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

[o4b2]

Question  is :Should there be a system in place which favours unity variety instead of unit monotony ?

Answer: Yes - but what you have posted here is not that answer. You have given a deterrent to spam, not an encouragement to variety.

[tankspirit668]

Answer: Yes - but what you have posted here is not that answer. You have given a deterrent to spam, not an encouragement to variety.

o4b2: I think something flew over your head. It`s defenetely rewards you for getting more types of units and more variety.

If you have some questions about the proposed system, I will do my best to explain it.

[MonthlyMayhem]

How does it reward you exactly?

[BigDick]

You keep talking about variety and saying "Theres no more then 2-3 units per  company". If you want I can show you all 3 of my builds and you can analyze that and see that there is more then 2-3 units..
I'm also saying that statement is FALSE. If you want unit variety you're talking about creating new units,

you don't get the point even when you have 6 different unit types in your company but 5 of them are just 1 unit and the 6th consumes 50% or more of your company (because its most cost effective) its still spam and almost no unit variety what you field

there are enough unit types in coh but people tend to spam the units that give the most bang for the bugs (because of doc buffs or opness of units)..or try to overwhelm someone by e.g. spamming T17 until all AT is dead....

[MonthlyMayhem]

Okay okay so let me know if my company is spam..

6x AB (RR's and Nades)
11x AB (Rifles, takes place of American Rifles)
3x AB AT Guns
2x MG
2x Mortar
3x Hellcats
3x Jeeps
1x Greyhound
and..
1x Sherman
True my infantry takes up more the 50% of my battalion...and my doctrain does buff my AB and AB AT guns.. So by infantry taking up most of my battalion.. I should get punished for using a more expensive unit? Or are you just talking about the 'gimmick' companies.. That SOME people run..

[o4b2]

o4b2: I think something flew over your head. It`s defenetely rewards you for getting more types of units and more variety.

If you have some questions about the proposed system, I will do my best to explain it.

I don't think so - I said you would punish those who "spam" units which is entirely true. You deter spam, not encourage variety. I suppose if you think along the lines of, "I cannot get only 5 unit types now, otherwise I will have too few units in my company, therefore I will make a diverse company" but that is not an incentive. All you are doing is disallowing one strategy to force everyone to make a "diverse" company.

[Smokaz]

If you wanna see true variety from the same company, there would have to be some way to sell doctrine choices and try other ones for new combos. I know a lot of players want this implemented so they can suprise their opponents. Expecting players not to max out on tank destroyers if all their doctrine choices buff tank destroyers, is just naive.

[Mysthalin]

Let's not forget that this would destroy one very valid tactic :
Outatrittioning the enemy of certain weapons.

For the US, with their inferior support weapons and infantry(not talking elite infantry), attempting to out-gun the enemy with sheer mass of vehicles, destroying their AT as much as they can is one of the core tactics towards winning(or a paralel if you use infantry spam). If you disallow this.. Well, have fun attempting to beat a company that's a carbon copy of yours, just better in every aspect when you go up agaisnt wehrmacht. WM units are better man for man when compared to US units - it's how it has always been.

Not to mention incremental costs would be extremely hard to build a company around.

What's easier? keeping track of resources and avail, or multiplying your unit's cost by a 1.07 modifier 20 times over?

[tankspirit668]

How does it reward you exactly?

You did some math before MonthlyMayhem , which i like.

So basically you have a buff for lets say TANK A so lets put it in Company Build 6 times:

Price Modifier is 1.1 for maybe TANK A and TANK B, who knows

Let`s say this will be the pricing table for TANK A and TANK B:

Manpower   Ammo   Fuel
400           60            200
440        66            220
484          72,6            242
532,4           79,86            266,2
585,64   87,846   292,82
644,204   96,6306   322,102  


So you can buy 6 pieces of TANK A for a total of:
Manpower   Ammo        Fuel
3086,244   462,9366   1543,122

Alternative with more variety:

You get 3 Pieces of TANK A and 3 Pieces of TANK B for a total of:
Manpower   Ammo        Fuel
2.648    397,2            1.324


So you decide if you want to get more TANK A for a higher overall price or if you want to balance it out for overall lower price.

So yoou get rewarded by lower pricing at all, if you have a better unit mix.

[lionel23]

And what exactly, tankspirit, gives you the right to tell me how to build my company?  So instead of taking my mediocre shermans, I now HAVE to take 3 shermans and 3 m10s because you think it's better for overall game balance.  What if I had 5 AT guns and sticky bomb riflemen?  You have now FORCED ME TO RESTRICT my unit selection.  Even though I got plenty of AT, you are forcing me to get 3 M10s on top of that because that's the only way I can spend my resources.

And talking 'realistically' here, the Americans had crap loads of Shermans, it was the most mass produced tank of the US side, so saying you need to limit my shermans is itself a silly notion.  You need to make pershings and T17s non-doctrine under your suggestion to encourage any type of variety, and you have consistantly failed to show how you are providing variety by limiting all companies to YOUR choices, which I think makes for a poor company.  In RL there were things like RIFLE COMPANIES, HEAVY WEAPON PLATOONS, TANK COMPANIES.  And you know what?  They only had that! Damn, did we spam the hell out of Hitler during WW2.  And D-day?  Big infantry spam there also!

But I disgress, let's address Bigdick's post.

You keep talking about variety and saying "Theres no more then 2-3 units per  company". If you want I can show you all 3 of my builds and you can analyze that and see that there is more then 2-3 units..
I'm also saying that statement is FALSE. If you want unit variety you're talking about creating new units,

you don't get the point even when you have 6 different unit types in your company but 5 of them are just 1 unit and the 6th consumes 50% or more of your company (because its most cost effective) its still spam and almost no unit variety what you field

there are enough unit types in coh but people tend to spam the units that give the most bang for the bugs (because of doc buffs or opness of units)..or try to overwhelm someone by e.g. spamming T17 until all AT is dead....

Under this notion, then wouldn't a King Tiger consume half your company because of resource cost? So now that one KT is SPAM by your definion.  You guys really need to make up your mind and stop calling one unit, 3 units, etc spam when you can't even lock it down because you're having trouble with ONE SINGLE UNIT that you can't seem to figure out how to counter.  If I run a riflecompany with 1/4th Rangers, 1/4th AT guns, and 1/2 Riflemen.. now my riflemen are the spam unit because it's the only NON DOCTRINE infantry I have?

The only way to make you guys happy with this crazy system is to combine both brits and americans into one faction, then we'll have unit variety.  I'll be MORE THAN HAPPY to field half my army of bren carriers and engineers with flamers, backed up by Commandoes and Rangers and Airborne backed up by Fireflys and Shermans and Chuchills, and we'll see how fun that is when EVERY ARMY must make their armies exactly the same way.  You are encouraging a chessboard mentality when frankly the factions are not mirrors of each other.  Allied support < Axis Support by far, unless its the brits with their instant pinning vickers or mortar pits.  And because of all the unit types I'm using, I obviously am not spamming, even if in a 4v4 we all opened up with bren carriers with flamers!

Understand your point clearly as you have failed time and again in this thread to illustrate how this encourage variety.  So I'm going to be forcing you to take 5 snipers for my 5 jeeps and you can't cry about it because you were forced to take them?  You have not understood that you are repeatedly contradicting yourself and that this is a unit balance issue in regards to price/availability and a doctrine balance issue if your armor doctrine.. I dunno.. buffs armor? Who would have thunk it!  I better roll an Airborne company if I want to have more variety with tanks then!

Is it really that hard to understand that you're not encouraging anyone but in fact placing your own arbitrary rules on others to basically make the company that YOU are telling them?  Well, I hope I get to tell you how to make your company so I know exactly how to stomp you then, and in my book that isn't even remotely fun.

[tankspirit668]

Lionel, your taking this to a way too personal level again, accusing us that I or whoever defines what spam is. We are discussion an alternative pricing and availibility system here. The devs will have to decide that.

Question is: Should Variety in Company Builds be rewarded by lower prices ?

[CafeMilani]

Question is: Should Variety in Company Builds be rewarded by lower prices ?

yes

[lionel23]

You're not lowering prices at all, I have yet to see any mention of lowered price, all you're doing is taxing every unit in the game to conform to your standards of 'non-spam'.

Variety should be rewarded yes, but your system strongly discourages that.

@ Aloha - lol, well I could have just quoted you Aloha, but I'll the simple things to others 

[tankspirit668]

I don't think so - I said you would punish those who "spam" units which is entirely true. You deter spam, not encourage variety. I suppose if you think along the lines of, "I cannot get only 5 unit types now, otherwise I will have too few units in my company, therefore I will make a diverse company" but that is not an incentive. All you are doing is disallowing one strategy to force everyone to make a "diverse" company.

Let's not forget that this would destroy one very valid tactic :
Outatrittioning the enemy of certain weapons.
...
Not to mention incremental costs would be extremely hard to build a company around.
...
What's easier? keeping track of resources and avail, or multiplying your unit's cost by a 1.07 modifier 20 times over?

There will be no punishment, but it will no longer be a no brainer to max a single certain unit type ( UNIT A )out to max. MAybe you are getting towards  a point where you thinking about UNIT B, that`s somehow different, but still can do the same job as UNIT A. So it`s your decision, paying a hgher price for only UNIT A or do i want to spare ressources by using also UNIT B.

It`s if you will still a tactic of attrition, but it`s beginning already on the company build screen. Just spamming UNIT A won`t work then, because you get less units for your ressources.

It wouldn`t be hard to build companies, the workflow will be te same. Each Unit would have a popup, that says Cost Modifier 10% , e.g. and then you buy one piece of it and the nthe price changed according the modifier.

[tankspirit668]

Variety should be rewarded yes, but your system strongly discourages that.

I don`t get that. There will be more variety rewarded in each company. If you want special companies with fewer unit types  you still can do that, but it comes with a price, but it still can work. 

[lionel23]

Again you have your own problem.... not every unit can cap. Weapon support teams can't cap, jeeps can't cap, halftracks can't cap (at least not without doctrine).

So again you're limiting my ability to cap, which is a legitimate tactic, by punishing me for focusing on infantry and thereby spamming my only 2 real infantry squads - rangers/airborne and riflemen.  Engineers are double price, so your system will only work if all units start at 1MP/1MU and increase incrementally to match what we have now and not reduce the size of all forces.

Again, you're forcing others to conform to your company design decision because of single units that you have trouble countering.  If I mass infantry, and you take a balanced company, you should be able to counter with your mix of MGs backed by tanks/volks for example.. so again I don't see the problem here.

Variety should be rewarded yes, but your system strongly discourages that.

I don`t get that. There will be more variety rewarded in each company. If you want special companies with fewer unit types  you still can do that, but it comes with a price, but it still can work.  

The current system already does that, I am taking 2/3rd less rifles, for example, to field rangers.  If I took no rangers, I could take 38 rifle squads... so you're admiting you're double nerfing and double punishing people for their build and their variety? (and yes riflespam is variety because you can kit each squad very specifically to threats).  Now this may APPEAR as spam because allied units tend to be universal weapon platforms that can be kitted to do many things (Upgun sherman upgrade, BAR Rifles or bazooka/stickys, SMG rangers or no SMGs, M18 with .50cal or no MG, greyhound with mines and skirts or MG).

So with your suggestion, you are now impeding my ability to be versatile by limiting unit selection... right...

[tankspirit668]

....
The current system already does that, I am taking 2/3rd less rifles, for example, to field rangers.  If I took no rangers, I could take 38 rifle squads... so you're admiting you're double nerfing and double punishing people for their build and their variety? (and yes riflespam is variety because you can kit each squad very specifically to threats)

Your taking it too personal again, you stay focused just on your little company, what you seem to love.  You pinpointing to certain units again, what I don`t do. I`m not getting personal, nor do I currently think about any of my companies ( some of them spam ), but that doesn`t matter. This mod  matters and  balance matters.

I posted an example witth some tank shich could do the trick as an example. The Current Availibility System, with the current Pricing System and the doctrinal System just favours spammy monotoneous company builds. The proposed System would be a  counterweight to doctrinal buffs.

Since you seem to have modified you post :

So with your suggestion, you are now impeding my ability to be versatile by limiting unit selection... right...

No. But i made several times statements like it would no longer be a no brainer to max certain unit types just out, it would come with a price. A pricing example can be seen on a page before, how it could be. You can stille be special by using, for example your  three howitzer company, you mentionend before,  but howitzer would probably have a quite stiff price increase after every purchase. It depends on you if you are still thinking that it would be worth it. It`s not the intention of this proposal to put hardcaps up.

[CrazyWR]

If you wanna see true variety from the same company, there would have to be some way to sell doctrine choices and try other ones for new combos. I know a lot of players want this implemented so they can suprise their opponents. Expecting players not to max out on tank destroyers if all their doctrine choices buff tank destroyers, is just naive.

This would be a lot easier if they would just revert to letting us build 3 companies per username again...

[Smokaz]

OR selling/buying abilties.. with the new doctrines this might become even more possible since the doctrines separate passive buffs and unit unlocks. We can all dream. When the man with the banana comes around the mysteries of EIRR, life and death by intrusive fruit insertion will be known to us.

[lionel23]

I'm not taking it personal, it just seems you're not reading anyone else's posts is all I'm saying.  And I'm the only one pinpointing units? Again, it's not a problem cause I use a VARIETY of units in my company, and you have yet to illustrate that I'm spamming, and here are several examples of you accusing me of 'pinpointing' units which you have clearly made known in this thread.

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.

Yes you are maybe one guy with three howitzers. And it`s an perfect example. You have your doctrinal buffs, so you are rewared for "spamming" three howitzers. And if the current availibility penealities would work and if that woud not work out, I guess your 3 howitzer company wouldn' t exist....

Rangers don`t die easy. Play some more PE and enjoy their INfantry for a comparision . It`s just a question of time till some new units will come out for allies as reward units. The Jagdpanzer IV will be introduced as a reward unit for axis, as far as I know. The stated Pricing System would make them even more precious. Fantastic, isn`t it?

Anyway, I find this new availability system to be much improved over the last, and I just noticed going through this thread that you even state Ostwinds are a 'soft' counter to rangers? Hardly, they are a hard counter being able to outrange them.  I think you need to reevaluate your own uses for some units in EIR and learn their roles before you go about rewriting the entire game.  Ostwinds outrange and outsnipe rangers, simple as that.  A horde of ostwinds will SMOKE a pure ranger army any day, unless the Ostwinds shoot planes down nonstop or something, but rangers simply can't cope with them, even with Tank Reapers.

Your system is still seriously flawed, and I do not see how this can all simply be addressed by the Balance Discussion subforum for those individual 'spammy' units that you seem to complain about instead of messing with a system that affects ALL UNITS in ALL DOCTRINES.  It makes no sense to me or the many other players who have posted to illustrate, but you think everyone is having the points 'go over their heads' when it seems clear to me you're not listening to the other side either.

T17s being spammed too much? Let's cap shermans!  That is your line of discussion and that logically does not make sense.  Look at what the devs did with that... they upped the resource and pop cost on it... and you know what it did? Put less T17s on the field at the expense of other things.  I would expect that same line to apply to Wehr, if you bring out 3 KTs, you better not be able to field any other armor with it, you're picking a strength and taking a weakness, that's what doctrine choices, company composition, and player playstyle/use comes in on.  Learn to play the game, learn the best units to counter the various 'spam', and adapt, don't force others to play YOUR game because our companies are not YOUR company.  Simple as that.