A new approach to Resources and Company Management.

[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

[RaptorCommander]

To make the back end (launcher) of EIRR more ‘fun’ and interesting I propose that a ‘battalion’ resource structure be implemented, if/when multiply companies are brought in.

This system key feature would be:
- Multiply (say 3) companies for deployment in battles
- Shared resources between the companies.
- Resupplying of resources only occurring ever ‘cycle’. With 3 companies every 3 battles.
- Units can only be transferred between companies once every cycle. Or perhaps a limited transfer per battle of the same unit type e.g. my 3 vet sniper in one company can be moved every battle to my ‘combat company if 1 swap it for a sniper already deployed in that company.
- Possibility to chose a button to evenly share a resources between companies so that (If you can’t be bothered with the system) you can ‘clone’ companies across all three.
- Individual companies can be modified within their assigned resources after every battle. As in the current system.

This system would enable bring the meta game up a notch and add lot more to launcher dynamics and planning. And enable people to have:

- Strong companies and weak companies
- Spend time planning more in depth strategic decisions
- Armour or vehicle or arty or infantry based companies.
- 3 balanced companies
- Have vet units fight in every or only in selected battles.
- Potential feed in to ‘war map’

Because of the resource restriction you would be forced to play all your companies in a cycle or be forced to fight with under strength companies.

This system may have its disadvantages:
- More difficult for newer players (but with cloning it would essentially be the existing system)
- People will fight with strong then weak companies either disadvantaging or advantaging team mates and/or themselves. (see below)
- Vet hording
- May enhance staking

To make it fair on the players you will be playing with (don’t get stuck fighting with under strength companies) the reward system (PP or whatever it will be in the future) should be arranged in manner which:

- Gives greater rewards based on your total company (and teams) strength vs opposing sides total company (team) strength. (With strength measured in resources)
            o   For both winning and losing. So if you lose a battle and your team has half the resources of the enemy you would actually get the same or more PP as the winning side. The precise ratio would need refining

- If your company makes up a greater percentage of your teams total resources you would receive a greater your share of the rewards. E.g. Total PP reward for team winning a 2v2 = 10PP your company makes up 60% of resources so you get 6 PP other member gets 4PP.

This system would also aid the ‘War map’ with big (high resource battles) contributing more to the progress then smaller (lower resource battles), making it more realistic.

[Wnb 1337]

wat

[LeoPhone]

i kinda like the idea  that you will have less reinforcements in a next battle if you just lost all of your troops in a previous fight. (even though this is not really told in your idea, this is the best thing coming out of it i think.)


but then i thought about it...

you 1st get stomped and then you have no chanse to win the next fight anymore, and battles start unbalanced always.

also, there are EiR players that dont want to use all their free time fixing three different companies all the time.

[RaptorCommander]

wat

Bored at work thought i might put it out there.

i kinda like the idea  that you will have less reinforcements in a next battle if you just lost all of your troops in a previous fight. (even though this is not really told in your idea, this is the best thing coming out of it i think.)

Not quite what i was aiming at.

You have 1000 MP

you then spend 300 on Company 1, 300 on Company 2 and 400 on Company 3.

You paly first battle with Company 3, win.
Resources are not reinstated.
Play second battle with Company 2, lose.
Resources are not reinstated.
Play third battle with company 1, win.
All your battlions resources are reinstated (1000 total) so you can rebuild all three of your companies to full strength.

but then i thought about it...
you 1st get stomped and then you have no chanse to win the next fight anymore, and battles start unbalanced always.

Well if you want to set up your companyies that way then thats what you get wasy wins and quick defeats. The trick would be to balance your resource useage so that you have a slightly stronger company for when fighting harder opponents and slightly weaker ones when you fight easyer opponents.
I guess it would make balance harder to implement.
It was more so that if/when a true war map got implemented you would have 'critical' battles and skirmishers that would turn the tide. Rather then the current slow progress to allied victory......

It would take time and i guess that would suit all the community, but you always have lots of time waiting for a game (Well as an Australian anyway).

[lionel23]

I don't like this idea.  Why?

Making the 3 'mini' companies, what prevents people from stacking more heavily then?  I wouldn't bother challenging high level germans if it meant my 'best' company would be out of commission for an entire cycle and just stomp noobs until I can vet whore the company.  Then you got people who love to go out of their ways to be (pardon my language) dicks and vet hunt the hell out of you even though they are throwing the game just to hurt you.  I hate playing with so called 'low level' smurfs for that very reason, just yesterday had to go thru Knights Cross + Assault Grens + Slow Grens who just spent the entire game vet hunting and deliberately throwing the game, but whatever.

Under this system, it just seems to scream 'stack me' and stomp a guy and force him to play 2 more games with an understrength company.  And being the factions aren't mirror balanced, many US players have to throw a crap ton of stuff at a Wehr company to break even.  So say you're British, you get 3 Fireflys.. okay... 1 per 'company', then the Axis gets a King Tiger or two.. puts them in two of his companies... you now have understrength forces to kill it quickly, and the 3rd firefly becomes useless in the 3rd game that say could be mass infantry... it's like spreading out your forces way too much and leaving you unable to field enough counters for the next battle.  If I were a battalion commander, I wouldn't want to keep spreading my forces thin, I'd want to consolidate... so why are you preventing that commander from doing so with this system?

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding the company idea you're proposing, but that's how I see things anyway from what you said was basically splitting your army into 3 deployments.

[Masacree]

I would just put all my resources in one company and have 3x bigger company than everyone else, and just not lose any units.

[Mgallun74]

huh, WTFUTA willis?

[Falcon333]

If we're using this system, I'll just reset my account after three battles. I don't need doctrines or vet when I got 3 times as many units as my enemy...