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

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by MarKr »

You have the fuel trade unlock, unlock that lowers the cost of all light vehicles (so saving fuel for later game), you have JPIVs (there is a topic about these, saying how relatively good units these are), Hetzers, Marders, normal AT guns, your main infantry can throw AT grenades and still have the schreck squad with one schreck just as any other PE faction. Is it really not enough to deal with enemy tanks?
It is also not Tank Hunter doctrine anymore, it is not meant to be as strong in countering tanks as it used to be.
Image

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

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by CGarr »

Here is a doctrine tree concept with the two tank lines merged. The space on the bottom right and the ammo upgrade represent the 2 slots opened up by the merger. I took the liberty of just throwing in the ammo upgrade since thats an easy one that'd fit with the new doctrine. Not sure what to put in the last slot.

PSdocRework3.jpg


The two shield icons represent armor phases where multiple tanks are unlocked by each phase. The first phase would be panzer 4 H and the jpz4/70, since these both usually come at 4 cp. Wouldn't really be OP to have them both on the same unlock, allied players would have an answer available for either option and the fuel/manpower cost would keep the PS doc player from getting both. Same can said about the tiger 2 and jagdpanther, as tiger 2 wouldve been available in 10 with the proposed tree and in this spot it would still come out at 9 or 10.

Ignore the CP cost numbers, I didn't update them accordingly because I think the devs would be better able to decide what is optimal, just giving a framework for how the doctrine should be structured.

1 more ability is still needed, I personally think the double pshreck upgrade would be a waste and that something cooler could be put there, but I dont really care what ends up being put in that slot at this point. The doc is probably going to be stupidly OP considering the hotchkiss needs to stay to make players who are unwilling to learn new things happy. Big wasted opportunity, but the doctrine reworks as a whole were still a step in the right direction so I can't really be too salty about it.

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

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Warhawks97 »

I think that propsal doesnt go in line with the idea devs had to force players to make long term strategic decision makings in their unlock. That would be worse as the original "Luftwaffe illness". Players should be forced to make a decision which way to go and that if they went the wrong way, they shouldnt be able to make a quick turn arround and skill the opposite direction to meet the opponent. What you describe as an problem is what it intended by devs. Thats why luftwaffe in particular got lengthened unlock lines to prevent that players can quickly skill the opposite direction to instantly meet the new threats.

And packing P IV and IV/70 together would be like putting Sherman and Jackson B into one unlock. Thats probably a no-go.

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

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by mofetagalactica »

My only suggestion would just be, move the rocket hotchkiss unlock to SE.

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

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by kwok »

Personally, I don't mind if the rocket hotchkiss leaves TH and goes to SE, but that's because I consider myself a good player. By removing arty on field arty options for the doctrine, it turns the doctrine into much more of a high skill high reward doc. Previously, Terror was an extremely popular doctrine especially for the axis fanboys because it had STGs, Tigers, King Tigers, and easy arty options. Since the introduction of propaganda doc (which I feel like I have to repeat again and again, was voted by the community... NOT by the devs...), that demographic of players basically lost their favorite doctrine of its kind. I've been spammed non-stop about how the changes were NOT good EVEN THOUGH IT WASNT F*CKIN DECIDED BY THE DEVS LET ALONE ME. This tank support doctrine is kind of reminiscent of that, hoping that this can be balanced in a way that players can get that old terror doc feel and have it be either a low/medium skill to low/medium reward option. I'd rather not see the hotchkiss removed from the doctrine, just balanced. That's a transparent thought just from me, not representative of what others would think.

MEFISTO
Posts: 159
Joined: 18 Jun 2016, 21:15

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by MEFISTO »

mofetagalactica wrote:My only suggestion would just be, move the rocket hotchkiss unlock to SE.

Are we making a well rounded doctrine right? what do you propuse to figth camping game with this doctrine? example: Armor have the jeep caliope and keep the sherman kaliope and now we have the sherman 105mm too (I like those changes) any suggestion?

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

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by mofetagalactica »

MEFISTO wrote:
mofetagalactica wrote:My only suggestion would just be, move the rocket hotchkiss unlock to SE.

Are we making a well rounded doctrine right? what do you propuse to figth camping game with this doctrine? example: Armor have the jeep caliope and keep the sherman kaliope and now we have the sherman 105mm too (I like those changes) any suggestion?


You already have off map artillery with the new cp unlocks, and rocket hotchkiss could be reeplaced with grille, While SE should stick with Hummels and rocket hotchkiss.

Rocket hotchkiss has waay to fast reaction for a doctrine that has been improved for direct combat, rocket hotchkiss is just an overkill, at least againts normal artillery shells you can react by retreating after hearing the first shot land or in case of a grille its just one/two accurate shoots.

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

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by CGarr »

Warhawks97 wrote:I think that propsal doesnt go in line with the idea devs had to force players to make long term strategic decision makings in their unlock. That would be worse as the original "Luftwaffe illness". Players should be forced to make a decision which way to go and that if they went the wrong way, they shouldnt be able to make a quick turn arround and skill the opposite direction to meet the opponent. What you describe as an problem is what it intended by devs. Thats why luftwaffe in particular got lengthened unlock lines to prevent that players can quickly skill the opposite direction to instantly meet the new threats.

And packing P IV and IV/70 together would be like putting Sherman and Jackson B into one unlock. Thats probably a no-go.


I get what you're saying, but in practice it'd be dumb to ever go for tigers with the 2 line system becasue the cost is significantly higher relative to their effectiveness against armor. At the stage they come out, you probably won't be making game deciding pushes anyways unless you're just a really aggressive player in general. Players would probably want to spread such a huge fuel investment between more than 1 vehicle at that stage since its safer to establish a line before making decisive pushes. Having a seperate line would only really help players at the two far ends of the skill spectrum who either don't know the risks investing all their fuel into one unit, don't care, or are confident in their ability to make it work. For the P4H, your argument holds a bit bette but the fuel cost would still prevent you from getting both quickly.

Since you're going to be getting a ton of CP in this doctrine really quickly (because you're going to forced to push by your lack of arty all the way up until late game), having seperate lines for the TD's and tanks in this case makes less sense. CP isn't really the limiting factor for this doctrine, fuel is. The jpz4 is still its own unlock, and is the only cheap tank on the doctrine tree, the pz4H and jpz4/70 are expensive enough to be mutually exclusive unless you sacrafice fuel you could spend on a heavy (or bigger TD). If you have a big enough fuel lead to get both a jagdpanther and KT without getting overwhelmed by non-vehicle units, you probably would win even without getting both, so having them both on the same unlock wouldn't really make a difference since again fuel is the deciding factor. Keep in mind, you'll be a lot more dependent on vehicle/armor support since your inf are going to be worse at fighting on an individual basis (no heavy inf) and are relatively squishy for somewhat high cost. As such, you'll be spending a ton of fuel at every stage, which is why I say the CP's arent really the deciding factor.

The rest of the tree is helpful but not really nessecary to win unless your opponent bunkers down hard, the tank line and the fuel trade are all you really need to win with this doctrine, at least for most of the community. For really high skill levels (Figree, mencius, etc...), I could possibly see them finding a way to incorporate the rest of the tree in a build that'll help get a really fast win, especially the light vehicle and inf upgrades, but for the rest of us it'll probably make more sense to just get the TH line first every time at least up to the Jagdpanther and then branch out from there.

As such, it would make more sense to just merge the tiger line into it since players will never choose it otherwise and that would just be wasting space on the tree. Everything would still come out at about the same time, so it probably wouldn't be OP. There isn't a meaningful choice to be lost, it'd make more sense to get TD's almost every time so even with 2 lines it's a non-decision. As for the comparisons to luft, I don't think they're comparable because the units are much more expensive and pretty similar in utility. Tiger 1 is basically a shitty jagdpanther but with HE, better vet bonuses (ALRS/tank shock) and a turret. Tiger 2 is more comparable to the jagdtiger than the jagdpanther it shares a tree slot with in terms of gamplay, but I put it on that slot because it'd at least make this doctrine unique in that Tiger 2's might be a more common sight and it'd sit around the same CP cost as if it were in the other tree. The tiger 2 on propaganda doc might be the strongest in the game since it has tigerphobia, but this one would come earlier which would make it way scarier to deal with unless you had the foresight to start setting up a bunch of heavy AT.

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

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by CGarr »

mofetagalactica wrote:
MEFISTO wrote:
mofetagalactica wrote:My only suggestion would just be, move the rocket hotchkiss unlock to SE.

Are we making a well rounded doctrine right? what do you propuse to figth camping game with this doctrine? example: Armor have the jeep caliope and keep the sherman kaliope and now we have the sherman 105mm too (I like those changes) any suggestion?


You already have off map artillery with the new cp unlocks, and rocket hotchkiss could be reeplaced with grille, While SE should stick with Hummels and rocket hotchkiss.

Rocket hotchkiss has waay to fast reaction for a doctrine that has been improved for direct combat, rocket hotchkiss is just an overkill, at least againts normal artillery shells you can react by retreating after hearing the first shot land or in case of a grille its just one/two accurate shoots.


Personally, I'd support no arty unit unlock on this doc (only the offmap arty options would be available). This doc is supposed to replace the void left by the terror rework though, so the grille would probably be more fitting. It'd make a lot of sense in the doctrine too, since it's main purpose is to just fire a few really accurate, really high damage shots. It'd be perfect for dealing with emplacements, but there's enough reaction time between the shot and splash that it'd at least be dodgeable. The hotchkiss makes more sense on SE since their direct fire capabilities aren't as ridiculous.

Also, @Kwok, hope you didn't take my earlier post as directed at you specifically. We're all responsible for the outcome of the doc.

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

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by kwok »

No worries man, tbh I don't even know what I'd take personally. Did you insult me and I'm too dumb to catch it? That's most probable. Don't know which post you're referring to. The remove rocket hotchkiss one? You said your thoughts, I said mine. Your points are valid in my eyes, I just personally don't feel comfortable following through with it because of non-balance reasons; pure community reaction reasons.

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

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by CGarr »

kwok wrote:No worries man, tbh I don't even know what I'd take personally. Did you insult me and I'm too dumb to catch it? That's most probable. Don't know which post you're referring to. The remove rocket hotchkiss one? You said your thoughts, I said mine. Your points are valid in my eyes, I just personally don't feel comfortable following through with it because of non-balance reasons; pure community reaction reasons.


Nah, the statement about wasted opportunity. And again, I understand the community reaction issues. Pretty much moving to plan B and salvaging a workable doctrine out of the original idea given the circumstances, mainly just concerned that it's going to be crazy strong even by BK mod standards. Between the tree i proposed (which were intended to be be balanced by the skill required to manage a fully direct-fire comp) and the requirements that have added on, moving the goalposts from high skill high reward to essentially a making terror doc 2, we're pretty much building a low-medium skill but super high reward doctrine where you basically just have to survive the early game before just stomping the life out of anyone that isnt bunkered down and waiting for an arty unit unlock to deal with anyone who is. The more micro taxing option is still available due to how insanely strong the doc will be in direct combat (easily the fastest time for heavies excluding blitz panthers which are basically just heavy mediums, spammable decent inf, and spammable vehicles), but the addition of good indirect units means you basically have that same strength on top of really good arty if you can just stall for the CP.

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

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Warhawks97 »

CGarr wrote:
I get what you're saying, but in practice it'd be dumb to ever go for tigers with the 2 line system becasue the cost is significantly higher relative to their effectiveness against armor. At the stage they come out, you probably won't be making game deciding pushes anyways unless you're just a really aggressive player in general. Players would probably want to spread such a huge fuel investment between more than 1 vehicle at that stage since its safer to establish a line before making decisive pushes. Having a seperate line would only really help players at the two far ends of the skill spectrum who either don't know the risks investing all their fuel into one unit, don't care, or are confident in their ability to make it work. For the P4H, your argument holds a bit bette but the fuel cost would still prevent you from getting both quickly.

Since you're going to be getting a ton of CP in this doctrine really quickly (because you're going to forced to push by your lack of arty all the way up until late game), having seperate lines for the TD's and tanks in this case makes less sense. CP isn't really the limiting factor for this doctrine, fuel is. The jpz4 is still its own unlock, and is the only cheap tank on the doctrine tree, the pz4H and jpz4/70 are expensive enough to be mutually exclusive unless you sacrafice fuel you could spend on a heavy (or bigger TD). If you have a big enough fuel lead to get both a jagdpanther and KT without getting overwhelmed by non-vehicle units, you probably would win even without getting both, so having them both on the same unlock wouldn't really make a difference since again fuel is the deciding factor. Keep in mind, you'll be a lot more dependent on vehicle/armor support since your inf are going to be worse at fighting on an individual basis (no heavy inf) and are relatively squishy for somewhat high cost. As such, you'll be spending a ton of fuel at every stage, which is why I say the CP's arent really the deciding factor.

As such, it would make more sense to just merge the tiger line into it since players will never choose it otherwise and that would just be wasting space on the tree. Everything would still come out at about the same time, so it probably wouldn't be OP. There isn't a meaningful choice to be lost, it'd make more sense to get TD's almost every time so even with 2 lines it's a non-decision. As for the comparisons to luft, I don't think they're comparable because the units are much more expensive and pretty similar in utility. Tiger 1 is basically a shitty jagdpanther but with HE, better vet bonuses (ALRS/tank shock) and a turret. Tiger 2 is more comparable to the jagdtiger than the jagdpanther it shares a tree slot with in terms of gamplay, but I put it on that slot because it'd at least make this doctrine unique in that Tiger 2's might be a more common sight and it'd sit around the same CP cost as if it were in the other tree. The tiger 2 on propaganda doc might be the strongest in the game since it has tigerphobia, but this one would come earlier which would make it way scarier to deal with unless you had the foresight to start setting up a bunch of heavy AT.


Its not really convincing for me that one unlock gets merged so that it unlocks two units with different purpose.

About Tigers etc it depends how you set the lines up.

Like for me the Tank IV H would be the starting unlock and then you can either go Tiger and KT or Panther. Both lines having advantages. The Tiger would cost far less CP than Panther and would require less tec (eg less upgrades required). And the damage advantage over Panther gun is in itself already a big plus since it can prevent to take a return shot. Panther at the other hand would give you a tank for the long run. The KT obviously a heavy door knocker and land battleship.

And how you make the TD line depends, either being a whole new line or as i once suggested every "normal tank" has its TD version as a sub-unlock from its main version. In that configuration you would have the advantage that after every tank unlock you do have the option to unlock a TD version of it.

About fuel concern, well, the tank IV´s have cost several cost drops over time and are half the upkeep of an sherman. So its equally hard to get e8 along jacksons. And the doc has fuel trade so i dont see how this doc struggles more than all other docs. Ofc you can get some really thirsty beasts but they can beat entire tank fleets by their own.

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

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by CGarr »

Warhawks97 wrote:Its not really convincing for me that one unlock gets merged so that it unlocks two units with different purpose.

About Tigers etc it depends how you set the lines up.

Like for me the Tank IV H would be the starting unlock and then you can either go Tiger and KT or Panther. Both lines having advantages. The Tiger would cost far less CP than Panther and would require less tec (eg less upgrades required). And the damage advantage over Panther gun is in itself already a big plus since it can prevent to take a return shot. Panther at the other hand would give you a tank for the long run. The KT obviously a heavy door knocker and land battleship.

And how you make the TD line depends, either being a whole new line or as i once suggested every "normal tank" has its TD version as a sub-unlock from its main version. In that configuration you would have the advantage that after every tank unlock you do have the option to unlock a TD version of it.

About fuel concern, well, the tank IV´s have cost several cost drops over time and are half the upkeep of an sherman. So its equally hard to get e8 along jacksons. And the doc has fuel trade so i dont see how this doc struggles more than all other docs. Ofc you can get some really thirsty beasts but they can beat entire tank fleets by their own.


I get your points about some units having different purposes but you're not acknowledging the fact that there is little to no reason to go the tiger line in the current 2 line setup. The TD line has cheaper options that you can use until you have the fuel for heavy tanks/TD's, and when you get to that point you may as well keep going along the TD line for the heavy TD's instead. The hetzer unlock is good enough to deal with shermans and anything smaller. The jagdpanther (and to a lesser degree, even the jpz4/70) gives you that one shot power that the tiger has in a platform of similar price, but for less cp than jumping lines. The JT is basically the KT without a turret but even harder to pen, a landship/heavy door knocker. The panzer 4 could be on its own but it really doesnt make a diffence since the hetzer unlock already gives you the same utilities with less overall CP investment (it has a flame hetzer and the normal one, so you've got both a tank killer and an inf killer). As such, the tiger line is currently just there for flavor. It doesn't add much that the other line doesn't have in terms of gameplay, it's there so that if you really like to use normal tanks (not TD's), thats an option, albeit a weaker one.

Again, it's just less CP overall (and therefore faster) to go one tank line than to jump between the two depending on the scenario. This is an axis doc, so the things that apply to allied docs cant really be applied here since the units are so much different in terms of strength and utility. Allied units tend to be super specialized and cheap for their level of effectiveness, or relatively cheap generalists that don't really do anything particularly well (76 shermans). Axis tanks tend to be generalists with high costs that are good at everything but can't really be built alongside other units in practice due to their cost being prohibitively expensive at the time they are unlocked. Only a couple of the TD's really deviate from this model (jpz4/70 and jagdpanther), which is why I put merged the heavy other tank line into those 2 unlock slots, and I still included a branch for the tiger 1 which gives you the choice between a normal heavy and the jagdpanther. You probably won't quite be able to afford the tiger 2 at the point it unlocks, so by choosing the second armor phase rather than the tiger you are acknowledging that you will be dependent on specialized TD's or the generalist panzer 4 until you have the fuel for it. You could also just ignore it and build the Jagdpanther, instead opting to survive by using that until you finally unlock the jagdtiger, which is arguably the strongest unit on the tree with how it is implemented (its a buildable unit, not a call in, and it'll probably cost the same amount of fuel as the tiger 2 for something with even more armor).

Since there'e not really a valid reason to have 2 lines other than "we dont know what to put in the open spots if we merge it" (which won't be too hard to find options for), it makes sense to merge the lines since one line is going to waste regardless of which you choose.

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

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by MenciusMoldbug »

I really like how the doc is looking so far; looks great and has viable opportunities to do something else other than go for the big boys in the tank lines (like going for pz support abilities with cheaper tanks). However, I have a few concerns:

- I personally don't like the removal of assault grenadiers from the new PS (Panzer Support) doc. My main complaint behind this is that this new doc now lacks LMG infantry in its arsenal. Riflemen have BAR's, Volks have LMG34, and Brits have bren guns on tommies. Now PS doesn't have an LMG infantry unit to provide support for other types of infantry; decreasing the viable choices you can make on what type of infantry you can get (I know it's mostly about getting around 2+ panzergrenadier squads in this doc but they don't have many weapon upgrades to go with them). + Like other doctrines, they don't have snipers or a special infantry unit given to them in the early stages of the game. I would have personally given them a mortar team because some maps make it very difficult to use the mortar halftrack properly because of weird pathing issues; but that's just me.

- I’m concerned that the TD price drops are too OP in conjunction with proper multi-role tanks with HE rounds and lots of anti-infantry MG’s (co-axils, topgunners) in this doc. The price of the jagdpanther and JP4 L/70 should not drop at all; I don’t think even the hetzer should get a cost reduction in this doc because despite what their prices may indicate; they have very low upkeep compared to other factions TD’s; the jagdpanther especially. I would have made it an unlock that reduces the cost of non-cp tanks like the Marder and the stubby P4. I’d add a non-cp costing P4 F2 kind of like how the american armor doctrine gets a non-cp costing M10. That unlock would then drop the cost the F2, the stubby P4, and the Marder and make it so even if you can’t spend resources on the bigger tanks you can still have some sort of ‘tank-reserve’ if you desperately need something to cover for you infantry. Personally, I wouldn’t have cheaper Hetzers, JP4/70s, and Jagdpanthers in this doctrine because that really was the most important unlock you could get from TH. Especially having cheaper hetzers with that unlock; it made them very, very spammable (and gave you a lot of room to cover your weak TD positions with it).

- I tested the hotchkiss and it doesn’t seem like it received any proper nerfs now that TH has proper multi-role tanks that can act in anti-infantry roles if needed. If the hotchkiss can’t be removed from the doctrine then I would personally nerf it because it’s too viable with a Jagdtiger/Kingtiger prowling about. The best nerf to consider is to give more ‘reaction-time’ to its rockets because they shoot incredibly fast and since they travel on a straight-ish trajector also reach the target very fast. I would make the rockets fire like they did in VCoH in a vertical trajector going upwards and then falling down somewhere like mortar shells do. That way if they fire in close proximity to infantry trying to kill it; they will have reaction time to retreat instead of getting wiped out from an unit which is supposed to hang back behind other stuff to act as artillery. This would orient the hotchkiss towards an anti-emplacement role and less towards an anti-infantry role.

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

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by mofetagalactica »

MenciusMoldbug wrote:- I tested the hotchkiss and it doesn’t seem like it received any proper nerfs now that TH has proper multi-role tanks that can act in anti-infantry roles if needed. If the hotchkiss can’t be removed from the doctrine then I would personally nerf it because it’s too viable with a Jagdtiger/Kingtiger prowling about. The best nerf to consider is to give more ‘reaction-time’ to its rockets because they shoot incredibly fast and since they travel on a straight-ish trajector also reach the target very fast. I would make the rockets fire like they did in VCoH in a vertical trajector going upwards and then falling down somewhere like mortar shells do. That way if they fire in close proximity to infantry trying to kill it; they will have reaction time to retreat instead of getting wiped out from an unit which is supposed to hang back behind other stuff to act as artillery. This would orient the hotchkiss towards an anti-emplacement role and less towards an anti-infantry role.



You're so right about this and i've been saying it for a long time on the forum.

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

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Walderschmidt »

^+100

Wald
Kwok is an allied fanboy!

AND SO IS DICKY

AND MARKR IS THE BIGGGEST ALLIED FANBOI OF THEM ALL

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

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by MarKr »

I can only write from my phone and will be unable to get to my PC for the whole week so I can only reply in short 'cause typing longer stuff on a phone is a bitch.
@Mencius: the lack of any stronger or better equiped infantry is intentional here. Basic Pgrens now get passive buffs around tanks and vehicles, they can become cheaper, still can repair given tanks and vehicles and also get further buffed from Hautsturm (which recently someone said would be "crazy strong"). The doctrine has strong tanks, TDs, cheaper vehicles (and some of them with new abilities), giving them also an elite infantry (assault grens are more or less elite) would mean no real down side to this doctrine.

We counted on some further cost reduction unlock tweaks because getting the values right without through testing is almost impossible so it will be changed based on feedback.

Even Hotchkiss is open for discussion.
Image

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

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Walderschmidt »

^I would like to see the hotchkiss fire upwards, and take 1-2 seconds to rotate its sponsons before firing to give opposing players some reaction time when facing it and make it an easy kill when someone’s dancing within its minimum range.

Otherwise, no change to it. Or even no CP unlock.

I’d be willing to test it out with Kwok even though he tends to push my stool in on 1v1s.

Wald

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 dont see why hotchkiss should fire its missiles straight into the air while all other rocket arty keeps firing directly.

Perhaps a simple delay before firing would be enough? Like the crew needs some time to estimate range correctly to get the angle right.


@Markr.
The issue still remains that you have to fight largely with rifles only. I think thats quite a nasty thing, esspecially for docs like this one that depends on pushes and assaults. BK doc has it storms, RE and US armor special engis with close range weapons. But this doc has to rely more or less on rifle only infantry... spamable. And not a single LMG available. I would reconsider this move.

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

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by mofetagalactica »

Warhawks97 wrote:@Markr.
The issue still remains that you have to fight largely with rifles only. I think thats quite a nasty thing, esspecially for docs like this one that depends on pushes and assaults. BK doc has it storms, RE and US armor special engis with close range weapons. But this doc has to rely more or less on rifle only infantry... spamable. And not a single LMG available. I would reconsider this move.


Then just give normal pzgreens more weapon choice upgrades? like mg/mp40's/stg's/guewers idk, lol ez pez fix.

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

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Walderschmidt »

^yes. Or give them an upgrade to have beefier engineers.

Wald
Kwok is an allied fanboy!

AND SO IS DICKY

AND MARKR IS THE BIGGGEST ALLIED FANBOI OF THEM ALL

Mood
Posts: 35
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 22:39

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Mood »

Aren't you actually buffing Hotchkiss by making it "volley" upwards? The way it works now the rockets hit buildings and other obstacles very easily, so positioning is important. You will be removing this factor by making them fire upwards.
I don't mind personally either way, but I'm just curious that the people proposing a nerf don't seem to account for this factor at all.

As for more weapons for Panzer Grenadiers I agree. But I don't think you should give them a carbon-copy selection of the same type of equipment Assault Grenadiers use(+g43). I would rather for example see a second g43 upgrade, and/or perhaps a mg34 upgrade.

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

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by MarKr »

Give them more weapon choices....which will make them basically assault grens again which will be cheaper and with passive bonuses. I said that this was avoided intentionally. For beefed up Infantry-focused doctrines you have Luft or BK doc.

How many games have you played with the new doctrine? Do you have any replays showing how you use all the stuff the doctrine offers but the doctrine still severely struggles without these changes for infantry you're mentioning here?
Image

Mood
Posts: 35
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 22:39

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Mood »

Makes sense! Perhaps a second g43 is enough? I actually forgot Assault Grens got access to a MG upgrade.

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

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Walderschmidt »

Mood wrote:Aren't you actually buffing Hotchkiss by making it "volley" upwards? The way it works now the rockets hit buildings and other obstacles very easily, so positioning is important. You will be removing this factor by making them fire upwards.
I don't mind personally either way, but I'm just curious that the people proposing a nerf don't seem to account for this factor at all.

As for more weapons for Panzer Grenadiers I agree. But I don't think you should give them a carbon-copy selection of the same type of equipment Assault Grenadiers use(+g43). I would rather for example see a second g43 upgrade, and/or perhaps a mg34 upgrade.


Perhaps, make two versions of nerf for an alpha and let players test it out?

Wald
Kwok is an allied fanboy!

AND SO IS DICKY

AND MARKR IS THE BIGGGEST ALLIED FANBOI OF THEM ALL

Post Reply