AB doc needs some love

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
CGarr
Posts: 546
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

AB doc needs some love

Post by CGarr »

In the last update of the beta, US airborne seems to have gotten a lot weaker in the early-mid game, at least against wehr. What was the reasoning behind the changes? From what I've been told, their muni income got increased in the sense that the supply drops are all muni. This was a nice change in that the fuel wasn't really necessary since the doc doesn't have access to good armor anyways aside from the hellcat.

However, I don't see why the 101st got nerfed so hard. The recoilless rifles don't pen most of the time so the damage nerf left them worthless to pick up (better off having more anti inf power), it might as well not be free anymore since it still works against the paper US tanks like m18's and there ends up being a ton of them on the ground for the enemy to pick up if you don't. Their anti-inf power got nerfed as well with the removal of the flame nade. They don't really have a good option for fighting axis elite inf anymore, they dont win 1v1 against any inf squad that's equipped to fight at the same range they are (even volksturms) and their long range damage is underwhelming even with johnsons. Riflemen can at least use rifle nades. Grouping them together provides a good arty target if they're stationary and they're garbage on the move (low durability, johnson seems to be encouraged, and they no longer have the flame nade) so there isn't much reason to be aggressive with them since all you get out of it is MP bleed.

82nd are even worse, they're more expensive than luft inf now for an arguably worse squad (no weapon upgrade potential, 2 bazookas is pretty much equivalent to 1 shreck since one is guaranteed to miss or bounce on every volley and you lose even more anti inf capability, the squad also seems to be made of paper since it trades evenly with MP40 volksturms and assault pios despite costing twice as much and being locked behind 4 CP's.

It's probably not impossible to win against an evenly skilled opponent with this doc (it sounds like Kwok and Figree go back and forth), but you're way better off going brits and playing RAF unless you know the enemy player isn't going to be field much other than heavies or you're in a big team game and can be carried into the late game. Even on US, inf and armor usually fare better in most situations since armor has cheap shermans to deal with inf and inf doc is just good all around (boring until you fill the unlock tree like defensive doc, but not weak like air).

I seriously don't understand the reasoning behind this docs current layout. Is it supposed to be focused more on the airstrikes and play like royal artillery where you just survive until late game and then bomb the shit out of everything? If so, why is half of the tree dedicated to unlocks for airborne inf and their abilities? I can't imagine this doc is supposed to have a heavy focus on inf since the inf is hilariously bad at everything and often lose in a 1v1 against any inf with automatic weapons or armor of any kind. Both 101st and 82nd lose to panzer 4 F2's (falls can lose to 76 shermans but at least those cost more than 30 or 40 fuel), both squads get fucked hard by assault pios (a 0 cp unit available to all PE docs) or any of the wehr doctrinal inf, despite costing the same or more than their axis equivalents. You cant spam as hard as any of the axis docs (prop is self explanatory, defensive is just strong all around and doesn't really need to spam, and blitz literally has a "give me manpower" button). At best, you're even with 2 of the PE docs, the only doc that you really hard counter is the third, panzer support.

What am I missing? If nothing, should the tree be reworked to a different focus (still airborne doc, but more focus on the air support portion maybe)? I can give suggestions for a light rework of the tree but I'm still not sure why air was so overlooked in the reworks to begin with. If thats too much, at least making the durability unlock come as a side unlock to 101 rather than at the end of the tree might be enough, they still lose to axis elite inf after the upgrade so its not like it'd be gamebreaking. 82nd could also get some ranged upgrade options, johnson makes sense to have on them. 1919's would be more fitting on 101st although they shouldn't be available until after some tech or CP threshold, tying them to the WSC cheaper smallarms upgrade and supply yard being built would prob work well. They'd act more like the rangers that come out of the barracks on inf doc, muni hungry but relatively strong for the MP price after they get their weapon upgrades. I don't know what would be best, but the point of this post is air feels like it really needs more attention in the latest beta.

On a similar note, PS doc might need something to help them against air, they get steamrolled pretty easily by snipers and the one thing air is still decent against is light vehicles so pumas as a counter aren't the best. That can be discussed in a different thread though, just worth noting since i mentioned them here.

User avatar
Mantis
Posts: 65
Joined: 28 Dec 2019, 12:37
Location: Czech Republic

Re: AB doc needs some love

Post by Mantis »

AB is ok now...

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 4294
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: AB doc needs some love

Post by Warhawks97 »

Mantis wrote:
19 Mar 2020, 08:22
AB is ok now...
Nothing else to say about. All facts got mentioned in 4 words.


Back on topic. CGarr brought up an ammount of good arguments that are in my opinion worth a debate. Isnt it concerning when AB´s only real advantage as Air doc was that it had more and cheaper units available which is now negated due to recent changes and massive cost drops of for Luftwaffe inf and BK doc inf? AB inf will be totally outclassed and overpriced again.

It also doesnt have competetive inf anymore and seeing that Reg 5 is cheaper than 82nd raises a lot of questions. It doesnt have overwhelming air-power anymore either in comparision to other docs and it cant just sit back and relax while relying on its firepower of Tank and Anti-Tank guns.

User avatar
idliketoplaybetter
Posts: 307
Joined: 26 Feb 2016, 19:55

Re: AB doc needs some love

Post by idliketoplaybetter »

Mantis wrote:
19 Mar 2020, 08:22
AB is ok now...
Have you even played a single game with AB? what is okay and what is wrong (could be improved) with it, in ur understanding?
"You can argue only with like-minded people"

User avatar
Mantis
Posts: 65
Joined: 28 Dec 2019, 12:37
Location: Czech Republic

Re: AB doc needs some love

Post by Mantis »

Warhawks: Not need 30000 words, like you comp stomper.

ILPB: I think, AB inf now have less health, so no more Terminators, flame nades was very OP ability, in personal combat AB haved very big advantage against enemy(no detonation time, very deadly against inf). Next good move is nerf air attacks - patrol is out, like LUFT patrols...
Greyhound have 50cal later... i think AB is ok now...
Maybe change name of this topic to AB doc needs back some buff. I see only crying.

User avatar
idliketoplaybetter
Posts: 307
Joined: 26 Feb 2016, 19:55

Re: AB doc needs some love

Post by idliketoplaybetter »

So no problems at all? It is countarable and winnable?
"You can argue only with like-minded people"

User avatar
Mantis
Posts: 65
Joined: 28 Dec 2019, 12:37
Location: Czech Republic

Re: AB doc needs some love

Post by Mantis »

I think basically is it ok, most OP things was negated and we will see in future... If the new patch will come live, more people give more feedback, than 4 beta testers and one teoretic comp stomper. Nice day.

User avatar
idliketoplaybetter
Posts: 307
Joined: 26 Feb 2016, 19:55

Re: AB doc needs some love

Post by idliketoplaybetter »

Practically speaking, u did the same theoretical way as warhawks do.
The only difference, u say it was op - no more, he says, it is underperforming.
None of u actually backing words, though warhawks had numbers.

So I'd better considered that before u act kiddi like that, he just pointed that u are lacking words and substance on the topic.. attitude is really weird.

But anyway, so u played as AB? Against who and which doctrine?
U win? Or how was the game going?
"You can argue only with like-minded people"

Mood
Posts: 50
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 22:39

Re: AB doc needs some love

Post by Mood »

Phosphorus grenades were extremely OP, being able to wipe out pretty much any infantry in 1-2 seconds. The fact alone some people here aren't even mentioning that part shows that they're biased.
I'm for one happy about some of the changes, like mentioned above I also often felt that my AB paratroopers were like terminators in many cases. Especially when recoiless rifles were penetrating even medium tanks easily I didn't even need the second squad unlocked. Now it has more value since the bazookas perform better against medium tanks and up.
Can't comment more right now, but I'm sure that the team will tweak any imbalances.

User avatar
idliketoplaybetter
Posts: 307
Joined: 26 Feb 2016, 19:55

Re: AB doc needs some love

Post by idliketoplaybetter »

But that is exactly what Warhawks said. Incendiary nades were there as CP tech up thing and when u have weaker/cheaper units like 101/82 against PG's, gebirgs, falls, u could fight it back, specifically considering that AB units are cheaper.
More to say, lots of people are used to drop falls - camo - sit back behind def. aura. The only 1v1 infantry measure that could force them move was tum tum tum granade. And still was not guaranteed. + lack of micro (giving fuck to micro units like most of luft players do in general) is somehow must be punished.

Now though, on beta, Axis elites are cheaper. U see the logic here?

On recoiless, CGarr has the different opinion on a first part of his post though..hmm
"You can argue only with like-minded people"

User avatar
Mantis
Posts: 65
Joined: 28 Dec 2019, 12:37
Location: Czech Republic

Re: AB doc needs some love

Post by Mantis »

Hmmm

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 4294
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: AB doc needs some love

Post by Warhawks97 »

Mood wrote:
20 Mar 2020, 11:38
Phosphorus grenades were extremely OP, being able to wipe out pretty much any infantry in 1-2 seconds. The fact alone some people here aren't even mentioning that part shows that they're biased.
I'm for one happy about some of the changes, like mentioned above I also often felt that my AB paratroopers were like terminators in many cases. Especially when recoiless rifles were penetrating even medium tanks easily I didn't even need the second squad unlocked. Now it has more value since the bazookas perform better against medium tanks and up.
Can't comment more right now, but I'm sure that the team will tweak any imbalances.
1. Flame nades are as old as BK itself and debated up and down over and over. But never was it such a issue that it got removed outright. But anyways.
Gammon bombs are just as dangerous, if not superior in certain situations since they can easily disable tanks. And they dont even require any unlock.

SE also has flame nades and the PE stock inf can take on so far every allied inf when you focus your gameplay on infantry gameplay as PE with assault grens, SS squad, Sturmführer and so on. The only thing SE cant do in comparision is reinforce by air and call airplanes. But it can use big arty as well as big anti tank stuff which takes away the burden of your infantry to handle tanks and vehicles.


And if i am allowed to make a short list of "Dirty Tools and surprises" other air docs possess:
- Gammon Bombs
- Booby Traps
- Sabotage abilities
- Ambush capabilities for all their units
- SD2 mines from heaven

The only "dirty play" AB doc had was its Flame nades... And thats gone bc it was "too dirty".

I think having some dirty cards to play out is something air doctrines need if their inf wants to survive on its own.



2. Rambos are nothing new. They exist everywhere.
And if it comes down to infantry: Luft and RAF do have a nice mix of powerfull short ranged and long ranged units. With upgrades they become even masters in their range of use or even multirole. AB inf is pure close range units at default and can be "upgraded" to meet enemie stock inf in ranged combat. And unlike RAF and Luft, AB inf cant hope that at some point a vehicle or tank with a big gun comes arround to help them out against stuff larger than a Tank IV F2 if they get really under pressure from enemie armor.

3. What else is the reccoiless rifle supposed to do?




Dont get me wrong. I dont want to offend anyone, neither mantis nor mood. And AB is a doctrine i´ve never got really warm with.
But if i would take a simple checklist and put these three doctrines next to each other, there would be no point left that only AB doc can fill, except perhaps for the AB HQ. And if there is a thing like dropping a clumsy AT gun, it is nothing i would really jump on and say: "Cool, this will totally convince me to play this doc".

If someone picks a doc, there has to be something that he can really only get there and which really helps him to win a battle. Like idk, SPG arty, Panther Tanks, superior and strong inf....

User avatar
TheUndying
Posts: 40
Joined: 11 Aug 2018, 22:55

Re: AB doc needs some love

Post by TheUndying »

Show me any infantry that literally face tanks the 150mm Stuka zu Fuß rockets repeatedly.
I'm waiting.

Tested them out (yes only vs AI but if you know anything about PvE you know how much bs you have to deal with at times) and the 82nd absolutely melt through tanks, pick up a Panzerschreck along the way, keep your HQ squad closeby and watch them wreck Panzers and Tigers like no tomorrow.
101st can pick off inf without major problems and while they're more fragile than the 82nd, they are still strong. The nerfed recoilless rifle feels gimped but forces them more towards the "light/medium AT" role which is fine by me.

I was initially wondering why the 82nd cost 485 MP but I can see now. Tanky as hell, double bazookas from the get go. I did use them as more of a pure AT crew than anti-inf most of the time since I got the 101st for that, so maybe my view is skewed in that regard.
Haven't tested AB vs Luftwaffles yet but the only unit I can see as equally tanky is probably the Gebirgsjägers and you need a few more CP to unlock their special abilities compared to AB.

The .50cal air strikes feel a bit weak, half the infantry/AT guns are still standing after that strike, could be a bit more potent. AT rockets and bombs still wreak havoc, the call-ins are neat for the observation squad (they do need their Hold Fire ability back!), the HQ squad has turned from "Yeet kill everything lol" to an excellent support unit with lots of call-ins and helpful tools like healing on the field (for free, mind you).

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 546
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: AB doc needs some love

Post by CGarr »

Mood wrote:
20 Mar 2020, 11:38
Phosphorus grenades were extremely OP, being able to wipe out pretty much any infantry in 1-2 seconds. The fact alone some people here aren't even mentioning that part shows that they're biased.
I'm for one happy about some of the changes, like mentioned above I also often felt that my AB paratroopers were like terminators in many cases. Especially when recoiless rifles were penetrating even medium tanks easily I didn't even need the second squad unlocked. Now it has more value since the bazookas perform better against medium tanks and up.
Can't comment more right now, but I'm sure that the team will tweak any imbalances.
What is the purpose of the 101st if you think they shouldn't be able to combat medium armor or heavier and that the flame nade was OP. Long range support? Every axis doc (and I mean every axis doc not most) has inf that are stronger at long range either because they have better stats or they're so cheap you win by numbers (vsturms, PS doc inf). On top of that, I'm not sure where you got the idea that the flame nade is OP considering this squad is outclass at any range by at least one inf unit in every doc in a gunfight. Not to mention scorched has the exact same nade but I don't see you calling that out for being OP (neither nade is OP but you guys are biased enough to say only one is, yet you're calling other people biased?).

If you're seriously going to say AB inf are terminators then you would be saying that the luft and BK doc inf (which have higher stats than most US inf and are now cheaper) are godlike and should also be nerfed. Your logic would be sound, but at that point we might as well just nerf everything since clearly having strong (not OP, strong) units isn't ok (except for when axis has them, according to you and mantis). until you spend like 8 cp on the paratrooper line (at which point other doctrinal inf would also have their buffs), 101 are riflemen with a free shitty version of a bazooka that cost more. 82nd are expensive enough that unless your opponent is just really bad at the game, they are pointless to build (if you need AT, the AT squad in the barracks is cheaper, if you needs smg's on relatively fragile inf, why not just get 101st?).
flamenade.png
-------------------------------------------.
edit: removed some salt.
Last edited by CGarr on 23 Mar 2020, 00:40, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 546
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: AB doc needs some love

Post by CGarr »

TheUndying wrote:
20 Mar 2020, 19:56
Show me any infantry that literally face tanks the 150mm Stuka zu Fuß rockets repeatedly.
I'm waiting.

Tested them out (yes only vs AI but if you know anything about PvE you know how much bs you have to deal with at times) and the 82nd absolutely melt through tanks, pick up a Panzerschreck along the way, keep your HQ squad closeby and watch them wreck Panzers and Tigers like no tomorrow.
101st can pick off inf without major problems and while they're more fragile than the 82nd, they are still strong. The nerfed recoilless rifle feels gimped but forces them more towards the "light/medium AT" role which is fine by me.

I was initially wondering why the 82nd cost 485 MP but I can see now. Tanky as hell, double bazookas from the get go. I did use them as more of a pure AT crew than anti-inf most of the time since I got the 101st for that, so maybe my view is skewed in that regard.
Haven't tested AB vs Luftwaffles yet but the only unit I can see as equally tanky is probably the Gebirgsjägers and you need a few more CP to unlock their special abilities compared to AB.

The .50cal air strikes feel a bit weak, half the infantry/AT guns are still standing after that strike, could be a bit more potent. AT rockets and bombs still wreak havoc, the call-ins are neat for the observation squad (they do need their Hold Fire ability back!), the HQ squad has turned from "Yeet kill everything lol" to an excellent support unit with lots of call-ins and helpful tools like healing on the field (for free, mind you).
Go open corsix and read the stats if you think that 82nd are tanky compared to axis doctrinal inf, especially for their price. And obviously the 82nd will do well against a bot's tanks, bots generally dont use HE ever and their favorite tactic is driving towards the guys with bazookas. Try using 82nd against a player that is kiting your inf and watch your MP bleed like crazy without getting much out of it. PVE is fun but you can't really make an argument about PVP balance if you don't play it, as bots tend to play very recklessly so your kill stats will look a lot higher at the end of a bot game than at the end of a PVP game. Units also tend to seem like they're overperforming, a bot is pretty much incapable of killing a KT unless you show its rear armor to them (with its range they shouldn't ever be behind you), but I don't see any posts saying that fridge with a gun needs a nerf and heavy armor recently even got buffed.

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 477
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: AB doc needs some love

Post by Viper »

brief opinion:

airborne doctrine always been very flexible..........and still.

i think the doctrine is fine.......even after the cost drop of luftwaffe infantry (which was really good change) i think airborne still dominate with the use of snipers, shermans, flame grenades, quads, and 101st units......although i would support passive camo for 82nd infantry.....but not more.

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 546
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: AB doc needs some love

Post by CGarr »

Viper wrote:
21 Mar 2020, 01:26
brief opinion:

airborne doctrine always been very flexible..........and still.

i think the doctrine is fine.......even after the cost drop of luftwaffe infantry (which was really good change) i think airborne still dominate with the use of snipers, shermans, flame grenades, quads, and 101st units......although i would support passive camo for 82nd infantry.....but not more.
camo would be interesting, although with the current cost of 82nd it might as well be the crawling type instead (like infil rangers or marine commandos). Other than that, you just listed weapons available to the doc, of which 2 are nondoctrinal for US and a third is only available for use by one (very expensive) unit. The 101st isn't anything to write home about, stats wise they are riflemen but more expensive, at least until you get the health upgrades. Their weapons are alright but you're better off using your muni on airstrikes since axis inf will still shred them even out of cover. You basically just named 1 gun (which either comes mounted to a HT or on a static emplacement) as the reason this doc dominates. AB is also arguably the least flexible. It has "elite" inf (that can hardly be called elite except in price) and indirect fire call-ins, thats it. Inf doc functionally has everything this doc has, a jackson, buildable arty units other than the pack howi, much better elite inf, better emplacements, and an upgrade that makes standard inf cheaper. Armor has good inf, spammable armor, heavies, indirect fire vehicles, and indirect fire call-ins. There is literally 0 reason to go airborne other than if your opponent plans on building nothing but their weakest inf, light vehicles,and heavy tanks. If youre opponent is just really bad then yeah I guess it could be considered flexible since they might not have the attention span to deal with units being dropped in empty parts of the map, but against a competent player this doc can get crushed pretty easily as most axis docs (PS doc might have a hard time but that doc is still being worked on).

MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 303
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

Re: AB doc needs some love

Post by MenciusMoldbug »

Well, people already know my thoughts regarding AB doctrine in the thread for it. So I'm just going to add in stuff about how I think AB doc should work (this is mostly focusing on the support branch):

You know how fallshirmjagers are a generalist anti-everything squad with their panzershreck and fg42 upgrades? I want AB doc to be specialized combo squad units where you will see an 101st squad with an airborne HMG running around together to kill stuff.

How it would work in my head is the AB player will see a fallshirmjager squad fully upgraded approaching his 101st squad which has 2 recoilless rifles and other weapon upgrades; the odds of the 101st winning by themselves in this encounter is very slim, even with max anti-inf weapon upgrades. However, they will be able to quickly call in an airborne HMG team to even the odds and take care of the fallshirmjagers if needed. For this to work, the airborne HMG and mortar team need to be more accessible. Like dropping their cost to that of a normal HMG and mortar squad. While also allowing the airborne player to call in a paradropped 57mm AT guns if needed because the 76mm is not actually an 'upgrade' to the 57mm because of how much it costs and how 'clunky' it is. Sometimes the 57mm is better than the 76mm because all you need it for is killing light vehicles.

So yeah, my general thought about the thing is the airborne support weapons need to be more accessible, flexible, and easily able to be called in where ever they're needed. Also need to fix the reinforce costs for them because they are not priced correctly and so you have huge reinforce costs on the 76mm paradropped AT guns and stuff. VCoH airborne was pretty powerful in competitive games because you could call in a 57mm paradropped AT gun wherever you wanted it. So it made some incredible plays come to life in stuff like tournaments. Unfortunately, you rarely see a the paradropped 76mm at gun from airborne players, and even if they do get it; it usually gets killed by artillery because of how late it comes, how 'audible' the sound of it dropping is, and how easy it is to see where it's getting dropped. I would make the paradropped AT gun come quicker in CP's otherwise you are better off using stuff like M10's since airborne isn't really lacking fuel when it comes to AT.

Also concerning AB doc as a whole; I think of it as the weakest doctrine in the beta live version. I played a game with Kwok a week ago or so and the recoiless even with their buff weren't able to do any critical damage to my P4 H's or Marder 3's as PS (even when they had chances to shoot at the rear of the armor). I still don't see a reason to use fuel income as an airborne player because of how bad your armor options are. You don't get jacksons or priests like inf doc does or all the big boys that armor doc has. So you're left with your 350 max fuel income stuck on using airstrikes that take forever to cooldown. That's why I wanted unlimited hellcats in AB doc so they're is something actually worth spending your fuel on rather than this low-power mother-of-all-slowest-turret-rotation-speeds M10's and maybe a 76 sherman when you feel like your M10 isn't tanky enough to fight a hetzer or whatever.

EDIT: This just came to my head, but maybe the supply drop can cost fuel instead of manpower? So you trade fuel for ammo since manpower is more useful for AB than fuel? Just a thought.

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 477
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: AB doc needs some love

Post by Viper »

MenciusMoldbug wrote:concerning AB doc as a whole; I think of it as the weakest doctrine in the beta
in my opinion the weakest doctrine in the beta right now is the new tank hunter doctrine..........only a bunch of super expensive tanks and that's it.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 3393
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: AB doc needs some love

Post by MarKr »

CGarr wrote:
21 Mar 2020, 02:55
the 101st isn't anything to write home about, stats wise they are riflemen but more expensive, at least until you get the health upgrades.
If "DPS" is all that counts in your book then you are right. However, there are other factors contributing to unit's performance and overall usefulness.

Compared to Riflemen, the 101st soldiers have more HP, capture points faster, come with an early AT weapon for free (+ have an option to buy a 2nd one), can reinforce anywhere, later they get damage reduction with an unlock and in general are a lot more flexible with their weapon loadouts. BARs are similar to Johnsons but Garands are the same as Rangers have so they are more accurate at distance and have better chance to one-shot any enemy soldier.

Also the comparisons to Luft infantry costs were brought up here several times. As kwok said in the announcement topic:
Luft Doc Balances
We noticed a lot of the players still use Fallshirmjägers like they were used formerly in the pre-rework patch, units that are instantly strong and elite on drop rather than a scaling unit that gets better over the game. The prices of the paratroopers, as well as some other units the community has identified as too expensive, so that it is a bit more forgiving for players still getting use to the patch. No performance changes were made as we still feel that the potential of the Fallshirmjägers have yet to be recognized by the community.
This means that the change in Luft infantry performance was quite big and people started to perceive them as too weak and expensive. This led to a problem where people wouldn't even bother with Luft infantry and so they wouldn't discover what they can actually achieve. The price drop on Luft infantry is only a temporal change. More people will hopefully give them a try now, find out that they can be pretty nasty and realize that the former price is actually fine for them and won't be bitching too much when the price is put back to where it was.
Image

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 477
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: AB doc needs some love

Post by Viper »

MarKr wrote:
21 Mar 2020, 16:23
The price drop on Luft infantry is only a temporal change. More people will hopefully give them a try now, find out that they can be pretty nasty and realize that the former price is actually fine for them and won't be bitching too much when the price is put back to where it was.
i think the old price was not fine.....500mp seems too much. and currently 400mp seems a bit too cheap.
450mp would be reasonable.

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 546
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: AB doc needs some love

Post by CGarr »

MenciusMoldbug wrote:
21 Mar 2020, 03:02
Well, people already know my thoughts regarding AB doctrine in the thread for it. So I'm just going to add in stuff about how I think AB doc should work (this is mostly focusing on the support branch):

You know how fallshirmjagers are a generalist anti-everything squad with their panzershreck and fg42 upgrades? I want AB doc to be specialized combo squad units where you will see an 101st squad with an airborne HMG running around together to kill stuff.

How it would work in my head is the AB player will see a fallshirmjager squad fully upgraded approaching his 101st squad which has 2 recoilless rifles and other weapon upgrades; the odds of the 101st winning by themselves in this encounter is very slim, even with max anti-inf weapon upgrades. However, they will be able to quickly call in an airborne HMG team to even the odds and take care of the fallshirmjagers if needed. For this to work, the airborne HMG and mortar team need to be more accessible. Like dropping their cost to that of a normal HMG and mortar squad. While also allowing the airborne player to call in a paradropped 57mm AT guns if needed because the 76mm is not actually an 'upgrade' to the 57mm because of how much it costs and how 'clunky' it is. Sometimes the 57mm is better than the 76mm because all you need it for is killing light vehicles.

So yeah, my general thought about the thing is the airborne support weapons need to be more accessible, flexible, and easily able to be called in where ever they're needed. Also need to fix the reinforce costs for them because they are not priced correctly and so you have huge reinforce costs on the 76mm paradropped AT guns and stuff. VCoH airborne was pretty powerful in competitive games because you could call in a 57mm paradropped AT gun wherever you wanted it. So it made some incredible plays come to life in stuff like tournaments. Unfortunately, you rarely see a the paradropped 76mm at gun from airborne players, and even if they do get it; it usually gets killed by artillery because of how late it comes, how 'audible' the sound of it dropping is, and how easy it is to see where it's getting dropped. I would make the paradropped AT gun come quicker in CP's otherwise you are better off using stuff like M10's since airborne isn't really lacking fuel when it comes to AT.

Also concerning AB doc as a whole; I think of it as the weakest doctrine in the beta live version. I played a game with Kwok a week ago or so and the recoiless even with their buff weren't able to do any critical damage to my P4 H's or Marder 3's as PS (even when they had chances to shoot at the rear of the armor). I still don't see a reason to use fuel income as an airborne player because of how bad your armor options are. You don't get jacksons or priests like inf doc does or all the big boys that armor doc has. So you're left with your 350 max fuel income stuck on using airstrikes that take forever to cooldown. That's why I wanted unlimited hellcats in AB doc so they're is something actually worth spending your fuel on rather than this low-power mother-of-all-slowest-turret-rotation-speeds M10's and maybe a 76 sherman when you feel like your M10 isn't tanky enough to fight a hetzer or whatever.

EDIT: This just came to my head, but maybe the supply drop can cost fuel instead of manpower? So you trade fuel for ammo since manpower is more useful for AB than fuel? Just a thought.
1. I agree, although I would go one step further in that direction and have the airborne MG team be a core unit to the doctrine. Make it a 6 man like the ranger MG squad with the same kind of MG (fast teardown time 30cal I think), and increase the price to 450ish MP. It'll allow for the same kind of multi squad tactics as the normal MG but I think most people don't like the MG airdrop upgrade on its own because its a relatively fragile unit to spend CP on, so it doesn't make sense to get it before the 101st themselves as a 3 man team. Making it a 6 man would make the unlock more viable/attractive to get early, incentivising it to become a core part of the build. Right now you'd probably have a bad time against a similarly skilled opponent if you opted for getting the MG before anything else, as that delays your access to 76mm armed vehicles, the main paratrooper line, and the long ass airstrike unlock line, as you're only getting a fragile weapon team to make up for that delay and there's plenty of axis inf units that can outright kill the MG team head on either through their abilities or because their stats are just ridiculously high. I would definitely be fine with this as an alternative to the fire nade since people don't seem to like that ability (at least when US has it), it takes more micro to use anyways. This MG squad should definitely have a unit cap though, one or two is enough. Normal MG's for 3 man para-crew use are still available through the air drops.

2. I agree on the 57mm replacing the 76mm even though I personally hate the 57mm, it definitely makes a lot more sense than airdropping a big ass 76mm gun behind enemy lines (big, slow, harder to hide well IMO). Maybe give it an ability to make up for the loss in AT power? Alternatively, see point 3.

3. I am kind of torn on the M18 thing. It's not a bad solution to the issue with having too much fuel and nothing to spend it on, but I also feel like it'd be kind of weird for one of this doc's core units to be a TD. TD's/tanks on this doc should be less of a core combatant and more of a support unit. An improved stun on the chaffee and M18 (longer temporary mobility decrease/loss) would definitely make more sense than being able to just outright spam m18's and kill a heavy with them outright. It'd still help the fuel issue since you'd have more reason to build chaffees.

4. An unlock in the supply yard for a second "emergency" rocket strike button with a fuel cost attached to it would help with the issues of not having anything to spend fuel on and the cooldowns being too long, I'd refrain from lowering the cooldown time though. With 2, you have a second follow up strike if needed but it also costs fuel on top of a high muni cost (maybe 125 muni 40 fuel), so you you wouldn't be able to spam it hard.

5. I've had pretty much the exact same experiences using and fighting against the new 101st, they're pushovers on their own. With these changes, they'd prob be fine as is. 82nd didn't get changed but I think they've always been somewhat poorly designed for a core "elite" inf unit in that you are forced to have this generalist squad (or give leave the bazookas unclaimed to potentially be used against you) rather than picking their specialization or having one assigned from the start. They should start with thompsons but have weapon upgrades for either bazookas or M1919's, both costing 50-75 muni. It'd give reason for the squad to be so expensive without making it OP, it really sucks to be forced to drop with bazookas though and not have an end game option for dealing with inf other than using shermans (might as well play armor if I want to be that dependent on tanks). I'd even settle for a reward unit unlock that switches the weapon they drop with even though I think that system is fundamentally flawed in most cases.

*should note, if they get an MG, the stats should be edited to have more passive suppression and less damage, this squad shouldn't become a terminator squad. It should still be dependent on other squads to finish off whatever it is shooting at unless you're suppressing with another squad, in which case you still wouldn't need the LMG's for damage because you have SMG's still. The 2 heavy weapons (bazooka and M1919) should also be exclusive to eachother if we're going for a specialist approach. With the passive suppression it probably sounds like this squad

-------------------

Adding this because i know Kwok will bring it up, I haven't yet suggested counterbalance options because as I understand it, these changes would be the counterbalancing to all the new changes in general. Mencius himself agreed that this doc is the weakest in BK right now, I think that holds a lot more weight than just me saying it.

Also @MarKr I know the other stats are different but in practice the only things in your comparison that make a difference are the recoilless rifles, and those things aren't fantastic. Defense-stat wise, they are still squishy enough that they should generally sit in cover (they're definitely not comparable to axis elites, and I don't think they should be). Their weapon choices are nice, but again this squad dies fast enough that it doesn't matter. It needs good supports if it is to remain in this state, and currently doesn't have any that are reasonably priced aside from tanks. The faster cap is nice but rifles already cap fast and its combat strength / purpose that the squad is lacking.

MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 303
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

Re: AB doc needs some love

Post by MenciusMoldbug »

CGarr wrote:
22 Mar 2020, 08:38

3. I am kind of torn on the M18 thing. It's not a bad solution to the issue with having too much fuel and nothing to spend it on, but I also feel like it'd be kind of weird for one of this doc's core units to be a TD. TD's/tanks on this doc should be less of a core combatant and more of a support unit. An improved stun on the chaffee and M18 (longer temporary mobility decrease/loss) would definitely make more sense than being able to just outright spam m18's and kill a heavy with them outright. It'd still help the fuel issue since you'd have more reason to build chaffees.
If you want to be technical, there's no reason most US tanks should not have white phosphorous shells available to them like the Chaffee and M18 do. Since they are all pretty much using the same type of cannon to launch those stuff.

You know, thinking about it, I just got an idea:

What if we put the airborne mortar and mg team as a single CP unlock and the replacement for the new slot available would be white phosphorous shells (the stun shells CGarr is talking about) available to airborne doctrine tanks? So 75mm/76mm shermans in airborne doctrine would have a way to stun tanks so there's still some armor play involved in airborne doctrine but it's still regulated to the 'support role' in terms of the overall approach (you stun a tank, then move in with airborne or airstrikes to finish them off/critically damage them).

You could also then improve the white phosphorous shells. Because as I remember it, the stat effects of that round only last for 5 seconds. While the 'smoke' visual effect of the shell in-game last longer than that (so it kind of tricks the player into thinking the tank is still stunned when it's not). I would improve white phosphorous shells only for AB in this case (unlocking it as a buff with the CP unlock). As the other two US doctrines don't need better stun rounds since they can handle armor with their 90mm guns/emplacement defenses.

Counter balance could be that white phosphorous shells don't remove all accuracy from the axis tanks but still cripple movement. Or there could be a higher aim-time on firing it so it's meant to be used in a surprise attack. Again, I'm throwing darts here and there to let AB players have the tank depot be an attractive alternative. Rather than just getting lots of paratroopers and going down the airstrike path majority of the time. Also, I'm not sure if the AT guns had that ammunition available historically, but if they did, the white phosphorous shell should be given to the normal and paradropped 76mm AT gun as well (just for AB doc with the CP unlock since the other two doctrines don't need better AT capabilities).

Mood
Posts: 50
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 22:39

Re: AB doc needs some love

Post by Mood »

@cgarr & @warhawks

I don't understand this strawman though... You somehow justify your critique of my comment because of what another doc has and you assume I have no problem with flame grenades in SE. This thread is about Airborne last time I checked, not SE. If you open one about SE I can drop a similar comment about their grenades there. Same goes for Luftwaffe infantry, which is a moot thing to bring up in a thread about Airborne (depending on what the devs actually have in mind in their balancing). I don't want to comment much about them because I haven't properly tested that doctrine yet after the overhaul they received.
All in all do every doctrine need to have carbon copy performance units? Can't for example Airborne be weaker combat wise but have more utility over Fallschirm? (or vice versa)
I'm not sure what exactly the devs have in mind but I assume they aren't striving for exact clones of units between the various factions (same stats/abilities just with different skins and names), and this is the kind of balancing I like. At the same time I digress that this kind of balancing must be very difficult to achieve, so kudos to them for at least trying to do so.

@warhawks

Yes I'm aware of that, I was possibly playing this before you back on the old forum and moddb in early versions when Xalibur was still actively developing. I've been playing BK on and off for a very long time, but I was mostly lurking on the forums. Now with that out of the way we can focus on the topic itself!

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 4294
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: AB doc needs some love

Post by Warhawks97 »

@Menicus and CGarr:

I kinda like reading your ideas. They are really refreshing and nice.

HMG, Mortar, Supply:
I do like to have a 6 men MG crew similiar to that of rangers. A Normal MG squad could be added to the AB HQ once you have managed to create a operational base and the MG not being in the very first line.

It would also make a lot more sense having the air-cooled MG1919 as HMG rather than a water-cooled 1917.

The squad would be called "101st" HMG squad or "suppressive squad".

As unlock i would use the supply drop. The supply drop enables to drop this HMG squad, mortar team and the supply drop.

I am not quite sure how exactly the tec lines could be improved. Would the supply drop be linked to the 101st? Would the 6 men HMG crew require one or two unlocks? If one, does it come with 101st unlock so that you unlock two squads at once?

In any way, i think the 101st squad should be in the center of various unlock lines instead of having one linear inf line from top to bottom and instead having flexibility here like what does the 101st need: An elite tactical squad support? HQ squad support? Supply support?

There is a lot of space left open for ideas.

When HMG and mortar get merged, incendiary rounds removed and whats-not, there are also new slots for adding other stuff.

As a replacment for the incendiary rounds i would say that there could be some sort of other abilties added, such as stun grenades or volleys like the rangers can do... or some sort of traps which in my opinion are cruical elements of warfare when fighting on its own behind enemie lines.


AT squad:
I would make the 37mm and the 57 mm to be available as air-drop. The 76 would be available in as normally recruited unit in the AB HQ.
The 37 and 57 would add the required mobility behind the lines as most of the times you will be confronted by smaller vehicles at first which you have to fight off.


About Tank support i would say every doc needs and has tank support. Para units were to survive untill armor made its way through. And i think All standard US tanks fit into that role. And the Hellcat does fit perfectly in this AB design due to its speed and flexibility which can compensate to some degree the lack of 90 mm guns.
About phosphorous shells; It was a widely used ammo type in the US tank forces. It could obsucre the own advance, blinding enemies and having the impact of making crews think that their tank is on fire.

I always hoped that US would get someday a WSC unlock that adds such rounds to its tanks. The round could then be fired at a location (though probably facing the same issue the old HE rounds had) and on targets to blind the enemie.
This round was a core insturment for US tankers and their tactics. It such a round would even help friendly infantry to close in on emplacments as it would obsucre the sight of it like a normal smoke shell would do.


Fuel issue:
I still think that adding fuel cost to air raids in exchange for some drop in ammo cost could help air docs to make better use of their fuel.

I also liked the idea to add fuel cost to the supply drop in exchange for lower or removed MP cost.

Post Reply