Infantry Doctrine - Both Reward Tanks Available

[Walderschmidt]

I think that the infantry doctrine should have access to both the 76 Jumbo and the M36 Jackson.

Having one or the other seems to just leave it lacking in ability to deal with heavy tanks or medium spam, when part of the point of the reworks was to make every doctrine well rounded for 1v1s.

Plus it's really annoying to think I have one tank I want enabled and then surprise! it's the jumbo which can dance with heavy tanks but can't reliably take them out. I hate having to check for reward units every game, because it's not like I know I am going to be infantry doctrine beforehand, especially with infantry doctrine.

This is probably my chief gripe with reward units in general - they presuppose you're going to pick a certain doctrine and that you will make a certain choice. But that philosophy is against the spirit of the direction this game has taken, where you can go into any match and choose almost any doctrine in a 1v1 because they're all well-rounded for that.

What do you guys think?

Wald

[Constantino]

Agree; they should have never been reward units to begin with as they fulfill completely different roles. I don't really see a reason why they can't both be available at once as I don't think it would be OP by any means.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

I agree, this reward option doesnt make sense as doctrine really needs both. The fact that it doesnt have x2 75mm Jumbos anymore reduced their offensive power by a lot already.

[Warhawks97]

Down with the reward units and the reward system. A doctrine either has access to something or not, period.

[MarKr]

The intention here was that they need to choose between a unit with a more punch but less armor or more armor but less punch. Having a "Jumbo + Jackson" combo in a doctrine that is focused on infantry is not gonna happen. If you want to remove the reward option, they will get Jumbo or Jackson but not both.

[Warhawks97]

The intention here was that they need to choose between a unit with a more punch but less armor or more armor but less punch. Having a "Jumbo + Jackson" combo in a doctrine that is focused on infantry is not gonna happen. If you want to remove the reward option, they will get Jumbo or Jackson but not both.

if so, i would prefer to have two jacks B for 600 MP so that you can handle bigger armor and esspecially late game panther spam better without getting overruned by a pair of cheap panthers.


Jumbo is perhaps nice but i personally never used it that much. I prefer to have a gun that kills rather than a unit that can tank a bit but ultimately die because the enemie will simply hammer on it as long as he wants to.

[kwok]

I'm also not a fan of this for the same reason Markr mentioned.
True, the reworks have made doctrines more well rounded but that doesn't mean give everyone everything. Otherwise this will quickly turn into "well then luft doc should get KT in order to counter the jumbo/jackson combo" (you think this is an exaggerated example but it isn't.... see post where players genuinely wanted pershings to exist across US doctrines).

The question here is "Does Y doc have tools to deal with X" where in this case Y is inf doc and X is heavy armor. That's how we designed our doctrines. If it does, then we tried to change it as little as possible.
Here's what I can think of for inf doc:
-76mm AT emplacements
-Cheaper upped bazookas
-Cheaper AT infantry
-Elite infantry that can be equipped with bazookas
-Jackson option
-Long Tom (sort of)

Are these not enough? If not, can we tweak something that exists already instead of adding more units to the roster that will lead into a slippery slope of doctrine scope creep?

[mofetagalactica]

I support this too, just get rid of most rewards.
There are docs that has this kind of combination (churchill , firefly) so saying that this combination would be too powerfull is just falacy 'cause we had the possibility to do it long time ago.
You got a panther? Just aim at the jackson first it has shitty sherman armor stats the 76mm wouldn't do that to you anyway.
^
This is a good reason of why we need "don't shoot toggle" hability for the tanks so they don't shot/move the turret
to wathever comes first.

[Walderschmidt]

I support this too, just get rid of most rewards.
There are docs that has this kind of combination (churchill , firefly) so saying that this combination would be too powerfull is just falacy 'cause we had the possibility to do it long time ago.
You got a panther? Just aim at the jackson first it has shitty sherman armor stats the 76mm wouldn't do that to you anyway.
^
This is a good reason of why we need "don't shoot toggle" hability for the tanks so they don't shot/move the turret
to wathever comes first.

This.

Wald

[MarKr]

There are docs that has this kind of combination (churchill , firefly) so saying that this combination would be too powerfull is just falacy 'cause we had the possibility to do it long time ago.

Talking of falacies - this sort of comparison is a falacy called "Undistributed Middle" which falls into the "false deduction" category of falacies.

You took a possible combination of two units from one faction and compare them to a somewhat similar unit combination from another faction and put the "equal sign" between them and said "if Brits have it, it will be no problem if US have it". What about all the other factors? How many AT teams with (upgraded) bazookas can RA/RE produce? How many Rangers with bazookas can they field? Do RA/RE have any abilities that allow you to imobilize enemy tanks and finish them off with AT infantry? How much do these AT units cost? What sort of doctrinal unlocks affect them and how? What about the differences in other options to take out enemy heavy tanks?

You cannot just say "Churchill + Firefly" is similar to "Jumbo + Jackson" and if Brits have it and it causes no problems, US can have it too.

[mofetagalactica]

There are docs that has this kind of combination (churchill , firefly) so saying that this combination would be too powerfull is just falacy 'cause we had the possibility to do it long time ago.

Talking of falacies - this sort of comparison is a falacy called "Undistributed Middle" which falls into the "false deduction" category of falacies.

You took a possible combination of two units from one faction and compare them to a somewhat similar unit combination from another faction and put the "equal sign" between them and said "if Brits have it, it will be no problem if US have it". What about all the other factors? How many AT teams with (upgraded) bazookas can RA/RE produce? How many Rangers with bazookas can they field? Do RA/RE have any abilities that allow you to imobilize enemy tanks and finish them off with AT infantry? How much do these AT units cost? What sort of doctrinal unlocks affect them and how? What about the differences in other options to take out enemy heavy tanks?

You cannot just say "Churchill + Firefly" is similar to "Jumbo + Jackson" and if Brits have it and it causes no problems, US can have it too.

True, but it still dosn't change that much, Brits still has churchill howitzer wich is pretty good at dealing with heavy tanks to inmobilize them and finish them off with achiless or just behind a wall with their special bazookas that can shoot over buildings (price justified) , also the bazooka isn't that good againts pz4 with skirts and panthers, wich also has the highest reload time.

And yes RA and RE do have special abilities to imobilize tanks.

RA as artillery that can be called in by officer for a cheaper price than the US one.

And lets for example say that you're able to deploy rangers + jumbo + jacksons.

Do you really think that someone will be able to deploy massive rangers with bazookas + jumbo + jackson in a game easily?
I really think it would be a really rare sight unless is one of those weird 4v4 clusterfuck games.

In a normal i would maybe see 1 ranger squad paired with jumbo and a jackson.

Units die in game, you have to pay to replace them wich dosn't make jumackson easy to adquire but at least a possibility.

If you think the big difference compared to US one is about the number of 'zookas they can have, then make the piat upgradable for more units on CW (combat engies for example).

[CGarr]

You took a possible combination of two units from one faction and compare them to a somewhat similar unit combination from another faction and put the "equal sign" between them and said "if Brits have it, it will be no problem if US have it". What about all the other factors? How many AT teams with (upgraded) bazookas can RA/RE produce? How many Rangers with bazookas can they field? Do RA/RE have any abilities that allow you to imobilize enemy tanks and finish them off with AT infantry? How much do these AT units cost? What sort of doctrinal unlocks affect them and how? What about the differences in other options to take out enemy heavy tanks?

You cannot just say "Churchill + Firefly" is similar to "Jumbo + Jackson" and if Brits have it and it causes no problems, US can have it too.

1. Bazookas are buttcheeks against panthers and anything heavier, even with the upgrade. That point is pretty much moot, sure US can build a ton of bazookas but they're not going to do much against a panther/heavy with any sort of anti-inf cover, even as a group. These aren't fausts with guaranteed hits/pens, they're bazookas. Neither hitting nor penning are even close to guaranteed with bazookas.
2. Yes, Both of those have both abilities (button, phosphorous stun) and a unit (PIATS) that are seemingly dedicated to scoring mobility crits. All of these options are far more resilient and effective than a rifleman trying to get a sticky nade off (maybe not the stun but I've already bitched about that needing to be fixed on units that have it). Mines because mines are available to both factions as well. As far as finishing off an immobilized target, CW gets to do it safely and easily from a distance with their plethora of early-accessible arty (95 churchill, 75mm HT).
3. RE has tulips. RA sucks at dealing with heavies but nobody is disputing that so I'm not sure why anyone would bother to bring it up.

Jumbo 76mm is like the 57mm churchill. Neither is great against inf (jumbo has shitty temporary HE and a 50 cal, churchill has tank shock). Neither will be killing a bunch of inf on their own. They both also have pretty terrible pen against panthers and heavier tanks, even with AP. They are solely there to soak up hits, and I would personally argue that the 76 jumbo could even have it's AP removed to solidify this role. It'd still kill Pz4's, but it'd be entirely reliant on the Jackson to kill panthers and heavies.

If we're going to go into the idea of not all factions being good at everything, I can point at axis docs all day and complain about how all of them have extremely solid, agile, and easy to use response to any individual threat. All axis docs have a tank that can kill allied heavies. All axis docs have solid indirect fire options for dealing with campers. All axis docs have good infantry. The only axis doc that doesn't have a good, agile answer to a common individual threat is PS doc against snipers, whereas with allies, 4 of the 6 docs are cheeks lack an effective mobile response to heavies aside from AT inf, which are hilariously easy to counter or outmicro in BK due to their lacking single-volley punching power. That is a solid issue from a balance perspective when micro is considered as a factor, as the alternatives are generally much more difficult to effectively use unless you're willing to sit through a 2 hour game behind a defensive wall and gamble with indirect options over and over until theres an opening. The guy who brought up the pershing idea even admitted that the game isn't necessarily unbalanced since alternatives are available, he simply pointed out a big discrepancy between inf doc and all other docs in the game.

You write off this kind of argument because on paper, all the doctrines are balanced in that they all technically have a means of doing every single task now. In practice, however, there are still a good amount of instances where an inbalance exists because the sum of effective tools a doctrine has for a scenario are much lower than they seem due to the ineffectiveness of said tools on an individual basis. Most of the remaining instances of this issue affect allies, but axis hasn't been ironed out completely yet either (see PS doc example), so not every argument is a faction bias thing. Most of the suggestions on here for addressing issues aren't great (often including my own), but the issues being pointed out are still valid. Take this and the inf doc pershing thread as an example: clearly many people agree that inf doc is lacking a solid mobile option to deal with panthers and heavies, since neither the Jackson B or jumbo are effective on their own in this scenario. The pershing suggestion was excessive, as many people agreed. The Jumbo+Jackson is far less so, and it seems like enough people agree that it'd be reasonable that we could probably at least try testing it.

[MarKr]

You write off this kind of argument because on paper, all the doctrines are balanced in that they all technically have a means of doing every single task now. In practice, however, there are still a good amount of instances where an inbalance exists because the sum of effective tools a doctrine has for a scenario are much lower than they seem due to the ineffectiveness of said tools on an individual basis.

No, I wrote off an argument because it was based on sloppy comparison and mostly the reasoning for it sounds more like "it would be cool/more convenient" rather than "it is needed". If we start giving docs units based on what similar docs have or based on what is cool/convenient, then we can give a Pershing to AB doctrine because "Luft is a similar doc and has Panthers" and it would be more convinient to have a Pershing for killing heavies rather than relying on airstrikes.

The doctrines have been changed to have means to handle any situation but who says the means need to always be higly effective or pose relatively little risks? Jackson was given to Infantry doc so that there is some direct way to deal with heavy tanks, but it is a risky way because this doc is not meant to be built around tanks. If a player wants to have more reliable ways to counter heavy tanks, there is the Armor doctrine to choose.

[Shanks]

You write off this kind of argument because on paper, all the doctrines are balanced in that they all technically have a means of doing every single task now. In practice, however, there are still a good amount of instances where an inbalance exists because the sum of effective tools a doctrine has for a scenario are much lower than they seem due to the ineffectiveness of said tools on an individual basis.

No, I wrote off an argument because it was based on sloppy comparison and mostly the reasoning for it sounds more like "it would be cool/more convenient" rather than "it is needed". If we start giving docs units based on what similar docs have or based on what is cool/convenient, then we can give a Pershing to AB doctrine because "Luft is a similar doc and has Panthers" and it would be more convinient to have a Pershing for killing heavies rather than relying on airstrikes.

The doctrines have been changed to have means to handle any situation but who says the means need to always be higly effective or pose relatively little risks? Jackson was given to Infantry doc so that there is some direct way to deal with heavy tanks, but it is a risky way because this doc is not meant to be built around tanks. If a player wants to have more reliable ways to counter heavy tanks, there is the Armor doctrine to choose.

I wish the developers (with the exception of kwok) play pvp, a 3v3 or 2v2, to feel a bit what "playing bk" feels like, with all those ideas they have, I would find it interesting even if they upload the replay 2 to 3 games .. ..would it be possible?

if you have more time, if you can enter with any fake account in bk, to play, host a 2v2 3v3. what you want, and try it, to understand us better


In fact, if I had the possibility, I would pay each of the developers 1000 dollars, to see a pvp game between you

[kwok]

You better get your $1000 ready... I’ve seen them play....

I’ve actually 1v1’d one of them within the last week.

[Shanks]

You better get your $1000 ready... I’ve seen them play....

I’ve actually 1v1’d one of them within the last week.

I really wish you guys would play and go up a rep or two , even if I don't have the money , but you should not participate if the match takes place, because your team would win (assuming that the developers are beginners)