Cost Balance Discussion

[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

[Rez]

EiR is not about winning single battles, it's about winning the war.

Good point.  That's what I lost sight of: EiR is a strategy game that uses COH to play out tactical battles, not a tactical game with some strategic stuff tacked on.

Good point, although if you only lose 1 tiger for gaining for instance an important industrial area that will make you capable of simply building new ones faster anyway... it's not that much of a loss .

I think rez has a good point in saying that simply increasing the required population cap on tanks as well may eliminate the ability to spam tanks, but like all things, we'd need to test if the current tank population caps are really subject to abuse first .

Yes I guess it comes down to testing.  When's that starting anyway?

[Unkn0wn]

Well, we have been making tons of progress towards a first public alpha test but theres still quite some work that has to be done. Conclusion, I can't give you a date on that.

However, we have already started testing the ingame system amongst the developers and we're planning on even expanding those tests further real soon.

[SturmHaubitze]

Keep in mind that the population costs in EiR makes it easier to fit Tigers into your force, from a strictly population standpoint.

Old Tiger population: 14
Old Grenadier population: 4
Grenadiers per Tiger: 3.5

New Tiger population: 6
New Grenadier population: 3
Grenadiers per Tiger: 2

I think increasing armour's population cost, rather than its cost to field (as well as reducing the cost to field for AT), might be all that's needed. If fuel income is kept in check (diminishing returns can be implemented to prevent a player from amassing a huge surplus), a player won't be encouraged to amass armour only. Not to mention they won't be able to field all that armour anyways due to the population limits.

If the population cost of vehicles increased by 1.5x or 2x, you'd see players agonize over whether to include a tank or not. After all, is that Panther worth one-third of your entire force's population? Maybe, maybe not. With the current population costs, a Tiger uses up what 2 Grenadier squads uses up, and that decision is a no-brainer.

In Vanilla CoH I often gravitate towards Walking Stukas over Nebelwerfers because of population. The Walking Stuka uses 4, the Nebelwerfer uses 5, so in terms of population-only the Walking Stuka is a better deal for what it gives you.

[Ucross]

Keep in mind that the population costs in EiR makes it easier to fit Tigers into your force, from a strictly population standpoint.

Actually, it really doesn't.  VERY rarely in vanilla was the pop cap reached in any competitive and skilled game.  However, in EiR it will be the norm.  Thus the cap is much more 'affective' in EiR than vanilla.

[SturmHaubitze]

Keep in mind that the population costs in EiR makes it easier to fit Tigers into your force, from a strictly population standpoint.

Actually, it really doesn't.  VERY rarely in vanilla was the pop cap reached in any competitive and skilled game.  However, in EiR it will be the norm.  Thus the cap is much more 'affective' in EiR than vanilla.

So why make the population ratio of heavy armour to infantry so much more in favour of armour if you want the opposite? Since I want to make the most of my 30 population, I will take the best choices I can afford. 1 Tiger or 2 Grenadier squads? If I have this choice, I will take the single Tiger.

In any event, changing all the prices at once will make balancing a long and arduous process. Starting with Vanilla CoH pricing, and working from there to achieve the right amount of infantry-to-armour that is desired, seems more prudent and less prone to confusion. Adjusting all the prices, when all you'd need to do is adjust the armour and anti-armour prices, doesn't make a lot of sense to me. 

[Ucross]

So why make the population ratio of heavy armour to infantry so much more in favour of armour if you want the opposite?

Again, the effectiveness of the population cap in EiR has been increased thus increasing the importance of lower population units compared to vanilla.  This is regardless of the population ratio.  The main reason we haven' made the population of units like the tiger 30 or something, is because we want companies to be able to consist of more than just a tiger or 2.

1 Tiger or 2 Grenadier squads? If I have this choice, I will take the single Tiger.

There are unit prices attached to each unit.  In order to aquire a grenadier or tiger you will not be considering only the population each unit occupies.  You will have to spend fuel, manpower, and munitions -- all of which will be valuable resources, especially fuel.  This should help explain why this seemingly simple choice to pick a tiger over 2 grenadiers would usually result in a player choosing the 2 grenadiers.  For more information please consult the unit price list. 

As for the population difference, there wasn't as much thought put into exactly what the population of each unit should be.  Perhaps the 6 population units should be 12, and the 5 should be 9 and the 4 should be 6?  It's a possibility.   At the same time, we do want players to be able to utilize their resources.  We do not want players to be throwng away munitions and fuel on stuff they don't need b/c they don't use them (as might be the case in terms of fuel if the pop cap was really high on tanks).  So there has to be a balance.  I'm sure there are more factors (these are just ones I thought of off the top of my head). 

Additionally, if we want to make the odd company be completely armoured we have to make enough room for those tanks within the population cap. 

Last, I'm not opposed to having this war consist mainly of infantry with tanks scattered about and even the odd company that is composed almost enitrely of tanks.  Infact, I think I'd enjoy that.  For balance purposes and to (successfully) discourage the use of tanks (and other late game units) their prices have been increased drastically.  This is the ideal solution presented so far because it still allows their aquisition while strongly stifling their purchase amounts.

---

There are various reasons that more prices must be adjusted than just anti-tank and tank.  For example: Who would ever produce 270MP volks when you could produce grenadiers for 10 more MP?   Vanilla is also balanced in term of availability, travel time, capping, doctrines, etc. etc.  All of these should be looked at before deciding upon a price for EiR.

The current price range is definitely not set in stone, infact the opposite, I hope it gets altered and tuned quite a bit. 

[Apex]

I have been thinking over this stuff quiet some time and figured out that maybe this is gonna work too.

You say you cant use the CoH unit costs because you have to consider the tier costs and the cp value which are not considered in EiR,
which is obviously a problem. But still the EiR costs seem to be somewhat difficult to balance.

How about taking the Standard vanilla Unit Costs and add the cost for getting the specific tier and the specific production building.

i.e. Stug cost: Upgrade tier 1 to tier 3 costs + Sturm armory costs + Stug Unit cost

This is a good way to make the Units like Nebelwerfers or AT guns that have a relativly low cost compared to their value more balanced to get.
I think building times are not that important, and that way the costs are a bit easier to legitimate. Same things with upgrades, if u need a specific tier add that cost.
Now i know that this way infantry will cost fuel too, but amor will cost much more and since 1.5 mass armor can be countered.

As for Command point units, why not give every Commander one cp per Battle(Win?). That would make things like tigers harder to get and u could still keep their cost calues. If needed apply unit pop caps and restrict ammo for arty usage. You could leave the population values as they are.
Tell me what u think about it.
 

[Ucross]

That takes into account tiers.  However, there are many other factors that are also taken into account.

Command points would probably accumulate too quickly if you got 1 per battle win.  As well that would be a negative contribution to the slippery slop mechanic.

[Wilson]

Looking over the debate, I think a small increase in powerful tank pop cap would be good. Maybe you can take out a single tiger easily with two AT guns and a sticky, but can you take out five at once? Or if you're flanked by just two tigers? The main problem is if those two AT guns are your only AT defense. Those are taken out, and the rest of your force is going to get annihilated. I think testing should show whether tanks get used too much.

I've just made a sample army, and there's something I don't like.
I think 175 is very expensive for a panzershrek - they aren't that amazing! And if you pay 80 M for rangers, surely each bazooka costs only 40 M? I could buy each of my grenadier squads 2 bazookas each for 15M less than a single panzershrek! Are you sure that's fair? Why the huge price increase from vanila COH?
Also, I guess you get two recoilless rifles for 220M? They're good guns, yet still cheaper by some way than the shrek. I just don't think 175M for a shrek is cheap enough. An AT gun only costs 50M (though I suppose it is less manouverable).

[Rez]

175 Mun for a 'Shrek is a lot, I agree.  Keep in mind that bazookas were far more plentiful than 'Shreks in the war, though, so the high price could represent the rarity (although I personally would like to see the cost lowered).

[Forefall]

The cost is based off of damage, fire rate, accuracy, range modification, penetration values, unit modifiers and what unit it actually gets put on.  If you're not considering these factors, than your opinion is ignorant.

That being said, the set value is arbitrary and theoretical and hopefully testing will help adjust it.

[Lai]

I'd like to argue that the Quad upgrade for the allies half-track is too cheap. For 100 munitions you'll get a lot of firepower. Considering the range of the quad and that it requires 3-4 AT-hits for it to be destroyed, the survivability of it is very good. This could be a considerable balance issue especially in early game when axis have little to hunt it down with.

[Ucross]

That's true laivindur, but the cost takes into account the full cost of the vehicle as well.  Though your point is being looked into.

[fldash]

Sorry for my oppinion being ignorant

Apex, I don't think he was being condescending.  He was simply stating that if you don't consider all the factors, than you aren't going to be able to come up with balanced costs.

[Lai]

Was the cost for BARs updated since 1.5 patch? Each bar does 40% more damage since patch. This could matter if you get 1 or 2 bars for the 50 munitions cost as compared to the 3 bars you got in 1.4. Also you get 2 bars, which in my opinion is comparable to a light machine gun (if not better), for 50 munitions whereas you pay 125 munitions for an lmg. This could be a balance issue.

[Forefall]

To be honest, 2 bars are comparable to a LMG - the prices should reflect this.

[Unkn0wn]

Then we also need to change the cost of mp40's as they're just as deadly on close quarters.
(Deadlier than the BAR and really close to the lmg tbh)

[Lai]

Most infantry battles in EiR are of such scale that close range damage matters less. Any squad that tries to run into close range will get mowed down really quickly. 1 riflesquad vs 1 volksquad, the rifles win. 3 rifles vs 3 volks, the volks win.

[Ucross]

These are all great points and will be considered during the next cost-balance adjustment.

[Forefall]

Actually, i think the BAR is a better upgrade then the mp40, excluding the suppression ability.  In cover a rifle will always beat an advancing mp40 team if they have bars.