Discussion about unit costs of WW1/WW2
Schulz last edited by
I would like to learn the best costs of this units and want to share my opinions.
- Inf=3Pus, Artillery=4Pus and Armour=5Pus: Fits well for most of WWII maps with techs or without techs but what if we reduce or add 1 Pus cost to all of these? Would it be better alternative for specific maps?
Also my guess is if there is a conscript with 2 Pus cost and 0/1/1 stats,supportable then it makes infantry a bit useless. Without supportability conscript may be balanced unit along other units.
Would armored car (2/1/2) fit well with 3.5 Pus cost?
Also I do feel carrier+fighter combo is so much powerful than other naval units. I know they get cost reduction from techs but it never came to the games in the most ciritis parts and simple no reason to research them first. I also tend to like convoy zones and like to see incomes on the sea.
Long range is enjoyable but very overpowered tech not sure is that really balanced tech. Maybe would it be better if fighter cost was 12 and bomber one 14 not sure though.
Motorized (1/3/3) with 5 pus cost and Mechanized (2/3/3 artillery) with 6 Pus sounds reasonable. Would Heavy tank (4/4/2 support 2 infantry) with 7 Pus be any good?
@Schulz It really depends on the map size, game rules, how you are handling factories/production, and starting set up. It appears you are mostly referencing the WaW/NWO/TRS units. These I would say are "mostly" balanced for that map but not perfect (you see a fairly good variety of them built though most agree that elite and marine are not very good). Movement and isAir are difficult to quantify their value and really depends on the map. I do "generally" feel that on most maps air units are a bit too cheap and naval units are a bit too expensive but there are a lot of factors like the cost of carriers, whether transports can be taken as casualties, any form of convoy zones, etc.
Schulz last edited by
Paying 1 Pus more for just getting extra 1 attack or defence does not worth. It is just increasing offense/defence 17% but paying %50 more than the cheapest cannon fodder thats cost issue. Another thing is both have the same HP which make these kind of units even worse. The similar thing does exist in 270BC. Archer is %33 expensive than spearman and just get %17 more defense.
They are all obviosly bad units.
I agree for air and naval units. Maybe have to talk about unit costs for specific maps.
@Schulz While I generally agree, the other thing you have to consider on maps like NWO/WaW/TRS is that most players have lots of income but somewhat limited unit production so while stronger units are less efficient, I also can't place 50 infantry on 6 production factory so I often need to either buy stronger units or buy lots of units that are very far away from any fronts (so I'm now probably paying for extra movement). Also because the way the combat system in TripleA (and A&A) works, having a few very strong units even if they seem less efficient can be worth it. The reason for this is that those units will be taken last as casualties so get to fire every round of battle and especially if you have lots of low attack/defense power units, you need some stronger units to balance that out.
There is also the case of transporting units where you generally want to maximize the power of what each transport holds in order to minimize the number of transports you have to purchase. So say having 3 transports each with 1 marine + 1 art vs 4 transports each with 1 inf + 1 art.
The value of unit strengths can also be affected by whether the game is meant to be played as Dice or Low Luck.