Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
kwok
Team Member
Posts: 2090
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by kwok »

mofetagalactica wrote:I guess you will have to change the name of tank hunter to any other thing and change theme of it because either way it will end up being a terror copy or def copy.

Sure...
Tank Hunter
This doctrine is thematically designed to counter doctrines so we expect that this will get a major rework. We are open to ideas on how this can be redesigned.

I guess it wasn't explicit we would change the name but we are open to it.

And lets be honest armor didn't really got that big change is just the 105 sherman reworked , E8 still useless and not worth it, most of shermans are mostly shining now 'cause indirect balance changes on the delay of some german tanks but when players notice that you can counter spam shermans by spamming PZ F or just making another doc slighty better at early AT capabilities and armor doc will be locked up once again,like for example when a propaganda tiger shows up and 3/4 of your doc is fucked up.

The irony is this post exists: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3412
Let's be honest, not everyone agrees with you.
If a propaganda tiger shows up, i'd say time to get jacksons and then slowly work towards pershing if the tiger is still a problem.



EDIT:

REALLY REALLY ROUGH DRAFT because i felt guilty criticizing without having my own proposal. I call it the "Panzer Support" Doctrine

panzer-support doc_covered.png

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 386
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by CGarr »

kwok wrote:OKAY ALL, I think I gotta say some personal opinion stuff.

I didn't want to get into this until I had my own ideas because I don't like complaining without a solution. But, I really disagree with the direction of the conversation.

On a really summary level, here's my thoughts on the proposed rework: It's basically "How to fit all the biggest tanks into a doctrine with strong infantry and rocket artillery". If we wanted that we would've basically just kept terror as it was before because that's exactly what terror was, maybe move some JPs/JT path into terror and call it a day. Instead we went with the vote to make terror with volkssturm and now we're just moving terror to PE?? Just for all of your FYI, within the dev team I DID suggest moving terror as a doctrine to PE but after consideration we decided against it.

The doctrine reworks puts so much emphasis on high cost singular units, it kind of contradicts the tons of complaints we heard about how PE as a faction is too much focus on high cost that it is too punishing when a single unit is lost to RNG or a small mistake. Just because panzergrens become smaller in squad size (something I cautioned against) doesn't mean that it becomes okay to make every other unit high cost. In most of these reworks, 8/16 of the unlocks are about unlocking some sort of tank, when it comes to unlocking it really doesn't matter which path you choose... If you choose to unlock between tank destroyer vs tanks, it basically makes it pointless to go down the other branch because the CP choices will need to scale with the other doctrines. Example: If i choose to go down JPzrs instead of Tigers, then I might as well continue up to the JPnthers because getting a tiger would require MORE CP for less capability. If I go the otherway around and choose Tigers first, I might as well finish going King Tiger instead of JPzrs. Mencius' revision seems less linear than most others, but it still suffers from a similar issue where the entire doctrine is basically a decision tree around fuel income. Do I have a lot of fuel? If not go cheaper fuel path, if so go heavier path. And then all the other 1CP unlocks are "how to kill other tanks harder", essentially become a hard counter to armor doc which is completely against what we are trying to achieve on these reworks.

The ideas seem like to me in summary: Terror doc for PE but with only tanks behind CP locks plus the pgren bonuses around tank idea from the other thread just tacked on.
There's no real theme or playstyle idea around this except "LETS MAKE ALL THE HEAVY TANKS HERE AND MAKE THEM EVEN BETTER AT KILLING TANKS!!! oh yeah and some inf stuff" If that's what you all want, something like a "Panzer doctrine" (which i bet all the wehraboos and world of tank fans are salivating over) we can DO that... but I'd really go about it differently. Take the armor reworks for example, so far from what I've heard from people who play the beta and uploaded replays, armor doc is a lot more playable now because even though it is revolving around the theme of tanks, it's build on how tanks can address different situations, NOT how to unlock all the different tanks in the doctrine and how to make those tanks kill other tanks.


Idk if you missed this but the doc really doesn't need rocket arty if these tanks are in it, it'd still be pretty multi-role since you don't 100% need indirect (around half the games I play BK doc, I don't ever use indirect and am still able to effectively push).

CGarr wrote:Honestly aside from the command car being the 50 mm puma rather than a 20 mm and mark target no being present (from what I can tell), I like this one the most of what I've seen so far.

I think a 20 mm would make more sense than the 50, since it'd likely be built instead of a 20 mm car rather than alongside one since the fuel is better used for teching. Anti inf will always be useful (as seen with the US M20 car), but the 50 mm has limited capabilities later in the game since shermans can generally handle them without issues and they aren't amazing at anti-inf.

As for mark target, I figured it'd be changed for this doc to only be usable against vehicles and not every inf squad has to have it, although if that's the case I guess it doesn't really need a doctrine unlock. An unlock in the upgrade building would make more sense than cp if its just on a few squads. If there are no squads, maybe putting it on all of the light vehicles (most PE players will usually have a 28 mm car just sitting around later in the game if it doesn't die midgame) would be a decent alternative, just giving food for thought.

I support the hotchkiss removal (and would even say don't add nebels) but Kwok mentioned that people would probably flip their shit if it wasn't available so I left it in to see what people here would say. If you ask me this doc really doesn't need arty in general and I'd prefer having a flame hetzer available alongside a standard mortar squad (like wehr 81mm mortar) since AT guns in their various forms should be the main counter to this doc given its built around using tanks that are specialized in killing tanks (armor wouldn't really be a viable counter and air isn't reliable enough for the cost unless they go for super-heavies). I think this doctrine should be entirely reliant on direct engagements rather than using indirect fire to kill (smoke is a support that doesn't do anything on its own so I'm not really counting that), it'd be the only doctrine in the game that has the tools available to easily go head to head with any other doc and win (PE inf are good enough to deal with most inf and this doc's armor options are going to be the best of any axis doc, which speaks for itself).

From what I can tell, a lot of people in the games I've played would prefer a more micro-reliant doctrine that is well equipped for head on fights but lacking in indirect, as indirect in any doctrine generally lends itself to a more defensive play-style even with otherwise mobile doctrines (why push when you can hold and bomb them out). It sometimes feels like BK has something against more aggressive play with how light vehicles have gotten slowed down and how in general the best solution is always to just hold and bomb something to hell since most docs don't really have an affordable option to spearhead (blitz does with the panther but that tank has a small window of superiority before going back to indirect fire and ambush becomes the preferred option again).

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 2090
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by kwok »

Idk if you missed this but the doc really doesn't need rocket arty if these tanks are in it, it'd still be pretty multi-role since you don't 100% need indirect (around half the games I play BK doc, I don't ever use indirect and am still able to effectively push).


How would the doc you proposed/suggested by others without rocket arty do against 17 pdr/76mm emplacement spam? HE shots by KT's or JTs only?

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 386
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by CGarr »

@ kwok This tree actually looks really good, although as figree pointed out the IV/70 honestly probably shouldn't be available alongside panthers since its relatively cheap and difficult to kill for the price (camo, decent armor, good range).I suggested Nash earlier but it wasn't well recieved, and I can't really think of a good tank to put in that spot, but there doesn't necessarily need to be something in between the JP4 and Jpanther.

Additionally, as I said before, the rocket arty really isn't necessary for this doc and I get the feeling you're adding it to put the doc more in line with others. Many people don't like how prevalent indirect is already, so having a doctrine that doesn't really have true indirect weapons (aside from a mortar and the standard mortar HT) and instead relies on its direct firepower would incentivize players to use other tools for dealing with static targets. It's not like this doc would have problems going head to head with much that the allies have to offer (aside from super and that thing is really risky to use), so there's no need to give it the same kind of indirect firepower that docs like blitz or armor have, where it serves as a means of dealing with emplacements and big tanks that these docs can't safely engage with their armor.

The tanks available in this tree being the "direct fire superiority" I mentioned above, the end of the top tank line would represent the best of the best in this role. 2 tanks would fit exceptionally well in this spot, the JT and the KT. These 2 should either be both available to be built (with both having a unit cap of 1) and mutually exclusive if one is built, or one should be a reward unit choice for the other if the first option isn't possible. I am pushing the KT because between terror doc's tendency to favor the Tiger Ace over a KT in most situations and it's absence in other doctrines, this tank is very rarely seen in the beta. Additionally, some players (myself included) would probably prefer to have something with a turret and equally scary gun (but worse armor) over the JT, which plays like the BK doc brummbar but with more armor and pen. Both are slow but the KT is at least somewhat more capable of reacting to flanks that the JT, the JT just doesn't really have to because its extremely difficult to kill with anything but indirect fire, even when it cant shoot back.

To deal with emplacements, I suggest a double unlock on that slot for both flamethrower armed vehicles (HT and hetz) and a smoke drop on the command vehicle. Having this double unlock would hopefully inspire players to think of other ways to deal with emplacement using the tools given in this doc, rather than just crying about how they can't bomb it to hell the same way most other docs can. There's plenty of options available with the tools suggested here, I'll name a few:

1. smoke and flames of any kind (you've seen this, you know how strong it is)
2. smoke and inf nades (assault pios actually doing their job?)
3. smoke and HE tanks like P3 (my preferred method on BK, riskier than doing it with inf or flame since the HE isn't as quick and costs a lot, but its definitely the easiest option aside from 4 since the p3 literally has a smoke canister ability)
4. Just flat out rushing it with inf (this is PE, not wehr. you can get away with this dumb shit when most of your inf is extremely durable)
5. mortar/mortar HT (self explanatory)
6. Combined arms pushes, the entire focus of this doctrine.

If you really want more message me on disc and we can brainstorm but this should be enough. Moving on.

The command vehicle itself should unlock options for either a 20 mm command car or 50 mm command car if possible (maybe reward unit, I know people hate that word but as a command unit it wouldn't screw you over to have the wrong version since combat is it's secondary purpose). If that's not an option, I would argue the 20 mm makes more sense since the plethora or tanks, TD's, and buffed AT inf have the 50 mm tank's role covered. The 20 mm, on the other hand, would be useful throughout the game to support against inf similar to how the US 50 cal command car does.

I added an abilities unlock that would give the player some fun and somewhat effective but more slightly more micro intensive options to deal with certain situations. Tank shock being a doctrinal unlock rather than a vet requirement would make sense here since we're talking about including some of the biggest and scariest tanks in the war (not commenting on how effective they were, just the fact that either way they're huge in both size and reputation would make an infantryman shit himself if he saw one, regardless of who's inside). Cheaper Suppression as a means of supporting the infantry against enemy inf (as opposed to the defensive role that american tanks use this ability) would be a nice tool since indirect support would be lacking. Hull down would help if the player has to take a more defensive role, but it also immobilizes the tank and therefore presents a juicy arty target as well as easier flanking opportunities by AT inf.

panzer-support doc_covered2.png
panzer-support doc_covered2.png (136.81 KiB) Viewed 751 times


kwok wrote:
Idk if you missed this but the doc really doesn't need rocket arty if these tanks are in it, it'd still be pretty multi-role since you don't 100% need indirect (around half the games I play BK doc, I don't ever use indirect and am still able to effectively push).


How would the doc you proposed/suggested by others without rocket arty do against 17 pdr/76mm emplacement spam? HE shots by KT's or JTs only?


Edit: just saw this last reply, I'd hope this post answers that but I can think of more ways if that's the issue you're running into. You said it yourself above, a doctrine with a ton of Heavies, good inf, and rocket arty seems dumb and would pretty much be the old terror. That's not the idea for this doc I had in mind and this revised tree along with a few of the comments I've made above would reflect that.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3984
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Warhawks97 »

kwok wrote:
On a really summary level, here's my thoughts on the proposed rework: It's basically "How to fit all the biggest tanks into a doctrine with strong infantry and rocket artillery". If we wanted that we would've basically just kept terror as it was before because that's exactly what terror was, maybe move some JPs/JT path into terror and call it a day. Instead we went with the vote to make terror with volkssturm and now we're just moving terror to PE?? Just for all of your FYI, within the dev team I DID suggest moving terror as a doctrine to PE but after consideration we decided against it.


There is a huge difference between them. Terror has a lot more indirect means and its tanks are protected by meatshields. This doc is more about using brute force with not so much indirect support, combined pushes and tanks decently crewed and supported by inf. Same unit does not mean same gameplay.
If you add a Tiger to Luft doc it doesnt mean its like playing terror doc.


The doctrine reworks puts so much emphasis on high cost singular units, it kind of contradicts the tons of complaints we heard about how PE as a faction is too much focus on high cost that it is too punishing when a single unit is lost to RNG or a small mistake. Just because panzergrens become smaller in squad size (something I cautioned against) doesn't mean that it becomes okay to make every other unit high cost. In most of these reworks, 8/16 of the unlocks are about unlocking some sort of tank, when it comes to unlocking it really doesn't matter which path you choose... If you choose to unlock between tank destroyer vs tanks, it basically makes it pointless to go down the other branch because the CP choices will need to scale with the other doctrines. Example: If i choose to go down JPzrs instead of Tigers, then I might as well continue up to the JPnthers because getting a tiger would require MORE CP for less capability. If I go the otherway around and choose Tigers first, I might as well finish going King Tiger instead of JPzrs. Mencius' revision seems less linear than most others, but it still suffers from a similar issue where the entire doctrine is basically a decision tree around fuel income. Do I have a lot of fuel? If not go cheaper fuel path, if so go heavier path. And then all the other 1CP unlocks are "how to kill other tanks harder", essentially become a hard counter to armor doc which is completely against what we are trying to achieve on these reworks.


Well, i think having cheaper inf in exchange for squad size drop can work, depending on whats the purpose of the infantry. I think same about US combat engis for example. Perhaps 5 men and a cost drop would be an option here as well with a sixth men possible as upgrade. But you wouldnt be forced to pay 300 MP when you actually need just a few men to throw a nade into a window to blow some schrecks out.



And armor doc will always find its hard counter in one way or the other. Let it be Tank IV spam, TD spam or simply heavy axis tanks.
Its simply the nature of US armor. Only by adding air support and priests to it things would be different when speaking about 1 vs 1 capability in the long run. But thats off-topic.






The ideas seem like to me in summary: Terror doc for PE but with only tanks behind CP locks plus the pgren bonuses around tank idea from the other thread just tacked on.
There's no real theme or playstyle idea around this except "LETS MAKE ALL THE HEAVY TANKS HERE AND MAKE THEM EVEN BETTER AT KILLING TANKS!!! oh yeah and some inf stuff" If that's what you all want, something like a "Panzer doctrine" (which i bet all the wehraboos and world of tank fans are salivating over) we can DO that... but I'd really go about it differently. Take the armor reworks for example, so far from what I've heard from people who play the beta and uploaded replays, armor doc is a lot more playable now because even though it is revolving around the theme of tanks, it's build on how tanks can address different situations, NOT how to unlock all the different tanks in the doctrine and how to make those tanks kill other tanks.



I would say thats a faction thing again. Allied simply used less different types but therefore many of one type. One is called " flat production" which means you get lots of different stuff for your army but each "tool" is short in supply. Good for Blitzkrieg but bad for prolonged wars. The second is a "deep production".

We cant take allis docs as example for axis. Too many different factors. Axis simply has more different units, let it be inf or whatever.
Allieds have basically just two tanks: Sherman and M10. Everything else is bascially build arround it. Churchills and cromwells are some exceptions. The only thing that changes is the gun and armor. So we can at best put shermans with subvariants, M10´s and a handfull Pershings into one US doc. Axis has more to offer in tank types and subvariants often serve very different roles again.


In short that means that US (in my opinion) supports the few different main units with various tactical stuff or boosting units they have. Docs like an "German Panzerdivision" using perhaps more brute force with different tank types at its disposal.

Its difficult.... And PE is special bc the entire faction is very special already.




mofetagalactica wrote:
About the armor doc, meh... the greatest addition was the 105mm sherman while being reworked into anti-emplacement unit, the doctrinal tree was freshen up thats true but...
They will be still being lock by other docs unless someday u realise that every USA armor unit needs a proper look-at one by one on price/stats/accuracy.
So at the end of the day armor still needs a lot work.



The Airbone reworks were pretty....half done? , could have been better and same as usa still needs a look-at one by one on some price on the support drop branch.

Infantry got a big boost and change on the way of playing to fight againts different docs thanks to priest, jacksons or jumbo 76mm and the easier way to unlock the hability to get cheaper inf.


So far the best sucesfull reworked docs where mostly the WH's wich i love all 3 of them, still need some small fixes on forgotten units 'cause other of the same kind got price reduction, so cheers, i hope you can at least take some of the proposed parts of the tree lines proposed here tho.


The WH docs are currently well done in design and their stuff works due to proper stats.





CGarr wrote:@ kwok This tree actually looks really good, although as figree pointed out the IV/70 honestly probably shouldn't be available alongside panthers since its relatively cheap and difficult to kill for the price (camo, decent armor, good range).I suggested Nash earlier but it wasn't well recieved, and I can't really think of a good tank to put in that spot, but there doesn't necessarily need to be something in between the JP4 and Jpanther.


Just curious: Which tank would you say should cost more CP: Panther or IV/70? As for me i can be fine with Panther at 5-6 CP but IV/70 for 7 CP. But they shouldnt share the same line bc they are too different except from the gun.


Additionally, as I said before, the rocket arty really isn't necessary for this doc and I get the feeling you're adding it to put the doc more in line with others. Many people don't like how prevalent indirect is already, so having a doctrine that doesn't really have true indirect weapons (aside from a mortar and the standard mortar HT) and instead relies on its direct firepower would incentivize players to use other tools for dealing with static targets. It's not like this doc would have problems going head to head with much that the allies have to offer (aside from super and that thing is really risky to use), so there's no need to give it the same kind of indirect firepower that docs like blitz or armor have, where it serves as a means of dealing with emplacements and big tanks that these docs can't safely engage with their armor.


My thinking, too.




The tanks available in this tree being the "direct fire superiority" I mentioned above, the end of the top tank line would represent the best of the best in this role. 2 tanks would fit exceptionally well in this spot, the JT and the KT. These 2 should either be both available to be built (with both having a unit cap of 1) and mutually exclusive if one is built, or one should be a reward unit choice for the other if the first option isn't possible. I am pushing the KT because between terror doc's tendency to favor the Tiger Ace over a KT in most situations and it's absence in other doctrines, this tank is very rarely seen in the beta. Additionally, some players (myself included) would probably prefer to have something with a turret and equally scary gun (but worse armor) over the JT, which plays like the BK doc brummbar but with more armor and pen. Both are slow but the KT is at least somewhat more capable of reacting to flanks that the JT, the JT just doesn't really have to because its extremely difficult to kill with anything but indirect fire, even when it cant shoot back.


yes. Thats why i also placed KT and JT in a line. Even though in is called TD, its in fact a heavy battering ram and is thus not in the TD line.

To deal with emplacements, I suggest a double unlock on that slot for both flamethrower armed vehicles (HT and hetz) and a smoke drop on the command vehicle. Having this double unlock would hopefully inspire players to think of other ways to deal with emplacement using the tools given in this doc, rather than just crying about how they can't bomb it to hell the same way most other docs can. There's plenty of options available with the tools suggested here, I'll name a few:

1. smoke and flames of any kind (you've seen this, you know how strong it is)
2. smoke and inf nades (assault pios actually doing their job?)
3. smoke and HE tanks like P3 (my preferred method on BK, riskier than doing it with inf or flame since the HE isn't as quick and costs a lot, but its definitely the easiest option aside from 4 since the p3 literally has a smoke canister ability)
4. Just flat out rushing it with inf (this is PE, not wehr. you can get away with this dumb shit when most of your inf is extremely durable)
5. mortar/mortar HT (self explanatory)
6. Combined arms pushes, the entire focus of this doctrine.


Good ideas. Flame Hetzer can be unlocked along JP IV.

If you really want more message me on disc and we can brainstorm but this should be enough. Moving on.

The command vehicle itself should unlock options for either a 20 mm command car or 50 mm command car if possible (maybe reward unit, I know people hate that word but as a command unit it wouldn't screw you over to have the wrong version since combat is it's secondary purpose). If that's not an option, I would argue the 20 mm makes more sense since the plethora or tanks, TD's, and buffed AT inf have the 50 mm tank's role covered. The 20 mm, on the other hand, would be useful throughout the game to support against inf similar to how the US 50 cal command car does.

I added an abilities unlock that would give the player some fun and somewhat effective but more slightly more micro intensive options to deal with certain situations. Tank shock being a doctrinal unlock rather than a vet requirement would make sense here since we're talking about including some of the biggest and scariest tanks in the war (not commenting on how effective they were, just the fact that either way they're huge in both size and reputation would make an infantryman shit himself if he saw one, regardless of who's inside). Cheaper Suppression as a means of supporting the infantry against enemy inf (as opposed to the defensive role that american tanks use this ability) would be a nice tool since indirect support would be lacking. Hull down would help if the player has to take a more defensive role, but it also immobilizes the tank and therefore presents a juicy arty target as well as easier flanking opportunities by AT inf.


also not bad. But cheaper suppression might result in abuse during offense and defense.

MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 271
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by MenciusMoldbug »

I'm thinking here that if you want to make this doctrine fun in the early game. You should have the naked hotchkiss come right out of the logistik kompanie without needing any fuel upgrades. It should be the earliest 'tank' available in the game. Give it HE rounds as an upgrade too or maybe lock HE behind the logistik kompanie fuel upgrade. But have this be the earliest tank you can get. It's got no co-axil MG's only its main gun; so it's pretty balanced for that stage of the game.

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 630
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by mofetagalactica »

MenciusMoldbug wrote:I'm thinking here that if you want to make this doctrine fun in the early game. You should have the naked hotchkiss come right out of the logistik kompanie without needing any fuel upgrades. It should be the earliest 'tank' available in the game. Give it HE rounds as an upgrade too or maybe lock HE behind the logistik kompanie fuel upgrade. But have this be the earliest tank you can get. It's got no co-axil MG's only its main gun; so it's pretty balanced for that stage of the game.


True it could work as the earliest tank available per default, but no rocket upgrade for him never along the way (at least for this doctrine)

Same could be done with SE having it as the earliest tank available but with the option to upgrade it with rockets later in-game.

Please do not forget about the Panzer IV Ausf. F1 - 500 MP/55 Fuel (Short barrel/MG on top/HE) it is already an excelent kinda slow anti inf unit i would totally want to see this unit being used more on TH, it should also get a price reduction since is stupidly high.

I would like to see the wespe getting reworked into what it should be a cheaper direct support/anti emplacement gun and maybe added to TH aswell. Hummel should be the true indirect movible artillery for PE.

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 386
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by CGarr »

mofetagalactica wrote:
MenciusMoldbug wrote:I'm thinking here that if you want to make this doctrine fun in the early game. You should have the naked hotchkiss come right out of the logistik kompanie without needing any fuel upgrades. It should be the earliest 'tank' available in the game. Give it HE rounds as an upgrade too or maybe lock HE behind the logistik kompanie fuel upgrade. But have this be the earliest tank you can get. It's got no co-axil MG's only its main gun; so it's pretty balanced for that stage of the game.


True it could work as the earliest tank available per default, but no rocket upgrade for him never along the way (at least for this doctrine)

Same could be done with SE having it as the earliest tank available but with the option to upgrade it with rockets later in-game.

Please do not forget about the Panzer IV Ausf. F1 - 500 MP/55 Fuel (Short barrel/MG on top/HE) it is already an excelent kinda slow anti inf unit i would totally want to see this unit being used more on TH, it should also get a price reduction since is stupidly high.

I would like to see the wespe getting reworked into what it should be a cheaper direct support/anti emplacement gun and maybe added to TH aswell. Hummel should be the true indirect movible artillery for PE.


I'd support all of these ideas.

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 386
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by CGarr »

In response to @Hawks:

1. I agree on all the points you made in response to Kwok and Figree.

2. As for the IV/70 and panther, I don't really think they're comparable in terms of which should come first. They serve different roles, but to answer your question I am impartial to which comes first. There are good arguments for both cases. In any case, I feel I should repeat that these 2 tanks really shouldn't be in the same doc after having read some of the responses here and giving it some thought. I don't like IV/70 as a unit but it at least makes sense in defensive doctrine since that doc needs cover a lot of ground with its TD's since getting flanked could be a game-ender. In this proposed doc, there are late game non-casemate options that can effectively cover a lot more ground since they can deal with threats from multiple angles (face armor to front, target side with gun). These tanks also have a lot of range and much better survivability, so you don't need them to be spammable.

Note: I am talking about the late game options like panther, KT, and to some extent the JP. Pz4 and jpz4 have an upper limit to how effective they can be late game, so having a line of them isn't really comparable to having a line consisiting of mainly IV/70's since the latter can kill all late game units with a couple shots, whereas the former wouldn't realistically be able to without investing heavily into just making multiple defensive pairs. As of my last revised tree, this doctrine is not equipped for prolonged defense since indirect would tear apart the TD's and the player probably wouldn't have enough MP to keep building/repairing (PE happens to not really have a cheap engineer unit aside from maybe the kettenkrad if that thing can still repair, haven't tried it recently) them at the rate they're being taken out of action.

This doctrine would have to be mobile and applying pressure to really stay in the fight, IV/70 would kind of nullify that since it is cheap enough to make a line with without really sacrificing in other places since you don't need multiple covering each other to effectively defend one spot without just being walked through by a pershing or even churchills. You might be noting that the Jagdpanther can do just that, but that unit is only really cost effective if the enemy isn't just bombing you out constantly, and having more than 2 (like 90% of the maps in game require more than 2 of any tank to really be able to form a static line if you're not taking teammates into account, and if its not a relatively static defensive line then is it really camping at that point, or just using defensive units in a mobile manner?) means you probably won't have the fuel for heavies, so Jagdpanthers make up your entire comp of armor and you won't have the arty to back them up the same way you can in the current TH doc.

3. The flame hetzer would make sense on either slot, I put it on the smoke drop to make that unlock more attractive and incentivize the use of smoke alongside this tank since it's effectiveness would actually increase in smoke since accuracy isn't a problem. I understand that the unit is just a hetzer with a flamethrower in place of the gun, but I don't think that necessarily means it should be under the same unlock as the hetzer. They are different units with different purposes and I don't think the smoke drop would really be attractive to people on it's own, so including a unit that could take advantage of said smoke drop within the same unlock would give more incentive to invest in a part of the tree other than the tank lines.

4. I was thinking the same but wasn't sure how to fix it, so thanks for pointing that out. Maybe a longer duration on the suppression or something to make it stronger on its own for this doc since there isn't going to be much as far as indirect options go for taking advantage of the ability to suppress large groups of inf. While it is kind of a panic button, it wouldn't be as effective here as it is elsewhere because of that lack of indirect to follow up with. Therefore I was thinking it should either be made cheaper through this CP unlock or it should be buffed in some way.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3984
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Warhawks97 »

mofetagalactica wrote:
MenciusMoldbug wrote:I'm thinking here that if you want to make this doctrine fun in the early game. You should have the naked hotchkiss come right out of the logistik kompanie without needing any fuel upgrades. It should be the earliest 'tank' available in the game. Give it HE rounds as an upgrade too or maybe lock HE behind the logistik kompanie fuel upgrade. But have this be the earliest tank you can get. It's got no co-axil MG's only its main gun; so it's pretty balanced for that stage of the game.


True it could work as the earliest tank available per default, but no rocket upgrade for him never along the way (at least for this doctrine)

Same could be done with SE having it as the earliest tank available but with the option to upgrade it with rockets later in-game.

Please do not forget about the Panzer IV Ausf. F1 - 500 MP/55 Fuel (Short barrel/MG on top/HE) it is already an excelent kinda slow anti inf unit i would totally want to see this unit being used more on TH, it should also get a price reduction since is stupidly high.


I thought about hotchkiss and came to the point that it shouldnt be in this doc. Its an old french tank, totally outdated. I prefer to have this doc to be some sort of elite doc with the latest tanks of the time available.
Hotchkiss does fit a lot better in SE alongside Beutesherman. Fighting with everything thats left in the inventory, including captured tanks.


Having some good vehicles and non CP medium tanks available would fit better in this doc.
The Tank IV is indeed expensive.


I would like to see the wespe getting reworked into what it should be a cheaper direct support/anti emplacement gun and maybe added to TH aswell. Hummel should be the true indirect movible artillery for PE.



should be? Where was wespe a direct fire support unit?
Its an LeFH 18M mounted on Panzer II chassis. It fought alongside Hummel. It is. however, true that both of these were usually attached to Tank Divisions, but so was the Priest, too.

I mean we can say in theory that all SPGS will be moved to tank docs, but i dont think its a good idea.
And the Wespe is a 100% artillery piece for indirect fire. If anything, it would be Grille that would fill your vision bc thats in fact in so called "Infantry gun" just like the 75 mm light infantry gun. They are indeed used for close range fire support. So you could think of adding Grille as your emplacment buster into TH doc.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 3127
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by MarKr »

mofetagalactica wrote:I would like to see the wespe getting reworked into what it should be a cheaper direct support/anti emplacement gun and maybe added to TH aswell. Hummel should be the true indirect movible artillery for PE.
What do you mean "what it should be"? Wespes were used as indirect artillery units. What is the problem with having Wespe as SPG and Hummel as its stronger version?

Anyway - Hotchkiss as an early light tank would be possible. If I remember correctly, i vCoH Hotchkiss came with a 37mm gun and it was possible to upgrade it to a better version which had penetration chances similar to 50mm guns (similar to Littlejohn upgrades on Daimlers/Tetrarchs). In BK the Hotchkiss comes with pre-installed gun upgrade but we could revert it and make them built with the 37mm gun and allow the upgrade later to keep the tank more viable outside just early game. I also think that there are unused files for Hotchkiss that allows it to fire incendiary rockets - it would be possible to use those in SE if the tank becomes available in all docs or it could be actually used even in this doctrine so that there is a way to decrew emplacements with the fire while not giving access to to the destructive power of the HE rockets.
Just "thinking aloud" here, I am not saying any of this must be used.

We discussed the suggestions mentioned here with kwok on Discord and we came to same conclusions, so I will not repeat what he said but I can see that someone suggested here that the doc could lack indirect arty and rather get the armor to be more of a "head on head" doctrine and it should get some smoke abilities to deal with emplacements. A thought that comes to my mind when reading this is that smoke is available in many doctrines (from mortars, arty, offmap abilities, AB HQ ability...) and can be used to overcome defenses but not many players do that and rather use arty. It is simply safer because even when you use smoke you can still lose units to lucky shots/RNG rolls and other factors. Since many players preffer the "safer" way than risking losing their units, wouldn't this lead to this doctrine often just camping until unlocking KT/JT? Because Panthers and Tigers can still get one-shot by 17pounder (emplacements, hidden guns or Achilles) and only the KT provides somewhat reliable protection from these guns and JT being the only "immune" unit. It just seems to me that many people would preffer to camp until they get these units. I am not saying that camping should never be used as a tactics but this sounds like it could turn into the most used one with this doctrine even when it is not intended to be.
Image

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3984
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Warhawks97 »

An off map strike called by a special tank or vehicle or perhaps even tank commander should be the preferred way. Tactical arty over brain dead rocket tanks. I agree that relying only on armor protection would lead to camping.

Also I am not totally against having spgs in armored doctrines to be honest like Wespe or priests. Given the fact they were attached usually to tank division.

How that would play out is left open though. But I don't consider that as an impossible option for armor doctrines.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 2090
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by kwok »

I’m very against having Wespes cross over to tank doctrine... people pretty much play SE for wespes, beatuepanzers, nashorns, and snipers. Everything else I hardly see used except as “well I might as well use it” and aren’t incorporated into the strategy at all. Taking away the wespes will basically make tank doctrine just better than SE in every way.

It also just doubles down on the “too expensive to lose” problem. Assume that we WONT change pgren squad sizes and think through this.

User avatar
Walderschmidt
Posts: 576
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Walderschmidt »

@Markr, a lot of people use the other "safer" options because smoke takes a long time to come, only comes from a mortar or certain units, or doesn't provide satisfactory cover. Yes, RNG happens. But also, sometimes it's hard to tell if that one guy not in the smoke is causing the squad to lose the benefits of smoke when attacked by another unit, similar to the effect that all it takes is one guy out of cover to get the whole squad suppressed by a machine gun where they otherwise shouldn't be.

Wald
Kwok is an allied fanboy!

AND SO IS DICKY

AND MARKR IS THE BIGGGEST ALLIED FANBOI OF THEM ALL

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3984
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Warhawks97 »

I didn't say to remove them from se. There is nothing wrong in having the same unit in different doctrines.

And is squad size already decided?
At the end it would be up to the player whether he gets wespe and tank iv or a single kt.

Tanks are problematic in reality and in game bc they are strong but easily countered when they don't get support by air, arty or inf.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 2090
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by kwok »

Okay I misread. But I still disagree because it still makes SE inferior. Wespes accomplish enough that a Hummel isn’t always needed, coupled with the mega tanks in Tank doc it would be way too strong. Unless Wespes would cost like 1000mp and 200fu in tank doc only I really don’t think it belongs in tank doc.

I won’t say it’s decided but I really really really don’t think it’s a good idea because I’ve personally TRIED it. Even the current assault squads for brits struggle in the early game because of their squad size.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3984
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Warhawks97 »

kwok wrote:Okay I misread. But I still disagree because it still makes SE inferior. Wespes accomplish enough that a Hummel isn’t always needed, coupled with the mega tanks in Tank doc it would be way too strong. Unless Wespes would cost like 1000mp and 200fu in tank doc only I really don’t think it belongs in tank doc.


The question is whether its affordable or not. You can either try to overcome the enemie with Tank IV and wespe or single KT.

Tanks are always problematic bc they are strong but are easily countered when there is not strong tactical support.
It would only need a correct tec line. Most games end long before a doctrine has completely unlocked everything they got. So you actually only need to put JP/KT etc at one side of the end and wespe at the other side.

I think tank docs in general would always benefit to have tactical arty strikes like Tank commander arty and some sort of mobile mechanized arty at their disposal. Thats just my opinion.

So in general i would say that wespe in PE armor doc, Priest in US armor and cromwell arty in CW armor wouldnt be such a bad idea as well as some tactical strikes.


SE on the other hand would remain wespe but getting the hotchkiss rockets as well. SE would afterall greatly differ from TH doc as it has cheap Nashorn defense, Hummel, various 0 cp rocket arty, traps, snipers, big mortars, flame rocket arty etc etc etc.

It only needs to be assured that these SPGS would require sufficient CP´s to make it as hard as possible to get those along with elite tanks.

I won’t say it’s decided but I really really really don’t think it’s a good idea because I’ve personally TRIED it. Even the current assault squads for brits struggle in the early game because of their squad size.



Brits are not so well suited for that kind of small squad size gameplay and i wouldnt try it with them. You have less buildings early on to recruit. PE on the other hand can keep building HT´s and inf at the same time.

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 386
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by CGarr »

MarKr wrote:Anyway - Hotchkiss as an early light tank would be possible. If I remember correctly, i vCoH Hotchkiss came with a 37mm gun and it was possible to upgrade it to a better version which had penetration chances similar to 50mm guns (similar to Littlejohn upgrades on Daimlers/Tetrarchs). In BK the Hotchkiss comes with pre-installed gun upgrade but we could revert it and make them built with the 37mm gun and allow the upgrade later to keep the tank more viable outside just early game. I also think that there are unused files for Hotchkiss that allows it to fire incendiary rockets - it would be possible to use those in SE if the tank becomes available in all docs or it could be actually used even in this doctrine so that there is a way to decrew emplacements with the fire while not giving access to to the destructive power of the HE rockets.
Just "thinking aloud" here, I am not saying any of this must be used.


That could work, as long as the rockets aren't available on TH it should be fine.

MarKr wrote:We discussed the suggestions mentioned here with kwok on Discord and we came to same conclusions, so I will not repeat what he said but I can see that someone suggested here that the doc could lack indirect arty and rather get the armor to be more of a "head on head" doctrine and it should get some smoke abilities to deal with emplacements. A thought that comes to my mind when reading this is that smoke is available in many doctrines (from mortars, arty, offmap abilities, AB HQ ability...) and can be used to overcome defenses but not many players do that and rather use arty. It is simply safer because even when you use smoke you can still lose units to lucky shots/RNG rolls and other factors. Since many players preffer the "safer" way than risking losing their units, wouldn't this lead to this doctrine often just camping until unlocking KT/JT? Because Panthers and Tigers can still get one-shot by 17pounder (emplacements, hidden guns or Achilles) and only the KT provides somewhat reliable protection from these guns and JT being the only "immune" unit. It just seems to me that many people would preffer to camp until they get these units. I am not saying that camping should never be used as a tactics but this sounds like it could turn into the most used one with this doctrine even when it is not intended to be.


The doctrine wouldn't necessarily lack indirect completely, but it'd only come in the form of mortars, mortar HT, tank commander offmap, or an off map heavy smoke bombardment (Ex: pay muni for just an enormous amount of smoke shells in an area roughly the size of the offmap arty aiming circle, only called in from command tank). The point would be that none of it would really be viable as counter arty, either because a tank has to be nearby to call it in (and there's probably AT in between so that isn't an option) or because it's non-lethal (smoke) and just a means of covering advancing troops from incoming fire. You could still take out emplacements and then run wild behind their line with armor and strong inf, but if you just sit still you're going to get bombed to death because you don't have a way to counter-barrage their arty.

As for smoke not being viable in pushes, that is only true if you're pushing tanks without inf support, as it only takes an inf or two running in first to nade out the AT gun to negate that threat, and the smoke would mainly be there to cover the inf from their counters long enough to do so. Even if the player chooses to push with only tanks, a proper heavy smoke drop will at least make it a consistent gamble since it wouldn't depend on whether the smoke disperses properly. There's a difference between RNG for the sake of having some realism and having a tool just consistently under-perform because it can't be adjusted one way and nothing is being done to compensate for that fact by adjusting it in another way. The normal mortar smoke would be the same, the smoke drop would just be a call in of a bunch of those shells landing in 1 or 2 waves rather than streaming in slowly like a mortar.

Walderschmidt wrote:@Markr, a lot of people use the other "safer" options because smoke takes a long time to come, only comes from a mortar or certain units, or doesn't provide satisfactory cover. Yes, RNG happens. But also, sometimes it's hard to tell if that one guy not in the smoke is causing the squad to lose the benefits of smoke when attacked by another unit, similar to the effect that all it takes is one guy out of cover to get the whole squad suppressed by a machine gun where they otherwise shouldn't be.

Wald


Wald is spot on with this, if adjustments are made to compensate for the technical limitations that smoke has in coh1 in order to give it effect players desire (see Figree's smoke thread if you don't think coverage of the smoke is the issue), people would probably be more willing to use it. My suggestion was to at least have an offmap drop since not much can really be done to improve the mortar smoke.

Players camp a lot right now because there's a ton of indirect options in every doctrine that keep the player from being punished for playing mobility-themed doctrines more statically. Changing one doctrine to reward more mobile play won't take away those other options from players, if they want a jack of all trades they can go blitz/def/luft* or inf/armor/RE*. It will simply reward players with a less static playstyle by giving them more mobile options of dealing with certain situations in exchange for punishing those who don't take advantage of these strengths. It'd be similar to terror not in gameplay, but in that the doctrine would reward the player with really good armor, but at the cost of having something be extremely weak even late game. Inf on terror is a joke late game (1 upgraded sherman can take on all of a terror players inf at the same time and still have a good chance of winning the engagement since if you focus down the 2 shreck squads, their only AT option is fausts and they wont be able to close the gap), but it's still there and it gets the job done. Likewise, indirect options wouldn't be great for this doc, but they are still present in the forms I described above and they would get the job done well enough.

*(to a lesser degree, brits and PE are more specialized in general)
Last edited by CGarr on 21 Nov 2019, 00:59, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 386
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by CGarr »

Warhawks97 wrote:
kwok wrote:Okay I misread. But I still disagree because it still makes SE inferior. Wespes accomplish enough that a Hummel isn’t always needed, coupled with the mega tanks in Tank doc it would be way too strong. Unless Wespes would cost like 1000mp and 200fu in tank doc only I really don’t think it belongs in tank doc.


The question is whether its affordable or not. You can either try to overcome the enemie with Tank IV and wespe or single KT.

Tanks are always problematic bc they are strong but are easily countered when there is not strong tactical support.
It would only need a correct tec line. Most games end long before a doctrine has completely unlocked everything they got. So you actually only need to put JP/KT etc at one side of the end and wespe at the other side.

I think tank docs in general would always benefit to have tactical arty strikes like Tank commander arty and some sort of mobile mechanized arty at their disposal. Thats just my opinion.

So in general i would say that wespe in PE armor doc, Priest in US armor and cromwell arty in CW armor wouldnt be such a bad idea as well as some tactical strikes.


SE on the other hand would remain wespe but getting the hotchkiss rockets as well. SE would afterall greatly differ from TH doc as it has cheap Nashorn defense, Hummel, various 0 cp rocket arty, traps, snipers, big mortars, flame rocket arty etc etc etc.

It only needs to be assured that these SPGS would require sufficient CP´s to make it as hard as possible to get those along with elite tanks.


I would stand by my earlier posts in saying that I really don't think having arty units on this doc would be a good idea, or its just going to become pre-rework terror doc. Tactical strikes are good because they generally cost more and have short range. The disadvantage of not being able to play statically due to lack of counter-arty would balancing out the fact that these armored doctrines would have an advantage in head to head fights.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 2090
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by kwok »

There's a difference between RNG for the sake of having some realism and having a tool just consistently under-perform because it can't be adjusted one way and nothing is being done to compensate for that fact by adjusting it in another way.

I mean that’s why the other post was made right? The poll suggested to go to more rng based rather than pure. We are figuring out how to manipulate the rng aspect but we can’t all vote the option that specifically says “RNG” and expect to have “no RNG”. We will see how mortar smoke adjustments affect the game then provide more smoke options if necessary. Everyone knows I love using smoke so I’m a big pro-more-smoke options but the challenge is actually figuring out the UI aspects of it. Abilities need to move around which might seem insignificant but it’s actually got really big implications sometimes. For example, adding hold fire for tanks has been asked for tons of times and we have no disagreements to it, but adding it means tanks including the tiger ace would need to lose some abilities that everyone still would want, which begs the question if abilities are removed does that diminish the CP unlocks of the tiger ace and tiger phobia and how would that effect balance. This could all be figured out, sure, but of all the other things to get done is this something worth spending time on?
Smoke options is tough because the docs asked for to have already have full command bar of abilities, which should be removed where a player won’t miss out on micro intense moments where they would want the ability ready at hand to execute complex actions?
A lot of exaggerated reasons for not including more smoke but it’s still things to think through among other bigger objectives we are trying to accomplish. That’s why despite reworks, not many abilities have changed. Mostly just units because we have more UI flexibility on unit availability.

About camping, I very very much disagree that the main reason for camping is the availability of indirect fire units. It contradicts the whole argument that because of ammo upkeeps there’s more camping because you can’t use indirect fire units. The true reason for camping is map choice which I’ve argued again and again to the community and the devs as a solution to many problems. Camping is a problem because single units have obvious positions that lock down entire maps. Defense should require skill, if you want to defend something you should be thinking about how to cover area with limited resources. If you have enough resource to cover an area then there is no skill. Indirect units serve to eliminate or disperse key parts of a defense prior to an attack or to deliver a finishing blow after manipulating a defended position through attack. To remove indirect fire as a capability is forcing a play style rather encouraging it, which is more or less what we want from doctrines. this doesn’t mean that every doctrine should have artillery. But it definitely doesn’t mean that a doctrine shouldn’t have artillery because it doesn’t need it.

Lol but ironically I agree with dicky. Let’s try not to make this doctrine a terror v2... the bigger irony is I actually asked the dev team to potentially move the entire terror doctrine to PE...

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 630
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by mofetagalactica »

You guys are true, i didn't wanted to speak about the wespe i was trying to refer to the grille being in TH as an SPG without indirect fire.

But anyway wespe and hummel on the same doc are already weird and even more with upkeep changes so....Maybe move either hummel or wespe to any other doc? Maybe wespe into Defensive?

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 386
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by CGarr »

kwok wrote:
There's a difference between RNG for the sake of having some realism and having a tool just consistently under-perform because it can't be adjusted one way and nothing is being done to compensate for that fact by adjusting it in another way.

I mean that’s why the other post was made right? The poll suggested to go to more rng based rather than pure. We are figuring out how to manipulate the rng aspect but we can’t all vote the option that specifically says “RNG” and expect to have “no RNG”. We will see how mortar smoke adjustments affect the game then provide more smoke options if necessary. Everyone knows I love using smoke so I’m a big pro-more-smoke options but the challenge is actually figuring out the UI aspects of it. Abilities need to move around which might seem insignificant but it’s actually got really big implications sometimes. For example, adding hold fire for tanks has been asked for tons of times and we have no disagreements to it, but adding it means tanks including the tiger ace would need to lose some abilities that everyone still would want, which begs the question if abilities are removed does that diminish the CP unlocks of the tiger ace and tiger phobia and how would that effect balance. This could all be figured out, sure, but of all the other things to get done is this something worth spending time on?
Smoke options is tough because the docs asked for to have already have full command bar of abilities, which should be removed where a player won’t miss out on micro intense moments where they would want the ability ready at hand to execute complex actions?
A lot of exaggerated reasons for not including more smoke but it’s still things to think through among other bigger objectives we are trying to accomplish. That’s why despite reworks, not many abilities have changed. Mostly just units because we have more UI flexibility on unit availability.


1. The option that won in that poll was "Bigger scatter + Bigger smoke shell (adds RNG)", true. MarKr then replied that this wouldn't be possible. That leaves 2 options, bigger scatter or "arcade" precision. Seeing as how the general consensus was that smoke isn't effective in its current state due to the dispersion not being concentrated enough to effectively cover your units, bigger scatter would be counterproductive. Therefore, arcade should win by default if there's going to be any change.
2. The smoke call in I keep suggesting was an offmap call-in from the command car. The 20mm car's ability grid is empty:

2019-11-20 17_21_08-Window.png
2019-11-20 17_21_08-Window.png (48.5 KiB) Viewed 598 times


Unless I'm missing something, there's plenty of room for abilities (C=command buff type, F= follow, B=binos, S=smoke, A=arty):

2019-11-20 17_13_17-Window.png
2019-11-20 17_13_17-Window.png (34.06 KiB) Viewed 598 times


kwok wrote:
About camping, I very very much disagree that the main reason for camping is the availability of indirect fire units. It contradicts the whole argument that because of ammo upkeeps there’s more camping because you can’t use indirect fire units. The true reason for camping is map choice which I’ve argued again and again to the community and the devs as a solution to many problems. Camping is a problem because single units have obvious positions that lock down entire maps. Defense should require skill, if you want to defend something you should be thinking about how to cover area with limited resources. If you have enough resource to cover an area then there is no skill. Indirect units serve to . To remove indirect fire as a capability is forcing a play style rather encouraging it, which is more or less what we want from doctrines. this doesn’t mean that every doctrine should have artillery. But it definitely doesn’t mean that a doctrine shouldn’t have artillery because it doesn’t need it.


I agree on maps being the main source of an issue, but we can't change what maps players play. We can change the availability of arty units however, and arty units with good range allow players to camp without getting stomped in since they can kill enemy arty units and therefore avoid bleeding too much. Sure, not having arty is forcing a playstyle, but so is not giving a doctrine proper tanks (not TD's), yet people seem to be happy with defensive doc. Arty call-ins still allow the player to both "eliminate or disperse key parts of a defense" and "deliver a finishing blow", they just don't allow for counter arty due to their range limitations, therefore making camping unviable.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 2090
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by kwok »

 ! Message from:
SUPER BUMP. We are so close to finishing doctrine reworks. This might be the last major rework we will see before going into the "balance phase" of the reworks. We would really like to lock down ideas for large rework structural changes, especially regarding the tank hunter doctrine.

This proposal is just MY idea, not representative of what the dev team will decide to do.

Prologue
This was one of the hardest doctrines to think through because of so many ideas brought by players as well as it having so much history as a doctrine. The first thought is the doctrine direly needed a theme change in order to follow the "all doctrines viable in a 1v1" philosophy. While tankhunter today has no problem with facing any other doctrine, the same can't be said the otherway around, namely the armor and RE doctrines who would struggle against tank hunter today. So, some "nerfs" would be needed while keeping the fun value of the doctrine (This goes both ways. It's not just important to make a doctrine that's fun to play as but also play against. For example, some ideas that were brought up was a doctrine based on ambushes and camo. This might be fun to play as but god damn would it be a pain to face... it would ruin the fun for opponents to deal with such a frustrating doctrine). While personally I don't like the idea, a large part of the community wanted a "Panzer" focused doctrine, which is understandable since tank warfare and German tanks were such an iconic part of World War II. If US can have a tank focused doctrine, why can't Axis? This is how the "Panzer Support" doctrine came to mind. That being said, I hope this doctrine will cover a lot of what you all asked for.

unknown.jpg


Base Doctrine Changes
- Hotchkiss will be available in the Logistik building after the initial building upgrade
- Hotchkiss will have a 25mu HE shell upgrade that unlocks a one shot HE round ability costing 25mu likened to the chaffee HE shell shot

Tank Hunter Path and Tank Path
-Early/Late (reward choice?) Tiger Tank available from Panzer Command building, (same cost as Propaganda Doc?)
-Early/Late (reward choice?) King Tiger Tank available from Panzer Command building, (same cost as Propaganda Doc?)
-Jagdtiger no longer call in but buildable from the panzer support building for 1200mp, 190fu, same build time as king tiger.
-Fuel trade 100mu for 100fu.

The tank hunter path will remain relatively untouched to preserve its roots as a Tank Hunter doctrine. The key change that makes it different than the formidable uber-tank countering doctrine (aka hard counters to the US armor doc) will be the fact that many unlocks like zimmermit coat, periscope, etc. will be removed from the doctrine, leaving the tank hunters to be more supportive and defensive in nature. A new path will be created to unlock tanks that has high CP costs to unlock. The intent here is to create a mid-game tradeoff decision for players on the macro level: to choose well-rounded tanks or more defensive but reliable tank hunters? This will be a net buff to the tank hunter's mid game because of its added flexibility but net nerf to its late game since the tank path has replaced any sort of buffs that tank hunter units would get that makes them end-game units.

Artillery Path
-Reduce Logistic unit fuel costs by 5 fuel each.
-Observation Car, an armored car unit (still to be determined which) with offmap ability options (35mu Smoke Drop, 80mu Mortar Barrage)
-Observation Panzer IV with offmap ability options (35mu Smoke Drop, 150mu 105mm Artillery Barrage)
-Rocket Hotchkiss upgrade unlocked

This was a difficult decision because while some high level players preferred a more high-skill oriented doctrine that focuses more on direct engagement rather than indirect, it's recognized various factors that would hurt the "fun value" for a lot of players who may not have the particular micro-skill to pull off such a high-skill doctrine (for those players who want that high skill high reward experience, we still recommend Propaganda doc. It has a lot of untapped potentially). The rocket hotchkiss was kept as a part of the doctrine to provide a hard-counter solution against hard camps, especially for the likes of royal engineer or infantry doctrine which are strong early-mid game doctrines that can set up strong defenses fast. However, we know that hotchkiss rockets as they are today are enormously powerful, reliable, and available early which encourages camping-until-hotchkiss-is-ready strategies which is just not fun to play against. Putting a variety of artillery options that can flex depending on playstyle will hopefully making camping still viable but much more difficult as a strategy.
The fuel cost reduction has been included in the beginning of the path to compensate for probably fuel waste against hard camping opponents. Don't throw light vehicles out as a viable option just because the enemy has set up AT! Be bold and try to find flanking positions with your light vehicles without worrying too much about being punished.

Panzergrenadier Support
-Vehicle Aura Buff, gives basic panzer grenadiers a -15% weapon cooldown reduction (stacks) when within 35-radius of light vehicles created in the logistik building
-Tank Aura Buff, gives basic panzer grenadiers a -10% weapon cooldown reduction (stacks) when within 35-radius of tanks or tank hunters created in the panzer command or support buildings
-Panzer Grenadier Price Reduction, reduces the MP cost of panzer grenadiers to 295MP

Some great ideas were brought by the community to help form this change. Bringing in buffs to infantry to encourage a combined arms capability for the doctrine will enable more variety in playstyle choice for players. These buffs are early to mid game powerspikes will hopefully encourage players to be more proactive in the mid-game and gain advantage rather than hide behind strong Axis camps formerly viable through base strong defensive units and reliable, strong, non-CP-unlock artillery (a compensation for the net nerf from the Artillery Path changes). This was also designed based on community various recommendations and feedback. Some notes on those suggestions:
- Players would like to see smaller PE squads so that they would be cheaper and could be used more tactically. This is something I am vehemently against for a couple reasons. First, my experience in creating a mod in CoH2 showed that smaller squad sizes are way too difficult for the majority of players to micro due to the expotnential relationship between durability/power and squad size. Second, we have tried this on a small "test" scale with the British assault squad and the general feedback has been "make the squad bigger". While it's true that the british assault squad is a drastically different type of unit to PE basic inf squads, the idea that the unit becomes effectively useless as soon as the squad starts taking losses. At 3 men to a squad, conservative players usually start retreating. At 2 men to a squad, even the most aggressive players start retreating. At 1 man, most the time that squad is basically dead unless they are being used for a super gambit.
-Snipers hard counter PE infantry because of the PE inf high cost. Ironically this feedback contradicts the previous feedback on smaller squad sizes. General buffs to the PE infantry should make the fast losses incurred by snipers be less punishing. This way unchanged snipers retain their utility against elite infantry spams while PE infantry get some thematic role within a new doctrine.


Concerns
I still have some concerns about this doctrine. First one being that the tank hunter path will still hard counter armor doctrine. Tried to line up the CP unlocks with the tank unlocks from US armor doc so that each unit will still be viable in their respective stages of the game. Will look forward to see games and build orders for this doctrine

Another player who has helped talk through some ideas was also worried that camping will still be easy with the early HE hotchkiss/tank hunter combo. Ever since artillery changes, bombing out camo'd tank destroyers has become harder unless you can rush handheld AT up. But with HE hotchkiss, it would make it really hard to chase the TD's out. Hopefully the fact that the HE shots will be single shot will add a "skill" aspect to camping. But, I know some players are too good at the game and can really abuse the combo regardless.

Another very very true comment was that this doctrine is not too different from the propaganda doctrine and maybe even stronger especially when looking just at the tanks available and the fact that Pgrens are cheaper. In certain aspects yes, tank support doctrine is much easier to play for the lower-medium level players. My thoughts here are that the skill cap (how much you can get out of a doctrine with skill before the doctrine itself stops becoming any better) is higher for propaganda doctrine and there is still a lot of open potential for high level players to learn how strong propaganda can be in combo with buff/debuff abilities. Just speculation... I suspect you'll find a lot of players choosing this doctrine over propaganda, but those who venture to get good at blitz mod will find propaganda to be extremely rewarding and fun. My biggest worry is this doctrine turns into what Luft doc is today (an 80% play rate and extremely high win rate among lower-medium skilled players).

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3984
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Warhawks97 »

1. I have a great concern as that this doc gets powerfull units but also cheap. There are 3 unlocks that drop costs of units, 1 unlock that boosts your fuel income. Thats going to be a pain, esspecially against brits which will either lose to the brute force of the tanks here or to the ammount of spam of infantry, vehicles and rocket arty.

2. Also i hoped you would try to generally fix PE inf issues rather than just for one doc. Saying that 4 men squad doesnt work bc it doesnt for brits is nuts because the entire faction is different. In PE these 4 men squads are multipurpose so you build several of them anyway. In CW that sqauad only had one very small purpose and thats close range combat. You wont build them in required numbers bc they cant do anything else than going into combat. So i belive 4 men squads in conjunction with light vehicles and different equipment would work when the entire faction is build arround that style.

3. The next thing is that i dont really know what that tank production thing is. Production speed buff? cost drop on all tanks?

4. I have great concerns regarding that hotchkiss in combination with TD´s which can now also get nicley covered by cheap inf. One cheap Hetzer hidden behind the inf which gets boosted and comes in waves and during every attack they get big support by that hotchkiss. Thats scary.
I would have put a wespe in this doc for reasonable ammount of cost to be honest. They would have worked as means against camping and to prepare for attacks but it wouldnt have a great value against enemie assaults unlike hotchkiss that can quickly react and vaporize half of enemies assault force before even getting into actual combat. Hotchkiss would serve better in SE doc in my opinion. That being said, i would also be not concerned about Allied SPGs like priests being in armor doc as well.

5. Is the JP fixed? Last time i checked it it still had 1000 HP although its just a Panther.

6. I would add a KT and remove either cheap inf or the cheap tank upgrade or what it is. Fuel boost would be linked with logisitc company fuel cost reudction.

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 473
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Viper »

Warhawks97 wrote:5. Is the JP fixed? Last time i checked it it still had 1000 HP although its just a Panther

this is not a bug.

Post Reply