Reasoning behind HQ and Mobility Upgrade Costs

Moderator: Hubert Cater

Chernobyl
Posts: 640
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 5:51 am

RE: Reasoning behind HQ and Mobility Upgrade Costs

Post by Chernobyl »

I think it would be a bad idea balance-wise to lower the cost for Germany.

But I do think ideally it would feel better to increase the penalty for mobility to the same level (no idea why Japan should get cheap motorized infantry). It's not a big deal but the status quo feels slightly wrong to me.

Also side note about upgrades and supply: the Allies ALREADY get the cheapest upgrades of them all. And the reason for that is because destroyed units (in 5 or greater supply) get bought back with full upgrades extremely cheaply. The cheapest way to get (normally prohibitively expensive) upgrades is to fully upgrade a *unit which was previously destroyed. The Germans and Japanese can go for quite a long time before losing more than one or two units ground units. The fact that bought-back units get super cheap upgrades is one of Russia's greatest advantages. Not saying Russia should be weakened (it should be strengthened) but is the intention really to permit USSR to buyback a 1/1/0 unit as a 2/2/1 unit for a bargain price? It almost makes feeling destroying Russian units counterproductive sometimes - like the only kills worth going for are those in low supply. And then the game becomes less about defeating enemy armies and more about creating situations where enemy units will be in low supply (4 or less) and targeting those units for destruction. Often I find myself avoiding destroying enemy units just to wait for their supply to lower. Sometimes this feels intuitive (pocketing enemy units) but often it just feels gamey.
Post Reply

Return to “Strategic Command WWII: World at War”