Supply - as ability

[DreJaDe]

Ok ok, this might be a really big rebalance and id really much want all your opinion
@TntAttack
@Dahdee
@Jasondunkel
@SS-Jericho

Should supply trucks cost how much they production cost they reduce? Like 2 turn supply trucks reducing 1 turn cost of production.

I mean, it kinda makes much more sense. Since we're just boosting other production, I don't think it should cost that much.Though I do think that some people might say that it will become too spammy so I have another solution.

A. Buff the production reduction of supply trucks by how much they cost. (2 turn supply trucks will reduce 2 turn of production)
B. Same as A but make the 5 turn supply trucks a 4 turn cost unit and reduce 4 cost of production.

There's also another suggestion which is to apply the ability that is in AOS which is being able to reduce cost of production through an ability.

Reasons
A. You will be able to help your ally.
B. Lend lease immersion

[TntAttack]

I support your idea, but I don't have any ideas either.

Currently, our logistics speed up production mechanic is a bit flawed, but it works.

Current flaws I like to see addressed:
-Inventives to speed up tank production (as instead of getting a 5 turn production speed up for one tank, why not build two tanks? Note same logic applies for both variants of the supply truck that is 3 turn and 5 turn.)
-Transport supply ship > than normal supply truck (1. not a problem in itself, just not inherently balanced e.g, there should be more risk to using naval shipments. 2. Less realism e.g. supply ship cant land on ground to dispatch supplies?)

Multiplayer:

Currently, the strategy for me and I assume other players, is to mass and spam carriers. They cost more, produce units, thus bring more return than investing in any other things.

So naval battleships are really just carrier spamming with tactical manoeuvring to avoid mines, subs, battleships.

I don't know if it's better to transition from a supply stacking dynamic to a more robust system, but I am down if anyone has better ideas.

[SS-Jericho]

I also support your idea Drejade. Making 2 turn equal to its production speed ups help players who wants to build specific units like rushing specific units which will open up for more playstyle. And will make expensive units worth it since they can be brought up earlier without causing extra turn (since seasoned players knows the worth of 1 turn).

Also, being able to put supply truck to other teammates will be very helpful. Since each nation in game has its strengths and weaknesses, one can support the other if its crucial for turning the tide of the game.

[Dahdee]

I like the idea, especially in regards to being able to send a supply truck to an ally. I don't see how it can really be spammy since these units are being used up, and disappear. so no more spammy than infantry, right? It's a Tc making a truck instead of another unit.

[Stratego (dev)]

There must be a cost of making money couriers, that is why i set to 2->1 and 5->3

[DreJaDe]

There must be a cost of making money couriers, that is why i set to 2->1 and 5->3

Why?

I think this has been quite democratic... Dang.

[Stratego (dev)]

what do u mean?
i just wrote why, the feature needs cost something as we must not make costless transfer of production, if we would go taht way than maybe we could make a "global production pool" and insta-build any unit on any other place. (meaning the "place" of a TC will not matter that much anymore ->> resulting less strategic gameplay)

what do u mean by non democratic?
i wrote why i set it when i made them...

also this is probably not a balance problem as all nations have them with same stats. so this is simply a "mechanic" of a game.
or is here any balance problem i did not understood?

[DreJaDe]

what do u mean?

You actually didn't write much which is why I asked "why?". I want to know the real reason besides " we need to have this".

resulting less strategic gameplay

I don't think this is true. This is basically just redirecting your resources, basically how you do mass and fast production IRL.

There's also the need to wait for next turn, the travel time etc which actually makes this even more strategic. And so much more logic actually.

what do u mean by non democratic?

I didn't say this. You might have misunderstood. I was just surprised that most agreed with my suggestion. Lol.

not a balance problem

Kinda yes, but I think it's a nice feature for AOWW.

I mean, even AOS have them already. We've using it for quite some time there now. Though kinda lottery style.

[Jasondunkel]

i like the idea that you can support allies with the supply trucks.

but the cost-benefit ratio should not be changed. usually it always costs something if you support us or are supported

[SS-Jericho]

I dont have a good counter to why cost-benefit ratio should be changed. But can the 5 cost (3 support) production unit be 4 cost?

[DreJaDe]

I dont have a good counter to why cost-benefit ratio should be changed. But can the 5 cost (3 support) production unit be 4 cost?

Your initial idea should already be enough and I honestly agree.

usually it always costs something if you support us or are supported

While this is true, isn't that basically the same as it's cost?

The sacrifice is that you putting up a supply trucks sacrifices that TC for a faster production of another.

Currently, the strategy for me and I assume other players, is to mass and spam carriers. They cost more, produce units, thus bring more return than investing in any other things.

This is not possible anymore since you can only have limited AC and the AC would b gone if you reach the limit. As for battleship, yeah... I also suggested the idea of making destroyers also have torpedoes but was rejected... It was actually their main armament though against other ships though.

Well, to end this reply. Another idea that I think is to make supply trucks cost 3 but boosts production by 2. This satisfies both my idea and the idea that there is a need of sacrifice.

[TntAttack]

Please note that when defining that a supply truck costs 5 and speeds up by 3, that in practicality, its actually 4 due to the nature of the player ending their turn.

So in actuality, when @DreJaDe mentioned that a supply truck should cost 3, and speed up 2, there are two possible interpretations.

1. Cost is three, speed up is 2+1 which violates the cost benefit ratio mentioned above. That is, it's a cost to benefit relations e.g, you want that prize soon? Lose a few turns.

2. Cost is three, speed up is 1+1 which honestly isn't bad, but most tanks are 3-4 turns. What incentive are there to produce stronger and better tanks if they are few, lacking in mobility and costly e.g. instead of getting a tank 2 turns faster, we could get 2 tanks 3 turns later.

Currently, the strategy for me and I assume other players, is to mass and spam carriers. They cost more, produce units, thus bring more return than investing in any other things.

This is not possible anymore since you can only have limited AC and the AC would b gone if you reach the limit. As for battleship, yeah... I also suggested the idea of making destroyers also have torpedoes but was rejected... It was actually their main armament though against other ships though.

Well, it's still possible to spam AC till you reached the limit, the implied meaning was that there was more incentive to spam carriers to get like a quarter of your total TC worth of mobile airports than to invest in other units.

Destroyers with torpedos sounds cool, might make battleships and ACs incredibly vulnerable. Naval combat is okay right now so let's not break it any further until the dust has settled.

[DreJaDe]

1. Cost is three, speed up is 2+1 which violates the cost benefit ratio mentioned above. That is, it's a cost to benefit relations e.g, you want that prize soon? Lose a few turns.

This is a wrong calculation as you shouldn't count the production rate of the factory itself.

If that is what it means is that there should have been no problem since two turn supply trucks already speeds up.factory by 2 turns which it does not as it only speeds it up by one.

[Stratego (dev)]

actually i like the current setting
- important that it is not a balance issue at all
- and actually it is code related how many turns among all games the games, so would be a tricky change to change it.

[DreJaDe]

actually i like the current setting
- important that it is not a balance issue at all
- and actually it is code related how many turns among all games the games, so would be a tricky change to change it.

But we do already have different types of this in AOS already.

We have x1, x2 and the x3 speed up production... I don't think it's that tricky. though for me it is since I don't know JSON. So my suggestion I think can actually be done.

But yes, it's not a "balance issue" but a "REbalance" suggestion

But what I want to ask now is the ability. Since most people, even Jason agreed.

[Stratego (dev)]

ok, i renamed the topic and moved to new suggestions section.