Major reinforce cost

Jump back to quoted post6 May 2017, 14:09 PMTom_BR

That means that in late game, when a squad with an officer is reinforced, we have to wait for the first model to be reinforced, which costs 50 manpower and refers to the squad officer, only to then click the "R" hotkey or click In reinforcing for the following models not to cost the 50 costing officer model? Please correct me if I am misinterpreting the given explanation. Thank you.

Jump back to quoted post6 May 2017, 14:12 PMferwiner

There is another important aspect to it. Is the officer always the first to reinforce? I think it is not. And if it is not, then if you press the button quickly enough you can reinforce the officer for the price of a soldier using that bug, can you not?

And you can actually see what kind of squad member reinforces first by looking at the reinforcement cost on the button, right?

Not that it makes the bug less critical, but it actally makes it abusable.

Jump back to quoted post6 May 2017, 14:15 PMMr.Smith

It's even more complicated than that. You have no guarantees as to which model is at the "top" of the reinforcement stack.

If you want to avoid the bug:
1. Select your lieutenant model
2. Hover over the reinforce button
3. If the reinforcement cost says "50", click it once, wait for the model to respawn and go to 4
4. If the reinforcement cost says anything other than "50", spam away (you get a small discount on your lieutenant)

If you reached the endgame, and want to do it properly, however:
- Send your lieutenant/captain in a suicide-capture mission and never rebuild them

Jump back to quoted post6 May 2017, 14:23 PMferwiner

As for the late cost of officer reinforcement - let us look at it from statistical perspective. Let's say that you reinforce a squad of captain and the difference between the cost of officer and standard model is 30. Then you have a 25% chance of paying 90 manpower too much and 75% chance of paying 30 manpower less for full reinforce assuming you use a macro to click button 5 times.

1 * 90 - 3 * 30 = 0

That means on average, if you don't know about the bug, it doesn't affect your manpower at all, right? Yet if you actually abuse it, you can get cheaper reinforce from time to time.

Jump back to quoted post6 May 2017, 14:29 PMTom_BR

If the first model to be reinforced cost the default value that is not the official value, you will only save on the reinforcement of the official model, the others cost the default value. In this case I do not see how the reinforcement comes out cheaper because either you pay at least the cost of a conventional squad without the official, or pay much more expensive if the first model in the reinforcement queue is the official one.

Jump back to quoted post6 May 2017, 14:33 PMferwiner

It is true that you earn much less by having a good rng roll than you loose by having a bad one. The catch is, that the good roll is much more probable, exactly as many times more probable as the loss is higher than the gain. That way, if you reinforce multiple times, the difference is going to be very close to 0 at the end of a match.

Jump back to quoted post6 May 2017, 14:39 PMTom_BR

I understand your statement, but I believe that the less chance we get for the effect of the RNG in the game, it becomes the more professional, given that the ideal is for players to win by their ability. If in a match, at a crucial moment the squadron costs more because of this bug for a USF player the effect of its occurrence will be much more unfair than if at the crucial moment of the match the squadron costs the standard value, subtracting the cost of the official the same.it's what I think.

Jump back to quoted post6 May 2017, 14:41 PMferwiner

I agree that it is bad for the game, especially, as it can be abused. Just saying that it is not as bad as it would seem from the post by Mr.Smith and that some players who wrote posts like "now I know why I bleed so hard in the late game" are wrong in that regard.

Jump back to quoted post6 May 2017, 14:46 PMTom_BR

I understand. I also thought the same. But in a general and ideal overview, disregarding the crucial moments in a match, the statistical data justify a balanced cost of reinforcement during a long game. But considering the critical moments of the match, if the USF player has enough fuel to make a TD for example, and because of reinforcement of a squad with an official that the RNG determined that the cost of reinforcement was 90% more expensive, This will delay the production of TD in minutes due to the wait for the accumulation of manpower that was spent more due to this BUG, ​​and in the COH2 minutes defenseless against a certain type of unit may mean losing the match. This is just an example. I believe this bug should be repaired in some way. The suggestion of the specific button to reinforce the official with its specific cost would be a good solution

Jump back to quoted post6 May 2017, 14:54 PMferwiner

It surely can mess up with how much you expect to pay for the reinforce and how much you really pay, changing your view on your manpower reserves dramatically. That is obvious. But I don't think additional button is a good solution. Most squads don't get any bonus from officer model itself, they get a bonus of being an officer squad. So in many cases people wouldn't want to pay additional manpower for a model that is no better, and in many situations worse than normal models.

To make things worse, if you could choose not to reinforce the officer, you could actually use the sturmoffizer of okw as a 3 men ober squad without the retreat on death of officer model crit. That is a terrible abuse possibility. Instead, let's just go with solution proposed by Mr.Smith and lets normalize the reinforcement cost of all models in each officer squad.

Jump back to quoted post6 May 2017, 10:11 AMMr.Smith

It would. Scope is tough, however.

Jump back to quoted post6 May 2017, 14:16 PMferwiner

Not a good idea to sacrifice them imo, the sprint can be critical in securing late VPs.

Jump back to quoted post6 May 2017, 14:54 PMferwiner

It surely can mess up with how much you expect to pay for the reinforce and how much you really pay, changing your view on your manpower reserves dramatically. That is obvious. But I don't think additional button is a good solution. Most squads don't get any bonus from officer model itself, they get a bonus of being an officer squad. So in many cases people wouldn't want to pay additional manpower for a model that is no better, and in many situations worse than normal models.

To make things worse, if you could choose not to reinforce the officer, you could actually use the sturmoffizer of okw as a 3 men ober squad without the retreat on death of officer model crit. That is a terrible abuse possibility. Instead, let's just go with solution proposed by Mr.Smith and lets normalize the reinforcement cost of all models in each officer squad.

Jump back to quoted post6 May 2017, 18:07 PMMr. Someguy

Damn, they won't even let you do certain bugfixes? That's rough.

No wonder it took them months to fix the USF MG crew costs.

Jump back to quoted post6 May 2017, 18:58 PMelchino7

What about the USF AT gun crew size? It was probably that way since beta