New Doctrinal System

[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

[Scotzmen]

Would be nice if we could pay munitions or something to boost diffrent stats or our units of weapons. Would be fucking cool tbh

[lionel23]

Agreed Scotz, I'd so kill to be able to pay SOMETHING to increase the durability of most of the fragile US tanks (sherman is decent, wish I could throw sand bags on it though).

[EIRRMod]

what is the point in getting a special doctrine build (thats currently weak as shit anyways compared to old eir doctrines) that has additional costs attached?

The problem with it is, a buff to tanks is too variable.

Shermans +20% damage could be AWESOME if the company uses lots of shermans(promoting spam), but not so much if he uses 1.

Thus, it should scale.

The BENEFIT of having these from your doctrine, is not only versatility, but they'll probably be costed a bit better than normal upgrades (say 75% of normal)

[BigDick]

i thought thats why we introduced buffing more than one unit with a doctrine unlock?

e.g. armor hvap buffing shermans m10s m18s and pershing aka tanks and tankdestroyers in their AT role why e.g. the bottom tree buffs more the speed and the amount of vehicles at same time on the field

that makes me wanting playing armor with tanks and vehicles and no need for spaming just shermans or just m10s

[SaintPauli]

if i would need to spend tons of munitions to make my sherman a bit stronger (after having my armor doc unlock) compared to an infantry company sherman then i don't benefit by relying more on tanks and can play every doctrine the same
 

First you complain that you don’t benefit from relying on tanks…

because it makes only some units stronger and forces everyone to benefit by having a special company build (e.g. as armor player relying on vehicles while infantry company player relies on infantry)
 

Then you complain that it forces you to rely on tanks…

[BigDick]

i don't complain about armor forces to play with vehicles/tanks (thats why i added "its a great thing") thats actually the sense of playing armor to play with vehicles.....

currently you can choose armor as doctrine and don't use tanks or vehicles at all but that makes your company much weaker than doing the way around

if this wouldn't be the case (like buffs only if you pay for them) i can choose armor and play with zero tanks without getting punished

[SaintPauli]

if this wouldn't be the case (like buffs only if you pay for them) i can choose armor and play with zero tanks without getting punished

Sure you could go rifle spam and 80 guns… But you wouldn’t be using all you resources (fuel) and if we go by my doctrinal example then you wouldn’t be fielding any elite infantry either…

But let’s try the other way around: Do you think this design forces you to play any specific build besides giving you a lot of tanks upgrades to choose from?

 

[EIRRMod]

if this wouldn't be the case (like buffs only if you pay for them) i can choose armor and play with zero tanks without getting punished

Nor gaining any benefits....

[AmPM]

Why???

Whats the point in paying for + damage on a unit when, if the price is balanced, your are better off spending said resource on another unit completely.

[AmPM]

You misunderstand.

Doctrinal buffs would be cheaper than normal (I am thinking anyway) - and balance themselves AGAINST other doctrine upgrade costs.
Now when all doctrines and players are going to be the same level each game, thus having the same doctrine points and resource points - then the balance works itself out.

The issue here however, is if not done right, then you just get a big clusterfuck of upgrades priced wrong.

There is no reason to do so. Balance could be maintained easily through FOCUSED doctrinal buffs. So sure, you might have great tanks, but your infantry is straight vanilla and loses to any buffed infantry. This requires that the enemy have buffed armor or AT of some sort on their side to counter you and you need a teammate with buffed support to protect your flanks.

Helllllo teamwork and vastly different yet balanced doctrines.

The game should NOT be balanced so that T1 = T9. You may as well just delete the doctrines entirely at that point. T9 should have an advantage, otherwise, why even play games to grind? It's not like most games of EIRR are even fun, and that has nothing to do with balance of factions and everything to do with EVERY FUCKING DOCTRINE BEING BASICALLY THE SAME SHIT minus a couple unique units.

If each tree had different and uniquely powerful builds this game would be fun. IT SHOULD have an element of hard counter doctrines to it. Tank Reapers SHOULD counter my HEAT/Ace STuG coy, but that STuG coy should also shut down a medium armor user. This is where the fun was in EIR. Now, each company I make is made in the same way, with pretty much the same units and the same amount of said units.

[Smokaz]

The FIRST AID / Casualty retrieval is a convincing example of how adding costs to top unlocks would be a good thing and a functional one. People can choose how much they wish to spend on the buff, the buff itself feels balanced for the manpower cost and all-riflemen companies with first aid will have "higher quality rifles" through manpower but overall LESS of them.

Lets eleborate it. Imagine a blitz company where you could get a normal priced stug but run with buffed p4s. Or have a no upgrade panther using its range in terror, but tank mg buffs applied to your other units. Not the greatest examples, or very likely, but there is a choice there to field the unbuffed unit for less cost than the buffed version.

Maybe you'd want the choice to not get mp44s on your mortars as Heavy support. Maybe in the future these are droppable and then its a bad idea.

Maybe you'd buy a sight bonus for your vet 3 bike and not for your regular bikes. Maybe you get crushed after one game, losign all your vetted units, so you bring a lot of normal units the next game to attrition the enemy and upgrade the surviving vet ones in the next.

Imagine a game where it would be ideal to BUY the elite armor for your grens. But in another game it might be a horrible idea to have it on all your grens. Choices, power.

In addition, when doctrine buffs arent massively advantageous on the units they buff and are prioced, it actually promotes a fluid metagame and meaningful discussion. Flavour of the month comes with a receit. When it comes around people have a price on the upgrade to relate to and discuss. Instead of the VAGUE "I believe 25% more accuracy is too much, it should be 17%!" (Based on what?) "30 munitions for 25% more accuracy seems a bit cheap to me" is a much SIMPLER starting point for a discussion.

There already was armor companies without any armor popular bigdick. It was the old reduced cooldown calli. You had armored artillery supported by 30 cals, at guns, rifles. Long before main gun callies.

As for AMPM, the problem your "Narrow Doctrines" don't solve is that there is no grounds for comparison of doctrien abilities.

[AmPM]

Imagine, that your buffed rifles are just as effective for cost as normal rifles, now cry because they don't add a single thing to your company!!

At this point, just delete doctrines, and throw in purchasable upgrades for all this stuff instead.

Do I think some things could and should be upgrades instead of free, yes, should all unit buffs be this way, no.

+1 BAR for instance should cost another 20mu or so, 10% accuracy should not.

[Smokaz]

Hello, is anyone home in that hollowed out sheep cranium sticking out of your lacoste shirt?

How can a buffed unit not be better than a non-buffed one? Its a matter of pricing to make the decision a true choice, a no brainer or unviable.

T1s could possibly be free. But T2-T4? No way.

[AmPM]

Why? If the price balances them, then there is no reason to get them.

That's like saying that if an Infantry unit has 50% more HP it's worth 50% more manpower.

If they are buffed but made to cost a negligible amount (10mu) then there is no point either, just lower the amount of the buff.

The more fun and interesting solution is to make T3 and T4 extremely specialized and specific on what types of units they buff while making it powerful. That makes each company very different, even within the same doctrine.

You concept of pricing will only matter for the first week or so, when the most efficient builds are again figured out and used. Otherwise, you rely on perfectly balanced costs across the board to make a fluid metagame.

Lets take for example an ability that gives +20% accuracy for 20mu. Does it increase the viability of the unit enough to make it worthwhile? This is easily figured by how often the unit will receive penalties to its accuracy, and what it base target tables look like. For a Tiger, it would be useful for splash AI duty. For a STuG, it's still shit. It also depends on how much MU is already dumped into a vehicle to give it repairs and it's basic upgrades (MG, etc). An M8 with MG and Repairs costs 60mu or something close to. Lets say you want it to cap territory, have a moving repair and second repair, not an overly powerful combo but even at only 15-20mu each you already nearly double the cost of the unit for very little actual gain.

AKA, Balance the doctrines, balance the units. Extra costs are not needed. Saying you should pay for +20% damage instead of just giving +10% damage for free is silly.

Real issue, Doctrine tiers are not balanced against each other, inside or outside of their doctrine.

[AmPM]

Just particular parts.

Take this example.

Blitz T3 bonus
+20% damage to tanks

Armour T3 bonus
+20% damage to tanks

Now lets just, for the sake of argument, pretend that blitz and armour tanks are currently equal in every way (which, they arent, but whatever).

The blitz player chooses 3 tanks in his company, while the armour player has 6.
Already, the two companies, equal in theory with their doctrines, are now not.

If each buff cost 20MU, then it has some sort of balance / cost ratio.  The buffs dont even have to be that much cost - just balanced AGAINST EACH OTHER.

This is where more than a blanket buff comes in.

Now lets say that the doctrine applies unique buffs to each tank for HEAT. Some being more in Pen, some having more damage. This way, Panthers benefit as much as Tigers and STuGs and P4's.

Say, something like.

HEAT:

Tiger +20% damage +15% pen
STuG +35% pen
STuH +25% splash +15% damage
P4 +30% pen +10% damage
Panther +30% damage

Yes, the example might be over the top, but it gets the idea across. This means each unit is useful and buffed well by the T4 to fit its particular needs. Not a stupid blanket buff where only half of it really helps any given unit.

[Scotzmen]

It would actually be awesome if the doctrines were actually just to unlock a kind of points system. For instance

T1: Mechanized support:
Affects Half tracks, light vehicles ETC

You get a choice of diffrent aspects of a few units to change. Say i wanted a mechanized infantry company. I get Mechanized support. I can spend a few points on all the units it unlocks for upgrade. Or just one.

So i maybe spend a few points on a half track to upgrade its speed and accelaration. Maye anther point on the .50 cal ROF or damage.

As you go up, more units become available to upgrade and more points available. I just adds a lot more customisable options and tailor your company to how you would like it. Especially the units you will use, not the units you won't use.

[Smokaz]

Upgrade Costs would have to be unit specific. Thats why it would be a lot of WORK, necessary work, ultimately rewarding work giving great precision and grounds for comparison.

A tiger and a stug and a p4 might seem to not gain the same performance increase from a low key accuracy buff just because the % modifier is the same. Probably true.

At the low range of most upgrade costs however, the differences would mean less than perfect prices (but at least actual values) wouldn't heavily skew anything at all. Meaning: they wouldnt have to be 100% perfect.

Because: At some point, too extensive stats nagging and tinkering becomes meaningless to decide whether or not a STUG heat round upgrade should be 25 or 20 compared to a Panzer IV's "35".

So AMPM, use your imagination. Don't let the argument completely mute your common sense. Plenty of examples of upgrade choice and when it would be helpful to concentrate resources and when it wouldnt has been posted, which you completely ignore and keep harping on.

Why? If the price balances them, then there is no reason to get them.

Stop posting this, because its bullshit. Your idiocy would make a stone rage evolve language spontanously just to verbally assault you:  50% HP DOES NOT NECESSARY MEAN ITS WORTH 50% MORE RESOURCES BUT OBVIOUSLY ITS WORTH MORE THAN WITH NO 50% MORE HEALTH?

You only point out one interesting thing, how some doctrine abilities still could need more adjustment in terms of the buff type it applies to different units. Buffs need to cater to the already existing role of the unit.

[SaintPauli]

T9 should have an advantage, otherwise, why even play games to grind? It's not like most games of EIRR are even fun

A free mod has failed when the players start playing for the grind and not the fun…

Tank Reapers SHOULD counter my HEAT/Ace STuG coy, but that STuG coy should also shut down a medium armor user. This is where the fun was in EIR. Now, each company I make is made in the same way, with pretty much the same units and the same amount of said units.

How is pricing buffs changing any of this? The point is that you not forced into a specific build. Going from my example of a doctrine I could choose to do a Volks company backed up by STuGs giving me huge amount of cheap troops. I could also choose to go Tiger + Stormtroopers giving me a smaller but more resource/pop focused army. Heck I could even throw in a Nebel without worrying that defensive gets a better one for the same price. Going from those build your STuG Company would still do good against people using lots of medium armor and fail against a heavy 80 gun focused company.

And how will this make all doctrines play the same? We can still make Blitz focused on tanks, while Terror and Defensive gets access to other units/abilities

Imagine, that your buffed rifles are just as effective for cost as normal rifles, now cry because they don't add a single thing to your company!!

Dude, that’s like saying that elite infantry isn’t worth buying when you can get standard infantry. Is Stormtroopers worth it when you can get Volks? It’s just different ways of spending you resources…

[SaintPauli]

It would actually be awesome if the doctrines were actually just to unlock a kind of points system. For instance

T1: Mechanized support:
Affects Half tracks, light vehicles ETC

You get a choice of diffrent aspects of a few units to change. Say i wanted a mechanized infantry company. I get Mechanized support. I can spend a few points on all the units it unlocks for upgrade. Or just one.

So i maybe spend a few points on a half track to upgrade its speed and accelaration. Maye anther point on the .50 cal ROF or damage.

As you go up, more units become available to upgrade and more points available. I just adds a lot more customisable options and tailor your company to how you would like it. Especially the units you will use, not the units you won't use.

Try and think about the proposed system: 

Leveling unlocks new units and abilities
As you go up, more units become available to upgrade

You get the choice on where to spend you resources. If you want mechanized infantry that’s where you spend your resources.
You get a choice of diffrent aspects of a few units to change. Say i wanted a mechanized infantry company. I get Mechanized support. I can spend a few points (of resources) on all the units it unlocks for upgrade. Or just one.

[DarkSoldierX]

A free mod has failed when the players start playing for the grind and not the fun…

Grind = part of fun lol

Grindless system in 800 = Very low grind

lol

Well with EiRmod proposing that upgrades will be -25% less then their "normal" counterpart that sounds better.... but I still dislike the idea in general.

Thank god it will only be considered far later in development.