Elite Inf Availability (CP vs no CP)

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
Post Reply
User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 349
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Elite Inf Availability (CP vs no CP)

Post by CGarr »

This is going to be a long one for a relatively simple request, but I'd rather make my reasoning clear from the start so that people can take all of my arguments into account before replying, as if people are unclear on what I mean, their replies might skew towards the status quo even if they end up agreeing with me. The proposal section details my exact initial proposal (who would've guessed?). The 4 paragraphs in the reasoning section underline why I am making this suggestion, and why I think you should consider supporting it, if you already agree with my suggestion then don't feel pressed to read it, as I just underline a bunch of points that are probably well known but simply glossed over due to focus on other aspects of the game like doctrine restructuring or redesign.

:!: --------------------- Initial Proposal -------------------------- :!:
Please read through all of these 4 points before responding.

1. Make fallschrimjagers, gebirgsjagers, 101st AB squads, barracks rangers, and stormtroopers all 0 CP units, maintain doctrinal choice requirements (in other words, once you pick airborne, luft, inf, or blitz, you immediately have access to whichever one of these 4 units is in your doc, assuming tech requirements are met).

2. Tech requirements in place of the CP to put them on par with their 0CP counterparts (combat engineers, grens, etc). For example, make the 101st and ranger squads available after WSC, make the storms available after krieg barracks, make the luft inf available in kampfgruppe kompanie(inf building) after logistik kompanie (light vehicle building) is built.

3. Set tech requirements for ranger weapon upgrades (1919/bazooka after motor pool or something similar) if they aren't in place already.

4. Make falls, gebirgs, and 101st buildable in the inf building for their respective factions, the same way other basic "elite" inf are.

5. Tie their unique abilities to the CP slot that would've originally unlocked them as a buildable unit. Specifically, restrict parachute call-in for luft and AB inf to their original 2CP unlocks, restrict stormtrooper infiltration to their original 2 cp unlock, and restrict recoilless rifles, FG42's, and Johnsons to their original 2 CP unlock. Reinforcement via parachute can stay for falls and 101st at 0CP, as it would balance out their original combat effectiveness spiking a bit later than the other squads since their top tier weapons would be behind that 2CP restriction still.

Note: for suggestion 2, different tech requirements might be better, I was just trying to think of a basic one for each off the top of my head that would be similar in timing to when grens are available, as all 5 of those units are comparable to grens before you start spending CP on upgrading them.

:!: ------------------------------------------------------------------ :!:


:geek: -------------------------- Reasoning -------------------------- :geek:
Recently, RoyalCompanion posted a thread ( viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3627 ) outlining discrepencies between factions with regards to what is available at different stages of the game, with 2 of his main points being about basic "elite" inf specifically (grens and rangers, although I would consider the un-upgraded long range stormtroopers, 101st airborne squads, US/CW combat engineers, canadian inf, basic commandos, PE barracks squads, and even un-upgraded fallschrimjagers/gebirgs all in this same tier). This got me thinking, and I realized these units are all pretty unique and they all are pretty much on even footing until you bring weapon upgrades into account. I'd even argue that as they all climb in veterancy, they're still well balanced against eachother and positioning/tactics are generally the determining factor for who wins against who between these units. With this being the case, I don't really see the reason for some to be available without CP while others are arbitrarily locked behind a CP unlock despite not really becoming super strong until you spend CP going down their upgrade trees anyways and I really don't see the reason for a doctrine to not have basic "elite" inf as an option (propaganda doc specifically, as panzer support doc's PG's basically became cheap grens).

Take a 101st squad or fallscrhimjagers (pretend they came out of barracks instead of parachuting in) for example: pretty average survivability, decent close range firepower but they're not great at long range until you spend muni on them, neither spawns with AT equpped (they pick it up from a box) but both have the option to pay muni for it. They're arguably almost identical in function/effectiveness (for some reason falls don't have fire-up or a satchel charge, 101st are slightly weaker but cheaper) to grens, with the only big differences being that grens specialize in long range by default and upgrade to close range weapons where as the other 2 start with CQB loadouts and get airborne reinforcements to make up for their need to close distance to be effective. Assuming we can agree on these units being pretty similar with very minor differences, why should the 101st and falls cost 2 cp while the grens dont cost any CP? They're all staple units to the doctrines/factions that they are on, and their presence in itself doesn't dictate any different of a response than grens' presence would. This comparison can be made for basic rangers, long-range stormtroopers, gebirgs, and canadian inf as well (although the CW basic "elite" inf should really get more access to ranged AT of some kind), yet the first 3 of this second group also cost 2CP for no reason.

One might argue that it is a matter of doctrine themes/focuses, but even that argument falls flat since you could easily say that if these squads are all quite close in terms of general performance, it doesn't make sense for the allied armor doctrines (US armor and royal engineers) to get their basic "elite" inf right away while the inf focused docs have to spend 2 CP on theirs. As for balance, the squads in this category that cost 0 CP all come out at the light vehicle stage of the game, and every faction has pretty similar options at this stage of the game in terms of vehicles and support squads, so the main difference is what inf are available (ironically, some of the inf-centered docs don't get their basic "elite" inf at this stage without dedicating their first 2 CP to it, but the armor focused docs do despite the differences in performance for all these squads being negligible).

US armor doc, PE, and CW all demonstrate that having basic "elite" inf be 0 CP doesn't really hurt the game, it just changes the meta for non-elite infantry like riflemen, volks, sappers, vsturms, and panzergrens by pushing them into filler/support roles. I would even argue that this is a good thing, as I'm pretty sure everyone can agree that using stormtroopers and rangers as your main fighting force is more fun than using riflemen and volks, with the latter being more useful when you're bleeding a lot of MP and need to just fill in the lines or make suicide rushes under heavy arty fire as a means of scouting/capping. I think when I first came to BK (or if I just never played the beta), I probably wouldn't have had this stance since earlier versions of these elite squads were just downright stupid in how strong they were relative to normal inf. Nowadays, though, I think all the elite inf on the beta has been brought down to reasonable levels in terms of their initial stats, with their power-spikes mainly coming through CP unlocks for either support abilities (canadian inf spotting, luft/AB command units) or direct boosts to their performance (all US doctrinal combat inf, CW combat engineers, grens/storms, luft inf).

:geek: ------------------------------------------------------------------ :geek:

:?: ------------------------- Pictures ----------------------------- :?:
barracks UI.png
barracks UI.png (58.83 KiB) Viewed 323 times
101st in barracks

AB tree UI.png
CP unlock changes (air)
#1: 2CP, unlocks 101st squad parachute call-in (the one that shows up by the mini-map) at same price as current. Also unlocks Johnson lmg and recoilless rifle upgrade.

barracks UI2.png
barracks UI2.png (82.59 KiB) Viewed 323 times
luft inf in kampfgruppe kompanie

Luft tree UI.png
CP unlock changes (luft)
#1: 2CP, unlocks the fallschrimjager parachute call-in (the one that is currently the only way to spawn them) at same price. Also unlocks FG42 upgrade.
#2: 1CP, unlocks scoped rifle upgrade and faust ability for gebirgs.

BKdoc tree UI.png
CP unlock changes (blitz)
#1: 2CP, unlocks urban assault squad and allows for infiltration of these squads (spawning from empty ambient buildings).


:?: ----------------------------------------------------------------- :?:

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 584
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: Elite Inf Availability (CP vs no CP)

Post by mofetagalactica »

I really like this, but it will never be implemented since it dosn't go for any of the mod owners.

User avatar
Walderschmidt
Posts: 510
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Re: Elite Inf Availability (CP vs no CP)

Post by Walderschmidt »

Just want to go on record and say I really like this idea. Rangers aren't necessarily worth it if you have to devote 4 CP alone to unlock them. And same with Falls + Gebirgs. Storms.

Wald
Kwok is an allied fanboy!

AND SO IS DICKY

AND MARKR IS THE BIGGGEST ALLIED FANBOI OF THEM ALL

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 349
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Elite Inf Availability (CP vs no CP)

Post by CGarr »

mofetagalactica wrote:
22 May 2020, 14:41
I really like this, but it will never be implemented since it dosn't go for any of the mod owners.
Not sure what you mean, are you saying it wont goo because I didn't publicly attack the mod owners or because it doesn't align with their views? I'll let him post his own opinion, but Kwok seemed to like it less than a minute after getting the link. Not sure about the rest, but I''d assume if enough people are on board and the idea isn't terrible or too difficult to implement, they'd probably take it into consideration. I mean we've pushed much bigger changes through that were admittedly pretty poorly thought out due to heavily differing opinions. On top of that, (at least as far as I can tell) this wouldn't a huge change in terms of the labor involved or units affected, as the only big difference would be your first 2 CP are freed up to use on something other than getting your doctrine's staple infantry (not the strongest inf, just the general purpose ones that are a bit less squishy than filler squads like riflemen and volks). The timing difference for when these units come out wouldn't be huge, it'd be comparable to someone getting the unit as their first unlock or choosing one of the doctrines that gets their staple inf for 0CP (US armor combat engineers, RAF commandos, WH def doc grens, PE heavy assault grens). Additionally, it affects commonly used doctrines on every faction so it isn't like anyone is getting left behind.

MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 235
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

Re: Elite Inf Availability (CP vs no CP)

Post by MenciusMoldbug »

This idea has my support, it's easy to counter many of the 'elite' units when you know their weaknesses anyway (For example rangers have elite_armor and so they have 100% guaranteed snipe chances against them even when they are retreating, so you can pop quick-fire on snipers to kill them rapidly and not miss a shot).

For airborne, I actually wanted an airborne ground team like they had it in the VCoH Normandy campaign that would technically be airborne but can't paradrop reinforce wherever they want. Instead they come with Garands instead of carbines and are dedicated anti-infantry squad. I wanted it to be like pathfinders in COH 2 for their airborne doctrine but I haven't really put much thought into it. Like I wanted to originally add a pathfinder squad where the Rangers which would be 4 man, binoculars, good detection range unit that comes with ranger garands. But again, haven't put much thought into it as I think airborne doctrine needs a re-work in the CP teching first before adding new stuff to them.

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 349
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Elite Inf Availability (CP vs no CP)

Post by CGarr »

MenciusMoldbug wrote:
22 May 2020, 21:15
This idea has my support, it's easy to counter many of the 'elite' units when you know their weaknesses anyway (For example rangers have elite_armor and so they have 100% guaranteed snipe chances against them even when they are retreating, so you can pop quick-fire on snipers to kill them rapidly and not miss a shot).

For airborne, I actually wanted an airborne ground team like they had it in the VCoH Normandy campaign that would technically be airborne but can't paradrop reinforce wherever they want. Instead they come with Garands instead of carbines and are dedicated anti-infantry squad. I wanted it to be like pathfinders in COH 2 for their airborne doctrine but I haven't really put much thought into it. Like I wanted to originally add a pathfinder squad where the Rangers which would be 4 man, binoculars, good detection range unit that comes with ranger garands. But again, haven't put much thought into it as I think airborne doctrine needs a re-work in the CP teching first before adding new stuff to them.
Agreed, I was posting this because the idea is fresh in my head but doctrine reworks should take 100% priority. I really like the pathfinders idea but I'd settle for just 101st squad until they can get properly implemented. Might be worth a post on its own, was planning on doing one for a normal KCH squad too since you brought up an officer version in another thread.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1994
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Elite Inf Availability (CP vs no CP)

Post by kwok »

Fuck. Even I like this idea.... get more people to accept that there will likely be huge balance issues with this then yeah we can see what we can do to make it happen.

I don't know how other devs feel. My opinion means nothing.

User avatar
Walderschmidt
Posts: 510
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Re: Elite Inf Availability (CP vs no CP)

Post by Walderschmidt »

kwok wrote:
23 May 2020, 00:13
Fuck. Even I like this idea.... get more people to accept that there will likely be huge balance issues with this then yeah we can see what we can do to make it happen.

I don't know how other devs feel. My opinion means nothing.
pls explain

your opinion means something to me

W
Kwok is an allied fanboy!

AND SO IS DICKY

AND MARKR IS THE BIGGGEST ALLIED FANBOI OF THEM ALL

User avatar
idliketoplaybetter
Posts: 307
Joined: 26 Feb 2016, 19:55

Re: Elite Inf Availability (CP vs no CP)

Post by idliketoplaybetter »

I dont like this idea, it will lead to even more strict games and war of numbers.
"You can argue only with like-minded people"

User avatar
Walderschmidt
Posts: 510
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Re: Elite Inf Availability (CP vs no CP)

Post by Walderschmidt »

idliketoplaybetter wrote:
23 May 2020, 09:22
I dont like this idea, it will lead to even more strict games and war of numbers.
Could you explain how/why?

Wald
Kwok is an allied fanboy!

AND SO IS DICKY

AND MARKR IS THE BIGGGEST ALLIED FANBOI OF THEM ALL

User avatar
idliketoplaybetter
Posts: 307
Joined: 26 Feb 2016, 19:55

Re: Elite Inf Availability (CP vs no CP)

Post by idliketoplaybetter »

The way most of people tend to use their basic units and elite (not only offmap called forces) is giving me idea that it wont work, but only appear to become another faster and easier way for blobbing.

More to say, even more forcing players to pick Doctrines right on is bad in my eyes. Again, more people play one same strat over and over and concepts like this only patronising that.
Taking away CP system means specifically deny fact of how and why people and some games develop. It's not just about Teching up and resourses, but proper timing and what you are meant to have and when, based from your skills and how game was going untill the required CP tech up time.
"You can argue only with like-minded people"

User avatar
Mantis
Posts: 26
Joined: 28 Dec 2019, 12:37
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Elite Inf Availability (CP vs no CP)

Post by Mantis »


User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 349
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Elite Inf Availability (CP vs no CP)

Post by CGarr »

idliketoplaybetter wrote:
23 May 2020, 17:39
The way most of people tend to use their basic units and elite (not only offmap called forces) is giving me idea that it wont work, but only appear to become another faster and easier way for blobbing.

More to say, even more forcing players to pick Doctrines right on is bad in my eyes. Again, more people play one same strat over and over and concepts like this only patronising that.
Taking away CP system means specifically deny fact of how and why people and some games develop. It's not just about Teching up and resourses, but proper timing and what you are meant to have and when, based from your skills and how game was going untill the required CP tech up time.
I would agree on this if there wasn't a disparity between docs in terms of what doctrinal inf is available for 0cp and what isn't, as they all perform about the same on beta. The disparity is even dumber when you consider the fact the more inf-heavy doctrines often get their elite inf later, despite the difference in effectiveness between units of this class being negligible at this stage of the game. 2CP 101st lose to 0 CP grens and 0cp canadians can mow down 0cp fallschrimjagers if the latter is out of position. This is fine, as none of the units in this class should really be outperforming eachother by a large margin, the issue is solely the availability.

People who want to blob can already blob anyways, I doubt this will change that. The only unit that is obnoxious to fight blobs of in the beta is vsturms, which wouldn't be affected by these changes and are only really a problem right now because they can sprint and dont get the same debuffs that other blobs do. The rest still cost enough MP and bleed enough that a blob is pretty easy to counter with an HE armed tank until they get their late game superman durability buffs. For example, luft inf, US AB, and SAS (all fully upgraded) are stupidly difficult to kill with HE, but the first 2 aren't anything special in terms of survivability when you first unlock them and SAS are more comparable to the upgraded versions of the first 2 in terms of timing. You said it yourself, proper timing and CP requirements are important factors in balance, so a disparity without proper compensation in terms of better stats or better available support seems unreasonable.

What specific blobs do you think would be problematic, given the exact changes I suggested in my original post? I'm not trying to shut down your ideas, I'm just unsure of what units you would consider problematic in blobs in the current beta at the 0-2 CP level. The only unit that would get it's CP buffs sooner than it's peers would after these changes is gebirgsjagers, and they cost a ton of MP so I'd be ecstatic if I saw my opponent trying to blob them, they would bleed MP like a stuck pig.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 3034
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Elite Inf Availability (CP vs no CP)

Post by MarKr »

From what I read in a few posts here it seems that any type of doctrinal infantry is considered "elite". That is not what it is meant to be. For example the Combat engineers in Armor doc are not meant to be elites. They are there so that the armor doc has some combat-capable unit that can keep up with tanks and repair them if needed. Normal Engineers are too squishy for that and the Pioneers are unarmed and too easy to lose to a single mortar round or some HE shot due to their squad size. Similar applies to the royal sappers in RE.

If some of the non-elite doctrinal infantry performs too well, it would be better to bring them to their intended level of performance rather than keep their unintended elite performance and try to make other doctrinal infantry more close to them.
Image

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 349
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Elite Inf Availability (CP vs no CP)

Post by CGarr »

MarKr wrote:
28 May 2020, 01:07
From what I read in a few posts here it seems that any type of doctrinal infantry is considered "elite". That is not what it is meant to be. For example the Combat engineers in Armor doc are not meant to be elites. They are there so that the armor doc has some combat-capable unit that can keep up with tanks and repair them if needed. Normal Engineers are too squishy for that and the Pioneers are unarmed and too easy to lose to a single mortar round or some HE shot due to their squad size. Similar applies to the royal sappers in RE.

If some of the non-elite doctrinal infantry performs too well, it would be better to bring them to their intended level of performance rather than keep their unintended elite performance and try to make other doctrinal infantry more close to them.
Not sure if I worded it well in my original post, but the inf I was suggesting changes for are all 2 CP mid tier combat inf, at least in terms of performance without all their weapon/CP upgrades (WH rifle-stormtroopers, fallschrimjagers, gebirgs, US 101st AB, US barracks rangers). As far as their balance goes, none of these units have been over-performing or under-performing as anti-inf (US 101st aren't great but I think that's more of a utility thing that an issue with strength, and that doc just needs work in general), and they are all pretty even with eachother. The ones that aren't meant to be elite definitely taper off late game once you factor in all those CP buffs, but when they first come out they are on par with the other 0-2 CP inf. I haven't heard any complaints about the units I suggested changes for, and I personally haven't had issues playing with or against them.

This post wasn't about performance. It was about availability not being consistent for units that are otherwise well balanced with eachother and well balanced against other units around the 0-2CP level. Making them all 0 CP wouldn't make much of a difference, especially considering every faction/doc would have the option if they wanted to go with elite inf (except propaganda, but the officer/KCH suggestion thing kinda covers that for them). If everybody wants to play with these inf and it doesn't hurt the balance of the game, I don't see the issue. Non-elites are still useful as filler or for capping, and they all do really well in trenches (except maybe riflemen but they don't cost much and every US doc has cheap mid-tier inf so rifles don't need to be beefy).

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 3034
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Elite Inf Availability (CP vs no CP)

Post by MarKr »

I understood well, just wrote my reply in a confusing way.
You wrote this:
grens and rangers, although I would consider the un-upgraded long range stormtroopers, 101st airborne squads, US/CW combat engineers, canadian inf, basic commandos, PE barracks squads, and even un-upgraded fallschrimjagers/gebirgs all in this same tier
(...)
I would agree on this if there wasn't a disparity between docs in terms of what doctrinal inf is available for 0cp and what isn't, as they all perform about the same on beta
I know the point here is availability but I understood from these posts that reason why you want to change availability is their similarity in performance.

I was pointing at the fact that (what seems to be) the reason for the change is not intended (the part with similar performance). It should be "lower performance but no CP needed to get them" and if that is not the case then it would be better to make a change:
similar performance but different CP reqirements -> different performance so different CP reqirements

rather than

similar performance but different CP reqirements-> similar performance so similar CP requirements
Image

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 349
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Elite Inf Availability (CP vs no CP)

Post by CGarr »

I didn't assume that the performance for those 0 CP units was meant to be lower than it is, but honestly it's been working pretty well with their current stats. Grens and PE inf are right now, and CW 0 CP doctrinal inf is strong enough to be worth the cost and hold their ground against their axis counterparts early-mid game. The intended differences start to show themselves once you start investing CP into their upgrades and supports. 0 CP units with their CP upgrades (all CW doctrinal inf excluding SAS, PE barracks inf, US combat engineers, WH grens) are tough enough to not get creamed by the true elites the same way basic inf do, but the true elites (SAS, fallschrimjagers, stormtroopers, 82nd, rangers) with upgrades will still win engagements assuming their positioning isn't terrible. This is what I assumed would be the intended effect:

1. Early-mid game, when these units first hit the field (no CP upgrades yet): all doctrinal combat inf available at this time are pretty equal, positioning determines their fight outcomes. The combat engineer type squads on available at this time are at a slight disadvantage in terms of ranged fights, but can do some serious damage if they close the gap or the enemy overextends.

2. Mid and late game, initial weapon/CP upgrades start to come into play for all these units: combat engineer type units start losing more consistently to their non-builder peers. Inf focused docs begin to dominate inf-vs-inf fights much more heavily, although bad positioning can still get their squads wiped.

3. Late/end game, true elites are fielded and fully upgraded: Inf focused docs will just stomp the life out the doctrinal inf on other docs at this stage with their upgrades. Their mainline inf (the 0-2 CP squads) are much stronger by this point. True elites like upgraded luft inf and SAS will just mow down everything that doesn't have wheels/tracks.

Overall, I'd say the balance is fine mid game and late game. Early game is where some arbitrary docs get an advantage for no reason, and I think changing the availability would be significantly easier in terms of fine tuning than just flat out buffing/nerfing these already well balanced squads. All the 0 CP doctrinal inf are fine in terms of stats, they don't need to be touched in that sense at all. I understand that you intended for them to be weaker than the 2 CP squads, but from my experiences in the beta (and it looks like a lot of the other guys who have been playing it regularly agree, judging by this thread) I would say these units actually fit the game better at their current strength. The 2 CP units are also fine in terms of stats, none of these units at the 0-2 CP stage are terminators and that's a good thing. ILTPB said it himself, having certain squads be strong enough relative to their peers that people want to blob them every game is just not fun. With that being said, I strongly disagree on touching the anti-inf related stats of any of these units, the only thing that could use a change for some of them is grenade standardization or better asymmetric balance in terms of grenade range vs effect (I'd lean towards the former but lets save this issue for another thread). So, with changing the stats ruled out we have 2 options:

1. Status quo, most arbitrary and most limiting in terms of playstyle. Armor-focused docs get their doctrinal combat inf before inf-focused docs, and CW/PE get a 0 CP mid-tier inf option with all docs while US and WH are limited to certain docs (def for grens, armor for combat engineers).

2. Changes I suggested, every doc on every faction gets a 0 CP mid-tier inf option. Unit early-to-late-game scaling is unaffected for the most part, as intended strength differences between doctrines are still apparent throughout the game. The discrepancy is just smaller early on.

I don't see why anyone would pick the status quo aside from the work required to implement the 2nd option and possible bitching from people who don't like change (and who are going to complain either way, let's be real). I personally don't care which you pick, I'm just giving feedback based on my experiences.

Post Reply