EiR Suggestion - Doctrine visibility and a Reserve Battalion

[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

[DuckOfDoom]

I had an interesting idea a while back that can introduce an expansion to EiR's meta game as well as doctrine balance and I was wandering what you guys think.

In my opinion, an ideal balance allows for different play styles that, in theory, have a fair chance of winning against each and every other play style if used correctly. At the moment, doctrines are set up in such a way that there are good and bad match-ups for each doctrine, such as a Terror King Tiger oriented company would be struggling against Infantry Tank Reapers but would have a distinct advantage over an Cohesion oriented Infantry company (just an example).

What I am thinking of is for the devs to implement a Reserve Battalion in addition to the normal battalion the player is using. The Reserve Battalion will have no impact on the actual battle, but it will allow players to hot swap units before and after battles in the launcher, without having to delete the units in order to free up resources. Basically, the Reserve Battalion will allow players to move some of their units into it and spend the resources those units take up to purchase other units. Consider an example:

An Armor player is facing off against a Terror player. The Armor players expects a King Tiger to be present on the field, and wants to modify his company to counter this threat better. The Armor player does not have enough free resources to purchase an AT Gun, but he could get rid of his 2 rifle squads (one with a bar and one with grenades) to purchase the said AT gun. However, both of his squads are vet 2 and the player does not want to delete them in order to win 1 game! This is where the reserve battalion comes in. With it, the player will be able to place the said veteran rifle squads in reserve, and get back the resources he has spent on them (excluding PPs, 190 x 2 MP, 80 +30 mun for upgrades). The resulting resource gain is 380 mp and 110 munitions, which is enough to add an AT gun to the players company. However, his 2 riflemen squads have to sit this game out in reserve.

Now consider that the AT gun manages to get some xp and level up. Naturally, getting rid of it would be a waste, so the player can move the AT gun into the reserve battalion and continue using his veteran rifle squads until he needs the AT gun again!

This feature will allow the players to make their companies more flexible, rather then setting themselves into a single pattern. It will also allow the high end players to keep expanding their arsenal of units by training new units and expanding their reserve battalion. Also, this feature will introduce an interesting meta game where players will be forced to out think each other regarding the balance of their forces, and modify their army accordingly. Using the example above, the extra AT gun would prove useless if the Terror player anticipates the change and adds an extra mortar to his forces in exchange for something else (for example)!

Of course, it would be cruel to keep the players guessing as to what doctrine their opponents are. While some people would start to keep tabs on other player accounts via replays and smurf accounts (which some people already do, to be honest), its much easier to implement a simple icon system in the launcher which shows an icon corresponding to the doctrine of the account currently logged in. Of course it shouldn't be 100% transparent, and that's why I think that the icon should only show the overall doctrine and not the doctrine tiers choices, which should remain secret (i.e, Blitz, Defensive, Infantry etc but not Terror (t3 - King tiger, etc)). Naturally, the battalion composition should also remain secret. So, for example, the player description in launcher should look something like this:

[US flag] DuckOfDoom [Doctrine Icon] (for example)

I think that this feature could be very interesting to play with. In addition, there is no need to stop there! Why not create some doctrines that play around this meta game? For example, why not make a doctrine tier choice that allows the player to see doctrine choices of his opponents in the launcher, or even their army composition? Or alternatively, create a doctrine choice that masks the doctrine icon (or the army composition list) for the player and for his allies, confusing the intelligence available to the opponents in the launcher?

Overall, I think the created flexibility would break up the stagnant doctrine battalions somewhat and allow for a greater variety with a relatively simple implementation. Another interesting idea with doctrines would be to allow players to "multiclass" several doctrines like skill trees in a RPG (i.e. investing more prestige points into a specific doctrine tree would unlock deeper doctrine tiers), but that is a discussion for another time.

[tank130]

This is fucking brilliant!!!!!

[Hicks359]

Duck wins the thread.

And nobody has posted a counter arguement yet.

>.>

<.<

>.<

[Illegal_Carrot]

I've always wanted some sort of 'bank' to keep vet units that I don't want to delete. As EIRR becomes more and more MMO-like and persistence-oriented, some sort of unit reserve is going to become necessary.

Having some way to tell someone's doctrine would be good too, , but I don't know if we should get another icon. Maybe just add a note of it by their level and win/loss record when you hover over their name.

[Tymathee]

I've always wanted some sort of 'bank' to keep vet units that I don't want to delete. As EIRR becomes more and more MMO-like and persistence-oriented, some sort of unit reserve is going to become necessary.

Having some way to tell someone's doctrine would be good too, , but I don't know if we should get another icon. Maybe just add a note of it by their level and win/loss record when you hover over their name.

Agreed. You used to be able to look on the website to know, now there's just no way unless you already know.
Then again, in vcoh you can't tell so meh.

but back on topic, this idea is wonderful, I'd love to have something like this!

[FailHammer]

Well well well. the old problem with too much vet. Mine eyes have seen the ugly monster rear its head again. I feel compelled to brandish my s-word of mighty argument thrashing named trogdor and lop off its churlish head.

I have 2 personal rules.
tbh is fuckin gay
and
vet is for clowns.

If you have too much vet then you arent trying hard enough. Its meant to be lost.

but otherwise incredible idea duck. that is the kind of innovation that put us on the moon and will undoubtably take this mod to the next level

[panzerman]

unless they are vet 3 fj's or airborne riflemen. they are deadly and don't die!!! they are crazy amazing...

[Ununoctium]

Easy solve to the too much problem.

Just like we have that extra "grid square" the one we use to move units from tab to tab, we can have a new tab or reserve square.
This has limited pop and the units in it don't count for any resource cost or battalion sp space.

Just like you get sp when you sell an overbuy unit and are charged when get overbuy they would apply when these units are moved in.

The only problem is that the launcher cant support units that dont count in the sp i think.
If this is an issue (i dont know if it is) here is a potential workaround. Just like you can buy doctrine unlocks you can straight up buy "veteran unlocks". when you sell a veteran unit to these slots you can buy the unit back with xp already on it. and you can only buy 1 of that unit. it is nothing but an existing unit with xp so no new unit coding. (this idea has more potential problems but nobod has shown any of us a flowchart so I don't know naything really)

[brn4meplz]

The launcher side would be simple enough I think. I've seen the look of it, and it's not overly complicated. I don't know anything about the game side fo the data trasnfer, But i don't see why it'd be too hard. Worst comes to worst you just have a tab you can't call in from.

[puddin]

OK read this whole post.  I promise its spell checked.

MAk it like a Wow Bag slot. 

Buy Sp or PP so that you can buy a certain Number of PP points worth of units. 

That way people can;t horde massive vet, There is still even more PP sink to it and it accomplishes all the goals....

What do you think?

[overfreeze222]

goddamn ur a genius duck

[sgMisten]

Cool.

[DuckOfDoom]

OK read this whole post.  I promise its spell checked.

MAk it like a Wow Bag slot. 

Buy Sp or PP so that you can buy a certain Number of PP points worth of units. 

That way people can;t horde massive vet, There is still even more PP sink to it and it accomplishes all the goals....

What do you think?

I was thinking the same thing. Make several "bags" that hold units, with each progressive bag costing more PP's then the previous one. Since newer armies wont have much vet they will be able to interchange their units without losing any xp, and once the army gains some they will have the option of interchangeability open for them.

[brn4meplz]

This was discussed as far back as I can remember(me and Scyn used to bitch about it to eachother all the time when we first started playing, and we had 3 companies on each account)

I wouldn't be surprised if it's sitting on a list somewhere already waiting to be reached

[puddin]

well the 3 entirely different companiesof old was nice. 

No one could know what you had built. 

PLus you had the companyyou brought out for tough fights amunst people, and a company you bring when your playing with a noob, so you don;tr rage when you lose much vet because its a throw away company. 

On top of that it accomplished the goal of makign it hard to guess what people were going to bring.

I had a duel tiger company an ostwind heavy and a stuh heavy , all with varrying degrees of paks, storms, grens, and such. 

Made playing against people more varried and less need for multiple accounts, Still ncie to have a couplediffferent ones, but mainly one allied main one axis... 

When people know your build better then you do... It always seems to be a problem.

[Osprey]

From what I understand, the unit transfer box in the current battalion tab (Top Right near ink well and budget numbers) was at one time discussed as a 'unit store'. You could place units into it and their cost, etc, was not included to the final company, much like your reserve battalion.

Maybe the devs should look at instating that?

[Ununoctium]

oh i remember why the grind got so big!
we used to get pp from 3 different builds,
not we have 3x the time on one build.
yuck.

[puddin]

oh i remember why the grind got so big!
we used to get pp from 3 different builds,
not we have 3x the time on one build.
yuck.

yea,, PLus you kept the vet. 

Now that was never intended infact they had it left over from beta testing it all and never got rid of it... Btu they say mistake make some of the best inventions... Penicillin anyone?

Anyhow...  It allowed multiple builds with the same benefoiits... Made fighting tough players alot harder especially for noobs, but it made game play alot more dynamic and not so static. 

LEts face it, The game is fun, and more units, more different builds is more fun as it is less o a grind. 

On the flip side, the constant build of grief companies was getting old but that was imn the age of free pps too.. Sooooooo yea.....

I say 2 company builds , OR a reserve pool with costing PP. 

Maybe If you had to pay PP to buy another Company build slot sso if you wanted to save your current company, you can rebuild another total build...

there are many options if we do go that route.