Munitions upkeep

Playing around with the Soviet AT gun I did a skermish game on Halbe at one point I have about half the map, 4 AT guns, two of which wont moved, bugged. I have one SU-85 and a T-90. OP on a 10 munitions giving me 18 there and two 5 munitions and yet I have zero munitions income. I suicided the tanks to see where all the munitions upkeep is at. Captured some more munitions I now have 35 munitions and only 16 munitions income. So where is the drain? I have no tanks, 5 AT guns, you telling me there is munitions upkeep on AT guns? Then the game crashes. Is this a bug or is there really that much munitions upkeep?

---

Post Merge: [time]1282431586[/time]

---

I figured it out. Did another skermish on wolf. Grabbed the two high munitions at the bottom. OP both of them. That gave me two at 26 each. My income should have been 52 but for some reason I was getting 53. Built a AT gun and my income dropped to 49. So the AT gun was costing 4 munitions income points.

Why would anyone ever bother to build a Soviet AT gun? I mean one just doesn’t make it. You always need two at least to do any good. And you have to support them against infantry or they just get de-crewed. I also noticed that even though they have a long range they miss a lot. Much more than the 57 or pak.

---

Post Merge: [time]1282437815[/time]

---

Ok I have some more figures here;
The T-70 costs 3 munitions income points, the T-90 3 points. The medic truck 4, the AT gun 4, and the SU-85 7 points. Didnt check out the T-34 but im sure its astronomical.

So by mid to late game your likely to have no munitions income at all. Now I here talk about nerfing Sharpshooters and the SU-85. Well once that happens then the Soviets are done. Might as well go back to playing USA. Why do we have to go from one side of the balance scale to the other.

Last edited August 22, 2010 at 12:43 AM by Sonders

I would like to know why are you doing this? ???

I'll quote Paciat words, from somewhere on EF Forum:

Paciat wrote:
Check the 1.20 changelog.
* T70/T90/ZiS AT gun/Mortar/Firebase/ZiS-5 Medic Truck/Katyusha upkeep set at 0.007 munitions per tick (3.36 per min).
* T34-76/T34-85/SU-85/SU-100/Lend-Lease Sherman/KV-2 set upkeep at 0.014 munitions per tick (6.72 per min).
* IS-2/ISU-152 upkeep set at 0.018 munitions per tick (8.64 per min).
5 medium tanks cost 33.6 ammo per minute!
If youll go tank heavy with Soviets its hard to get any upgrades. This ammo upkeep balances wehrmacht vet.
Try building outposts on ammo points.

And that's the reason as you already found out ;).

Do you really care about munis as Russians when abilities are free? Russians have the most uses of abilities of anyone for this reason. It is all done for the sake of BALANCE.

The reason you got a +53 rate was because of decimals which were rounded.

Russians play completely differently to US. They require use of a good combination of units and good ability use whereas US requires a dynamic flanking game. Rifle vet is also the single most important part of the US game where Russians care less about vet apart from their CS. Let's not even bother going into a tank comparison.

All I was doing is trying to find another form of AT so when I start facing PE in real games im not run over by inf HT and armor cars like I saw in the tourny replays. So I was experimenting with the AT gun, they are cheap and can come out early. But once I realized it has a munitions upkeep and the fact that you got to build at least two, then I im just saying why would anyone build a Soviet AT gun. Two AT guns has a greater munitions upkeep than a SU-85. The SU-85 costs fuel but it doesn’t get de-crewed.

BTW; the Soviets need munitions as much as everyone else. Mines cost munitions, sniper upgrade cost munitions, every upgrade in the supply yard cost munitions, flames cost munitions.

So the moral of the story is; if your not going to use AT guns then you have to go for tank hunters. Non upgraded tank hunters work against inf HT if you can get close enough to throw a AT nade but not if it is supported by an armored car and PGs. Tank hunters supported by one AT gun might work but they are not on the same research tree. That would cost you 70 fuel. Would be better to spend fuel on tank hall and T-70, but if he is a good PE player you probably wont get the fuel to make it to the T-70. What is that? 55 fuel to put up tank hall, you already spent 35 fuel to research tank hunters. Another 35 fuel to research light tanks and another 35 fuel for the T-70. That’s a lot of fuel. You make it that far PGs will have schricks that will rip your light tanks apart

Part of the problem with the PE-Russian balance is the piss-poor penetration that Soviet small arms have against halftracks/ACs. US rifles destroy all PE light vehicles with BARs but Soviets have nothing comparable on their early troops.

Russian light vehicles only come a little later than M8s and are better (-mines). The problem is that Russians have no doctrinal heavy infantry with AT weapons that you can use during this time similar to rangers or stormtroopers. It makes builds like this more difficult to pull off with only conscripts for troops. Or if you go support barracks first you will be delayed fuel wise and extremely short on MP.

Only mines, flamers and GoW/IL-2 work the same as the other armies. Sniper arty is free past the initial purchase and even this is cheaper than any other arty power. The armoury upgrades will be more fuel limited than muni limited anyway. You also don't need more than a handful of these if you have an efficient build order.

Both THs and AT guns are extremely effective against PE vehicles. The problem is making it to that stage without losing all of your infantry, or losing these to excellent PE AI weapons like MP44s.

Correction to my earlyer post; its 55 fuel to research light tanks not 35.

Well, at least he didn't tell me to "fuck off" that's something anyway

Let off mate. I'm Australian, it's just how we talk.

The T-70 comes at 145 fuel if you go straight for it. That's 10 fuel faster than a puma rush, so I'd say it's still pretty fast.

The answers of other topics is for them alone, it shouldn't interfere with your judgement @Sonders.

IMHO by the time you get 0 munis from income your enemy should be near defeat.

blackbishop wrote:
I would like to know why are you doing this? ???

And that's the reason as you already found out ;).

We had a longer thread about that topic already, look here:
http://easternfront.org/forums/index.php?topic=4332.msg43746#msg43746
and all the replies.
In my opinion the major problem is that it is expected that players read the quoted ChangeLog 1.20 in detail.
My suggestion is to point out the munition upkeep in the unit description. Or even better with a special icon in the cost overview.
If you know that your munition income will go down to zero if you go for AT guns you have a chance to counter it, e.g. by favouring Tank Hunters to AT guns and supporting it with SU-85 against Ostwinds and Inf. HT.

QuoteIn my opinion the major problem is that it is expected that players read the quoted ChangeLog 1.20 in detail.
My suggestion is to point out the munition upkeep in the unit description. Or even better with a special icon in the cost overview.
If you know that your munition income will go down to zero if you go for AT guns you have a chance to counter it, e.g. by favouring Tank Hunters to AT guns and supporting it with SU-85 against Ostwinds and Inf. HT.

I think this is a great idea as I for one did not until recently know why I was having problems with my muni  like the other poster mentioned. Icon or added unit description would be great.

I love the the Russian army for the all options it has, but knowing the trade offs would help greatly.

I think thats a double edged sword. Lets face it, not everyone reads the changelogs, so it could be nice to them. But thats just more work for an issue that could be easily remedied by reading some text. Its a good idea but possible low on the priority list.

I'm not in much of a struggle with upkeep. Build some outpost.

I was taken a bit off-guard with how much munitions are used up to begin with. but once i got used to it i found it does the job well enough.