Royal Engineers Rework

[MenciusMoldbug]

Continuing on from this thread: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2806

Since I've already written down what is essentially the planning behind the re-work I will update it for how I think the re-works are being made currently. Since Armor doctrine already has strong all-rounder tanks covered for it's side; I wanted to make RE more unique in being a turtle-ish tank doctrine with hard hitting mediums to cover the flanks (though not as well armored or as good as say a Pershing).



I've removed the roadblocks from the doctrine because roadblocks do not really 'fit' the style of RE and are more suitable to being completely unique to SE doctrine. If a place needs to be 'walled off' the RE player can now use the heavy anti-tank mines (removed from CP unlocks and are now unlocked when a Captain is built) and other mines they have available to do so, or make emplacements, barbwire/sandbags, etc.

The truck bonus can be moved into its own tree because it's usually the very last thing people get or if they are not under pressure they take it when they have free CP's available. The emplacement buffs no longer also unlock the hull down ability; which has instead moved towards being unlocked with the first churchill because is that when I would see it needed most (and makes more sense).

I re-organized the medium line so that the Achilles is by itself and no longer a factor in unlocking a firefly. While the firefly will go on to unlock you a 76 sherman; It will not be a call-in because I think double 76's fully upgraded are too strong a factor in the slower paced version of the new re-work involving armored warfare. If it was left as it is, they would come too quickly and be as good (even better) than normal churchills for a good cost-ratio. Which would leave the normal churchills far less used until the player reaches the better MK VII churchills. After the 76 you will unlock the comet and though I'm not sure what the CP costs for this tree should be; I think the way I put it is 'ok' for now until the balancing phase comes up.

The biggest re-work here is the churchill tree. Now instead of going straight towards a linear path, every time you unlock another version of the churchill there is a 'side-grade' that you can get if you don't think advancing down the path is needed.

For the first unlock you can get hull down. The second unlock you can get the MK VII 95mm churchill. The third unlock is unique in that unlike the US general tank veterancy buff that gives all it's tank units veterancy 1. This tank veterancy unlock only affects Churchills. It will give the churchills veterancy 1 like the US tank veterancy does but it will also give them -25% damage reduction and 25%+ firing rate on their guns. This used in conjunction with the hull down will make churchills as tanky as they were when they had over-repairs available. As it is now, the Churchills without over-repair are pretty fragile and are not fast like every other tank the allies have available. So since they are unable to maneuver, flank, or escape from the Axis tanks I feel this compensation of making them even more tanky should be good. It should level the playing field and make them as useful as every other tank the Allies have available in their arsenal.

Balance Changing Churchills:

Now that there is another version of the churchill that is harder, better, faster, stronger. I think the early churchills should be changed so that they aren't as good as they are now:

Infantry Tank Mk IV General Changes:

-Same armor as the sherman (just copy-paste the sherman target_tables on it honestly rather than going for a general re-work for the churchill target tables).

-Cheaper in price, example:
Infantry Tank Mk IV (A22) Churchill Mk IV (57mm 6 Pdr) from 480 MP/50 Fuel to 350 MP/40 Fuel (so this one will cost the same as the british sherman)

-Health increased from 700 HP to 800 HP (so a hulldown early churchill will not instantly die if a Jagdpanther/Nashorn takes a long range poking shot at it and then backs up).

The MK VII Churchills can then stay the same as they are. The target_tables on them are good and all that needs to be done for them is price and stat balancing.

Regarding 95mm Howitzers:

This is more of an extra-discussion here but I do think these units should be able to direct fire like the stuh or 105mm sherman. They can keep their artillery ability but if an enemy unit is within their sights they should be able to fire on it like the other howitzer tanks are capable of doing. Most of the SPG's already have a direct-fire ability in case something gets too close so it's kind of strange that the 95mm tanks don't have anything like that and are the odd ones out.

[Warhawks97]

+1

But:

1. should the doc have 76 shermans at all? So far brits didnt use them at all.

2. First churchill should not have sherman copy paste armor. Its front armor might be similiar effective. But it had way better side and rear armor. Giving it normal sherman armor would just turn it into completely sitting ducks with guranteed death even when 37 mm AT guns hit its side/rear. So its more a heavy tank in that it had also thick side armor

Shermans had 51 mm turret front and a 76 mm second plate. Sides and rear were 51 mm thick. Hull sides and rear were only 38 mm thick.

Chruchill had 88,9 mm turret armor, 76,2 mm turret side/rear. It had also had 88,9 mm hull front armor and 63,5 mm on side and still 50,8 mm at the rear. There was also a second plate 12.7 mm thick on hull front and side.

[MarKr]

I like the general idea and only have a few things to point out:

The third unlock is unique (...)
This tank veterancy unlock only affects Churchills. It will give the churchills veterancy 1 like the US tank veterancy does but it will also give them -25% damage reduction and 25%+ firing rate on their guns.

I would probably consider giving them extra HP rather than damage reduction especially in combination with my next point about Sherman armor.

-Same armor as the sherman (just copy-paste the sherman target_tables on it honestly rather than going for a general re-work for the churchill target tables).

I wouldn't go for this. The reason why Churchills started being used after a long time was that they could deflect shots and finally became properly tanky. Sherman armor, even with some adjustments from the past, is still relatively weak and the Churchills would become an easy target for a lot more guns.
I know that your idea counts on them having 100 more HP and damage reduction from unlock but in a way stronger armor is better because a deflected shot cannot cause criticals while any penetrative shot can immobilize the tanks or destroy gun or even trigger one-shot kill.

So maybe not adding any HP to it by default, keeping its armor and only add HP with the unlock instead of damage reduction could be a better overall change here.

I heard, however, that the 6 pounder Churchill can be a real bitch to kill early on and that people often rushed for them. Churchills have their armor type and also a self-modifier that lowers any incoming shot's penetration by 20% so maybe this self-modifier could be lowered to 15% or 10% so that these early Churchills would be a bit easier to penetrate but still not as easy as with Sherman armor.

As for the 95mm Churchill - we were thinking about this too but there already is the AVRE which basically does what the 105mm Shermans/StuHs do so maybe just for RE the 95mm Churchill could stay as a purely indirect mobile arty unit and the AVRE could be allowed to auto-attack stuff within its reach and increase the ability range to fire over longer ranges? I think that if the 95mm is allowed to directly attack stuff and keeps its arty ability it will completely overshadow the AVRE version.

[Warhawks97]

I wouldn't go for this. The reason why Churchills started being used after a long time was that they could deflect shots and finally became properly tanky. Sherman armor, even with some adjustments from the past, is still relatively weak and the Churchills would become an easy target for a lot more guns.
I know that your idea counts on them having 100 more HP and damage reduction from unlock but in a way stronger armor is better because a deflected shot cannot cause criticals while any penetrative shot can immobilize the tanks or destroy gun or even trigger one-shot kill.

So maybe not adding any HP to it by default, keeping its armor and only add HP with the unlock instead of damage reduction could be a better overall change here.

I heard, however, that the 6 pounder Churchill can be a real bitch to kill early on and that people often rushed for them. Churchills have their armor type and also a self-modifier that lowers any incoming shot's penetration by 20% so maybe this self-modifier could be lowered to 15% or 10% so that these early Churchills would be a bit easier to penetrate but still not as easy as with Sherman armor.

There is an issue with that thinking:

- We have set the armor of these early churchill far beyond of what it would be for an MK IV and VI version. But that was necessary since that doc had no MK VII version besides crocc. And Tank IV came as early as this tank so it needed strong armor.

Things get different now:
1. So far all major threats that made such strong armor neccessary are well delayed like long barreld Tank IV´s with exception of F2 version. But that one should be vulnerable to the 57 mm guns in return.
2. The doc in this proposal has later access to the MK VII version for not much more CP as you need for a regular Tank IV H/J in docs like BK. So there is not much need anymore for an MK VI version having such armor.

The armor of these churchills should be weaker as they are now, but better than those of shermans and effective in all directions.

But i agree that its either gets HP buff or damage reduction after vet unlock. I dont care which way you go.

As for the 95mm Churchill - we were thinking about this too but there already is the AVRE which basically does what the 105mm Shermans/StuHs do so maybe just for RE the 95mm Churchill could stay as a purely indirect mobile arty unit and the AVRE could be allowed to auto-attack stuff within its reach and increase the ability range to fire over longer ranges? I think that if the 95mm is allowed to directly attack stuff and keeps its arty ability it will completely overshadow the AVRE version.

[/quote]

The AVRE is a whole different type to that of howitzer tanks. Its a single fire weapon designed to destroy bunkers from closer distances. I would make the 95 mm howitzer churchill as suggested by menicus and put in line with other howitzer tanks and direct fire with some limited indirect firing capabilities.

[MarKr]

Things get different now:

You're right about this. As I said that the armor could get a bit weaker but I wouldn't like to return them to the position where a 50mm from max range could quite reliably penetrate them.

The AVRE is a whole different type to that of howitzer tanks. Its a single fire weapon designed to destroy bunkers from closer distances. I would make the 95 mm howitzer churchill as suggested by menicus and put in line with other howitzer tanks and direct fire with some limited indirect firing capabilities.

I don't really care too much what it was realistically if it makes the unit pointless. AVRE in the game has the same armor as the 6pounder Churchill and this post suggests to make that armor type weaker to the point where 75mm L48 guns have a lot better chance to penetrate these tanks. If that happens and if the AVRE can only shoot at short range as it "realistically" did, what will you use the AVRE for? 75mm L48 guns are mounted on almost anything in the Axis arsenal from halftracks and armored cars over portable AT gun versions to tanks and tank hunters. Bunkers and emplacements are mostly present only in Def and SE doctrines and both of these have a good variety of units with 75mm L48 guns so if you build a bunker you'll cover it either with a JPIV or Marder or just AT gun (all of these can equip AP ammo and if you play against RE and build defenses I think you simply will get the upgrade) and so the AVRE will most often get destroyed even before it gets close enough to fire its gun. Thus everyone will go for the 95mm Churchill because it will be able to shoot at ranges where the opponent cannot shoot back at it and also has the arty ability.

[MenciusMoldbug]

I want to talk a bit more about hull-down here so I can explain my thoughts of why I went for less armor - less received damage for the early churchills:

Currently the hull-down ability gives the affected tank -25% received penetration and -25% damage reduction. The former is super good; so good that if you gave it to some american mediums in armor doctrine they would start bouncing stuff they shouldn't be able to bounce. You can even do this with the firefly by giving it the armor upgrade it has and then hulling it down. It makes it extremely difficult to penetrate with 75mm guns for axis at long ranges. My thought process with the early churchills and hull-down is that they are moving pillboxes which you can also reinforce from if needed. They are not quite good when they are moving about but when they fortify themselves into a position they can be extremely hard to kill. So I don't mind how the early churchill changes but if hull-down gets moved away from the emplacements tree (which it should) then it should be factored in how strong the early churchill's armor is with this ability.

[kwok]

I agree with almost everything that Markr says, but that's just through watching games and not so much personal experience.

One side thing I wanted to ask is are these changes considered a rework? I want to remind that the reworks had the objective of moving doctrines from a specialized state to a more 1v1 playable state. Reason why this is important to ask is because of just timing. Is it worth holding off getting the beta over to the live version where players will undoubtly start experimenting on new build orders. Despite all the changes made in the beta, the relative performance of units have been mostly unchanged... what this means is while players have to learn how to navigate new build orders they can still rely on the idea that certain units still do certain things. This is definitely a HUGE lesson learned from the luft changes. One mistake that was probably made is not nerfing the luft infantry but nerfing the luft inf too quickly. There was CLEARLY a huge balance problem when luft infantyr were literally being dropped right on top of AA (with no smoke) and clearing them out with grenades. But with the changes, despite luft effectively getting their power cap increased, players still felt luft was severely crippled because on the tactical level, players were still playing luft like they were invincible rambos that can literally run up to MG's and kill them without even chucking a grenade.

Throwing in really large performance changes, especially the churchill changes, is more than just what Markr was saying before about churchills not being used. There's also a factor of player comfort that will take time to adjust for. Personally, I really like the ideas put here and pretty much is better than any suggestion I would've given. How we phase in the changes though is a more difficult task.

If I were to give general thought on how to go about implementing this, it would be to keep unit performances as they are to keep the unit performances as is for now, shift a lot of the CP cost from the end of the tree closer to the beginning (For example, the base churchills will cost 4 CP, the hull down 1, the ace croc 2, the vet churchills 1). Over time, slowly tweaking the performance of the units and adjusting the CP along the way.

[Warhawks97]

You're right about this. As I said that the armor could get a bit weaker but I wouldn't like to return them to the position where a 50mm from max range could quite reliably penetrate them.

ofc. That thing should not be threatend by 50 mm. I was just saying to find a right spot for that tank and armor.

The AVRE is a whole different type to that of howitzer tanks. Its a single fire weapon designed to destroy bunkers from closer distances. I would make the 95 mm howitzer churchill as suggested by menicus and put in line with other howitzer tanks and direct fire with some limited indirect firing capabilities.

I don't really care too much what it was realistically if it makes the unit pointless. AVRE in the game has the same armor as the 6pounder Churchill and this post suggests to make that armor type weaker to the point where 75mm L48 guns have a lot better chance to penetrate these tanks. If that happens and if the AVRE can only shoot at short range as it "realistically" did, what will you use the AVRE for? 75mm L48 guns are mounted on almost anything in the Axis arsenal from halftracks and armored cars over portable AT gun versions to tanks and tank hunters. Bunkers and emplacements are mostly present only in Def and SE doctrines and both of these have a good variety of units with 75mm L48 guns so if you build a bunker you'll cover it either with a JPIV or Marder or just AT gun (all of these can equip AP ammo and if you play against RE and build defenses I think you simply will get the upgrade) and so the AVRE will most often get destroyed even before it gets close enough to fire its gun. Thus everyone will go for the 95mm Churchill because it will be able to shoot at ranges where the opponent cannot shoot back at it and also has the arty ability.[/quote]


AVRE is a very special type of vehicle. There is no need to give it a multirole capabiltity just for the sake of making a very special vehicle a common one. Its a bunker buster. If there is no bunker there is no need to get it in the first place. I really doubt that giving a unit "new targets" just to make it being build. It would also be quite nice in urban areas with insta building killing power.

And killing a bunker outright is already a big feature considering that you would have to put several charges on a bunker in risky moves with your inf.

If it would cost lets say as much as the proposed MK IV it would also be not such a big loss. Make it buildable instead of expensive call in. If you creep forward with three churchills protecting this one it would work in its role as insta bunker/emplacment/building killer.

I want to talk a bit more about hull-down here so I can explain my thoughts of why I went for less armor - less received damage for the early churchills:

Currently the hull-down ability gives the affected tank -25% received penetration and -25% damage reduction. The former is super good; so good that if you gave it to some american mediums in armor doctrine they would start bouncing stuff they shouldn't be able to bounce. You can even do this with the firefly by giving it the armor upgrade it has and then hulling it down. It makes it extremely difficult to penetrate with 75mm guns for axis at long ranges. My thought process with the early churchills and hull-down is that they are moving pillboxes which you can also reinforce from if needed. They are not quite good when they are moving about but when they fortify themselves into a position they can be extremely hard to kill. So I don't mind how the early churchill changes but if hull-down gets moved away from the emplacements tree (which it should) then it should be factored in how strong the early churchill's armor is with this ability.

I cant remember if this ability can be used in enemy territory. I think churchill should remain quite ressistant, just perhaps as they are now but more than a sherman for sure.

If I were to give general thought on how to go about implementing this, it would be to keep unit performances as they are to keep the unit performances as is for now, shift a lot of the CP cost from the end of the tree closer to the beginning (For example, the base churchills will cost 4 CP, the hull down 1, the ace croc 2, the vet churchills 1). Over time, slowly tweaking the performance of the units and adjusting the CP along the way.

I guess people would then tend to go better straight for achilles/Firefly/comet and all that stuff. If they have just spend their 4 CP to get the first churchill it might happen that an enemie rushed for something big or at least bigger. The RE player would be quite defensless. Most will play save instead and go for achilles or firefly at least so that they dont get a nasty surprise and being defensless.

On Top of that CW tanks in general are specialised for the most part. So in order to get a good attack going you need a combo of a churchill and and an AA Tank or anti tank tank. So the CP cost will be quite huge just to get your first attack going.

And what will the 6 pdr churchill be doing with its 6 pdr? It can be used only against the very early tank IV versions. For 4 CP you could just as well remove it from game entirely.

And Finally why would anyone get a MK VI for 4 CP when he can get an MK VII for apparently 5-6 CP?


In short: It ruins the early-mid offensive capabilties, creates a risk to be defenseless, makes the 6 pdr Churchill obsolete in terms of firepower and why should anyone get an MK VI when the VII is just one click away?

[mofetagalactica]

I would like to see the churchill AVRE working as the stupa, wasn't the stupa "realistically" made for the same end that the AVRE warhawks? but still preffer how the stupa works in-game.

[kwok]

If I were to give general thought on how to go about implementing this, it would be to keep unit performances as they are to keep the unit performances as is for now, shift a lot of the CP cost from the end of the tree closer to the beginning (For example, the base churchills will cost 4 CP, the hull down 1, the ace croc 2, the vet churchills 1). Over time, slowly tweaking the performance of the units and adjusting the CP along the way.

I guess people would then tend to go better straight for achilles/Firefly/comet and all that stuff. If they have just spend their 4 CP to get the first churchill it might happen that an enemie rushed for something big or at least bigger. The RE player would be quite defensless. Most will play save instead and go for achilles or firefly at least so that they dont get a nasty surprise and being defensless.

On Top of that CW tanks in general are specialised for the most part. So in order to get a good attack going you need a combo of a churchill and and an AA Tank or anti tank tank. So the CP cost will be quite huge just to get your first attack going.

And what will the 6 pdr churchill be doing with its 6 pdr? It can be used only against the very early tank IV versions. For 4 CP you could just as well remove it from game entirely.

And Finally why would anyone get a MK VI for 4 CP when he can get an MK VII for apparently 5-6 CP?


In short: It ruins the early-mid offensive capabilties, creates a risk to be defenseless, makes the 6 pdr Churchill obsolete in terms of firepower and why should anyone get an MK VI when the VII is just one click away?

Eh maybe my EXAMPLE was too extreme. The main point of my comment was to balance the doctrine through availability and not through unit performance and to give suggestion into that. That's why I said "For example".

Also don't forget other doctrines had their tanks pushed later as well (except for the tiger because it's essentially locked behind price and tier relative to other medium-to-late tanks).

[kwok]

I would like to see the churchill AVRE working as the stupa, wasn't the stupa "realistically" made for the same end that the AVRE warhawks? but still preffer how the stupa works in-game.

What if the stupa was made to work like the AVRE? Just curious.

[mofetagalactica]

If stupa work as the current AVRE does, then i will never ever make it (unless you crazily overbuff their stats), i will be fine dealing with emplacements with just scotts and stuh's. I don't usually make scotts and stuh's in current beta version to deal with infantry, just to deal with AA's emplacements and use the new hability to shoot from outside AT range. If AVRE where just a better version of scotts and stuh's with more damage and just a little bit of more range on his building shoot hability then i will totally go for them if the enemy spam defences.
Saying that peopple will use them to deal with tanks or infantry, not long ago they where seriosly nerfed againts moving targets and auto attack range so... that dosn't really work as well as it used to be (old stupa).

[Warhawks97]

I would like to see the churchill AVRE working as the stupa, wasn't the stupa "realistically" made for the same end that the AVRE warhawks? but still preffer how the stupa works in-game.

The stupa shot normal he shells and worked just like any other guns and loaded from inside. It was a howitzer diverted for direct firing.

The AVRE was a mortar with a special shot designed to destroy bunkers and fortification. It was loaded from outside and had very short range. The 95 mm churchill was the close support tank and "counterpart" to stupa and other howitzer tank.

The stupa had a 150 mm and 38 kg heavy h
HE shell. AVRE fired a 290 mm and 18,4 kg heavy hollow charge bomb with 91 meter firing range. It worked like the PIAT basically.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/tanks-ency ... -avre/amp/

[MenciusMoldbug]

I would honestly have the AVRE stay uber-specialized in its role of killing fortifications than having it share a role with the 95mm Churchill. I think the AVRE has places where it can be buffed so it can work better as a fortification buster by having it destroy trenches/insta-kill anyone in trenches where it fires because as of now it can fire a shot at a trench and sometimes do nothing to it (no idea why). + Making it cheaper than the 95mm churchill should make their roles more distinct. Like how the early churchills can be way cheaper than the later super-armored later churchills. So it comes down to whether you really need the high performance churchills or you just need a churchill to secure an area without spending too much into it (and not worrying too much about losing it later if it did its job for long enough).

I rather have the 95mm churchill have a direct fire; Even if takes like a million years for it to reload and fire again if that's the cost. I would also give a direct fire for the 95mm cromwell too; so it can be more fun to use as a direct attacker rather than something that sits back to only serve as an SPG that keeps lobbing shells at a distance.

Also, yeah make the AVRE buildable instead of a call-in so it isn't killing your manpower supply as RE. Since most of the time RE has fuel to spare but manpower shortage is always a problem because of how brits have high cost high performance units everywhere.

[Warhawks97]

I would honestly have the AVRE stay uber-specialized in its role of killing fortifications than having it share a role with the 95mm Churchill. I think the AVRE has places where it can be buffed so it can work better as a fortification buster by having it destroy trenches/insta-kill anyone in trenches where it fires because as of now it can fire a shot at a trench and sometimes do nothing to it (no idea why). + Making it cheaper than the 95mm churchill should make their roles more distinct. Like how the early churchills can be way cheaper than the later super-armored later churchills. So it comes down to whether you really need the high performance churchills or you just need a churchill to secure an area without spending too much into it (and not worrying too much about losing it later if it did its job for long enough).

I rather have the 95mm churchill have a direct fire; Even if takes like a million years for it to reload and fire again if that's the cost. I would also give a direct fire for the 95mm cromwell too; so it can be more fun to use as a direct attacker rather than something that sits back to only serve as an SPG that keeps lobbing shells at a distance.

Also, yeah make the AVRE buildable instead of a call-in so it isn't killing your manpower supply as RE. Since most of the time RE has fuel to spare but manpower shortage is always a problem because of how brits have high cost high performance units everywhere.

Can't say it better.

+1

[kwok]

I would honestly have the AVRE stay uber-specialized in its role of killing fortifications than having it share a role with the 95mm Churchill. I think the AVRE has places where it can be buffed so it can work better as a fortification buster by having it destroy trenches/insta-kill anyone in trenches where it fires because as of now it can fire a shot at a trench and sometimes do nothing to it (no idea why). + Making it cheaper than the 95mm churchill should make their roles more distinct. Like how the early churchills can be way cheaper than the later super-armored later churchills. So it comes down to whether you really need the high performance churchills or you just need a churchill to secure an area without spending too much into it (and not worrying too much about losing it later if it did its job for long enough).

I rather have the 95mm churchill have a direct fire; Even if takes like a million years for it to reload and fire again if that's the cost. I would also give a direct fire for the 95mm cromwell too; so it can be more fun to use as a direct attacker rather than something that sits back to only serve as an SPG that keeps lobbing shells at a distance.

Also, yeah make the AVRE buildable instead of a call-in so it isn't killing your manpower supply as RE. Since most of the time RE has fuel to spare but manpower shortage is always a problem because of how brits have high cost high performance units everywhere.

Can't say it better.

+1

I don't get it at all. The AVRE is different solely because it's cheaper? Then that's not different. That's like saying the stuart has an entirely different role than the sherman because the stuart is cheaper but clearly the stuart has been basically never used because the sherman over shadows the stuart even though it's on an entirely different tier. Imagine if the sherman had indirect fire too, then stuart won't even be a cheesy tactic.

Also no one has yet addressed Markr's concern here:

I don't really care too much what it was realistically if it makes the unit pointless. AVRE in the game has the same armor as the 6pounder Churchill and this post suggests to make that armor type weaker to the point where 75mm L48 guns have a lot better chance to penetrate these tanks. If that happens and if the AVRE can only shoot at short range as it "realistically" did, what will you use the AVRE for? 75mm L48 guns are mounted on almost anything in the Axis arsenal from halftracks and armored cars over portable AT gun versions to tanks and tank hunters. Bunkers and emplacements are mostly present only in Def and SE doctrines and both of these have a good variety of units with 75mm L48 guns so if you build a bunker you'll cover it either with a JPIV or Marder or just AT gun (all of these can equip AP ammo and if you play against RE and build defenses I think you simply will get the upgrade) and so the AVRE will most often get destroyed even before it gets close enough to fire its gun. Thus everyone will go for the 95mm Churchill because it will be able to shoot at ranges where the opponent cannot shoot back at it and also has the arty ability.

[MenciusMoldbug]

Well I don't think of the AVRE and 95mm churchills as only a difference in price. The AVRE can be cheaper and better at destroying fortifications than the 95mm can. Destroying a bunker with a 95mm churchill can take 3-5 barrages (and each barrage costs 50 munitions to fire so thats a lot of munis going down the drain). While the AVRE can possibly destroy a bunker in one shot (for 35 munitions). You can buff the AVRE here by giving it super good killing power against infantry in buildings/entrenched kind of like how it was done with the flamer.

On MarKr's concern, this is already the case with the current AVRE. It comes very late in the live version since it is after the 95mm churchills and it costs a lot of manpower to put on the field. Most of the time there's a 75mm or higher velocity gun on the field for axis and those guns in camo with AP rounds can knock out the AVRE pretty handily since it doesn't have much self-defense other than firing a single shot and waiting a long time for it to reload to fire again. Actually, when I think about it, even a single AT team with dual shrecks or only panzerfausts can knock out the AVRE before it gets in range if the axis player really wants to kill it. The times I see an AVRE succeed at killing a bunker it's usually after everything else around it is cleared out so nothing can threaten it in its mission.

If you want, you can keep the armor the same, but it will probably still run into problems since all it takes is dedicated AT infantry to knock it out as panzershreck/panzerfausts have very good penetration stats (and I don't think I've seen a faust bounce off a MK VII Croc Churchill either). But the costs for getting it would be prohibitive since it is meant to be used in conjunction with other units. The higher the cost for an AVRE churchill; The better off you are using indirect fire units like a 95mm Churchill since it is much safer to play the long game than risk losing the AVRE in that case.

One important thing to note about AVRE in relation to the British Faction is that planting demos with sappers is very high risk, 3-5x higher risk than planting demos with US engineers. Because sappers are not cheap to build, not easy to replace, and getting them the demolition upgrade costs each squad munitions (comes with a minesweeper though so that's nice). All a defensive doctrine player has to do to keep a british player from destroying his bunkers with demos is use the offmap mortar barrage on his buildings at the right moment (so the british player does not hear the ability go off and loses his squad). The RAF in this regard have it easier because commando demolition charges can be deployed with the smoke camouflage buff and they have unlocks to make them tougher. This makes it so the reliable and safe way to kill a bunker as RE is either the 95mm or the AVRE. Clearing the new def doctrine bunkers which are much cheaper now is not easy with the munition-sink barrage of the 95mm. The 95mm churchill has enough problems as it is clearing trenches and usually doesn't destroy them when its barrage is finished (and you can repair the trenches when the 95mm is on cooldown and re-garrison them again to waste the RE players time).

So I think of the AVRE not as an artillery unit but as a demolition charge thrower. To make this distinction clear, here is what I would do to make the AVRE and 95mm Churchills different:

AVRE:

- 350 MP / 40 Fuel

- 35 Munitions to fire

- 15% chance to insta-kill bunkers/mortar bunkers and any other axis emplacement

- Will do massive damage to bunkers/mortar bunkers and any other axis emplacement (ideally it should kill bunkers in 3-2 shots and every other emplacement should go down in 1-2 shots)

- Very good chances to decrew axis emplacements on direct hit (like grenades)

- Will destroy trenches instantly

- Has good chances (about the same as the flamers) in killing infantry in buildings/trenches/bunkers on direct hit

- Will instantly destroy dragon teeth, roadblocks, wires, sandbags, etc. around its AOE blast

- Armor can bounce 50mm guns reliably, with 65-80% chance to bounce 75mms with no AP at max range.

- The 290mm round should have low scatter and high accuracy since it is already a single fire weapon meant to be lobbed at fortifications (and missing a direct hit with it on something like a 20mm flak emplacement would be bad).

95mm MK IV Churchill:

- 500 MP / 60 Fuel

- Can direct fire

- 50 munitions to fire artillery barrage

- Imprecise Artillery Barrages at long ranges (this isn't necessarily a bad thing if the enemy is spread out in a area)

- Not reliable at destroying trenches unless firing at close ranges for precise shots

- Not very cost-efficient at taking out bunkers/mortar bunkers (would take 150-200+ munitions worth of barrages to clear)

- Somewhat reliable at taking out axis emplacements (like an 88)

- Better off using AVRE to clear dragon teeth, roadblocks, wires, sandbags, etc. since it's most cost efficient

- Same armor as the AVRE

----

I've basically made the AVRE into a demolition charge thrower that costs a bit higher in MP than Sappers. The 290mm is also cheaper to fire than planting a demolition charge on a bunker and in my theoretical re-work you aren't tied down to a limt of 1 AVRE (you can have max 3 I guess? I don't think the limit matters on the buildable AVRE honestly). So you can fire multiple AVRE's on a fortification to instantly destroy if you don't want to gamble with RNG.

So Ideally, the AVRE comes in when the AT presence around a fortification/bunker is very weak. Like how engineers/commandos get right next to a fortification/bunker after they have cleared out everything else. In the case of the AVRE, there is no need for it to wait 20 seconds to plant a demo-charge, get clear, and blow it. It's throwing demo-charges with its main gun. While the 95mm churchill is meant to clear out AT fortifications from a distance (camod AT guns/AT squads, hidden hetzers/jp4s, etc.) since getting close to them with the early churchills would be suicide. What I would imagine to see is a 95mm churchill killing an 75mm AT gun next to a bunker and the AVRE rolling up and firing the 290mm and backing up and the bunker either being destroyed or missing a massive chunk of its health. This is all theoretical; I can't prove this is how it would be but its how I would like it to go.

[Warhawks97]

Excellent menicus.
Idk if you were aware of what AVRE was supposed to be in real life but what you described is essentially what it was. A charge throwing tank to clear the path and working in conjunction with tanks and inf.

[MarKr]

AVRE:
- 350 MP / 40 Fuel
- 35 Munitions to fire
(...)

One thing I'm missing in this suggestion and I think it is quite crucial is the range of the AVRE. People here have said several times that AVRE should be "close range" unit but what does that mean for you? Standard tank gun range is 60, 75 for static AT guns.

[Warhawks97]

One thing I'm missing in this suggestion and I think it is quite crucial is the range of the AVRE. People here have said several times that AVRE should be "close range" unit but what does that mean for you? Standard tank gun range is 60, 75 for static AT guns.

I would say quite short bc you trade massive damage for range. If t gets too big, people would tend to use it against approaching inf before they get into range. And it would also leave little to no time to evacuate your bunker once it appears.

And since it would probably also deal decent damage to any tank, its range should not exceed 35 range. Considering that infantry can throw satchel only from pretty close range, i would argue that a bunker busting unit with 35 range is already a huge advantage.

[kwok]

One thing I'm missing in this suggestion and I think it is quite crucial is the range of the AVRE. People here have said several times that AVRE should be "close range" unit but what does that mean for you? Standard tank gun range is 60, 75 for static AT guns.

I would say quite short bc you trade massive damage for range. If t gets too big, people would tend to use it against approaching inf before they get into range. And it would also leave little to no time to evacuate your bunker once it appears.

And since it would probably also deal decent damage to any tank, its range should not exceed 35 range. Considering that infantry can throw satchel only from pretty close range, i would argue that a bunker busting unit with 35 range is already a huge advantage.

Should the avre be viable to counter pantherturms and flak 88s? Because at 35 range they won’t. It was literally why avres were given longer range, so they can do their job. Their capability today honestly is not THAT far different than what Mencius describes, just minor costing, durability, and availability tweaks.

[Warhawks97]

One thing I'm missing in this suggestion and I think it is quite crucial is the range of the AVRE. People here have said several times that AVRE should be "close range" unit but what does that mean for you? Standard tank gun range is 60, 75 for static AT guns.

I would say quite short bc you trade massive damage for range. If t gets too big, people would tend to use it against approaching inf before they get into range. And it would also leave little to no time to evacuate your bunker once it appears.

And since it would probably also deal decent damage to any tank, its range should not exceed 35 range. Considering that infantry can throw satchel only from pretty close range, i would argue that a bunker busting unit with 35 range is already a huge advantage.

Should the avre be viable to counter pantherturms and flak 88s? Because at 35 range they won’t. It was literally why avres were given longer range, so they can do their job. Their capability today honestly is not THAT far different than what Mencius describes, just minor costing, durability, and availability tweaks.

Given the damage potential everything above that would make the unit a no brainer. Cost would go up and that would hurt the principal of fighting in conjuction with other tanks.

88 is not a target as it can be dealed with with howitzer churchill.

Panther bunker might be an issue. However if you go in first with an mk vii that can bounce it and with smoke it will be possible.

The panther bunker itself might take just one hit instead of two to be destroyed.

Distracting fire is a viable tactics. When you play as US (or when I did) I always had to use distraction when I attacked targets like tanks. Eg Sherman or m20 to distract target and m10 can fire several shots.

Cw has fast cars like Daimler that act as distraction or as said an mk vii to act as sponge.

[kwok]

The panther bunker itself might take just one hit instead of two to be destroyed.

Distracting fire is a viable tactics. When you play as US (or when I did) I always had to use distraction when I attacked targets like tanks. Eg Sherman or m20 to distract target and m10 can fire several shots.

Cw has fast cars like Daimler that act as distraction or as said an mk vii to act as sponge.

Distracting fire best works when you can weave in between reloads of shots. Given how slow the churchills are and the range that needs to cover, it doesn't take much for the panther bunker to just right click and not get distracted before the avre can get that first petard shot.

[CGarr]

The panther bunker itself might take just one hit instead of two to be destroyed.

Distracting fire is a viable tactics. When you play as US (or when I did) I always had to use distraction when I attacked targets like tanks. Eg Sherman or m20 to distract target and m10 can fire several shots.

Cw has fast cars like Daimler that act as distraction or as said an mk vii to act as sponge.

Distracting fire best works when you can weave in between reloads of shots. Given how slow the churchills are and the range that needs to cover, it doesn't take much for the panther bunker to just right click and not get distracted before the avre can get that first petard shot.

Would smoke help much in this scenario? Not sure how much the smoke would affect the AVRE (I'd assume the difference in accuracy would be negligible for the AVRE since it's such a big blast).

Edit: nevermind, just read the post you were responding to.

[CGarr]

One thing I'm missing in this suggestion and I think it is quite crucial is the range of the AVRE. People here have said several times that AVRE should be "close range" unit but what does that mean for you? Standard tank gun range is 60, 75 for static AT guns.

I would say quite short bc you trade massive damage for range. If t gets too big, people would tend to use it against approaching inf before they get into range. And it would also leave little to no time to evacuate your bunker once it appears.

And since it would probably also deal decent damage to any tank, its range should not exceed 35 range. Considering that infantry can throw satchel only from pretty close range, i would argue that a bunker busting unit with 35 range is already a huge advantage.

AVRE is hilariously weak against tanks currently, I've seen panzer 4's eat direct hits without even taking a crit.