Imagine a mode where your lineup is built around the real-world cost of your tanks. Let’s say an M1A2 SEP V3 costs around $20 million, a Leopard 2A6V around $28 million, and a ZTZ99A around $5 million.
Everyone gets the same total budget. Bring expensive tanks and you get fewer respawns. Pick cheaper ones and you can respawn more often, as long as you stay within that budget. You’d probably need more crew slots too. I’m sure Gaijin would love that part lol.
It could recreate that WWII trade-off: one finely built Tiger costing roughly as much as three to five much simpler T-34s. Do you put your money into a few expensive tanks, or bring more affordable ones and fight with numbers?
I’d love to see what players choose. Would they go for the Leopard 2 or Abrams for their refinement and how they feel to play? Or pick cheaper T-90Ms and T-80s so they can keep coming back?
A system like this could bring the economic side of warfare into the game and add a whole new layer of decisions. I think there’s a lot of potential here for both realism and more interesting gameplay.
Fair point lol. I want expensive tanks to mean fewer spawns, not an empty US queue. If straight real-world prices make it that bad, the budgets would need adjusting. I’d try it as a separate mode first anyway.
Yeah, that’s a fair concern. Cheaper tanks getting more spawns is part of the idea, but if they’re just as capable, it becomes a straight advantage. Real prices could be a starting point, with adjustments for balance. I want “quality vs numbers” to be a meaningful choice, not one obvious winner.
would be a funny LTM. especially if the budget was for the whole team. would be an instant loss if someone spawns an Ajax because that thing as of when they were withdrawn from service has cost about £19 million per unit. Considering a challenger 1 at the same BR cost about £2 million that would instantly cripple the team
If we’re comparing tanks one on one, the Abrams and Leopard 2 are clearly strong picks, so naturally more players will choose them. Cheaper tanks tend to be less capable, so fewer people want to play them. It’s not that cheap tanks are bad. A tank like the T-34 had an advantage in cost, but that advantage doesn’t really translate into the game.
Lol fair point. Nobody wants to spend the whole match being food for a Tiger. More spawns only help if the cheaper tank still has a fighting chance. That’s the tricky part to balance.
I’d rather have Heroes and Generals-like world war mode with limited resources for each team, where there can be like, 20 heavy tank respawns per team, 50 medium, 100 light, 50 aa, 10 bombers, 10 fighters, a boat and 500 infantry :D
Just because generals on a map sent these resources to the battle. And your enemy has 200 heavy tanks, 50 infantry, nothing else, because their generals left these to defend :P
Or maybe a mode with symmetric resources, if you don’t like asymmetric.
I’d play that. It would make each battle feel like part of a bigger war, with losses actually affecting the next fight. Equal resources would probably be a good place to start.
Though if our generals send us one boat against 200 heavy tanks, I’m requesting a transfer lol.
Thats exactly why I continued to play H&G, even tho they had the worst p2w balance ever and the economy was horrible (grenade costed 4k silver to use and gave 500 silver per frag, lol). I loved that mode, even tho it was painful to play with their balance when “5rank” and “1rank” play in the same match. T-26 vs King Tiger lmaoo.
I remember when we captured Warsaw that was deep in German backlines… Using 500 paratroopers. Against hundreds of tanks and no german infantry, apparently because they moved all infantry groups out of the city, to defend against our tank groups that were coming.
