Possible Armor doctrine design (Could use Markrs Help)

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: 2453
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Possible Armor doctrine design (Could use Markrs Help)

Postby Warhawks97 » 24 Jul 2017, 21:51

Hello everyone. Got back home and having some time for suggesting. Thing is i am almost in desperate need for Markrs Help now. Hope he will do.

So here comes a suggestion of how the new Armor doc could look like:

Upper left corner to lower left Corner. The special purpose Sherman Branch: (Allied_armor_00 to 03)

M4A3 76(W) Sherman unlcok-> 105 Sherman->Jumbo->Calli (Calli and Jumbo can be swapped arround as well. Doc would receive both Jumbo Variants, 76 mm and 75. Maybe they could be as a reward for each other. Inf doc would lose theirs) That branch is the sherman line with all its Variants.

Upper left to upper righ. The Heavy Gun (and armor) Branch: (armor_00 to 30)


M4A3 76(W) Sherman->M18->M36->Pershing (SP removed)

Second column third line to bottom third column. Quicker replacment branch: (armor_12 to 13 to 23 )

Quicker vehicle Production->Sherman Mass Production-> Allied War Machine (War Machine unlocks global repair and replacment at once)

Second column third line to second column second line. Quick reaction branch: (armor_12 to 11):

Quicker vehicle Production-> Battle Group call in (The light Mechanized Brigade consists of 1 sherman and two greyhound or 1 sherman, 1 M10 and 1 Greyhound. Possibly also a Mix of Stuarts or chaffe, M10 and scotts 800-1000 MP. Motorpool upgrade or Tank depot required. Reward: Heavy Assault battallion. Consists of two e8 and one m4 sherman. 1100 MP)

Third column second line to third Column third line. Harassment and skirmish branch: (armor_21 to 22)

Vehicle capture->Tellermines

Fourth colum second line to fourth column bottom line. Improved Tank commander and crew Training (armor_31 to 33):

Tank commander Artillery Barrage-> Crew Veterancy-> Crew exp gain rate


Pls, Markr, could you make a picture of such an Tectree as you did with the commander barrage? Would be soo awesome to get a visual of that.

Additionally: The tank commander barrage can be used out of so far every tank or vehicle. Including stuart, chaffe and scott.
Rangers ultimately removed and combat engineers added with satchels but also flamethrower and minesweeper as upgrades.
105 sherman would get a range cut down to approx 150. Therefore cheaper and less scatter (logically due to lower range). Limit can be set to 1.


Positive effects:
1. Doc is much more surprising. Is he going for vehicles and swarm you with light armored brigades? Does he uses sherman masses (go for many 50 mm paks) and he comes with a jumbo. Get fat at guns and he got an 105. Go for tank IV´s and he gets big guns and so on. So playing against the doc would be a lot less predictable.
2. Doc is less mate dependent. However, anti armor doc like TH doc will still be an very good counter just as def doc will be.
3. We did not break "armored principal" of adding no armored stuff.
4. Call in units gives that doc more options even without largely getting fuel. Just as the BK doc can be played with armored support even with very little fuel.


@All others. Can you pls Not give any comment unless Markr created a visiual tectree of this? Except when he totally refuses to make it.

mofetagalactica
Posts: 112
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: Possible Armor doctrine design (Could use Markrs Help)

Postby mofetagalactica » 24 Jul 2017, 22:50

I like this, implement pl0x

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 1739
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Possible Armor doctrine design (Could use Markrs Help)

Postby MarKr » 24 Jul 2017, 23:19

Warhawks97 wrote:Pls, Markr, could you make a picture of such an Tectree as you did with the commander barrage? Would be soo awesome to get a visual of that.
OK, here you go...you did not mention CP requirements for individual unlocks so before anyone starts to point at required point:THE CP REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT CHANGED IN THIS MONTAGE!
Image

And before anyone starts to jerk off over this picture: just because I posted this, it doesn't mean it will be implemented.
Image

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2453
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Possible Armor doctrine design (Could use Markrs Help)

Postby Warhawks97 » 24 Jul 2017, 23:24

Thx a lot Markr. Thx sooo much.

Yeah CP idk. Its left open. Important was the design at first.

JimQwilleran
Posts: 1096
Joined: 07 Jan 2015, 15:05

Re: Possible Armor doctrine design (Could use Markrs Help)

Postby JimQwilleran » 24 Jul 2017, 23:47

So everybody else have to fight for having smallest change approved, but warhawks comes and turns whole doc up-side down and it's ok.. right?

Who the hell is gonna use that "battlegroup"? You are facing a very specific threat on the battlefield and surely u gonna waste 800 mp for lottery that can give you something you need or not.

You try to change the game to fit your own vision of the world where everybody should spam greyhounds. And this is sad. And yes I am salty and sour here because there is absolutely no fucking need for changing everything. You want to remove rangers, you want to remove SP. Add fucking 105 sherman that you have been talking about for so many years.. Why? Just why? And that nerf to inf doc...

Uh, I am not gonna be positive and constructive here. You will do whatever you want anyway. Honestly I am out of words. I hope that this catastrophy is not gonna be implemented.

User avatar
Medic Truck
Posts: 69
Joined: 15 Jun 2017, 19:31
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal

Re: Possible Armor doctrine design (Could use Markrs Help)

Postby Medic Truck » 25 Jul 2017, 00:08

JimQwilleran wrote:So everybody else have to fight for having smallest change approved, but warhawks comes and turns whole doc up-side down and it's ok.. right?

Who the hell is gonna use that "battlegroup"? You are facing a very specific threat on the battlefield and surely u gonna waste 800 mp for lottery that can give you something you need or not.

You try to change the game to fit your own vision of the world where everybody should spam greyhounds. And this is sad. And yes I am salty and sour here because there is absolutely no fucking need for changing everything. You want to remove rangers, you want to remove SP. Add fucking 105 sherman that you have been talking about for so many years.. Why? Just why? And that nerf to inf doc...

Uh, I am not gonna be positive and constructive here. You will do whatever you want anyway. Honestly I am out of words. I hope that this catastrophy is not gonna be implemented.


Then don't call in that battlegroup and create something else? It is an option to not rely on fuel at the times of crisis. These discussions have been going on since ages now on armor doc and there have been many discussions on it not just by Warhawks.

Even the devs have clearly mentioned to not be excited. I do not see the Rangers issue to be irrelevant too. But, that is besides the point here. Why so much irated over him presenting it? I am new to these forums and I feel like hostile behaviours by few ones.

JimQwilleran
Posts: 1096
Joined: 07 Jan 2015, 15:05

Re: Possible Armor doctrine design (Could use Markrs Help)

Postby JimQwilleran » 25 Jul 2017, 00:20

Medic Truck wrote:Then don't call in that battlegroup and create something else? It is an option to not rely on fuel at the times of crisis. These discussions have been going on since ages now on armor doc and there have been many discussions on it not just by Warhawks.

Even the devs have clearly mentioned to not be excited. I do not see the Rangers issue to be irrelevant too. But, that is besides the point here. Why so much irated over him presenting it? I am new to these forums and I feel like hostile behaviours by few ones.


The longer you stay here the better you see my friend.

KornBlatt
Posts: 15
Joined: 16 Mar 2017, 23:34

Re: Possible Armor doctrine design (Could use Markrs Help)

Postby KornBlatt » 25 Jul 2017, 01:20

Why the unnecessary attack on the super Pershing? There are many units that were very rare in the western front but are in BK. Tiger elefant briefly and rarely fought the US in Italy and only before D-day.

more units = more fun

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2453
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Possible Armor doctrine design (Could use Markrs Help)

Postby Warhawks97 » 25 Jul 2017, 02:03

@Illa: That battlegroup would not be random stuff. As i said it has to be more clearly defined. It should not be like the BK one (which is often used actually besides being random). Just i let it open for suggestions. And there can be two, one for mid game some sort of light version and one for late games with e8 and stuff. Such battlegroup call ins doing fine so far in BK and RE doc. So why not?

And maybe you didnt follow the discussion about armor doc. Just there are many that consider this doc as boring. Slow, turrtle like, predictable, heavily teammate dependend, mostly idle and waiting for "jobs", unsurprising, little room for "CP unlock maneuvers" and always in pressure to rush for the SP (or pershing at least) and infantry that doesnt fit nor supports the armor in a propper way. And then there are two abilties, the global one, that bring little if any gains.... but OK, lets waste two slots and CP´s for nothing. And last but not least this SP seems to be the unit this doc has got reduced to. Even the Inf doc can be played as armored doc better as the armored doc. At the end i actually only played inf doc, no matter if i wanted tanks or inf. The tanks there are at least supported with propper support tools. Fuck even the combo of calli jeep and sherman and M10 made a whole more fun. And why has the inf doc just as many "special sherman variants" as the armored doc?

But well. My main goal is or was to get a more logical design of what "US armor" is. Giving it something that makes this doc special (no i am not talking about useless boring spam with one single "Heroe unit") with more combinations to play. Because this is what makes BK interesting (at least for me) at the end.


@KornBlatt. Its not that. Just in the way armored doc was actually supposed to work the SP is a pure contradiction. Instead of tactical tools and mobility, flexibility and speed with the capability to replace losses quicker to beat opponents, this doc now goes more often "head on" axis armor it wasnt supposed to (let alone the usual pen drop at distance combat) this tank jumps completely out of the line and design.

User avatar
Panzer-Lehr-Division
Posts: 397
Joined: 12 Dec 2014, 14:03

Re: Possible Armor doctrine design (Could use Markrs Help)

Postby Panzer-Lehr-Division » 25 Jul 2017, 10:18

JimQwilleran wrote:
Medic Truck wrote:Then don't call in that battlegroup and create something else? It is an option to not rely on fuel at the times of crisis. These discussions have been going on since ages now on armor doc and there have been many discussions on it not just by Warhawks.

Even the devs have clearly mentioned to not be excited. I do not see the Rangers issue to be irrelevant too. But, that is besides the point here. Why so much irated over him presenting it? I am new to these forums and I feel like hostile behaviours by few ones.


The longer you stay here the better you see my friend.

Jim and me may less agree, but this words are gold... sorry.. some people doesn't even come in forum and make suggestion because they know it won't be changed anyway, and thats quite alot ppl.
SunZiom: but true is you`re only one man which i know who really know how play PE

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3088
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Possible Armor doctrine design (Could use Markrs Help)

Postby Tiger1996 » 25 Jul 2017, 11:05

Even though I can see that there are currently some significant flaws in this new proposed Armor doc design... Yet, I actually consider myself as supporter of the idea to remove the SP while reworking Armor doc accordingly. Though I am not sure if the devs would welcome this idea now or not. Given the fact that it was already discussed in the past. As it honestly sounds a little bit too late at the moment.. however; we should all keep in mind that removing the SP wouldn't only result in Armor doc rework, but this might also affect the availability of some other Axis super heavy tanks in the game. The possibility of replacing multiple JagdTigers for example would be rather questionable at this point then!

Now regarding the flaws... I am totally aware that this proposal is just initial after all, but still.

1) Merging the normal Pershings unlock together with the Pershing ACE unlock.
This sounds odd.. now normal Pershings are delayed from currently 5 command points to 9 command points on the other hand!!!
I understand that it might be historically logical to see the Pershing only later available than any Tigers or Panthers.. but 9 command points to unlock normal Pershings, is still very strange.. unless you are planning to apply some limitations on Axis super heavy tanks like I pointed out earlier. Which is another story... This will trigger huge arguments.

2) Some of the suggestions are rather vague, unspecified or not clarified. For example, u said that inf doc would lose 75mm Jumbos in return, but you said nothing about the 105 Sherman of inf doc.. is it going to be removed from inf doc as well??!! Also, u said that the 75mm Jumbos would be a reward to the 76mm Jumbo. But I wonder.. how exactly??!! Would they become call-in units? If so, then what would be the cost?! 650 MP for example??!! And what about the limit? Still 2 at a time? If this is the case, then I must say that it would be OP if u ask me. Considering that call-in units are often fully upgraded too... This way the 75mm Jumbos would be significantly cheaper than they are currently.. unless u meant that they would be available to deploy from the tank depot after the unlock, in this case.. it could be fine.

3) And isn't it weird how the 105 Sherman is available earlier than the Calliope??!! Hmm... This would also give more arty to Armor doc together with the improvement of the off-map barrage.. compared to Blitz doc on the other hand! So would it be balanced enough? Not sure.

4) Now this;
Warhawks97 wrote:4. Call in units gives that doc more options even without largely getting fuel. Just as the BK doc can be played with armored support even with very little fuel.

But wait a second here. Then why did we improve the fuel supply yard upgrades of Armor doc back then?!
Warhawks97 wrote:Quicker vehicle Production-> Battle Group call in (The light Mechanized Brigade consists of 1 sherman and two greyhound or 1 sherman, 1 M10 and 1 Greyhound. Possibly also a Mix of Stuarts or chaffe, M10 and scotts 800-1000 MP. Motorpool upgrade or Tank depot required. Reward: Heavy Assault battallion. Consists of two e8 and one m4 sherman. 1100 MP)

Sounds more like the RE doc battle-group call-in, but isn't the 76 Jumbo call-in already an equivalent?!?! Also, the Blitz doc has off-map combat support group call-in. But the Armor doc has 76 Jumbo call-in, which is also cheaper btw...

Furthermore; about moving the Combat Engineers to Armor doc, I'm honestly unsure as this would only make US faction more flexible that it is already. By having specialized infantry in all docs! As I have read your recent statements on another topic where you claimed that WH faction is more flexible, which I completely disagree. After removing the KCH, now WH has only 1 variant of elite inf, and in only one doctrine... Which is Blitz doc, talking about StormTroops. On the other hand, inf doc - alone - has CQB squads who are able to spawn in buildings throughout fog of war, as well as infiltration Rangers who were recently given the ability to crawl by default. No to mention the regular Rangers in infantry doc who later become cheaper with also cheaper weapon upgrades and camo... Being more cost effective than any other Grenadier squads. This was just 1 US doctrine... Not speaking about AB doc, which is able to field 7 AB squads who are capable of reinforcing themselves from the air. Which is actually a huge advantage when fighting against Grenadiers... StormTroops might have a better situation as they are able to camo, but then u get limited number of squads and also no flame grenades.

WH is also the only faction that doesn't have any planes... Clearly, the WH faction can be everything else but while excluding the flexibility! The only doctrines which I consider truly flexible are inf, RAF, and AB. It's true that Terror, Blitz and Luft might be more versatile and all-rounded on the other hand, however, they are simply not as flexible due to confusion as to when to use which tech tree, and also due to high prices per each unit. Terror doc for example is such a powerful doctrine in late game, but in earlier stages of the game.. it's again nothing but a slow ass doctrine... And the Blitz doc can be easily locked with emplacements. Not because Blitz doc lack tools against emplacements, but because the emplacements are insanely strong, too cheap and constructed or repaired so quickly. Luft doc on the other hand is extremely versatile indeed, but so expensive to afford.. therefore it can't be flexible enough...

Moreover, I wouldn't consider having StormTroops in Blitz doc as an advantage of any sort over Armor doc... Because, after adding 2s aim time to handheld AT weapons and improving HE rounds.. it's now almost a suicide to go for StormTroops against Armor doc.
StormTroops can't do shit against Shermans... Even a Hellcat could now wipe them out with a single HE shot.

Regardless though, I am still not really against moving Combat Engineers to Armor doc.. specifically if Rangers would be removed from all other US doctrines. But I am only unsure to be honest...
=============================================================
Lastly tho, I like the suggestions overall as I said.. as long as SP would be finally removed. But I have an idea about the normal Pershings unlock.. just to fix this issue which I have pointed out above:
Tiger1996 wrote:1) Merging the normal Pershings unlock together with the Pershing ACE unlock.
This sounds odd.. now normal Pershings are delayed from currently 5 command points to 9 command points on the other hand!!!

So how about this;
Looking at the picture MarKr has posted, then you could remove this "battle group call-in support" which u have added, then the Hellcat unlock would be moved there... So the Hellcat would be available after 3 command points instead of 2 on the other hand. Then you bring back the regular Pershing unlock which u have removed for some reason and re-arrange this particular tech tree branch... As it could be as follows:
1 CP Sherman -> 4 Jacksons -> 2 CP Pershing -> 2 CP Pershing ACE.

This way u still get Jacksons after 5 CPs, which is same as what u suggested.. but now normal Pershings are available after 7 CPs only. And the Pershing Ace after 9 command points as it is... However, u would surely lose this "battle group call-in support" but there is honestly no need for it.. because:-
Tiger1996 wrote:but isn't the 76 Jumbo call-in already an equivalent??!!

HOWEVER, if you still really want to add this "battle group call-in support" Then it could be a reward to the Jumbo unlock! At this point though, 75mm Jumbo can't be a reward to the 76 Jumbo. But they don't have to! Jumbo unlock could always access both the 76 and the 75 Jumbos... So the 76 Jumbo would be a call-in limited to 1 unit at a time as it is already, and the 75mm Jumbo would be available in the tank depot to deploy after the unlock, being limited to 2. So both (75 and 76 jumbos) at the same time.. no issue.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 1739
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Possible Armor doctrine design (Could use Markrs Help)

Postby MarKr » 25 Jul 2017, 11:58

Panzer-Lehr-Division wrote:some people doesn't even come in forum and make suggestion because they know it won't be changed anyway, and thats quite alot ppl.
I am getting tired of the comments where people cry how we ignore the suggestions...
From last three patches, these things were changed according to either what people asked for or as a reaction to feedback from people:
Spoiler: show
4.9.8:
MarKr wrote:Changelog:
General:
- Tweaked reload times on US 76mm AT gun (from 7 to 6-7 seconds) and 88mm PaK43 (from 6-10 to 7-9)
- Corrected Tiger I's and Flak36 gun rear penetration against Churchill Crocodile (now it is approximately 60% at max range; cca 80% with Wolfram; higher when get closer than "max" range)


US:
- 37mm and 57mm guns should now always one-shot Dingo and Bren carriers
- Bren carriers now properly show loaded infantry
- Bren carriers can no longer upgrade BOYS AT rifle
- Vickers HMG upgrade for Bren Carrier now moves Bren gun to the pintle position
- Increased cost of Vickers HMG upgrade for Bren Carrier to 40 ammo (from 35)
- Added green flare to indicate landing area of all Gliders
- Gliders will arrive 5 seconds after the flare falls

CW:
- fixed describtion of Dummy Howitzers in some languages which gave away it is a fake one
- removed "Detonate" ability from dummy howitzers (if you want to remove the emplacement from map use "Delete" key)
- Bren carriers now properly show loaded infantry
- Bren carriers can no longer upgrade BOYS AT rifle
- Vickers HMG upgrade for Bren Carrier now moves Bren gun to the pintle position
- Increased cost of Vickers HMG upgrade for Bren Carrier to 40 ammo (from 35)
- Vickers HMG team price dropped to 280MP 20ammo (from 300MP 25ammo)
- Added green flare to indicate landing area of all Gliders
- Gliders will arrive 5 seconds after the flare falls

WM:
- reorganized abilities in Pioneer's UI
- fixed penetration values of PaK38 vs Axis Big cats (Tigers, Panthers, JPs, KTs, JTs)

PE:
- Increased Stuka bomb damage against bridges
- lowered damage of the 20mm AT cannon of BF109 against heavier allied tanks
- Luft emplaced 88mm flak36 now correctly fires 6 shots during VT
- Increased costs of 210mm Nebelwerfer barrages from 80 ammo to 100 ammo

4.9.7:
MarKr wrote:Changelog:
General:
- Implemented a system that enables easier reversing for vehicles (thanks to Endro for the tweaks)

US:
- lowered accuracy of 90mm guns against Tigers
- Increased fuel cost of Pershing by +10
- Fuel upkeep of Pershings increased to approximately 7.5
- Fuel upkeep of Jacksons increased to approximately 4.2

CW:
- BOYS should no longer have trouble killing Schwimmwagens and other light vehicle with 1HP left
- PIAT aim time halved
- increased damage of PIAT against light vehicles

WM:
- made tweaks to Sturmtiger's rocket so it SHOULDN'T happen that often that it does no damage
- Sturmtiger's callin icon should display properly on 1366x768 monitors now
- sector propaganda should work properly now


4.9.6:
MarKr wrote:Change log:
General:
- As preparations for Steam greenlight the mod has been cleaned of swastika and nazi symbols (HUGE thanks to Panzerblitz1 for all his work on this)
- Changed targeting system of "Single HE Shot" abilities on (hopefully) all vehicles that use it so now it should FINALLY work properly
- Added "Hold Ground" ability to Engineer/Sapper/Pioneer squads and other infantry squads that might need it
- The "Unload" button hotkey changed to "U" (from "D") to prevent unloading Tank Commanders when using "D" hotkey for activation of the Direct Fire ability
- When Nebelwerfers use the "Steep Angle" barrage ability the rocket tracers should visually look OK now (no sharp angles)
- Removed "Attack Ground" ability from emplaced AT guns because it could be used for bug abuse
- Applied changes to AA guns to balance their performance against planes
- Used new AI (better cover usage, units usage etc. - huge thanks to the author Sonsalt)
- AT squads in ambush should correctly use auto-fire
- Tweaked HE mode of US and CW Stuart tanks so that they don't need to direct hit soldiers in order to kill them
- Fixed "pink wheels" bug on skdfz 256/9 (huge thanks to Halftrack for the fix)
- Fixed Luft pios shooting sound bug (thanks to Panzerblitz for the fix)
- Revised Allies guns penetration chances against Jagdtiger (some were too high)
- Tank Commanders have new buffs for tanks (as described in the topic on the forum); price decreased to 220MP
- Buildings and units that allow to buy ammo/weapon upgrades will not provide upgrades to allies (only to own units)
- Infantry carried flamethrowers (+ Wasp) now apply accuracy and reload nerfs to infantry standing in fire (also applies to infantry which is not attacked directly but walks into the burning area)
- Penetration chances of stubby 75mm guns against Shermans lowered to more realistical level
- Units that heal infantry around (Triage centers/Medics etc.) no longer "heal" buildings, vehicles and AT guns

USA
- Slightly tuned the AoE of bombing run and Air Patrol + price increased by 15 munitions
- Armor Doc's "Experienced Shermans" now correctly applies to Calliope too
- CQB squad can no longer spawn at empty emplacements
- CQB now have 5 seconds delay before spawning
- Armored Jeep (AB doc) should no longer be able to bounce off PaK38 shots
- Mortar Halftrack now requires Motorpool upgrade
- White phosphorus grenade cost increased by 5 ammo, cooldown increased by 10 seconds
- Airborne doctrine sniper has now correct retreat point as other AB infantry
- Lowered scatter of upgraded bazooka (means it should no longer "miss by 50 meters")
- Rangers now correctly receive dual sticky bombs at vet level 4

CW
- Gammon Bombs should now be more effective against garrisoned troops (buildings and trenches)
- BOYS should no longer have trouble finishing off Halftracks with "1mm HP left"
- 17 pounder emplacement can no longer be build before selecting a doctrine
- Sherman Tulip Rockets have tweaked stats so they should deal correct damage more reliably to targets within AoE
- Marksman ability now requires to be aimed at an enemy unit rather than anywhere
- Stuart Recce fuel price increased by +5
- BOYS AT do not require Lieutenant in the field in order to be built
- Mortar Pit now requires Second Truck in the field
- Mine flail on Kangaroo should work properly now
- RA "Sector smoke" will now quickly fire smoke shells at vehicles and infantry squads in targeted sector

WH
- BK Panther Top MG no longer fires in a different direction than the weapon is facing (however the Top MG is intentionally only facing forward - does not rotate)
- The cheaper version of King Tiger no longer shoots from invisible turret mounted MG
- Added a cooldown of 90 seconds to the "For the Fatherland" ability
- All Stormtrooper squads capable of spawning in buildings can no longer spawn at empty emplacements
- Emplaced 75mm PaK40 has same penetration chances against allied tanks as other PaK40 guns in the game
- PaK43 crew should not survive if the gun gets destroyed
- Revised PaK43 stats against Allied tanks
- Mortar Halftrack now requires Phase 3 upgrade
- Increased cone of fire of PaK36 to match US 37mm gun
- Demolition Stormtroopers no longer need an unlock to use camouflage (camo is unavailable when they equip flamethrowers)
- Incendiary grenade cost increased by 5 ammo and cooldown increased by 10 seconds
- Tank Commander is now available to all doctrines in Tank Factory

PE
- The defensive bonus of Reg5 now only applies when they are not moving, the bonuses have been tuned down a litle bit too
- Tweaked Henschels to be more effective (better accuracy, bit more damage, better penetration)
- The Veteran Crews unlock of Tank Hunter doctrine now corectly affects PIV F1
- Sabateur Squad can no longer spawn at empty emplacements
- Henschels should not be shot down that easily anymore
- Corrected too low penetration stats of Jagdtiger against some Allied tanks
- Removed flame bomb from SE Sturm Pioneers
- Flame bomb moved to SE Sabotage squad (requires Flame weapons unlock)
- Mortar Halftrack now requires Kampfgruppekompanie
- Hauptsturmführer now has the ability to retreat to a Retreat point
- Panzergrenadier cost dropped to 325MP
- Sturmpioneer cost dropped to 360MP
- Assaultgrenadier cost dropped to 380MP
- Incendiary grenade cost increased by 5 ammo and cooldown increased by 10 seconds
- Smoke ability of Mortar Halftrack works correctly now
- PIV F2 and JPIV L48 can be unlocked separately

So really - most of the changelog stuff is based on what people report/suggest. But you simply cannot expect that we will do everything people ask for, especially when people don't agree on it themselves. Look at this topic, there are people who are for changing the stuff Warhawks suggests and people who are against it. If we implement these things, some people will say "congrats, you fucked it", when we don't do it people will say "why even bother suggesting anything?". Even when "majority" of people is for something and they swey us to do it even when we don't want to, it ends up with controversial feedback anyway (95mm Cromwell for RAF, M18 for AB doc, the change with 3rd zooka for infantry doc etc.)
So I dare to say we listen to feedback from people more than many others dev teams out there.
Image

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2453
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Possible Armor doctrine design (Could use Markrs Help)

Postby Warhawks97 » 25 Jul 2017, 12:01

@Tiger:

1.Its just Pershing. No SP or ace. Both removed.
2. The CP
OK, here you go...you did not mention CP requirements for individual unlocks so before anyone starts to point at required point:THE CP REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT CHANGED IN THIS MONTAGE!


Sure Teller wont cost 2 CP´s alone, or Pershing 4 CP. Its just not changed here.

3. Grens from WH are technically Elites. Abilties, several doctrinal buffs in def/terror, Weapons. So all WH factions have elite inf, just their names are not elite. Rangers meanwhile are unidentified in this regard. No one knows what they actually supposed to be. Combat engis are no "special infantry". They are usless alone. They have just an supportive role for armor.

4. That reward of Jumbo was a thought. Both should be in armor doc. Just i didnt say if they are reward for each other both available

5. The 105 comes first because you dont want to cluster the map in the early with calli. Calli doesnt makes sense before mid game actually. And no, it would not turn into an arty doc at all. Simply because its just one with range not higher than 150. CP cost would probably be arround 3 or so.

6. Yes, Jumbo and 105 gone from inf doc. Personally i wouldnt mind having one 105 sherman in each doc. But its not necessary i would say. Inf has afterall cheap main line inf, elites (rangers migth get buffed and limited in numbers maybe), off map, howitzers and VT (and maybe other unexpected units).

7. Yes, supply yard upgrades were added. Nontheless untill you got them all you have some rough times for the mid game.
Also if you keep doing the job, providing the entire team with armor which means e8, HE shermans, jacks then you can still run out of fuel rather quickly.
I often had the situation that towards later stages of the game i had MP ammount in reserve of approx 1000 MP or more sometimes. Just my fuel was between 30-50 when i faced fierce and intense battles going forward and backwards. I then somehow had to build stuff like AT guns or unupgraded rangers to "fill some gaps".
So when you stuck in mid game where you want more options you can go for that mobile combat group. If you want something to invest MP reserves later on then choose the armored battlegroup with E8. The call ins can be called as much ressources you actually have. Sure there would be a cooldown.

User avatar
Redgaarden
Posts: 241
Joined: 16 Jan 2015, 03:58

Re: Possible Armor doctrine design (Could use Markrs Help)

Postby Redgaarden » 25 Jul 2017, 13:16

What are we going to fill the void of infantry doctrine 105 sherman unlock?

And also. Could we get some sandbags or something for infantry doctrine regular shermans so they can't be 1hit killed by most axis armour?

And I would be happy to see combat engineers in armour doctrine. But I feel a little sad to remove my favourite unit away from infantry doctrine. But I wouldn't mind removing Rangers from the game.
Rifles are not for fighting. They are for building!

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2453
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Possible Armor doctrine design (Could use Markrs Help)

Postby Warhawks97 » 25 Jul 2017, 17:21

Redgaarden wrote:What are we going to fill the void of infantry doctrine 105 sherman unlock?


Feel free with ideas. There would be many ideas if a few people would think about it for a short time. Vet training for rangers (so they spawn vet 1) would be one of my first thoughts. VT could have one in exchange for a slight buff (activiation range), Rifle grenades could be a global upgrade so that all spawning rifles have that ability (rifle nades would be completely removed as purchasable upgrade and not require a weapon slot. In return a inf doc CP upgrade.

This is just what comes in mind in like 1 min of thinking.

It would look like this:
Faster inf production-> (below) rifle nade upgrade. The sherman and M10 would both go one slot downwards.

And also. Could we get some sandbags or something for infantry doctrine regular shermans so they can't be 1hit killed by most axis armour?

My opinion on this is that sandbags for armor doc only is stupid. All axis can upgrade skirts (which give here and there quite a boost, depending on tank and weapon shooting at it) and brits get that nice armor upgrade on all fireflies (which iirc is quite nice).

agreed here.

And I would be happy to see combat engineers in armour doctrine. But I feel a little sad to remove my favourite unit away from infantry doctrine. But I wouldn't mind removing Rangers from the game.


Whats your fav unit? Jumbo or 105? If its the 105 i knew that calli jeep would be moved to inf doc. So generally i dont know how much sense the 105 sherman will still make there. I think at least that it would fill a much better role in armor doc.

As for the Jumbo sherman. Its funny to see that armor docs like RE and armor need CP´s to get hands on some tanks with tough armor. But an inf doc can field them right away with a normal sherman unlock.

@Tiger: What i forgot to add. The 76 Jumbo or any other current call in is no equvalent to anything. Its -as the branch says- a special purpose unit or unlock that you use to deal with certain moments. Like in some cases masses makes sense, in others one tank with thicker armor. So there is a difference to the other call ins. Besides i wouldnt even bother if the 76 Jumbo would become a producable tank instead.
So how about this;
Looking at the picture MarKr has posted, then you could remove this "battle group call-in support" which u have added, then the Hellcat unlock would be moved there... So the Hellcat would be available after 3 command points instead of 2 on the other hand. Then you bring back the regular Pershing unlock which u have removed for some reason and re-arrange this particular tech tree branch... As it could be as follows:
1 CP Sherman -> 4 Jacksons -> 2 CP Pershing -> 2 CP Pershing ACE.


The Hellcat move to battlegroup would also make little sense. Faster production and then hellcat unlock? Nah. You simply have these branches. Guns, special purpose, quick reaction, mobility and harassmant and better crews. So the branches have to keep logical in itself (sure, you could put jumbo and pershing in a line saying its an armor branch and make TD having their own branch. But i thought i would organize that line rather via gun power rather than just armor as this line rather developed out of the need for better guns rather than just bigger armor (for what they finally got the jumbo as special vehicle)

User avatar
Redgaarden
Posts: 241
Joined: 16 Jan 2015, 03:58

Re: Possible Armor doctrine design (Could use Markrs Help)

Postby Redgaarden » 25 Jul 2017, 19:33

And I would be happy to see combat engineers in armour doctrine. But I feel a little sad to remove my favourite unit away from infantry doctrine. But I wouldn't mind removing Rangers from the game.

Whats your fav unit? Jumbo or 105? If its the 105 i knew that calli jeep would be moved to inf doc. So generally i dont know how much sense the 105 sherman will still make there. I think at least that it would fill a much better role in armor doc.

As for the Jumbo sherman. Its funny to see that armor docs like RE and armor need CP´s to get hands on some tanks with tough armor. But an inf doc can field them right away with a normal sherman unlock.

@Tiger: What i forgot to add. The 76 Jumbo or any other current call in is no equvalent to anything. Its -as the branch says- a special purpose unit or unlock that you use to deal with certain moments. Like in some cases masses makes sense, in others one tank with thicker armor. So there is a difference to the other call ins. Besides i wouldnt even bother if the 76 Jumbo would become a producable tank instead.


I meant combat engineers. Rangers just hasen't cut it for me. Feels like they can't shoot with their garand and only their to absorb some dmg as some really expensive sponges.

Feel free with ideas. There would be many ideas if a few people would think about it for a short time. Vet training for rangers (so they spawn vet 1) would be one of my first thoughts. VT could have one in exchange for a slight buff (activiation range), Rifle grenades could be a global upgrade so that all spawning rifles have that ability (rifle nades would be completely removed as purchasable upgrade and not require a weapon slot. In return a inf doc CP upgrade.


I'm strongly against more rangers buffs aas there pretty much already 12cp's to get them to max potetnional.

I'm against VT since I never get to field any arty on the map anyway.

I'm strongly against rilfe nade upgrade since I personally can't find it in me to invest my munitions to anything else than bombarding important targets that can't be penned by 76mm guns.

EDIT: I would like some kind of anti tank since infantry doctrien is lacking some direct fire anti tank having 76mm being their biggest anti tank gun in the doctrine. Anything to stop the panthers from parking themselves in my base.
Last edited by Redgaarden on 26 Jul 2017, 00:59, edited 1 time in total.
Rifles are not for fighting. They are for building!

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3088
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Possible Armor doctrine design (Could use Markrs Help)

Postby Tiger1996 » 25 Jul 2017, 19:40

Warhawks97 wrote:1.Its just Pershing. No SP or ace. Both removed.

I am not sure if also removing the Pershing ACE is a good idea, I think only removing the SP is rather enough.

So, the battle group call-in could be a reward to Jumbo call-in, as it would be better to keep the Pershing ACE at 9 CP and the normal Pershing at 7 CPs.
Warhawks97 wrote:Faster production and then hellcat unlock? Nah.
And it's not very weird to have the Hellcat unlock after the faster production unlock.. at least less weird than to have normal Pershings available after 9 CPs somehow! Clearly that's my opinion.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2453
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Possible Armor doctrine design (Could use Markrs Help)

Postby Warhawks97 » 25 Jul 2017, 20:40

Thing is that the left line is supposed to be the tree which contains all the special or modified sherman versions for specific roles. And nobody would choose a battlegroup of rather standard units over that special armored sherman version.


Whats the point of the Pershing ace? Sure, bit different stats than basic pershing. But what can it provide what Jumbo/jacks/Pershing cant? I mean you say it isnt a good idea. So what exactly gives you an Ace you couldnt do with other units in this doc?
Besides that i personally always felt that this ace thing is better suited for Axis in their playstyles.

The Hellcat fits in the gun branch when you going to stop or engage enemie armor. Also note: The CP´s are simply taken over by markr. I didnt suggest any CP. Means that Pershing is listed here with 9 CP in total doesnt mean anything. The numbers are there simply because i didnt make suggestions on those. So pls dont consider the CP in this pic. Markr said that clearly.

I'm strongly against more rangers buffs aas there pretty much already 12cp's to get them to max potetnional.


Thing with range is a whole different story. This is about armor doc in first place. Rangers would need to be reviewed anyways. Like better standard stats etc. So maybe at the end they would more be like some strong inf that gets just stronger (eg stormtroopers, luft inf). In return doc specific. You wouldnt need 12 CP`s then anymore. But as i said that would be a new topic.

User avatar
Redgaarden
Posts: 241
Joined: 16 Jan 2015, 03:58

Re: Possible Armor doctrine design (Could use Markrs Help)

Postby Redgaarden » 26 Jul 2017, 01:03

Whats the point of the Pershing ace? Sure, bit different stats than basic pershing. But what can it provide what Jumbo/jacks/Pershing cant? I mean you say it isnt a good idea. So what exactly gives you an Ace you couldnt do with other units in this doc?
Besides that i personally always felt that this ace thing is better suited for Axis in their playstyles.


Pershings used to be indept at using their guns against enemy targets. This is still true vs jagdpanthers and other more armored variants. The pershing ace is a low munitions investments where you get more bang for the buck and better synergy with armour doctrine abilities.
Rifles are not for fighting. They are for building!

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3088
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Possible Armor doctrine design (Could use Markrs Help)

Postby Tiger1996 » 26 Jul 2017, 01:17

Warhawks97 wrote:i personally always felt that this ace thing is better suited for Axis in their playstyles.

The concept of "ACEs" fit more for Axis, that's true.. but the idea of not removing the Pershing ACE is to allow the normal Pershings at 7 CPs instead of 9 CPs the other way around. Though I understand that the command points on the picture are not optimized, but still.. there is actually no other way to do it! I mean that the only possible way to avoid delaying the normal Pershing unlock to 9 CPs, is to not remove the ACE Pershing from the game. Also, keep in mind that Pershing ACE costs only MP. As it can be useful sometimes when u don't have enough fuel for normal Pershings on the other hand.

drivebyhobo
Posts: 63
Joined: 08 Mar 2015, 00:53

Re: Possible Armor doctrine design (Could use Markrs Help)

Postby drivebyhobo » 26 Jul 2017, 08:14

Warhawks97 wrote:Does he uses sherman masses?

Warhawks97 wrote:capability to replace losses quicker to beat opponents

My favorite recurring topic. The "lets turn Armor Doctrine into the Sherman Spam Doctrine" topic. It is completely unrealistic to have massed charges of Shermans. The US Army was not the Red Army. The US Army used its Sherman "quantity" to outfit each infantry division with dedicated tank battalions (usually the older 75MM Shermans) for infantry support. This is a luxury that German infantry divisions did not have and also why it makes sense that Infantry doctrine has significant armored options.

Warhawks97 wrote:Just in the way armored doc was actually supposed to work the SP is a pure contradiction. Instead of tactical tools and mobility, flexibility and speed with the capability to replace losses quicker to beat opponents, this doc now goes more often "head on" axis armor it wasnt supposed to (let alone the usual pen drop at distance combat) this tank jumps completely out of the line and design.

How? The SP is a pershing with a moderate upgrade to its armor and gun. If the SP is a contradiction to armor doctrine then the regular pershing is as well.

Also, mobility and speed are definitely not traits of US tanks. The top speed of a Sherman is 25 mph and that's without any addon armor. Panzer IVs are faster. The true owners of the traits of mobility and speed are the British with the Cromwell and Comet having top speeds of ~40 mph.

Redgaarden wrote:And I would be happy to see combat engineers in armour doctrine. But I feel a little sad to remove my favourite unit away from infantry doctrine

I don't see why this has to be a zero sum game between doctrines. Combat Engineer battalions were attached to both infantry and armored divisions. If the Infantry doctrine kept them, they would still have a distinct advantage in employing them as they benefit from the cheap infantry upgrade.

Tiger1996 wrote:The concept of "ACEs" fit more for Axis, that's true.. .

No, they don't. The crews of late war german heavy tanks were notorious for being inexperienced and hastily trained. Tiger 1 crews knew their tanks, their successors, not so much and were a large factor in the late war german tanks having poor combat records.

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 269
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: Possible Armor doctrine design (Could use Markrs Help)

Postby Jalis » 26 Jul 2017, 10:15

drivebyhobo wrote:Also, mobility and speed are definitely not traits of US tanks. The top speed of a Sherman is 25 mph and that's without any addon armor. Panzer IVs are faster. The true owners of the traits of mobility and speed are the British with the Cromwell and Comet having top speeds of ~40 mph.


Hmmm, it is not exactly true. Panzer IV is as vague as Sherman. IIRC Panzer IV were not able of reach 40 km/h sustained speed on road after the PIV G.

Reason is very simple ; the same engine was in service, but weight was rising at each model.

Most current battle Sherman you will see at BK (if players accept to waste money for ludicrous performance coded ingame) will probably be the M4A3. M4A3 is far heavier than PIV H or J, but its engine is also far more powerful. the M4A3 is 32 tons in the average and ford GAA engine is 450 hp (net, 500hp gross). top sustainable speed on road is 42 km/h. with 25 to 28 tons and a 300 hp engine last PIV were able to reach 38 km/h in the same conditions. Max vertical obstacle reachable and max trench were very comparable. tons/hp ratio play for the M4A3.

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1299
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: Possible Armor doctrine design (Could use Markrs Help)

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 26 Jul 2017, 11:24

I had to correct my post, Shermans and Panthers will receive the same values in speed like it was during WW2, the Jumbo will stay fat and slower, when the Easy 8 will be a little faster.
Image

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2453
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Possible Armor doctrine design (Could use Markrs Help)

Postby Warhawks97 » 26 Jul 2017, 12:29

When i talked about mobility or flexibility i didnt talk about comparing top speed of sherman vs tank IV. And the e8 was as fast as a Panther.


Its about vehicle, production speed, replacment speed and mechanized tools that work together. As for the US in general they got famous as being the most mobile army arround the world. Fully mechanized artillery and enough halftracks and trucks to move everything arround quickly.

let alone as comparision the ammount of light tanks and vehicles like the Stuart and greyhound. more than 8000 greyhounds and over almost 9 k M5 stuart and over 12 k M3 stuart.

Or the thousands of SPG´s like priests or 105 sherman.

And this is what bugs me most about US when i talk about mobility and flexibility. There is no way to utilize that. Greyhounds are outmatched largely by the 234 with 20 mm canon which are better armed, armored and cheaper. The Stuart largely by the 234/3 with 75 mm stubby, shredding MG42 and super high speed. And soon Axis dominate that low tier armor game as well when the Tank IV D comes together with stuarts.

In terms of vehicles axis dominate with cheap 20 mm canon vehicles. Allis have good M16 but as long as any 234 is placed there is nothing you can actually get to open an engagment with them.



My favorite recurring topic. The "lets turn Armor Doctrine into the Sherman Spam Doctrine" topic. It is completely unrealistic to have massed charges of Shermans. The US Army was not the Red Army. The US Army used its Sherman "quantity" to outfit each infantry division with dedicated tank battalions (usually the older 75MM Shermans) for infantry support. This is a luxury that German infantry divisions did not have and also why it makes sense that Infantry doctrine has significant armored options.



Dude. This is one branch of a new designed doctrine. Not the only option you get here. There are at least 4 branches that way. 1. Guns 2. Armor and special sherman variants 3. Quick reaction and replacment 4. vehicle training.


Your statment is also my opionion. Any sort of mass production upgrade doesnt really fit for Bk and western front style. There are only cheap mass produced tank types like tank IV J. But so far i could remove any mass prod upgrade from BK, TH, armor and inf doc. As you said its not russian style with the T34.

But we are where we are and have to accept this part of BK. But in this doc design concept this is just a branch.
The US have used arround half of their produced shermans by their own. Rest went to brits and russians.


No, they don't. The crews of late war german heavy tanks were notorious for being inexperienced and hastily trained. Tiger 1 crews knew their tanks, their successors, not so much and were a large factor in the late war german tanks having poor combat records.


The concept of single aces. Talking about those like wittmann or Kurt Knipsel. Thats why axis have these single aces while US armor would not have an ace, therefore generally well trained crews (The veterancy training unlock) with all crews being vet 1. So the picture is like allied have well trained crews but no ace, axis standard crews but single ace(s).

The Argument why Ace should stay is rather a gameplay one. You dont have to invest so much ammo like you do for normal pershings.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3088
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Possible Armor doctrine design (Could use Markrs Help)

Postby Tiger1996 » 26 Jul 2017, 12:50

Panzerblitz1 wrote:I had to correct my post, Shermans and Panthers will receive the same values in speed like it was during WW2, the Jumbo will stay fat and slower, when the Easy 8 will be a little faster.


Vehicle speeds... Hmm, this is such a controversial topic in BK Mod. But did anyone recently complain about any tank being too slow or too fast??!! As far as I am concerned; No! Therefore I believe that there is really no need to touch the speed of any vehicles. Speeds in BK Mod currently might not be absolutely accurate.. but rather "OK" at the end of the day.

However, if u just want to speak about vehicle speeds.. just for the sake of discussing... Then first u have to admit the fact that few things seem so strange. For example; both the Terror and Blitz docs Tiger tanks have flank speed ability.. allowing them to be faster than Panthers somehow. Even though I was actually able to reach a speed of 42 km/h with my Tiger1 in War Thunder, and this is the maximum speed of the Tiger tank according to Wikipedia as well. But given the fact that Panthers can reach up to a speed of 55 km per hour on the other hand, then wouldn't Panthers also deserve flank speed ability?? The same question can also apply to Easy8 btw.

Furthermore; I have actually addressed this issue in the past.. if we agree to remove the flank speed ability from Tiger tanks for example, then the accurate long range shot ability would have to be moved from veterancy level 2 to veterancy level 1 in return... Otherwise they would be useless. And this would also fit their actual role with 88 guns sniping targets from far distance like in reality!

So, as you can see.. changing the current vehicle speeds would only result in more controversial topics.

Edit:
I just saw the new speed changes for Sherman tanks, not bad... But changing the speed of Panthers would be rather questionable.. for the reasons mentioned above.


Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest