To the doctrine philosophy thread

[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

[nugnugx]

Buffs are to cover a wide range of units with non doctrinal units given buffs mostly in T1s and T2s and Doctrinal units given buffs in T3s and T4s, with no stacking buffs for "one unit type" along the tree, to encourage combined arms and discourage singular unit spam.

This ends up that people still spam the unit they want, and treat doctrines as necessary evil that is there,  you can make a company based on a unit that is not in the doctrine at all , and still be successfull.
It dictates from the top that someone has to play the way you want him to play, not the way he wants, people still get around it, hence spam companies that are successfull which use only a few doctrine abilities.
Doctrines in all trees should have the same level of efficient buffs that buff different unit and abilities, so people can choose what they want to use, because if someone wants to spam, he will do it anyway.
Part of the game.

[Groundfire]

Maybe i should rephrase that. While the doctrines are built to discourage singular unit spam, it's more meant to encourage combined arms by buffing an array of units instead of just one, thereby reducing the amount of "cookie cutter" armies we have here.

In past doctrine iterations, if you went Blitz HEAT, it was always 5 p4s or dual Tigers and then "everything else". The new design is meant for you to experiment with more combinations.

That being said, nothing we do can ever prevent spam, your free to do what you want with your armies, we're just giving you more options.

[nugnugx]

your free to do what you want with your armies, we're just giving you more options.

By limiting ability to spam

[Groundfire]

The point is that we dont want cookie cutter armies. Not that we can ever get away from that either, but at least we can design the doctrines to accomidate more viable builds.

[nugnugx]

The best would be if it was balanced out so a what you call ' combined arms company' have a fair chance vs spam company.

So both types of players would be happy,  CACs (combined armed companies) and spammers.

[Groundfire]

The best would be if it was balanced out so a what you call ' combined arms company' have a fair chance vs spam company.

So both types of players would be happy,  CACs (combined armed companies) and spammers.

That takes other "restrictions" apart from doctrines to inact. CACs take some skill to use. They've always had a fair chance but not all players are equal and have different perceptions on which play style is easier. Nothing we can do tbh.

[nugnugx]

Nothing we can do tbh.

Spamming already has been nerfed to the point that is non-existant in EIR ,  limits that we have  does not allow someone to have  only  30 gren LMG + shrek company like it was in the past if someone wanted to have.

Was it OP ? no , because the player was lacking in other aspects (tanks , support weapons etc)  but he could make a company like this if he   -wanted- to.  Now it is impossible due to the restraints.

In a duel of CACs vs spammers , 60% was the skill of the player that would determine the winner, and not the spamming by itself.  Give a spam company to a bad player and he will loose.

Long gone are companies of 40 rifles vs  4 kts and 20 volks.

[Groundfire]

Spam companies still exist, just not under the same definition which you are referring to.


Also, im not arguing or anything, i just posted the outline lol.

[Mysthalin]

I always percieved CAC and spam to pose the same degree of challenge, really : just in different ways.


With a CAC you have a better degree of adaptability to whatever you will engage in the battlefield - in the process making yourself a jack of all trades, master of none. So you're able to do most things decently, but nothing exceedingly well - hence you require to put in equal effort across the board to ensure victory.

With a spam company you specialise in a certain thing, which allows you to cover a certain area exceedingly well. However, this comes at a price of being weaker in other departments by definition, and thus you require to put in extra effort within the areas your company composition is lacking to ensure victory.

To put in very simplistic layman terms : let's assume you can cover 3 areas - Assault, Defence and Support, and there's two imputs in each of these : Company Preparation and Micro Imput.

Let's assume that you have 15 points to spend both in Company Preparation and Micro Imput. The respective tables of imput would probably look like this for each type of play :

CAC :
Assault : 5CP + 5 MI = 10 T
Defence 5 CP + 5 MI = 10 T
Support : 5 CP + 5 MI = 10 T

Spam(assault focus :
Assault 9 CP + 1 MI = 10 T
Defence 3 CP + 7 MI = 10 T
Support 3 CP + 7 MI = 10 T

Overall - assuming equal skill and equal resources to spend on the companies : both would be absolutely evenly matched. Of course - this is a very simplistic example, as there are no two equal players and the mod is not in absolute perfect balance(say, a mere 5 percent difference in costs in relation to unit efficiency would already skew the whole calculation by 0.75 a point - even though the balance is only 5 percent in the favor of one faction)

[nugnugx]

Overall - assuming equal skill and equal resources to spend on the companies : both would be absolutely evenly matched.

+1 ,  this is why spam companies should be allowed, and the limits killed spam companies.

bring back 40 rifles vs 30 grens companies i say !  this was fun.

[BigDick]

i had a 26 gren company without oversupply

its not 30 but close to

[nugnugx]

i had a 26 gren company without oversupply

its not 30 but close to

with current availability reqs its near to useless because you will burn out on pp in 2 games

[BigDick]

i never oversupplied a company (except it was accidentally) and i had 26 grens 2 panther 2 stug 3 paks without paying any pp

the company still exists (but slightly changed) with 25 grens a volk dual tiger and a stug and some paks

[PonySlaystation]

I know what would help.

Give 4-man kch to all WM doctrines, this will reduce volks/gren spam
Give Rangers to all US doctrines, this will reduce riflemen spam
Give Sniper to PE, this will reduce PzGren spam
Give Panzer Pioneers to all PE doctrines, this will further reduce pzgren spam and give tank destroyers a recrew
Give Comets to all CW doctrines, this will reduce Cromwell spam
Give Pak40 to all WM doctrines, this will reduce pak38 spam and balance the 17 pdr
Give Officer to all factions, this will reduce infantry spam
Give Assault Engineer to all US doctrines, this will reduce riflemen spam further
Buff and increase price of Hellcat, this will reduce US tank spam and increase tank diversity
Give Greyhound armor skirts look, this will make them look less stupid

[AmPM]

The point is that we dont want cookie cutter armies. Not that we can ever get away from that either, but at least we can design the doctrines to accomidate more viable builds.

I think the point he is making, is that despite your best intentions, the T3 and T4's are what determine your use of units in a company. T1's are useless in any practical application, and t2's are usually not a significant direct combat buff. Oh great, some stuff can get slightly better cover, who cares.

Pretty much every doctrine has 2-3 cookie cutter builds that take the most advantage of available resources while all other builds, and half the units or more, are not worth taking.

Even worse, the doctrines are so watered down that outside of their Doctrine Unlocks they all feel pretty much the same.

[Tymathee]

I dont think spam is a problem, i think it's when certain units get spammed that can handle everything thrown at them, thus becoming a combined arms spam coy.

like volks spam. u get assault + cheap fausts, 85 mu on every unit u get 16 thats 1360 mu so u still have room for tanks to handle heavier stuff.

Or the old Tank reaper spam, u just get a bunch of zook rangers and spam anti infantry vehicles

so the problem isn't spam, its having abilities that make units good at more than one thing thus making that spam more powerful.

[8thRifleRegiment]

Tym.....dont defend your spam... spam is the issue, its putting a bunch of pool cheap units, that get good stuff together and spamming the crap out of them, defeats the purpose of EiR.

[BigDick]

usually combined arms > spam but its annoying to fight spam sometimes

on the other hand companies that look all equal without a doctrine flair are boring too

Pretty much every doctrine has 2-3 cookie cutter builds that take the most advantage of available resources while all other builds, and half the units or more, are not worth taking

3 build per doctrine is pretty good
imho it does not need more awesome builds per doctrine but between doctrines itsself it need more diversity

every doctrine need some kick ass stuff that make you fear when its fielded

[NightRain]

spam is the not an issue, its putting a bunch of pool cheap units, that get good stuff together and using the crap out of them, it IS the purpose of EiR. The issue is that a lot of players can not adapt and counter such companies

Fix'd

[shockcoil]

 speedy you're a bad person and you should feel bad