Suggested cache rework

[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

[Unkn0wn]

Would like to get some community feedback on this: It's just an experimental train of thought for now

Major changes:
- Reduction in base munitions with the next wipe (From 2000 to 1800)
- Units are no longer affected by weapon cache
- 'Irrelevant' upgrades are no longer affected by weapons cache
- Cache lowered to 50 (80 with reserves)

The list:
(Upgrades not listed are obviously 0 cache)

General:
Flamethrower: 3

US:
Recoilless Rifles: 5
Asymmetric Warfare: 6
x4 Thompsons: 5
BARs: 4
M1919 Lmg: 2
Ranger zooks: 4
x1 bazooka: 3
demolitions: 1
Greaseguns: 2
Satchel Charge: 1
Mines: 2
MG Nest: 2 (Also receives price decrease)
M8 mine: 2
ATG AP: 2

WH:
Stormy x2 Schreck: 6
Volk and Gren Assault: 5
KCH assault: 4
x2 LMG42: 4
Storm x4 MP44s: 5
Gren x1 Schreck: 4
Stormy x1 Schreck: 4
LMG42: 2
MP40s: 2
Fausts: 2
Storm x2 MP44: 3
Goliath: 3
explosives: 1
Mine: 1
MG bunker: 2 (Also receives price decrease)

CW:
x2 piats: 5
Brens: 3
Stens: 5
Boyz AT: 2
Rifle nades: 2
Commando Demo Charge: 1

PE:
Incindeary assault: 5
x2 teller mines: 5
Saturation minefield: 4
Rifle grenades: 2
FG42: 5
G43: 3
Teller mine: 3
Vehicle/firecracker mines: 1
Scoutcar MG: 3


Ideally we might need different starting caches based on faction, since some factions have a lot more upgrades affected than others. Though extensive testing would be required.

[hans]

General:
Flamethrower: 3

i would disagree with this tbh

wehr pio flamer has less population and the pe and commonwealth have both more pop for the same cache points. thats not fair

[Unkn0wn]

We can definitely differentiate the flamethrower cache based on faction. The numbers are still a first rough draft, I'm mainly hoping I can get some feedback in regards to the 'major changes' that would take place. (Concerns, questions, comments, etc)

If the community is of the opinion that this is no significant step forward from the current iteration, then obviously there's not much point in me continuing this.

[CommieKiller]

Missing CW and US triage and WM heal bunker

[hans]

Missing CW and US triage and WM heal bunker

+1

[TheVolskinator]

+1 Signed.

[Mister Schmidt]

PIATs & RRs worth the same?

[aeroblade56]

RRs dont deal as much as piats they are glorified zooks in my opinion.

[Mister Schmidt]

Strongly hope values are open to change.

Might put up a post later, interested to see what Smokey says first.

[Unkn0wn]

Strongly hope values are open to change.

They are.

Also, it's just a suggestion I'd like input on, doesn't mean it will necessarily make it into the mod.
(That all really depends on community input and whether or not we can make the current iteration work)

[smurfORnot]

RRs dont deal as much as piats they are glorified zooks in my opinion.

made me lol

[LeoPhone]

why is double schreck 6 while one schreck is 4?
result of weapons cache: cause more double schreck storm spam

changes to weapons cache are better than what it is atm tho. mostly because there will be less weapons cache.

[Smokaz]

Can you list what you think of as irrelevant upgrades? Not even trolling when I say: the vast majority of upgrades should be in this box.

[Unkn0wn]

Grenades
AP Rounds
Medkits
Repair kits
Mine sweepers
Tank upgrades (Although could probably include the 76mm)
Vehicle upgrades
...

Also cut:
Support weapons
Assault units

Obviously you could go further and cut even more upgrades, but then you might as well just state you want to get rid of the weapons cache entirely. This is a WC LITE version proposal, as you will.

[tank130]

Interesting.....

So if a King Tiger, Tiger, Pershing, or Panther can come back and fight you a second time due to repairs, this is considered an irrelevant upgrade?

A 57m atg is near useless with out AP rounds - and this is an irrelevant upgrade

MG on the StuH deals awesome suppression - and this is an irrelevant upgrade

who new......

[Unkn0wn]

It's an irrelevant upgrade in a system that is there to curb spam and 'force' munition investment diversification, yes.
ATG AP rounds probably should be included, Triage centers can probably be cut (since no one in their right mind would get multiple)

The munitions decrease is there to stop people from upgrading simply everything, just because they can. Less munitions means more company variety and tougher choices in designing a company. The weapons cache would take care of the rest.

Say I want to spam panzerfausts; I am hardcapped by the amount of panzerfausts I could get at 2/3 cache each, which is at a lower amount than the amount of panzerfausts I could possibly get at 30 munitions each. And in addition to this, I will be 'punished' by not being able to spend my remaining munitions on other volksgrenadier upgrades. Instead I will have to spend those munitions on some support weapons and vehicle upgrades, which will essentially drive my company towards what can generally be considered as a 'normal, balanced company'.

This is similar to how the unit pools work. I am never stopped from spending my remaining resources, if I run out of pool on a type of units I am forced to spend those resources on other units, which will in turn 'normalise' my company.

This isn't to say company specialisation isn't possible, you'll be fine if you build an infantry heavy company within the boundaries of the unit pools provided the upgrades you stack on that 'acceptable' pool of infantry is diversified and doesn't exclusively consist of those upgrades we deem to be 'spam-prone'.

[Mister Schmidt]

+1 to them being irrelevant, they are.

[Smokaz]

Grenades
AP Rounds
Medkits
Repair kits
Mine sweepers
Tank upgrades (Although could probably include the 76mm)
Vehicle upgrades
...

Also cut:
Support weapons
Assault units

Obviously you could go further and cut even more upgrades, but then you might as well just state you want to get rid of the weapons cache entirely. This is a WC LITE version proposal, as you will.

When I see this post, I am just seeing the following letters:

"MANIPULATING OPTIONS INTO MAKING SUPPORT FOCUS COME BACK"

But you can do that by re-adding attack & defend, and frankly it's somewhat embarassing for EIRR that this haven't been perceived as more important.

I can't be assed to go into more detail about what upgrades are relevant or not, but suffice to say that stuff that doesn't have AT capability is completely unnecessary to limit if it has a a proper resource price. I'm also confused as to why - in essence - 10 fausts are worse than 2 when you pay the same for each one. And when 3 fausts aren't more effective for cost than 2. Prices create imbalances, not amount of upgrades.

Insert Quote
Interesting.....

So if a King Tiger, Tiger, Pershing, or Panther can come back and fight you a second time due to repairs, this is considered an irrelevant upgrade?

A 57m atg is near useless with out AP rounds - and this is an irrelevant upgrade

MG on the StuH deals awesome suppression - and this is an irrelevant upgrade

who new......

Then why not just hardcaps? That's what you are suggesting. If everything is in need of limitations, then why not hardcaps?

[Unkn0wn]

I can't be assed to go into more detail about what upgrades are relevant or not, but suffice to say that stuff that doesn't have AT capability is completely unnecessary to limit if it has a a proper resource price. I'm also confused as to why - in essence - 10 fausts are worse than 2 when you pay the same for each one. And when 3 fausts aren't more effective for cost than 2. Prices create imbalances, not amount of upgrades.

We already know this is your fundamental criticism of the weapons cache. And I agree with it to some extent. Some upgrades like assault grenades simply need to be reworked, but others, like for example the panzerfaust have the 'strength in numbers' effect. 1 + 1 Isn't always 2 when you're building a specific company. If you disagree with this however, then you will disagree with the weapons cache in any form. I'm only making this suggestion to try and find a compromise for the time being, if it's still deemed undesirable in the long run then obviously we can re-asses it. (I'm of the opinion for example that we could simply do with some upgrades give you +1 or +2 infantry pool instead of requiring a whole new mechanic like the weapons cache, though to demand such a change right now would be unreasonable)

[Spartan_Marine88]

(I'm of the opinion for example that we could simply do with some upgrades give you +1 or +2 infantry pool instead of requiring a whole new mechanic like the weapons cache, though to demand such a change right now would be unreasonable)

Is it unreasonable? I mean if it was actively being balanced and tweaked for a bit im sure most of us would shut the fuck up for a while till we found a balance (if possible) or realized it needed to be scrap.