Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
kwok
Posts: 1335
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby kwok » 25 Oct 2018, 06:56

BUCKLE UP. I've been holding this back for a long time but didn't speak out because I wanted to see how devs might change other aspects before bringing out a new rework. I always prefer slow changes over drastic so that metas can better evolve and the community isn't shattered from too large of changes.

Assumptions and pre-info
Of the entire game, I believe the worst designed doc has always been and still is Luft. One time I wrote about the two different design decisions that could exist in BK and how a mismatch will never lead to balance games.
You can read about it here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2223

TLDR
Without a doubt, Luft falls into the "well-rounded" category. This isn't necessarily bad depending on how other factions are design, but the issue with Luft is NOT just the fact that it's well rounded. Luft is a terrible doctrine because it doesn't follow what i think are important aspects that make a competitive game fun:
1. It does not allow robust decision making as much as other choices on a macro level
2. It does not allow for skill as much as other choices on a micro level
These at least one of these two parts are important for a fun competitive strategy game. Without at least one, it essentially makes the game brainless or unbalanced. If the decisions are obvious and made for you (a too prevalent meta) then every game becomes the same and players (especially the opponents of luft) will not feel like they have any control or impact in the outcome of a game defeating the purpose of a "competitive" aspect.

Details
1. Luft does not allow robust decision making as much as other choices on a macro level
Firstly, luft is an extremely macro simple doctrine. Unlike MOST other doctrines in the game, it is not specialized and has every capability needed to counter any other doctrine in a 1v1 setting. While this game is not meant to be played 1v1s, this is still important because it means that it's possible for a full luft team to face against any combination of allied doctrines and still be effective in any team game. This is barely the case for allied doctrines (except maybe a few that I will talk about later). I think this topic has been explained enough that it doesn't need too much detail but just a quick summary:

Luft has both aggressive and defensive forms of: anti inf, anti tank, anti air, anti camp. For experienced players I think it's easy to figure out what in the luft arsenal corresponds with the capabilities. Example, aggressive anti tank capability would be panther or hetzer. anti camp capability would be offmaps and paradrops. Other doctrines (except a few) are NOT all encompassing of these capabilities. For example, armor doc for USA has very limited anti camp with a calliope that doesnt have much impact on emplacements and an offmap barrage that can be countered by basic defenses.

Players might say some other doctrines have all encompassing capabilities too, like USA airborne. That's definitely true, BUT there is an extremely important difference between a doctrine like US AB and luft.
Warhawks has somewhat hinted at it in his recent posts. You can read them:
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2879
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2901
The macro decision tree for luft is very shallow, with very capable and versatile doctrine paths that give them access to capabilities without having to make difficult tradeoff decisions. Other doctrines need to make trade off decisions and build towards working strategies to gain access to the "advanced" capability . For example, if luft wanted accessible anti-tank inf that will counter all basic inf and sometimes even doc chosen inf, it requires 3 CP to unlock either fallsj or gebirgs. Meanwhile, as described by warhawks, the cost to get an equivalent in the airborne doctrine costs 4-6CP, 8 depending on current opinions on balance. Even terror doctrine, which players have on-and-off complained about for ages in bk, has at least SOMETHING resembling a deep decision with tradeoffs. The equivalent for terror doctrine to get anti-inf elite inf costs 4-6 CP before mega grenadiers are viable. Even still, mega grenadiers and even mega 101st airborne are still just barely comparable to the 3 CP luft doc infantry. While other "well rounded" doctrines need to invest and potentially make a bad investment in CPs, luft is nearly unpunished for choosing a bad doctrine choice. Assume the AB or Terror doc chose to go down the strong inf path but the opponent rolls out thiccccck heavy tanks (usually coming in at 6-8 CP). The earliest counter for terror is a 5 CP tiger (which is being debate as not even worth getting) or an even deeper 7 CP panther. For airborne, the m10 tank destroyer is a gamble unit that's 2 CP that takes a lot of skill to use. OR should the airborne invest on a bombing run that's 5 CP in? OR should it invest in a 4 CP 76mm at gun drop? The decision isn't quite obvious. Meanwhile luft (who made an error of spending 3 CP on elite inf, and assuming kept up in XP shoudl have about 3 CP to spend the time thiccc tanks are rolled out) can get hetzers that have shown to be able to handle thick tanks for just 2 CP, or a panther at 5 CP. Heck, luft doesn't even need to take THAT path. Luft can still make an "error" and go down the offmap air support path and STILL be saved by the henschel runs within 5 CPs. PFft, it could even go down the sd2 path into 88s for just 3 CP, covering both defensive anti inf and defensive anti tank to stall out for the other doctrine choices.

I can go on about more scenarios, but the point is it's extremely forgiving for luft to make strategic errors and stay in the game. but... this doesn't really prove what i actually said does it? "it does not allow robust decision making on a macro level". I hope you're still with me, because I need another full paragraph to explain.

The narrow decision tree and easy "input-output" nature of the luft doc tree actually caps the amount of skill and effectively options for a player to build long strategic plans. Even if i take the scenario I mentioned just earlier where I gave 3 different options a luft player could do, those choices could be easily narrowed down to a meta. Let's say a 7 CP pershing just hit the field. Wait... no... let's make this EVEN HARDER.

Scenario: Let's say a 2CP churchill just hit the field and provides an easy counter to the 3CP fallsj. this is a 1CP deficit.
Choice 1 - Can I take the henschel path? It would require 6 CP to get an effective counter against the churchill which by then (if the opponent is any good) i will have lost.
Choice 2 - Can I take the 88 path? No because that's an effective 4 CP need which RE can field a howtizer churchill by then and counter my counter safely.
Choice 3 - This really only leaves the hetzer as an option which can pretty much only be used defensively so that i can maximize the necessary factors and buffs needed to punch through the churchill armor. Meanwhile, the RE player won't have a reliable counter to my hetzer until something like a comet comes around in 4ish CP (? i honestly can't remember right now). This theoretically should lead to a stale mate in which the luft player's next move MUST be henschels to win. moving into panthers runs to a risk of gambling against RE choosing comets. moving into 88s runs into risk of gambling against RE choosing arty. Going deeper into the paratroopers tree doesn't improve the situation against churchills right in front of me. The rest of the game is pretty much laid out for me strategically. And this will happen EVERY time i see a churchill becuase the options don't go past that. You could probaby write a 3 page max book on how to play luft and have a high win rate just following that book.

Why is it Luft has an extremely limited in depth decision tree but other doctrines aren't the same? Couldn't you say that other doctrines become limited in choices when coming across situations as well? What makes those different? The simple answer is meta. Let's use the blitz doc as an example (one of my favorite designed axis docs but sadly underplayed BECAUSE it's so well designed based on the directions devs explicitly said they want to take, a specialized approach rather than well rounded). If we matched blitz doc against its newly meta counter, armor doc, we'll find that a good chunk of it's doctrine tree becomes "useless" making the doctrine "useless". Or does it?

One of the most standard ways to play blitz doc (that axis players seem to never be able to fully let go of) is to push for the mid-late game tigers and panthers. Then spam those uber tanks until the allied players are bled out of from just the pure pressure. This whole strategy is countered by armor docs pershings, well designed to handle the strongest of blitz doc tanks. So given the scenario that a blitz doc player sees an armor doc, decisions must be made. The depth among good players becomes extremely interesting here, decision making that really sets apart the good players from the best players. A typical "good" axis player will leverage their micro skill to race to outpace the armor player with a CP and fuel advantage. A 'great" axis player will not rely on that, they will adopt their macro decisions. A great way to fight against a pershing rush (which most armor players do nowadays) is to take every other path except the tank path. If an armor player rushes pershings, then they will likely be banking their fuel and not making as many shermans. This is countered by controlling fuel which the blitz player can do in a variety of creative ways. Here's one:
Go stormtroopers, as this will immediately overpower any of the basic infantry that the armor doc player is limited to.
From here, two things can happen:
Armor doc ignores the stormtroopers and still guns it for the pershing which is to the benefit to the blitz player. The blitz player can completely overtake the armor player before pershings can hit the field.
OR
Armor doc builds anti inf tanks like HE shermans and scotts. From here, the blitz player can overpower with stugs and pz4 with cheaper/rapid deployment. By the time that armor has enough CP for a pershing, the idea is the axis player can control enough fuel to delay the pershing from hitting the field and scaling their stormtroopers with CP to deal with the pershing once it hits the field.

This is just an example of a strategy a blitz doc player (that I personally have success with) can build against their current counter. Why is this fun relative to luft? Because even though the armor doc player has limited my choices as blitz doc, I can still build and string strategies of all my doctrine choices together to create a flexible plan to counter. The fact that I can choose to scale various aspects of my doctrine tree at different places in time during the game lets me fine tune the strengths/weaknesses of my army composition as the game evolves. Whereas in luft, every doctrine choice is essentially the end of the capability tree. Nearly every choice in the luft doc tree is the extreme of the capability. When I choose the airstrike, i get the airstrike, there isn't a "better" airstrike next. When I choose the hetzer, that IS the only and best midgame tank hunter luft will have available (yes i know the marder is there but it has been obsolete for a while just because of how much better but not that much more expensive and equal in availability the hetzer is). Sure, the paratroopers branches have SOME sort of scaling, but honestly the vet unlock isn't even THAT great of a doctrine choice because the early availability and immediate strength of the paratroopers makes it wasteful to invest in veterancy. Meanwhile the AB, RAF, and stormtroopers require scaling investments before they becomes "OP" (note: rangers was left out because theyre... special lol. everyone has really different opinions on rangers and that's not the point of my post. just wanted to acknowledge that i admit they are not designed the same). To deviate any other doctrine choices/options/army compositions from the "luft decision tree booklet" is obviously inefficient and not meta because the powerspikes for each doctrine choice in luft is too great. There is no fine-tuning decision making like other doctrines.

2. Luft does not allow for skill as much as other choices on a micro level
Seriously, those who like having units that can just right click forward and win can go back to comp stomping. I don't care how expensive a unit is, no single unit should be strong in power, durability, and mobility. What sets CoH apart from every RTS is it's RNG elements and thus importance of positioning. Unit position and facing is what lets players be able to create heroic moments told like war stories. It's what makes you talk about CoH units like they are real people and makes you even more immersed in the game, versus a game like starcraft where players talk about amazing build orders (which isn't wrong but there's a reason we all play CoH and not Starcraft). When a unit becomes infallible for the sake of price, that's when you start turning a game like CoH into starcraft where a unit will always win against another unit no matter what circumstances because that unit has the stats to back it up.
Now Starcraft requires a LOT of micro, more than CoH. But, when you take a starcraft like unit and put it into coh, you get a unit that requires no micro at all. This is because you have a unit that has consistent performance no matter what factors dropped into a world against units the are heavily reliant on the environment to perform. The decision making on the micro level becomes way too simple. If a unit will consistently defeat another unit, all the neat features of CoH, like green cover and destructible environments, become irrelevant and get thrown out the window. Luft doc is FILLED with these starcraft-like units.

Let's take the most infamous one, the fallschirmjagers. These mother fuckers are KCH reincarnated with a side of extra bullshit. "But Kwok, theyre so expensive and can easily be countered by snipers". I'm not saying their invincible (even though they kind of are) and I'm not saying their OP (even though they kind of are). They are just NOT fun (at least for players who are facing them and players who want to use skill to win a game). The reason they are not fun is because their capabilities require no micro. Their abilities are very passive focused (their airborne armor type when they move and their improved defenses when theyre in cover) so there's no micro tricks that would set them apart from other units. Heck, even if you had micro tricks with other inf, like grenade throw placement and even feint grenade throws, aren't even useful because half the time shooting target inf is better than throwing a grenade. You probably lose DPS throwing a grenade because the time a paratroopers' grenade throw animiation finishes and fg42 wouldve killed the inf already. On the defense, by doing the obvious putting fallsj into cover they will take out whatever is assaulting them 90% of the time without even a click. On the offense, their marching forward is pretty much the equivalent of green cover with all their buffs giving them a free gap closer to use their FG42s while most other infantry need to find a creative path to gap close and use their smgs. There's hardly a difference skillfully positioning the fallsj or just leaving them wherever to let them do what they do. Literally dropping them on top of the enemy should be punishing, but sometimes it's not as mentioned in this post: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2903.

When a unit performs so consistently, it makes micro decision making extremely one dimensional. It is easy to calculate if a situation is good/bad for the fallsj leading to more of a reactionary playstyle. A player can randomly make attacks with fallsj by just right clicking into the enemy lines. At any point if the fallsj are in danger, something that can be easily read given how consistent fallsj behave, a player can just press retreat with little punishment. Else, just keep right clicking forward. Repeat until a randomly attack position turns out to be a critical weakspot and the allied inf gets completely obliterated. This is partially why KCH were removed, depsite being so expensive they were extremely cost optimal because they performed so consistently and it was very easy to preserve them to be used again and again. There was nothing to KCH except to right click. Now luft are the same but they can paradrop and reinforce anywhere, further increasing their reliability as a unit worth spending on.
So you see, I've killed plenty of fallschirmjagers, and had plenty of mine killed. My problem isn't that theyre unkillable, but that they break the heart of CoH. I don't feel like I've accomplished anything remarkable or special when my fallsj get 50+ kills. In fact, it's almost upsetting if I don't get that many. Whereas, if I had any other unit that had high kills and vet, I feel accomplished. Like I made a hero out of the unit and that they deserved a medal.

Solutions
Unfortunately, my solution is NOT a short quick fix. It's not like making stat tweaks, availability adjustments, etc. When fundamentally a doctrine is poorly designed then it needs a rework. If you just stat nerf what it has already, then it risks breaking immersion and you'll never hear the end of players trying to compare the capabilities against historical realism stats. But, with a rework requires a lot of testing, huge meta changes, and of course complaints from the people who've been relying on luft OR even players who already built a strategy against luft. BUT the difference between a rework and a balance suggestion is that a balance suggestion will never be satisfactory. A rework will at least a fresh feeling for some players and takes a step in standardizing doctrine design.

Rework assumptions:
-I checked the poll for wellbalanced vs specialized doctrines recently. It's tied right now (surprising... at first it was leaning towards well rounded at first for a long time by a really strong margin, then suddenly became even within a short period of time). So I defaulted to what devs intended and built my doc design around being specialized.
-No new models, no new units. Actually, I believe one (nearly iconic) unit should be removed.

Inspiration and goals:
I wanted to build a doctrine that inspires true airborne tactics: shock, secure, survive. To me this means having a strong early game that can attack hard and fast with tools to reach a far destinations fast supported by airpower. After a successful attack, the objective is secured and try to hold out until allies can breakthrough to save the barely alive paratroopers with a weak mid game. Without supporting allies, it has too much to catch up in the late game to really become OP if alone; it will not be a 1v7 self sustaining doctrine anymore. But, late game elite Luft units and abilities will pack a huge specialized focused punch with strong coordination with teammates with great synergies with doctrines like blitzkrieg and tank hunter (don't know what's going to happen with the terror rework).
I imagine that it would go even against AB and RAF doctrines. Counter inf and RA doctrines. Be countered by RE and Armor doctrines.

Here is a sketch of the doctrine tree:
40EB526F-38E5-4177-9F46-4072B9FF23B9.jpeg

KEY: arrow means dependency, tally mark means 1CP


EDIT3 bookmark (read from here if you've already read my initial post):


CP tree themes:

Fallsj Branch
This is the heart of the doctrine despite the doctrine being called "luftwaffe" as BK is still a ground war based game. The idea behind this is to having a scaling infantry rather than all out uber squad on unlock. You can upgrade and "level up" the fallsj as the game goes on but they start as strong early-mid game units, falling off late game without investment. This is to enforce the "shock, secure, survive" theme. Players will be able to have an early game shock with the relatively cheap but strong early game inf dominance before too large of vehicles hit the field, this is the "shock" phase. From there, a player needs to start makign decisions within the doctrine tree on how they will keep those fallsj alive in the "secure and survive" phases. Will they add air support? Will they start dropping supporting pios and building hard line emplacements? Will they buff the existing fallsj and making them more capable? There are multiple ways to strengthen/support the core fallsj, but each method has a specific "way" that can't stand alone and must harmonize with your teammates, your base unit faction decisions, and ability to analyze your opponents.
You're probably wondering "what happened to the gebirgs"? Technically they've gone away, but practically they are still here! See Upgrade Branch.

Upgrade Branch
the idea behind this is to reward players who have good micro and positioning skills by upgrading the fallsj and making them not just the core of army composition but potentially majority of the composition. Investments in these areas are much smaller increments than usually, but you can eventually scale the fallsj back to how strong they were prior to rework. The difference is they won't be so magically supported by the rest of the doctrine until the extremely late late game at the 30CP unlock. This is the path that allows you to practically bring back the old fallsj or gebirgs, but now you have the flexibility to design/mix the composition of fallsj vs gebirgs. Fallsj having the choice in weapons, upgrades, equipment, etc. puts more rewards into planning and investing into long terms strategies. Imagine if you had the capability to have 4 gebirgs instead of just 2 gebirgs and 2 fallsj.

Air Branch
The idea behind it is to add flexibility into air support. From the recon run, there is a more supportive cheap smoke drop (an ability i'd love to have across more doctrines). There is a more aggressive against mobile units path (strafe first, then hensch) meant to be used more defensively but could be used offensively. There is a more offensive path of bombing runs to attack camped areas. While this conflicts with my original complaint about front loading capabilities on the doc tree, this is in conjunction with nerfing the abilities and making it more micro focused. This branch is a hybrid offensive/defensive branch with flexibility since it doesn't have as much ground presence.

The Sabo Branch
In the spirit of true fallsj tactics, a player can choose to be more crafty in how they execute their "secure" and "survive" phases by taking this CP path. This also allows players to be a little bit more aggressive in their "secure and survive" phase by letting keeping enemies preoccupied with repairing/resecuring harassed territories rather than trying to fight attacks head on.

The Hard Defense Branch
For players that maybe aren't as clean in their micro, they still have options in the "secure and survive" phase to build hard lines of defense with pioneers that are immediately able to handle mid-game inf with the AA guns, stall attacks with SD2 bombs, and potentially get an 88 up in time by utilizing prior available defenses. The progression of this path is meant to have each unlock support the next. The pios are the starting unit to create ground presence, the sd2 is to stall attacks so that pios can build emplacements.

The "tank" Branch
Given a specialized approach is preferred, I dont see why tanks should even be in this doctrine except just to have a tank to stay competitive against other doctrines that have tanks only for the reason that every other doctrine has a tank.

Additional Changes:
-Fallsj will no longer be equiped with FG42s, instead 5 mp40s and 1 stg44. It can be upgraded to x2 scoped g43s (50mu) or x2 FG42s (75mu), each taking 2 slot items with a max of 4 slot items. Each slot item replaces an mp40.
-Fallsj will have an HP reduction matching that of (volks? luft pios? 101st airborne? haven't thought too much yet)
-Fallsj will have non-moving, in cover, passive camo (not sure if it should be behind a CP unlock yet. maybe within the sabo branch?)
-Fallsj will no longer start with the def buff, it must be unlocked
-Fallsj will cost 425mp, maintain upkeep for now (haven't thought too critically on the costs here yet, soft numbers as of now)
-Fallsj will have the sabotage and booby trap abilities unlcoked based on CP unlocks from above
-Fallsj will be limited to 4 (or 5) instead of 2
-Fallsj vet upgrade (TBD ON BUFFS, need corsix)
-Luft pios will cost 270mp
-Luft pios can lay multipurpose mines on booby trap upgrade based on CP unlocks from above
-Snipers are airdropped call ins instead of build from barracks, only available after vet CP unlock
-Heschel run will be a single plane flyover a targeted area, like strafe run. It will be cheaper . Maybe 125mu? (Hard to price this one for now)
-The old choice of the messer bomb run/stuka bomb run will be reward unit choice again. The stuka dive bomb will be unable to be shot down. (bomb effectiveness for both choices may have to be tweaked, i forgot how effective the messer bomb run was). It will be cheaper. Maybe 125mu? (hard to price this one for now)
-

A piece that I know I'm missing is something that allows fallsj to retreat to not HQ. Maybe something similar to the airborne HQ? Maybe fallsj can drop a retreat flag? Maybe pios can drop a retreat flag? Not sure yet.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Taking a break. Posting this now to get the discussion started and I promised someone I would. Also, devs wanted to know my opinion early while they talk. Here's the first part to think about.

EDIT 1: Continuing on to my part 1.
EDIT 2: Started working on solution, added doc tree sketch.
EDIT 3: Added CP branch descriptions and unit level reworks
Last edited by kwok on 01 Nov 2018, 22:04, edited 10 times in total.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3084
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Warhawks97 » 25 Oct 2018, 16:37

Nice and detailed post.

I am thinking of a rally car race in which "luft driver" took a wrong turn in a false direction, losing his first position and drops to the last, realize it, drives back on track and at the end passing the entire field of other drivers (other doctrine drivers) quickly (like he drives a super fast car while all others drive super slow cars) and pass the goal line first. And this happens in every race bc his car is much faster.

Mr. FeministDonut
Posts: 231
Joined: 13 Aug 2015, 21:05

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Mr. FeministDonut » 26 Oct 2018, 08:29

Major thing with off-maps that 101 and Luft doctrine has, that's PE player doesn't really have to spend their muni on something, if player infantry choice are only Falshims, making a great muni saves for air raids, while US analogue is about constantly using flame nades, researching weaponry and buying them for it's infantry to be on full their effective - meaning their ammunition is always at pressure.
But I'd say that Luft doesn't have much of their assault units or tanks, that could breakthrough prepared defences in early or middle game, as meta would only allows them to have Hetzer and paratroopers at this stage

User avatar
Death_Kitty
Posts: 44
Joined: 15 Apr 2017, 18:20

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Death_Kitty » 31 Oct 2018, 18:55

Just finished reading your second section (did not realize you had updated), and, yeah, I think you nailed it. While most docs have "branches" in their trees, luft does seem to front load bonuses right at the start of a tree.

User avatar
seha
Posts: 197
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby seha » 31 Oct 2018, 18:57

Mr. FeministDonut wrote:Major thing with off-maps that 101 and Luft doctrine has, that's PE player doesn't really have to spend their muni on something, if player infantry choice are only Falshims, making a great muni saves for air raids, while US analogue is about constantly using flame nades, researching weaponry and buying them for it's infantry to be on full their effective - meaning their ammunition is always at pressure.
But I'd say that Luft doesn't have much of their assault units or tanks, that could breakthrough prepared defences in early or middle game, as meta would only allows them to have Hetzer and paratroopers at this stage

airborne can call supplies, luftwaffe can not.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3084
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Warhawks97 » 31 Oct 2018, 23:15

Just read the second part. Just clapping for such a brilliant breakdown.

Its right that there is pretty much no real other way to play it and little space for skillfull micro-managment. I completely forgot their airborne_armor type... combined with def boni they do get some sort of crazy boosts when they run over yellow craters. No wonder that pretty much everything you try to throw at them else than snipers isnt worth it (speaking of infantry). And even with some early game success, if you cant manage to kill entire squads you gonna get hard times in the late stages.

kwok
Posts: 1335
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby kwok » 01 Nov 2018, 03:47

edit bump.

maousaki
Posts: 28
Joined: 07 Jan 2017, 17:42

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby maousaki » 01 Nov 2018, 09:45

That's what i wanted to say also in the other post. Paratroopers have actually to flank and synergise with the main army force. Now luftwaffe doctrine feels more like a breakthrough doctrine.

User avatar
seha
Posts: 197
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby seha » 01 Nov 2018, 10:10

luftwaffe doctrine is one of the best and fun doctrine designs in the game currently and other boring doctrines should follow its way.

from the picture you posted............... where is gebirgsjäger ?

and you need to unlock panzershreck ? so airborne will need to unlock bazookas ?

flak 88s require 3 command points now in luftwaffe and 5 command points in defensive. in your picture they require 7 command points.
really :?:

and what happened to hetzer and panther ? hetzer is available in other doctrines. but to which doctrine is the panther ausf.d going to migrate?
and is raf going to lose both firefly and achilles this way ?

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2478
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby MarKr » 01 Nov 2018, 12:16

kwok wrote:-No new models, no new units. Actually, I believe one (nearly iconic) unit should be removed.
You say one unit but in the doc tree illustration there is no JPIV/Hetzer unlock, no Gebirgs unlock and no Panther unlock. So which is the one unit that got removed here and how does a player get their hands on the other two units? :?
Image

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 463
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Jalis » 01 Nov 2018, 12:46

seha wrote:no JPIV/Hetzer unlock, no Gebirgs unlock and no Panther unlock


That means all 3 are removed I presume.

kwok
Posts: 1335
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby kwok » 01 Nov 2018, 13:53

Lol yeah I need to back edit, ended up removing 3 units. I was writing and editing at the same time. No gebirgs, panthers, or hetzers.
Still need to write about unit and ability tweaks. then an explanation for each one because people will be asking questions. then a guide to help players adapt to the rework so they aren't steamrolled right off the bat.

More edits to come. But I need to do my job and get a paycheck unfortunately.

Some early questions answered:

seha wrote:luftwaffe doctrine is one of the best and fun doctrine designs in the game currently and other boring doctrines should follow its way.

well, i guess this is where we completely disagree. and if our preferences are so drastically different and subjective, then can't really argue beyond this. i'll still answer your questions though.

from the picture you posted............... where is gebirgsjäger ?

gone. more explanation to come later, but the basic point is i felt that both the units were redundant especially since over the patches they became the same unit via the def buffs. the only practical difference between the two was one was better at shorter ranges one was better at longer ranges. every other ability they had was never used OR they had overlapping capabilities through different means (ex. schreck vs faust).

and you need to unlock panzershreck ? so airborne will need to unlock bazookas ?

i focused purely on luft, not other doctrines. that doesnt mean i believe other docs shouldn't be adjusted or reworked. so i won't say yes/no about airborne bazookas. BUT i will say this:
the 82nd airborne require 4 CP to drop with their bazookas. luft require 3CP to drop handheld AT that could be used by any unit and aren't tied on an MP heavy unit. I'd take this cheaper and more flexible option any day.

flak 88s require 3 command points now in luftwaffe and 5 command points in defensive. in your picture they require 7 command points.
really :?:

Yeah really. Technically, in luft it required 4 command points including the engineer to build them. Why would you need 88s before 7 CP? 88's are great counter to all tanks all inf. You likely won't see hard armor counters to luft (like the jumbo sherman from armor doc 8 CPs in) until later, in which luft is MEANT to struggle against. Base PE has ample AT to handle base armor units (and even more). There are some exceptions such as an early churchill, but again I'm hoping to leave SOME counters to the doctrine. The strategy AGAINST those counters should be mobility. Churchills/RE is slow, luft is drop anywhere. Just run from the churchill, it's like running from a turtle.

and what happened to hetzer and panther ? hetzer is available in other doctrines. but to which doctrine is the panther ausf.d going to migrate?
and is raf going to lose both firefly and achilles this way ?

gone. and again about other doctrines, i won't comment. feel free to interpret my opinions of other doctrines based on this proposed rework.

User avatar
Death_Kitty
Posts: 44
Joined: 15 Apr 2017, 18:20

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Death_Kitty » 01 Nov 2018, 15:30

Luft has counters in this rework... *wipes tear from eye*. It's beautiful.

User avatar
seha
Posts: 197
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby seha » 01 Nov 2018, 15:46

hahahahahhaa :lol: no gebirgs. no panthers. no hetzers. delayed 88s. you think this "rework" is going anywhere :?: funny.
you say the current luftwaffe doctrine design is poor. but the truth is your doctrine design "rework" is horribly poor. sorry.

NO to removing another elite axis infantry from the game.
first it was kch. now it is gebirgs. what is next? grenadiers too?

NO to delaying the flak 88s.
they are early war anti aircraft guns served from 1936 to 1945.
should be always available as soon as tiger1 or even earlier. tiger1 require 5 command points in terror. 4 command points in blitzkrieg.
jumbo requires 7 command points in armor and 2 command points in infantry doctrine. pershing require 5 command points. although it's late war tank.
and you want 88s to be available later than pershing ? bad joke. very bad joke.

you remove panther or hetzer. not both. and same for royal air force. firefly or achilles. not both.

User avatar
Death_Kitty
Posts: 44
Joined: 15 Apr 2017, 18:20

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Death_Kitty » 01 Nov 2018, 16:11

Gameplay > history. Im sorry youve gotten so used to luft as a crutch, but its time to let go.

User avatar
seha
Posts: 197
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby seha » 01 Nov 2018, 16:17

now history is not so important when it is about 88s. right?
but history is very important when you say stg44 is over represented because few were produced in reality. right?

hypocrisy at best.

kwok
Posts: 1335
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby kwok » 01 Nov 2018, 16:32

Actually mentioning Pershings are available earlier than the 88 is a great point. And I wanted to say I did think of that. My response is that if an armor player rushes the Pershing against luft doc in a 1v1-like scenario it would be a strategic error. I consider the Pershing path something like the “tank hunter” path. If an American player spends 830 mp and ALLL that fuel to rush a Pershing against infantry, then he will be greatly underutilizing his units against luft. It implies a potentially unsupported Pershing against basic reliable AT with only a single shot HE fire to defend itself. At that point it’s free food for luft. Otherwise, by the time a supported Pershing hits the field luft should have enough cp to invest in other bigger AT options including the 88 or Henschel. ORRRRRR MAYBE ASK YOUR TEAMMATE TO COVER THE SHORTFALLS. Luft wasn’t meant to be a camp doctrine. Secure and survive at most so that’s why I made the 88 path deeper in the CP tree

User avatar
Death_Kitty
Posts: 44
Joined: 15 Apr 2017, 18:20

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Death_Kitty » 01 Nov 2018, 16:36

Ahahaha! No no no silly. I never used history as a primary reason to lower the amount of stg. I also used gameplay. Stg on all you primary combat squads is broken.
Dont put things in my mouth that i never said

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3084
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Warhawks97 » 01 Nov 2018, 18:48

As much as i agree with the breackdown and conclusion why luft is a bad doc, i dont really support the solution.

But i have a different view about Luftwaffe doctrines purpose.

Your point of view what luft shall be:

Kwok wrote:I wanted to build a doctrine that inspires true airborne tactics: shock, secure, survive.


My point of view is different here. You describe the doctrine as it was throughout the french and norway campaign. The last such action was during the invasion of crete which took place during spring to summer 41. At that time FG42 ddint exist. Thing simply is that pretty much all docs here are orientated towards the 43-45 situation with all that late war units.

This means i see Luftwaffe not as direct counterpart to AB or RAF with "shock, secure, survive" and wait untill mates come in. Luft, was it was in original vcoh, was more focused on the defense. But a different type of defense. Not that "hard defense" like def doc and not that "slowly retreating and making enemie approach as hard as possible" style like SE does but more a real nasty gameplay with deadly amushes, elite soldiers that fight till the last men with good weaponary and so on.

So the real aspect that needs to leave the doctrine is this
maousaki wrote:That's what i wanted to say also in the other post. Paratroopers have actually to flank and synergise with the main army force. Now luftwaffe doctrine feels more like a breakthrough doctrine.



We have to remove its breakthrough style but keep its nasty type of defense which is very different from def and SE or lets say combines parts of both styles without being perfect in either. I mean we can use Gebis and their mines, lig 18 but we dont have Wespe. We can get 88 but we cant get Bunkers or heavy tank buster if you know what i mean.


I would also keep the Gebis bc they fought often alongside fallis. Historically speaking non of these units would paradrop or only over friendly ground but lets keep a bit of difference here.
Removing hetzer and gebis as well as delaying the 88 by this much would totally kill the doc with all respect kwok.

So my suggested branches would be:

defensive branch:
1.That contains Luftwaffe pioneers as a call in like in vcoh, 5 men strong, approx 220 MP to get, advanced rep at default and with all its abilties they have now.
2. From these pioneers goes one line towards 88, directly. Luftwaffe ground forces were among the first deploying them on the ground and i think that should be reflected. The second line starting from pios as well and contains the Gebis which are also call in unit and not parachute unit or if then only over friendly ground like they did in italy in 43. However their reinforcments would not come by air... so you get a quick reaction force to strengthen the def anywhere but no full "airborne" unit. They keep their equipment or start with G43´s and can upgrade scoped G43´s and lmg43. If they parachute but only over friendly territroy it would make this doctrine special as it could quickly bolster a defensive line anywhere on the map unlike SE or def can.
I would even go as far and suggest them as a 5 men squad in order to drop their drop cost. That way you can quickly react towards threats to bolster defenses untill main reinforcments arrive without expanding too many MP. The next two unlocks would be the anti personal mine for the gebis and the defensive training or mines would be unlocked along with def training. So you would have three unlocks here from pios to gebis to def training. Reinforce cost could be dropped a bit in case airdrop reinforcments wouldnt be possible anymore.
3. Although VT is

Total unlocks: Luft-pios, 88,VT, gebis, anti personal mine, defensive training (only for gebis) (5 in total)


armored support branch:
1. Contains Tank IV G/F2 unlock and a seperate Hetzer unlock.

Total unlocks: Tank IV and Hetzer (2 in total)

Air support branch:
Recon, strafe and then Stuka patrole and henschel patrole. The last two would be like you suggested being not in one line but instead deriving both from the strage. Actually SD2 would need to be here as well as in defense branch but to be honest i would kick them. The reason is simply their in my opinion failed design of mines that magically drop from sky.... no plane has to arrive, nothing.... they simply come like there would be an UFO hovering over the battle scene all day.

Total unlocks: Recon, strafe, stuka, henschel (4 in total)

Fallschirmjäger branch:
1. You can unlock the Fallis for 2 or rather 3 CP and they drop the way they currently do. Again could be a 5 men squad to drop the cost instead of dropping their stats to achieve cost drop. Build cost drop in order to allow more flexibility and unit combinations over raw power. Reinforce cost remain.
2. From there are again two lines:
3. One towards equipment drop and vet 1 (only for fallis) wich also decreases taken damage by 25% like BK doc has it (or like rangers gonna get it)
4. The second goes for sabotage ability.
5. The VT ability that is listed in the def branch simply bc it comes after 88 is an ability that can be used by the fallis for offensive action. That would be the "connection point".



Total unlocks: Fallis, weapon drop, sabotage, vet 1. (4 in total)


Total unlocks:
15. So there is one left you guys can use to go wild.


Removed abilities and units:
1. Sd2 (bc its something that could be put everywhere, offense, defense and even air support). Its an air ability as it is dropped by a plane but in effect its more like there is an UFO flying to light speed to a location to insta drop them wherever needed. They are simply "stupid" implemented, thus would be removed. Besides that a spam (like when you face two luft docs) can totally ruin your gameplay and all luft must do is to bother the enemie with sd2 untill he got enough strong units to blow the opponents away. And CW has still no means to counter them effectively besides doing "suicide shooting" at sd2
2. Panther in order to remove that breakthrough aspect.

ability changes:

1. Defensive training will be only for gebis, need unlock and does only apply when unit does not get a move order/not moving and being more or less stationary in cover.
2. Vet 1 is only for Fallis and reduces taken damage by 25% instead of being simply the same as gebis have to underline its different purpose.


Goal:
Having a nasty doctrine to fight against with lots of suprises without any of these being "OP". Its not a hard def doc like def is and not a "retreat and bomb" doc like SE. Its a mix of both with addition of very special infantry.

kwok
Posts: 1335
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby kwok » 01 Nov 2018, 22:01

Always great to hear your perspective Hawks.

I think your ideas support your goal very well. So the only arguments I could make is
1. I did not neglect your theme idea, rather your theme idea is a sub-segment of my overall theme. (It's plays more into the "survive" phase of my full "shock, secure, survive" theme. See my Sabo CP tree path. I updated some more.)
2. I think it's necessary to have my other phases to be a viable pvp doctrine and not just be able to do a lot of just nasty surprises.

You want a nasty doctrine with surprises without being OP without being a hard def doc with retreat and bomb mechanics. If you take a look at my doctrine trees you can see that there is a dedicated sabo path just for that. In fact, I feel like my ideas lend more to your theme than your own ideas, by removing gebirgs, hetzers, and VT and replaced with camo, booby traps, variable fog of war hidden upgrades, and enabling mines.

However, despite all those changes I think the ability to have some breakthrough capability is necessary especially with the way that most axis factions are designed. I want to enable early game breakthrough capability, let axis be more than just sit and wait behind mg/mortar halftrack until late game for once by adding fun abilities to let fallsj attack. If you have a doctrine built around just being "nasty" but no strategic theme intended to extend through all phases of the game, all you have are just annoying capabilities that opponents need to deal with and you will eventually lose the game. Art of war "strategy without tactics is a slow victory, but tactics without strategy is an assured defeat".

I understand that most factions are designed for a post 43 time, but anachronisms exist through the mod, as long as the game is fun. What if players WANT to play luft like they were in 41,42? The units must have had offensive experience. Just because strategically they shifted their styles to the situation of the war by 43 doesn't mean they were not capable of going back to old ways, right? I don't know I'm no historian. But personally, i'd like to be able to attack, even as defensive doctrine in WM lol.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3084
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Warhawks97 » 01 Nov 2018, 23:00

kwok wrote:Always great to hear your perspective Hawks.

I think your ideas support your goal very well. So the only arguments I could make is
1. I did not neglect your theme idea, rather your theme idea is a sub-segment of my overall theme. (It's plays more into the "survive" phase of my full "shock, secure, survive" theme. See my Sabo CP tree path. I updated some more.)
2. I think it's necessary to have my other phases to be a viable pvp doctrine and not just be able to do a lot of just nasty surprises.

You want a nasty doctrine with surprises without being OP without being a hard def doc with retreat and bomb mechanics. If you take a look at my doctrine trees you can see that there is a dedicated sabo path just for that. In fact, I feel like my ideas lend more to your theme than your own ideas, by removing gebirgs, hetzers, and VT and replaced with camo, booby traps, variable fog of war hidden upgrades, and enabling mines.


Perhaps the word nasty was wrong placed or doesnt describe my intention.
You simply defend differently.

Also i just cant get or see the point how luft should get played without gebis, without hetzers or panthers...
and 88 for 7 cp. I mean the few times i played def doc i didnt go for 88 bc i felt that the 5 cp were just too. Idk, i felt like it was better spend elsewhere. In def doc you get 88 in two situations:
1. When game is lost already while you did nothing but waiting for CP to get 88. The 88 just makes for a good last stand.
2. When game is won already when 88 is just the final nail in the allied coffin.

Thus i dont get this 7 CP 88 idea at all, esspecially not when luftwaffe inf might need ultimately CT support which then needs... 9 CP in total + the squad unlock??

And the hetzer... i cant think of playing AB without M10, RAF without M10 achilles and even less Luftwaffe without hetzers... sorry.

And the Gebis are a unit you cant just remove... too many like it, including me. Its "the" backbone" unit for luftaffe or at least for me.


Thats why i had that branches. The overall layout is rather defensive with 88 guns, early luft pios, gebis that unlock defensive training and so on. Its however different... more mobile than def doc, far less arty than SE, less tanks than TH but more inf than any of the mentioned docs.
The armor branch is the minimum armor required.... a medium tank and a light tank destroyer. Nothing too special i would say and churchills and enough shermans and jumbos will overcome you anyway.


However, despite all those changes I think the ability to have some breakthrough capability is necessary especially with the way that most axis factions are designed. I want to enable early game breakthrough capability, let axis be more than just sit and wait behind mg/mortar halftrack until late game for once by adding fun abilities to let fallsj attack. If you have a doctrine built around just being "nasty" but no strategic theme intended to extend through all phases of the game, all you have are just annoying capabilities that opponents need to deal with and you will eventually lose the game. Art of war "strategy without tactics is a slow victory, but tactics without strategy is an assured defeat".




I dont want to be just nasty but more some sort of fighting a very hard fight with strong inf, ambushes etc. Ultimately you get your offense with your fallis and their tp and vet, henschels and VT ability. So its not that you cant lay down some havoc.

Vet fallis, VT, Henschel... enough?





I understand that most factions are designed for a post 43 time, but anachronisms exist through the mod, as long as the game is fun. What if players WANT to play luft like they were in 41,42? The units must have had offensive experience. Just because strategically they shifted their styles to the situation of the war by 43 doesn't mean they were not capable of going back to old ways, right? I don't know I'm no historian. But personally, i'd like to be able to attack, even as defensive doctrine in WM lol.


All can attack, even def doc, just differently.
And i dont want a 40 doc when all others are 43/44. And as i said, i dont want a allied AB copy and keep a bit of its axis raw power design.

And Gebis as defensive unit and fallis with its target type, vet and damage reduction can be seen as sword and shield.
Last edited by Warhawks97 on 01 Nov 2018, 23:27, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2478
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby MarKr » 01 Nov 2018, 23:13

Warhawks97 wrote:And the Gebis are a unit you cant just remove... too many like it, including me. Its "the" backbone" unit for luftaffe or at least for me.
As you can see in the edited first post, he says there that the unit limit of Fallshirmjägers would be increased to 4, also Fallshirms would start with 1xStG44 and 5xMP44 there would be a possibility to upgrade the squad with Scoped G43s or FG42s.

Technically speaking, Gebirgs are just Fallshirms with different weapon loadout and some different abilities that do sort of the same (Gebirgs have Panzerfaust ability, while Fallshirms have Panzerschreck etc.). So you would be able to get "Gebirgs" squad by upgrading Fallshirms with G43. The difference would be that practically you would be able to get (through upgrades) 4x Fallshirms OR 4x Gebirgs OR 2x Fallshirms and 2x Gebirgs OR (some other combinatinations) + the options to combine FG42 and scoped G43 on one squad (I presume, there is nothing written about these two being mutually exlusive upgrades).
Image

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3084
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Warhawks97 » 01 Nov 2018, 23:35

MarKr wrote:
Warhawks97 wrote:And the Gebis are a unit you cant just remove... too many like it, including me. Its "the" backbone" unit for luftaffe or at least for me.
As you can see in the edited first post, he says there that the unit limit of Fallshirmjägers would be increased to 4, also Fallshirms would start with 1xStG44 and 5xMP44 there would be a possibility to upgrade the squad with Scoped G43s or FG42s.

Technically speaking, Gebirgs are just Fallshirms with different weapon loadout and some different abilities that do sort of the same (Gebirgs have Panzerfaust ability, while Fallshirms have Panzerschreck etc.). So you would be able to get "Gebirgs" squad by upgrading Fallshirms with G43. The difference would be that practically you would be able to get (through upgrades) 4x Fallshirms OR 4x Gebirgs OR 2x Fallshirms and 2x Gebirgs OR (some other combinatinations) + the options to combine FG42 and scoped G43 on one squad (I presume, there is nothing written about these two being mutually exlusive upgrades).



now we twisting too much the reality and coming too much into that "scifi" part.

1. German Fallis got later equiped with stg when it became obvious that they will not longer fight as parachute units. Thus multirole FG42 wasnt required anymore and STG+lmgs given to them. They are simply much cheaper than complex FG42.
2. Gebis are considered fallis bc of BK mod but they werent, they just fought along with fallis and i would like to keep it this way.


Also shall they be reward units? I like the differences between those two squads and the harmony between them (similiar to enfield and sten commandos, just a lot more deadly). We throw it all out of the window. Just a random mix of units without idea with same weapons.... nice.


I would really go the hammer and sword design with gebis as quick deployable defensive unit with lots of defensive upgrades and weapons and abilities and fallis with different boost, offensive orientated in their weapons, boosts and abilities and paradrop.


We would have to change far less with my idea despite placing unlocks differently, keeping units almost as they are (just gebis dont have def training at default, fallis get vet upgrade with less taken damage). The doc would have a straight design, logic branches, not too much allround, unique and not almost unplayable by removing all units that makes the doctrine strong at the end.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2478
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby MarKr » 01 Nov 2018, 23:53

Warhawks97 wrote:now we twisting too much the reality and coming too much into that "scifi" part.

1. German Fallis got later equiped with stg when it became obvious that they will not longer fight as parachute units. Thus multirole FG42 wasnt required anymore and STG+lmgs given to them. They are simply much cheaper than complex FG42.
2. Gebis are considered fallis bc of BK mod but they werent, they just fought along with fallis and i would like to keep it this way.
This sort of sounds like "you're right that technically they are the same unit only with different weapons but I like it so let's bring up the realism argument" :D


Warhawks97 wrote:Also shall they be reward units? I like the differences between those two squads and the harmony between them (similiar to enfield and sten commandos, just a lot more deadly). We throw it all out of the window. Just a random mix of units without idea with same weapons.... nice.
I guess it would be doable to make Fallshirms/Gebirgs a reward option but how does that fit in with the "I like the harmony between them"? If they reward options, you won't have them at the same time anyway :?


Warhawks97 wrote:I would really go the hammer and sword design with gebis as quick deployable defensive unit with lots of defensive upgrades and weapons and abilities and fallis with different boost, offensive orientated in their weapons, boosts and abilities and paradrop.
Of course you would, it is your idea. I would be really surprised if anyone came and said "I have this idea for a doctrinal rework but I would rather go with some other concept" :D


Warhawks97 wrote:We would have to change far less with my idea despite placing unlocks differently, keeping units almost as they are (just gebis dont have def training at default, fallis get vet upgrade with less taken damage).
If there was a decision to go do a doctrinal rework, then the amount of work would not be a decisive factor, it would make no sense to make a rework but be like "Some rework needs to be done but let's go with something that does not require too much work."

Though I have a question at kwok here - in the doc tree illustration, there are the unlocks that give "MG drop" and "Schreck drop". How would that work? You unlock the MG and any Fallshirm drop in the future will come with LMG crate, and when you unlock the Schreck, the squad will be dropped with a crate with a Schreck? Once you unlock both, they will be dropped with both? Doesn't that restrain the possible loadouts for the Fallshirms? I mean, if you use them the way you want (shock and stuff) you would drop them behind the lines and that would mean you always need to pick up the weapons or you're leaving free LMG and schreck to the opponent, so you pick it up but then you cannot go double FG42 etc.
Image

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3084
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Warhawks97 » 02 Nov 2018, 00:09

Ok, to put it short. Kwoks idea hurts luft too much. As said, we have achilles and wolverine and even hellcat for allied air docs.... why shall luft not get hetzer. They unlock too much arround for far too little gains.

Why shall Reg 5 get stg when still airdropped? Fg42 is the multrirole weapon for fallis coming from the air.
And its not stg. Fg42 has shorter bursts, higher rof and better accuracy at middle distances than stgs and iirc higher bullet damage.


Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest