Reinforcement Packages

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Unkn0wn]

For the next reset we are thinking of reworking reinforcement packages once more.
This *could* include the removal of all doctrine exclusive elite infantry units. AND NON INFANTRY (ALA hetzer/whirble etc) -> salan edit

Why you ask? Because we feel that doctrines lose a lot of their flavour when their 'signature units' are available to all other doctrines in the game. In addition it brings in a whole lot of other issues in regards to balance and gameplay. Reinforcement units were never intended to be a necessary complementation to one's company, but rather a nice little extra that allows for some more company variety and added tactical depth.

Please post your thoughts on this, from a design/gameplay perspective rather than an emotional one. I'm sure you all got attached to your vet 3 elite reinforcement units and won't like to see these removed but hopefully some of you can get over that and provide us with intelligent feedback in regards to this decision.

In addition, we'd like you all to post some reinforcement packages suggestions (4 units per package) that do not contain any doctrine specific units at all. (Perhaps with some exceptions like the hetzer, AVRE etc) Check out the other thread and post your suggestions there.

[Sixpack]

I will oppose this.
Simply because I want the officer for my Scorched Earth Company (totaly useless but looks cool).

[Unkn0wn]

The officer is one of the units that could still be an exception.

This is really mainly about Rangers/Airbourne/Commandos/Fallschirmjaegers/Stormtroopers being available to everyone through reinforcement packages.

[AmPM]

While I agree, also please make it so that if you buy a package for the doctrine you already have such as buying Luft with Luft you get an increase in your FJ available.

Or RE with RE for more Churchills, Blitz with Blitz for more Storms, etc.

A reason to take your own doctrine choice finally.

[Baine]

Actually I totally agree with it, doctrinal units should stay in that doctrine, especially the officer ( that made me angry, because he needs to be my special defensive officer!)

SO no exception for him!

[Unkn0wn]

While I agree, also please make it so that if you buy a package for the doctrine you already have such as buying Luft with Luft you get an increase in your FJ available.

Or RE with RE for more Churchills, Blitz with Blitz for more Storms, etc.

A reason to take your own doctrine choice finally.

We'll definitely look into 'availability packages' for existing doctrine units.
We may end up with multiple 'reinforcement' layers in the long run, still something we're brainstorming about.

[BigDick]

imho its not a bad idea to remove doctrine specific units from reinforcements

but when you do so please unselect the reinforcement package for everyone or even refund the 50pp spend

actually i see the task of a reinforcement package to make the weak side of your doctrine stronger, that have not to be using doctrine specific elite units but maybe some units form an other faction

if you change the packages you should really think about the mixture that all reinforcements packages give you some good stuff and not one is superior to all others for the played side (e.g. currently blitz on axis side)

[scrapking]

While I agree, also please make it so that if you buy a package for the doctrine you already have such as buying Luft with Luft you get an increase in your FJ available.

Or RE with RE for more Churchills, Blitz with Blitz for more Storms, etc.

A reason to take your own doctrine choice finally.

I agree.

[LuAn]

I agree on removing those elite units from reinforcements package.
(I also feel that the flavor is lost)

This way it would be more about combining arms throughout your teammates battalions with their individual doctrines instead of just combining arms from your own battalion via reinforcement packages.

However: how about making the contents of reinforcement packages depending on the actual doctrine my battalion has?
Meaning like this: If i play RCA Doctrine the RCA RP (Reinforcements Package) would look like this e.g.:
Priest 1/1
25pder 1/1
Cpt 1/1
Tommies 4/2

However if i play Commandos Doctrine the RCA RP wouldnt have those signature units in it but look something like that:
Tommies 4/2
Cpt 1/1
6pdr 2/1
Firefly 1/1


So by choosing the RP equivalent to my Doctrine im would be able to specialize into the doctrine specific direction a bit further and maybe also save a few PP on Doctrine Unlocks if im happy with the supply from the RP or stock up if i want to use more of my signature units.

Is my concept somehow understandable? or are you completly lost?

Edith: Exactly what AmPm said! 100% Agree

[Smokaz]

package unit selection needs rework, dont know if removing all the cool units from them is the way to go, why not just have a brainstorming thread where everyone can submit their ideas for the packages.

[acker]

I'm fine with the removal of nondoctrine units from Reinforcements.

[salan]

I'm going to expand a bit on unknowns limitations...  The general idea was for ALL doctrine unlocks to be removed to maintain the flavor of the doctrines themselves while still maintaining the functionality and utility of the reinforcements.

Damn you for being efficient unknown, i was just about to make this post myself. 

[Mgallun74]

if you remove Doc Specific units from reinforcements it makes some of them useless..

I.e. US Airborne? their main unit is Airborne, if you take that away is there isnt really any special to put in the package.. unless, you start putting stuff in like, recon runs, straffs or bombing runs..

Same with Canadian ARt... i mean, if you dont have anything with art, like say priest, 25pdr why make it?

some you could make nice packages up that make sense, like us Armor, you could give Sherman, m10, m18.. us infantry give the rifleman, motar, 57mm etc.

but some wouldnt, as most of the units in their Doct is really specific to them, if you not going to release them unit, u will need to just put in generic units which could be stupid.  you may think about just making 1 package per faction, like US Army Package could give you Rifleman, Shermans, 57mm etc...

[salan]

Also guys, something that should be noted here.  You do NOT need to call them COMMANDO REINFORCEMENTS.  TERROR REINFORCEMENTS.

The fact of the matter is we have full control over what we do with these.  We can name them whatever we want to name them.

I had drafted up an idea based on roll of units for American infantry, American weapon support, american tank support.. it just turned out too blah for the american and british weapon support, as you could guess.

I was thinking last night on my 400km drive that could do it in small clumps, 3 infantry unlocks, 3 auxillary infantry unlocks, 3 support weapons, 3 light vehicles, 3 anti infantry vehicles, 3 tanks.

the whole reason i'm saying this is to show that you CAN do whatever you want to do with these.  Get creative.  and ultimately there is nothing forcing us to have a reinforcement package with only 1 faction in it.. Could even mix and mingle american and british units in the same package if needed, but there NEEDS TO BE SOME SORT OF COMMON THREAD TO YOUR POST.

be the person to craft a portion of EIRR, get those suggestions in!

[velo78]

they should add doctrine abilites to the reniforcement packages, for example you can get 1 use of strafing run if you choose airborne, or 1 off map for inf, or 1 blitzkrieg use if you choose blitz

[Detrian]

I disagree with this. There's really not much utility or fun to reinforcements when it's just gonna be random bits and pieces of units with a vaguely similar theme, especially with the more limited factions like PE.

Even if the packages were made of generic units from both armies it would be kind of dumb buying a reinforcement package with units you can just outright get by default.

[salan]

you disagree that getting a pak or mg in PE is not utility?

you disagree that getting stickies or the button in brits or american is not utility?

you disagree that getting opentopped carriers in wehrmacht or american is not utility?

you disagree that getting flamethrowers in PE/Brits is not utility?

... i could keep going.

reinforcements were designed to be about UTILITY. They instead became about elite infantry spam and loss of flavor for the individual doctrines.  So they will be reworked, its just a matter of time really.

[salan]

something else to note.  we are looking at tieing in some of the elite unit types into the warmap for their own distinctive reinforcement packages depending on how the war is going, but that is something that could be gained AND lost. 

so don't despair over losing the elites completely.. they just might be handled a little differently.

[Mukip]

Keep Airborne in please or increase their availability as standard since it's traditional for AB players to use a lot of them.  The low availability of AB as it stands means they are just used as recoiless rifle caddies a lot of the time which restricts the flavour of the doctrine.

Maybe you should be able to choose whether you want to stay focused or branch out.  There could be a package called Regimental Reinforcements that increased the availability of the units you already have without adding new ones, so an Airborne could concentrate of being an Airborne player.   Then an Allies Reinforcements would give you basic access to nondoctrine units, like Rifles, Sherman, Engineers and ___  for americans unlock, or Tommies, Lt, Sappers and Cromwell for Brits.  Then the support package would include MGs, Mortars, Tank Destroyers and transports like the Bren Carrier.

[deadbolt]

How bout you put each unit, within reason, on an availibilty list. You pay so much PP (x amount) to get the unit to be availibilty of 1. Then pay more each time, like resource advantages to increase the number you can buy, with it set to a limit.