slight tank depot/motor pool suggestion...

[Firesparks]

how about we move the m10 from the tank depot to the motor pool?

[Busby]

Why?

[FalseMyrmidon]

The M10 is a tank is it not?

[Firesparks]

The M10 is a tank is it not?
techinically no, it's a tanker destroyer which make it the same level as the stug

American tank destroyer favor speed and firepower, while german tank destroyer favor armor and firepower.

Currently the m10 sit on the tank depot which usually pit it against the tiger/panther/panzerIV. Except for the panzerIV the m10 is lacking.

Its capability is more adapt to fight against stug and the ac, and costing nearly the same too (depend on how you value those 10 fuel vs. 40 mp.) The lower armor also meant a grenadier with shreck or a pak can easily take it out.

[FatalTheRabbit]

I'd say not. All tanks need to be less accessible so they stop pushing light vehicles out of the scene, and minimizing the presence of infantry which are the foundation for all tactics utilizing the environment.

[Firesparks]

I'd say not. All tanks need to be less accessible so they stop pushing light vehicles out of the scene, and minimizing the presence of infantry which are the foundation for all tactics utilizing the environment.
if you're going to make AC and stug less accessible then I wouldn't mind m10 the way they are now.

But otherwise, m10 should be build at motor pool

PS: it is not a tank, it only look like a tank

[TheDeadlyShoe]

M10s do not minimize the presence of infantry. They hold up signs saying, 'Hello infantry! Kill me!'

[FatalTheRabbit]

Not the point shoe. If all tanks were less accessible, especially the major ones he wouldn't need the M10 comming out of the motor pool.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

M10s don't cut it against heavy tanks anyways, I'm not sure what the problem is.

[FatalTheRabbit]

I'm guessing the problem for him was the stug, and the tank depot was too far off to counter them in his opinion, so I took the opportunity to advertise the idea of less accesible tanks, which would include the stug...

[Trizzdog]

Wouldn't tanks be less of a problem if you got one of the counters for them earlier? I really don't think infantry would have anything to worry about from the "dreaded" M10 tank destroyer.

[FatalTheRabbit]

That wouldn't solve the root issue with tanks. It's just giving people a head start on tank spam.

[WildeCard]

Tank spam is only a problem in team games. In ranked, it's more like AC spam.

[Victrix Legio]

Which is itself a separate but related problem; I'm coming to think that ALL vehicles should be less available, quite frankly. As it is now, both sides can get away with using nothing but vehicles in the later stages of the game.

[WildeCard]

That's definetly true, but at least ACs and other lighter vehicles can be taken down by infantry.

Tanks are often above bazookas and to a lesser extent, panzershrecks. Sticky bombs can seriously hurt ACs, as well.

When it comes to tanks, you can damage the engine with a sticky, but it'll take more than that to remove a threat.

[Firesparks]

That's definetly true, but at least ACs and other lighter vehicles can be taken down by infantry.

Tanks are often above bazookas and to a lesser extent, panzershrecks. Sticky bombs can seriously hurt ACs, as well.

When it comes to tanks, you can damage the engine with a sticky, but it'll take more than that to remove a threat.
puma rapes infantry, and at 25 fuel/280 mp it's a steal. A hq, a op on a medium and low fuel and you can pretty much build puma non stop.

The m10 itself is pretty useless against at infantry: the armor is thin and the 3 inch gun does pretty poorly against infantry.

I would be for making afv more rare, but if that's not happening m10 should be move to motor pool to counter stug and ac.

[FatalTheRabbit]

I don't really agree about light armor spamming in 1on1. It's not really wise to field more than 1 or 2 pumas as axis(2 is still rarely necessary or wise), because the rest ought to be put into stugs. For allies the M8 is not useful unless the axis player hasn't got any AT whatsoever. Better allied players usually skip the motor pool and go for the tank depot.

If there's a problem with fighting axis in assault phase it lies with the M8s(rate of fire primarily) and rangers.

[WildeCard]

Perhaps spam is an overexaggeration, but it's totally possible to build AC after AC in 1v1.

I wouldn't say Puma owns infantry, it's definetly not on the same level as the Ostwind, but it is powerful and .. um, can we stop using rape as a word to define a units power? It's .. distasteful.

[hasbean]

AC spam in 1v1 is a problem. I've given some thought to it and I don't think there's an easy option, however improving infantry AT options would be a step in the right direction, and possibly reducing the cost of AT guns (which would also solve the 'late game tank fest' effect Fatal hates).

[Demon_Eyes]

Excellent idea, motorpool is a much better place for the M10.

[FatalTheRabbit]

Solving tank spam by introducing AT gun spam isn't the way to go in my opinion.

[Painboy]

Not to go too off topic here but I was surprised relic didn't just have seperate unit cap for vehicles and soldiers. I would imagine that could keep it down. However, that could also make certain vehicles undesirable or even a hindrance in some cases since no one will want to spend those caps on light vehicles at all. I don't even really think about buying M8s now as is. With a seperate cap I wouldn't even consider it. Other than maybe a half track I wouldn't buy anything but "good" tanks. Right now at least there's a little room to wiggle.

I don't know, it's a hard balance to get right. You don't want everyone's army to look exactly the same because the caps force it to look that way.

[WildeCard]

I think that was discussed in another thread. My opinion on dual caps is still the same, definitely against.

Currently, with a shared cap you must consider each unit you build. With two seperate caps, you just simply max them both and lose the individual strategy that each player may use when creating their armies.

[Ozendorph]

One other method of controlling the use of tanks is by creating maps featuring key areas or routes only accessible to infantry (or possibly jeeps/cycles). Deep mud/snow, loose rock, narrow roads/paths, dense vegitation, and extreme elevation changes could easily prevent a WWII-era heavy tank from traversing an area, whereas foot-sloggers are merely slowed down.

[WildeCard]

A neat idea, I heard CoH is shipped with a map editor, maybe we'll see something like this for use in custom maps.