I don't fully share the premise that "tanks are OP" in EIR either, as like Dire said you also need to consider F-based AT options which offer very potent alternatives to MU based AT, particularly against heavier tanks.
While I agree with many of the specific points, I don't fully agree with the conclusions that (paraphrasing) "Tanks are OP for a variety of overlapping reasons".
Tanks are good, I agree, that does not mean infantry and support weapons are bad. These interactions are not entirely zero sum.
I've looked at the facts, done the analysis, tried various play styles etc. Your current system supports the Tank + Inf spam strategy for many overlapping reasons. Whatever your takeaway is, it's your call. I want other play styles to be viable as well just as much as you want and without changing some of these fundamental, historical systems, for the reasons I've specified, it will remain the way it is.
I call it "Tanks are OP" but you can call it by any other name.
That being said, I do agree there's some issue with builds like volksspam + panzers/tigers inherent to EIR's resource system. Repair kits on tanks could easily go up in price. 60 - 100 Mun is very cheap for a second life on a tank.
Its a combination of the resource system, repair kits and the tank's inherent design and MU drain effect that makes that specific tactic effective. If you slowly break up the various aspects of it, other play styles will become as viable and competitive.
On the other hand, if we were to considerably increase their price I do think we should consider breaking them up in two as a 30 MU mine can effectively render your vehicle near-useless. I think it's also worth reconsidering the current balance between MP - MU and F as the current 8000 - 2000 - 1200 is very much skewed towards vehicles AND infantry upgrades as opposed to some of the previous resource setups we had in EIR (remember the 10k MP days with like 1500 Mun). This is easy to change in the SQL and we should have a go with small changes just to see how that impacts gameplay. I've always thought 2k Mun is a bit too much personally.
Breaking up the repair kit in general is a good thing. It reduces the element of luck and risk by a tiny bit, giving a small second chance, it also makes tank more powerful again in that regard and reduces the fear factor for axis tanks pushing allied positions.
The MP MU FU resource should be lowered but I think all upgrades etc need some rebalancing first. Lowering MU now will favour the tank + inf spam tactic even more because of lack of MU for ATGs and HHATs while upgraded infantry overruns ur positions.
So, yes, having a general idea of a good map is nice. However, making them uniform is not something i'm really in favor of. I feel that overcoming any slight bias against your company in map design is part of the game of EIR. It is a skill to be learned and an aspect of the game to be mastered.
On Maps, I agree with Dire we shouldn't be forcing too much uniformity. It's good to have some diversity (urban maps vs rural, etc) in layouts and what they might offer in terms of playstyle as long as its nothing too extreme. Maps like RTC can probably be considered "extreme" in how they cater to support weapon spam (narrow map, easy to lock down areas) and allow flak dominance. I think over the years most of us have an implicit understanding of what constitutes a good map. We can and should probably codify that somewhat (attempts were made over the years and I wrote down my thoughts in the other thread) and subsequently trim down the list of maps we have on offer, only offering maps that we're confident will offer a fairly balanced experience for both sides, regardless of the company build you're bringing.
Hence why I'm bringing as much of these discussions public and into a written forum format as possible to allow for diversity of opinions and to track what everyone is saying.
I've given some thought and I agree with those things, but it is not great to return to flamethrowers + schreck spam on maps flooded with buildings. It just doesn't make for interesting play.
Given the new warmap play style and idea I've floated across. Having maps around some themes: rural europe (Road to Carentan, Operation Martlet etc.), Town/urban (Nuenen, Forest) allows for variety, specific companies tailored for aggressive / meeting engagement / skirmishing play etc. It still doesn't change the fact that maps should still be well designed and layout to factor for different types of play etc, not just dumping splats and things in.
1. Fuel based vehicle counters exist both in soft and hard forms. seems too flippant a consideration considering how common these fuel vs fuel interactions are. There are entire units and strategies based upon this interaction set.
Yes but that's like saying use OP unit to fight OP unit. Plus getting a generalist unit is better for versatility of combat.
2. You seem to be terribly underselling the value of infantry within EIR. The ability to control territory is the single most important thing in EIR. Consistently, through the history of EIR, the most effective and difficult to counter strats are territory/infantry based ones that often leave large amounts of fuel floating. 36 rifles/atgs, smokedropAB, spawnrush commandos. Its also not uncommon for vehicle based strats to simply be capped off the map.
At the most basic level, lets put it like this. An infantry based strategy can function with no vehicle support. A vehicle based strategy cannot function without infantry support(barring capping LVs).
Except that the popcap system we have, its a +/- total change of 1 for at least 20 minutes. I've changed my playstyle to just focus on attrition because sacrificing units for cap is just not worth it. Look at intelligence game reports. There are the games where territory held is 30-70 until the last 5 minutes where the out attrition happens and the entire game flips. It just isn't rewarding for people who push and gain territory.
I am a VERY BIG advocate for infantry. I love snipers, I love support weapons, elite inf rushes etc. that I think is the core of old EiR play and vcoh play but as fun as it is, you're better off playing attrition warfare.
Since we're play 2v2s and 3v3s, you can always rely on you friend's infantry around to do some capping. A lot of people play vehicle based strategies it is just not apparent. I want pure infantry play to be more viable... they aren't at this moment.
Infantry based strategy can function without vehicle support but a lot less effective and efficient. A vehicle based strategy is relying on your ally to do the dirty capping work but if everyone in a 2v2 and 3v3 does that then you naturally lose the capping game (as you should)
i don't agree with the idea of a instituting a singular resource like in tabletop games etc. We've actually mulled that over many times in EIR's history and always ended up deciding against it precisely because it would too fundamentally alter the way the game is played and probably result in even more ridiculous spam/gimmicky builds.
As for your points on Resource allocation, you are correct, it is mostly arbitrary. My preference has always been towards a single resource pool like most tabletop games and similar pre-build RTS games like Total war/Steel Division/Red Dragon. However, that would be a massive undertaking that I don't think the current dev team really has the time for. That is assuming they even agree with the idea that a rework of the resource system is even necessary.
The counterpoint to this, however, is that it will inevitably lead to "spam". As the real function of the current resource pools is to have a functional Hardcap on unit types/upgrades. So you would trade arbitrary resource allocation for arbitrary hard caps.
Single resource or multi resource systems can work, it just takes a lot of time to build the rules to make it work. We keep what we have because its a bit easier to work with unless theres someone who can come up with the full system and rules on how it'll work and yes its a function of time issue.
Yes I'm proposing elsewhere to make resource caps less arbitrary and more objective.
