I am abused, I am forgotten, I am worthless; I am the average infantryman

[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

[CrazyWR]

Agga, not really.  Not compared to old EIR.  I used to run a 26-rifle infantry company all upgraded with either bars or stickies.  Thats completely impossible now.

[Malevolence]

Would increasing the Manpower available help at all though?

Sometimes I miss the old days, when a tank was a tank, and vanilla infantry spam would cap around it.

The real problem I'm seeing here is that comparatively speaking, there's a much larger reason to spend all of your fuel in EiRR than there was in EiR because you need firepower density since you can't just increase your manpower resource by 3000 points with starting advantages, this is compounded not only by the fact that the resources favor fuel and munition-heavy builds, but also that availability favors certain units. If you can have 4 tanks or 8 squads of infantry, which would you go with? Only a fool would take the infantry, really.

Everything is just too expensive these days, and when you are forced into a situation to pick between tanks first or vanilla infantry first, you go with the tanks and are at a lack of vanilla infantry. We could, in turn, minimize the tanks and vehicles even further, but then we're just going to be playing 2000 point tabletop CoH, not EiR.


Really, I think the solution IS more manpower and resources across the board, rather than continuing to apply the nerf bat until everything is "in line" with each other. If we keep reducing company composition like this everyone is just going to run the same company by the time we fix the system. I've seen this happen in several games I've beta tested over the years, powers and abilities start very disparate and overpowered, and they're tweaked down and down and down over and over and eventually, while the end product is a lot more balanced, it's also considered a lot less fun by the players. Maybe it's them looking through rosy-eyed glasses at the "good old days", but I try to keep perspective.

I know for a fact that a lot of abilities from old EiR were ridiculous. Raid Assault, 8 onmap howitzer companies, super calliopes, fatherland defense, onboard mechanics, tank reapers, these were all too strong compared to other abilities, reducing their power or removing them was a good idea. But sometimes we just have to stop nerfing things and take a look at what needs to be better, not what needs to be worse. You know what availability and the resource-bind has done to my companies? My Wehrmacht companies are always the same. I always buy 4 MGs, I always buy 3 or 4 PaKs, I always max my armor tab. My US companies are always the same, too, with exception of Airborne I always max AT guns, I always max my armor tab... too much prioritization on certain unit types because there's not enough opportunity to diversify, the system right now is self-defeating.




Don't get me wrong, availability is a good idea. The last thing I want to see is eight copies of Puddin's build running around, but we just don't have the resources to fully explore the army structure right now. Sure we can only get 4 Panzer IVs, but if we only have enough fuel for 4 Panzer IVs, does it really MATTER that we can only get 4 Panzer IVs?

[CrazyWR]

Pretty much spot on.

[Unkn0wn]

I think you brought up some good points there mal, but how would you improve the availability system then?
Do you think it's too restricting in its current form?

Also, you mentioned that manpower resource bonuses are a lot less desirable than fuel and munition ones. What if we were to address that and either increase manpower again or bring the munition/fuel ones more in line with the manpower?

[Groundfire]

Would it be too much to ask for an OMG style availablity system?

You can have whatever you want but if you lose it, you gotta wait for the reserve pool to fill back up with that particular unit.

[Malevolence]

I think you brought up some good points there mal, but how would you improve the availability system then?

I would say that the current limits are very close to being perfectly fine, it's just that we don't have the kind of buying power to actually be properly limited. Everyone always crowds the low-availability powerful tanks into their company first because there's manpower constraints to worry about. While the point of the availability system is to point buying priorities in the right direction, coupled with a lack of ability to buy "outside the box" units (not enough money) the availability system drastically encourages players to pick certain units first. Engineers have a high limit, but why would I buy engineers when I haven't bought all of my tanks? If I buy engineers I may not have enough money left over for the tanks! This is a player's line of thought.

Do you think it's too restricting in its current form?

I just think that we need to increase company size so we can play around with availability a bit more actively. While it's entirely possible to oversupply your company, for a lot of things it's just not feasible.

What happens when I at least build my company, I can't necessarily speak for other players, is I go to my armor tab and use all of my fuel, in this case let's say I buy four panzer IVs. After a game I could try oversupplying Panzer IVs... except I can't oversupply Panzer IVs because I don't have enough fuel. So now I wait until level 2 to buy a fuel advantage and now oversupply my extra Panzer IV. What if I wanted to fully explore the limits of the "In Supply" oversupplied Panzer IVs, though? I'd have to wait until level 4 to even consider it, and then I have to consider again, do I really want this one extra Panzer IV that will cost me PPs to maintain and waste a fuel advantage on it when advantages are already so limited? I don't think I've seen even one person ever oversupply Panzer IVs, whether it's because it's too big a PP sink or simply because getting the kind of fuel necessary to do it means gimping the rest of your army.

It's not that availability discourages creative builds too much, it's that we don't have the kind of funds to get around availability, oversupplying some units just isn't feasible, even if there WASN'T availability.

Also, you mentioned that manpower resource bonuses are a lot less desirable than fuel and munition ones. What if we were to address that and either increase manpower again or bring the munition/fuel ones more in line with the manpower?

The reason the manpower is less necessary than low or mid level fuel and high level munitions I've seen is that although manpower does allow you to expand the size of your army, the unit caps makes this game heavily favorited towards quality. Low-cap units are good, that's why they're low-cap, and if we know they're good, we have to buy them and improve them as much as possible. This is the attitude that cannot be gotten around with the kind of funds the armies have at their disposal.

What good is 900 more manpower? It gives you 4 or 5 more squads of infantry. But that infantry has no munitions for upgrades, making it soft anti-infantry, arguably the worst combination of softness and attack type in the game.

What good is 450 munitions? Well, since we can't just buy support and tanks (we're bound to have manpower left over due to the low fuel and starting munitions counts) we're going to have some infantry laying around. This turns that infantry into a useful upgraded tool rather than a capping-only suicide machine comparatively. Therefore, between the availability, available funds to begin with, and limitations of advantages, we are encouraged to improve our army's firepower density rather than buy more army, because "more army" costs PPs disproportionate to the amount more army you can buy with advantages. We would now have soft super anti-infantry or anti-tank, or more potent hard units. This gives you a lot more options about what to improve, and also allows improvement of higher-tier units (the hard ones that do not attrit).

What good is 375 fuel? It lets you turn four squads of vanilla infantry into two ostwinds, almost unarguably a superior force. And, again, because of the availability versus firepower of units, you want to maximize the vehicles first. Then you have no more money left for the poor vanilla infantry, and if you try to maximize the infantry first, you realize you don't have the munitions for upgrades, so you go get the munitions, but now you don't have the manpower for the infantry. In this kind of monetary bind you MUST increase effectiveness of the few units you get because simply getting more units is not feasible when the extra unit versus more effective unit ratio is so inexorably favorited towards the power unit rather than more low-end units. You know this is a trend you've seen across the board. Elite Infantry is spammed and riflemen nowhere to be seen, tons of tanks but no volks, and definitely no vanilla grenadiers or PGs, they're just a waste of precious, precious manpower that could be spent on more effective units if they have no upgrades.

Therefore, by increasing "money" across the board, especially manpower, we'll see people actually having leftover cash to spend on vanilla infantry after they've maxed their "effective" units. There won't be a shortage of volkgrenadiers and vanilla riflemen because "I had to buy tanks first", there will be a shortage of upgraded riflemen and LMG grens because "I can't give my entire army BARs and LMGs and skirts and upgraded guns!" which I think is a lot closer to what the mod is aiming for.


What ratio of additional manpower is needed? I'm not sure, but another 1000 would be a good place to start, with the advantage for manpower being upped by 50% I would say, and we can tweak from there.

EDIT - Also this would probably necessitate about a 25% increase to fuel and munition advantages just to keep them relatively in line.

[AmPM]

I think just increasing the MP advantage would help alot, maybe with a bonus to infantry availability as well.

I mean really, what is the point of going full manpower? You get 4 more rifle squads, wooooo. Its much better to spend on Munitions or Fuel.

I would suggest just doubling the manpower advantage, right now its way out of line.

[Tymathee]

How about just raising the price of infantry upgrades. They all used to be quite expensive and everyone had at least 10 un upgraded infantry and would have "special" units with upgrades, now everyone has them.

I say as a test, just double all infantry upgrades minus grenades and see how it works out.

[CrazyWR]

heh, aloha would love that.

[gamesguy2]

How about just raising the price of infantry upgrades. They all used to be quite expensive and everyone had at least 10 un upgraded infantry and would have "special" units with upgrades, now everyone has them.

I say as a test, just double all infantry upgrades minus grenades and see how it works out.

It would make light vehicles hilariously OP?

And I'm pretty sure the price of a LMG or Bar hasnt changed in ages.

And yes, we used to have more manpower, and I think we do need more manpower to start and with more on the advantages.   Currently the manpower advantage gives you a much smaller percentage increase compared to fuel or munitions.

But I question misten on the topic of the "good old days".  I don't remember anyone using hordes of unupgraded infantry in EIR except infantry company with 130 manpower rifles.    Airborne used hordes of airborne, armor used hordes of scouting jeeps/other light vehicles.    Defensive was mostly grenadier with shrek/lmg spam with scopes/omniscience.  Terror was usually the same with ferocity.   Blitz was possibly the only company to use hordes of volks, and that was because of assault.

[donnieDark]

Well this is pretty much the price you pay for wanting a balanced mod where everyone is forced to play balanced companies or taxed if you dont like me saying forced  . 

Sure a lot of you hated puddin's companies..but this mod really lacks diversity and variety now..couple that with a one company limit...so pretty much your army stays the same for most of the war.

Maybe the reinforcements packages will help that...

[RikiRude]

Just think about all the munition and MP buffs we had doctrine wise in old eir. i think that has the most to do with it.


infantry company could get back muni and mp from doctrine choices.
armor got back fuel and mp through doctrine choices.
airborne got back mp and got cheaper nades through doctrine choices.
terror got back muni through double uses of nades/mines through doctrine choices.
blitz got back muni through doctrine choices (not much though).
defensive got back mp through doctrine choices.

US got more infantry through their doctrine choices and axis got high quality infantry through their doctrine choices.

[EIRRMod]

Would it be too much to ask for an OMG style availablity system?

You can have whatever you want but if you lose it, you gotta wait for the reserve pool to fill back up with that particular unit.

Well the direction we're thinking about going atm - is to lower the availability - but offer more in the reinforcement packages.

What about a dual system?  Availability + A floating available similar to early EIR?  You gain a certain number back after a number of time (or games).

Probably off-topic.  *shrug*.

[Computer991]

What about a dual system?  Availability + A floating available similar to early EIR?  You gain a certain number back after a number of time (or games).*.

+1 :')

[wildsolus]

i just think that system works so much better. last two times i've played draken he lost 4 tigers......... with a proper availability and 'refund' system wouldn't be able to field two more every time (of course if he had the PP but with PP abundant at the end of wars..)

[Draken]

I know about 2 tigers tbh, not 4.

+1 EiRMod.

[Mysthalin]

Just remove availability from mainline units like riflemen, volks and grenadiers. I mean, they were never an issue, and limiting them really limits a person's playstyle. I for one would drop out my P4s if only I could get more grenadiers, but no - I am not prepared to pay 2 PP for each of my grenadiers to get more than 8 of them .

I think a lot of allies would love a 30 rifle company, but the availability says 14, so you stay at 14. Maybe some poor souls give themselves a PP sink by oversuplying 6 of them, but it still kills a lot of the costumizability. Limiting things like greyhounds, pumas, etc. was needed, but mainline infantry - no.

[salan]

well it is essentially a EIR system, fldash and ucross used it very well in how they had it, but it was missing something.  Always punished more then helped in a lot of cases.  The idea of combining the two would probably fix the problems it had back then.

Just remove availability from mainline units like riflemen, volks and grenadiers. I mean, they were never an issue, and limiting them really limits a person's playstyle. I for one would drop out my P4s if only I could get more grenadiers, but no - I am not prepared to pay 2 PP for each of my grenadiers to get more than 8 of them .

I think a lot of allies would love a 30 rifle company, but the availability says 14, so you stay at 14. Maybe some poor souls give themselves a PP sink by oversuplying 6 of them, but it still kills a lot of the costumizability. Limiting things like greyhounds, pumas, etc. was needed, but mainline infantry - no.

That is a good point...

[Akranadas]

ENGINEER COMPANIES!!!!!!

[salan]

ENGINEER COMPANIES!!!!!!

your grease guns are belong to us