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
10
53%
Has some nice ideas, but as a whole it's flawed (please explain in a post)
6
32%
I don't really care for it, def doc has always been boring and that won't change (please explain in a post)
1
5%
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)
2
11%
 
Total votes: 19

User avatar
Kr0noZ
Global Moderator
Posts: 154
Joined: 26 Nov 2014, 06:20
Location: Germany

Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby Kr0noZ » 17 Aug 2017, 13:06

Hello,

as some of you know i've been working on a def doc rework for a while now. Time to present my suggestion.
Warning - Very long post!!!
This contains some edits in response to feedback and questions from MarKr ()who has seen a almost finished draft and provided some insights to it.


Rework of Defensive Doctrine:

Preamble:
Why a rework of the Defense Doctrine? Apparently some of our users feel that this doctrine is without real purpose, unfocused and not logically structured. This has led to complaints about Defensive Doctrine being a bad choice.
This rework is aimed at changing the doctrine completely, to not only alleviate those issues but also give some unique game play to this branch of the Wehrmacht – apparently, there isn’t enough diversity in the Axis doctrines compared to the Allies.

Aim of this rework:
Here I shall try to outline my vision of a defensive-focused doctrine that incorporates unique game play and faction design with iconic pieces of technology that I feel are somewhat under-represented in the context of their historical abundance. Some points have been mentioned before, by me and others and some have previously been rejected by the modding team for various reasons – however, in the context of this large-scale project these ideas might be more valid than as a standalone design choice and have merits of their own which haven’t been obvious (or even required) before.
This will take some massive wall-of-text-reading on your part and I might need more than one post, so please bear with me as you follow me down into the rabbit-hole that is my mind for a journey to weird-town.

Core Design Concept:
- Defensive Doctrine should be a support doctrine with a focus on holding owned territory and supporting the team with basic units and artillery support during pushes and in the late game phase
- the doctrine is not designed as a 1v1 duel choice and will suffer from a weak early-game and a lack of elite units as well as heavy vehicles during later stages
- its core design revolves around the use of basic units in combination with fortifications and doctrine-based upgrades to survive, then help out by securing territory and delivering precise, hard-hitting artillery support from a safe base of operations

Changes to Reward Units:
- Choose between Jagdpanzer IV/48 (pure AT) OR Stug III Ausf. G (slightly less powerful vs. Tank but
has an MG)
- Pantherturm (lower vision range of 20 if not garrisoned so you would need at least another unit
nearby to spot targets or have one inside the Pantherturm, no HE rounds, expensive but durable)
OR Pak 40 emplacement (cheaper, has higher vision range and can use HE rounds but less durable)
- Sturmpanzer IV (Heavy armor, has free direct fire; available in T4 building) OR Sturmpanzer 38(t) (light armor, shots cost ammo but
has indirect shot AND direct shot, participates in Officer's Victor Target; available in T3 building)


Change to Doctrine Tree:
(Notice: I can’t make Icons, so I’ll do this as text – I hope that someone with decent art-skills can make cool new Icons for this stuff if implementation is greenlit)

Layout for reference:
1 – 2 – 3 – 4
5 – 6 – 7 – 8
9 – 10 – 11 – 12
13 – 14 – 15 – 16


1. “Basic Tank Destroyers” (2CP) Unlocks JP IV/48 or StuG III Ausf. G (reward choice)
2. “Sector Reinforcements (2CP)” Call-In with 2 Volksgrenadiers and a Stug IV for 800 MP
3. “Jagdpanzer IV/70” (2CP) Unlocks the JP IV/70
4. “Jagdpanzer Tiger P Elefant” (3 CP) allows to build the Elefant Tankhunter from the Heavy Tank
Factory

6. “Fortify the Perimeter” (1CP) Upgrades Base Buildings with MG’s, increases build speed of
Pioneers by 20% total; enables reinforcement at bunkers and medic bunkers
7. “Sector Security” (1CP) Upgrades all Listening Posts: -50% Damage from small arms fire, +50%
Sight range, gains vampir ability over range of 30 (camouflaged units appear on the minimap); All
mines become 33% cheaper

5. “Cover & Fight training” (2CP) Stays like it is now, but with half the bonus it currently provides; This
bonus gets doubled when in friendly territory
9. “Advanced Defense Tactics” (2CP) Pioneers get the same rifle as Volksgrenadiers, can lay Teller
Mines and can be upgraded with MP40’s; Dropped: Volksgrenadiers fire 2 Panzerfausts instead of 1 per use
Replace: Volksgrenadier-Squads already delployed AND newly built OR called-in have the Panzerfaust upgrade by default

to compensate for the lack of Panzerschrecks in the doctrine
Explanation: Without Grenadiers, it's only possible to get 4 Panzerschreck by means of the 2 AT-Squads. Those are still a valuable
option due to the ambush ability, so no change needed here

10.”For the Fatherland” (1 CP) Enables the use of the “For the Fatherland” global ability

8. “Field Fortifications” (2 CP) Pioneers can build Bunkers at reduced cost; Unlocks the Pak 40
Emplacement
12.”Heavy Fortifications” (2CP) unlocks the PAK43 emplacement, Tank traps cost reduced from 25MP
to 15MP
11.”Improved emplacements” (2CP) All emplacement (not the crew!) get +50% HP and take reduced
damage from all sources except demo-charges and satchels
Explanation: With the new smoke options and some other changes to the disadvantage ob emplacements lately, I feel
that emplacements without improvements in later stages might not be worth building


13. “lFh 18 105mm Howitzer” (2CP) Unlocks both emplaced and non-emplaced lFh 18
14. “Rapid Response Artillery” (2CP) Unlocks the “Registered Artillery” ability
15. “Flak 36 88mm Artillery” (2CP) Unlocks both emplaced and non-emplaced 88mm Flak 36
16. “sFH 18 150mm Artillery Salvo” (2CP) Unlocks the 150mm off-map artillery


Changes to unit selection:
- has only Volksgrenadiers as fighting infantry, Grenadiers are removed
Explanation:
I want this doctrine to fulfill a more support-oriented role. Grenadiers with their high base stats, matching other factions
elite units in some cases, would profit so much from all the buffs that they become an assault force by themselves. This has
in fact been proven by several players and is not my intention for a support doctrine focusing on holding territory and using
arty, emplacements and tank hunters. You will still be able to move in behind a sector has been cleared by your team and
them make sure the enemy will have a hard time taking it back by building defenses, digging in and laying mines as well as
create forward healing stations for your mates to fall back to.

- Officer gets a guard squad of 3 Volksgrenadier-soldiers, armed with G43 to enable the use of the
officer on the frontlines as support for the combat units
- vehicle choice restricted to SdKfz. 251-based units, removal of all Puma-variations
- can build both the cm Pak38 AND the le.IG18 from the T2-building
- movable Pak43 removed, instead becomes available as emplacement
Explanation:
At over 3,5 of weight (the Pak 40 weighs 1,5t)this just doesn’t make sense as a mobile unit, this thing had to
be moved by truck. Therefore, the only reasonable use is in the form of an emplacement.

- Unit cap on Möbelwagen removed
Explanation:
I don’t get that limit at all – Flakpanzer 38(t) has no limit, neither has the Halftrack with 2cm AA, both are
more flexible because you don’t have to switch modes and are cheaper

- shared unit cap on 105mm and 88mm guns (4 each)


Changes to structures:
- Get’s the T4 building back, now contains the following units: Jagdpanzer IV/70, Tankhunter Elefant (after it’s unlocked in the doctrine)
Explanation:
Why a buildable Elefant? In my opinion, after most German doctrines get their heavy and super heavy Tanks (a category in
which in this case the Elefant would fit in between) buildable in their respective T4, I feel the Tank Hunter Tiger a.k.a.
Elefant shouldn’t get the special treatment as a call-in. Also, a cheaper Call-in that is useable earlier might benefit game
play more than having a very expensive late game unit which is very slow and highly specialized. If the game drags on to
the point where you can make good use of the Elefant you can just as well build it, but if things go bad saving up the
1500MP to get it will only make you lose faster because you lose presence on the field and even when you get it you
probably won’t turn the game around with it because it’s slow, much less durable than a JT and can’t do anything vs.
infantry.

- changes to the bunkers: cost dropped to 300MP, after the unlock down to 250MP; Dropped: Upgrades get mostly removed (only repair bunker and observation bunker stay; observation bunker increases the vision range of units inside instead of having huge vision itself; no vision range when not garrisoned), bunkers (so if Allies clear a bunker it can now be ignored – the high resistance to damage therefore isn’t an issue anymore and can be left alone, also you can now demo it without being seen all the time). Reinforcement only works while a bunker is garrisoned so you actually need units for defense now instead of just bunkers.
Replace: Bunkers become exclusive to Defensive Doctrine, Blitzkrieg and Terror Doctrines get a Repair Station instead (same model as before) at much lower cost and lower durability. MG upgrade stays, Feuerleitbunker is removed. However, sight range of bunker is reduced to 10 so once all garrisoned infantry and units in the area are taken out it becomes a lot easier to sneak up and demolish it, even if upgraded with an MG. Observation Bunker upgrade increases the vision range of units inside instead of having huge vision itself. Repair Bunker can't be garrisoned.

- Healing Station is replaced by a complete medic bunker which is also very durable, but can’t be garrisoned. The medics can be killed to slow casualty-collection, but the structure itself is very robust and can always be used to reinforce after the doctrine unlock
- Listening Post: After Doctrine unlock, it gets 50% damage reduction from small arms fire and a large increase in vision range as well as short detection range (like the Vampir, displays stealthed enemies on the minimap without actually revealing the unit so the enemy isn’t immediately aware that his cover is blown)

This creates some issues with the build menu space, which is why some changes are required to make it like this:
pioneer menu.png



Changes to Tech:
-once you reach “Escalate to Assault Phase”, all Volksgrenadier-Leaders get a G43 instead of the K98k, also all Volksgrenadiers get the option to upgrade to G43 (instead of MP40) at 2x 40ammo (for 2 rifles/upgrade)
Explanation:
Why this upgrade? WTF???
Well, since there’s no heavy infantry, the basic stuff needs to somehow be able to scale up during
the game. In addition to the stats-buffs from doctrinal unlocks and the officer, a better rifle is
required; the G43 was produced almost half a million times from ’43 to ’45 (more than the Stg44),
but in the game it’s much less present than the Stg44 which is available for both axis factions over
multiple doctrines and almost always a “must-have buy”. Because of this I decided that this
doctrine would be an ideal place for this rifle to shine (as there are no Stg44-options for ANY unit
here)

- Upon reaching T4, the Officer squad gets the victor target ability without an extra unlock in the
doctrine tree


Changes to Global abilities:
- Adds a new Call-In: Reserve Reinforcements (Delivers 2 Volksgrenadiers w/ Panzerfaust-Upgrades and a StuG IV) for 800 MP, 300 seconds cooldown
- Change Rocket Barrage into a “sFH18-Barrage” at identical cost; drops 3 series of 6 150mm shells; 1st shells hit after 3 sec, 6 shells fall quickly (5secs), the after 4 secs delay another 6 in 5 secs, then again after 4 secs another 6 shells in 5 secs. This should kill anything in its target radius just like the current rockets but also fits better with the theme of Gun-Artillery in this doctrine (the rocket salvo should be used in Terror, as they have all the fancy rocket arty)
Explanation:
Originally calulated to 18 shells because the sFh18 was used in 6-gun batteries and I was thinking of 3 shots per gun. However, Long Tom uses 9
shells of comparable power - therefore going down to 3 salvos of 3 shells each might be better (so 9 total as well)

- Registered Artillery: Currently unlock together with the 280mm Rocket Salve; Change it to unlock with “Rapid Response Artillery”, drop cost from 125
ammo to 80 ammo (very good value due to relative power of the strike within its not so small area of effect).


Balance changes:
- fix damage values of Tiger and Flak 36 to match at 135-165 (same as Pak 43 etc. – same caliber!)
This seems to cause some disagreements. At least the damagedealt by Flak 36 and Tiger should be the same, as the gun is identical
and the ammo is identical as well - a difference here make no sense at all. Having the 88mm/L71 guns have higher damage AND better penetration
isn't exactly reasonable but if most people feel that it has to have more power then I can live with that - tuning can be done later once playtesting
reveals if there are any issues

- make sure that the 88mm/L71 has higher penetration than the 88mm/L56 in all cases
- Change G43 damage to match K98k, as both rifles used the same ammunition; since the version used here has no scope it's accuracy
should be less good on long range, but rate of fire is higher (basically works like the M1 Garand)


EDIT: 1st round of editing is done, changes in light blue. Please consider and give new feedback. btw, the vote allows you to change your choice, so is can be updated to reflect current opinions.

User avatar
Redgaarden
Posts: 248
Joined: 16 Jan 2015, 03:58

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby Redgaarden » 17 Aug 2017, 14:06

9. “Advanced Defense Tactics” (2CP) Pioneers get the same rifle as Volksgrenadiers, can lay Teller
Mines and can be upgraded with MP40’s; Volksgrenadiers fire 2 Panzerfausts instead of 1 per use


You know how much dmg panzerfuast does? it's actually alot better perfomring than panzershreck atm. I think this is a bad idea since it will be the same again where you just rush a tank frontally and kill it with 2-4 rockets. Only the rockets do alot more dmg now.

5. “Cover & Fight training” (2CP) Stays like it is now, but with half the bonus it currently provides; This
bonus gets doubled when in friendly territory


Even if this is a teamgame I dont think you should be punished for playing 1v1-2v2, this isn't an american doctrine. And I dislike the whole never attacking apporach. Note that I would say it is understandable if they had more breakthrough capabilities, but since this i not the case, I see no reason why they should get half bonus from being in friendly territory.¨

11.”Improved emplacements” (2CP) All emplacement (not the crew!) get +50% HP and take reduced
damage from all sources except demo-charges and satchels


You haven't heard all the complaining from emplacements? I think Germans had a more modern approach to defensive strategies. For example mobile defence where you use your mobility to concentrate your attack on the attacking enemy.

- fix damage values of Tiger and Flak 36 to match at 135-165 (same as Pak 43 etc. – same caliber!)


I think it should be the other way around. Fix dmg values to 110-140 You already get alot more dmg from ap rounds. And I think one hit killing vehicles is actually a big problem.

Change Rocket Barrage into a “sFH18-Barrage” at identical cost; drops 3 series of 6 150mm shells; 1st shells hit after 3 sec, 6 shells fall quickly (5secs), the after 4 secs delay another 6 in 5 secs, then again after 4 secs another 6 shells in 5 secs. This should kill anything in its target radius just like the current rockets but also fits better with the theme of Gun-Artillery in this doctrine (the rocket salvo should be used in Terror, as they have all the fancy rocket arty)


Way too many arty shells. And depends on what shells you use. if it's the same as hummel and grille, then it will melt through the ground. If it's less dmg for more aoe or whatnot then you still dont need that many shells. But I do like the inital shell and then a small delay.


Edit: Has some nice ideas, but as a whole it's flawed (please explain in a post) was what I voted.
Rifles are not for fighting. They are for building!

User avatar
idliketoplaybetter
Posts: 219
Joined: 26 Feb 2016, 19:55

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby idliketoplaybetter » 17 Aug 2017, 17:04

Well, first of all, i like preety much all ideas. More ability to counter attack with somewhat earlier Elephants and Offmap groups.
More specialised, than normally WM doc's are, but can work itself out.

Finally defensive bonus will make sense, instead of just making volks into undeads. G43 extra bonus is nice as well. However g43 maybe was a mass produced rifle, but wasnt very good one, unlike in the game its a killer. So who knows how it will work itself in number of 1per squad with all the bonuses..

Trading PzrFausts like that is a cool thing. More power/shorter range-lower accuracy mixed with Volks earlier low HP. All fine imo.(actually i had same thought like a week ago, to propose change all or defdoc/SE doc ATsqauds into cheaper PzFaust squads :D)

Changing Heal station to Medic bunker, isnt really a bad idea, but there is something wrong with medics from MedBunkers.
They die and never really respawn back, which may cause a problem.
Also, im a bit unsure about the price of bunkers now/after bonus. Bunkers can be abused preety well even now, and they will get even cheaper..but its a price question, so relative.

Maybe yes, too many arty-shells, there i agree to Gaarden.

Aside of anything, i guess this will totally make doctrine more attractive for use..So i vote for "now it's worth playing" (but i never thought it was unplayable before, but now it is more consistent).


Thank you for the huge job.
"You can argue only with like-minded people"

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2521
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby Warhawks97 » 17 Aug 2017, 18:22

I love the doctrine, the design.

Thx SOOO much Kronoz. Awesome work and a design that is just beautifull. Its special and so on. Unlock makes sense and the new arty strike is great as well.

Also many thx to the 88 gun damage changes for tiger and flak 36.
I think the old reason why the 88/L71 had higher damage was bc of the higher velocity of the shell. Same as with 75 mm L/48 and Panthers L/70.
However i agree that the damage differences between tiger 88 L/56 and the 88/L71 is too big. So bringing their damage closer to each other makes sense.


To the critics:

You know how much dmg panzerfuast does? it's actually alot better perfomring than panzershreck atm. I think this is a bad idea since it will be the same again where you just rush a tank frontally and kill it with 2-4 rockets. Only the rockets do alot more dmg now.


I am not afraid about the Panzerfaust change for some reasons like red is.
1. It has shorter range than schrecks
2. Activation time and you can get out of range
3. Volks die much faster than grens. And the def boost work mainly in friendly ground only. So any rush thing is unlikely to happen with volks during offense.
4. Each upgrade costs.

However also a suggestion could be that def pays less ammo for Panzerfaust upgrade?


Even if this is a teamgame I dont think you should be punished for playing 1v1-2v2, this isn't an american doctrine. And I dislike the whole never attacking apporach. Note that I would say it is understandable if they had more breakthrough capabilities, but since this i not the case, I see no reason why they should get half bonus from being in friendly territory.¨


About being punished when playing it in 1 vs 1. I think armor doc looks even worse vs luftwaffe doctrine for example or maybe TH doc. Despite that i think it wont do bad in 1 vs 1 (on small or medium maps like most play) bc you can quickly boost your cheap basic inf (even pios become deadly) and you can quickly trench in close to base. 88 or arty will do the rest. So from this point i dont think it will do so bad here.

Also elephant and arty are definiately break through capabilties. Even if it doesnt breakthrough fast it will slowly beat down the enemie.


You haven't heard all the complaining from emplacements? I think Germans had a more modern approach to defensive strategies. For example mobile defence where you use your mobility to concentrate your attack on the attacking enemy.


And the americans had lot more tactical tools of modern sort for offense than just "spam". Most of the time defensive is mobile in BK, esspecially as axis. Less is often more. As for me a small unit composiiton of 50 mm pak, puma, recon volks and mortar is very good to counter most of the stuff enemie throws at you, just micro a bit.
However heavy fortified positions appeared in ww2 as well.

Stug IV, Jagdpanzers in ambush but also normal combinations of 50 mm AT, recon, sniper and so on are possible.

Also mobility is defense and offense at once. So you wont create a "mobile defense doc" which wouldnt be at the same time an offensive doctrine. And tank traps, mines, emplacments and the slow "guderian duck" (Jagdpanzer IV with panther canons) existed.

The bunkers wont provide vision so an additional unit means 500 MP to have a working fortification. Its not like the old bunkers at this point.
Last but not least: The damage of p-47 bunker of long tom against bunkers can be increased in afterwards as well.

Question at Kronoz: Will bunkers be def doc only? if the bunkers stay for all 6 docs at 300 MP then i might be a bit afraid of the kind of defensive spam. get one for 300 MP and put a remaining early game unit inside. Or put units inside whenever you dont go for an assault to protect them against arty. So they should be def doc only. Bunkers are nothing you "just build".

I think it should be the other way around. Fix dmg values to 110-140 You already get alot more dmg from ap rounds. And I think one hit killing vehicles is actually a big problem.


jagdpanther, KT etc already have 135-165 damage and its fine. US 90 mm has 130-160. From ambush its even more.
The basic flak 36 88 has currently even 150-200 damage (!)

The tiger 88 gun is just slightly better than Panther gun (100-130 vs 110-140). With AP the damage is boosted by 25%. If Panther triggers just the 115 damage+ AP even a sandagged e8 is oneshoted.

I think the L/71 can keep the 135-165 damage. The Tiger 88 and flak 36 approx 120-150.

I would rather get rid of any damage boost for any AP rounds. The US 90 mm loses for example 15% of the damage when using AP.

Way too many arty shells. And depends on what shells you use. if it's the same as hummel and grille, then it will melt through the ground. If it's less dmg for more aoe or whatnot then you still dont need that many shells. But I do like the inital shell and then a small delay.


Maybe two quick sessions are enough? total of 12 shots? Whats the ammount of US 105 or long tom? Just to get a feeling.



@Kronoz: I see the grille and stupa would be removed right?
Also can the the advanced repair ability for pios can be unlocked along with either "fortify the perimeter" or "advanced defense tactics"? Its an ability of great use and impact. There are things unlocked currently in the game that have by far a less cruical impact. So 1 CP to spend for getting this wouldnt be wrong i think. Its for all pio squads in game, no limits or no cost to upgrade it. So1 CP could be worth it.

What about adding also the ostwind to this doc?
1. It would add exactly this what redgaarden called mobile defense what the möbelwagen isnt really.
2. Increasing the dependency for teamplay between WH factions
3. You could create a real area at which units are save to any air operations so far.

What could also be made special for this doc is the ability to get ammo out of tank and vehicle wrecks. So this doc be able to stand its ground for relatively little cost with all tricks you can get. Excellent choice when being pushed back hard and able to maintain the frontline even when all odds are against it. In return this ability would not just provide ammo but also fuel (whenever you get 5 ammo you get also like 2 fuel out of it).
In return no other doctrine or faction would be able to loot stuff in such a way.


About the G43: I am glad to see it in use by Wehrmacht and reducing the ammount of stgs a bit (which in my opinion do only belong to PE heavy assault squads, ss squad and stormtrooper from Bk doc). The concerns Idliketoplay better regarding this matter are real as well and he is right.
The general problem of the G43 in my opinion is the the sheer damage per bullet. 27-36 compared to 23 to 33 of a K98 and 20-30 of a Garand.
At max range it fires every 1.875 to 2,25 second a shot compared to 2.5 for K98 and 2,625 seconds for M1.
The accuracy is still better than those of a ranger M1 Garand.

I know its a upgraded weapon mostly. Only BK leader stormsquad uses one or two of these G43 as well as the SS squad uses like 4 or 5 of them at default (Gebirgs use a version with scope and accuracy stats of elite K98 used by storms and grens).
Accuracy and rof is fine for a semi firing rifle. Just the damage is overrated. The upgrades dont have to be as high as 40 or 50 ammo for two rifles. 30-35 would be enough.

we could make the weapon more a mass weapon rather than being a rare high efficiency killer.

I gave a yes in the vote. Nice job.


Edit: @Kronoz: Are you going to make something similiar for terror as well?

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3207
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 » 17 Aug 2017, 21:25

To be honest, the current design of this doctrine isn't that bad. However, this new design here also sounds good.. even though I have actually voted "Has some nice ideas, but as a whole it's flawed" as I don't really like some of the changes.

At first it's probably worth to mention that I agree to changing the damage of Flak 88s and Tiger1 cannon, being equal at a value of 120-150 or a bit higher, regardless if this particular Def doc design was ever implemented whether not.

Regarding the few changes I don't really like; is removing the possibility to upgrade bunkers into MG nests for example.
From what I understand, it is mentioned that Bunkers would lose their upgrades except the repair station and observation. While the good thing about the MG nest is how it is impossible for snipers to kill the gunner. Which is a disadvantage if you would put regular MG teams inside!

I like how the Stug would be added to this doctrine though. Also, I like how you made the LeiG.18 no longer a reward unit but apparently limited only to Def doc and available sooner. I also like how you removed Grenadiers and gave G43 to Volks.
But such a doctrine rework can not work alone... I mean, you would probably need to rework all other doctrines accordingly.
For example US infantry doctrine should be the only one to have Rangers too, and Terror doc would have to be changed as well.
On and on...

But I would perhaps wonder the same as Hawks considering the Stupa and the Grille, what's their position in ur mind now? Something we have missed?

And btw, in my opinion the Elephant is so much of a useless tank in BK Mod currently... I mean; all the 88 guns of Tiger1, JagdPanther, and King Tiger are able to use awesome abilities such as the accurate long range shot ability. The Elephant on the other hand is the slowest and doesn't have such an ability. Stationary position only increases the range by 5 or so.. not to mention that being static is like asking for instant suicide by planes or arty. This tank really should have the accurate long shot ability at veterancy level 1 or so. Just a thought!
Generally, I would say... How about creating a private beta version that to be shared only with few people who show interest?
I think this is the best way to practically make experiments on those kind of ideas when they are fully complete.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2521
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby Warhawks97 » 17 Aug 2017, 23:03

Sure, i guess that idea would work best in conjucntion with terror doc overhaul. I think this is just some sort of beginning.
The Bunkers probably have to be changed that way .
The elephant may becomes more usefull when producable.

User avatar
ExE
Posts: 31
Joined: 13 Aug 2017, 03:47

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby ExE » 18 Aug 2017, 05:44

First of all, thanks Kr0noZ for this new Doc. concept.

I like most of the changes; of course it's going to need some tweaks here and there...

And here is, in my opinion, the things that need some clarification... just a brainstorm.

About the call-in; Is going to be always the same group? or is going to be like the BK call-in with a little randomization? (like, 1 Volks MP-40's and 1 Volks with G43; 2 Volks with MP-40's... and so on).

About the Elefant; I agree with Tiger; give that TD more abilities; at least the Veteran Shot w/ vet 1. Maybe the "Assault" one aswell, just like the new StuG III Ausf. G. (Sidenote; the description says it gives boost to Storms and Gren only, so... maybe just for Def. doc it gives bonuses to Volks?).

9. “Advanced Defense Tactics” (2CP) Pioneers get the same rifle as Volksgrenadiers, can lay Teller
Mines and can be upgraded with MP40’s; Volksgrenadiers fire 2 Panzerfausts instead of 1 per use
to compensate for the lack of Panzerschrecks in the doctrine.


About the last part; What does it mean "the lack of Panzerschrecks in the doctrine"? Panzerjägers are gone?

16. “sFH 18 150mm Artillery Salvo” (2CP) Unlocks the 150mm off-map artillery.

- Change Rocket Barrage into a “sFH18-Barrage” at identical cost; drops 3 series of 6 150mm shells; 1st shells hit after 3 sec, 6 shells fall quickly (5secs), the after 4 secs delay another 6 in 5 secs, then again after 4 secs another 6 shells in 5 secs. This should kill anything in its target radius just like the current rockets but also fits better with the theme of Gun-Artillery in this doctrine (the rocket salvo should be used in Terror, as they have all the fancy rocket arty).


Too many shells, I think. Perhaps just one salvo is enough; we're talking about 150mm arty. Because after the first serie hits, I don't think you will be in that sector anymore... Maybe make that ability the "Precision Strike" type of call-in. Just a thought.

- can build both the cm Pak38 AND the le.IG18 from the T2-building


About the le. IG18; It's suicide NOT to choose the PAK38 because, well... you get more benefits with it over the le. IG18. So, can you make the latter one no more a reward unit, instead, just a Def. doc field gun?

- changes to the bunkers: cost dropped to 300MP, after the unlock down to 250MP


Is this going to be a global change for WM? Or just Def. doc?

-once you reach “Escalate to Assault Phase”, all Volksgrenadier-Leaders get a G43 instead of the K98k, also all Volksgrenadiers get the option to upgrade to G43 (instead of MP40) at 2x 40ammo (for 2 rifles/upgrade)


What is going to happen if you need the MP-40's for close quarters? Maybe use the upgraded Pios? 'Cuz they're going to have the same Kar 98 as Volks, aswell as the MP-40's. (I believe I answer myself :lol: )

- Upon reaching T4, the Officer squad gets the victor target ability without an extra unlock in the
doctrine tree


VT for which gun, 105 or 88?

About the Grille and Stupa; What is going to happen with them?

Also, let's not forget the Advanced Repairs for Pios; with “Fortify the Perimeter” unlock seems good enough for me. Because “Advanced Defense Tactics” is more ofensive in regards to Pios.

That's it from me.

Keep up the good work. ;)
http://steamcommunity.com/id/ExE95/

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

kwok
Posts: 1072
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby kwok » 18 Aug 2017, 06:20

To be honest, I think the def doc is not the doctrine to work on in terms of "axis docs lack variety". It is more so the terror doc that is the trouble maker as it will encompass all capabilities relative to the blitz and def doc. I will type up more about my thoughts on the new doctrine later when I have more time at the computer.

But some small side notes to start things off:
I think that the well-roundedness aspects of a doctrine are not coming from unit availability but of doctrine capability. For this reason I think that doctrines like AB and RAF I consider as "well-rounded" and why they have been suddenly extremely popular.
Is this new doctrine try to achieve better "well-roundedness" so that it can compete with the appeal in terror doctrine? Or is this rework trying to push the axis faction to a more "specialized" structure? You imply you intend to make it more specialized, so the next question is where does this new doctrine LACK capability? Just because it doesn't have grenadiers doesn't mean it will lack tools to handle situations if the role that grens formally played are replaced by new tools with the same capability.

When will a doctrine be chosen within the game and how will it affect the availability of units for player who have NOT chosen a doctrine yet? Simply, if an axis player reaches T2 when grens are normally available, they build a gren, and then they choose def doc does it not break the doctrine? Would you solve it by just making grens unavailable unless a player chooses a doc? This really forces axis players to choose doctrines early which is a huge disadvantage in a game designed with doctrines countering doctrines. Would you buff the doctrine so it can withstand more despite a counter-pick doctrine? Then you fall into the never ending buff/nerf cycle I described in my other post.

I'd have no problem giving more details in my critiques and I have a few more in mind, but I can't at the moment. Thought I'd get SOME questions out early though so that it can be thought through in the mean time.

(I didn't vote, firstly because I want to ask more details about it, secondly there was no poll option for "I think this is too strong of a doctrine as of now until i have some questions answered")

User avatar
Kr0noZ
Global Moderator
Posts: 154
Joined: 26 Nov 2014, 06:20
Location: Germany

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby Kr0noZ » 18 Aug 2017, 07:32

Thanks for all the feedback, keep it coming.
I noticed that some points DO need clarification, so I'll work on that later today and edit my responses into the 1st Post in a different color; stay tuned;
Unfortunately, due to RL I'm going to be a little busy the next couple days and then gone for a week (will be attending "gamescom" in Cologne - if anyone happens to be there give me a shout ;-) ).

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2521
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby Warhawks97 » 18 Aug 2017, 13:43

I wanted to go to gamescom. Its just two hours away from me. But have no time and yeah...too bad.

@Kwok: Well, grens are, as stated in very first post, elite infantry in so far every aspect. So i think it wouldnt be such a big deal when people would have to choose a doc to get them like players choose RAF for commandos (the enfield commandos is actually not superior to WH grens).

@Kronoz:
Volks lose their Mp40 later in exchange for G43 rifles.
What about this instead:
Volks will keep shooting 1 faust per ability use. In return, Volks are automatically upgraded with faust when reaching t4 or when unlocking advanced defense tactics. Faust upgrade slot can then be used by G43 upgrade.

Also thinkable is that volks get faust with t4 at default and g43 as upgrade. And instead that they fire two per shot after unlock the cooldown of the ability is simply reduced. I think this would be more usefull for several reasons.
1. Fuast per squad cost 50 ammo. So four squads cost 200 ammo just for upgrading the faust.
2. Two shots also mean longer under fire. That largely increases chance to lose the squad before.
3. Having more squads all with free faust upgrade increases the tactical usefullness of the weapon.


About elephhant:
The KT, Jagdpanther, Nashorn and elephant use all the same gun. But only KT has a basic range of 70 and 75 with stationary position.
I´ve been always voting for a range 70 for all units using this gun. The Jagdpanther in return just one ambush shot instead of two with a then range of 80.

The elephant could then reach tanks from save distance without switching in stat mode which makes them insta dying to arty and planes quite often. In stat mode it would have 75 range.
A long range shot ability like KT or jagdpanther get it with vet would fit as well with vet 2 or so.


Also what would you think about making that scavanger ability for def doc only but in return giving ammo and fuel instead of only ammo?
Ostwind could also work nicely in conjunction with the elephant when moving it from BK to this doc.

User avatar
Kr0noZ
Global Moderator
Posts: 154
Joined: 26 Nov 2014, 06:20
Location: Germany

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby Kr0noZ » 18 Aug 2017, 15:13

I have finished the first round of edits. See 1st post for changes.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2521
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby Warhawks97 » 18 Aug 2017, 16:51

This seems to cause some disagreements. At least the damagedealt by Flak 36 and Tiger should be the same, as the gun is identical
and the ammo is identical as well - a difference here make no sense at all. Having the 88mm/L71 guns have higher damage AND better penetration
isn't exactly reasonable but if most people feel that it has to have more power then I can live with that - tuning can be done later once playtesting
reveals if there are any issues


Bc of the higher cintetic energy. I think for the same reason the panther gun or 17 pdr deal more damage than Tank IV or US 76 guns although their calibres are the same.

However the weight of the shell might also be reason why panther guns deals more damage than those of tank IV (or 17 pdr more than US 76).
If both guns, the L/56 and 71 use the same shells of the same weight their differences regarding damage could become the same with L/71 having the clearly upper hand in terms of penetration power.


- Change G43 damage to match K98k, as both rifles used the same ammunition; since the version used here has no scope it's accuracy
should be less good on long range, but rate of fire is higher (basically works like the M1 Garand)


The scoped one of the Gebirgs has higher accuracy and those without slightly better than ranger M1 accuracy.
And the m1 does not have a higher rof than the k98. Only at ranges closer than 25 (axis grenade range) The M1 behaves like a semi rifle. The G43 behaves like a semi rifle but not the M1 Garand.


What unlock will unlock the stupa or grille?

User avatar
Kr0noZ
Global Moderator
Posts: 154
Joined: 26 Nov 2014, 06:20
Location: Germany

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby Kr0noZ » 18 Aug 2017, 17:55

Well, semi auto rifles are apparently somewhat strange at the moment, but for the purpose of this rework it should be about the same as the Garand.

What unlock will unlock the stupa or grille?

None. You get them when you reach the required tech level.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2521
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby Warhawks97 » 18 Aug 2017, 20:06

Kr0noZ wrote:Well, semi auto rifles are apparently somewhat strange at the moment, but for the purpose of this rework it should be about the same as the Garand.


So the G43 will shoot less fast than a K98 at targets beyond 25 range? Because the m1 does.
I am just a bit confused as we talk about "function" of semi rifles. Less accurate at max ranges but therfore higher rof makes sense and i hope the G43 unscoped will go this way. But that would also mean its a semi rifle that works not like the m1 currently does that combines low rof with bad accuracy.


None. You get them when you reach the required tech level.


Puh. Thats a word. The grille is an 150 mm SPG with great accuracy and works with VT where it fires several shots. I think such things shouldnt come just when reaching a tier.

Heavier arty is some kind of reward. Nobody can field anything above 100 mm (take rocket arty aside) calibre like that. That is enforcing heavy camping and gettting grille to gain CP. And not the other way arround. I am highly against a 150 mm SPG for 0 CP.

There is arty much worse that costs a lot of CP (eg 105 sherman)
I could agree making it a 120 range arty. or even 100. A short ranged indirect shooting single heavy shell with high accuracy over a short distance.
But not a potential counter arty unit.
Stupid enough that nebler work already as a 0 CP counter arty unit from time to time.

But this is a
1. SPG
2. of high calibre
3. with great accuracy
4. damage
5. great in countering arty except maybe the priest
6. with 200 range which makes it having as much range as a wespe and more than a 105 sherman


And now coming to kwoks concerns: It gets specialized but still jack of all trades this way.
1. It contains heavy powerfull AT of all kinds (TD, AT guns)
2. Powerfull basic inf with many boosts and weapons and low cost (build, reinforce, upkeep in particular)
3. Quick repairs
4. Powerfull anti air but also anti inf weaponary
5. Powerfull fortifications
6. Extremly powerfull arty support with the potential of unleashing the most destructive VT ability in this game.

To deal with this doc arty will become cruical in some ways. So the concern is:
A doc that probably requires arty to be dealed with will now outclass any enemie arty except CW arty.
It can contain a decent ammount of arty which it will already have with off maps, defensive arty on point, VT, long ranged howitzers and 88 guns.
But it should have afterall some weaknesses when it comes to arty parties and countering arty.

So either grille needs some sort of unlock or its a short ranged high accuarte high calibre weapon with a range not exceeding the 120 range (like churchills have it atm).

For the sturmpanzer i have also some concerns. It has Panther armor with a gun exceeding AT gun ranges. Sure accuracy isnt its best friend but it doesnt matter. When it has 88 gun nests, AA tanks, volks or bunkers etc behind the only way killing it might be arty again.

Again players would trench in, bunkers up to get CP´s, with those getting TD or AT nests and stupa comes simply when reaching max tec. I wonder how players are going to gain the CP´s to get counter units (that could potentially penetrate it like pershing) when the opponents will just hide without any need from their side to battle the enemie to get a tank with over 100 mm of armor.

In this concept the pure choice of def doc will destory any US faction. AA and defensive volks will handle any AB. AA and Stupa will be the ultimate AB killer. Arty and defenses (both in current set up 0 CP) with volks spam stopping and destroying inf doc as the doc will largely bypass inf doc arty strenght. And Armor doc... we dont even have to talk about this.

At the end it will once again all come back to CW and most importantly RA doc and the skill of the dude who plays this doc.


So from my side i would say that we maybe keep stupa out of the game at first until we found a place where it fits or putting it as reward for stuh into BK doc.
On the long hand the unit might fit into a renewed Terror doc which is my biggest hope.


Edit: Edited the post few times for correcting sentences.

User avatar
ExE
Posts: 31
Joined: 13 Aug 2017, 03:47

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby ExE » 18 Aug 2017, 21:51

- Sturmpanzer IV (Heavy armor, has free direct fire; available in T4 building) OR Sturmpanzer 38(t) (light armor, shots cost ammo but
has indirect shot AND direct shot, participates in Officer's Victor Target; available in T3 building)


Something like this could be used across all Doctrines. Let me explain;

-With this method you can free up some CP's in order to make the doctrine more complete according to the role it has to achieve.

But in this case... All other docs have to unlock heavy arty via CP. So, I think this units have to be unlocked along this line;

13. “lFh 18 105mm Howitzer” (2CP) Unlocks both emplaced and non-emplaced lFh 18
14. “Rapid Response Artillery” (2CP) Unlocks the “Registered Artillery” ability
15. “Flak 36 88mm Artillery” (2CP) Unlocks both emplaced and non-emplaced 88mm Flak 36
16. “sFH 18 150mm Artillery Salvo” (2CP) Unlocks the 150mm off-map artillery


Maybe in the last one; according to the 150mm caliber. Besides, is gonna have the VT ability... so, instead of that, just keep it the way it is? 'Cuz with the VT you have the Grille' fire AND the Off-map 150mm arty aswell; maybe just one of those is enough power to delete almost any unit? Just saying.

9. “Advanced Defense Tactics” (2CP) Pioneers get the same rifle as Volksgrenadiers, can lay Teller
Mines and can be upgraded with MP40’s; Dropped: Volksgrenadiers fire 2 Panzerfausts instead of 1 per use
Replace: Volksgrenadier-Squads already delployed AND newly built OR called-in have the Panzerfaust upgrade by default
to compensate for the lack of Panzerschrecks in the doctrine


With the Panzerfaust upgrade by default, the free slot could be the G43 upgrade? That way you have the MP-40s, G43s and the MG34 for Volks; having the close quarters and long-range-engagement capacity, depending of the situation.

And, again, What is going to happen to the Panzerjägers?

So from my side i would say that we maybe keep stupa out of the game at first untill or putting it as reward for stuh into BK doc.
On the long hand the unit might fit into a renewed Terror doc.


I agree with Warhawks97 in the last bit; IF is going to be a Terror rework, maybe the Stupa could be a reward unit for the SturmTiger? I mean, look at them;

-"Similar" role; Breakthrough enemy lines; destroy defence lines.
-Well armored; Panther's and Tiger's stats. (I think).

Also regarding to Terror doc; this suggestion from Tiger.

download/file.php?mode=view&id=1787

That way both Stupa and Grille will be 8 CP's. But Terror Doc is a whole other topic. Just my though IF is going to be a rework.

Also, that Goliath reduced price unlock; Fits better on Def doc because of the exclusivity of the bunker for this one doc. Maybe in this unlock could fit:

7. “Sector Security” (1CP) Upgrades all Listening Posts: -50% Damage from small arms fire, +50%
Sight range, gains vampir ability over range of 30 (camouflaged units appear on the minimap); All
mines become 33% cheaper


There are some loopholes like this one which could cause some troubles; as Kwok said:

When will a doctrine be chosen within the game and how will it affect the availability of units for player who have NOT chosen a doctrine yet? Simply, if an axis player reaches T2 when grens are normally available, they build a gren, and then they choose def doc does it not break the doctrine? Would you solve it by just making grens unavailable unless a player chooses a doc? This really forces axis players to choose doctrines early which is a huge disadvantage in a game designed with doctrines countering doctrines. Would you buff the doctrine so it can withstand more despite a counter-pick doctrine? Then you fall into the never ending buff/nerf cycle I described in my other post.


Maybe limit the number of Gren to 1; Like for Def doc is THE Grenadiers squad... but, again, with all those buffs it will create the Über soldaten you want to avoid... Maybe give that Grens squad less % of the bonuses, in contrast to Volks and Pios. Or just applicable to Friendly territory, so if you attack, they're not as tough.

And, maybe not erase any base level unit for any doc?

Like, if you are AB, there are still Rangers available on the Barracks but you don't use them... only in INF Doc they are worth with all the buffs.
Same with the WM Grens, in BK you don't use them because you have Storms, but still available in WM Quarters. In Terror is your main Inf with the STG's unlock. And, maybe in DEF, limit just to 1 squad but not as tough with the Terror's unlock.

These are my suggestions on the new changes, I know it's gonna take a lot of work, but at least it's taking shape ;)
Attachments
Terror.jpg
http://steamcommunity.com/id/ExE95/

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

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2521
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby Warhawks97 » 18 Aug 2017, 22:01

About Grille i am very unsure about the role.

It has to cost CP if it keeps with this range and the ability to counter arty. This doc actual weakness is the arty or should be. Beating it in any different way will be hard probably which is the actual reason in this concept, defending hard.
making it the second best arty doc in game and able to give massive counter arty will just cause the "RA must have" thing for allied.

There need to be a discussion about the grille.... CP yes/no, range low/high, role counter arty/defence breaker and so on.

Regarding the sturmpanzer it simply doesnt fit in the doctrine concept. Even if it saw mainly defensive action in ww2, it doesnt mean that its intended role was to be defensive.


The Goliath is a thing i didnt think about. But exe is right here with goliath cost drop for this doc due to bunker thing.

With the Panzerfaust upgrade by default, the free slot could be the G43 upgrade? That way you have the MP-40s, G43s and the MG34 for Volks; having the close quarters and long-range-engagement capacity, depending of the situation.


That was part of my suggestion. One upgrade is default, new added.

And, again, What is going to happen to the Panzerjäegers?


They keep.


Maybe limit the number of Gren to 1; Like for Def doc is THE Grenadiers squad... but, again, with all those buffs it will create the Über soldaten you want to avoid... Maybe give that Grens squad less % of the bonuses, in contrast to Volks and Pios. Or just applicable to Friendly territory, so if you attack, they're not as tough.

And, maybe not erase any base level unit for any doc?

Like, if you are AB, there are still Rangers available on the Barracks but you don't use them... only in INF Doc they are worth with all the buffs.
Same with the WM Grens, in BK you don't use them because you have Storms, but still available in WM Quarters. In Terror is your main Inf with the STG's unlock. And, maybe in DEF, limit just to 1 squad but not as tough with the Terror's unlock.


They are not really comparable. Rangers are sponges with the damage output of rifles. Grens are sponges with a rifle damageouput of Stormtroopers and even better than commando enfields. Rangers are far from it. Rangers arent a core basic inf bc they suck at default. Grens are actual no core unit and rather a "elite core unit" for all WH factions. So i wouldnd mind if they would be restricted to BK and terror. No need for special limits and stuff.

Keep in mind that when you play defensively, the pios with volksgren rifle stats and volksgrens will give you a pack of a punch in terms of damageoutput. Thus grens wont be necessary for further damageoutput. And the "sponge part" will be also fullfilled by volks due to defensiive bonuses. And the officer becomes more combat efficient with that new squad.

User avatar
sgtToni95
Posts: 489
Joined: 04 May 2016, 09:50
Location: Italy

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby sgtToni95 » 19 Aug 2017, 10:38

Thanks for the huge work Kronoz :)

Not sure about this bunker thing. I think maybe medic one and observation one could be different building options, so one won't have to spend ammo to upgrade (maybe can be added to build them) but give the observation one, with its combat role, a higher price. I'd say 300 for the medic one, and 350/400 for the observation one (OR give the upgrade a different price which would be higher for the observation one).

I know they'll now need for sure to be garrisoned to make some damage, but if you drop the price spamming (250 is really insane) them would be much easier, and with medic bunkers having zombie squads to put inside them wouldn't be such a problem. Moreover they're not only a defence, as most of the emplacements on allied side, but they're a support point, where teammates' units can reinforce, heal and retreat at need.

I know many allies units have demos or satchels, but bunkers are somehow more durable than allied emplacements, and pretty much impossible to take down quickly with any direct/indirect firing unit (which, on the other hand, is possible or ,at least, easier for axis).

If this reworking ever happens, i think it wouldn't be bad if allied howitzers and SPGs would get smoke salvo (as Def howitzers have) to be more supportive towards allied units trying to take down theese "new" more effordable fortifications. Maybe a better reworking of smoke ability for RA wouldn't be bad either (i know it has already been touched since it used to be more useful to open the field to enemies instead of protecting own stuff, but in my opinion it's still not worth it, CP and price wise, together with the mechanic itself as it is now).


On the artillery thing Warhawks was talking about, i think RA is somehow necessary, but against DEF doc as it is now, it has a pure counter-arty role, since its shells (Priest aside) are quite ineffective against tanks and bunkers.
I think reducing a little Grille's range wouldn't be such a bad option: Oneshotting unaware infantry squads, tanks, shooting (and so static) SPGs decrewing emplacements with that accuracy and that range, and even the rate of fire is not bad, is kind of unfair (I myself hate using that because of how it works). Not considering that since it shoots only once, the player can relocate it right after the gun's shot and countering that is really hard with other artillery pieces. A small range decrease (not talking about the same as 95mm churchills as hawks said, but maybe to 170-150) wouldn't be so balance breaking imo.

About grenadiers stuff, i think after this rework DEF doctrine would be even too worth having on a team setup (at least in a 3v3 game) and i don't think an early doctrine choice would be that bad. I usually pick terror or bk just to have a puma, and that usually appears earlier than the first Grens squad anyways. Moreover the community is not so big, you know what you can expect from certain players and early choices (expecially for WH more "well rounded" options) might not be that hard to take. I'm aware this isn't a really objective argument :)

I might have a little more to say, on other aspects, but i generally like them, might come with some more later.

User avatar
ExE
Posts: 31
Joined: 13 Aug 2017, 03:47

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby ExE » 19 Aug 2017, 12:45

I made that last point because of Kwok's post:

When will a doctrine be chosen within the game and how will it affect the availability of units for player who have NOT chosen a doctrine yet? Simply, if an axis player reaches T2 when grens are normally available, they build a gren, and then they choose def doc does it not break the doctrine? Would you solve it by just making grens unavailable unless a player chooses a doc? This really forces axis players to choose doctrines early which is a huge disadvantage in a game designed with doctrines countering doctrines. Would you buff the doctrine so it can withstand more despite a counter-pick doctrine? Then you fall into the never ending buff/nerf cycle I described in my other post.


Choosing the doc that early might cause troubles because you don't see the full enemy composition yet. And another, more convincing argument, is you skipped this "No Grens in Def Doc" thing... Just like a few patches ago, as CW, you could build the 17 pounder emplacement, choose RAF (which don't had access to that) and play as usual; and it got fixed. You are not able to make it until you are either RA or RE. That's my point. But as Toni said; Puma's and other vehicles come earlier than Storms and Terror's Grens. So, maybe at T2 some people already know what they're gonna deploy... but still, you have that loophole.

About the Grille; I think it should stay the way it is, at the cost of 8 CP's. Perhaps without the VT; just make the 105mm leFh 18 participate on that? 'Cuz the FlaK 36 has its own barrage after all.

Another thing about the Grille; the way it behaves makes it a little troublesome to deal with; Fires 1 shot (very precise one, with high damage), then reallocate and so on... And the Allies' arty fires on barrages...

The solution, I think, is to make it not able to match the RA range. You pay CP's for that extra range and another reason is to focus Def doc on securing Friendly Territory, not a Counter Arty doc per se. You have your arty, sure, but CW should have the upper hand, at least in the range of its guns.

With the Bunker price; 550 by default, and perhaps between 350-400 after the CP's unlock. 250 is too low for that increase durability, construction time reduced and support role w/ the reinforcement point.

That's it for now. Waiting for more updates :D
http://steamcommunity.com/id/ExE95/

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

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2521
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby Warhawks97 » 19 Aug 2017, 14:11

I think RA doc arty range shouldnt be used as measurment. Its 250 after range unlock. Thats the range the def doc 105 howitzer can reach with long range shots. Wespe as well and Hummel goes as far as 275 iirc.

So i am afraid that def/se combo will build up such strong defenses while also dominating the arty gameplay. For US would be little chance vs def doc in general. Air defense vs planes and inf, about AT we dont need to talk and the "spam" wont work vs many boosted volksgrens with semi rifles and officer arround and deployed as zombie squads literally for free.

I would say currently that the grille range should be somewhat arround 150 range and even more. The reason as i said is that we shouldnt take RA as measurment since SE is already reaching the range and counter arty capabilties.
On top of that, as i said, i dont want that RA will become such an absolutely must have thing again.

Inf doc arty range is outclassed already by the 105 howitzer long range shots by 25 range and 88 is also able to fire barrages. And their emplaced arty will last longer anyways which makes it hard to counter it with non Priest units. The Grille should simply be not a counter arty sniping tool. The 105 sherman has arround 180 range iirc. If grille keeps the 175-200 range it would absolutely dominate any arty US can field.

The Grilles main purpose i think, due to its sniping capablities and quick relocating possibility, should be short ranged accurate indirect fire support. You can shell an emplacment or unaware units and run before the shell comes down.

For that 150 range is absolutely sufficient and 105 shermans, smaller arty, calli sherman will afterall be in large danger.
So my measurment is not RA (coz we have SE here in a more comparable role) but rather Inf/RE doc.

VT wise i would also say that if affects 88 and 105 guns but not the grille anymore. It will fill a whole different role.
The unlock would be somewhere along the arty branch.

I am fine if inf doc arty can crack defenses. But shouldnt do so well in giving counter arty at the same time.

And Stupa removed entirely from this doc. It just doesnt fit anymore in this defensive concept anymore. Let alone its name.

User avatar
ExE
Posts: 31
Joined: 13 Aug 2017, 03:47

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby ExE » 19 Aug 2017, 20:26

Yeah, I agree with you Warhawks; I didn't know about the already SE upper hand in arty range (in terms of numbers). Altough, if a list with all the arty ranges is posted (just like the capture one), it could be useful to determine the proper parameters across all docs.

So, as I said, maybe make the doctrine more of a support "Secure our sectors" kind of doc. NOT an arty doc per se; about the Grille, I agree aswell with the range reduction; make it a "medium range" arty, and let the Hummel, Sherman 105 and Priest be the "Long range" guns. Maybe with some tweaks here and there... so the USA's docs could have a chance.

I don't want a Jack-of-all-trades doc. I mean, Defensive but NO Complete Denial.

Like, be useful with the emplacements, TD's ambush and LIMITED arty response, that kind of matter... but nothing else; nothing strong enough for an offensive, not a counter-arty doc per se, and so on... just my suggestions.

And... Let's wait for Kr0noZ, shall we? Maybe he can come up with something different in the upcoming updates ;)
http://steamcommunity.com/id/ExE95/

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

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2521
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby Warhawks97 » 20 Aug 2017, 03:35

for you exe:

105 sherman has 180 range so far.
stationary howitzer 225, Axis can reach 250 with special rounds.

Priest, hummel, wespe and grille 200. range. Wespe and priest 250 with range increase, hummel 275.

nebler usually 200.
walking stuka 175, maultier and callis 150 range.
95 mm CW tank arty 120 range.


lighter arty usually arround 150-175.

User avatar
Panzer-Lehr-Division
Posts: 427
Joined: 12 Dec 2014, 14:03

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby Panzer-Lehr-Division » 20 Aug 2017, 17:21

You know with vt of def doc grille does fire 2 shells:D only few ppl know
SunZiom: but true is you`re only one man which i know who really know how play PE
CyberdyneModel101: you're unstoppable

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2521
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby Warhawks97 » 20 Aug 2017, 22:46

I knew it fires more. Just i thought six shells.

User avatar
ExE
Posts: 31
Joined: 13 Aug 2017, 03:47

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby ExE » 24 Aug 2017, 11:59

for you exe:

105 sherman has 180 range so far.
stationary howitzer 225, Axis can reach 250 with special rounds.

Priest, hummel, wespe and grille 200. range. Wespe and priest 250 with range increase, hummel 275.

nebler usually 200.
walking stuka 175, maultier and callis 150 range.
95 mm CW tank arty 120 range.


lighter arty usually arround 150-175.


Thanks for the numbers Warhawks.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/ExE95/

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

User avatar
Kr0noZ
Global Moderator
Posts: 154
Joined: 26 Nov 2014, 06:20
Location: Germany

Re: Rework of Defensive Doctrine - Concept

Postby Kr0noZ » 30 Aug 2017, 23:30

Just a small update:
- I got Corsix up and running and I'm now experimenting with some changes to units to base my data/recommendations on
- I have taken notes of all the player feedback, including the stuff about other WM docs being more in need of a rework. I can't rework 3 docs at once because that requires a team of people, all I can do is make one step after the other - also, I've been told that making changes to one doc even after admitting that others need to be touched as well is crap, because changes to other docs later on make all changes to def in regards to possible synergy useless; that is true to a certain point, but I think in doctrine design some points can be made in a way that promotes synergy and cooperation with multiple options for other docs to tie in. That means that even though some smaller changes might be needed later, it's still possible to make changes one doc at a time if this issue is taken into consideration beforehand. Because I wasn't aware of that part before, here's my thanks to the people who pointed that out, now I can work on that as well.
- because of that, further edits will be delayed a bit as planning has become more complicated and more involved. Thx for the patience.


Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests