Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.

What are your thoughts on this?

Sounds good, now the doctrine is worth playing again
13
57%
Has some nice ideas, but as a whole it's flawed (please explain in a post)
6
26%
I don't really care for it, def doc has always been boring and that won't change (please explain in a post)
1
4%
This is stupid, now we have RE 2.0 (please explain in a post)
0
No votes
WTF? Now it's going to be unplayable... (please explain in a post)
3
13%
 
Total votes: 23

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2834
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby Warhawks97 » 31 Aug 2017, 13:16

If i got you right then it means that possible plans to changes on other WH docs are being into consideration during the planning of def doc. So that in future synergy will be "granted" and possible?

And dont worry, take your time. I prefer to wait something longer (much longer) if its worth it. That goes for all aspects of my life. Movies and stuff can be a great example. Rather longer waiting and therefore perfect as quickly bunched up shit. Same can be seen for comuter games.
So, take you time, as much as you want. I am already happy enough that there are really new things planned for WH at all and that someone gets really hands on it.

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 238
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby mofetagalactica » 27 Sep 2017, 07:03

This , THIS SIR .. this is how every wh rework doc should be focused on and not every doc being "good at everything". Thanks for the work +10 :!:

User avatar
lunarwolf
Posts: 91
Joined: 26 Feb 2015, 12:00

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby lunarwolf » 12 Dec 2017, 15:50

I actually play def doc sometimes.

on a positive note I agree w/ most of your suggestions for reworked doctrine tree and the T4 building for jag70 and elefant - although T4 was removed because there isn't anything to build in reality, so you would need to add more units to justify a T4 building

however, the other suggestions make it even more limited and super boring.

1. remove grens and only volks? volks are real squishy and only usefull to cap points in early game, once you get to tier 2 forget it they are almost useless. panzerfaust cost 50muni to equip then 50 muni for each shot which needs to be close if your squishy squad can even survive in mid to late game. Grens at least have option of 1 panzershrek which is a one off cost, better range and aren't so squishy in late game

2. I don't agree with the suggested use of garrisoned bunkers, it is too limiting to have to garrison units for them to work. pop cap can quickly become an issue and also too static to be fun to play if all your inf is basically camping. you are limited to only 2 mg bunkers already, the recon bunker is 100% completely useless. it does nothing except a very expensive way to produce scouts and snipers. description says it increases range but that is completely false.

3. also don't agree with limit of 2x88 and 2xarty. let people build what they want instead of forcing them to play the way you want. if you want them to build other units instead of 88s, give them more unit options. sectors captured and 150, 250 pop caps limits already exist in game so you cant just build infinite amounts.

with guys garrisoning bunkers and limited arty and 88 what do you do? sit there and pick strawberries.

4. why remove mobile pak 43? it is needed esp since allied tanks have all been pretty much buffed since this mod started way back, making most paks useless vs most US armor doc tanks unless you spend 75 to 100 munitions to penetrate. not always room on maps to build emplacements and you lose camo ability. they are so slow moving what is the problem?

5. no stupa or grille? are you kidding ? the vehicles for def doc are not much fun tbh because static in nature ie jagpanzer, super slow Ferdinand and mobelwagen. only real mobile vehicles are PIVe, Grille (only 1 shell and not super accurate) and Stupa which was completely nerfed ie range, damage, rate of fire. seriously this is absurd - do you really play this doc?

def doc is basically very static, very limited unit options (so limited it only has 3 production buildings) and no fun to play. give def doc more options not less if you want people to play it.

here are some possible suggestions you could decide to add to spice things up and give a bit more to do, not all of them ofc;) => stuh 42, sIG 33, Sturm-Infanteriegeschütz 33B, stug IV with external mg42, jagpanther, Ostwind, stuka HT, nebs, 120mm mortars etc... the idea is to give more options for more versatile play and improve boring aspect of doc. Remember back when def doc had panthers.

no one wants to play completely static game, with limited vehicles and proposed useless weak volks only infantry no one will play this doc. Just think how much more fun US inf doc is to play in comparison -> you have good inf (rangers, combat engineers, cqb etc...), mobile arty, call in arty, good selection of mortars, great anti inf tank

I understand that this is a support doc, but support can be mobile it doesn't need to be completely immobile and limited options of units esp late game (t3 and t4). with your suggestions I would build 2x88, 2xarty, 2xmg bunker and a lot of observation posts and go to sleep. volks would do what? feed the medic station? and emplacements = target for arty spam. doesn't sound like a lot of fun to play

I am not trying to sound too critical, but I honestly doubt you played this doc much. and forget 1v1 or 2v2 maps, and I won't even mention compstompers since that is a forbidden word since Xali retired.

my 2 cents

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2834
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby Warhawks97 » 12 Dec 2017, 19:58

to your points:

1. Volks are not squishy if you use them with defensive cover upgrade and officer. They can keep enemies effectively at distance. Also as suggested, the Panzerfaust would be added at default (or two shots per activation). The goal is to exactly boost the cheapest basic units in this doc.

2. Emplacment have popcap two and require a crew. Also you can play at 250 or endless popcap if you wish.

3.Yes, i am also against most of the limits. 88, 105 howitzers (and others) shouldnt be limited and instead alternatives added, made cost effective or simply more appealing to use (whatever)

4. Only a few tanks actually stand axis AT. The 50 mm AT rapes most of the stuff allies have with few exceptions. Generally i dont mind of this weapon in particular. Not even sure if the mobile version shall even get removed.

5. At least they must cost CP. But if any only grille fits in this doc (despite the hilarious functioning of this unit).


Stugs are planned for the doc, no? For the Ostwind i would say yes to move it to this doc. 120 mm mortar maybe... Jagdpanther and all that assault like stuff is not really what this doc shall be about. Stugs, inf, arty and AA tanks and Elephant should get the job done i think.

Basically, you can counter any allied doc with that one except RA maybe. You can outgun most allied docs in terms of arty... so no threat here. The guns can kill any allied tank and as many as you could think of and that from afar. I dont get where you see these problems. You are expecting again to play against mutliple allied docs combined again and standing alone without any friendly doctrines help.

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 393
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby Jalis » 13 Dec 2017, 04:52

lunarwolf wrote: and I won't even mention compstompers since that is a forbidden word since Xali retired.



It is not a forbidden word, and bk team is not responsible. Players are responsables. When Xali retired, compstompers and multicoop leave the forum after few month of wait. Remember at this time about everybody predicted BK end or at least no more support. Active remaining players were mostly pvp. It s like that bk became a pvp mod despite most players were and are probably still compstompers.

User avatar
ExE
Posts: 35
Joined: 13 Aug 2017, 03:47

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby ExE » 18 Jan 2018, 22:08

Any news about this Rework?

Is this idea still going? Is getting ready to be implement it on a new patch?
http://steamcommunity.com/id/ExE95/

Praise be to the Lord, my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2228
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby MarKr » 19 Jan 2018, 12:15

No, this version is no longer considered. It makes little sense to give "more spacialization" to Def doc which is already one of the most specilized docs (along with TH) of Axis. It is mainly BK, Terror and Luft that could use less of "I have everything" and more of "specilized approach". We're discussing a possible bigger rework which would bring changes to more than just one doctrine but coming with a viable concept, discussing details and then making some working test version takes time.
Image

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2834
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby Warhawks97 » 20 Jan 2018, 16:29

Hmm. remind me pls. Besides a "MBT" with a top mount "mega inf shredding tool" (Top mounted MG) what does this doctrine lack? Sure, a Panther (G) is already an army itself. But hey, their inf has stgs as well,they have the best pios, big guns, long ranged and fucking deadly arty+ long ranged sniper arty, superior defense, anti air units and their infantry is probably one of the most durable in game. It has probably the most deadly off map strike ive ever seen (simply bc it kills everything for sure and there is little time to escape if any, no warning and quick strike sesseion), and the thickest armor.

So there are two reasons why its not considered "mutli role like BK or Terror":

1. The Panther (Or tank IV H/G) is the lone synonome and measurment for a doctrine to be either multirole or not bc this unit alone makes up for like 50% of an armies capability (in case of Panther G, even reconassaince is done by this unit). (anti tank/anti inf/arty/air)
2. There i some sort of blindness for stuff this doctrine can provide. Actually i would say that this doctrine can handle more situations as BK doc can. Just BK doc has more multirole units and thus making this doctrine looking more multirole.

I think its sad that this concept got thrown away. I liked it bc of its nicer unlocking lines. Not whether it is suddenly so much more speciliazed or not.


However, i like the second part of your post markr.

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 238
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby mofetagalactica » 20 Jan 2018, 22:08

MarKr wrote:We're discussing a possible bigger rework which would bring changes to more than just one doctrine but coming with a viable concept, discussing details and then making some working test version takes time.


YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSS

User avatar
ExE
Posts: 35
Joined: 13 Aug 2017, 03:47

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby ExE » 22 Jan 2018, 02:54

It's nice to hear a bigger Axis Docs Rework is in the discussion table.

But for Def Doc; A Tech Tree re-arrangement is, Maybe, good enough? Like Armor Doc months ago; Not a complete Shift, just a more "logical" path of unlocking.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/ExE95/

Praise be to the Lord, my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2228
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby MarKr » 22 Jan 2018, 21:12

These "bigger-scale rework" would affect Allies too but the changes there would not be so big because Allies already are set to have strong and weak side, so there is no need for extensive changes.

Tech tree re-arangement is part of the changes for Def doc concept (pretty much the way Kronoz described it), but the bigger concept aims at making each doctrine to have some strong side and some weaker side (meaning that each doctrine has easier time in certain situations but need to make more effort to handle different situations) and part of it is moving some units from one doc to another and adjusting some abilities to emphasize this concept. Def doc would be focused on securing team's resources and teritorry, providing fire support and overall being very good (due to changes even a bit better than now) at defending what your team managed to capture, but would lack on offense (due to changes even a bit more than now).

So as I said - there is a lot to cover.
Image

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3658
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby Tiger1996 » 22 Jan 2018, 22:00

That's very interesting to hear, though it might be also a bit mind blowing how you guys are willing to implement several doctrines re-work after all these long years... It must be a very long road ahead of you to take, with massive roadblocks on the way! I bet this will need a LOT of testing too.

However, it would be also so delighting to see some particular units being re-worked accordingly, to better fit their main concept.. such as the Elefant tank for example! Currently it's nothing really rather than just some sort of a mobile bunker which is even too slow to hunt any targets, as it's one of the most useless units during the majority of PvP games. Not because it's too weak by itself.. but simply because it doesn't fulfill the correct role. Throughout the future re-workings, I'm then really looking forward to see this unit being more focused on long range engagements, as it should have been since the very beginning in the first place.

Though, in the meantime...
I think fixing any serious bugs remaining should always be the highest priority.. there isn't many bugs left anyway; I think the most serious one at the moment is the disappearing troops inside the US half-track, nonetheless... There are actually few more that were also mentioned before.

User avatar
Redgaarden
Posts: 322
Joined: 16 Jan 2015, 03:58

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby Redgaarden » 23 Jan 2018, 08:40

That is quite bold statement about the Elefant, Tiger. I for one am scared if the elephant just got a range increase. This change does not change the weakness of the tank and only strenghtens what it's supposed to do. And I think it's already good at what it's supposed to do.

I can't support this change without reason. And I think this should be discussed at another topic.
Rifles are not for fighting. They are for building!

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3658
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby Tiger1996 » 23 Jan 2018, 09:48

Hmm, I think it's absolutely fine to talk about the Elefant here.. it's a part of the Def doc after all, not to mention that it was actually discussed already as one of the core points since the very beginning of this topic.

To be honest, in my humble opinion... I believe that the range of the Elefant currently is very limited, and this is a huge disadvantage as it's also too slow to chase down any targets. It has always been very questioning how ALL the 88 tanks, which are; Tiger1, King Tiger, as well as JagdPanther all have long range abilities such as the ALRS except the Elefant! Despite that it's probably the one that deserves it the most. So, if the basic range of the Elefant should not increase, then at least it should have such an ability.. the ability can have a high cost though, but without veterancy required.

Tony_Frost
Posts: 53
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 16:41

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby Tony_Frost » 28 Jan 2018, 10:27

I definitely disagree with removing of grenaders, movable pak 43 or anything else. Please, don't make that boring doctrine more boring then it is. Don't remove any unit from it, cutting variants of play by that.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2834
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby Warhawks97 » 29 Jan 2018, 19:13

Tony_Frost wrote:I definitely disagree with removing of grenaders, movable pak 43 or anything else. Please, don't make that boring doctrine more boring then it is. Don't remove any unit from it, cutting variants of play by that.



Variants to play. Let me think... Heavy arty bashing, sniping arty, super range direct support bashing vehicle, zombie grens as superior assault units, heavy camping and defenses, heavy anti tank...

It has tons of options. The only lacking things are "Panther style" which is so fun to play or air support. When axis doctrines get reworked towards being a little bit more specialised in one direction there need to be some changes in terms of unit composition.

One thing that would help already would be to have doctrinal weapon upgrades for the grenadiers. That way we wouldnt lose a unit neccessarily.

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 393
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby Jalis » 29 Jan 2018, 23:42

Warhawks97 wrote:When axis doctrines get reworked towards being a little bit more specialised in one direction there need to be some changes in terms of unit composition.


But just a very little. You cant have specialised faction at BK, simply because it is a pvp mod to play in team (minimum 2 vs 2), but players usually dont trust or rely so much on team mate.

Roughly it means, with such approach, factions at bk cant be truly specialised, it is just a matter of slight adjustement for one being a little more efficient than an other in a particular domain. There is limits you cant reach because of pvp orientation of the mod, and players will, to be self-sufficient, even inside a team coop.

MEFISTO
Posts: 10
Joined: 18 Jun 2016, 21:15

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby MEFISTO » 22 Feb 2018, 05:22

If we are tolking about specilize faction I think that Luftw don't need the panther, and RAF don't need the Firefly (they have Hetzer and M10achilles TD) their planes can destroy any armor in the game.


Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest