Re-Thinking PE Tank Support doc (Infantry)

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
Post Reply
User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3825
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re-Thinking PE Tank Support doc (Infantry)

Post by Warhawks97 »

This Topic is a sperated one from this main Topic:
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3673


Issues:

The Issue i have is that this doctrine is said to rely on a combined arms warfare of Infantry, Tanks and vehicles in which infantry plays an important support role. Vehicles and Tanks making inf nearby faster and tougher.
But the Problem is: Its more about sitting arround with TD´s, emplacment and tough infantry that has only ranged weapons. Like "cool, my inf is faster near vehicles. But i am just sitting here bc i only have Rifles".
So, in order to play a quick mobile combined arms warfare (This is literally part of the description of Pgrens), there needs to be the correct infantry support at hand. A specialized, mobile supportive infantry for fast attacks and suited for close range engagments, attacks and all that.

On Top of that, Heavy Assault Grenadiers dont really have job in the other two docs. In Luft their role is filled by Gebis and Luft inf. In SE doc the basic grens are good enough and the stormpios better suited for building stuff or blowing stuff up. They can be used there but lacking a clear role.

In WH, every inf got its role now. Storms doing the offensive part with tanks while Grens became the rugged defenders. No overlapping roles.

On Top of that, every doctrine in game has got their very own type of infantry needed to complete the doctrine. Let it be sappers, combat engis, stormtroopers etc.

Just PE TH lacks it. Its basic grens get some buffs but it doesnt make them really special to fit the special needs. LMG´s are lacking untill unlock which in my opinion are essential part of any gameplay now. Being down to rifles and normal grenades is everything but special and unsuited for the proposed fast gameplay with vehicles.



So, here is my:

Suggestion:

The Heavy Assault Grens will become part of the Tank Support Doctrine offensive capabilties. Their main task will be to run along with vehicles or inside of them, get deployed for assault and close combat warfare.

How exactly it will look like at the end is open to debate.

Kowk and Markr expressed their rightfull concerns that we might create some sort of Terror doctrine 2.0.

So, here is what it could look like and showing possible ways to implement them.
Panzer Support.jpg Heavy Assault Grenadiers I.jpg

This is one possibility:

1. The Heavy Assault grens get unlocked.
2. They Satrt with 5 men, 1x STG or 2x STG and 3x or 4x MP40. Later they become 6 men via PE upgrade.
3. The unlocks you see linked to them are only related to this infantry unit.
4. The Cheaper Gren unlock will make all Grens cheaper, including the basic once. Hence its independent.
4. The LMG logo is in fact a Weapons upgrade that enables them to get more STGs, or fully loaded with G43 and possibly one LMG.
Alternatively they can only get more STG while the normal grens can get LMG.... depends.


Second Option:
Panzer Support.jpg Heavy Assault Grenadiers II.jpg

1. Unlocks the Heavy Assault Grens.
2. Unlocks not linked to them apply to normal Grenaiders as well.
3. Wepons upgrades as above.



Third Option:
Panzer Support.jpg Heavy Assault Grenadiers III.jpg
Thats another option. All unlocks are linked and affect only the Heavy Assault Grens.

Fourth Option:
Panzer Support.jpg Heavy Assault Grenadiers IV.jpg
Basically as Option 4 just weapons package and cheaper cost traded.
Basically, we can create many more options, just i got tired making more after number 4.


My Personal Favorit:


1. 5 Men Starting, later 6 men.
2. 1x or 2 xSTG, 3 x or 4x MP40 Starting. Later additional STG´s for up to 4.
3. 350 MP expensive. Later 325 MP.
4. Normal Grens will also be affected by doctrine unlocks.



Concern about creating a new Terror doctrine:

Markr and Kwok have already expressed their concerns that this doctrine may become the new Terror doctrine with this change in infantry. Though i doubt that.

Reasons why it wont be New Terror doctrine:


1. The Infantry needs an unlock unlike old Terror Grens.
2. The Infantry lacks Rifles, LMG´s and Schrecks. That was something that made Terror Grens great allrounder. Esspecially the lack of schrecks makes them largely self-unefficient and always in need of support when facing enemie tanks and vehicles.
3. They dont get buffs without Tanks or Vehicles nearby. So you cant rush them solo, cause havoc, retreat and repeat.
4. They dont have Flame nades.
5. They dont have nebler batteries that can be activated via VT by the grens themselves.
6. If Necessary, a unit cap can be introduced.
7. Be limited to a limited ammount of STGs while the LMG remains at the normal grens.

User avatar
Walderschmidt
Posts: 510
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Re: Re-Thinking PE Tank Support doc (Infantry)

Post by Walderschmidt »

I am not in favor of making anything that approaches near elite infantry with this doctrine as infantry is supposed to be its weakness.

1) PGs aren't that weak and with veteran sergeants and an extra body get to be pretty survivable and deadly vis a vis normal infantry. Combine that with vehicle buffs and they can no longer be considered just 'average' infantry.

2) I'd be in favor of giving PGs an MP40 upgrade so they have some close range oriented troops that aren't as squishy as combat pioneers.

3) The point, I believe Kwok made about it being Teror 2.0 was not a literal one so much as Terror was so optimal because it had a) really strong b) really strong tanks, AND c) really good arty in a combination that was nearly always useful so as to be a no-brainer.

Your suggestion would give this doctrine all three, I believe, which goes against the spirit of the doctrine. It's the same reason that armor doctrine combat engineers are locked behind the motorpool as tanks are supposed to be its supreme strength. Not infantry.

Wald
Kwok is an allied fanboy!

AND SO IS DICKY

AND MARKR IS THE BIGGGEST ALLIED FANBOI OF THEM ALL

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3825
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Re-Thinking PE Tank Support doc (Infantry)

Post by Warhawks97 »

Walderschmidt wrote:
23 Jun 2020, 16:19
I am not in favor of making anything that approaches near elite infantry with this doctrine as infantry is supposed to be its weakness.
Whats the actual difference between Grens and Heavy Assault Grens? Right now the rifle accuracy with their k98, the weapons loadout, build options (and abilties?) and Health which is 65 vs 75. So unless you give Assault Grens STG´s they are quite similiar in role. Its just a better version of it.


In Terms of weapons loadout they would be very different now. One for ranged combat, the other close range/attack/vehicle support.
The basic HP can be either lowered to 70 per men (and 80 for the leader). Else, since you start with 5 men, it would be 400 MP (normal grens) vs 385, later 460 MP for the Heavy assault Grens. (As a reminder, WH Grens have 80 HP).

I would make them entirely different units, not necessary better in terms of being elites like Rangers or SAS or Luftwaffe.
1) PGs aren't that weak and with veteran sergeants and an extra body get to be pretty survivable and deadly vis a vis normal infantry. Combine that with vehicle buffs and they can no longer be considered just 'average' infantry.
As said, those two units would be just different in their roles due to different loadout. PE Infantry in general is not "average" at all.

But i want the assault Grens to have a place just like every other infantry unit got its place now. I Remember how hesitant devs were to move Combat engis to Armor doc. Now here we are.
2) I'd be in favor of giving PGs an MP40 upgrade so they have some close range oriented troops that aren't as squishy as combat pioneers.
Thats what i essentially suggest, just that i put in a new unit with a bit more HP for exactly this task.

Stormpioneers and grens have the exact same ammount of HP and actually the same target table with Pgrens being a bit more resistant to the basic jeeps MG. Everything else is actually the same.

Tanks will give them a small boost in survivability but not as much as that you would find such a huge surviviability gap between them.
3) The point, I believe Kwok made about it being Teror 2.0 was not a literal one so much as Terror was so optimal because it had a) really strong b) really strong tanks, AND c) really good arty in a combination that was nearly always useful so as to be a no-brainer.

Your suggestion would give this doctrine all three, I believe, which goes against the spirit of the doctrine. It's the same reason that armor doctrine combat engineers are locked behind the motorpool as tanks are supposed to be its supreme strength. Not infantry.
Infantry would i think still be its weak part. Basically it just added standard grens with default MP40´s and a tiny bit of more HP (which in neccessary can still be lowered) and perhaps an ability that makes them more suited for assault.

But at no means they would be able to stand against any kind of elite infantry when alone in the field.


Ofc this unit would also require the Logistic company to be build and a CP point.

User avatar
Walderschmidt
Posts: 510
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Re: Re-Thinking PE Tank Support doc (Infantry)

Post by Walderschmidt »

So why not just give the assault pios the vehicle perks as well and call it a day?

Wald
Kwok is an allied fanboy!

AND SO IS DICKY

AND MARKR IS THE BIGGGEST ALLIED FANBOI OF THEM ALL

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3825
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Re-Thinking PE Tank Support doc (Infantry)

Post by Warhawks97 »

Walderschmidt wrote:
23 Jun 2020, 17:36
So why not just give the assault pios the vehicle perks as well and call it a day?

Wald

Honestly thats an option. But the capabilities they have would be a lot more suited for SE doc which i hope might one or two reworks that involves something that focuses on making them special there.

They also dont start fully with close range weapons which i would hope assault grens would do here (It would fit to their name). And they also lack a little bit of health i would say.

User avatar
Walderschmidt
Posts: 510
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Re: Re-Thinking PE Tank Support doc (Infantry)

Post by Walderschmidt »

Warhawks97 wrote:
23 Jun 2020, 21:06
Honestly thats an option. But the capabilities they have would be a lot more suited for SE doc which i hope might one or two reworks that involves something that focuses on making them special there.

They also dont start fully with close range weapons which i would hope assault grens would do here (It would fit to their name). And they also lack a little bit of health i would say.
If I recall, you said they had the same health as PGrens, so I don’t think it’s an issue. Maybe make another version of them that is equipped with all close combat weapons and has less building stuff to make them fit more with PS doctrine?

Wald
Kwok is an allied fanboy!

AND SO IS DICKY

AND MARKR IS THE BIGGGEST ALLIED FANBOI OF THEM ALL

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3825
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Re-Thinking PE Tank Support doc (Infantry)

Post by Warhawks97 »

Walderschmidt wrote:
23 Jun 2020, 23:24
Warhawks97 wrote:
23 Jun 2020, 21:06
Honestly thats an option. But the capabilities they have would be a lot more suited for SE doc which i hope might one or two reworks that involves something that focuses on making them special there.

They also dont start fully with close range weapons which i would hope assault grens would do here (It would fit to their name). And they also lack a little bit of health i would say.
If I recall, you said they had the same health as PGrens, so I don’t think it’s an issue. Maybe make another version of them that is equipped with all close combat weapons and has less building stuff to make them fit more with PS doctrine?

Wald


Pgrens: 65 and 75 HP for the leader
Stormpios: 65 and 75 HP for the leader
Heavy Assault Grens: 75 and 85 for the leader.


As comparission: SAS and Storms have 95. Commandos 80 (and TP Airborne that makes them harder to hit while moving), AB 70, Luftwaffe 70 (both also AB type) and most of that inf gets various buffs and vets later on.

The Heavy assault grens would actually stay with their 75 HP, close range weapons and some survivability buffs when near tanks. So they wouldnt be Elite as much as the real elites are, but also not as squishy as the Stormpios when things get really dirty.


And if things are still considered OP then, they could drop to 70 HP at default just like Luftwaffe inf or 101st. And they wouldnt get any stronger except when a tank is nearby.

Post Reply