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

[Computer991]

  |\
  |  \
  |    \
F |      \
U |        \
N |          \_______
   |______________
      Time

[Unkn0wn]

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.

It's very hard to 'cover' the holes that not having enough infantry in total will leave you with. Essentially you are 'hardcapping'  (it's more of a dynamic hard cap, really) the amount of powerfully upgraded infantry a player can have before he has to resort to either burning more MP on his vehicles or on support weapons. This is exactly the way unit pools work. We don't really prevent a player from fielding a company full of KCH, but when he reaches the cap he will be forced to also get support weapons with his remaining MP (Which will 'normalise' his company, i.e it will no longer be just an upgraded infantry spam coy. ) An amount he would otherwise have spent on EVEN more KCH is 'forcefully' spent on support weapons instead. This is FAR better than putting the player in a scenario where he simply has a bunch of excess resources he can't use because he's out of cache.

Adding a MP cost or a pool cost on upgrades is something we could easily do (the tools are there), and perhaps something we should probably consider. I reckon they're both more desirable alternatives than the existing weapons cache because of their simplicity and higher effectiveness. But that's just my personal opinion.

[tank130]

Adding a manpower cost would be the better of yours and AMPM's suggestions as it falls more in line with what we wanted the WC to achieve. If you heavily specialize (upgrades) you will have to sacrifice other parts of your company.

I reckon they're both more desirable alternatives than the existing weapons cache because of their simplicity and higher effectiveness.

I reckon if we had implemented a MP cost system with the wrong numbers like we just did with the WC, it would have been welcomed in the same manner as the WC was.....

It will still require a lot of people to restructure their companies. This will always result in a lot of QQ.

[Unkn0wn]

To be fair, with the current amount of munitions available per MP, it's very hard NOT to invest a ridiculous amount of munitions in infantry since support is relatively restricted by pool (and have very little upgrades) and vehicles have very little upgrades to begin with. With such an approach, pretty much everyone who has a (usually doctrine based) infantry heavy set-up will be hit hardest. Even more so when they have MUN advantages.

There seems to be a fundamental different perspective in what the weapons cache should do. Some say it should curb 'excesses' and 'force' more balanced companies (similar to unit pools)  where as others are of the opinion it should punish specialised companies.

I don't believe you can have a system that does both, and going for the latter seems entirely contradictory to the set-up of our doctrines. A simple MUN reduction would already mean that those who DO specialise in a lot of infantry upgrades would have less munitions to spare to burn on support weapons and vehicle upgrades (while not restricting the entirety of their company composition as hard).  So a combination of a MUN Decrease + a pool system for upgrades would effectively address both issues. The MP approach alone will not 'curb' the excesses, yes companies will be more open to weaknesses, but thats going to result in an even larger powergaming metagame than exists today. (With the creation of teams where one player spams units of A and the other spams B) You'll still end up frustrated, since you'll still be facing excessive types of spam. (like 16 goliaths for example)

[AmPM]

Yes Unkn0wn, god forbid we encourage TEAMWORK and planning. Let alone building weaknesses into builds that can be exploited. I mean damn, strategy might actually get used!

[tank130]

A munitions decrease is not the answer. As I have shown with my AB company. A balanced company with no excessive upgrades. Uses all my munitions as well as 3 muni advantages.

If you reduced the munitions resource that company could not be built.

The same could be said for a MP based system. It would weaken the same company.

However, with the current WC in place, this company can be built. It looks to me that Allied WC costs are very close to being balanced ( yes there are still some exceptions) but axis needs some serious work.

[AmPM]

You have a shit company build, why is that the ideal?

[Audemed]

The reason that 20-30 fausts is stronger than 10 is availability. With 10 fausts, there's a good chance that you only have 1 or 2 faust squads on the field at once. Ok, so you pull off a flank, and get 2 fausts into a sherman. Damage done. 30 fausts, and you probably have more than that on the field, which means more damage done. Also, if you lose 10 squads with fausts, that's all your improvised AT with the first company. With the 30 faust company, you ALWAYS have fausts available, making armor *that* much more vulnerable. Sure, you can kite a faust squad forever if you need to, but that allows pak/mg creep, and although preserving the tank, can severely hamper field presence. Killing "AT" squads has significantly less impact when every "non AT" squad has fausts still.

[Unkn0wn]

A munitions decrease is not the answer. As I have shown with my AB company. A balanced company with no excessive upgrades. Uses all my munitions as well as 3 muni advantages.

If you reduced the munitions resource that company could not be built.

This is an awful argument, you'd have to sell 2 - 3 upgrades, which is exactly the point. Of course you can't build the exact same company before and after a mun decrease, or before and after mp based upgrades. To say however that suddenly you'd no longer be able to build a normal company is plain silly.

Yes Unkn0wn, god forbid we encourage TEAMWORK and planning. Let alone building weaknesses into builds that can be exploited. I mean damn, strategy might actually get used!

It won't stop gimmicks at all, and since infantry are the prime unit to upgrade it would essentially mean everyone has less units to play with.

[BigDick]

the only thing stopping spam/gimicks without messing up everyones balanced companies is incremental costs for units and upgrades

but that still limits the freedom of company build very much - at least if you try to win with your company

an alternative would be a bigger change to eir gameplay mechanics

i would call it 2-layer company

the idea is that you have resources (much more than currently) in launcher to build a pool of each unit type you want in your battles (this pool is necessary to keep veted units and persistence in eir game mechanics)

in coh battle you get a fixed amount of ressources (like the 8k MP 2k mun etc. currently in launcher) for this ressources you can call in units of your unit pools (its like vcoh without basebuildings and already given out ressources where units come offmap)

the biggest downside of eir is that you have zero influence to your company when being in battle...sure you can calin what you had preselected but you can't really react to any kind of spam/gimmick
the tactical/strategical component is completely missing in the mod that your be able to counter a strat that your opponent want to play

e.g. if he spams snipers (6 sniper in company) and you have the usual 3 bike callin your left with this and have no possibility to call in more bikes
or if someone overwhelms you be spaming m8 you can run out of AT very quickly

you can't say "fuck this i'm just building/calling 2 more paks"

[PonySlaystation]

"'Irrelevant' upgrades are no longer affected by weapons cache"

I approve of this.

[tank130]

A munitions decrease is not the answer. As I have shown with my AB company. A balanced company with no excessive upgrades. Snip...........

This is an awful argument, you'd have to sell 2 - 3 upgrades, which is exactly the point. Snip......

WTF

I think you have been sipping the spiked eggnog a wee too much.
You are suggesting giving up some upgrades on a balanced company that does not have excessive upgrades, a good solution?

[Unkn0wn]

Tank,

Since a mun decrease affects all companies equally, a balanced company is just as possible at 1000 as it would be at 1800 or 2000 munitions. You're basically implying that in the old EIR (10000 mp, 1800! mun and 1200 F. Note the MASSIVELY different mun to MP ratio) there weren't any balanced companies, lol. 'Balanced' companies are relative to their environment.

If you fail to understand this, maybe someone who speaks English as a native language should have a go at it, but I don't see what's so hard to understand. An overall mun decrease does absolutely nothing in terms of your capabilities in building balanced companies.

[tank130]

If you fail to understand this, maybe someone who speaks English as a native language should have a go at it, but I don't see what's so hard to understand. ...snip

If you want to start talking like a dumb cunt, we can always go down that road again to......

Reducing the munitions does not fix the problem we are trying to fix. That is the point. You are going about it completely wrong.

However, AMPM's suggestion of adding a MP cost would be a better alternative than yours. Making a sacrifice from one side of your company to be able to focus on another.

Your solution just reduces all upgrades, regardless of strength.

[Mister Schmidt]

TankY verSus UKnnown round Twoo2

[Smokaz]

I guess you are the next one on the list of underlings that snapped and lost it. Too bad this always removes the WRONG people.