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

[fldash]

The 'Create Your Company' thread seemed to create a lot of discussion on the cost of the units and their upgrades.  Please keep all discussions here and let that thread serve as simply created companies.

[Rez]

I wanted to discuss how the different resources are alloted to different uses.

MP: used by all units.  This is fine, as MP is the "base" currency with which to buy units.

Fuel: used only by vehicles (including the trucks that tow the 88 and the howtzer).  However, the Axis Nebelwerfer (4 Pop, 1000 MP, 120 Fuel) also costs fuel, as do both upgrades to the Axis halftrack.  The Nebelwerfer isn't towed, so why have it cost fuel?  Is it because it is an indirect fire weapon?  If it is deemed to be so powerful, just up the MP or Mun cost.  Say, for example, you have an infantry-only game (i.e. no Fuel allotted).  Why can the infantry bring in AT guns, but not a Nebelwerfer?  I suggest you remove the fuel cost for the Nebelwerfer and add a Mun cost or increase the MP cost (but only slightly, as it already costs a fortune at 1000MP).  That way I can, for example, choose to leave mortars and grenades out to save Mun, and supplement the lack of indirect fire with a Nebelwerfer.  If the fuel costs stays, I am pretty sure nobody will purchase it in favor of purchasing armor.  Thoughts?

Munitions: used to buy some units and all upgrades.  Also required to use some upgrades.  Having this third resource is good for limiting how many times an upgrade can be used.  My only concern is that Mun will be in short supply in the game, making upgrades too costly to justify, especially when the precious Mun are required for certain important units (like the HMG).  From a gameplay perspective, using upgrades and special abilities gives the commander something extra to do and makes the game more interesting.  It's much more interesting to see two infantry squads go at it with grenades flying than to just see two un-upgraded squads shooting from behind cover.  My only suggestion is to ensure that Mun supplies are adequate to allow more upgrades to be purchased.  If only a small amount of Mun are allowed, you'll be sure to see HMGs, snipers, and mortars (i.e. units that have inherent Mun costs) being fielded over upgraded basic units (unless those upgrades have no use cost).

Lastly, we have CP.  I'm assuming we will still acquire CP through experience points as we kill enemy units.  Since we cannot build units/structures, we're missing out on a few opportunities for CP gain, so please make sure that kill experience is bumped up a bit to compensate.  However, I, personally, would rather only have enough CP in a game to go down one side of a doctrine tree, forcing me to choose which side to go down, instead of being able to unlock both branches.  Forcing players to make decisions is what makes a game fun and adds replay value.

[SturmHaubitze]

I feel that the cost shift won't help game balance as well as it was intended to. I can see why troops were made cheaper and vehicles/anti-vehicle were made more expensive; vehicles will be fewer in number, but options for killing those vehicles are more expensive so that the vehicles have fewer threats and last longer.

However I think this places an inordinate amount of staying power in vehicles. In the Create a Company thread, you can see that anti-vehicle options are very expensive (Buying two anti-tank guns costs a lot, and their survivability can be pretty dicey, so you could easily lose those two guns and have nothing to stop that M10 / StuG / StuH ), but are absolutely necessary. At the resources available in that thread, you can get one assault gun, tank destroyer, or multiple armoured cars. If the fuel is reduced, it doesn't end the problem, it just postpones it to a later set of battles when the fuel has accumulated.

If the end goal is to make vehicles, especially armour, less prevalent in the game (Which is perfectly appropriate if you want to focus on infantry companies) then I think doing so without cost shifts may be better. I keep on bringing up Flames of War in my development posts, but it has a system for preventing players from building an infantry company that's mostly vehicles.

Essentially it places a minimum amount of troops you need in your company (ie. Your company must have a minimum of 2 platoons of troops). Then for support options, like tanks, it places a limit on how many support choices you can field based upon the number of company troops you have (ie. You may field one support choice per platoon you field). So the more troops you bring, the more non-company assets you are allowed to field. This balances out because the more troops you field, the less points you have left for these additional assets. On top of that, every company has specific limits on what choices they are allowed to field (ie. You may only field up to one tank platoon for your infantry company), and whether those choices can stack (ie. A Grenadier company can either field a Panzer platoon or a Tiger platoon as a support choice, but not both at the same time).

Another argument against cost shifting is that Relic has already done a lot of work for us in balancing these costs. While some items may prove to be more or less effective in EiR's gameplay rules, these will probably be exceptions rather than the norm.

[fldash]

As for Relic balancing these costs, that's not entirely true.  The costs are balanced but they are balanced with more than the unit cost.  There are build times, required buildings, required phases, etc...  All of these must be taken into account.

For everything else, I'm going to have to let Ucross and/or Forefall answer your concerns...

[Rez]

The Flames of War system (which is, as far as I know, similar for other miniature games like the Games Workshop line) is great for balancing forces that are supposed to have equal fighting power, given the same starting resources.  A similar system might work in EiR, but I'll reserve judgment for now.

If the goal is to reduce the tank spam that is too common in vanilla COH, then perhaps more strict Pop values are in order.  Let's say you have 30 Pop cap to work with, but all your other resources are effectively unlimited (i.e. you saved up a lot).  You can buy 10 Grenadier squads (30 Pop, 1900 MP), or 10 PaK38s (30 Pop, 4200 MP, 500 Mun), or you can buy 5 Tigers (30 Pop, 11 000 MP, 2250 Fuel).  It seems to me that 5 Tigers can easily dispatch 10 PaKs, and will simply annihilate 10 Grenadiers.  If you increase the Pop cost of armour, you automatically limit the number on the field.  A Grenadier squad should not cost just half the Pop value of a Tiger.

Keep in mind that in practice, it seems that the 3 resources (MP, Mun, Fuel) are unlimited if a player chooses to stockpile.  Pop cap, on the other hand, is a hard limit that cannot be circumvented.  This should, perhaps, be used to ultimately balance two forces on a field, so that even a player with no Fuel can stand up against a player with tons.

[Ucross]

Here are some ideas that went into the implementation of the costs.

 - You should always be able to field 30 population cap to attack/defend a point.
 - It should be quite costly to be able to create a fully upgraded army because given a single map, a fully upgraded army will ALWAYS have the advantage and thus, always win against other armies.  Once you gain a bit of advantage in CoH, usually you can mimize your losses significantly while cleaning up the opposition.
 - Tanks and other units that require a specific counter pose a problem, thus they are made more expensive -- If their counters were not made a little more expensive then the tanks would be useless
- Artillery is more valuable is EiR and as such has fuel costs associated with it due to the fact that tanks and artillery will be the main powerhouses of EiR style of play.
- Tanks are more expensive compared to the AT weapons which were increased some in price, but not as much as tanks.
- Given the strong static defenses that are possible, all units with long range (AT guns, mortars, artillery) have increased value in CoH.  Especially artillery.  Thus, artillery has been given a fuel cost (the most scarse resources) to make it a tough choice which you balance with tanks.
- Munitions is purposely less than what you would see in end game CoH because we don't want EiR to only mimic End game CoH.  We want EiR to be a constant battle amoung the fronts that is alike to all the battles that occur in vanilla CoH like unupgraded riflemen all the way to tier 3 KCH and fully stacked Sturms.
- The way the system is designed is so that to field the most effective company with minimal resources it looks like what you would see in the first 15 min of CoH.  With more resources it looks like what you'd see in middle game of CoH, and with tons of resources it looks like what you'd see in late game CoH.
- Some players feel that grenades are less interesting than shoot outs with cover.
- CP gain is not done within the battle.  Most likely CP level will be associated with your rank.
- We want players to be able to have full companies of tanks - just that those companies will be incredibly expensive at the cost of all of their other companies.

[SturmHaubitze]

- We want players to be able to have full companies of tanks - just that those companies will be incredibly expensive at the cost of all of their other companies.

This part scares me with the current cost system. It feels indicative of a slippery slope.

[fldash]

They are still limited by the 30 Pop cap and if they spend all that money on tanks, the other 4 companies they control are going to be useless.  Once they come up against someone who is prepared, or they get outnumbered in a battle (2v1), their whole division is going to be practically gone.

There are also unit limits in the war.  There are only so many units being produced and able to be bought.  If one player has 5 Tigers, then everyone else in the war will only be able to have a total of 5 Tigers (because there may be only 10 Tigers available at any one point in the war).  Does that make sense?

[Lai]

Only 10 tigers? I hope that's a flexible number that depends on the number of users and timeline. I was experimenting with the thought to have 20-24 elite tiger aces with pioneers filling up the remaining pop

[fldash]

It depends on a lot of things, factory sectors owned, number of players, etc...  It will most likely be a fixed number in the full alpha, but for the full release we hope to have it completely dynamic.

[SturmHaubitze]

I just feel that an M1 57mm is not worth 550 Manpower and 50 Munitions when a Riflemen squad is only worth 150 Manpower. If the goal is only to make massed armour less achievable, I think there are less risky methods.

[fldash]

Well, I think once testing starts, we'll be able to tell pretty quickly how costs or unit pop amounts need to be adjusted.  I'm not opposed to making a player field so many infantry units in field, but the only way we are going to get these costs balanced out is to test them in scenarios.

[Unkn0wn]

Fuel: used only by vehicles (including the trucks that tow the 88 and the howtzer).  However, the Axis Nebelwerfer (4 Pop, 1000 MP, 120 Fuel) also costs fuel, as do both upgrades to the Axis halftrack.  The Nebelwerfer isn't towed, so why have it cost fuel?  Is it because it is an indirect fire weapon?  If it is deemed to be so powerful, just up the MP or Mun cost. 

Yes personally I am also more in favor of making the artillery cost manpower & munitions, not fuel.
Mainly because even though it makes some sense for howitzer & flak, because they're towed by a truck, you'd expect artillery to cost HORDES of munitions. (And 300 fuel is alot for just a truck )

I think the decision was made to make them cost fuel ingame as it was the only resource that did not have to be taken ingame yet. I do however not see a problem with bringing munitions ingame for both weapon abilities, bunkers & defensive things AND artillery uses.
(As longer as the player is aware that he'll need the resources ingame for it.)

I'd comment on some other things but my headache is killing me .

[Ucross]

I just feel that an M1 57mm is not worth 550 Manpower and 50 Munitions when a Riflemen squad is only worth 150 Manpower. If the goal is only to make massed armour less achievable, I think there are less risky methods.

You'll feel it's worth it when the opposition spends tons of MP and fuel on tanks which it kills.

[Ucross]

- We want players to be able to have full companies of tanks - just that those companies will be incredibly expensive at the cost of all of their other companies.

This part scares me with the current cost system. It feels indicative of a slippery slope.

You should note that my original quote intended to alluded to a severe deficiency in the players overall capabilities if he made a company of only tanks.  In otherwords, making a full armor company would be a poor strategical choice.  It is intended this way.

[Rez]

You should note that my original quote intended to alluded to a severe deficiency in the players overall capabilities if he made a company of only tanks.  In otherwords, making a full armor company would be a poor strategical choice.  It is intended this way.

I have to disagree with you there, Ucross.  If you are limited in an engagement only by Pop cap, then an attacker could have nothing but 5 Tigers.  Assume the defender fields a balanced force, with perhaps 2 AT guns, 2 Shermans, and maybe 2 Rangers.  Do you truly believe the attacker will lose?  5 Tigers can easily beat the defenders.  If, however, the Tigers cost more in Pop, you could only field 3 or 4, which would even the score.

My point is, do not underestimate the power of armour in the COH engine.  Tanks are much more effective in COH than they were in real life, so whereas in real life a balanced force has the edge, in COH, tanks really do rule the battlefield.

[Ucross]

2 At guns and a sticky and I'll kill your tiger.  Now I'm up on you by 1000MP and a TON of fuel.  That's why I'm not worried about armor.  You will see large armor companies coming, build up anti-armor companies and engage.  Then that armor company will have lost SO MUCH resource.

[Unkn0wn]

I think the true test would be trying this out ingame, and thanks to the progress that has been made so far, we should be able to do this anytime soon.
(As I still believe 5 tigers, if well micromanaged, would indeed own everything )

Balancing it all up again is going to be a tricky part for this project, even though I have faith in Ucross' system, it's safe to say it's not a 100% balanced system.
Thats why theres a long road of testing, testing & more testing ahead of us, only by trying out a hundred "what if" scenario's will we actually be able to tell on how well balanced the system currently is.

From what I understand, ingame these things can turn out way different than anyone could have imagined, simply because the game engine consists tons and tons of factors that can affect balance.

[Ucross]

I can make a small army with the price and pop cap of 1 tiger.  And with that small army, if I've taken out 1 of the 5 tigers, then I've beaten you, and will eventually win the war.   EiR is not about winning single battles, it's about winning the war.

[Unkn0wn]

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 .