Inf doc is the weakest?

[speeddemon02]

What about giving inf doc a third jumbo? or making the jumbos have the 76W or having the two types of jumbos and move the 76W jumbo from armor? I was thinking of the jackson as well, but felt a 90mm tank for inf might not be the best and all that will do is open the jackson to spamming

[Wake]

I will say here that Inf Doc was specifically nerfed in previous patches because people thought it was too good. Some of these nerfs were:

- After mass production upgrade, the Rangers previously cost 270 MP. Now they are 315 MP
- The option to upgrade the anti tank bazooka squad with a 3rd bazooka was removed
- The price of the 105mm call-in artillery strike was increased from 150 munition to 165 munition, and the cooldown time increased
- The ambulance cost was increased
- The cost of Thompson SMGs for the Rangers was increased
- The cost of Combat Engineers was increased
- The 107mm Mortar Pit emplacement price was increased, health reduced, and range reduced
- The CQB squad that spawns inside buildings had a delay added to it, so they no longer appear immediately


So clearly, the opinion went from "Inf doc is overpowered" to "Inf Doc is underpowered". Which idea is correct?

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

I will say here that Inf Doc was specifically nerfed in previous patches because people thought it was too good. Some of these nerfs were:

- After mass production upgrade, the Rangers previously cost 270 MP. Now they are 315 MP
- The option to upgrade the anti tank bazooka squad with a 3rd bazooka was removed
- The price of the 105mm call-in artillery strike was increased from 150 munition to 165 munition, and the cooldown time increased
- The ambulance cost was increased
- The cost of Thompson SMGs for the Rangers was increased
- The cost of Combat Engineers was increased
- The 107mm Mortar Pit emplacement price was increased, health reduced, and range reduced
- The CQB squad that spawns inside buildings had a delay added to it, so they no longer appear immediately


So clearly, the opinion went from "Inf doc is overpowered" to "Inf Doc is underpowered". Which idea is correct?

Kinda correct, but changes which had the biggest influnce on inf doc are the following:

- More exp. for rangers vet. lvls required
- Handled AT nerf (!!!)
- No third zook for US AT team
- No tradebreaker ability for AT teams ( you could use it for stopping heavies )
- No second Arty Sherman

Idk how you guys thinking that inf doc is still cool and so on, even Saint Adolph can win 1v1 against inf doc. Or Luft can steamroll the entire doc with 2 veted regiment 5.

However, the biggest issue is that doc lacks at least single reliable counter against enemy armor, and thats pretty obvious because their main instrument was handled AT were geting more and more nerfs with every single update.

By the way, I think this AT change almost killed any sense in having Recoiless rifle or Zook for rangers/101s Airborne accordingly, what can they kill with that? Maybe stats should be revised, more damage and penetration or something.

Looking at Mr.Nobody, he used to be god of inf doc and could kick anyone's ass with it, now its just pathetic to see how he plays it and getting smashed by basic players.

[kwok]

I feel like getting smashed by basic players is a sign not of the doctrine changing but of the inability to adapt to the new styles. So far, I still feel pretty good with infantry as long as I have enough BARS and I have played aggressively enough in the early game to secure enough territory. If I have enough map control, it's emplacements and howitzers to do the main work while I pile in BARS in trenches. Sure, they don't have any reliable aggressive AT anymore (can't rush with bazookas and spike something). But the AT emplacements are still pretty sturdy and cheap. Ironically, they cost less manpower than the mobile versions and don't go into upkeep (i think....?). My inf doc late game definitely isn't like it was before with Ranger rushing, instead it's really about using the howitzers and maintaining overall map control.

I haven't tried other ways of playing inf yet though, which I'm sure exist but haven't had a chance to shine because well... everyone... fucking... only... plays... luft.... so I keep playing the same way to counter.

The only challenge I have right now is inf is the timing between transitioning from aggressive rifles into emplacement spamming. Sometimes I put the mortar pit out too early and it just gets stolen right away. It becomes timing, I should've pushed and fought little bit longer so that my mortar placements is better and I get enough BARs and 57mm at guns out to cover all my sectors.

[drivebyhobo]

I will say here that Inf Doc was specifically nerfed in previous patches because people thought it was too good. Some of these nerfs were:

- After mass production upgrade, the Rangers previously cost 270 MP. Now they are 315 MP
- The option to upgrade the anti tank bazooka squad with a 3rd bazooka was removed
- The price of the 105mm call-in artillery strike was increased from 150 munition to 165 munition, and the cooldown time increased
- The ambulance cost was increased
- The cost of Thompson SMGs for the Rangers was increased
- The cost of Combat Engineers was increased
- The 107mm Mortar Pit emplacement price was increased, health reduced, and range reduced
- The CQB squad that spawns inside buildings had a delay added to it, so they no longer appear immediately


So clearly, the opinion went from "Inf doc is overpowered" to "Inf Doc is underpowered". Which idea is correct?

The PE and in particular Luftwaffe were buffed in 4.9.6

[MarKr]

I am sort of confused by the fact that some of you say how weak the doctrine is and another say it is weak at all. How is this possible? If the doctrine is objectively underperforming then everyone should struggle. Of course if you have less competent opponent then you can win even with "weaker" doctrine but it seems unprobable that the people who say Infantry doctrine is fine constantly play against less competent players or build their opinion on a single match.

I know one game proves nothing - I keep saying that all the time. But I heard that there was a game between player A and B. B went for infantry doctrine to show that inf doc is not that bad. So A knew what doctrine B was gonna pick - so A could pick best possible counter - and B already said what tactics he uses with infantry doc so A could adjust accordingly. A still lost the game. So how is it possible that someone loses against a doctrine which he considers weakest in the game while knowing he will go against it and what tactics opponent uses. Yes, many factors can influence the outcome but as far as I know both are experienced players. So I am not sure what to make out of this, really.

[drivebyhobo]

I am sort of confused by the fact that some of you say how weak the doctrine is and another say it is weak at all. How is this possible? If the doctrine is objectively underperforming then everyone should struggle.

Not necessarily. Map choice is important. An infantry doctrine player has a very different experience on Saint Lo compared to Red Ball Express. Kwok's post just above implies he favors narrow MOBA lane maps where emplacement spam is effective and isn't the self defeating strategy that creates a weakest link in the chain vulnerability as it does on other maps.

[Redgaarden]

I am sort of confused by the fact that some of you say how weak the doctrine is and another say it is weak at all. How is this possible? If the doctrine is objectively underperforming then everyone should struggle.

I believe it's that people dont know what the units are for and how to use them. Riflemen are close range defensive unit that should never waste resources on their equipment. The reason why people say volks beat Rangers is becasue that almost 90% of the fights are at max range. And at that range volks Kar98 will have higher accuracy, dmg and rate of fire. so since they both kill each other in 3 hits on average volks win just becasue they are cheaper. But Rangers will win with equipment since their lmg is far supperior to the volks lmg, and they will survive 1-2 more bursts of mg34 fire since rangers have higher hp.

Another topic I noticed on this page was that Inf doc lacks in anti tank. I must disagree, m10 invested with some muni and off map will deal with all heavy tanks germans can throw at you, all you need is muni and while you wait for muni you can drop 2-3 emplacements down to stall for time.

One of my biggest concern is that the m3 grease guns performs similiar to a garand max range, outperforms Thompson max range and is available alot easier (combat engineers) without spending precious muni on them.

I would also suggest removing thompson upgrade from Combat engineers and Commandoes
For the reason being that 6x smg dont need a bigger long range debuff and are performing well enough in close range.

What Inf doc has: emplacements, arty, tanks* and Infantry that can build stuff.
What Inf doc Lacks: infantry equipment, mobile tanks and combat Infantry.

*Lacks armor doc upgrades for tanks which will result in it getting killed in 1 hit by anything bigger than kwk39

Let the flame begin.

[MarKr]

Not necessarily. Map choice is important. An infantry doctrine player has a very different experience on Saint Lo compared to Red Ball Express. Kwok's post just above implies he favors narrow MOBA lane maps where emplacement spam is effective and isn't the self defeating strategy that creates a weakest link in the chain vulnerability as it does on other maps.

You say that for infantry doctrine narrow maps are good because they can better utilize their emplacements. While Lionelus said:

1) Spamming units
Nice feature. Yet, totally useless on the common maps such as La Fiere or Road to Cherbourg. Narrow and small maps are a pain.
How can you take advantage of your numbers if you don't even have place to manoeuver, flank and spread your troops out ?

So he believes that open maps are better for infantry doctrine because you have space to maneuver. So again - to people claiming completely opposite things.

And again here:

I believe it's that people dont know what the units are for and how to use them. Riflemen are close range defensive unit that should never waste resources on their equipment.

while:

I dunno, I like to carry my rifles to thenlate game. Double bars keep them relevant.

This is again directly contradicting one another.

I don't understand how it is possible that some people say Infantry doctrine is weak while other say it is OK and then someone arguments that it is weak because some reason or under some circumstances while the other side highlights the same thing/circumstance as the strong side of Infantry doctrine.
You just added to my confusion

[Panzerblitz1]

very confusing indeed

[kwok]

Ouch. "Kwok implies he favors moba style maps" is probably one of the most ironic insults I've ever gotten... and I've dealt with messuupgood plus other characters.

[JimQwilleran]

Ouch. "Kwok implies he favors moba style maps" is probably one of the most ironic insults I've ever gotten... and I've dealt with messuupgood plus other characters.

Sometimes the biggest tragedy of human life is not remaining unnoticed, but being misjudged and misunderstood.
..
H17LER DID NOTHING WRONG!









(jk)

[kwok]

Lol, I'm sure he didn't INTEND to insult me. Your saying was spot on though, illa. You'd think after a post like this: viewtopic.php?f=27&t=736&hilit=independent+solution#p7100 and countless of replays posted of 1v1 games on 4v4 maps, you'd build a reputation of avoiding moba styled maps.
Ironically, I think my post was greatly accepted with little criticism, yet when it comes to reality and logging into CoH, every time I try to host a game with a larger sized map it is others who complain until the map changes (or they just leave OR don't even join at all!) ... and then in game they complain AGAIN how unbalanced and arty-party the game is... same old complaints but no one changes...

I'm saying "Hey man, I didn't choose the map. Sorry for sticking with the painful strategy that works."

[Redgaarden]

I dunno, I like to carry my rifles to thenlate game. Double bars keep them relevant.
This is again directly contradicting one another.

I don't understand how it is possible that some people say Infantry doctrine is weak while other say it is OK and then someone arguments that it is weak because some reason or under some circumstances while the other side highlights the same thing/circumstance as the strong side of Infantry doctrine.
You just added to my confusion

I wanted to point that one out too. The problem with rifles with bars are the following
1 They cost alot of muni even with cheap weapons upgrade
2 the whole squad can die to anything bigger than a 91mm mortar shell and some of the big nades.
3 You can only feel a difference in long range when equipping bars since garands will beat lower grade smgs at minimum range
4. Grenadiers and other eliete units and also volks with mg34 will all eat rifles even if they have bars.
5. Rifles long range are entirely dependent on their expensive bars. And you will lose alot of rifles in the course of your game and some of those rilfes will never meet another infantry squad in battle before they get killed.
6. If you want to waste muni on equipment I would reccomend buying a squad of rangers and give them a lmg. Far more cost effective and alot higher durable squad.
7.Very seldom will using US infantry to counter axis infantry be a good idea if you kill them you dont ahcieve much for the team and if you dont, you have just wasted muni you could spend on countering tanks.
8. We both have different playstyles. That is why you got contradicting posts.

Not necessarily. Map choice is important. An infantry doctrine player has a very different experience on Saint Lo compared to Red Ball Express. Kwok's post just above implies he favors narrow MOBA lane maps where emplacement spam is effective and isn't the self defeating strategy that creates a weakest link in the chain vulnerability as it does on other maps.

You say that for infantry doctrine narrow maps are good because they can better utilize their emplacements. While Lionelus said:
Lionelus wrote:

1) Spamming units
Nice feature. Yet, totally useless on the common maps such as La Fiere or Road to Cherbourg. Narrow and small maps are a pain.
How can you take advantage of your numbers if you don't even have place to manoeuver, flank and spread your troops out ?
So he believes that open maps are better for infantry doctrine because you have space to maneuver. So again - to people claiming completely opposite things.

All chokepoints will pretty much kill all but the mightiest units. Just becasue infantry spam is not avalible doesn't mean that is the only thing the doctrine is usefull in. Infantry doc as I said earlier has good emplacemtns, arty, situational tanks and combat engineers. Infnatry doctrine can be full support and fully dependent It's alot more versatile than other american doctrines and can fit on any map in my opinion. Almost all your units can build stuff so size doesn't matter of the map if you have 8 building squads.

[Redgaarden]

The balance is fine at the moment. There are still alot of things people dont know about. but I would complain about grille one hit killing jumbos and jagdpanther being so mobile that it's almost unflankable and that rifles will get killed by mp44 at all ranges. But these are all things you can deal with your own units and abilities. I think it all fits nicely and no need to change anything.

[drivebyhobo]

The balance is fine at the moment.

The thread consensus is that playing infantry doctrine with infantry is wasteful and that instead an infantry doctrine player should be playing simcity as their end game. Nobody sees anything wrong with that? It's not like emplacement spam is that strong a strategy, you've said it yourself, emplacements buy time to allow you wear the enemy down with artillery.

They don't last long when Jagdtigers regularly win duels with 17lber emplacements and Luftwaffe infantry can throw grenades at mortar ranges.


But even if it's balanced as is with the emplacement endgame, there should be room for a parallel strategy that is infantry centric. As it is now, trying to emulate Blitzkrieg doctrine stormtrooper halftrack tactics is much more expensive for the US which is ridiculous given that the US had a great advantage in quantity and availability of equipment having produced tens of thousands more halftracks than the Germans. But we would rather pretend that the US Infantry doctrine should represent stuck in WW1 british trench war doctrine. This reminds me greatly of old armor threads where a lot of people said that armor doctrine would be best represented by suicidal Soviet style armor rushes of Shermans.

[Krieger Blitzer]

and Luftwaffe infantry can throw grenades at mortar ranges.

I often see at least 1 vet.3 US rifle squad quite regularly in PvP games.. thanks to the rifle grenades, which truly has same range as mortars btw...

As it is now, trying to emulate Blitzkrieg doctrine stormtrooper halftrack tactics is much more expensive for the US which is ridiculous

But why would you ever need to emulate Blitz doc tactics as inf doc btw? And I doubt that it's any more expensive though.. in fact; I think Blitz doc is probably the most vulnerable choice to ever go up against inf doc. Since that Blitz doc can't really do much against emplacements whatsoever, not to mention that inf doc can later have Rangers for just 315 MP and they are unlimited too.

[Wake]

What do you think about the Ranger Infiltration Squad? It costs 400 manpower from the Ranger Truck, and one squad comes inside the truck when you call it in. They get 5 Thompsons and a bazooka by default, and are probably the most elite unit that Infantry Doc has. But the Ranger Infiltration Squad costs 45 manpower to reinforce - which is the same as other elite units like Fallscrhimjagers and the 82nd.

I will also say that kwok completely changed my view on infantry doc not too long ago. I always thought that Wehrmacht Terror grenadiers with MP44s would destroy rangers before they could get close. But kwok pointed out that the ranger veterancy upgrade in the command tree lets them camouflage in cover. This is a huge bonus, because in the late game, there are artillery holes and craters everywhere. What kwok would do is put rangers with Thompsons in these craters, and just leave them there. When camouflaged, the rangers do not open fire until discovered. My grenadiers would walk across a seemingly safe area, but then discover a ranger squad at very close range. The rangers with their Thompsons will win the battle in that situation, and because he could make more rangers than I could grenadiers, he was able to get control of the map.

[drivebyhobo]

and Luftwaffe infantry can throw grenades at mortar ranges.

I often see at least 1 vet.3 US rifle squad quite regularly in PvP games.. thanks to the rifle grenades, which truly has same range as mortars btw...

Never minding of course that rifle grenades require a motor pool, 35 munitions up front and 20 per shot. What happened to Red saying that infantry doctrine cannot afford to waste muni on equipment?

As it is now, trying to emulate Blitzkrieg doctrine stormtrooper halftrack tactics is much more expensive for the US which is ridiculous

But why would you ever need to emulate Blitz doc tactics as inf doc btw? And I doubt that it's any more expensive though..

Dodge Ambulance: 180 mp / 5 fuel
Ranger Callin Truck: 500 mp
Officer: 250 mp
Retreat point: 50 munitions
Total: 830 mp/ 50 munitions / 5 fuel

VS

Stormtrooper HT: 250 MP/20 Fuel

The stormtrooper HT provides a mobile ambulance, unit production, a mobile retreat point and a light fire support platform all in one. All of which are highly valuable assets to an infantry force.

in fact; I think Blitz doc is probably the most vulnerable choice to ever go up against inf doc. Since that Blitz doc can't really do much against emplacements whatsoever,

Whatsoever? The Stuh42 is whatsoever?

[kwok]

[rant]

Should I repeat myself? I feel like somethings were clearly not communicated but I don't want to be THAT forum poster who just keeps saying the same things. The problem is "we would rather pretend that the US Infantry doctrine should represent stuck in WW1 british trench war doctrine" really rubs me the wrong way. Just because I found one solution to counter the current popular luft meta-game, suddenly this became the absolute only way to play?

"But even if it's balanced as is with the emplacement endgame, there should be room for a parallel strategy that is infantry centric."
My original response: "I haven't tried other ways of playing inf yet though, which I'm sure exist but haven't had a chance to shine because well... everyone... fucking... only... plays... luft.... so I keep playing the same way to counter."
Let me try saying this in a different way: People say you can't win in against a certain pairing/match up. I provided a potential solution. Apparently this solution is a problem. Should I go find a different solution then? Okay, next time I play without emplacements and see what I can do. Because this happens everytime, there is always SOMETHING either I (saying generically, not me as a specific player but players as a whole) am doing wrong/noob/unbalanced that discredits the victory. At what point will it be valid? When I can win with only riflemen? When I can win using only volks? I've literally come down to games where I was "not allowed to use mortars or snipers or CQC spawning" (and no not just the one practice game with you Toni, there have been other games too). Even if the ONLY way to play infatry doc in this meta is to do emplacement spams to counter the current luft meta, there's a reason why other doctrines exist; so you aren't limited to a single play style. Of course it is natural that if one doctrine becomes popular, the necessary counters become prevalent. That's what meta is until it evolves when someone discovers the next thing. If i keep playing BARS + emplacement inf doc counter to luft, I bet you someone down the road will post how OP inf doc is and how useless luft is. Then the NEXT balance issue will come up. That's literally how the LAST balance changes happened (the luft buffs and the inf doc nerfs); we are literally in a never ending cycle. There's a reason why TH is popular now, it's because Armor doc became popular. But once armor doc keeps getting shit on by TH, TH will be "OP" again.

"But why would you ever need to emulate Blitz doc tactics as inf doc btw? And I doubt that it's any more expensive though.. in fact; I think Blitz doc is probably the most vulnerable choice to ever go up against inf doc. Since that Blitz doc can't really do much against emplacements whatsoever, not to mention that inf doc can later have Rangers for just 315 MP and they are unlimited too."
Another example. Blitz can't do anything against emplacements??? Sure, blitz doesn't have arty which is the most obvious ways to deal with emplacements but does that mean it's useless against it? I provided multiple solutions before: smoke, bundle grenades, blitz ability, stuh, etc. But when I propose that as a solution the same response came up: "I get there's a solution but I don't think I should be forced to play your style". It's not "my style" it's a solution to a problem of many (which by the way are historical/practical/balanced, I think that checks off everything on the list that anyone could complain about on this mod).

[/rant]

Just think outside the box guys. There's a forum post now on HOW to deal with situations you may feel stuck with. I really think it's worth asking there before asking about balance. There are so many solutions people can come up with. If it comes down to where no one has a solution to a problem THEN maybe it's a balance problem.

[drivebyhobo]

[rant]

Should I repeat myself? I feel like somethings were clearly not communicated but I don't want to be THAT forum poster who just keeps saying the same things. The problem is "we would rather pretend that the US Infantry doctrine should represent stuck in WW1 british trench war doctrine" really rubs me the wrong way. Just because I found one solution to counter the current popular luft meta-game, suddenly this became the absolute only way to play?

It was not just you. Redgaarden whom Tiger1996 designated to be the king of infantry doctrine and others suggested mass emplacement spam.

Just think outside the box guys. There's a forum post now on HOW to deal with situations you may feel stuck with. I really think it's worth asking there before asking about balance. There are so many solutions people can come up with. If it comes down to where no one has a solution to a problem THEN maybe it's a balance problem.

This isn't exclusively a balance subforum. It's also a suggestion forum. Blitzkrieg is supposed to be a historical mod and not so much in the sense of Tiger1996 arguing over mm of armor penetration. It's just not historically accurate for US infantry's late game to drift into a poor man's hybrid of Royal Engineers and Royal Artillery representing some kind of WW1 british trench war doctrine

[Redgaarden]

t was not just you. Redgaarden whom Tiger1996 designated to be the king of infantry doctrine and others suggested mass emplacement spam.

I'm just suggesting to use infantry for everythiing else than combating enemy infantry. You have loads of tools for that, even jeeps will do the job nowdays. But in desperate situations and infantry is your only option Rangers with lmgs can combat falls on a 3v1 situation quite dandy just be carefull not to lose one of the squads in the process. And the bazooka is quite nice having since you dont really lose any anti infantry and a rear shot has quite high chance of destroying an engine. And we all know what happens to axis tank that has a destroeyd engine. But stickies will do a better job at frontal armor

I have thought long and hard how to "Fix" american infantry and I still havne't come to any soulutions on how to not break the balance while doing so.

[KornBlatt]

I do not play the infantry doctrine but these justifications of balance are ridiculous. It is balanced because you devised some crazy gambler's tactic that works half the time and half the time leaves you worse off? Crazy!
Your tactic isn't good, you are just hoping your opponent isn't very attentive at all or has decided that he has already won and no longer needs to pay attention.

[Warhawks97]

I am sort of confused by the fact that some of you say how weak the doctrine is and another say it is weak at all. How is this possible? If the doctrine is objectively underperforming then everyone should struggle. Of course if you have less competent opponent then you can win even with "weaker" doctrine but it seems unprobable that the people who say Infantry doctrine is fine constantly play against less competent players or build their opinion on a single match.

Inf doc is (or was at least) good on maps with low MP income and high ammo income and vise versa. With low ammo but lots of MP that doc was steamroled by armor. Mobility is also not its strength. So large MP intense maps was difficult.


Idk how 107 performs atm.

Just a few things to make inf doc nice(er).


1. 105 sherman. Is it still most but worst SPG arty? Drop cost, give two. Obviously they rely more on it to stop (or engage/finishing of) armor since hendeld AT chances.
2. 110 range for 107? CW (with supercharge) and axis have 130.
3. Make Rangers simply inf doc only and Elites. As it is more difficult to fight armor with inf there is no more need to feed enemie inf with cheap trash. And being able to beat enemie inf only with 3:1 or 4:1 ratio (or higher) isnt fun at all. I would say the required micro to controle the ammount of inf to beat enemie inf + the dedicated AT units like M10 or own armor now is too high for players. Not expecting to outmatch luft inf..... but just make them special and fun to play..... not only when occuring in hordes.
4. Add the 60 mm mortar. Just for having a smoke battery for late games. 81 mm mortar is just too expensive for that. Doc should have both available.


In short. Maybe make a final break with Inf doc beeing simply a cheap doctrine that is on the long term forced to support basic units with sim city to hold its ground.

[idliketoplaybetter]

"Not expecting to outmatch luft inf..... but just make them special and fun to play..... not only when occuring in hordes."

Nothing more to add.Would be exact "flavour" and "late game balance fixer" for the doc imo.