Availability Rework

[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

[AmPM]

For the most part this combined with pricing should work. However it may lead back to the old company builds and be a bit gimmicky. My main concern would be, say I am axis, we are losing, I build a company to defend. My start is 12 pio's with mines + goliaths, everything else is infantry and support (5 paks, 6 hmgs, 2 mortars/nebel).

Maybe swap a couple things for an 88 depending on doctrine. But you can see how this could lead to really silly games....again.

[Jazlizard]

Good post.

The old Availability is the same way - this way however, there is a penalty if you have an oversupplied infantry pool - if you lose the Ranger OR a Rifleman squad.

This system may not be perfect by itself.  I do believe it needs a second part added, like a hard cap on units.

Yeah, I see your point, certainly worth seeing how it plays out, just suggesting a way to make it have more precise control.

[lionel23]

Hmmm.... so will prices be adjusted for this new supply system? It seems like it's going to cut my infantry company in half (size-wise).  Rangers taking 4 and a dang officer taking 3?  Outrageous costs at least on that.  Rangers would definitely need to be cheaper than Airborne and officers should be 1 and not 3 since its a single man and a doctrine specific unit.

I'm kinda meh about this idea, but I'll have to see more details about this system before I can really comment much further on it.

[EIRRMod]

Hmmm.... so will prices be adjusted for this new supply system? It seems like it's going to cut my infantry company in half (size-wise).  Rangers taking 4 and a dang officer taking 3?  Outrageous costs at least on that.  Rangers would definitely need to be cheaper than Airborne and officers should be 1 and not 3 since its a single man and a doctrine specific unit.

I'm kinda meh about this idea, but I'll have to see more details about this system before I can really comment much further on it.

The costs are exactly the same as their PP costs.

Except now they share a in-supply rather than individual.

[lionel23]

Hmmm.... so will prices be adjusted for this new supply system? It seems like it's going to cut my infantry company in half (size-wise).  Rangers taking 4 and a dang officer taking 3?  Outrageous costs at least on that.  Rangers would definitely need to be cheaper than Airborne and officers should be 1 and not 3 since its a single man and a doctrine specific unit.

I'm kinda meh about this idea, but I'll have to see more details about this system before I can really comment much further on it.

The costs are exactly the same as their PP costs.

Except now they share a in-supply rather than individual.

But if say the total supply is 24, taking 4 ranger squads will eat up 12 points, leaving you 12 more points to only buy 6 riflemen, so in effect it's making all the armies smaller and forcing us to all buy mass vehicles, tanks, and support teams.  Currently I have 14 riflemen, a bunch of engineers and a few rangers... so this would mean everyone's companies are being reduced by 50%?  And for infantry doctrine, taking vehicles or forcing to take things like AT guns (which I dislike myself as its not part of my playstyle as I like mobility) seems to disadvantage us as none of our doctrine choices buff our light vehicles when we're expected to field say a 1/4th of our army as these mandatory 'cores'.

Am I reading this right?

[EIRRMod]

Modified the numbers - they didnt all add up to 70 ;p

And, these numbers are just made up.

For infantry, 28 available.

I could have 4 Rangers (16), 12 Rifles.
or
6 Rangers (24), 4 Rifles.

BEFORE I start paying PP.

Currently, if I buy 6 Rangers, Im paying 4 PP, so lets assume I do so.
I would have:
6 Rangers (24), 8 Rifles. (Costing 4PP for this build).

This method actually gives you more freedom (when the numbers are set right) than the previous methods.
Because the cap is now across these multiple fields.
There is no difference between choosing an AT gun or not taking it in the pool vs individual build methods.

The numbers can be tweaked.

[Unkn0wn]

leaving you 12 more points to only buy 6 riflemen

This is where you must've misread, 12 points = 12 riflemen .
4 Rangers and 12 Riflemen is not much different from the current.

[EIRRMod]

Also, Engineers might need to be split into Assault Engineers (ones that get Flame throwers) in infantry, and Normal Engineers (ones that get buildings and minesweepers) for example.

There is also the idea of adding a 'supply' pool of 10, which gets dipped into when you are out in another pool.
This would allow more variance in builds - but hopefully not cause Spammwiches.

[EIRRMod]

Reading more through this, its apparent there needs to be the Supply pool aswell.

[lionel23]

Ahh I see, and my bad I was reading the engineers - 2 as riflemen and misread riflemen - 1.  Though its crazy to think engineers would be double that of rifles, I would expect less so yeah I think a seperation of assault and just builders would be fine.

Hmm this idea doesn't sound too bad, had to ask Bob some questions on this to clarify not too long ago, and that 'second' supply pool makes this sound like a very interesting system now.

[CrazyWR]

I think the light vehicle cap needs expanded as well...right now you can only have 6 light vehicles(with no jeeps) as listed with Armor doc...thats really low...

[EIRRMod]

I think the light vehicle cap needs expanded as well...right now you can only have 6 light vehicles(with no jeeps) as listed with Armor doc...thats really low...

And then, if you want to go further, you use the 10 supply pool for another 3 + a jeep.

[CrazyWR]

Free? or for PP?  That doesn't seem to be explained anywhere, or I'm just dumb.  Its possible its the second one.

[Tymathee]

I really like this...can't wait ot try it out

[EIRRMod]

Free? or for PP?  That doesn't seem to be explained anywhere, or I'm just dumb.  Its possible its the second one.

No, I think I mentioned it mid-thread lol.

There needs to be another pool - just a default pool, which would represent your ... playstyle pool I guess

Once a pools depleted, it then comes out of this default pool.  Supply pool it will be called, and will be worth 10.

After that, everything will be 1pp.  (probably up to a certain point, then 2pp, then 3pp etc)

[CrazyWR]

Gotcha, sounds good to me.  Sorry for the confusion.

[gamesguy2]

This is quite possibly the best idea that has come to EIRR in a long time.

[EIRRMod]

This is quite possibly the best idea that has come to EIRR in a long time.

Thanks!

TOTALLY all my idea.

[shockcoil]

This is quite possibly the best idea that has come to EIRR ever

Fixed that for you

This is pretty fucking awesome but I'd the say the current values on rangers and AB are still too high. Just getting 4 of them limits you to 14 rifle squads again which is what I thought we were trying to increase. I think 3 each is good because 9 rangers/AB for all your inf really isnt that scary but still lets you get more rifles if you want to use them as actual elite inf.

[gamesguy2]

This is quite possibly the best idea that has come to EIRR ever

Fixed that for you

This is pretty fucking awesome but I'd the say the current values on rangers and AB are still too high. Just getting 4 of them limits you to 14 rifle squads again which is what I thought we were trying to increase. I think 3 each is good because 9 rangers/AB for all your inf really isnt that scary but still lets you get more rifles if you want to use them as actual elite inf.

No I love the current values.   You can choose, elite infantry spam or regular infantry spam, you can't have both as airborne anymore, and thats a good thing.  Being able to get 9 squads of airborne and 14 rifles and 6 flame engies was just imbalanced and I'm glad this system will get rid of it.