Brit Button

[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

[NightRain]

Obviously you've never encountered RE Stuarts. They were quite rapeastic against infantry and light vehicles. Heck they took on a P4 too.

[Hicks58]

RE Stuarts are broken, no LV should take that amount of shit.

[Computer991]

Obviously you've never encountered RE Stuarts. They were quite rapeastic against infantry and light vehicles. Heck they took on a P4 too.

But we're not talking about doctrines We're talking about regular infantry(And I guess tanks) without doctrines.

[Malgoroth]

I will say again; you can't talk about units in EiR as if they exist alone in a vacuum. Any discussion about a certain unit has to involve the doctrine unlocks/buffs/upgrades they have available, and to be thorough, the support the faction as a whole can bring in with them.

[Computer991]

That's a stupid way to run balance then...HEY THIS DOCTRINE IS REALLY OP BUT THE REST SUCK BUT ITS OKAY BUT THEY HAVE THAT OP DOCTRINE SO LETS LEAVE IT ALONE, Pretty much the way EiRR has been run since Reinforcements. You start off by making balanced vanilla units then you balance the doctrines.

[Malgoroth]

Doctrinal balance is a different matter than unit balance. I don't see the correlation between that and my original statement. 

[Hicks58]

You can't base the balance of a unit on the doctrines it has available to it Mal.

Any discussion about a certain unit has to involve the doctrine unlocks/buffs/upgrades they have available,

No, it doesn't. If a doctrine makes a unit ridiculous, it's a problem with the doctrine, not a problem with the unit.

For example, Stuarts are a pretty mediocre unit at best. Give them RE buffs, and suddenly they are WTF-PWN. That doesn't mean the Stuart is broken, it means RE is broken.

It also means that the Stuart should be made appealing (Read: have a defined purpose) without use of a doctrine in the first place, rather than having to take a single doctrine to justify the use of a non doctrinal unit.

[Smokaz]

I think stuarts are exellent against some narrow strategies, for example puddings SC spam? Even if they are more pop than a AP BC, stuarts were helping me hold off this.

Afaik ALL the doctrines have very nice buffs for stuarts, don't understand why its being deemed so useless.

[DarkSoldierX]

Getting off topic here but stuart is sexy in all docs. Nubs need to learn to buy canister.

[Hicks58]

It's not so much that the Stuart is a terrible unit, but rather the Staghound can do everything it can do and better, for a meagre 10 fuel more.

[Smokaz]

Stag is less of a AT unit and more expensive.

[Malgoroth]

I disagree, Hicks. You could, for instance, talk about how the p4 is a lackluster tank and argue that it needs a price reduction, but if you ignored the doctrine buffs it gets which make it quite worthwhile it would be a dishonest argument. What happens when you lower the price of a tank (which gets really tough with doctrine buffs) because the base, unbuffed unit doesn't stack very well against its allied counterparts? You create an imbalance where before there was none.

Or if someone were to make the argument that Brens without button become weak and really hurts the brits at AT, but they ignore PIATs that can fire through walls, the firefly, and stuarts (which are handy as shit at killing tanks), then they too (like in the P4 example) are being dishonest.

No unit in EiR ever stands alone. You simple HAVE to take upgrades, doctrine unlocks, and the faction as a whole into account.

[Computer991]

I disagree

Hey bro how bout no,Balancing units based on doctrines is retarded...It really is then you get units so weak at rank 1 that you just get rofled stomped by level 9 units who are "Balanced". So na balancing units based on tier 4's is just a very bad idea at least for the noobs.

[Malgoroth]

When did I say we should balance based on tier 4's? You are woefully misrepresenting my point.

I said when discussing unit balance it's important to take doctrines, upgrades, and faction cohesion into account. I'm terribly sorry you're having such a hard time grasping this concept and find the fact that a units utility is based on multiple factors repugnant. It is, however, the nature of the game.

I am not all sure where the hostility towards this line of thought is coming from. 

[Computer991]

No unit in EiR ever stands alone. You simple HAVE to take upgrades, doctrine unlocks, and the faction as a whole into account.

Tier 4 is a doctrine unlock
...I'm done.

[Mysthalin]

Mal has a point - you should never balance a unit based entirely on the unit's solo performance. Nothing ever works in a vacuum.

However, I disagree on his point about taking into account doctrinal abilities. Doctrinal abilities should be balanced against each other - with a solidly balanced base game to be put on top of. If you balance units based on their buffed performance - you make the units too expensive for what they can do in the scenario where a player has not taken any doctrine buffs for any of his units.

Basically :
*Yes, balance units by also taking into account the other units available to the faction.
*Balance doctrinal abilities separately from the units and against each other.

[Hicks58]

If you balance a unit on what it can get for it's doctrine then the unit will only ever be worth something and be used in that doctrine(s) alone.

You'd be essentially writing off the unit for other doctrines... This says that there is a two fold problem, the unit as a base isn't performing well enough, and *Possibly* that the doctrine in question is too good (Depending on whether the unit is pushed up to competent or too useful).