Cost System should be reworked

[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]

I'm willing to wager that there is exactly 1 company with 10 t17s.  And I doubt you play against it  very often.  

The fact is, building a company and having doctrine buffs and then ignoring them is just stupid.  Why even have doctrines if you don't use the units that they buff?

I played a game today where I faced 3 panthers, 1 KT, like 3 p4's and 1 stug.  Thats a lot of tanks, and we couldn't kill them all, but I'm not going to complain about heavy tank spam.  Its expected when you face Wehr that you see lots of tanks.  Just like it should be expected when you face Brits you see lots of tommies and at least 2 fireflies.  When you face Amis you see lots of infantry or rangers or AB or light vehicles and armor.  People build companies to capitalize on what their faction/doctrine does well, its silly to limit people's creativity at all, but the current system at least is pretty flexible...I see absolutely no need to revert to the availability system...

[Smokaz]

From his posts, bigdick wants three things dicscussed.

- How upgun is a better upgrade than the skirts
- How carabines are OP if you field 20+ rifles
- How a vanilla sherman is better AI than a P4

If you are convinced of these things being true, I am sure a public discussion of this is in your interest. Make the threads.

It`s not a real rock paper scissors game, but players should use more than three or four fighting units and get rewarded for doing so, for putting more variety in their companies, for learning how to use some more units in the right way, what is not the case at the moment. The beauty of the game is indeed killing units by tactics as you state by by right timing, right placement, positioning, okay. But additional beauty lies ahead: more unity variety in company builds.

In what way do you not get rewarded for using more unit types?

2 volks and a mg will almost always be better than 3 volks.

2 shreks and a pak will usually be better than 3 shrek squads.

A halftrack, a double shrek squad and a pak could be more powerful than 2 shreks and a pak.

A sniper and a bike will certainly give a good chance of getting a american sniper, as opposed to just two bikes.

A lmg and a flamer beats up rangers much harder than 2 lmgs.

A puma and a bike handles infantry better than just a puma.

3 bar rifles are certainly worse than 2 bar rifles and a flame engineer.

A sniper is better if you field a halftrack for it to get away from bikes/jeeps from.

A p4 is better with a spotter.

Volk + Mg is better at killing a supressed rifle squad than two mgs.

.. a g43 and a mp44 could be more beneficial than 2 mp44s if you need to isolate a airborne squad and kill it.

2 Bars, a halftrack and a sniper is much better than 4 bar rifles at fighting lmgs.

A m18 and a sticky squad can be better than three at guns at fighting stugs.

Really, how the hell can anyone reach the conclusion that fewer unit types in larger numbers neccessarily beats a combination of more unit types, in fewer numbers?

I could easily go on listing up a hundreds of situations where unit diversity beats unit numbers. The assumption that "using fewer unit types in larger numbers" always is better than using more unit types, is flawed. If you consider spotting, blocking, laying mines, using wire, using supression, flanking, using cover against the enemy as irrelevant you might arrive at this conclusion, but thats the only method to reach it I can think of.

[lionel23]

So in effect, you want to gimp US companies by making us field our lacking MG teams that don't suppress, our mortars that get outranged, and by fielding our crap non-doctrine light vehicle and cap all of our doctrine choices that give US more variety, because frankly that's what you're saying here tank.  Just lik vCOH, the Americans get VERY FEW basic units and add a few specialist (Inf army = Riflemen + Ranger, Airborne = Riflemen + Airborne + Airborne Support).

So now we're saying using only 4 types of units is too little? Who decides that? I hope not the hell you are. Are you going to now say 'People NEED to use 15 types of units to win!'. Well, if all being equal, yeah that would make sense, but the US doesn't and can't compete in the few units department.  A panther is way superior to any tank but the Pershing the US can field, so what does the US have to do to counter a single, powerful elite unit? Spam (being your definition is 2-3 is spam) lower, least ineffective units to overwhelm the single powerful one.

And in regards to your Doctrine A buff example, why else would I play Infantry if it didn't.. I dunno.. buff infantry?  If I wanted to field and do crazy tanks or light vehicles, that's armor.  Allies have to deal with hordes of heavy and medium tanks when we're very limited in our ability to counter that.

Doctrine Counters to heavy armor (Pershing, Rangers, Airborne)
Non-doctrine counters (M10/M18, Upgun Sherman, ATG, Rifle with Stickys)

Obviously the Tank destroyers (which need to be produced in mass) are glass cannons, the Upgun on the Sherman is laughable in terms of dealing with anything higher than a P4, and Rifles are the all-round jack of all trades.  Same goes with the insanely expensive ATGs for allies, and I can't phatom being punished for fielding what I can.

Then you go into your doctrine units, who are the cream of the crop, the best of the best, and the whole reason someone picks a doctrine as they fill in much needed roles for the lackluster Non-doctrine guys... Bazookas, RRs and a power cannon.  Now you want to limit all of our special AT weapons while ALL AXIS DOCTRINE HAVE ACCESS TO THE SHREK.  Our man-packed AT is doctrine specific for crying out loud, so let's do this to make you happy tank.

Let's make new 'units' of all US units.  Like how the Puma exists as a puma and puma upgun.  Viola, variety right?  Same can be said of PE, with its mass of vehicles but they are all unique units! BRILLIANT!

Now for US, let's make a Grenade squad that comes with Sticybombs and Grenades free, a BAR squad, a vanilla rifle squad, a bazooka squad, a double bazooka squad, a 6-man SMG ranger squad, a 6 man rifle ranger squad, a smg/bazooka ranger squad, a rifle/bazooka ranger squad, an upgun sherman, a nonupgunned sherman, an ambushing hellcat, a non-ambushing hellcat, a cloaking AT gun, a non cloaking AT gun, a mortar with Wehr Range, a mortar with faster reload but short range...

Once you do that, your system is sound, but until the devs totally rewrite all of that, then the system you proposed is seriously flawed because it is based on the presumption that both sides are merely checkers and thus can all be capped/mirrored which is ridiculous.  Pool costs, resource cost, PP cost, they are all there to deal with this and all you're doing is basically re-writing everything. While we're at it, let's reduce everyone to 1 HP so it's 'realistic' too, prevent spam if my MG can instant kill 1000 guys running down a road since they really did that in RL too!

Smokaz illustrates EXACTLY what the problem is, and its a lack of recon and coming out with a safe opening and callins. Learn to counter what's being a problem.  All volks army? My army can handle that!  All heavy tanks? I can handle that too!  What about support spam? Got that covered!

If you can't deal with any of these, then you need to rework your company, not force everyone us to conform to your idea of 'balanced' so your company is mirrored by everyone else.  In EIRR, it's about customization, not nerfing or undercutting the ability to make an army that you want.

Say I take all rangers, so what? It's expensive and is REALLY EASILY countered by infantry! IMAGINE THAT!  If I field 14+ rangers, I'm very sure that I have NO MU for SMGs, so it's a 4-man M1 squad with 2 bazookas, and every man lost reduces AI firepower by 25%!  A single gren squad with an LMG can make short work of rangers, and add on top of that the other SUPPORT you should be using.

If you're throwing out one gren squad to stop a pershing, it's the same as throwing volks only to stop T17 spam, I've never had any problems with the light vehicles as axis because I come prepared to counter it.  A single tank, shreks in a cheap bunker or bulding, etc.  There have been many threads on that, and the unit itself is adjusted accordingly to balance, no rewriting the whole game to suit any one person's need.  If I had it my way?  Rangers should get range bonus, SMGs should be half cost, and Shermans should be 2 POP, but you know what?  That isn't going to happen because that wouldn't be balanced.  Now if it was disgustingly overpowered (field 16 stugs at once in a 4 player game?) and can be abused, yeah those issues and instances need to be addressed, but company choice and variety shouldn't be forced down others throats to conform to one other person's idea of what a company is.  You have yours, I have mine, and that's that, we pay out the wazoo for these units based on pools and resources, and now you want to basically triple resource all units in the game? Ridonkculous  

[BigDick]

- How upgun is a better upgrade than the skirts

i dont say its a better upgrade i say its a different upgrade and its cost effective or i wouldn't use it

- How carabines are OP if you field 20+ rifles

and other rifle buffs...they are borderlined OP and they are killing the fun of eir because they are supporting spam

If you are convinced of these things being true, I am sure a public discussion of this is in your interest. Make the threads.

others came with this things
the topic is about limiting spam of units by price increase for having many of a single unit type....to support unit variety

spamers like lionel came into that topic and cry because their (3 howi 14 ranger) mono sided companies will get hurt

@montlymayhem the price increase modifier of 10% (1.1) was just an example they can be lowered as well it was just to show the principle how a system can work

but i see many of the longtime eir players have huge amount of fun in playing games with limited unit usage...

[lionel23]

@ Bigdick

All my rangers come with riflemen callins, with BARs/Stickys.  I field AT Guns, Halftracks to protect said AT guns and assist in capping and clearing buldings, M10s for tank busting, howitzers, American Officers, and finally engineers.  So please tell me what you know about MY COMPANY.  Maybe you should play against me more before claiming my 2-unit 'mono-sided' company is the reason I'm crying, that you know exactly what I field and that you know my company better than I do.  Please, just go ahead and tell me all about MY COMPANY.

There is a big reason I went Tank Reapers, and that's to take advantage of Bazookas and improve ATGs, and the reason I got the howies?  To make use of arty fort, otherwise I would be fielding 9 hellcats with upgrades like I did last patch, which is effective yes but I want to deal with what gives my company trouble, and that's support teams, hence the howie.  So I should be punished for buying my DOCTRINE UNIT that counters support weapons?  What about the officer? To buff my riflemen to be better at AI or use his cooldown ability to stop mass infantry rushes, M10s for chasing down those pesky Wehr tanks going to repair or to screen fireflys and other more important tanks with my fodder tanks.  Engineers? Flamers and triage of course! So please tell me I cry more, I really want to hear you say that.

[tankspirit668]

Um, please show me a company with only 3-4 types of units in the ENTIRE company, and I'll believe you.

Well I don`t know the whole company build - and i was refering to real fighting units: But all fighting units you can see there fielded by Pak88mm is:
http://forums.europeinruins.com/index.php?topic=12586.0

• Grenadiers
• Stugs
• (Schwimmwagen - not a  real fighting unit though)

what makes two fighting units.
 

[CrazyWR]

from his Stug Guide Thread:

PS aka My build

Well you want an example here it is in short

9 x Stugs(all w/skirt,mg,rep)
2 x paks 2x mortars 2x mgs
3 x volks w/ faust
8 x Grens w/lmg and 1x nade
1 x 50mm puma
1 x nebel
1 x bike

That looks like more than 3 types to me.  In Fact, I count 9.

[Smokaz]

Stug has good frontal armor, but turns slowly. Conclusion: he needs to have a alpha that makes it hard for the allied player to justify trying to rush past him helping him to force them into keeping in front of him. Result: he has more than 1 stug on the field. Plus if a vehicle is circling one stug, a second stug can try to get it.

Mudkipz and pak were severely outplaying the other team in that game, and at the end mudkipz was using a *gasp* vampire halftrack and throughout the game he was providing tons of other utility units for Pak, covering the simplicty of Paks company up. British player did not use a firefly and american player had no sniper. The whole plan behind pak's use of stugs is that he needs more than 1 to back each other up.. the allied players got in fact defeated by a spam that was more suited than their own spam. Ironic much? If they had a bigger diversity of units, they might have stood a better chance.

Keep grasping for straws. 8 paks losing to 8 m8s is no surprise. If one guy brings out a bunch of kch against a flamer blob, unit massing doesnt work in his favor. Thats another piece of evidence that disproves this idea that massing few unit types in big numbers always is the best solution.

[tankspirit668]

from his Stug Guide Thread:

PS aka My build

Well you want an example here it is in short

9 x Stugs(all w/skirt,mg,rep)
2 x paks 2x mortars 2x mgs
3 x volks w/ faust
8 x Grens w/lmg and 1x nade
1 x 50mm puma
1 x nebel
1 x bike

That looks like more than 3 types to me.  In Fact, I count 9.

It`s not that build i see no Schwimmwagen there. I can only see what he fielded and that were 2 types of fighting units.

[MonthlyMayhem]

So Tank and Big Dick, your argument is this modifier can't be too high, but yet can't be too low.. And 10% modifier is too high.. whats too low? And whats just right? Like a 0.3% modifier? Still wouldn't be able to field as many riflemen.. wait wait wait. Thats right too many riflemen is spamming, Ahh 12 man rifleman company! So we should be punished by paying more manpower! Riflemen are inferior to axis infantry, give us more variety and there will be you 'not so much spamming' and tbh to spammers that have this "10 T17s companies" would be fail even if you do face them on a regular basis because Heavy tank supported by say.. a shrek squad could take out light vehicles, to my experience there aren't that many spammers and even they do spam, just counter it.

[Smokaz]

It`s not that build i see no Schwimmwagen there. I can only see what he fielded and that were 2 types of fighting units.

Maybe.. he.. fielded.. what ... he .. needed? Maybe... he thought that the units he were using were killing the units they were bringing out, and they kept bringing out units that he felt he had no problems countering?

Would you bring out a sniper kill to lots of cheap infantry without any doctrinal buffs or upgrades?

No, you'd get some upgraded infantry and supression to minimize his killing power and maximize your own.

If your opponent brings out only 1 unit type, bring out the units you need to counter that unit type and still be able to cap, huzzah, you win. Its really quite simple.

[lionel23]

Oh gods! 9 units! He's SPAMMING! HARD CAP HIM NOW!

Now from the replay tankspirit, maybe you can think that maybe.. I dunno.... was bringing out the best counter unit for that situation?  What happens when your opponent brings out mass AT guns?  Will you throw infantry at it until you kill them all or will you rush your tanks to their deaths.

That replay was a bad example, as Mys had to go afk a few times during the match and I was playing only semi-seriously.  And you know what I learned from it before I come crying about how OP his spam was?  I decided to increase the number of ATGs in my force to deal with situations like that.  It's called a learning experience, and you modify your company accordingly.  And don't even cry about how 'Well he's tailoring his company to counter person A!', well, what else are you to do? Keep throwing your head at the proverbial brick wall and hope your blood and smashed bone erode the cement holding the wall together?

Listen to Smokaz, he knows what he's talking about, as well as Maysauce and Tym and the many others who have pointed out already that this system just will not work.  I think 10% is too high, but if you lower it too low, then it defeats the purpose of your system.  In that case, just blanket all units by 20-50 MP and there will all of a sudden be FEWER UNITS which is what you're inclining to do by jacking up prices real high through an artificial boundary.  Balance based on price, and let people do what they want.  And also, do you ever really see Pak play a lot of 1v1s?  No, I don't.  You know why? He always has a teammate, and so do I.

Example my friend Joe is RCA, and he may field tons of Fireflys.  I will make my company to COMPLIMENT his and thus focus on AI power.  Is this spamming now because I'm using my army to focus on one thing effectively instead of both of us splitting our attention and thus making our armies perform poor or mediocre?  No, I would think not, and that's why many of us rather not play with a noob too much or with random ppl in say a random ranked game in vCOH because they could invariably make a similar mistake.  Now myself i love playing with noobs and helping them learn (and who many go axis cause it's easier and their single micro units are more powerful than the allies), and thus explains much of my loss ratio.

I don't want to see EIRR go down the path of restricting units and choices, because frankly if we do, why not go back to vCOH and live with those limited choices there also?

[BigDick]

So Tank and Big Dick, your argument is this modifier can't be too high, but yet can't be too low.. And 10% modifier is too high.. whats too low? And whats just right? Like a 0.3% modifier?

i don't said 10% is to high
all depends on the unit type....as we had 4 squads of elite inf (storms, rangers, commandos...) in a previous version of EiR but 14-16 squads of rifles and 8 volks and 8 grens without paying PP

[tankspirit668]

So Tank and Big Dick, your argument is this modifier can't be too high, but yet can't be too low.. And 10% modifier is too high.. whats too low? And whats just right? Like a 0.3% modifier? Still wouldn't be able to field as many riflemen.. wait wait wait. Thats right too many riflemen is spamming, Ahh 12 man rifleman company! So we should be punished by paying more manpower! Riflemen are inferior to axis infantry, give us more variety and there will be you 'not so much spamming' and tbh to spammers that have this "10 T17s companies" would be fail even if you do face them on a regular basis because Heavy tank supported by say.. a shrek squad could take out light vehicles, to my experience there aren't that many spammers and even they do spam, just counter it.

I refuse to talk numbers here. I`d like to keep this discussion more general, I`m just offering another , i think, better balancing cost and availibility system. And there would be no clear line between what`s spamming and what`s not. You can field as much units as you like and affot but you have to pay a higher price for using the same unnit type in large quantities. Spam seems to be working overall, otherwise people wouldn`t do it. As a reward they are getting more doctrinal buffed units without enough penality. The proposed system will not end all spam, but if you want to use Stugs in a great quanitity , eg. 9 STUGs, it comes with a price increase. For every STUG you buy.

[MonthlyMayhem]

So Tank and Big Dick, your argument is this modifier can't be too high, but yet can't be too low.. And 10% modifier is too high.. whats too low? And whats just right? Like a 0.3% modifier? Still wouldn't be able to field as many riflemen.. wait wait wait. Thats right too many riflemen is spamming, Ahh 12 man rifleman company! So we should be punished by paying more manpower! Riflemen are inferior to axis infantry, give us more variety and there will be you 'not so much spamming' and tbh to spammers that have this "10 T17s companies" would be fail even if you do face them on a regular basis because Heavy tank supported by say.. a shrek squad could take out light vehicles, to my experience there aren't that many spammers and even they do spam, just counter it.

I refuse to talk numbers here. I`d like to keep this discussion more general, I`m just offering another , i think, better balancing cost and availibility system. And there would be no clear line between what`s spamming and what`s not. You can field as much units as you like and affot but you have to pay a higher price for using the same unnit type in large quantities. Spam seems to be working overall, otherwise people wouldn`t do it. As a reward they are getting more doctrinal buffed units without enough penality. The proposed system will not end all spam, but if you want to use Stugs in a great quanitity , eg. 9 STUGs, it comes with a price increase. For every STUG you buy.

If you put a price increase on every STUG you buy.. well that'd just drain a lot of resources.. And no spamming doesn't work if you're actually smart and decide to bring out the necessary units. Oh he's spamming AI! Bring out a light vehicle or a tank, wait he's countering with stugs spam, bring out handheld AT zooks, piats, RR's, AT guns. If someone runs a 9 stug company fine by me, my Airborne could use some more vet, but everything has a counter. Ahh Airborne spam bring out some LMG's, Volks with MP40s would even do the trick don't try to bring a knife to a gun fight. Play smart.

[Smokaz]

My approach is as usual from a gameplay position, and my disagreement with the idea is that it in no way seems to compensate for the fact that combined arms in many situations are just as or more powerful than simple 1 or 2 unit type massing. Thats one of the things I've been trying to outline here.

Additionally, the system ignores the difference in the faction unit's diversity largely. The faction that would suffer the least from this, is the one with most units in total (wehrmacht) and the other three would be more affected.

I also dont understand why Pool cost can't be adjusted if a unit type is too strong, instead of adding a new freaking system that requires a complete rework. How does the new system differ in limiting a unit type from the old? It seems like a complete waste of time to reimplement this just to put a few unit types "under control".

[lionel23]

@ tankspirit668

But you're taxing EVERY UNIT, do you not see the problem??  Any why not bring up numbers? May makes a very valid point, you'd be killing companies and forcing them to field less and less with your system.  We NEED to talk numbers if you seriously and realistically want to call for this system, you can't just play it off as a good idea without any serious consideration and feedback of what it means when its coded, numbers are put in, and god now we're in for a whole mess of trouble now aren't we?

The problem you're calling for is called individual unit balancing, like price and suppy.  There is a WHOLE FORUM TOPIC about balancing that you could make threads regarding certain units (hint: I think its called EIR Balance Discussion).  I have no problems fighting 9 stugs honestly, and they are easily owned by real tanks or ATGs (or RR infantry, not bazooka in my case).  Notice I was the one who fought Pak, and I'm NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT IT, but you didn't fight him in that replay and now you're complaining how we ALL SPAMMED!  As Smokaz and I have said repeatedly, that replay just shows Pak bringing out the logical counter at the time for the unit.  He didn't call the schwimwagon?  Maybe cause he knew where we were coming and got multiple stugs to COVER HIMSELF while his ALLY PROVIDED UTILTY units? Imagine that!  

My approach is as usual from a gameplay position, and my disagreement with the idea is that it in no way seems to compensate for the fact that combined arms in many situations are just as or more powerful than simple 1 or 2 unit type massing. Thats one of the things I've been trying to outline here.

Additionally, the system ignores the difference in the faction unit's diversity largely. The faction that would suffer the least from this, is the one with most units in total (wehrmacht) and the other three would be more affected.

I also dont understand why Pool cost can't be adjusted if a unit type is too strong, instead of adding a new freaking system that requires a complete rework. How does the new system differ in limiting a unit type from the old? It seems like a complete waste of time to reimplement this just to put a few unit types "under control".

Exactly what I'm saying Smokaz!  We have a system in place, adjust price and pool costs accordingly, not redesign an entire game/mod around 1 or 2 perceived 'spam' units.  What next?  Double KTs?  Let's redo the whole system and increase the multiplier while we're at it too.


---Killer344: Double post.

[BigDick]

Additionally, the system ignores the difference in the faction unit's diversity largely. The faction that would suffer the least from this, is the one with most units in total (wehrmacht) and the other three would be more affected.

no it don't as i pointed out if you make volks and grens doubled price increase for every squad because of variety
people who get a mixture of both pay exactly the same increase as people on us who buy rifles....but if people use just grens and no volks their grens get way more expensive than rifles in the same numbers

I also dont understand why Pool cost can't be adjusted if a unit type is too strong, instead of adding a new freaking system that requires a complete rework. How does the new system differ in limiting a unit type from the old? It seems like a complete waste of time to reimplement this just to put a few unit types "under control".

because a "pool" is just the generalism of units and never balance the availability of single specialized units...
and PP costs only hurt not maxed companies....as far as you maxed your company you can spam the crap out of eir by oversupplying...

you have not only your complete doctrine tree with (stacking?) unit buffs no you can spam and abuse the shit out of units that got to cost effective because of balancing issues or many doctrine buffs or because you throw a huge amount of cheap armor onto your opponent and wait until he has no at left...
(like light vehicle m10/m18 spam or some double 2 jagd companies)

[Smokaz]

I think you should lend lionel some room to be in position to see things different and still be observing the same thing as you. His company has weaknesses, just like any other. If a unit being spammed overperforms, thats a issue with the unit and not the availability of it. Units should be balanced so that are counterable, even in combinations. If tank reaper ranger zooks are overperforming for cost, its a issue with the unit and not the availability system. It should be the folly of the player himself to not realize that a company is weaker if it fields very few unit types.

The company pak designed would be completely buttraped by a well used sniper, a firefly and a infantry buffer to protect them. I can see that just by looking at it, because theres no way grens can charge through a infantry buffer and expect to kill a sniper unless the sniper player is being outplayed, and theres no way a couple of stugs can take on a firefly through a buffer of stickies or button squads.

Tbh this entire discussion could be rooted in players getting lazy and expect their company build to be able to defeat any other company build. It wont. If two players running brutus companies like Pak gets together and goes up against a good sniper user or someone who uses combinations to lock their units out from being effective, they are helpless. 2 bikes is by no means a guaranteed sniper kill, and expecting to "rush" a firefly with stugs that cant supress infantry in cover is pretty naive. Cloaked m18s, blocking jeeps.. etc. There's no shame in it. I remember one of my losses with the last war's terror where IA and ferocity stacked. It was to snipers. I had grown lazy fighting other lazy players and I lacked a nebel and counter to a sniper. As powerful as my spam was, it was helpless to defeat the sniper because I had grown lazy and expected a four unit type company to beat anything thrown at it.

A company with utility units like artillery, a sniper, blocker and spotters will manhandle brutus spam because brutus spam has no response to tactics like these. Brutus will beat a weaker brutus, but a fail against a more complex company.

[tankspirit668]

Oh gods! 9 units! He's SPAMMING! HARD CAP HIM NOW!

As it was stated it`s not a hard cap, it`s about a price increasing cost modifier. After each purchase of a certain unit its price is increasing according the cost modificator.

...
Listen to Smokaz, he knows what he's talking about, as well as Maysauce and Tym and the many others who have pointed out already that this system just will not work.  I think 10% is too high, but if you lower it too low, then it defeats the purpose of your system.
...

Numbers can be changed, till it fits the situation. Units can be changed into more subunits, like it was done with PE for example. The price modifier could be done in Percantage steps or tenth percentage steps. If it`s  a low modifier it will not hurt much using this type of unit in great numbers. If it`s a higher modifier it will hurt to use a unit in great quantities.

Example my friend Joe is RCA, and he may field tons of Fireflys.  I will make my company to COMPLIMENT his and thus focus on AI power.  Is this spamming now because I'm using my army to focus on one thing effectively instead of both of us splitting our attention and thus making our armies perform poor or mediocre?  
...
I don't want to see EIRR go down the path of restricting units and choices, because frankly if we do, why not go back to vCOH and live with those limited choices there also?

Well, not balanced company builds will tend to be  punished more. And that is the right thing to do.  Well maybe you can just swap roles at one point and Joe will field AI and you AT. So you will get the same result, more variety in your playing experience and your company.
Restricting the path of spamming certain types of units by the number is a good thing. It enforces you to choose between lower prices and using unit type B or spamming cool doctrine unit type A , but with higher costs.  So it`s your choice. The whole doctrinal system with the current availibility is flawed.