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

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby seha » 06 Nov 2018, 22:34

Sukin-kot (SVT) wrote:Dude, that is not redesign, thats "lets remove a half of what doc has" bullshit.

cant agree more.

luftwaffe doctrine does not even need redesign. only panther asuf.d can be out along side firefly from royal air force doctrine.
and as said. the panther ausf.d can be reward for panther ausf.a in blitzkrieg doctrine. and raf should get some arty unlock instead of firefly.
and maybe leig18 no longer called by gebirgs. so the leig18 could become unlock in luftwaffe instead of panther. and suddenly people will stop crying.

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

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Warhawks97 » 06 Nov 2018, 22:39

kwok wrote:i don't think fallsj should get a 25% damage reduction buff, it starts putting them in the same territory as gebirgs.


By far not. Rangers get as much hp as fallis and 25% damage reduction and their tp makes them 25% harder to hit by small arms.

Storms have 95 HP and get also 25% damage reduction by vet boost (which also affects their leader which then provides better bonuses as well)

AB same.
Actually the 82nd has as much, if not more HP as reg 5, same target table which makes them 25% harder to hit by while moving and i dont think anyone considers them as long living unit.


And now you want to tell me that such a buff which every vet upgrade provides to the upgraded unit would make them same as gebis with def training?
Do you really belive that this would make them stronger than current stormtroopers?
I dont think so.

def cover training is by far better, let alone the huge suppression reduction.

And have you tested the new cal 50 in the beta? It kills something so keep this in mind, too.




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.



And this is what all vet boosted elite units do, you would have to nerf all of them, not just fallis.
As i said, 25% damage reduction by vet upgrade is what all vet upgrades do to inf, why excluding fallis then?

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

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby maousaki » 13 Nov 2018, 16:14

I actually like the idea of making all elite units less tanky. Elite or not elite a bullet is a bullet and realistic damage model is one of the strong points of bk.

But then again that will make tanks more powerful, so tanks will need also some sort of adjustment.

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

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Warhawks97 » 13 Nov 2018, 16:35

What makes infantry so vastly different is that we have different target tables and different healthpools as well as other boosts.

There are target tables like those of rangers that makes most small arms weapons losing 25% accuracy when shooting at rangers.
Then we have healthpools that range from 45 to 95 HP basic.
And finally boosts that reduce damage by x% (always or under certain circumstances etc)


For tanks its less the case. Their healthpools are different but most differences are between basic tanks (mediums) and heavies. Each tank has his own target table but there generally all tanks are very well "hitable" (only few are pretty hard to hit here like several axis tds that have a low silouette) and there is actually no boost you can unlock that suddenly drops the taken damage by a hit (usually only slight armor buffs or HP buffs from upgrades).

So tanks dont have that "issue" that they are hard to hit, taking reduced damage and gain health boosts (like from veterancy) at once and there arent "officer" tanks that boost the surviviability of nearby tanks and they dont benefit from cover.


In short that means that its much harder to balance infantry correctly than tanks bc all you need to know about tanks is: How good is their armor and what guns do i have. Like there comes a sherman? I have a TD with Panther canon (in ambush) and it will stop the sherman, no matter what. There comes a Tank IV and i have a 17 pdr? Tank IV gonna die.

Infantry is a lot more tricky here. A 0 vet stormtrooper squad and no cover runs into my HMG 1917? It gonna die. The same squad with cover does it? Not sure who wins. The same squad with vet 1 upgrade and thus 25% reduced vet, cover and perhaps leader squad bonus? my HMG wont hold it off.



So simply inf is affected by a lot more factors it makes it harder to set the point where the "bullet is a bullet".

With tanks this is generally a lot easier. Sure there can be cases where a 17 pdr stops a KT and in the next moment it cant do that. But generally you have a more clear idea what can stop which tank and there are no doctrinal unlocks that makes tanks taking suddenly massively less damage, exception here is the Zimmerit from TH doc.

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

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby MarKr » 13 Nov 2018, 17:26

"bullet is a bullet" yes, it is true but the different stats such as HP and damage taken is there to make a difference between basic and elite infantry. Yes, I know that some people would like to make "elites" to only have more abilities and so more tactical options but then again - if they die in a matter of seconds, will their high price be justified? Probably not.

Also these things make the soldiers harder to kill which can represent better usage of cover and possibly other tactics that elite units would/could use to help them survive that are in other ways impossible to implement. I am not saying that some buffs can stack to ridiculous values but that is something that can be further tweaked.

In general I don't like ways of thinking like "bullet is a bullet so it should be same deadly to any soldier" - in its very basic sense it is true, ofcourse. However this way of thinking is based in real world but does not take into account other aspects of the reality too - this is not 18th century where armies stand in lines and take turns in shooting each other until one side loses. Soldiers can use cover, can have different training which in turn increases their survivability and effectiveness. And it is again not so easy as to say "they can use cover better so they should be harder to hit but not have more HP - this would lead to situations where the "hard to hit" aspect stacks to high values and the unit would be incredibly hard to hit even if (e.g.) standing directly in front of enemy MG. Or a bomb would fall on their heads and deal no damage because the "damage missed them" (as it used to be the case with Gebirgs). So there is a mix of factors that can increase the overall survivability in order to prevent situations where one factor gets over-stacked.
Image

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

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby kwok » 19 Nov 2018, 22:42

Hi everyone, I'm back and ready to rumble.

Warhawks97 wrote:What makes infantry so vastly different is that we have different target tables and different healthpools as well as other boosts.

There are target tables like those of rangers that makes most small arms weapons losing 25% accuracy when shooting at rangers.
Then we have healthpools that range from 45 to 95 HP basic.
And finally boosts that reduce damage by x% (always or under certain circumstances etc)


For tanks its less the case. Their healthpools are different but most differences are between basic tanks (mediums) and heavies. Each tank has his own target table but there generally all tanks are very well "hitable" (only few are pretty hard to hit here like several axis tds that have a low silouette) and there is actually no boost you can unlock that suddenly drops the taken damage by a hit (usually only slight armor buffs or HP buffs from upgrades).

So tanks dont have that "issue" that they are hard to hit, taking reduced damage and gain health boosts (like from veterancy) at once and there arent "officer" tanks that boost the surviviability of nearby tanks and they dont benefit from cover.


In short that means that its much harder to balance infantry correctly than tanks bc all you need to know about tanks is: How good is their armor and what guns do i have. Like there comes a sherman? I have a TD with Panther canon (in ambush) and it will stop the sherman, no matter what. There comes a Tank IV and i have a 17 pdr? Tank IV gonna die.

Infantry is a lot more tricky here. A 0 vet stormtrooper squad and no cover runs into my HMG 1917? It gonna die. The same squad with cover does it? Not sure who wins. The same squad with vet 1 upgrade and thus 25% reduced vet, cover and perhaps leader squad bonus? my HMG wont hold it off.



So simply inf is affected by a lot more factors it makes it harder to set the point where the "bullet is a bullet".

With tanks this is generally a lot easier. Sure there can be cases where a 17 pdr stops a KT and in the next moment it cant do that. But generally you have a more clear idea what can stop which tank and there are no doctrinal unlocks that makes tanks taking suddenly massively less damage, exception here is the Zimmerit from TH doc.


I've been caught. Now I must reveal, I am a "bullet is a bullet" advocate. I think the concept of HP is an absolute waste of the CoH engine and just generally immersion breaking (hence if you see the features of my mod on how I convert HP to morale, don't worry I wont advertise here). Factors that "make soldiers harder to kill" can be represented in different ways than HP. For example, a factor where elite infantry use cover more effectively, why isn't the buff tied to cover? why are they getting blanket all situation defensive buffs? just stuff like that, i could go on, but need to speak specifically about luft now.

Anyways that being said, what is the difference between giving every other elite inf durability bonuses but not fallsj? The difference is fallsj have assault based weapons and others, especially when trying to differentiate from gebirgs, do not. The only other unit that's comparable with both offensive and defensive buffs would be stormtroopers, but their meant to be diffrentiated from the base grenadiers who receive almost no buffs except for mp44 upgrades.
Honestly, the amount of damage that fallsj can dish out is so insane that i think they should require SOME skill to get them in the proper position to roll out that damage. Is it really so difficult for players to use their infantry with some brains? Are defensive buffs really that necessary? It's almost as if come late game cover doesn't even matter any more because all the inf with their super buffs, theyre just right click to kill basic inf and anti-emplacement units to clear way for tanks.

ANYWAYS
sounds like this topic is dead and some greater decisions are being made about what's going to happen to luft. Would like to hear what the decision makers are thinking.

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

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Mr. FeministDonut » 20 Nov 2018, 01:04

I would like to see Luft actually be grounded doctrine with no paratroopers falling from the sky, being them able to come as call-in, from buildings or just replacing heavy grens, coming with default kars and perspective to buy those OP weapons with shreks.
Even more, I think mixing US inf and air doctrine with luft, making it more infantry approached gameplay would be interesting in PE, than usual 1-2 units running around and killing everyone in sight

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

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Warhawks97 » 20 Nov 2018, 15:56

Doesnt sound bad. Actually its back to the roots like in vcoh. Luftwaffe forces as additional infantry units to others that offers new abilties and ambush capabilties.

A doctrine focused on infantry that can count on the support of 88 guns and a few air strikes. Doesnt sound bad.

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

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby kwok » 20 Nov 2018, 18:41

omg warhawks. that's literally what the redesign is about hence the no hetzers.

sure the have gebirgs/no gebirgs is details and distraction because effectively the unit "still exists", we are literally debating if it should be named or not. the main point of the redesign though IS STILL focused on inf/off-maps/defenses.
I added more inf flexibility/capability, i added more offmaps, i added more defenses.

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

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Warhawks97 » 20 Nov 2018, 18:49

well, that topic is old so i forgot details. But when i remember correctly there was something like 7 CP 88, luftwaffe drops and even the idea about "Luftwaffe HQ" like a copy of AB doc.

That here was the first time someone mentioned the reg 5 itself as a call in spawing offmap/house. So its different to your original idea.

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

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby kwok » 20 Nov 2018, 18:52

i see. so you think it should deviate from AB doc and be more similar to USA inf doc?

personally i think spawning out of houses is a bad mechanic. it breaks immersion and it's hyper map dependent on whether it's useful/not useful.


EDIT: yo warhawks come on steam i want to show you my mod lol


Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests