Royal Engineers Rework

[Warhawks97]

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.

sure. But still. Thats why i mentioned the MK VII to be send in first.

What does panther bunker cost? its not that cheap? Also in this case you have the royal engineers. I imagine churchills operating in groups and together with infantry, most likely sappers. So whatever defense there is, you get the means to handle it. If there are lets say a normal bunker and a panther bunker, the cost to effectively operate and defend them are very high. So you can either just go arround of such a mass of "stationary MP" or clear out just the inf, with for example flames and smoke.

If thats done you can either demolish the panther turret with satchels and charges and the other with avre.

The next thing is that churchills would have 800 MP and later on, with vet, 25% damage reduction. Panther gun damage is 500-650. So you can eat a shot for sure. Or, as said, MK VII goes in first, bounces and from then on you either bounce it again or just take a shot.

If there is an emplacment defending panther turret, it can be handled by 95 mm howitzer.



One more thing is that i would perhaps remove 76 shermans from CW entirely and instead add sector smoke for this doc. Ive never seen anyone using it with RA. And RE usually sits on quite an ammount of ammo. It would be quite helpfull to cover the advance.

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

I would make the AVRE dealing huge damage when hitting the mark. It might not need to oneshot kill tanks, but a good damage and perhaps disabling them.

[kwok]

sure. But still. Thats why i mentioned the MK VII to be send in first.

What I'm saying is ti doesnt matter if the mk VII goes in first. It's as simple as right clicking to ignore the mk VII.

I imagine churchills operating in groups and together with infantry, most likely sappers.

I am imagining it. That's what Markr and I see the avre as basically overshadowed by the 95mm. Between the two units, there is very little difference. Everything you said I could say the same with the 95mm churchill but without risking the churchill or requiring much micro at all.

One more thing is that i would perhaps remove 76 shermans from CW entirely and instead add sector smoke for this doc. Ive never seen anyone using it with RA. And RE usually sits on quite an ammount of ammo. It would be quite helpfull to cover the advance.

I can't remember, but I think this was done already.

[MarKr]

My point of view, which is based on observations over the years, is that players simply go for the easiest, least risky options. In this case if AVRE has the range of 35, it simply WILL be risky to send it against some bunkers because any camoed 75mm gun/TD will pose a threat. Bombing the bunker with 95mm barrages simply poses very little threat. Not to mention that Def doc also has the JPIV with Panther gun at about the same time which will most of the time one-shot the AVRE, in comparison no such threat for 95mm Churchill.

Another thing that comes to my mind is that if you know the bunker is protected by an AT gun/emplacement (and this can be 75mm L48, 88mm PaK or flak) you can just shell the emplacement/gun from safe distance with 95mm Churchill and then you can just approach safely to the bunker with any other unit and kill the garrison - bunker is then empty and you don't need to worry about it.

In the end bunkers are available only in Def doc for WM and mostly in SE for PE (and even here they will mostly likely become restricted) so there will be only 2 doctrines against which the AVRE with short range MIGHT have some use (and as stated above, the 95mm will most likely still be prefered by players because it is simply safer to use it).

Saying that shelling stuff with 95mm would be more expensive also doesn't say much because as far as I can remember RE was never lacking ammo because except for arty from the churchill and maybe Tulips from Shermans they had very few ways to spend big ammounts of ammo for which will still be the case and will only add to the "why not use 95mm" thing.

Also...how many bunkers have you seen being built in the beta since the Def doc has been reworked?

I still think that people will simply use the 95mm every time because it is easier. I mean...look at the AVRE right now. In some ways it already is (or at least quite close) to the state Mencius suggested (armor strength is about 5% better than suggested, it deals a lot of damage to bunkers etc.) and on top of that it has range of 70 right now (so it can fire from a safe distance from counter-fire from camoed AT guns and TDs + has armor that can reliably deflect 75mm L48 guns) and you STILL almost never see it used. Yes, it is a call in so it drains MP but given how well it could perform at killing defenses (this means not just bunkers but also emplacements, wires, baricades, trenches etc.) you would guess that people would use it at least a bit more often but they don't.

[Warhawks97]

What I'm saying is ti doesnt matter if the mk VII goes in first. It's as simple as right clicking to ignore the mk VII.

so the MK VII goes in first and AVRE stays out of range. Is the defensive player then going to hold fire manually waiting for the AVRE to get into range? If he does so, the first churchill will destroy everything inside and outside the bunker. Also in the heat of battle, when like three churchills approach the bunker, i doubt that a def player that is organizing his defense will pay huge attention to that single bunker and controle it manually. Ive never seen anyone treating a bunker and controlling it like he would controle a tiger tank.

And finally for the cost proposal you get two AVRE for the cost of currently one. I dont think a panther gun will make four shots to destroy two churchills before the 25 range distant has been closed.

I am imagining it. That's what Markr and I see the avre as basically overshadowed by the 95mm. Between the two units, there is very little difference. Everything you said I could say the same with the 95mm churchill but without risking the churchill or requiring much micro at all.

Overshadowed? I think menicus pointed it out clear enough:

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.

You have litterally a unit that can just like that throw a devestating charge over a distant much larger than any infantry unit will do. And the MP cost is cheaper than that of sappers.

My point of view, which is based on observations over the years, is that players simply go for the easiest, least risky options. In this case if AVRE has the range of 35, it simply WILL be risky to send it against some bunkers because any camoed 75mm gun/TD will pose a threat. Bombing the bunker with 95mm barrages simply poses very little threat. Not to mention that Def doc also has the JPIV with Panther gun at about the same time which will most of the time one-shot the AVRE, in comparison no such threat for 95mm Churchill.

whats the point? He was well aware of that fact. But it doesnt contradict to menicus general idea. Its already risky to use AVRE now whenever there are such TD´s. And 720 MP isnt cheap for RE.

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.

Next:

Another thing that comes to my mind is that if you know the bunker is protected by an AT gun/emplacement (and this can be 75mm L48, 88mm PaK or flak) you can just shell the emplacement/gun from safe distance with 95mm Churchill and then you can just approach safely to the bunker with any other unit and kill the garrison - bunker is then empty and you don't need to worry about it.

95 kills the soft targets. If there is no bunker, there is no big need for AVRE. Which doesnt mean its totally useless as it can still be quite usefull to keep an assault alive when part of an armored force.

His idea is that 95 mm is not some sort of competitor to AVRE, but rather a complementing tool to AVRE.

"Any other unit" costs a lot more than the proposed AVRE cost. Even when bunker is cleared, sappers that are planting a charge can be disturbed by anything: Inf, Snipers... even a simple bike could prevent sappers from planting charges on it. You would have to create a 360 degree coverage with tanks arround the bunker and even then snipers can easly disturb sappers. with AVRE you just need to clear AT threats, drive up close and knock it out with a single shot.

He already pointed it out here:

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.

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:

Saying that shelling stuff with 95mm would be more expensive also doesn't say much because as far as I can remember RE was never lacking ammo because except for arty from the churchill and maybe Tulips from Shermans they had very few ways to spend big ammounts of ammo for which will still be the case and will only add to the "why not use 95mm" thing.

Its not just barrage cost. Its unit build cost and total cost to kill a bunker. In some cases it might be that bunker gets repaired between the barrages which end up in endless ammo drain.

Also important is the time it takes. If you barrage a bunker slowly down, you can be sure that your opponent will have enough time to relocate forces and to bolster its defense there. A AVRE spares a lot of time and keeps an assault going without giving your opponent time to rebuild defenses right behind it. That was the point of all "Hobarts Funnies": Keep the attack going.

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)

95mm MK IV Churchill:
- 500 MP / 60 Fuel
- 50 munitions to fire artillery barrage
- Not very cost-efficient at taking out bunkers/mortar bunkers (would take 150-200+ munitions worth of barrages to clear)

Also...how many bunkers have you seen being built in the beta since the Def doc has been reworked?

I still think that people will simply use the 95mm every time because it is easier. I mean...look at the AVRE right now. In some ways it already is (or at least quite close) to the state Mencius suggested (armor strength is about 5% better than suggested, it deals a lot of damage to bunkers etc.) and on top of that it has range of 70 right now (so it can fire from a safe distance from counter-fire from camoed AT guns and TDs + has armor that can reliably deflect 75mm L48 guns) and you STILL almost never see it used. Yes, it is a call in so it drains MP but given how well it could perform at killing defenses (this means not just bunkers but also emplacements, wires, baricades, trenches etc.) you would guess that people would use it at least a bit more often but they don't.

whats 70 range? Thats less than AT gun emplacments which have 80 range or more. Panther turret has 65 range i think but its still dangerous to use. Ive lost stuhs with 85 range sometimes to AT gun emplacments which have 80 range simply bc the tank made one bad move. If there is a TD, he will just go out of camo, approach and kill the churchill or hunt it anyways. Not to mention what will happen when there comes an all out counterattack. 720 MP is then wasted for nothing.

As Menicus said, in one way or the other, you already have to clear the enviroment from enemy forces when your AVRE is approaching.

And the reason its not used is mainly MP. At least that was my most often reason that i didnt get it. Else i would have used it in the past, esspecially in concjunction with crocc MK VII. But the low cost of 95 mm churchill was a lot more appealing and saver due to range.
But increasing range to that of 95 mm would mean that we would have to lower its damage so that it doesnt become OP.
But then we would just mirror two units which behave a bit different.

But given the fact that i could have the AVRE as some sort of "everything obliterating in a single shot for low cost unit", i would take the short range anytime. Why should i have two units that do essentially the same when both can be very different and complementing instead of being competitor to each other.

In the end bunkers are available only in Def doc for WM and mostly in SE for PE (and even here they will mostly likely become restricted) so there will be only 2 doctrines against which the AVRE with short range MIGHT have some use (and as stated above, the 95mm will most likely still be prefered by players because it is simply safer to use it).

[/quote]

Bunkers are very special, and so will be the AVRE.

How many times do you see shermans with mine flail upgrade destroying mines? I personally never saw it happening in all these years. For one only few have access to mines and even fewer use them. And secondly the mine flail is costly and makes the sherman a sitting duck when active.
Are we now going to create some extra roles for the mine flail just for the sake to make it being used by players?
I doubt.

So unless there is someone very seriously camping or no bunkers and only light fortifications in use, there would be little need to get the AVRE. But in case it happens, i would be glad to have a cheap option to handle it and there is little desire to have two different units doing actually the same but none helps me out of my overall situation. One bc it has not the power, the second bc its too expensive.

[mofetagalactica]

Put panzreaks on a trench with cammo bonus, goodbye AVRE before even getting close enough to shoot LOL.

[MenciusMoldbug]

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.

This reminds me of something else, which means its story time from me from another game (bear with me on this I don't do it often):

So I was playing some men of war mod (think it was robz realism mod or something) with my friend and we were playing against each other. He was Germany and I was British and we had access to tons of resources and all the prototype/late-war units. He eventually called in a MAUS tank and I used stuff like Black Prince Churchills, Centurions, Comets, etc. to take it out but they all failed. Eventually I got this silly low cost AVRE Churchill whos armor was basically paper vs the MAUS' main gun. However I managed to get a shot with the AVRE and since the projectile travels in a sling/upward direction it managed to hit the top of the MAUS tank. The MAUS turret went flying out and the tank literally exploded. But I guess that's to be expected when you fire a 290mm shell that is packed with uber amounts of TNT to the thin top part of a tank. I know for balance reasons AVRE can't oneshot a stubby p4 but if the range got reduced on the AVRE it should happen to punish bad-positioning.

I don't want the roles of 95mm and AVRE to overlap. Max range I would give the AVRE would be 50 or 55. You should see the tank coming before it can fire its petard otherwise a tank out of sight range shooting 290mm's everywhere would need its cost increased and it would essentially become a rambo-churchill which can handle itself in a fight while it has its shell loaded (and hide behind something else when it needs to reload). I still want it to one-two shot every axis structure but a fortified def bunker so I have a cheap effective tool for taking out fortifications when needed. Just having it clear roadblock/dragonteeth spam for low cost and without risking my sappers to do it on certain maps is good enough for me.

[MarKr]

One thing that was said here is that AVRE is very rarely used right now, which is true. I still think that changing it the way that was described here by Mencius and so vehemently defended by Warhawks will not make it more appealing but also not less appealing - people will simply keep using it as rarely as they do now. I stated my reasons for thinking this above (people prefering easy and safe solutions over risky and more micro-heavy etc.). But since it won't change the unit to worse nor better, I guess you can have it if you want it so badly.

As for Mencius' last post - based on the posts here I assumed it was meant to use the AVRE as a pure anti-defense and obstacle-clearing device and so I assumed it would have its targetting changed so that the shot could only be fired at such targets (same as the ability on StuHs is restricted in what it can be fired at). In such case I would agree to the 50-55 range you suggested. However in case it would be possible to target tanks with the shot and cause significant damage to them, I would be more inclined to the 35 range suggested by Hawks because the PIVs and similar units have range of 60 and cannot reliably penetrate the Churchill armor even at closer ranges so it would turn the AVRE into a tank that creates a no-go zones for light/medium vehicles because they would be unable to reliable damage it while AVRE would be able to deal serious damage to them reliably.

[Warhawks97]

One thing that was said here is that AVRE is very rarely used right now, which is true. I still think that changing it the way that was described here by Mencius and so vehemently defended by Warhawks will not make it more appealing but also not less appealing - people will simply keep using it as rarely as they do now. I stated my reasons for thinking this above (people prefering easy and safe solutions over risky and more micro-heavy etc.). But since it won't change the unit to worse nor better, I guess you can have it if you want it so badly.

The AVRE is probably one of the most specialised vehicles ever. And sometimes we cant change it. I dont think that it would make sense to widen a units capabilties and tasks it can perform just to make it more used. I mean no one is going to make bunkers to be something in between what current bunkers are and what emplacments are. Creating hybrids isnt always usefull. And if the AVRE wont be a real AVRE but instead a hybrid of AVRE and 95 mm, units will use 95 mm even more likely over AVRE. So we have to make a clear distinction between them.

units that overlap with each other dont make any of them more often used. I think one problem in old BK version simply was that many units had the same task which ended up in having many units just for the sake of having them.

As for Mencius' last post - based on the posts here I assumed it was meant to use the AVRE as a pure anti-defense and obstacle-clearing device and so I assumed it would have its targetting changed so that the shot could only be fired at such targets (same as the ability on StuHs is restricted in what it can be fired at). In such case I would agree to the 50-55 range you suggested. However in case it would be possible to target tanks with the shot and cause significant damage to them, I would be more inclined to the 35 range suggested by Hawks because the PIVs and similar units have range of 60 and cannot reliably penetrate the Churchill armor even at closer ranges so it would turn the AVRE into a tank that creates a no-go zones for light/medium vehicles because they would be unable to reliable damage it while AVRE would be able to deal serious damage to them reliably.

lots of these targets dont have an "owner" and count as neutral buildings. I would prefer to have it flexible for this reason with the ability to target even tanks when those get simply too close. But even if its aimed, i wouldnt make it to have more range than 46 or so. Else it might really become a bit of a no brainer when the enemie has no chance with to escape the bunker or to fire with his inf against it. There should be some sort of tactical achievments required before using such an very high damage unit.

[MarKr]

lots of these targets dont have an "owner" and count as neutral buildings.

How is that a problem?

Else it might really become a bit of a no brainer when the enemie has no chance with to escape the bunker or to fire with his inf against it.

In Def doc you can upgrade your bunkers to "spotter" bunkers which increases the vision range of infantry inside which gives you enough time to run evacuate (or to provide vision to your 88s to snipe the AVRE before it ever gets close). PE has Kettens which provide lots of vision too.

[MenciusMoldbug]

As for Mencius' last post - based on the posts here I assumed it was meant to use the AVRE as a pure anti-defense and obstacle-clearing device and so I assumed it would have its targetting changed so that the shot could only be fired at such targets (same as the ability on StuHs is restricted in what it can be fired at). In such case I would agree to the 50-55 range you suggested. However in case it would be possible to target tanks with the shot and cause significant damage to them, I would be more inclined to the 35 range suggested by Hawks because the PIVs and similar units have range of 60 and cannot reliably penetrate the Churchill armor even at closer ranges so it would turn the AVRE into a tank that creates a no-go zones for light/medium vehicles because they would be unable to reliable damage it while AVRE would be able to deal serious damage to them reliably.

Yeah, I've tested an AVRE with 50 range in corsix and it seems way too strong for its price. I would go with what Hawks said about giving it 35 range as I would like it to be able to fire at anything within that range for huge damage. In CQC maps like urban/cities/villages it can be especially useful to hide it behind a shotblocker and approach/wait for enemies. It should keep its ability to fire at anything than be target-specific. Because I know it's very easy to abuse those kinds of things like they do in vanilla COH; Where someone builds a tanktrap/sandbag just to lay a demolition charge next to it for unsuspecting foes to blow up on.

Also, I'd like to make a veterancy change suggestion for churchills. Currently, they have an ability at veterancy 2-3 that spawns an infantry section with a single bren and no other upgrades available. It's not very useful and I've never seen anybody use it. I'm thinking you can give Churchills a veterancy ability that makes them shoot the the treads, main gun, engine, etc. of enemy tanks. Remember how we had a discussion about giving AT guns the ability to aim for specific part of a tank? Something like that for churchills would be quite nice since their guns aren't that good even against stuff like P4 F2's. It shouldn't be a garaunteed chance like there is for the 37mm halftrack and its treadbreaker but something that increases the RNG chances to immobilize, destroy the main, hit the engine of an enemy tank. Some incentive to use the Churchill in AP mode rather than keep it at all times in HE.

[CGarr]

As for Mencius' last post - based on the posts here I assumed it was meant to use the AVRE as a pure anti-defense and obstacle-clearing device and so I assumed it would have its targetting changed so that the shot could only be fired at such targets (same as the ability on StuHs is restricted in what it can be fired at). In such case I would agree to the 50-55 range you suggested. However in case it would be possible to target tanks with the shot and cause significant damage to them, I would be more inclined to the 35 range suggested by Hawks because the PIVs and similar units have range of 60 and cannot reliably penetrate the Churchill armor even at closer ranges so it would turn the AVRE into a tank that creates a no-go zones for light/medium vehicles because they would be unable to reliable damage it while AVRE would be able to deal serious damage to them reliably.

Yeah, I've tested an AVRE with 50 range in corsix and it seems way too strong for its price. I would go with what Hawks said about giving it 35 range as I would like it to be able to fire at anything within that range for huge damage. In CQC maps like urban/cities/villages it can be especially useful to hide it behind a shotblocker and approach/wait for enemies. It should keep its ability to fire at anything than be target-specific. Because I know it's very easy to abuse those kinds of things like they do in vanilla COH; Where someone builds a tanktrap/sandbag just to lay a demolition charge next to it for unsuspecting foes to blow up on.

Also, I'd like to make a veterancy change suggestion for churchills. Currently, they have an ability at veterancy 2-3 that spawns an infantry section with a single bren and no other upgrades available. It's not very useful and I've never seen anybody use it. I'm thinking you can give Churchills a veterancy ability that makes them shoot the the treads, main gun, engine, etc. of enemy tanks. Remember how we had a discussion about giving AT guns the ability to aim for specific part of a tank? Something like that for churchills would be quite nice since their guns aren't that good even against stuff like P4 F2's. It shouldn't be a garaunteed chance like there is for the 37mm halftrack and its treadbreaker but something that increases the RNG chances to immobilize, destroy the main, hit the engine of an enemy tank. Some incentive to use the Churchill in AP mode rather than keep it at all times in HE.

I'd support everything in this last post, I'd probably use the thing more if it was actually useful against something other than buildings, even with such a big weakness that adds micro tax (the unit doesn't require much micro to use anyways so if anything more would be welcome).

[MarKr]

It should keep its ability to fire at anything than be target-specific. Because I know it's very easy to abuse those kinds of things like they do in vanilla COH; Where someone builds a tanktrap/sandbag just to lay a demolition charge next to it for unsuspecting foes to blow up on.HE.

People can also lay mines next to sandbags to blow up infantry that tries to take cover there or near tanktraps to blow up infantry that will try to get rid of them. How is placing democharge any different? More importantly, how would such "abuse" translate to AVRE targetting?

Also, I'd like to make a veterancy change suggestion for churchills. Currently, they have an ability at veterancy 2-3 that spawns an infantry section with a single bren and no other upgrades available. It's not very useful and I've never seen anybody use it. I'm thinking you can give Churchills a veterancy ability that makes them shoot the the treads, main gun, engine, etc. of enemy tanks. Remember how we had a discussion about giving AT guns the ability to aim for specific part of a tank? Something like that for churchills would be quite nice since their guns aren't that good even against stuff like P4 F2's. It shouldn't be a garaunteed chance like there is for the 37mm halftrack and its treadbreaker but something that increases the RNG chances to immobilize, destroy the main, hit the engine of an enemy tank. Some incentive to use the Churchill in AP mode rather than keep it at all times in HE.

I also remember certain people going into agro-mode anytime the treadbreaker is mentioned. I can imagine that such ability would be really hard to balance because people expect some results when they pay for ability and you said this one would not have 100% chance to succeed. Then it would depend on the success chance. If it is too low people will be complaining that the ability rarely does anything and so it is mostly waste of ammo. If it is too high Axis players will be complaining that the causes crits on their tanks too often. Finding some middle ground where the chances aren't too low nor too high will be hard + setting right cost for what it does. All in all the role of Churchills is to be bullet sponges and weak guns are part of the tank design. At this point Churchills require some unit combinations, usually with some 17 pounder unit so that the Churchil can take a hit and the fragile unit with strong gun can then attack the opponent. There is still some risk in this because your 17 pounder unit needs to take the shot before the opponent reloads and can shoot back at it. If we start compensating the weaker guns of Churchills with such abilities then the target tanks will be (possibly often) left without main gun or with lowered speed and finishing them off will be a lot easier.
So such ability would most likely require some compensation on the side of RE.

[MenciusMoldbug]

It should keep its ability to fire at anything than be target-specific. Because I know it's very easy to abuse those kinds of things like they do in vanilla COH; Where someone builds a tanktrap/sandbag just to lay a demolition charge next to it for unsuspecting foes to blow up on.HE.

People can also lay mines next to sandbags to blow up infantry that tries to take cover there or near tanktraps to blow up infantry that will try to get rid of them. How is placing democharge any different? More importantly, how would such "abuse" translate to AVRE targetting?

As I remember it, in VCoH you could only plant demolitions on either bridges or fortifications (like sandbags, wires, tanktraps, etc.). Only in CoH 2 they allowed you to put demos wherever you wanted. I was thinking about how a 50 range AVRE only needs to fire on a single sandbag/tanktrap placed somewhere on a chokepoint to hit whatever comes through that location (or put a wire next to a fuel/ammo/manpower point to protect it from enemies capping it with the AVRE).

[CGarr]

It should keep its ability to fire at anything than be target-specific. Because I know it's very easy to abuse those kinds of things like they do in vanilla COH; Where someone builds a tanktrap/sandbag just to lay a demolition charge next to it for unsuspecting foes to blow up on.HE.

People can also lay mines next to sandbags to blow up infantry that tries to take cover there or near tanktraps to blow up infantry that will try to get rid of them. How is placing democharge any different? More importantly, how would such "abuse" translate to AVRE targetting?

Also, I'd like to make a veterancy change suggestion for churchills. Currently, they have an ability at veterancy 2-3 that spawns an infantry section with a single bren and no other upgrades available. It's not very useful and I've never seen anybody use it. I'm thinking you can give Churchills a veterancy ability that makes them shoot the the treads, main gun, engine, etc. of enemy tanks. Remember how we had a discussion about giving AT guns the ability to aim for specific part of a tank? Something like that for churchills would be quite nice since their guns aren't that good even against stuff like P4 F2's. It shouldn't be a garaunteed chance like there is for the 37mm halftrack and its treadbreaker but something that increases the RNG chances to immobilize, destroy the main, hit the engine of an enemy tank. Some incentive to use the Churchill in AP mode rather than keep it at all times in HE.

I also remember certain people going into agro-mode anytime the treadbreaker is mentioned. I can imagine that such ability would be really hard to balance because people expect some results when they pay for ability and you said this one would not have 100% chance to succeed. Then it would depend on the success chance. If it is too low people will be complaining that the ability rarely does anything and so it is mostly waste of ammo. If it is too high Axis players will be complaining that the causes crits on their tanks too often. Finding some middle ground where the chances aren't too low nor too high will be hard + setting right cost for what it does. All in all the role of Churchills is to be bullet sponges and weak guns are part of the tank design. At this point Churchills require some unit combinations, usually with some 17 pounder unit so that the Churchil can take a hit and the fragile unit with strong gun can then attack the opponent. There is still some risk in this because your 17 pounder unit needs to take the shot before the opponent reloads and can shoot back at it. If we start compensating the weaker guns of Churchills with such abilities then the target tanks will be (possibly often) left without main gun or with lowered speed and finishing them off will be a lot easier.
So such ability would most likely require some compensation on the side of RE.

I think what Mencius was saying was not to tie it to a muni cost, but rather having it be an attribute of the default (AP) ammo. You can switch between HE and AP for free after paying the initial cost for HE. I agree that it might be kind of ridiculous if it had a high chance of knocking out the main gun on a tank, but movement crits would be fine even if the ability was free to switch to. They don't have to be guaranteed, just significantly higher than normal. You could tie it to a second ability (free, short cooldown, AP has to be loaded for the ability to be usable) that toggles the churchill between going for normal shots and aiming for criticals. The normal mode would just perform the same way the churchill does currently with its default shells, and the critical shot mode would deal extremely small amounts of chip damage with every shot but would have a higher chance to get a damaged engine or immobilize crit. The percentage for just slowing crits (damaged engine or stun) would be like 33-50%, and the immobilize crit could be 20%. Neither would be a sure bet, but if you try the peak a couple times it'll eventually get some kind of mobility crit.

In terms of counter-play, it'd probably be pretty obvious what the churchill is trying to do if its hitting your tanks without bouncing or doing any real damage, so you can respond accordingly by pulling your tank back like 5 meters and letting your inf just walk up to it since it wont be able to switch to HE anytime soon. Alternatively, you could just hold the line for a bit since any time it's not using HE is time the brit player probably wont be able to make significant pushes assuming you have any inf (shrecks, fausts, and AT nades present a threat to the churchill when it doesnt have AP and it can't clear out MG's or AT guns so other units wont be able to push easily either. Any time you can stall against a brit who's using churchills is time you can work on getting something with a big ass gun that can pen said churchills, whether thats a nashorn, panther, tiger, or some other TD.

It'd present new options for the brit player, while also not being overly obnoxious to play against. Additionally, it'd allow the german player more time to stall for their big tanks and potentially the opportunity to use their tanks as bait. Churchill would move to try and slow/immobilize, making itself vulnerable. If supporting units are present to cover it, they are also present to be artied to hell while the refridgerator on tracks is trying to get a mobility crit on something. You could also have a cloaked AT gun on hold fire near your tank, waiting for the firely/comet/achilles to come finish the job. I'd personally enjoy playing against it quite a bit, and its not like the brit has to use the crit ability if they dont like it (although clearly at least some people would like to use it).

[MarKr]

I was thinking about how a 50 range AVRE only needs to fire on a single sandbag/tanktrap placed somewhere on a chokepoint to hit whatever comes through that location.

I see what you mean but the AVRE would have range of 50, standard sight range is 60 so whatever would be capturing a point (or doing pretty much anything around these sandbags or whatever) it would see the Churchill before it could take the shot and since Churchills are slow, it would still leave enough time to move units from the target zone.

As I said before - I don't really care about this one, just saying that I don't see a problem with the targetting thing.

The normal mode would just perform the same way the churchill does currently with its default shells, and the critical shot mode would deal extremely small amounts of chip damage with every shot but would have a higher chance to get a damaged engine or immobilize crit. The percentage for just slowing crits (damaged engine or stun) would be like 33-50%, and the immobilize crit could be 20%. Neither would be a sure bet, but if you try the peak a couple times it'll eventually get some kind of mobility crit.

From technical perspective I think this would be wonky as hell. Criticals only triger when you deal damage, which means you need to penetrate the target's armor. If you want to have some chance to trigger criticals on any target it would basically mean to set very high penetration against everything, including the stuff like KTs or JT. I know, you said it would have extremely low damage but still (because of how the damage system works) they would be way too good for finishing off badly damaged units.

These higher chances to slow down or immobilize tanks would still be pretty strong combo with stuff like Firefly or Comet - slow it with Churchill, then use the static position of Firefly for more range and finish it from safe distance, or rush in with Comet. Espeacially strong it would be against Def doc as it mostly has THs which would be totally screwed due to their lack of turrets.

Maybe it could work with some more significant drawbacks - e.g. the "crit mode" would have 50 range instead of 60 or something

I'm not saying it is an absolute "no" I just see a lot of things that have a good potential to seriously impact the whole tank play in the mod.

[kwok]

Wow lots of posts. I think markr hit almost everything I’d want to say.

This post gained a lot of traction so will probably get discussed for some real changes, so I want to say in advance that it probably should still come after all other doctrine reworks go into the live version for reasons I mentioned before. The objective of the original reworks wasn’t to make things cooler or balanced to the unit performance level, it was to make doctrines viable in 1v1s (the only exception to this was Luft which we’ve taken non stop heat from).

[MenciusMoldbug]

Bumping this thread again because I feel like RE also deserves a rework, at least in the ability to get a mk 7 churchill in production (would make units like Nashorn more useful vs CW since big guns vs CW isn't really needed right now because they have no 'heavy armor' in any of their doctrines).

Also, should there be a mine unlock for RE still? The rest of the doctrines had their mines removed as CP unlocks and just added into the game, and I don't see a reason why RE needs roadblocks when they have emplacements (SE needs them because they don't have emplacements to work as stopgaps).

[CGarr]

Bumping this thread again because I feel like RE also deserves a rework, at least in the ability to get a mk 7 churchill in production (would make units like Nashorn more useful vs CW since big guns vs CW isn't really needed right now because they have no 'heavy armor' in any of their doctrines).

Also, should there be a mine unlock for RE still? The rest of the doctrines had their mines removed as CP unlocks and just added into the game, and I don't see a reason why RE needs roadblocks when they have emplacements (SE needs them because they don't have emplacements to work as stopgaps).

Mk 7 churchills would make a lot more sense than the current ones, as they'd be a strong counter to german medium tanks and TD's. The current versions are still penned by somewhat regularly by P4's, and both the 6 pdr and 75mm gun are terrible against said P4's unless you can afford to drop 50 muni every engagement. The 75mm makes sense, but the 6pdr is just sad, and I still feel that it should be improved in some way (see this thread: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3526 ). Between changes to the 6pdr and the extra armor/health that the Mk7 has, the churchill would become a proper heavy with solid AT performance, something CW is severely lacking (the current version is essentially just a slower P4H with a shitty gun).

I agree with the mine unlock change, it seems weird that they don't get mines by default. Tellermines should also be a default (if they aren't already), and SE pgrens should be able to place them. The SE ammo HT should also be able to place said heavy AT mines at a reduced price. SE especially would benefit from this change since their AT options are generally pretty expensive, especially on the heavier end. Making a separate thread so this one doesn't get derailed, lets stay on the topic of RE.

As for roadblocks, I've never understood them costing CP for RE or SE. They would introduce an interesting mechanic in the form of forced funneling/stalling of enemy units, but people pretty much never unlock them early enough in the game to actually get some built in the field before tanks (especially heavies) start rolling out since there are always much more vital unlocks to get first. Maybe make them 0 CP but slower to build and have the CP unlock allow certain vehicles to build them (at a much faster rate than inf can).

Edit: SE inf can place them after the CP unlock for vehicle minelaying, but said CP unlock doesn't state this. That being said, I still think tellermines should be 0 CP. Also, here is link to above mentioned thread about mines (viewtopic.php?f=15&t=4027).