the best main battle tank in existence today? The Abrahams? The Leopard? The Merkava? Which one is the most expensive? The second question is much easier to answer than the first. The first usually comes down to how you define best.
Now, as for a "real" solution, increasing the price of tabks with successive purchases is a real solution when you stop and think about it long enough. Suppose I buy the Best French tank (Souma 35) for 31, but then the price goes up to 36 for the next one. I am forced to decide wether the bigger gun and better speed are worth the 5 extra cost. If I do buy a second one, and the price for the third goes up to 41, is it still worth it, or would I be better off taking the R40?
Look at the Americans, Shermans were cheap to make and plentiful in the later years of the war. Suppose that their price only goes up by 3 for each purchase. Buying 3 is no big deal, but is the 4th worth the extra cost, or should I field a Stuart instead?
Also, why should this only be applied to tanks? I think it should be applied to ALL units. Therefore, if you want to field all flame thgrowers, you can, but when the sixth flame thrower costs something like 18 bucks, why would you? Now look at the Soviet Union. They had lots of soldiers, but few of them were anything but riflemen. Their rifle squads would go up very little with each successive purchase.
Simply adjusting the cost of the tanks will not fix things. Instead of buying 7 Soumas and doing a tank rush, I would buy 6 and still do the tank rush. Unless your suggesting raising the prices so much that tanks become a rarety...