Attachment:
Bdex chart 1.jpg [ 14.27 KiB | Viewed 234 times ]
It is plain to see from this chart that the less useful a buff for a unit is, the more you save versus the normal super buff cost. Fighters, Helis, and Heavy Tanks are the units that traditionally are buffed with the super buff so they save the least money.
This is great as the cards price reflects usefulness. The more useful the buff, the more expensive the card.
Now lets look at the Lethal Buffs:
Attachment:
Bdex chart 2.jpg [ 13.01 KiB | Viewed 234 times ]
The ONLY Lethal card whose price was changed due to usefulness was the Recon. This is pretty much saying that every single unit is good in their own way and worth buffing firepower just as much as any other unit, excluding the Recon.
But isn't a firepower buffed Heavy Tank better than a firepower buffed Light Tank? What about AA's who have the very specific job of kill air units? Are they just as useful a target to be buffed?
Lastly lets look at Armored Buffs:
Attachment:
Bdex chart 3.jpg [ 13.3 KiB | Viewed 234 times ]
And another table:
Unit----------HP----------Savings
Infantry-----50hp--------5g
Recon------75hp--------30g
Artillery-----75hp--------35g
AA-----------100hp------20g
Fighter-----100hp------5g
Heli---------125hp------5g
LT-----------130hp------15g
HT-----------210hp------5g
If we were following the same logic from the Lethal units above, all units would be "equal" in terms of usefulness to buff.
Alternatively the price could reflect how much hp you will save (armor that effects more hp is better). This is also not entirely the case, as both Recons and Artillery have the same hp but different costs.
What does everyone think? Since there has been so much discussion about Buffed units and their costs I figured this would be the best way to start a discussion about how things should be balanced.
Rothmorthau
