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

[Smokaz]

But in what way is 1+1 becoming 3 here? I mean whats the secret that everyone is refering to - but nobody is actually putting into words? You, tank, eirrmod, others. Somehow along the way this central truth in the EIRR weapon cache religion was discovered which keeps you driving on and keeping the faith strong, but what is it?

Assault grenades needed a price nerf to make it less of a no brainer, hey this upgrade can defeat any other AI upgrade under certain conditions, maybe it at least should be as expensive as the BAR that also can defeat any other upgrades under certain conditions. A lot of people have posted about assault and faust spam being the reasons for why the cache was brought forth. Why wasn't sticky and assymetric warfare mentioned? Oh wait, these are priced more restrictive, keeping their use from becoming too foolproof.

Suicidal inf play with or without upgrades is suggested by the map control system and the fact that veterancy is weak. That shit is way more annoying and way more gamey than *GASP* a airborne company consisting of... airborne? Using tactics... that their doctrine enable or improve?

[tank130]

So here's a company that Smokaz feels is not taking advantage of the Doc buffs enough, and some other criticisms. In a nut shell, he thinks it sucks. Whether we agree or not is completely irrelevant.

What is relevant is that this company is impossible to build using Unknown's proposal. I fail to see how Unknown's proposal is superior in design then the current weapons cache. By lowering the Munitions your are just reducing the available upgrades for ALL units.

1 – AB Rifle (Sticky, Grenade, Bars)
1 – AB Rifle (Grenade)
5 – AB Rifles (no Upgrades)
3 – AB (RR)
2- AB – HMG (No Upgrades)
2- AB – Mortar
4 – AB ATG (AP Rounds)
3 – Rifles (Bars)
2 – Rifles (Bar, Grenade)
1 – Jeep (No Upgrades)
2 – Quads (Repairs)
2 – Sherman Crocs (repairs, Bulldozer)
2 – Sherman (Up gun, 50 Cal, Repairs)
1 – Infantry Halftrack

Available Resources
MP 60 / Mun 0 / Fuel 165

Cache
-14 / 100

Pool
Inf - 23/84
Vehicles – 15/42
Armor - -6/36
Support – 8/48
Reserve – 10/30

Advantages:
2 Man Power
3 Munitions
1 Fuel

[Smokaz]

yeah which doctrine buffs are you using for it?

[tank130]

yeah which doctrine buffs are you using for it?

[AmPM]

Remove the Weapons Cache, add a Manpower cost to upgrades, adjust to balance increase in effectiveness to cost. Unit is more powerful on field, but you have fewer overall units. Problem solved.

[tank130]

Remove the Weapons Cache, add a Manpower cost to upgrades, adjust to balance increase in effectiveness to cost. Unit is more powerful on field, but you have fewer overall units. Problem solved.

I thought one of the arguments was that the caches is too complicated for newbies. How would go about explaining an upgrade costing manpower?

One of the other arguments is that the Dev team has been unable to prove that 20 faust are anymore powerful than 10. How would this suggestion change that?

It has also been argues that the cache is just a hardcap. How would your proposal be any different?

I am not trying to shit on you AmPm, I am just trying to cover a bunch of stuff in one post.

[AmPM]

I thought one of the arguments was that the caches is too complicated for newbies. How would go about explaining an upgrade costing manpower?

It's no harder to grasp than the Mu cost on upgrades, it's built in, they see it in their Resources cost, not in some weird pool value.

One of the other arguments is that the Dev team has been unable to prove that 20 faust are anymore powerful than 10. How would this suggestion change that?

This does not penalize you for taking 10 or 20 fausts, what it does is price your Volks to their appropriate power level for a basic infantry unit with a faust. Lets say they cost 195mp normally, and the PFaust is 25mp and 30mu for 2 uses. You now have a 220mp 30mu unit that reflects what it can do on the battlefield without doctrine buffs. (Prices not final nor calculated for balance, just an example)

It has also been argues that the cache is just a hardcap. How would your proposal be any different?

It is only a hardcap in the same way that your resources are hardcaps, I am HARDCAPPED by resources to 2 Tigers. This is the same. If you want 20 Shrek grens and have the resources for them you can have them, but you may not have the Manpower or munitions for either Armor or Support. That is the reason I chose Manpower as the second resource, it is used by everything. The more upgraded units you have in your army the fewer TOTAL units you have in your army. That makes a lot of sense and is something that just about EVERY successful strategy/war game has done.

I am not trying to shit on you AmPm, I am just trying to cover a bunch of stuff in one post.

I understand, I think that his is a more elegant and simple solution that inventing a new pool that basically says "Don't use upgrades"; this says, "Use upgrades but they will make it so you have fewer units in your army". Similar to how tabletop wargaming works, you pay for the good stuff by having less of it. So you can still have your company of Assault using Volks, but they might cost you more than a standard Gren Squad with Grenades and Medkit. Your choice.

[Valexandes]

With 20 fausts instead of ten; with fewer fausts you can see one shot then move in and kill the unit before it gets it back. It is a powerful attack with limited use. By taking so many fausts you reduce the impact of the limited use as another squad has one ready.

It's very similar to how one atg is significantly less effective than two. That second atg more than doubles your AT effectiveness because by having two you are covering for the weaknesses of the first with the second.

When every unit has fausts you can charge one in, see a tank coming faust it and pull back a little bit and then hit with a second faust if you have another unit. Suddenly your AI is taking out a tank while still being as good at AI. Stickies are less of an issue this way as you can sticky tanks for as long as you want and not kill it. Cripple it sure but not kill it usually.

[AmPM]

With 20 fausts instead of ten; with fewer fausts you can see one shot then move in and kill the unit before it gets it back. It is a powerful attack with limited use. By taking so many fausts you reduce the impact of the limited use as another squad has one ready.

It's very similar to how one atg is significantly less effective than two. That second atg more than doubles your AT effectiveness because by having two you are covering for the weaknesses of the first with the second.

When every unit has fausts you can charge one in, see a tank coming faust it and pull back a little bit and then hit with a second faust if you have another unit. Suddenly your AI is taking out a tank while still being as good at AI. Stickies are less of an issue this way as you can sticky tanks for as long as you want and not kill it. Cripple it sure but not kill it usually.

If you are getting hit by Fausts with your tanks you are either not trying to avoid them, or playing poorly. Faust range is less than tank range. Back up, they lose their use of the Faust, come back, shoot, back up, repreat. They are all out of fausts, then just kill them.

[Smokaz]

Val, what you are saying can be applied to everything. It doesnt showhow having tons of faust is broken for large amounts and okay for smaller amounts. I mean basically you could replace shrek with faust in what you said and it would still makee sense, but its not showing the connection that supposedly explains the need for this cache turd burglar stuff.

[LeoPhone]

you can get 7 fausts for 1 schreck. accounting for the less damage fausts do that's 5.25 schreck hits. schrecks bounce off: churchill, jumbo, pershing. all around 50% chance to bounce off. and at long range they have only a 35% chance to hit.  fausts always penetrate and always hit.
anyway, the question is: how much penetrating hits does the average panzerschreck get in a match? I have a feeling its less than 5.25.

increase the costs of fausts to 40 or whatever is needed to put fausts in line with schrecks. ohh! but now you're hurting the player that only wants 2/3 fausts too! yes, with what? one less medkit? big deal.
the player who spams panzerfausts tho is now missing around 200 munitions.

[smurfORnot]

That is the reason I chose Manpower as the second resource, it is used by everything. The more upgraded units you have in your army the fewer TOTAL units you have in your army. That makes a lot of sense and is something that just about EVERY successful strategy/war game has done.

this is quite good suggestion. Just look at every tabletop war game. It only uses single resource. So you either have bunch of un upgraded guys,or,smaller but fully equiped force,or you can try to find some golden middle. This would actually be quite good. To just have manpower and fuel.

[Spartan_Marine88]

you can get 7 fausts for 1 schreck. accounting for the less damage fausts do that's 5.25 schreck hits. schrecks bounce off: churchill, jumbo, pershing. all around 50% chance to bounce off. and at long range they have only a 35% chance to hit.  fausts always penetrate and always hit.
anyway, the question is: how much penetrating hits does the average panzerschreck get in a match? I have a feeling its less than 5.25.

increase the costs of fausts to 40 or whatever is needed to put fausts in line with schrecks. ohh! but now you're hurting the player that only wants 2/3 fausts too! yes, with what? one less medkit? big deal.
the player who spams panzerfausts tho is now missing around 200 munitions.

OMG

not my medkit!

terribad idea

(actually i like it leo)

[tank130]

This does not penalize you for taking 10 or 20 fausts, what it does is price your Volks to their appropriate power level for a basic infantry unit with a faust. Lets say they cost 195mp normally, and the PFaust is 25mp and 30mu for 2 uses. You now have a 220mp 30mu unit that reflects what it can do on the battlefield without doctrine buffs. (Prices not final nor calculated for balance, just an example)
 

This is the biggest problem with any of the suggestions anyone is making. It is simple to come up with ideas. There are many ways to achieve what we are trying to achieve by the looks of it. The problem is finding the correct numbers and testing them with out the community grabbing their pitch forks and torches. Even more difficult to get the community to agree with each other let alone the Dev team......lol

When the WC was first implemented, no one cared or even noticed because the numbers were so low and the pool so high. Then it was adjusted (too far) and the community started screaming.....
Finding the right WC numbers is going to take just as long as it would take to find the right MP numbers. Get the MP numbers too high and no one will be able to build their companies (like now), make it too low and it is a waste of time and effort.

The numbers would have to be run through the BT. That is not a problem, but how the hell do you calculate every type of build possible?

[Tymathee]

4 CP for a medium repair is just...

[Vermillion_Hawk]

My question is why you guys didn't just revert to a previous version of the Weapons Cache, given the strong response, and then continue to fine-tune it on an internal build of the game. That would save a lot of grief.

[tank130]

My question is why you guys didn't just revert to a previous version of the Weapons Cache, given the strong response, and then continue to fine-tune it on an internal build of the game. That would save a lot of grief.

We can't

[AmPM]

This is the biggest problem with any of the suggestions anyone is making. It is simple to come up with ideas. There are many ways to achieve what we are trying to achieve by the looks of it. The problem is finding the correct numbers and testing them with out the community grabbing their pitch forks and torches. Even more difficult to get the community to agree with each other let alone the Dev team......lol

When the WC was first implemented, no one cared or even noticed because the numbers were so low and the pool so high. Then it was adjusted (too far) and the community started screaming.....
Finding the right WC numbers is going to take just as long as it would take to find the right MP numbers. Get the MP numbers too high and no one will be able to build their companies (like now), make it too low and it is a waste of time and effort.

The numbers would have to be run through the BT. That is not a problem, but how the hell do you calculate every type of build possible?

One uses a resource that actually affects the total number of things you can have, WC only reflects upgrades.

One allows you to balance on field power for costs, the other uses a number, that, as long as you spend all your Mu anyway, allows you to fill out your company with other naked units.

The problem with WC as a pool, is that it is impossible to balance based on a "You are only supposed to have this many of this upgrade" especially when using a pool that is only 100.

To get any real balance in the WC, you would need a value similar to the MU pool in size, so 1500-2000 WC pool. Then you could balance upgrade costs appropriately. Simply saying an LMG is 3 pool and Assault is 4 pool doesn't balance anything, Assault WILL kill that HMG/Mortar/ATG/Infantry squad, etc; an LMG allows your infantry to fight back better at short range in a defensive position. But an LMG that is 2 pool would be too cheap since all the SMGs and BARs are 3 pool. You can't have the BAR be 50% more expensive than an LMG Gren. This is where your balancing issues are.

On top of all that, you added a whole new pool that really doesn't need to be there. You want to punish people for spamming highly effective upgrades? Fair enough, WC doesn't do that, it punishes you for having many different upgrades.

Add a MP cost to things that need it and suddenly the cost of those units properly reflects their power level. Volks + Faust + Assault might cost 270mp and the 80mu. Quite a pricey unit and one, that if spammed, will limit the rest of your company as far as the support, infantry, and armor units it can bring to the field. This company might have high hitting power but little redundancy or staying power. Someone that uses upgrades that simply change the units Role, like SMG Rifles/Volks, might see a very small increase in cost allowing him to field more of these less effective units as well as still having support weapons and armor to back him up.

Want to field a highly elite hard hitting company, fine, but don't expect to fall back on unit spam to win if you lose those units.

[Unkn0wn]

You could simply attach a unit pool cost to the upgrade, instead of an MP cost. This way a volks + faust will weigh heavier in the infantry pool than just a volks squad. People upgrading a lot of their infantry will be able to field less total infantry. (instead of 'total units' when you would attach a MP cost) Same could be done with vehicle upgrades. So someone stacking repair kits on a lot of light vehicles would essentially get a smaller 'total' amount of light vehicles.

In addition, similar to the weapons cache, we'd be able to put elite infantry (non-upgraded) at a lower pool value and have their upgrades bump the elite unit's pool value higher. (Which is a big reason why we wanted a weapons cache like system in the first place)

The more I think about it, the more fond I become of the 'upgrades affecting unit pool' idea, actually.

I also reckon it would probably not be all that much work to implement. I may be mistaken, but I think it's already possible to increase pool values with upgrades, through the SQL. If that is the case, it wouldn't require much work AT ALL.

[AmPM]

You could simply attach a unit pool cost to the upgrade, instead of an MP cost. This way a volks + faust will weigh heavier in the infantry pool than just a volks squad. People upgrading a lot of their infantry will be able to field less total infantry. (instead of 'total units' when you would attach a MP cost) Same could be done with vehicle upgrades. So someone stacking repair kits on a lot of light vehicles would essentially get a smaller 'total' amount of light vehicles.

In addition, similar to the weapons cache, we'd be able to put elite infantry (non-upgraded) at a lower pool value and have their upgrades bump the elite unit's pool value higher. (Which is a big reason why we wanted a weapons cache like system in the first place)

The more I think about it, the more fond I become of the 'upgrades affecting unit pool' idea, actually.

I also reckon it would probably not be all that much work to implement. I may be mistaken, but I think it's already possible to increase pool values with upgrades, through the SQL. If that is the case, it wouldn't require much work AT ALL.

However, that does not prevent you spamming powerfully upgraded troops, and filling in the rest with support and vehicle spam to support them. The key to the above, is that all units use Manpower, if you sacrifice more Manpower upgrading your men you have less to spend on things to work with whatever units you are spamming. Just having it take more from the Infantry pool does not prevent you from using the rest of your pools to fill in the gaps.