Poor Doctrine Design - Luft
Posted: 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:
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
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:
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