New buildtree direction discussion

So flozi and I have spent a good bit of time tonight hammering out the build trees for the next release, as well as the overall structure.

Basically, what we’re looking to do is have a linear build tree with ‘upgrades’. We worked on the vehicle path tonight, since those are mostly the units that are finished. What resulted is a wild combination of SP guns, tanks and TDs. Our goal with each ‘tier’ was to create a setup where it wasn’t just a simple ‘upgrade’ to better units - each tier has something useful, so upgrading means you’re making a pretty serious switch in the purpose of that factory.

Note: many of these are probably going to seem odd, like the Tiger or ISU-152 at Tier 0. Keep in mind that these units still have a cost, and are not be-all-end all units. These tiers are less about individual unit power and much more about the combinations that the tier offers.

So, here goes:


Tier 0: Con veh, M5 Stuart, M4 Sherman, M10 Wolverine
Tier 1: Con veh, Sherman 105, Sherman 76, Jumbo?
Notes: flozi and I couldn’t decide what to include for the third slot for Tier 1 - M36 seems like it would make the group too powerful, and make the US oddly good at tank-killing, while the Jumbo gives them perhaps more protection than they deserve. On the plus side, the Jumbo supports the “SHERMAN SHERMAN SHERMAN” stereotype, and means that the US struggles with enemy armor somewhat (which is a good thing).
Tier 0: Con veh, PIII, StuGIII, Tiger
Tier 1: Con veh, PIV, JgdPzrIV, Wespe, Tiger
Tier 2: Con veh, Panther, Jagdpanther, TigerII
Notes: The Tiger at Tier 0 is not overly insane, promise. It’ll still be expensive to produce, and able to be overwhelmed by flanking units, the ISU-152, firefly, or massive swarms of M10s.
Tier 0: Con veh, AEC Mk II, Cromwell, Crom 95, Firefly
Tier 1: Con veh, Kangaroo, Churchill, Sexton, Achilles
Notes: The AEC has been changed from the 75mm MkIII to the 6pdr armed Mk II. We’re also only giving it AP rounds, so it’ll act like a fast tank destroyer.

Tier 0: Con veh, T-70, T-34/76, ISU-152 - (I accidentally dropped the SU-85 from here, but now it seems like a hard one to put back in, since SU-85 + ISU-152 is truly crazy; if anyone has ideas how to slot it in, please tell. Flozi was thinking SU-85 + SU-122, which could work).
Tier 1: Con veh, T-34/85, IS-2, Katyusha

Notes: Yes, this looks crazy. We know. The ISU-152 is more limited than it might immediately seem: it only holds 6 rounds, moves slowly, and its AP power is less than the British 17pdr. Also it lacks a MG.
Tier 1 is also VERY powerful, but both the Katy and IS-2 will be pretty expensive units.

We had quite a debate over the russians, I’d personally like to see the Katyusha as an upgrade in the gun factory, which can already produce arty and trucks, so why not arty mounted on a truck.

I had suggested the SU-122 in tier 0, to give a big HE punch but no AP (Along with SU-85 to give a boost there). The ISU-152 does however help to give the russians a counter to the Tier 0 Tiger. Though I’m in two minds as to whether or not that is desirable.

Also note that the germans have an extra tier to anyone else - this hopefully helps to balance out the advantage in guns and armour they hold ‘on paper’.

The british ‘upgrade’ is possibly the strangest, as its more lateral than any of the others. Meaning its more of a switch in roles than particularly a direct upgrade in firepower. At least as I see it. Oh, and the Kangaroo will still be available in the vehicle yard, as well as becoming available in the tank yard after upgrade.

Yes, it’s another one of those “you’ve clearly gone nuts…” moments.

Looks like M7 Priest (and M8 Scott) have gone missing. US yard has nothing in the way of SP arty, while others do have some (Sexton, Wespe, Katyusha and ISU-152 to some extent).

Scott stays in the vehicle yard where it is now. :wink:

Priest would probably have to be Tier 1… we didn’t really consider it as it isn’t done yet (sexton was an afterthought). That’s a bit of a tricky one though, for sure. especially with the position of the Sherman (105).

Also I was thinking flip the Achilles and Firefly. Nemo wanted to avoid firefly and churchill grouped together, but it would fit with the other sides better (particularly US), and make the upgrade all about better armour, which was my reasoning behind the 'roo.

I had another suggestion for the russians, but i’ve forgotten it. :angry:

Ahah, remembered it!

Tier 0:
Con veh, T-70, T-34/76, SU-85, KV-1
So, we don’t have the big HE boost here, but we do have the extra armour of the KV-1, and in this place it isn’t as redundant as before as T-34/85 and IS-2 aren’t available

Tier 1:
Con veh, T-34/85, ISU-152, IS-2

Katyusha of course would be gunyard Tier 1. Also me and nemo agreed that tank yard upgrades will replace the lower tier build options, whereas gun yards will add to.

i suggested later date units be put into diffrent tiers so so long ago and was massively rejected :stuck_out_tongue:

I don’t see why.

Here’s my input, with reasons.

Tier 0 - Include SU-85, remove ISU-152, maybe include SU-122
Tier 1 - ISU-152 goes here, along with SU-100

The reasons are as follows.

First, the ISU-152 is not that great an anti-tank vehicle for it to be the sole basis of Soviet anti-tank firepower for Tier 0. Yes, its shell is amazingly strong, but not that strong; it is also inaccurate as all heck, making its role more predominantly barrage support than anti-armour. The SU-85 I feel is a compromise; it is a dedicated anti-tank vehicle but its gun, the 85mm, is roughly equal to the German 75mm L/48 (on the Panzer IV and StuG III) and the US 76mm/3-Inch anti-tank guns.

The SU-122 is option. I wouldn’t mind it not being included anymore. It’s not uvmapped or textured, so we may as well leave it off.

ISU-152 being in Tier 1, despite its lack of AT capability, is mainly due to the enormous gun it has. Nobody else has a self-propelled gun of that size (as the Hummel seems to have been removed, though I’d argue for its re-inclusion). It’s also fairly heavily armoured and is, of course, based on the IS-2 chassis.

The SU-100, lastly, was the Soviet Union’s premier tank destroyer. It was essentially the only thing able to consistently defeat Tigers, Panthers and King Tigers. And while it’s fun to shaft sides and see how they cope (re: US), I don’t feel gameplay would benefit from the SU-100 being left out. In comparable terms, the SU-100 is roughly equivilent to the Jagdpanther, but with notable difference. First, the SU-100 does not have the same gun as the IS-2; infact, iirc, the SU-100’s gun is better than the IS-2’s in armour penetration (the 122mm on the IS-2 being worse than the Jagdpanther/Tiger II’s 88mm). The IS-2 is more of a rather large Sherman, with less emphasis on tank-destroying ability and more on duel-purpose functionality, unlike the Tiger II, which is more than suited for tank hunting. The point I’m trying to make is that the difference between the Jagdpanther and the Tiger II is less than the difference between the SU-100 and IS-2; the Jagdpanther simply has the same gun in AP-only as the Tiger II.

Also, there’s the fact that the US is already starved for ways to defeat heavy armour, does the USSR need to be similarly starved? If we’re worried about side differentiation, it’s still there; the Brits may have awesome anti-tank capability, but a real lack of heavy armour; whereas the US lacks both; the USSR had very good armour and anti-armour abilities while Germany has extremely excellent capabilities in both.

Anyway, my two cents.