On a really summary level, here's my thoughts on the proposed rework: It's basically "How to fit all the biggest tanks into a doctrine with strong infantry and rocket artillery". If we wanted that we would've basically just kept terror as it was before because that's exactly what terror was, maybe move some JPs/JT path into terror and call it a day. Instead we went with the vote to make terror with volkssturm and now we're just moving terror to PE?? Just for all of your FYI, within the dev team I DID suggest moving terror as a doctrine to PE but after consideration we decided against it.
There is a huge difference between them. Terror has a lot more indirect means and its tanks are protected by meatshields. This doc is more about using brute force with not so much indirect support, combined pushes and tanks decently crewed and supported by inf. Same unit does not mean same gameplay.
If you add a Tiger to Luft doc it doesnt mean its like playing terror doc.
The doctrine reworks puts so much emphasis on high cost singular units, it kind of contradicts the tons of complaints we heard about how PE as a faction is too much focus on high cost that it is too punishing when a single unit is lost to RNG or a small mistake. Just because panzergrens become smaller in squad size (something I cautioned against) doesn't mean that it becomes okay to make every other unit high cost. In most of these reworks, 8/16 of the unlocks are about unlocking some sort of tank, when it comes to unlocking it really doesn't matter which path you choose... If you choose to unlock between tank destroyer vs tanks, it basically makes it pointless to go down the other branch because the CP choices will need to scale with the other doctrines. Example: If i choose to go down JPzrs instead of Tigers, then I might as well continue up to the JPnthers because getting a tiger would require MORE CP for less capability. If I go the otherway around and choose Tigers first, I might as well finish going King Tiger instead of JPzrs. Mencius' revision seems less linear than most others, but it still suffers from a similar issue where the entire doctrine is basically a decision tree around fuel income. Do I have a lot of fuel? If not go cheaper fuel path, if so go heavier path. And then all the other 1CP unlocks are "how to kill other tanks harder", essentially become a hard counter to armor doc which is completely against what we are trying to achieve on these reworks.
Well, i think having cheaper inf in exchange for squad size drop can work, depending on whats the purpose of the infantry. I think same about US combat engis for example. Perhaps 5 men and a cost drop would be an option here as well with a sixth men possible as upgrade. But you wouldnt be forced to pay 300 MP when you actually need just a few men to throw a nade into a window to blow some schrecks out.
And armor doc will always find its hard counter in one way or the other. Let it be Tank IV spam, TD spam or simply heavy axis tanks.
Its simply the nature of US armor. Only by adding air support and priests to it things would be different when speaking about 1 vs 1 capability in the long run. But thats off-topic.
The ideas seem like to me in summary: Terror doc for PE but with only tanks behind CP locks plus the pgren bonuses around tank idea from the other thread just tacked on.
There's no real theme or playstyle idea around this except "LETS MAKE ALL THE HEAVY TANKS HERE AND MAKE THEM EVEN BETTER AT KILLING TANKS!!! oh yeah and some inf stuff" If that's what you all want, something like a "Panzer doctrine" (which i bet all the wehraboos and world of tank fans are salivating over) we can DO that... but I'd really go about it differently. Take the armor reworks for example, so far from what I've heard from people who play the beta and uploaded replays, armor doc is a lot more playable now because even though it is revolving around the theme of tanks, it's build on how tanks can address different situations, NOT how to unlock all the different tanks in the doctrine and how to make those tanks kill other tanks.
I would say thats a faction thing again. Allied simply used less different types but therefore many of one type. One is called " flat production" which means you get lots of different stuff for your army but each "tool" is short in supply. Good for Blitzkrieg but bad for prolonged wars. The second is a "deep production".
We cant take allis docs as example for axis. Too many different factors. Axis simply has more different units, let it be inf or whatever.
Allieds have basically just two tanks: Sherman and M10. Everything else is bascially build arround it. Churchills and cromwells are some exceptions. The only thing that changes is the gun and armor. So we can at best put shermans with subvariants, M10´s and a handfull Pershings into one US doc. Axis has more to offer in tank types and subvariants often serve very different roles again.
In short that means that US (in my opinion) supports the few different main units with various tactical stuff or boosting units they have. Docs like an "German Panzerdivision" using perhaps more brute force with different tank types at its disposal.
Its difficult.... And PE is special bc the entire faction is very special already.
About the armor doc, meh... the greatest addition was the 105mm sherman while being reworked into anti-emplacement unit, the doctrinal tree was freshen up thats true but...
They will be still being lock by other docs unless someday u realise that every USA armor unit needs a proper look-at one by one on price/stats/accuracy.
So at the end of the day armor still needs a lot work.
The Airbone reworks were pretty....half done? , could have been better and same as usa still needs a look-at one by one on some price on the support drop branch.
Infantry got a big boost and change on the way of playing to fight againts different docs thanks to priest, jacksons or jumbo 76mm and the easier way to unlock the hability to get cheaper inf.
So far the best sucesfull reworked docs where mostly the WH's wich i love all 3 of them, still need some small fixes on forgotten units 'cause other of the same kind got price reduction, so cheers, i hope you can at least take some of the proposed parts of the tree lines proposed here tho.
The WH docs are currently well done in design and their stuff works due to proper stats.
CGarr wrote:@ kwok This tree actually looks really good, although as figree pointed out the IV/70 honestly probably shouldn't be available alongside panthers since its relatively cheap and difficult to kill for the price (camo, decent armor, good range).I suggested Nash earlier but it wasn't well recieved, and I can't really think of a good tank to put in that spot, but there doesn't necessarily need to be something in between the JP4 and Jpanther.
Just curious: Which tank would you say should cost more CP: Panther or IV/70? As for me i can be fine with Panther at 5-6 CP but IV/70 for 7 CP. But they shouldnt share the same line bc they are too different except from the gun.
Additionally, as I said before, the rocket arty really isn't necessary for this doc and I get the feeling you're adding it to put the doc more in line with others. Many people don't like how prevalent indirect is already, so having a doctrine that doesn't really have true indirect weapons (aside from a mortar and the standard mortar HT) and instead relies on its direct firepower would incentivize players to use other tools for dealing with static targets. It's not like this doc would have problems going head to head with much that the allies have to offer (aside from super and that thing is really risky to use), so there's no need to give it the same kind of indirect firepower that docs like blitz or armor have, where it serves as a means of dealing with emplacements and big tanks that these docs can't safely engage with their armor.
My thinking, too.
The tanks available in this tree being the "direct fire superiority" I mentioned above, the end of the top tank line would represent the best of the best in this role. 2 tanks would fit exceptionally well in this spot, the JT and the KT. These 2 should either be both available to be built (with both having a unit cap of 1) and mutually exclusive if one is built, or one should be a reward unit choice for the other if the first option isn't possible. I am pushing the KT because between terror doc's tendency to favor the Tiger Ace over a KT in most situations and it's absence in other doctrines, this tank is very rarely seen in the beta. Additionally, some players (myself included) would probably prefer to have something with a turret and equally scary gun (but worse armor) over the JT, which plays like the BK doc brummbar but with more armor and pen. Both are slow but the KT is at least somewhat more capable of reacting to flanks that the JT, the JT just doesn't really have to because its extremely difficult to kill with anything but indirect fire, even when it cant shoot back.
yes. Thats why i also placed KT and JT in a line. Even though in is called TD, its in fact a heavy battering ram and is thus not in the TD line.
To deal with emplacements, I suggest a double unlock on that slot for both flamethrower armed vehicles (HT and hetz) and a smoke drop on the command vehicle. Having this double unlock would hopefully inspire players to think of other ways to deal with emplacement using the tools given in this doc, rather than just crying about how they can't bomb it to hell the same way most other docs can. There's plenty of options available with the tools suggested here, I'll name a few:
1. smoke and flames of any kind (you've seen this, you know how strong it is)
2. smoke and inf nades (assault pios actually doing their job?)
3. smoke and HE tanks like P3 (my preferred method on BK, riskier than doing it with inf or flame since the HE isn't as quick and costs a lot, but its definitely the easiest option aside from 4 since the p3 literally has a smoke canister ability)
4. Just flat out rushing it with inf (this is PE, not wehr. you can get away with this dumb shit when most of your inf is extremely durable)
5. mortar/mortar HT (self explanatory)
6. Combined arms pushes, the entire focus of this doctrine.
Good ideas. Flame Hetzer can be unlocked along JP IV.
If you really want more message me on disc and we can brainstorm but this should be enough. Moving on.
The command vehicle itself should unlock options for either a 20 mm command car or 50 mm command car if possible (maybe reward unit, I know people hate that word but as a command unit it wouldn't screw you over to have the wrong version since combat is it's secondary purpose). If that's not an option, I would argue the 20 mm makes more sense since the plethora or tanks, TD's, and buffed AT inf have the 50 mm tank's role covered. The 20 mm, on the other hand, would be useful throughout the game to support against inf similar to how the US 50 cal command car does.
I added an abilities unlock that would give the player some fun and somewhat effective but more slightly more micro intensive options to deal with certain situations. Tank shock being a doctrinal unlock rather than a vet requirement would make sense here since we're talking about including some of the biggest and scariest tanks in the war (not commenting on how effective they were, just the fact that either way they're huge in both size and reputation would make an infantryman shit himself if he saw one, regardless of who's inside). Cheaper Suppression as a means of supporting the infantry against enemy inf (as opposed to the defensive role that american tanks use this ability) would be a nice tool since indirect support would be lacking. Hull down would help if the player has to take a more defensive role, but it also immobilizes the tank and therefore presents a juicy arty target as well as easier flanking opportunities by AT inf.
also not bad. But cheaper suppression might result in abuse during offense and defense.