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

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Jalis » 02 Nov 2018, 02:49

Warhawks97 wrote: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.


That simply means the problem is not Luftwaffe reform itself. The problem is it comes alone without a global reform for all doctrines in order to balance each vs the others.

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

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby seha » 02 Nov 2018, 06:48

Warhawks97 wrote: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.

yes. agreed. he just trying desperately to nerf the doctrine. everything getting removed without any logic. doctrine becoming naked and too empty. this is not a rework. no gebrigs. no hetzer. no panther. unlock shreck. delayed 88. this is just crap. no offense. but this is a toilet rework :mrgreen:

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

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby MarKr » 02 Nov 2018, 07:59

@seha: Have you ever think about why the Luft doctrine is played so often? Many people say "because it is fun". So let me ask you the other way - why is Luft "so much more fun" than other doctrines? Isn't it perhaps because of the very little decision making needed? I would agree with the kwok on the start of the topic - it doesn't really matter what you pick in the command tree and when, you cannot really make a bad decision there, or at least so much bad decision that it would cost you the game. So in other words - "the Luft doctrine is more fun" translates more into "Luft doctrine is easier to play than other doctrines" and that is why it is so favored. So if you have a doctrine like that and want to put its playing difficulty to a similar level, of course that you need to make changes that will make it harder to use (which is by most people perceived as a "nerf") and of course that people who play Luft doctrine because it is "easier to play" will be strongly against any changes there, simply because it will remove the reason why they play it.
Image

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

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby kwok » 02 Nov 2018, 09:12

About the hetzer removal, i should've probably added some more reasoning other than "not tank doc so no give tank".

I felt base PE was not short of AT especially against allies. The hetzer has essentially a pure AT role with many things that make it good at being AT. Removing it really only takes away AT capability, not really giving shortfall in any other capability except AT.
Where I think PE makes up for not having a hetzer is it's many other units like the 75mm (both pak and armored car), the marder, panzerschrecks and fausts, prob a few more i can't think of. Removing the hetzer might be crippling for a lot of players becuase it was a much easier AT option with its durability and mobility, but I felt that a durable tank isn't fitting in the luftwaffe theme. The gameplay of luft should revolve more around mobility which still exists in the doctrine. Plus, i'm adding more AT options with the droppable schreck and indirectly with earlier access to sabotaging fuel points to delay tanks.
So it isn't so much about a global reform though I wouldn't disagree that there are many issues with other docs but that's not the point of this topic.

About the 88s, yeah maybe I went too far in pushing the 88s to the late game. Not sure where to move the CP to. If people are so worried about not having a good enough tank for luft, maybe instead of the panzer 4 f2 it could be the panzer J and cost 3 cp. i dunno somethign like that.

@markr, About the equipment drop i was thinking about those as separate abilities, but now i think more maybe that will clutter the UI too much. The more I think about it the more i feel an AB HQ is needed for luft.
Last edited by kwok on 02 Nov 2018, 13:59, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby seha » 02 Nov 2018, 10:33

MarKr wrote:and of course that people who play Luft doctrine because it is "easier to play" will be strongly against any changes there

changes to luftwaffe (and other doctrines) are welcome. but not the changes on this topic. luft is fun to play but doctrines like airborne are fun to play too. im sure more expert players than me can tell you more about the powerful airborne doctrine. raf is very good too.

i dont think luft need big changes. maybe just remove panther.....and firefly from raf. or remove the hetzer.....and achilles from raf. everything else is balanced about luft.

if you remove the panther and firefly. panther ausf.d can be reward for panther ausf.a in blitzkrieg doctrine.

The New BK Champion
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Feb 2018, 22:09

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby The New BK Champion » 02 Nov 2018, 10:58

Raf is utter crap. No matter what devs say about mortars and smoke (yet nerfing them currently), making a doc have literally 0 (zero) artilery capability is very bad in my opinion. To be honest I have played maybe 10 games as raf since 95 cromwell removal and it was pure pain. As soon as enemy notices you are RAF, he spams bunkers, trenches and AA emplacements where ever he can. Luft at least has the stuka patrol for christ sake...

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

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby seha » 02 Nov 2018, 11:02

yes. raf need some arty. maybe some arty unit should replace firefly in raf.

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

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby kwok » 02 Nov 2018, 14:04

Oh yeah, forgot to mentioned the fallj/gebirgs mix. Sure if people are SO invested into having gebirgs and fallsj as their own units, then the reg5/gebirgs can both be unlocked simultaneous with one unlock because I honestly barely see a differnece between them. I'd hope that they'd still drop down without a lot of bonuses though and without their current weapon loadout. If they're going to drop with their super weapons, then that 88 flak CP could go into the paratrooper unlock i guess.

Personally, I'd rather see more progression and flexibility in my units/doctrines.

MEFISTO
Posts: 30
Joined: 18 Jun 2016, 21:15

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby MEFISTO » 02 Nov 2018, 15:44

seha wrote:
MarKr wrote:and of course that people who play Luft doctrine because it is "easier to play" will be strongly against any changes there

changes to luftwaffe (and other doctrines) are welcome. but not the changes on this topic. luft is fun to play but doctrines like airborne are fun to play too. im sure more expert players than me can tell you more about the powerful airborne doctrine. raf is very good too.

i dont think luft need big changes. maybe just remove panther.....and firefly from raf. or remove the hetzer.....and achilles from raf. everything else is balanced about luft.

if you remove the panther and firefly. panther ausf.d can be reward for panther ausf.a in blitzkrieg doctrine.

100% agree with you! Hetzels are easy to counter especially when they don't have flank speed any more, I think the main problem is the panther because it is a heavy tank and you can use this doctrin like an armor doc to, like FF in the RAF it can face a Tiger or panther, I think for Luftwaffe, RAF, airborne(hetzel, aquiles,m10) are more than in enough) also they have air strike to destroy any heavy tank in the game.

MEFISTO
Posts: 30
Joined: 18 Jun 2016, 21:15

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby MEFISTO » 02 Nov 2018, 18:00

Other idea could be to limit panthers and FF to 1 at the same time by a calling in like pershing ace

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

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Warhawks97 » 02 Nov 2018, 20:55

kwok wrote:Oh yeah, forgot to mentioned the fallj/gebirgs mix. Sure if people are SO invested into having gebirgs and fallsj as their own units, then the reg5/gebirgs can both be unlocked simultaneous with one unlock because I honestly barely see a differnece between them. I'd hope that they'd still drop down without a lot of bonuses though and without their current weapon loadout. If they're going to drop with their super weapons, then that 88 flak CP could go into the paratrooper unlock i guess.

Personally, I'd rather see more progression and flexibility in my units/doctrines.



oh, so you ignored my proposal of how to make them differently?

What i dont like is how you set the weapons. For you it seems like "G43,FG42, STG44... its all the same bc it kills pretty well". They are not the same.
Also we recently had a topic about "all you can buy infantry" which has everything available at once and can have like 4 different weapons in 6 men strong squad.... let it be stg,lmg,schreck,G43... etc. Now we would get the possibility to put a STG, two FG42 and two G43 scoped in one squad...and also perhaps a schreck somehow..... brilliant.

We should keep going with two seperate units with their weapons instead of creating another inf squad that can get everything. Someone here in forum mentioned for example heavy assault grens having G43, STG and lmg at once and thus no weakness. You just created another and also limited tactical options by removing a unit.

So instead of remvoing one of them or to give them simply the same unlock bc "they are the same unit with different name" we should rather look how to make them differently. And from gameplay, equipment and historical records we already have countless options of making them differently.

I gave them different branches with different unlock lines, i gave them different boosts (vet and damage reduction for fallis, def training unlock for gebis), different deployment style (parachute everywhere vs parachute over friendly ground of parachute vs call-in), different abilties with one having mines and guns, the other nades and VT support but both branches have still benefits from the other branch (def branch benefits from fallis and their VT or Fallis from def branch and 88, gebis from fallis air drop weapons allowing them to drop lig 18.




And i dont like the idea of having a "german airborne doctrine" of 39-40 style in a game which is all arround 44. We would have to remove the henschel bc that plane wouldnt exist in a 40 doc design.


About Hetzer, well if you want to kick them i would make the sdkfz 234/4 with its 75 mm AT gun becoming a luftwaffe only vehicle so that you can still buy normal 75 mm pak in case you run low on fuel.

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

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby MarKr » 02 Nov 2018, 22:11

Warhawks97 wrote:About Hetzer, well if you want to kick them i would make the sdkfz 234/4 with its 75 mm AT gun becoming a luftwaffe only vehicle so that you can still buy normal 75 mm pak in case you run low on fuel.
I am NOT saying that I agree or disagree here but I am confused with the logic behind this.
Current situation:
Luft can build Hetzer and Sdkfz 234/4 or PaK40 (based on reward selection)
Situation in this suggested topic:
Luft can build Sdkfz 234/4 or PaK40
If you run low on fuel then:
In current situation you cannot build Hetzers and if you picked sdkfz, you cannot build it either because you don't have fuel. If you picked PaK40, you can build it.
In the suggested change if you run low on fuel, if you picked sdkfz you cannot build it either, if you picked PaK40 you can build it.

What is the logic behind giving to Luft both Sdkfz and also PaK40? It sounds like your justification for the change is "they don't have Hetzer" but even if they had access to a Hetzer they wouldn't be able to build it anyway.
Image

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

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Warhawks97 » 02 Nov 2018, 22:31

well, i dont use the 234 bc if i have fuel, i can get marder or hetzer anyway.

This i way i thought: "OK, they lose a viable mobile AT unit (hetzer), so i need a replacment for it that fits in the luft doc mobility idea without punishing them". (having no heavy AT at all without fuel when chosing sdkfz 234/4).

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

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby kwok » 02 Nov 2018, 23:23

@hawks
I didn't ignore your proposal of making them different, but i'm saying that if the only differentiation beyond the two units is weapon loadout, then they really aren't that far different so consolidate into one unit with the choice to turn a unit into a reg5 or gebirgs (not in name just in capability). i feel the only differentiations youve made between the two units are the fact that one is in one branch, the other is in another branch. so effectively you're creating branches for the sake of having access to either fg42s or g43s. i don't feel like that's a fun way to approach doctrine design.

When it comes to your other suggestions on making them different, i feel they are obsolete. you give them both some form of defensive bonus, even though stat wise they might be different. you give one of them the ability for mines, the other one VT, but come one lets be real... those exist today and are never used because your other bonuses literally do better than those abilities (see my reason why there is no micro in using these units).

essentially it's exactly as you say, it's like the different between a sten commando and lee enfield commando. why have two separate units when theyre pretty much the same. i'd say either make the roles EXTREMELY different or just consolidate and build a theme around that consolidation.

it's like having two units purely for the sake of fluff rather than actually gameplay additions, like having 20 different kinds of halftracks but realistically only 2 of them are ever used just for the sake of having more units. if the fluff is SO important to have, then fine make two separate units and theyre both droppable under the same unlock cuz given the proposal theyre pretty much going to be used exactly the same way. instant uber inf. because yeah, at the current state those weapons are pretty much all used the same. The only difference is when the infantry wielding them are different. the g43 isn't meant to be used as an assault weapon but when given to an invincible inf it COULD be used as an assault weapon, so pretty much like the fg42/stg44. if you said only 1 gets def bonuses the other one doesn't, then i'm more inclined to say there is a difference between the weapons. kind of like the way reg 5 use to be, no def bonuses so they just become a 6 man assault group that needed some skill to close in.

Warhawks97 wrote:About Hetzer, well if you want to kick them i would make the sdkfz 234/4 with its 75 mm AT gun becoming a luftwaffe only vehicle so that you can still buy normal 75 mm pak in case you run low on fuel.

I think this is a good idea.

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

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Warhawks97 » 03 Nov 2018, 02:49

kwok wrote:@hawks
I didn't ignore your proposal of making them different, but i'm saying that if the only differentiation beyond the two units is weapon loadout, then they really aren't that far different so consolidate into one unit with the choice to turn a unit into a reg5 or gebirgs (not in name just in capability). i feel the only differentiations youve made between the two units are the fact that one is in one branch, the other is in another branch. so effectively you're creating branches for the sake of having access to either fg42s or g43s. i don't feel like that's a fun way to approach doctrine design.



Differences (as i propse:

1. Different boosts. Def boosts is far different from vet1 upgrade with smaller damage reduction.
2. Different way of deployment
3. Different branches
4. Different weapons. FG42 is far better for mid-close combat and offense... much better. The G43 scoped is best rifle for ranged+ lmg34.
5. Abilities are completely different. Fallis are much better vs emplacments, general attack and schreck vs vehicles etc.


When it comes to your other suggestions on making them different, i feel they are obsolete. you give them both some form of defensive bonus, even though stat wise they might be different. you give one of them the ability for mines, the other one VT, but come one lets be real... those exist today and are never used because your other bonuses literally do better than those abilities (see my reason why there is no micro in using these units).


VT is never used bc its kind of unaffordable to get pios, enough 88´s and reg 5 bc players dont skill like that and it costs a lot.


essentially it's exactly as you say, it's like the different between a sten commando and lee enfield commando. why have two separate units when theyre pretty much the same. i'd say either make the roles EXTREMELY different or just consolidate and build a theme around that consolidation.


I admit, sten and enfield commandos are different than fg42 and G43 but still, the difference is noticable.
they are not the same.
I have a reason why i use gebis first to have solid defense and reg 5 later for better offense.

Just most players spam these 4 units and thats it.





it's like having two units purely for the sake of fluff rather than actually gameplay additions, like having 20 different kinds of halftracks but realistically only 2 of them are ever used just for the sake of having more units. if the fluff is SO important to have, then fine make two separate units and theyre both droppable under the same unlock cuz given the proposal theyre pretty much going to be used exactly the same way. instant uber inf. because yeah, at the current state those weapons are pretty much all used the same. The only difference is when the infantry wielding them are different. the g43 isn't meant to be used as an assault weapon but when given to an invincible inf it COULD be used as an assault weapon, so pretty much like the fg42/stg44. if you said only 1 gets def bonuses the other one doesn't, then i'm more inclined to say there is a difference between the weapons. kind of like the way reg 5 use to be, no def bonuses so they just become a 6 man assault group that needed some skill to close in.







I cant get that you just say "they are too similiar" so they can get kicked out...
I think they are extremely different, even more so with my proposed changes.
I have my reasons why i always first go for gebis and later, when i get into offense, start deploying paras.

Erich
Posts: 115
Joined: 07 Jan 2015, 20:51

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Erich » 05 Nov 2018, 18:06

Make gerbs call in by ground and send them tô SE, limit SS to th only without need The captain and everything Will be balanced

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

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby maousaki » 05 Nov 2018, 21:36

To be honest the ss can actually be a doctrine infantry. Luftwaffe doesn't really need them. But not for th. I would say for SE. I don't agree with erichs idea because that way every doctrine gets elite infantry.

Erich
Posts: 115
Joined: 07 Jan 2015, 20:51

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Erich » 05 Nov 2018, 21:46

every doc have SS so they all have elite inf..................................................... i just wanted to send SS to th only because SE will have gebirs anyway thats just an idea. i dont get why Luft have a inf that literally is a mountain inf dropped by Air in a airland doc, they would fit much better in SE doc.

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

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Warhawks97 » 05 Nov 2018, 21:53

Erich wrote:every doc have SS so they all have elite inf..................................................... i just wanted to send SS to th only because SE will have gebirs anyway thats just an idea. i dont get why Luft have a inf that literally is a mountain inf dropped by Air in a airland doc, they would fit much better in SE doc.


bc luftwaffe and gebis often fought together.

User avatar
Sukin-kot (SVT)
Posts: 855
Joined: 09 Dec 2014, 08:36
Location: Ekaterinburg, Russia

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Sukin-kot (SVT) » 05 Nov 2018, 22:21

Dude, that is not redesign, thats "lets remove a half of what doc has" bullshit.

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

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby kwok » 05 Nov 2018, 23:45

Okay, I see why warhawks prefers to keep gebirgs as an existing unit. But, if it is that case, then I think there needs to absolutely be more distinction between gebirgs and fallsj. For example, fallsj would not get any defensive buffs at all leaving gebirgs the more defensive oriented in role and unlocked alongside the fallsj vet unlock.

Removing gebirgs was more of a unit consolidation, not because I think gebirgs are specifically remove worthy. The key important part that I hope is looked into more is the fact that I worked in more progressive and incremental CP unlock choices rather than having gebirgs and fallsj drop in as uber units from the start.

And jesus, if the biggest pain of the proposed rework is the removal of 3 units and 1 of them wasn't even a true removal... literally acts more like a rename than removal), and the remaining 2 effective removals are tanks from an air-based doctrine kind of makes you wonder how luft doc is actually being played... i didn't realize luftwaffe meant armor division in german.

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

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Jalis » 06 Nov 2018, 06:25

Erich wrote:every doc have SS so they all have elite inf.


SS is not an elite infantry, it is a so called racial elite.

It is also true gebirs have nothing to do in Luftwaffe, and have certainly not to be paratrooper nor have paradrop reinforcement. If you considere at bk, What was the panzer lehr, have to be SS, so logic would lufwaffe be transferred on normal wh axis in exchange of terror/propaganda.

About Luftwaffe and panzer it is possible the HG fallschirm panzer div is an exemple. Anyway COH and BK gave a large part to tank, so a faction without or lacking of tank is about unthinkable (except a rework of the whole factions and mecanic)

Erich
Posts: 115
Joined: 07 Jan 2015, 20:51

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Erich » 06 Nov 2018, 16:37

Jalis wrote:SS is not an elite infantry, it is a so called racial elite.




talking about ingame and not in real life, they have elite status, reinforcements are expensive, has a sniper in the squad like AB HQ, and a lot of upgrades weapons, so they are elite.

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

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Warhawks97 » 06 Nov 2018, 19:57

SS is technically an elite unit in game, yes. But i consider PE in general as an elite faction or rather being "the elite part of the axis faction" and should thus have no weak cannonfoder units.

And yes, techincally Luftwaffe belongs to wehrmacht actually and Terror would be more logical in the PE but anways. We got the docs from vcoh.



Thing is about Luft that old devs gave them everything luftwaffe units once used or got attached to them. They fought with gebis, most famously in crete, but they also got once a few dozens old panther D tanks (that unit had iirc Göring in its name).


So Luftwaffe here is a mix of stuff that historically once did something together with Luftwaffe forces but nothing that was a key part of it.

Gebis and luftwaffe forces fought from 42/43 untill the last days of war heavy defensive battles only and got deployed everywhere where the defensive battle was most intense.

So Luftwaffe should/can stay more defensively orientated i would say. It doesnt need a panther, obviously, bc that didnt belong to their main aspects.

So i can agree to this

kwok wrote:Okay, I see why warhawks prefers to keep gebirgs as an existing unit. But, if it is that case, then I think there needs to absolutely be more distinction between gebirgs and fallsj. For example, fallsj would not get any defensive buffs at all leaving gebirgs the more defensive oriented in role and unlocked alongside the fallsj vet unlock.

Removing gebirgs was more of a unit consolidation, not because I think gebirgs are specifically remove worthy. The key important part that I hope is looked into more is the fact that I worked in more progressive and incremental CP unlock choices rather than having gebirgs and fallsj drop in as uber units from the start.


Thats why i think we should keep the gebis fallis combo.
They dont need to drop as rambos right away dominating simply every infantry engagment. They would keep their current equipment but boosts would be seperated in unlocks.

The Fallis get a vet 1 upgrade and also the 25% damage reduction bc all get that buff to their vet upgrade, let it be AB, storms, Rangers now, Commandos defensive vet upgrade etc.

The Gebis would be in a sperate defensive branch, call in- unit (not parachute) and having a defensive training unlock like def doc (perhaps not moving required).
They would join the battle with Standard G43´s which all can get an scope upgrade (or two of them, idk). Old kch could upgrade also scopes on their STG and historically every G43 had a quite advanced attachment rail where you could mount special gunsights easily.

That way gebis call in would drop a bit down in cost since it cant drop anywhere and since it would need CP unlock to get them as strong as they are now and ammo investment to get accurate fast shooting rifles.

The pioneers would also be call in. Cant remember that luftwaffe enigs, which were in this case technically airplane engineers that had either no more airplanes to maintain due to lack of spare parts/fuel and got thus moved to frontlines, dropped down from planes.

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

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby kwok » 06 Nov 2018, 22:18

i don't think fallsj should get a 25% damage reduction buff, it starts putting them in the same territory as gebirgs. i feel inf in general should rely more on their position and weapon/damage output to set them apart otherwise you pretty just just make kch again. you'll have axis players complaining that their units are not able to run face first into mgs, throw a grenade, and kill the mg without a scratch (yeah, in game people have literally screamed "bullshit" because their inf was not able to survive point blank MG fire). if it means removing defensive bonuses for other infantry then so be it, i dont like how hmgs become obsolete. it makes infantry combat so dry when it's about who's rambo is more rambo.


Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 59 guests