Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3815
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Warhawks97 »

Viper wrote:
Warhawks97 wrote:5. Is the JP fixed? Last time i checked it it still had 1000 HP although its just a Panther

this is not a bug.


remnant of vcoh if you will where you could get just one per game if you will. But thats not the case anymore. Panther has 800 HP, not 1000.

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 473
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Viper »

panther has 800, jagdpanther (different tank) has 1000.
like tiger and jagdtiger.

different tanks, different prices, different cannons, different health.

nothing unusual.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 3029
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by MarKr »

Warhawks97 wrote:Saying that 4 men squad doesnt work bc it doesnt for brits is nuts because the entire faction is different. (...)

I would just like to point out that kwok never said that 4 men squads don't work for CW so they cannot work for PE. His full post was:
(EDIT: OK, he actually said it, I missed that part, but the point stands that main reason against small squads is still the following quote)
kwok wrote:In my old CoH2 mod I experimented with a set up where regular large squads existed as well as smaller squads with much more utility. For example, larger squads did not have grenades or sprint while smaller squads did. What ended up happening was players completely ignored the small squads and only used the large ones.

Having small squads is much more micro intense and the squad itself is significantly less powerful. If the squad is 4 instead of 6 men, the effectiveness of the squad doesn't just go down 1/3, but much more. Just as an example scenario, say you face a double sniper. With a 6 man squad, you have essentially 2 cooldowns worth of time to execute a tactic before you are reduced to 2 men and decide to retreat. With a 4 man squad, after the initial single volley from double snipers, you would want to immediately retreat.

We are testing this idea right now with the assault squad in brits but you can see immediately players are calling for a way to expand that squad size without even trying the patch yet.
So he said that he had a playable version of his CoH2 mod where players were not forced to use 6 men or 4 men squads, they had both available and could choose what to use and they almost exclusively chose the larger squads even when they had a lot less utility. He also states what was the reason for it (2nd paragraph).

So he was not even speaking theoretically but from his own experience where the smaller squads were applied in praxis. He only pointed at the fact that people see a mention of a new squad that has only 4 men and immediately suggest ways for possible expanding the squads, without even trying the unit in-game. This suggests that people seem to know that small size squads are somewhat less useful than bigger ones.

We have some smaller squads for specific purposes (like SE Sabo squad, Storms Suppression and Demo squad) but current hands-on experience advises against building a whole faction around small size squads.
Image

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1992
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by kwok »

@warhawks

1. Agreed to an extent... The hope is that fuel will be spent more in the early/mid game to prevent fuel banking and Uber tank rushing. Especially with recent armor and CW faction changes making other threats come earlier. We will see if this holds true if we can implement this and observe beta test games.

2. I LITERALLY said that yes I understand the British assault squad is different but I ALSO said it’s not the only reason. When a 4 man squad loses one man its effectively losing two. Taking two losses is essentially a full squad removed from the engagement because most people don’t want to risk losing a full squad with only two men remaining and will retreat. Grenades, mortars, and artillery are even more dangerous and will squad wipe a lot easier. I get there’s a problem with the PE squads... but the solution isn’t smaller squad sizes. Trust me, I’ve literally TRIED this. Also, it isn’t necessarily a “problem” if people want PE to represent “elite” as in their name... by faction design from vcoh days the units are meant to be strong and expensive.

3. Ah I forgot to add details there. I’ll edit/update on the original post.

4. That’s also what I said in my concerns. We can keep that as a potential option after test games.

5. As far as I know, viper is right. There’s no documentation that it’s a mistake. Doesn’t mean it has to be true or correct, it’s just not a bug.

6. Redundant.


Another idea discussed was removing assault grenadiers from the doctrine or even going so far as to making them doctrine specific, SE only, since strong infantry are available already for Luft and TSupp (via buffs)

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1992
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by kwok »

Bumping topic to get some further agreements so that we can start working on the doctrine.

It seems like there is some main concern about how infantry fit into this doctrine more than anything. The worry is it starts to seem too much like propaganda doc but just overall stronger. Came up with some new proposals to steer it away from those concerns.

First of all, while it's true both propaganda doc and tank support doc have a lot of overlap in units and will likely be "high skill high reward" doctrines, there will still be some major differences. Propaganda doc is focused on more cheap infantry with a playstyle around using abilities to manipulate the battles. A lot of the micro is spent more on applying target abilities and using supporting units (including tanks) to deliver power hits since mainline units (like the volkssturm or even tiger) can't operate on their own. Meanwhile the tank support playstyle is heavily focused on very precise build orders, unit placement, and micro of own units.

Couple of changes I would say to the doctrine from my last proposal:
-Vehicle aura buff would give most light vehicles an aura that provides panzer grenadiers a non-stacking -10% cooldown reduction within a 35 radius
-Vehicle aura buff would give most light vehicles the ability (15mu) to activate a sprint aura for infantry within a 35 radius. Imagine the old CW LT buff.
-Tank aura buff would give most tanks an aura that provides panzer grenadiers a non-stacking -10% received accuracy while the infantry is moving within a 35 radius
-Mark target will only apply to vehicles not infantry, potentially will be used by infantry instead of tanks (so an infantry unit will have to "relay the armor target" to the tanks in your army)

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3815
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Warhawks97 »

I still hope that at least the vehicle aura buff would become a factional thing for pe, not just tank support doc. The tank aura buff could remain a tank support thing. But PE should really should get something that really makes it different from other factions

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1992
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by kwok »

[sarcasm]
But PE should really should get something that really makes it different from other factions

You mean like having a combat unit for a construction unit
Or tier 1 combat vehicles?
Or non-doctrinal elite infantry?
Or doctrines specifically based off historical divisions?
Or nearly all combat infantry being able to repair vehicles?
Or an entire building dedicated to upgrading base infantry?
Or a non-linear tier structure that allows effectively 2 choices of buildings for each tier?

Maybe it needs something really really different like squad sizes that makes the squads basically useless against a sniper spam, or completely gets wiped by one grenade, or one mortar, or one artillery shell?

[/sarcasm]

Sorry for the really heavy sarcasm but this was brought up so many times before and doesn't add any constructive feedback to this topic in particular. As I mentioned before on Mencius' earlier post, I really don't think this is a buff we want for the entire faction. Without lowering squad sizes as a counter balance, it would just be a flat buff. But if you DID lower squad sizes, the faction itself would take a HUGE HUGE hit and change on not just playstyle but required skill to even play. This is not in the philosophy of doctrine reworks, therefore won't even consider it an option as of now. Revive the topic again after we finish doctrine reworks if you really feel THAT strongly about it.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3815
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Warhawks97 »

i refered to the faction as a whole benefiting more from infantry paired with vehicles, not just one doctrine of it.

So far its much easier to combine simple Volksgren and Halftracks/20 mm vehicles as it is to combine PE inf with vehicles. The fact that their core inf can repair vehicles doesnt really helps as it effectively takes out both, the vehicles and your main line inf out of combat. As WH its way easier to fall back with your vehicles, repair it with a cheap repair unit while your inf keeps fighting. In early stage (i know and you know that i start with standard res) i often cant get my vehicles repaired in time untill i get the thrid building up with its repair station upgrade.

And the combat stats of my main line inf and even the better infantry isnt better (actually worse) than that of new Volksgrens and WH grens while spending effectively more.


So:

You mean like having a combat unit for a construction unit

thats really special and that really helps the faction. Its like saying brits is special bc they have a 315 MP sapper squad. Wow, what an advantage.

Or tier 1 combat vehicles?

WH cant get vehicles out that fast perhaps, but they can get their vehicle building way quicker now as well. In order to get both, inf and vehicle building, they both pay about the same.

Or non-doctrinal elite infantry?


Their combat stats arent superior to that of Volksgrens and WH grens (which are actually better or just as good at least)

Or nearly all combat infantry being able to repair vehicles?


which, as mentioned above, isnt much of an advantage in early mid stage bc you have to draw your combat inf out of combat. So for the duration of repair you end up having little left to fight with. But i mentioned it above.

Or an entire building dedicated to upgrading base infantry?

Well, even with some of them used you dont necessarily end up better than WH once. Cap rate for example wont bypass that of basic WH grens even when you upgraded the cap rate buff. The combat buff is good but Terror and def doc buffing their inf as well by doctrinal upgrades.


Or a non-linear tier structure that allows effectively 2 choices of buildings for each tier?

Which i actually hope for all factions to be less straight linear and more flexible in tecing. The last two buildings is not so much of a bonus i would say, depending on which doc you play. WH gets tanks and TD´s (stugs and JP IV) out of one and the same building. So you can say its a bit different as PE gets tanks and heavy tanks out of the same building while WH gets tanks and td´s out of one.


So the general feeling is that PE is still quite a mirror to WH on a a factional level and boths infantry combat strenght is at the same level with PE having pioneer capabilties added to their main inf which can be an advantage but also a disadvantage. Its a difference but non that would make me to decide playing PE. Choosing PE is mainly based on: 1. Do i need Mobile howitzers for a long arty battle? and 2. Luftwaffe forces and air strikes?
But no one chooses PE or WH bc their factional gameplay is so fundamentally different.

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 342
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by CGarr »

I've probably mentioned this before but I think that aside from other points that have been brought up, the main separating factor between tank supp doc and propaganda should be the availability of indirect fire. I would agree that this doc would basically just be a better propaganda doc if it had a rocket hotchkiss, and if you ask me, the best solution would be to remove the rocket hotchkiss from this doc and make it solely dependent on mortars and offmap artillery. The doctrine would still maintain its strength in terms of direct fire engagements, but it would be slowed significantly by fortifications unless the player is able to make use of the other combined arms tools available to deal with this issue, meaning they could potentially maintain that high amount of momentum but only if they are skilled enough to do so without strong indirect fire units.

As for the roacket version of the hotchkiss, it could find a place on SE doc. The standard hotchkiss could stay with tank support, as having it be the first available light tank might make for more interesting early game pushes, especially if the gun upgrade from vanilla was reintroduced.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1992
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by kwok »

CGarr wrote:I've probably mentioned this before but I think that aside from other points that have been brought up, the main separating factor between tank supp doc and propaganda should be the availability of indirect fire. I would agree that this doc would basically just be a better propaganda doc if it had a rocket hotchkiss, and if you ask me, the best solution would be to remove the rocket hotchkiss from this doc and make it solely dependent on mortars and offmap artillery. The doctrine would still maintain its strength in terms of direct fire engagements, but it would be slowed significantly by fortifications unless the player is able to make use of the other combined arms tools available to deal with this issue, meaning they could potentially maintain that high amount of momentum but only if they are skilled enough to do so without strong indirect fire units.

As for the roacket version of the hotchkiss, it could find a place on SE doc. The standard hotchkiss could stay with tank support, as having it be the first available light tank might make for more interesting early game pushes, especially if the gun upgrade from vanilla was reintroduced.


I wouldn't be opposed to the idea if I wasn't afraid of the general community raising their pitchforks over the apparent "nerfs" we did to terror doc and luft doc despite trying to do exactly what the community said they wanted.

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 342
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by CGarr »

kwok wrote:
CGarr wrote:I've probably mentioned this before but I think that aside from other points that have been brought up, the main separating factor between tank supp doc and propaganda should be the availability of indirect fire. I would agree that this doc would basically just be a better propaganda doc if it had a rocket hotchkiss, and if you ask me, the best solution would be to remove the rocket hotchkiss from this doc and make it solely dependent on mortars and offmap artillery. The doctrine would still maintain its strength in terms of direct fire engagements, but it would be slowed significantly by fortifications unless the player is able to make use of the other combined arms tools available to deal with this issue, meaning they could potentially maintain that high amount of momentum but only if they are skilled enough to do so without strong indirect fire units.

As for the roacket version of the hotchkiss, it could find a place on SE doc. The standard hotchkiss could stay with tank support, as having it be the first available light tank might make for more interesting early game pushes, especially if the gun upgrade from vanilla was reintroduced.


I wouldn't be opposed to the idea if I wasn't afraid of the general community raising their pitchforks over the apparent "nerfs" we did to terror doc and luft doc despite trying to do exactly what the community said they wanted.


Terror was bad mainly because the volksturmms are just inherently flawed as a unit, they're either going to be so weak that the player would just not use them, or OP af late game. There's potential to minimize their negative impact by purely making them meatshields with horrible offensive stats and good defensive stats, which would allow them to at least screen for better inf. However, the only other inf options in the doc are support weapons and volks, which is why I was suggesting a heavy officer squad. I'm straying from the point of this thread though, I'll link the thread and we can take discussion of terror over there if you want to talk about that.

My point is that I don't think the 2 situations are really comparable. PE has strong non-doctrinal inf (which would become cheaper with this doc), armor is going to be the doctrines main strength so it won't be lacking there, and theres already call-in artillery available in the tree via the tank commander for when indirect fire is absolutely necessary. This doc would be able to hold it's own in most (if not all) head on fights, it just wouldn't be able to outlast a doc with good arty if the player is unable to keep their momentum (which is intended).

With that being said, if during testing it is shown that players can't keep that momentum going, there's other tools that can be given to them to neutralize the threat of artillery. This is not the case with propaganda doc, as the problems that plague that doc are cause by a poorly implemented unit. The lack of a good alternative only compounds it, and as such, panzer support would not suffer from the same issues because this doc's potential problem would be caused by the lack of solution to a problem rather than the solution given being poorly implemented.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1992
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by kwok »

So how would you fill the arty path?

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 342
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by CGarr »

As for potential solutions for the issues that would come with the removal of true artillery units, I'll split this into parts so that its easier to add to or critique.

1. Firstly, I should establish context for how I envision the doctrine would be set up to avoid confusion.

At least for the initial rework, I think PS doc should be set up in the exact manner described by the last picture Kwok posted, with the only exception being the omittance of the stuka hotchkiss. This would leave the doc with the mortar halftrack, tank commander arty, and potentially a smoke drop as their indirect tools. This might sound rough, but keep in mind we're talking about a doc that is essentially going to have the same direct firepower as old terror doc, if not more. It really doesn't need spammable indirect firepower to supplement, and there isn't really an artillery unit in the game that isn't spammable, especially if your frontline units are tough enough that you can afford to wait for cooldowns and more muni.

**Keep in mind I didn't say the doc will have artillery options**. The commander arty is still there for when you really need to just blow the shit out of of an annoying emplacement to make an opening or kill a howitzer, and smoke will neutralize the threat of incoming fire from defenders if you want to just run up to the enemy AT and burn them out (or chuck an AT nade in the case of a TD).

2. Next, let's bring up the potential issues that could come out of having it set up in that way (at least the ones I can think of).

-Emplacements: These are going to be a pain in the ass, and alongside AT guns, they will be the main things keeping this doc from steamrolling.

-TD's: same as emplacements but different counter needed.

-Artillery (static and small field guns): Indirect fire will be inflicting the most damage to this doc by far, since the inf will bleed a lot of MP and most of the armor available is either static or relatively slow.

-Artillery (vehicles): Same as above, but harder to kill due to mobility. Generally comes in the endgame, so it probably won't be a problem until that point. When/if it does come out though, its going to be the biggest threat by far.

-Airstrikes: Not sure how much AA this doc will have, so it might be difficult to counter. Airstrikes are expensive and have long cooldowns, though and the docs that have access to them will have a very tough time surviving against this doc due to the huge difference in direct firepower. Testing is needed before I can say anything, but theres a chance these docs will actually need more means of fighting armor to compensate (at least US, RAF might be fine).

3. Now that we've established a list issues PS doc players might run into, I'll list some possible solutions. I'd like to encourage others to add to this list of solutions if they have any other ideas. Keep in mind, these are solutions that do not involve arty units, as I've already stated why I think this doc shouldn't have arty units.

-Emplacements: This is probably the easiest on the list to counter. The commander arty will obliterate any emplacement or leave it low enough that you could just finish it off with a grenade through the cover of smoke. You could also just opt for solely using smoke and grenades/flame, more risky but its cheaper if you pull it off successfully. If smoke is too hard to use / unreliable, a cheap sabatoge squad similar to the SE one could be a good fix. This one could have just have a flame grenade (or bundled) and an AT grenade*, keeping it unique from the SE version in that it would have less utility but be cheaper, solely for the purpose of destroying AT and clearing out buildings.

TD's: Arty could scare them away, spotting makes them a lot more vulnerable to direct counters, and the AT nade from the suggested sabotage squad could scare/destroy them. Allied TD's might be hard to actually kill due to speed and HE on top of being able to cloak, but without ambush they're much less of a threat to armor, so you dont need to kill them to neutralize the threat they present. With that being said, the if the enemy player isn't vigilant in their use of spotters, it'd be really easy to just crawl up to the TD if you know where it is and throw an AT nade at it before they can respond.

-Artillery (static and small field guns): same counters as emplacements. Easier to kill in the sense that they can't defend themselves, but they're generally pretty far behind the front line. Sabotage squad would be the best option for neutralizing the threat they present if you're in a stalemate since you can either kill it with the squad or use the squad to give vision to a call-in artillery strike via the tank commander. Otherwise, you can just try to weather the storm if your micro is good enough and focus on killing the defending units. If you manage to do that, arty units wont be much of a threat.

-Artillery (vehicles): Only real options against this would be the sabotage squad or trying to survive and kill defending units. Again, doesn't usually come til late game though.

-Airstrikes: AA is a counter, but again it might not be huge problem for the PE player.

Again, testing would be necessary to balance these other options but it's a better alternative than giving a doctrine with ridiculously strong direct firepower a spammable form of artillery heavy artillery.
Last edited by CGarr on 05 Feb 2020, 06:01, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 342
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by CGarr »

kwok wrote:So how would you fill the arty path?


Think of it as an active support path. It makes light vehicles (which can support through frontline reinforcement/healing, mortar-fire, and direct firepower, etc) cheaper and gives access to the command car. The commander artillery gives an indirect option for making decisive pushes without giving this doctrine the ability to camp easily, as the cooldown and cost keep it from being spammable. I described in an above response the addition of a unique sabotage squad, cheaper than the SE option but with less utility. It'd have some sort of grenade for blowing up emplacements and killing field guns, and a short range AT nade (H3) for blowing up / scaring away TD's and SPG's. The squad doesn't need any direct firepower, maybe one smg for mopping up AT crew members that survive a nade, it's sole purpose would be to infiltrate, crawl up to whatever is giving problems, blow it and run. Worst case, they still give vision for commander arty or a teammate's arty.

This solution would fit with the path, as it is an active support unit rather than a combat unit. Once I get home I make a restructure pic of the tree that includes it to give an idea of what I mean.

Sidenote: now that I think of it, satchel charges would be perfect for the sabotage squad, as they'd be more consistent than the bundled nade and would give the allied player a little more time to react to the fact that they're about to lose an arty unit or have a huge hole in their defensive line.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3815
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Warhawks97 »

i dont think having sabotage squads in this doc will be a good thing. They can be really a pain (esspecially when they have Mp40 an pop out of houses) and that combined with super heavy Tanks is an overkill from my perspective. I literally played games as SE where i just mocked with sabotage squads when i had nothing else i could do. Same could happen to this doc as well when people run out of fuel. They might just start to spam arround with these squads all over the place and binding enemie forces away from fontlines.


As AA units that doc could get the 20 mm HT that is also used by def doc. These HT´s with aa guns mounted on it usually accompanied tank units. Its not the best AA but there will be AA. Combined with cheaper vehicle production it might help.

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 342
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by CGarr »

Warhawks97 wrote:i dont think having sabotage squads in this doc will be a good thing. They can be really a pain (esspecially when they have Mp40 an pop out of houses) and that combined with super heavy Tanks is an overkill from my perspective. I literally played games as SE where i just mocked with sabotage squads when i had nothing else i could do. Same could happen to this doc as well when people run out of fuel. They might just start to spam arround with these squads all over the place and binding enemie forces away from fontlines.


As AA units that doc could get the 20 mm HT that is also used by def doc. These HT´s with aa guns mounted on it usually accompanied tank units. Its not the best AA but there will be AA. Combined with cheaper vehicle production it might help.


I don't think it'd be that bad but this is why this kind of thing would need testing, again it's prefereable to having a doctrine that has good inf, the best tanks, and good arty. If infiltration is the problem with that option, it seems like an easy fix would be to just remove that ability from the unit, limiting it to either being produced or being an offmap call-in unit. It honestly probably wouldn't make a huge difference, considering it's not too difficult to crawl past enemy lines especially if they aren't completely bunkered down yet. You've still got mortars and the commander arty as options for opening a hole, might be less risky to just sneak a crawling squad in through said hole than to it'd be to actually push through with tanks and standard inf.

Another solution would be a unit cap or longer call-in cooldown if it's the number of sabotage squads that is causing the problem. I've seen people use them but a dingo or US light vehicle of any kind counters them pretty hard, and the AT nade i suggested would be pretty useless against said units since the soldiers would basically have to be touching the target to use it.

On top of this, I think it's important to consider the general positioning that this doctrine would force allied players into, as the PS doc player would have a ton of anti armor specialized units (most heavy tanks, the TD's, the inf, AT guns/halftracks). The allied player would probably have their armor further back from the front line. This combined with the sabotage squad's lack of ranged AT would mean that kind of infiltration would pretty much just be a waste of manpower.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1992
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by kwok »

Yo guys. Bump. What AA does this doctrine need? If it needs any (probably would).

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3815
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Warhawks97 »

As said, Halftracks with 20 mm were very common among german armored forces. Ostwind and Wirbelwind were very unique units and should be in BK. They also would make this doc too crazy against inf when they would get access to either of them. So single 20 mm HT´s should make the job. Idk if some sort of AA mode can be added here.

And depends whether future 20 mm will be different (HE modes and so on).

MEFISTO
Posts: 120
Joined: 18 Jun 2016, 21:15

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by MEFISTO »

kwok wrote:
 ! Message from:
SUPER BUMP. We are so close to finishing doctrine reworks. This might be the last major rework we will see before going into the "balance phase" of the reworks. We would really like to lock down ideas for large rework structural changes, especially regarding the tank hunter doctrine.

This proposal is just MY idea, not representative of what the dev team will decide to do.

Prologue
This was one of the hardest doctrines to think through because of so many ideas brought by players as well as it having so much history as a doctrine. The first thought is the doctrine direly needed a theme change in order to follow the "all doctrines viable in a 1v1" philosophy. While tankhunter today has no problem with facing any other doctrine, the same can't be said the otherway around, namely the armor and RE doctrines who would struggle against tank hunter today. So, some "nerfs" would be needed while keeping the fun value of the doctrine (This goes both ways. It's not just important to make a doctrine that's fun to play as but also play against. For example, some ideas that were brought up was a doctrine based on ambushes and camo. This might be fun to play as but god damn would it be a pain to face... it would ruin the fun for opponents to deal with such a frustrating doctrine). While personally I don't like the idea, a large part of the community wanted a "Panzer" focused doctrine, which is understandable since tank warfare and German tanks were such an iconic part of World War II. If US can have a tank focused doctrine, why can't Axis? This is how the "Panzer Support" doctrine came to mind. That being said, I hope this doctrine will cover a lot of what you all asked for.

unknown.jpg

Base Doctrine Changes
- Hotchkiss will be available in the Logistik building after the initial building upgrade
- Hotchkiss will have a 25mu HE shell upgrade that unlocks a one shot HE round ability costing 25mu likened to the chaffee HE shell shot

Tank Hunter Path and Tank Path
-Early/Late (reward choice?) Tiger Tank available from Panzer Command building, (same cost as Propaganda Doc?)
-Early/Late (reward choice?) King Tiger Tank available from Panzer Command building, (same cost as Propaganda Doc?)
-Jagdtiger no longer call in but buildable from the panzer support building for 1200mp, 190fu, same build time as king tiger.
-Fuel trade 100mu for 100fu.

The tank hunter path will remain relatively untouched to preserve its roots as a Tank Hunter doctrine. The key change that makes it different than the formidable uber-tank countering doctrine (aka hard counters to the US armor doc) will be the fact that many unlocks like zimmermit coat, periscope, etc. will be removed from the doctrine, leaving the tank hunters to be more supportive and defensive in nature. A new path will be created to unlock tanks that has high CP costs to unlock. The intent here is to create a mid-game tradeoff decision for players on the macro level: to choose well-rounded tanks or more defensive but reliable tank hunters? This will be a net buff to the tank hunter's mid game because of its added flexibility but net nerf to its late game since the tank path has replaced any sort of buffs that tank hunter units would get that makes them end-game units.

Artillery Path
-Reduce Logistic unit fuel costs by 5 fuel each.
-Observation Car, an armored car unit (still to be determined which) with offmap ability options (35mu Smoke Drop, 80mu Mortar Barrage)
-Observation Panzer IV with offmap ability options (35mu Smoke Drop, 150mu 105mm Artillery Barrage)
-Rocket Hotchkiss upgrade unlocked

This was a difficult decision because while some high level players preferred a more high-skill oriented doctrine that focuses more on direct engagement rather than indirect, it's recognized various factors that would hurt the "fun value" for a lot of players who may not have the particular micro-skill to pull off such a high-skill doctrine (for those players who want that high skill high reward experience, we still recommend Propaganda doc. It has a lot of untapped potentially). The rocket hotchkiss was kept as a part of the doctrine to provide a hard-counter solution against hard camps, especially for the likes of royal engineer or infantry doctrine which are strong early-mid game doctrines that can set up strong defenses fast. However, we know that hotchkiss rockets as they are today are enormously powerful, reliable, and available early which encourages camping-until-hotchkiss-is-ready strategies which is just not fun to play against. Putting a variety of artillery options that can flex depending on playstyle will hopefully making camping still viable but much more difficult as a strategy.
The fuel cost reduction has been included in the beginning of the path to compensate for probably fuel waste against hard camping opponents. Don't throw light vehicles out as a viable option just because the enemy has set up AT! Be bold and try to find flanking positions with your light vehicles without worrying too much about being punished.

Panzergrenadier Support
-Vehicle Aura Buff, gives basic panzer grenadiers a -15% weapon cooldown reduction (stacks) when within 35-radius of light vehicles created in the logistik building
-Tank Aura Buff, gives basic panzer grenadiers a -10% weapon cooldown reduction (stacks) when within 35-radius of tanks or tank hunters created in the panzer command or support buildings
-Panzer Grenadier Price Reduction, reduces the MP cost of panzer grenadiers to 295MP

Some great ideas were brought by the community to help form this change. Bringing in buffs to infantry to encourage a combined arms capability for the doctrine will enable more variety in playstyle choice for players. These buffs are early to mid game powerspikes will hopefully encourage players to be more proactive in the mid-game and gain advantage rather than hide behind strong Axis camps formerly viable through base strong defensive units and reliable, strong, non-CP-unlock artillery (a compensation for the net nerf from the Artillery Path changes). This was also designed based on community various recommendations and feedback. Some notes on those suggestions:
- Players would like to see smaller PE squads so that they would be cheaper and could be used more tactically. This is something I am vehemently against for a couple reasons. First, my experience in creating a mod in CoH2 showed that smaller squad sizes are way too difficult for the majority of players to micro due to the expotnential relationship between durability/power and squad size. Second, we have tried this on a small "test" scale with the British assault squad and the general feedback has been "make the squad bigger". While it's true that the british assault squad is a drastically different type of unit to PE basic inf squads, the idea that the unit becomes effectively useless as soon as the squad starts taking losses. At 3 men to a squad, conservative players usually start retreating. At 2 men to a squad, even the most aggressive players start retreating. At 1 man, most the time that squad is basically dead unless they are being used for a super gambit.
-Snipers hard counter PE infantry because of the PE inf high cost. Ironically this feedback contradicts the previous feedback on smaller squad sizes. General buffs to the PE infantry should make the fast losses incurred by snipers be less punishing. This way unchanged snipers retain their utility against elite infantry spams while PE infantry get some thematic role within a new doctrine.


Concerns
I still have some concerns about this doctrine. First one being that the tank hunter path will still hard counter armor doctrine. Tried to line up the CP unlocks with the tank unlocks from US armor doc so that each unit will still be viable in their respective stages of the game. Will look forward to see games and build orders for this doctrine

Another player who has helped talk through some ideas was also worried that camping will still be easy with the early HE hotchkiss/tank hunter combo. Ever since artillery changes, bombing out camo'd tank destroyers has become harder unless you can rush handheld AT up. But with HE hotchkiss, it would make it really hard to chase the TD's out. Hopefully the fact that the HE shots will be single shot will add a "skill" aspect to camping. But, I know some players are too good at the game and can really abuse the combo regardless.

Another very very true comment was that this doctrine is not too different from the propaganda doctrine and maybe even stronger especially when looking just at the tanks available and the fact that Pgrens are cheaper. In certain aspects yes, tank support doctrine is much easier to play for the lower-medium level players. My thoughts here are that the skill cap (how much you can get out of a doctrine with skill before the doctrine itself stops becoming any better) is higher for propaganda doctrine and there is still a lot of open potential for high level players to learn how strong propaganda can be in combo with buff/debuff abilities. Just speculation... I suspect you'll find a lot of players choosing this doctrine over propaganda, but those who venture to get good at blitz mod will find propaganda to be extremely rewarding and fun. My biggest worry is this doctrine turns into what Luft doc is today (an 80% play rate and extremely high win rate among lower-medium skilled players).

This is what I think about this doctrine:
you will use only a half of the doctrine if you go for KT you are not going to unlock JT path or either way, TH vs Armor late game no fuel to spend 160fuel in a Jagdpanther where are your Nashorn? where are you 2 bazooka team upgrade? I like the the way you set up the CP to unlock the Hotchkiss.

CroW_TaTToo
Posts: 3
Joined: 07 May 2016, 19:04

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by CroW_TaTToo »

I think this will make weak the TH doctrine if you are in a game against armor and you don't have feul how do you destroy the tanks if you take away the Doble bazuka. Also that tiger will be a lost of time in a late game or even in early a firefly tank can destroy a tiger easily its call tank hunter for a reason

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 342
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by CGarr »

Warhawks97 wrote:As said, Halftracks with 20 mm were very common among german armored forces. Ostwind and Wirbelwind were very unique units and should be in BK. They also would make this doc too crazy against inf when they would get access to either of them. So single 20 mm HT´s should make the job. Idk if some sort of AA mode can be added here.

And depends whether future 20 mm will be different (HE modes and so on).


This sounds good to me

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 342
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by CGarr »

MEFISTO wrote:This is what I think about this doctrine:
you will use only a half of the doctrine if you go for KT you are not going to unlock JT path or either way, TH vs Armor late game no fuel to spend 160fuel in a Jagdpanther where are your Nashorn? where are you 2 bazooka team upgrade? I like the the way you set up the CP to unlock the Hotchkiss.


I agree on what you said about some of the doc tree being wasted later in the game, but I think its been pointed out already and nobody has really brought up ideas for how to fix it. Merging the two tank trees into one might be an option, I'll design a new tree with that in mind but we need to fill 2 more spots on the tree if we do that. One spot could be double shrecks if it's really going to be that big of a loss to not have them, not sure what to do for the second. I don't think zimmermit should come back with this doc, it was really broken. The periscope upgrade was kind of lame, TD's shouldn't self spot anyways. The free ammo upgrade thing could come back.

Nashorn would be stupidly overpowered on this doc considering all the other things that have been added. Between the cheap inf upgrade and the fuel/muni trade, you'd basically be able to spam nashorns as if they were marders. There's multiple other tanks with big guns if you really need the range/damage, and with how strong this doc upfront (comparable to blitz), you wont be starved for fuel unless you make bad plays.

CroW_TaTToo wrote:I think this will make weak the TH doctrine if you are in a game against armor and you don't have feul how do you destroy the tanks if you take away the Doble bazuka. Also that tiger will be a lost of time in a late game or even in early a firefly tank can destroy a tiger easily its call tank hunter for a reason


See above comment. Again, double shreck isn't really necessary but it doesn't really make much of a difference either way so if people are going to complain then i'm fine with it being put back into the tree.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1992
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by kwok »

How effective should those halftracks be in comparison to say an ostwind or wirbelwind. As anti ground units, the ostwind/wirbel are significantly better than the halftracks. Should that ratio apply? If so, is that fair to bind the tank support player to effectively make say 4 halftracks for an equivalent of basically 2 anti air tanks like the allied crusaders/quad halftracks?

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3815
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Warhawks97 »

kwok wrote:How effective should those halftracks be in comparison to say an ostwind or wirbelwind. As anti ground units, the ostwind/wirbel are significantly better than the halftracks. Should that ratio apply? If so, is that fair to bind the tank support player to effectively make say 4 halftracks for an equivalent of basically 2 anti air tanks like the allied crusaders/quad halftracks?



first of all we would need to know if there are plans for these heavy autocanons. The only one that works in my opinion correctly (AP mode as well as HE, rof and burst durations) is the Ostwind. Everything else is just weird. Every 20 mm is a different weapon. The quads kind of HMG with AP rounds loaded, the single one on HT´s and the stationary meanwhile acts almost like a 40 mm bofors and with sniping accuracy and high damage per hit (taking out greyhounds in 3-4 hits), the Puma 20 mm are again somewhat different. Meanwhile quad 20 mm with HE on wirbel and the double HE 20 mm on crusaders are again behaving differently.

If anything would be comparable in effectivness it would be the Puma i would say. But as said, we would need to know if everything in this weapon class remains as it is or not.

MEFISTO
Posts: 120
Joined: 18 Jun 2016, 21:15

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by MEFISTO »

I still think TH needs the 2 bazookas upgrade guys, at some point of the game in case you don’t have fuel to spend that bazooka team can save you as a TH doctrina specially vs early/medium CW Churchill’s

Post Reply