Armor doctrine

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
mofetagalactica
Posts: 30
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Armor doctrine

Postby mofetagalactica » 17 Jul 2017, 22:35

Hello there, i would like to suggest the jumbo being a replacement for the easy8sherman on the armor doctrine USA instead of being a CP unlockable unit. Since is a good tank to push forward againts emplacements and such.

Shanks
Posts: 56
Joined: 22 Nov 2016, 22:02

Re: Armor doctrine

Postby Shanks » 18 Jul 2017, 02:35

I think what you suggest is a very good idea, because when the jumbo comes out, many times there are already more powerful enemy tanks on the battlefield, so this way could come the sherman easy of reinforcement, in both cases we could give them Reasonable price, I hope panzerblitz 1 says what you think about this proposal

And perhaps, that there is more than one jumbo, maybe two

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2208
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Armor doctrine

Postby Warhawks97 » 18 Jul 2017, 14:28

I dont think its a good thing. The units are whole different. In their use, cost, role.

Basically everything but the gun. Also from a realistic perspective it makes little sense. Jumbos were rare (less than 300) and most of them had the short 75 mm (the one being used in inf doc).


Jumbos are spearhead units that draw fire from smaller defenses and anti tank guns while bouncing those off. Its not a main unit. E8 are more multirole medium tanks that occure not alone like jumbos.
So the Jumbo makes in many ways no sense to become a core unit replacing another core unit.

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: Armor doctrine

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 18 Jul 2017, 15:16

Agreed with warhawks here, jumbo will stay where it is.
Image

Shanks
Posts: 56
Joined: 22 Nov 2016, 22:02

Re: Armor doctrine

Postby Shanks » 18 Jul 2017, 22:11

Well okay, but I hope the artillery of the captain is approved faster, this would make the game more balanced

mofetagalactica
Posts: 30
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: Armor doctrine

Postby mofetagalactica » 21 Jul 2017, 01:08

Warhawks97 wrote:I dont think its a good thing. The units are whole different. In their use, cost, role.

Basically everything but the gun. Also from a realistic perspective it makes little sense. Jumbos were rare (less than 300) and most of them had the short 75 mm (the one being used in inf doc).


Jumbos are spearhead units that draw fire from smaller defenses and anti tank guns while bouncing those off. Its not a main unit. E8 are more multirole medium tanks that occure not alone like jumbos.
So the Jumbo makes in many ways no sense to become a core unit replacing another core unit.


Whats so special about the E8 to be a core unit if you already have the 76W ? Jumbos make more sense for a doc that lacks on sparhead units. Since u really want to use his fast tank hunters while using jumbos as a decoy to destroy enemy armors.

mofetagalactica
Posts: 30
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: Armor doctrine

Postby mofetagalactica » 21 Jul 2017, 01:09

Panzerblitz1 wrote:Agreed with warhawks here, jumbo will stay where it is.


Hey panzer, can you give us some stats comparition between E8 and 76W please?

User avatar
Redgaarden
Posts: 174
Joined: 16 Jan 2015, 03:58

Re: Armor doctrine

Postby Redgaarden » 21 Jul 2017, 03:13

Hey panzer, can you give us some stats comparition between E8 and 76W please?


I know the gun has 0.75 movement modifier instead of 0.50 and that HVAP deals 5 more dmg (multiplied by 5) than regular 76

it has a bit more hp, used to have 700 I think, but got toned down a bit for some reason. Dont know any other differences. I would almost just remove regular 76 or E8 and have them be the same unit.
And I mean brits get multible churchills/comets. WH and PE get multiple panthers. So why does armour doc only get 1 Jumbo?
Rifles are not for fighting. They are for building!

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2208
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Armor doctrine

Postby Warhawks97 » 21 Jul 2017, 14:51

The E8 has 0.82 received penetration modifier while the 76 has 0.85. Thus e8 armor is better. Tigers pen both easily but aganinst 75 mm L/48 and 50 mm guns that can have an impact in the results.

E8 is faster (As fast as Panther or Jagdpanther.. Has higher accuracy while moving and idk if it has more HP than 76. The AP rounds should actually be same. US special AP rounds are generally worse than those of others in terms of damage.

And Allied shouldnt get more jumbos simply as they are not supposed to be core units. Armor doctrine in general shouldnt rely so heavily on jumbos and Pershings and having those as support rather than as core. But in order to make this happen armor doctrine would require more tactical abilties.

Also there is a realistic aspect i would say (stupid enogh that there is a SP that actually throws everything over board already). Churchills were main CW tanks. In fact there shouldnt be just one MK VII crocc but instead more of them (just not all with flamethrower). The MK IV and VI were outdated and replaced in 1944 (or when had numberous Panthers, KT and what else). The comet saw also intense actions with larger numbers build. And the Panther was Axis Main Battle Tank in 44 with more produced Panthers than Tank IV´s at this time. A Jumbos never exceeded the 300 mark and were just for special missions and purposes. And i think thats the difference here between the factions, doctrines and their specific designs.

However, due to the current US faction and doctrine design playing US feels a lot more like playing a "fake fiction". Rangers as basic units to stand a chance vs standard axis grens while rifles are just support (while it should be the other way arround). Pershings and Jumbos to have a chance against the standard axis armor while shermans are just "screening" arround and killing vehicles while it should again be the other way arround. Jumbos and Pershings as special tactical tools (just as rangers) instead core combat units. Achieving this would however require a rethinking of US doctrine designs (or entire faction design), esspecially in terms of tactical support. US feels cumbersome in terms of mobility (usefull cost effective mid game vehicles), Flexibility (Unit versatility, reorganizing armor composition and adapting strategies where US is often very fixed) and tactical support (access to small quick available usefull indirect fire units/off maps) being thus often "slow" compared to axis in particular. Sudden rushes, advances, breakthroughs (at weaker defended areas) are rare and ineffective.

But i went off-topic now.

mofetagalactica
Posts: 30
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: Armor doctrine

Postby mofetagalactica » 22 Jul 2017, 05:27

Warhawks97 wrote:The E8 has 0.82 received penetration modifier while the 76 has 0.85. Thus e8 armor is better. Tigers pen both easily but aganinst 75 mm L/48 and 50 mm guns that can have an impact in the results.

E8 is faster (As fast as Panther or Jagdpanther.. Has higher accuracy while moving and idk if it has more HP than 76. The AP rounds should actually be same. US special AP rounds are generally worse than those of others in terms of damage.

And Allied shouldnt get more jumbos simply as they are not supposed to be core units. Armor doctrine in general shouldnt rely so heavily on jumbos and Pershings and having those as support rather than as core. But in order to make this happen armor doctrine would require more tactical abilties.

Also there is a realistic aspect i would say (stupid enogh that there is a SP that actually throws everything over board already). Churchills were main CW tanks. In fact there shouldnt be just one MK VII crocc but instead more of them (just not all with flamethrower). The MK IV and VI were outdated and replaced in 1944 (or when had numberous Panthers, KT and what else). The comet saw also intense actions with larger numbers build. And the Panther was Axis Main Battle Tank in 44 with more produced Panthers than Tank IV´s at this time. A Jumbos never exceeded the 300 mark and were just for special missions and purposes. And i think thats the difference here between the factions, doctrines and their specific designs.

However, due to the current US faction and doctrine design playing US feels a lot more like playing a "fake fiction". Rangers as basic units to stand a chance vs standard axis grens while rifles are just support (while it should be the other way arround). Pershings and Jumbos to have a chance against the standard axis armor while shermans are just "screening" arround and killing vehicles while it should again be the other way arround. Jumbos and Pershings as special tactical tools (just as rangers) instead core combat units. Achieving this would however require a rethinking of US doctrine designs (or entire faction design), esspecially in terms of tactical support. US feels cumbersome in terms of mobility (usefull cost effective mid game vehicles), Flexibility (Unit versatility, reorganizing armor composition and adapting strategies where US is often very fixed) and tactical support (access to small quick available usefull indirect fire units/off maps) being thus often "slow" compared to axis in particular. Sudden rushes, advances, breakthroughs (at weaker defended areas) are rare and ineffective.

But i went off-topic now.



Will be better to wait for panzer to answer since, you're talking historically and we are talking about the tank in-game, since for me is performing almost like the 76W (speed,cannon,acuracy,rotation). So ill wait until he give us the stats comparition in-game between the units.

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 247
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: Armor doctrine

Postby Jalis » 22 Jul 2017, 09:08

BK actual version

76w vs easy eight

easy eight armour +3 per, hp +8 per cent, accuracy while moving suffer only 25 per cent penality instead of 50 per cent. The last is the only valid from historical point of view... if we forget tanks at that time about never fired while moving except for propaganda movies. Cons ; easy eight cost 10 per more fuel for upkeep. it could be, for most, less visible than basic cost difference.

Easy eight is also sightly faster, and significantly more agile ingame (and probably historically for agility).

Warhawk made a correct evalution ingame ... and added a book of personal feeling after that, but nothing unusual ;)

User avatar
idliketoplaybetter
Posts: 110
Joined: 26 Feb 2016, 19:55

Re: Armor doctrine

Postby idliketoplaybetter » 22 Jul 2017, 12:44

Thing is not "e8 is better/worse than 76W" to me, but that going E8 is not worth it most of the time/or its available too late to be handy, and good old strat "few cheap units + AWLM" is no more/never been a case for the mod.


P.S. i wish any balance talk here on forum, started from long forgotten unused abilities from every doc, instead of what it is now. Since for example, mentioned above ALWM, used to be somewhat compensation for "lack of arty" for armor doc, and in result, we have no use of cool, doctrinal-concept feature, and topic on Artillery.
"You can argue only with like-minded people"

speeddemon02
Posts: 126
Joined: 20 Jan 2015, 03:11

Re: Armor doctrine

Postby speeddemon02 » 22 Jul 2017, 17:34

For me the difference between the 76W and E8 is the same between the F2 and H. What does ALWM mean again?

User avatar
Kr0noZ
Global Moderator
Posts: 54
Joined: 26 Nov 2014, 06:20
Location: Germany

Re: Armor doctrine

Postby Kr0noZ » 22 Jul 2017, 19:08

Allied Warmachine, the doctrine unlock gives you an ability which you can activate and all tanks lost during the active time will be replaced instantly by spawning new tanks of the same type from offmap as reinforcements.
So in theory if you do a tank assault with 7 Shermans, 2 M10 and a Pershing and you activate AWM, you can lose them all while it's active and a big train of 7 Shermans, 2 M10 and a Pershng will roll in at your map spawn point - no net losses for you except for the ammo cost of the ability.
It will not replace the tanks at the same vet though, and if you bought upgrades for them these are lost as well - you get factory-new rookie tanks.

For some reason, it's apparently highly under-used^^

User avatar
idliketoplaybetter
Posts: 110
Joined: 26 Feb 2016, 19:55

Re: Armor doctrine

Postby idliketoplaybetter » 22 Jul 2017, 19:17

It may to be used often, and im wrong.., but main point of what i've said there, was that AWM is basically doctrinal key feature, which doesnt feel like must have thing at all in tech tree (considering all this "quantity over quality" balancing concept).

*and is it only work for 3 units? like if u have 5tanks and u lose all of them, u get back only 3 of them?
"You can argue only with like-minded people"

User avatar
Kr0noZ
Global Moderator
Posts: 54
Joined: 26 Nov 2014, 06:20
Location: Germany

Re: Armor doctrine

Postby Kr0noZ » 22 Jul 2017, 19:20

idliketoplaybetter wrote:*and is it only work for 3 units? like if u have 5tanks and u lose all of them, u get back only 3 of them?


You sure? I rarely play armor so I don't know for sure but at some pont it used to replace all tanks... maybe that change slipped by me, in that case my bad - but still not a bad ability if you replace even 1 Pershing with it.

User avatar
idliketoplaybetter
Posts: 110
Joined: 26 Feb 2016, 19:55

Re: Armor doctrine

Postby idliketoplaybetter » 22 Jul 2017, 19:28

i guess..we will need someone to clear this for us :D

But i never said its bad, only placed wrong -> comes up too late, so is e8, and so is commander arty (i know its gonna be changed).
Intsead of being some kind of "stimula" for the armor player with low/not enough fuel income to still attack and not sit back waiting for..arty that he doesnt have, this ability is low behind on a list of what u get after sherman/light tank hunter upgrade.
"You can argue only with like-minded people"


Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests