Armor doctrine

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
OrderLordTank
Posts: 55
Joined: 06 Oct 2020, 11:44

Armor doctrine

Post by OrderLordTank »

First of all i want to thank all previous and current members of the BK team for this awesome mod.

I used to play armor and with the exception of the early .50 cal,fast mass over repair and the somewhat 76mm ineffectiveness,thought it was fine.Not too powerful and not too weak.Obviously i avoided the paper thin (and at the time very expensive) jackson like the plague.Dont get me wrong the doctrine had a clear disadvantage during the early game (although that early .50 cal helped a lot in that regard as well as the 76mm jumbo call in) but you also had an advantage in the late game with cheap 76mm armor upgraded over repaired .50 cal equipped veteran easy eights.The 76mm jumbo,calliope and pershing call ins helped you get to that late game.

As i said i agree with the extinction of over repair and the early .50 cal because they were indeed too powerful.I wont pretend to be an expert on the subject of the 75 vs 76mm jumbo because maybe that was too powerful too (not in my humble opinion but as i said i leave that to the experts).The general doctrine point chain layout though does seem way too flawed for me.

Six points just to be able to build 75mm jumbos is way too much.By the time the first one gets produced its already obsolete.In truth it can only kill short barrel p4s and f2s on its own and by that time there are either none left or way too many f2s produced to make a difference.Terror doctrine gets to build tigers with just 4 points and in my opinion a single tiger is worth much more than two 75mm jumbos.You may argue that jumbos are now just meant to be HE wielding meat shields but six points is way too much for that.Since terror gets tigers with 4 points i would argue that 3 points for 75mm (or even 76mm for that matter) jumbos is more reasonable.

Same thing goes for pershings since you need 9 points to build them +2 for ace call in.I would argue that 4+1 points (same as terror's tigers) is more reasonable.If you think pershings are better than 5+1 is also acceptable but 9+2 is just way too much.

Also if the artillery point chain remains isolated than 5 points to get the calliope is too much.The jeep version is practically useless and the 105 although mediocre isn't as effective as terror's walking stuka with just 2 points.I think 1 point for the 105 +2 for a total of 3 for the calliope would be better.In my opinion even 2+2 points is too expensive if they remain isolated from other abilites.

Finally although the jackson fuel discount is welcomed,i still think it ain't worth 5 points.The price is cheap and the gun is quite effective but even the upgraded sherman armor ain't anything special without over repair.Four points and the ability to carry .50 cal would be more reasonable.

In short the pershing chain should be isolated with 4+1 or 5+1 points if you consider them better than tigers.Same goes for the artillery chain with 1 point for the 105 (including tank commander artillery) +2 for calliope.76mm sherman should be free for armor with 1 point for faster experience for all tanks +2 for 75mm jumbo.Maybe even an extra point for 76mm jumbo for a total of 4.Also faster experience for all tanks should side chain with hellcat for 1 point +2 for jackson (with a .50 cal option upgrade) for a total of 4.Finally veteran sherman crews should chain with ammo crates for 2+2 points.

I understand that all the above are a huge buff to the armor doctrine but i really believe that it is needed.Also the 76mm jumbo seems to be the only viable tank option vs the improved (and rather cheap) stug versions.Pershings come way too late (even at 4 or 5 points) and are much more expensive,and you cant really flank with m10s because they have paper thin armor...

P.S.I would make a simular argument for the airborne doctrine nerfs but i have already noticed others already mentioning it.With 1 exception why should the airborne loose the fuel supply drop while terror earns it through the same as blitzkrieg ability for ammo exchange?I would argue that terror is now way easier than the old airborne doctrine,which was already the easiest among the US.I just spam improved stug 4s that can handle any enemy tank until i unlock tigers+fuel exchange.Even early game is easy with mgs + very cheap volksturm that later can be upgraded with smg and 7 man squad.I am not saying nerf terror but buff armor and airborne. :)

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 4287
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Armor doctrine

Post by Warhawks97 »

1. The issue with Jumbo is not the ammount of CP, but how easy it gets killed even by stugs. In the beta every jumbo i faced got destroyed by schrecks and stugs and similiar TD´s.

Its rear armor is also not that of an heavy tank which means that even slightly angled shot from a 50 mm gun can trigger rear hits and thus penetrate 100% of the times. A Tiger has a 50% chance to bounce rear hits from 75 mm shermans and 57 mm guns, if not more. Same goes for churchills. These tanks have decent rear armor to reflect the thick armor on all sides of the tanks. Jumbo does not and is thus in terms of armor a tank barely better than a Panther if better at all: Only good front but basically no armor elsewhere.

This tank should basically outclass Panthers and Tigers as it has same or better armor (thicker and angled).
So, if that would be implemented, jumbos would be worth 6 cp and able to bounce even 88 guns quite decently.

2. Pershings fill a different role and cant be compared to tigers. Same is true for the entire doc. The new armor doc is supposed to rely more on shermans than the old doc and Pershings filling only a late game support role while Tiger in Terror is supposed to be the key armor support.

But the devs made a few mistakes which negates all the emphasize put into shermans:
1) The Germans got massive cost drops for tanks and Tec cost decrease. That means that as soon as the shermans can be fielded, they are already outnumbered by hordes of Stugs, Jagdpanzers and esspecially Tank IV F2.
2) Meanwhile US Tank cost went up (and tec cost when considering the cal 50 unlock)
3) They never ever fix the 76 gun (and also the 75) in terms of armor penetration. Thus they dont only get outnumbered even before you have access to 76 shermans, but also outclassed.

The result:
New armor doc was supposed to rely more on shermans but instead, due to other game changes, the armor doc depends even more on Pershings than ever before.
Panthers, Tigers, Panzer IV´s, they all got massively cheaper and earlier available and US Tanks more expensive and delyed, yet stats for both sides remained the same.

Thats the whole distaster allied tank forces are into atm. And its not just US: Many times i see stugs and Panzer IV´s arround when CW is just about to get their armored truck.

The armor balance is completely dead right now. But thats not the fault of armor doc which looks pretty in my opinion. Its a matter for cost changes and and the unwillingness to adjust the stats of the tanks.



3. Calli:
Yes, calli cost a lot and the jeep is a joke, even with the reduced scatter.
In my last two games a single Maultier layed waste over large areas. KIlling entire squads and weapon crews with each missile, burning out emplacment, killing and damaging tanks and vehicles in particular.
The US player came up with double calli jeep and fired both. In total just 3 or 4 of our guys died although he fired straight into our forces.

The calli jeep with its 5 tiny missiles is a joke compared to what hell Maultiers and nebler can release with each barrage.

The Maultier is quite compareable to the calli sherman when it comes to the ammount of damage dealed per salvo.

OrderLordTank
Posts: 55
Joined: 06 Oct 2020, 11:44

Re: Armor doctrine

Post by OrderLordTank »

All i know is that in this current state shermans are only viable in mid game when fully upgraded (76mm gun, .50 cal,both armor upgrades,ap shells and maybe even veterancy 1).And all of that just to allow them to compete with late stugs and p4s.Now i dont mind that a cheap mid game sherman cant compete with an expensive panther.But if you take into account all the upgrades costs and CP required you will realize they aint all that cheap or mid but rather late game.In fact all axis factions have access to better early,mid and late game armor with early and mid being also cheaper.Also think of how much better armored call ins axis has.And finally 2 of 3 wehrmacht doctrines have access to fuel exchange mechanisms.Cutting the fuel cost of jacksons (which btw due to CP and build requirements i consider them late game) just aint gonna fill that gap.And nine points to unlock pershings is way too late no matter what.

BTW if we are going for historical correctness instead of gameplay value then shermans should be better armored than late p4s and jackson should should have jumbo levels of front (not sides) armor.In any case in the previous version armor was already the weakest allied doctrine and now its way worse.The only better things i can think of are jackson decreased fuel cost and combat engineers but i would trade them both with just over repair or simply fast .50 cal any day of the week.

If you want shermans to be the workhorse of allied armor than fix the 76mm gun penetration vs mid axis armor and buff their armor or lower their price.I aint touching the doctrine in this state ever again.I would argue that even current gimped airborne is better.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 4287
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Armor doctrine

Post by Warhawks97 »

OrderLordTank wrote:
07 Oct 2020, 16:51
All i know is that in this current state shermans are only viable in mid game when fully upgraded (76mm gun, .50 cal,both armor upgrades,ap shells and maybe even veterancy 1).And all of that just to allow them to compete with late stugs and p4s.Now i dont mind that a cheap mid game sherman cant compete with an expensive panther.But if you take into account all the upgrades costs and CP required you will realize they aint all that cheap or mid but rather late game.In fact all axis factions have access to better early,mid and late game armor with early and mid being also cheaper.Also think of how much better armored call ins axis has.And finally 2 of 3 wehrmacht doctrines have access to fuel exchange mechanisms.Cutting the fuel cost of jacksons (which btw due to CP and build requirements i consider them late game) just aint gonna fill that gap.And nine points to unlock pershings is way too late no matter what.

BTW if we are going for historical correctness instead of gameplay value then shermans should be better armored than late p4s and jackson should should have jumbo levels of front (not sides) armor.In any case in the previous version armor was already the weakest allied doctrine and now its way worse.The only better things i can think of are jackson decreased fuel cost and combat engineers but i would trade them both with just over repair or simply fast .50 cal any day of the week.

If you want shermans to be the workhorse of allied armor than fix the 76mm gun penetration vs mid axis armor and buff their armor or lower their price.I aint touching the doctrine in this state ever again.I would argue that even current gimped airborne is better.
I love you. Whats your steam name? I wanna add you.
And i would argue that many others (Like Mencius and CGarr) think like you.

And thats true.

Basically the issue is that basic shermans and M10 (which cost CP in inf and armor doc) have to compete with Panzer IV F2 and stugs, both cheaper than shermans or roughly same cost.

And the 76 shermans somehow have to compete with Panthers.


But i agree in all points. Their gun sucks, the armor is basically non existent and esspecially BK doc can super easily rush to Panthers. Last game i got panthers when my opponent just came up with 76 shermans.

Tulkas
Posts: 6
Joined: 22 Sep 2020, 19:18

Re: Armor doctrine

Post by Tulkas »

The Germans have tanks in the field and the CW still doesn't have the armored truck. The CW was already deploying slow, now much slower still. Yet the Germans take a tank out of you from under a stone in the blink of an eye.

OrderLordTank
Posts: 55
Joined: 06 Oct 2020, 11:44

Re: Armor doctrine

Post by OrderLordTank »

Warhawks97 wrote:
07 Oct 2020, 20:59
I love you. Whats your steam name? I wanna add you.
And i would argue that many others (Like Mencius and CGarr) think like you.

And thats true.

Basically the issue is that basic shermans and M10 (which cost CP in inf and armor doc) have to compete with Panzer IV F2 and stugs, both cheaper than shermans or roughly same cost.

And the 76 shermans somehow have to compete with Panthers.
The name is the same but you wouldnt want to play with an expert comp stomper like me (even if i do pick open basic maps so that the AI can fully flex its muscles and not cheese my way to victory).In short i am indeed a n00b in BK pvp but my above arguments for the armor doctrine are just common sense.It was already the weakest 1v1 choice and now its way worse.

I never built more than a single m10 because its window of opportunity is way too short.Even the 75mm sherman remains useful with HE shells.In any case this isnt vCOH so tanks die way faster thus flanking with them is much harder (same goes for infantry but you can retreat and not loose precious fuel in failed attempts).So stugs in pairs are way more powerful vs shermans in BK than in vCOH.And axis can spam so many of them much faster than your shermans.

Truth is without .50 cal the 76mm sherman isnt much better than an f2 but more expensive and slower to produce.You also need both armor upgrades (exclusive to armor doctrine) and AP shells to compete with late p4s which remain cheaper (with proper CP) and more spammable.Especially if you use the early f2 spam advantage to gain map control.

Heck its easier for me to spam upgraded combat engineers and recoilless jeeps to cheese my way to jacksons than use shermans.Same goes for infantry rangers and 75mm jumbos that enable me to wait for jacksons.Airborne used to be the exception because the fuel supply drop enabled you to half spam 76mm shermans (which combined with practically free ap shells and fast .50 cal were worthwhile in mid game) but now thats gone too.

I repeat that i have no problem with the 76mm penetration vs late axis armor (in fact maybe its a bit too good frontally vs tiger 1) but vs mid axis armor its pathetic.Same thing goes for shermans armor vs cheaper mid axis armor (late stugs & p4s) there is a large gap in performance that makes shermans obsolete or at least non cost effective (even for armor doctrine) prior to panthers and tigers.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 4287
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Armor doctrine

Post by Warhawks97 »

OrderLordTank wrote:
08 Oct 2020, 14:36

The name is the same but you wouldnt want to play with an expert comp stomper like me (even if i do pick open basic maps so that the AI can fully flex its muscles and not cheese my way to victory).In short i am indeed a n00b in BK pvp but my above arguments for the armor doctrine are just common sense.It was already the weakest 1v1 choice and now its way worse.

I never built more than a single m10 because its window of opportunity is way too short.Even the 75mm sherman remains useful with HE shells.In any case this isnt vCOH so tanks die way faster thus flanking with them is much harder (same goes for infantry but you can retreat and not loose precious fuel in failed attempts).So stugs in pairs are way more powerful vs shermans in BK than in vCOH.And axis can spam so many of them much faster than your shermans.

Truth is without .50 cal the 76mm sherman isnt much better than an f2 but more expensive and slower to produce.You also need both armor upgrades (exclusive to armor doctrine) and AP shells to compete with late p4s which remain cheaper (with proper CP) and more spammable.Especially if you use the early f2 spam advantage to gain map control.

Heck its easier for me to spam upgraded combat engineers and recoilless jeeps to cheese my way to jacksons than use shermans.Same goes for infantry rangers and 75mm jumbos that enable me to wait for jacksons.Airborne used to be the exception because the fuel supply drop enabled you to half spam 76mm shermans (which combined with practically free ap shells and fast .50 cal were worthwhile in mid game) but now thats gone too.

I repeat that i have no problem with the 76mm penetration vs late axis armor (in fact maybe its a bit too good frontally vs tiger 1) but vs mid axis armor its pathetic.Same thing goes for shermans armor vs cheaper mid axis armor (late stugs & p4s) there is a large gap in performance that makes shermans obsolete or at least non cost effective (even for armor doctrine) prior to panthers and tigers.
Yeah.

I also found myself using RL jeeps because they are the only thing you have to handle all the mid game F2 spam.

Fun fact:
The RL jeep has 100% pen chance vs F2 and vs H its still better than 76 guns.

Thats why i and many others have no other choice as to keep 1-2 RL jeeps in the game.


Its just retarded.

Constantino
Posts: 43
Joined: 16 Jun 2019, 12:58

Re: Armor doctrine

Post by Constantino »

76mm Shermans are balanced to be a crappy spam tank which relegates it to not having a functional role. Afterall, 75mm Sherman can be spammed more easily if you just need cannon fodder and they have a great HE mode to boot. There is no reason to buy 76mm Shermans as they are ironically too expense for what they can do. After getting all the upgrades, they are just more reliable counters to PzIV and Stugs, but by the time you get all the upgrades it is just too late as you are facing Tigers/Panthers.

Right now they are just as stopgap until you get Pershings. I don't think there is much of a reason to use anything but 75mm Shermans and Pershings in the armor doc until 76 mm guns get fixed.

Jumbo armor is also very bad, they should basically be King Tigers in terms of armor, but they die so easily you are better off just getting 2-3 75 mm Shermans.

Calli jeep is bad because it only shoot half a salvo of weak rockets and I think it is the only atry in the whole mod that does that. I have no idea why it was nerfed, or why it was even put into Armor doc. If it needed more arty, which I don't think it does, just increase cap of 105mm Sherman or Sherman Calliope to 2.

OrderLordTank
Posts: 55
Joined: 06 Oct 2020, 11:44

Re: Armor doctrine

Post by OrderLordTank »

In truth i have no problem with jumbos frontal armor although sides are rather weak (as warhawk said).The real huge issue is basic shermans armor which in truth was way better than that of late p4.Am not asking that in game but it should be able to hold its own vs early and mid game axis armor even without armor upgrades.Same thing goes for 76mm penetration which in reality was better than that of late p4 and stugs.Again am not asking that but it should be equal even without using ap rounds.Remember that even with the above buffs axis early and mid game tanks are either cheaper or better for the same price.And they would still have way better handheld AT options and late game tanks.

In any case i repeat once more that the current CP chain layout is very unfair.You need 6 points for 75mm jumbos than 3 more for perhings and another 2 for perhing ace call in.Thats a total of 11 points while terror can build very cost effective stugs with 2,tigers with 4 and ace tiger call in for 1 more point.Also walking stuka with 2 points vs 6 for armors calliope.Even the 5 points for jacksons is alot since their best armor is sherman like.

MEFISTO
Posts: 196
Joined: 18 Jun 2016, 21:15

Re: Armor doctrine

Post by MEFISTO »

I used to play amor Doctrine, now I feel it's so nerf that I don't like it, 6cp for a 75 jumbo? to face what? 4 cp tigers? 6 cp panthers? if you go for Jacksons ( easy to kill by StugIV) then pershings are going to be 15 cp so no reason to go pershings after pick Jacson because you need other part of the doctrine like artillery, everithing is in opossite directions and cost a lot of CP, nothing to push in the mid game, before at least we had a 76mm jumbo in the same path as Calliope. Armor should have 76mm jumbo too. It's an armor doctrine after use 9-13 cp, sad.

User avatar
Redgaarden
Posts: 406
Joined: 16 Jan 2015, 03:58

Re: Armor doctrine

Post by Redgaarden »

I really like armor doctrine how it is now. Combat engineers and shermans can break most people early game.
I still dont think this F2 spam is that strong, haven't lost to it yet. It has to be F2 combined with something else.

My only opinion is that it's kinda weird how jumbo 76 cannot go toe to toe with Tigers and panthers like they can in most games I played.

I feel the problem is how many upgrades there are and new players rush these upgrades before getting units out that can use these upgrades.
Upgrades aren't everything, they boost the tank capabilities by like 5%? a fully upgraded sherman still has a high chance of getting one shot. So why bother upgrading them? just go for Pershing as soon as possible.
Rifles are not for fighting. They are for building!

OrderLordTank
Posts: 55
Joined: 06 Oct 2020, 11:44

Re: Armor doctrine

Post by OrderLordTank »

Also the improved m36 jackson version has in fact worse armor or at least hit points than a sherman.I lost a full h.p. m36 with (armor doctrines exclusive) improved armor upgrades from a single panzershreck or panzerfaust shot that penetrated it frontally.This has never happened to an armor upgraded 76mm sherman (and i am refering to the simple non easy 8 variant).A frontal (not side) handheld AT penetration never killed a full hp armor upgraded sherman but always left it between 33-25% health.

So whats the point of the m36 version or the armor upgrades for that matter?I guess the best u can hope for is to deflect 37mm or p4s short barrel shots unlike the normal paper thin jackson?However 5 points just for that is way too much and the alternative is to build pershings for 9 points with just 75mm jumbos to fill the gap.Truth is if you dont gain map control before the f2s start rolling than the armor doctrine is already dead.Even if you do have map control that only gives you a fighting chance and not a decisive advantage due to gimped armored units and no call ins (75mm jumbos for meatshields cost 6 CP and you still have to build and pay fuel for them) to fill the gap.

OrderLordTank
Posts: 55
Joined: 06 Oct 2020, 11:44

Re: Armor doctrine

Post by OrderLordTank »

Obviously f2s without infantry support wont win the game.No tank will apart from fast tiger ace (with 5 points its hard but doable).The problem is that without early .50 cal allied vehicles fear almost all axis squads that have excellent handheld ATs and provide a screen for the f2s.As for pershings need i remind you that they cost 9 CP and the ace comes at 11?Even if you somehow get them before loosing the game good luck building such an expensive vehicle without map control.These 9 points wont give you free fuel-less call ins like axis does but just a 2x 75mm jumbo build option (which is way too late at 6 points),and you dont get fuel exchange mechanisms as blitz or or terror.

If you can hold your own with combat engineers and unupgraded shermans and still have the fuel to build pershings than your opponent is way below your weight.Even more so if you brake him in early game and hold map control for the 9 CPs that are required.I am not saying that combat engineers are bad but 2 IV stugs can take out 4 or even six 76mm shermans if your opponent is of equal skill.And they only cost 2 CPs...

User avatar
Redgaarden
Posts: 406
Joined: 16 Jan 2015, 03:58

Re: Armor doctrine

Post by Redgaarden »

I guess you guys have more experience than me with this. My game usually end very quickly. And I lose when the first tiger comes out. So I think my opinions should just be ignored in these cases.
But I haven't had any big issues with stug 4 most often because my opponent hasn't had much leeway in using them and have been badly unsupported and outnumbered.
The 50.cal upgrade is super annoying to get.
Rifles are not for fighting. They are for building!

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 3390
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Armor doctrine

Post by MarKr »

OrderLordTank wrote:
07 Oct 2020, 12:42
Same thing goes for pershings since you need 9 points to build them +2 for ace call in.I would argue that 4+1 points (same as terror's tigers) is more reasonable.
MEFISTO wrote:
10 Oct 2020, 04:56
6cp for a 75 jumbo? to face what? 4 cp tigers? 6 cp panthers?
(+ other people making similar CP comparisons)

People often think "to counter Tigers, I need Pershings. Pershing costs 9CP but Tigers are 4CP so I'm screwed". It is obvious why these CP comparisons are so easy to make but is it really in the game this easy?

Let's say you play Propaganda. Do you really spend your first 4CPs to unlock Tigers as soon as possible? Even if you do, can you actually build the Heavy Tank Factory by the time you have your first 4 CPs?

If the player tries to go directly for Tigers, they don't survive long enough to even build a Tiger - I've seen this in pretty much every replay where a player tried to rush Tigers as soon as possible. With Propaganda doctrine, people almost always get first some unlock to support their infantry such as the Officer upgrade (1CP) then Panzerfaust for Volksturms (1CP) and/or StuG (2CP), sometimes they also go for the propaganda abilities (1CP) or the "Inspired Assault" ability (1CP) to have even more support for their infantry. Not necessarily unlocked in this order but you get the picture. So players practically must spend at least 4CPs on something else to be able to survive to Tiger stage and so they realistically don't unlock Tigers untill 8CPs (sometimes even later). Considering that Tigers are worse than Pershings, 8CPs vs 9CPs sounds acceptable. Similar goes for BK doc where I dare to say players pretty much never spend their first 6CPs to unlock Panthers.

Even if you can unlock something relatively soon, it doesn't mean doing so is the most viable thing to do.
OrderLordTank wrote:
10 Oct 2020, 11:13
Also the improved m36 jackson version has in fact worse armor or at least hit points than a sherman.I lost a full h.p. m36 with (armor doctrines exclusive) improved armor upgrades from a single panzershreck or panzerfaust shot that penetrated it frontally.
The M36 is slightly improved Wolverine hull with 90mm gun mounted and it is made for ambushing tanks and fast movemet, not for head-on-head combat so it doesn't have strong armor. The situation you describe is similar as if I said that my Nashorn got blown up by a Bazooka team - it wouldn't be a surprising outcome.
Also, Panzerschreck deals to M36 270-360 damage per hit, M36 has 600HP so you would normally need to hits. It was probably the 5% lucky shot. If schrecks one-shot M36 regularly, then try to save some replays and post them here so we can look into it.
Image

User avatar
Redgaarden
Posts: 406
Joined: 16 Jan 2015, 03:58

Re: Armor doctrine

Post by Redgaarden »

The M36 is slightly improved Wolverine hull with 90mm gun mounted and it is made for ambushing tanks and fast movemet, not for head-on-head combat so it doesn't have strong armor. The situation you describe is similar as if I said that my Nashorn got blown up by a Bazooka team - it wouldn't be a surprising outcome.
Also, Panzerschreck deals to M36 270-360 damage per hit, M36 has 600HP so you would normally need to hits. It was probably the 5% lucky shot. If schrecks one-shot M36 regularly, then try to save some replays and post them here so we can look into it.
I dont think panzersherck has a 5% insta kill? not everything has it. I could be wrong, but I have never seen panzershreck oneshot a tank before, he could be talking about 2x shercks? Panzerfaust can oneshot though so no surprise there.
Rifles are not for fighting. They are for building!

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 3390
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Armor doctrine

Post by MarKr »

Yes, you're right, only the upgraded panzerfaust has the 5% one-shot chance. So either the M36 was hit by that or it was schreck but something else took a shot at it too.

EDIT:
I dug deeper in the files, turns out the PE panzerschreck actually can one-shot tanks. Weird...
Image

OrderLordTank
Posts: 55
Joined: 06 Oct 2020, 11:44

Re: Armor doctrine

Post by OrderLordTank »

It is very doable in propaganda to defend in early game with mgs and use just 1-2 squads of vulkssturm for capping.Thus spending 2 CPs for stug IVs and a pair of those can handle at least 4x 76mm shermans without any need of extra handheld ATs.They are so good that they can handle anything below pershings so you can easily get the 4+1 CPs for a fuel-less tiger ace while spending way less fuel for stugs than your opponent spends for shermans.If you take the tiger ace into account you can win the game right there with just 2+4+1=7 CPs and even less initial map control.Meanwhile armor has just 6CPs (+1=7 total) 2x 75mm jumbos which he will have to pay fuel for and can be beaten by IV stugs let alone the tiger ace.Do the math but i bet you can get a tiger ace before the time the first pershing is produced and even then we all know how this battle is going to end.And you still need map control and 2 CPs more (for 9 total) just to get there.In fact pershing ace at 11 points is moot since terror can exchange fuel at that point and just spam tigers and panthers.

It was a 1 shot kill which is unbalanced on its own.However if the m36 jackson doesnt have the sherman armor and benefit from armor doctrine upgrades than its even worse than i thought.And we ought to know about it in the description.Comparing jackson to nashorn is moot since nashorn is a much better glass cannon and thats prior to taking into account the armor of the axis vs allied targets or the availability of the axis vs allied handheld AT...

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 4287
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Armor doctrine

Post by Warhawks97 »

Personally i dont rush Tigers as prop doc. But depending on situation, like when your mate gets inf already, you can just go straight for tanks. Let it be BK panthers or Tigers. They arrive often long before any in the allied team can get proper tools or if then only in small numbers and only for defensive purposes.

in 1 vs 1 its a bad idea to go straight for tigers or even panthers, but in teamfights its different. The issue is that no allied doc can in theory get counter to it quickly enough, even when the team decides to split the tasks.


Same goes for F2. Yes, 57 mm can counter it or perhaps you are quick an have M10 just in time. But you have to rely on the enemie that he sends everything straight for attack (like i do being hyper aggressive with tanks) and play a high risk game or someone who has no idea how to support its tanks properly. But if the axis decide to stockpile its tanks, playing save and enter the tank stage while still maintaining a good position on the field, its nearly impossible to change the status quo on the field.
You have to wait for pershings and up to this time somehow hold out the nonstop rocket arty spam on your positions.

In most cases axis players do not use its nummerical and ressource advantage and tec advantage they enjoy in early-mid game and lose the game against a single pershing or SP, just as in this vid. They are then playing too save like in this vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsoqxG14l1E

the axis had lots of chances to end the game and could have used more panthers more aggressively against the single SP. And the luck factor was also not in its favour later when you see all the missed shots from KT. But this is how it looks like when the game gets into tank stage and when axis get a proper tank force of F2 and stugs.
You are basically done for while still waiting for the first 76 sherman to arrive.


Good US players win the game in the early stage or at least try to get a dominant position prior to the Tank phase.
At best you try to keep the fuel at least neutral, but if axis get fuel early on and can hold it up untill tank phase, it gets brutal really quick.

User avatar
Redgaarden
Posts: 406
Joined: 16 Jan 2015, 03:58

Re: Armor doctrine

Post by Redgaarden »

I was going to say Nashorn is better becaue it's more expensive, but I guess that isn't the case.

But armor doctrine can get Allied war machine and veteran combat engineers and cheap shermans for 4 cp's. Then the 4 shermans you lose vs 2 stugs can get returned right away.
I dont think armor doctrine is weak. It finally got something good to spend their munitions on. And they got super good infantry now. I definitely think armor doctrine good a buff in all this. And for the 5th cp you can get call in arty, which is alot more useful than a calliope which is just a muni waste you dont need. You dont even need to unlock the 76mm sherman. The insane amount of early aggression this doc can get out is insane. And you get teller mines for 100mp. Fuel is so not important for this doctrine since you can just ignore all the upgrades and shermans cost like 35 fuel.
Rifles are not for fighting. They are for building!

OrderLordTank
Posts: 55
Joined: 06 Oct 2020, 11:44

Re: Armor doctrine

Post by OrderLordTank »

Plz try it i want to see 4x 75mm shermans win vs 2 stug IV.Unless axis doesnt know what he is doing it aint gonna happen.Fuel wise the stugs are cheaper even with armor doctrine discounts.In fact am willing to bet it aint gonna happen vs 4x 76mm unupgraded shermans and by that time fuel wise axis can have 5 IV stugs so it doesnt really matter if you initiate allied war machine or not.

User avatar
Redgaarden
Posts: 406
Joined: 16 Jan 2015, 03:58

Re: Armor doctrine

Post by Redgaarden »

You could use m10's instead of m4 they should die just as easily as shermans vs stugs. They are pretty identical.
Rifles are not for fighting. They are for building!

OrderLordTank
Posts: 55
Joined: 06 Oct 2020, 11:44

Re: Armor doctrine

Post by OrderLordTank »

Yes but m10s are paper thin and die from anything but small arms fire so axis infantry can hadle them,meanwhile IV stugs have better armor then uparmored easy 8s.Also IV stugs due to their armor and mg are more versatile units than m10s.Even then 4x m10s will still loose vs 2x IV stugs if both players are of equal skill.

User avatar
Redgaarden
Posts: 406
Joined: 16 Jan 2015, 03:58

Re: Armor doctrine

Post by Redgaarden »

Just played a match where pz4 f2 deflected 4 76mm shells in a row. Please fix. Armor is way too good on this tank, it shouldn't even be bouncing 75mm shells.

EDIT: And Hellcats bouncing from camo. I really think 76mm should pen a f2 from camo. I mean. It's the best anti tank gun Airborne doctrine has and it can't even pen the very first tank that comes out, how the hell should they even do against the heavy tanks?
Last edited by Redgaarden on 10 Oct 2020, 22:35, edited 1 time in total.
Rifles are not for fighting. They are for building!

MEFISTO
Posts: 196
Joined: 18 Jun 2016, 21:15

Re: Armor doctrine

Post by MEFISTO »

MarKr wrote:
10 Oct 2020, 12:49
OrderLordTank wrote:
07 Oct 2020, 12:42
Same thing goes for pershings since you need 9 points to build them +2 for ace call in.I would argue that 4+1 points (same as terror's tigers) is more reasonable.
MEFISTO wrote:
10 Oct 2020, 04:56
6cp for a 75 jumbo? to face what? 4 cp tigers? 6 cp panthers?
(+ other people making similar CP comparisons)

People often think "to counter Tigers, I need Pershings. Pershing costs 9CP but Tigers are 4CP so I'm screwed". It is obvious why these CP comparisons are so easy to make but is it really in the game this easy?

Let's say you play Propaganda. Do you really spend your first 4CPs to unlock Tigers as soon as possible? Even if you do, can you actually build the Heavy Tank Factory by the time you have your first 4 CPs?

If the player tries to go directly for Tigers, they don't survive long enough to even build a Tiger - I've seen this in pretty much every replay where a player tried to rush Tigers as soon as possible. With Propaganda doctrine, people almost always get first some unlock to support their infantry such as the Officer upgrade (1CP) then Panzerfaust for Volksturms (1CP) and/or StuG (2CP), sometimes they also go for the propaganda abilities (1CP) or the "Inspired Assault" ability (1CP) to have even more support for their infantry. Not necessarily unlocked in this order but you get the picture. So players practically must spend at least 4CPs on something else to be able to survive to Tiger stage and so they realistically don't unlock Tigers untill 8CPs (sometimes even later). Considering that Tigers are worse than Pershings, 8CPs vs 9CPs sounds acceptable. Similar goes for BK doc where I dare to say players pretty much never spend their first 6CPs to unlock Panthers.

Even if you can unlock something relatively soon, it doesn't mean doing so is the most viable thing to do.
OrderLordTank wrote:
10 Oct 2020, 11:13
Also the improved m36 jackson version has in fact worse armor or at least hit points than a sherman.I lost a full h.p. m36 with (armor doctrines exclusive) improved armor upgrades from a single panzershreck or panzerfaust shot that penetrated it frontally.
The M36 is slightly improved Wolverine hull with 90mm gun mounted and it is made for ambushing tanks and fast movemet, not for head-on-head combat so it doesn't have strong armor. The situation you describe is similar as if I said that my Nashorn got blown up by a Bazooka team - it wouldn't be a surprising outcome.
Also, Panzerschreck deals to M36 270-360 damage per hit, M36 has 600HP so you would normally need to hits. It was probably the 5% lucky shot. If schrecks one-shot M36 regularly, then try to save some replays and post them here so we can look into it.
That is true, the problem is, as armor doctrine yuo can't go for pershings (same whith propaganda and tigers) as soon as you wish because you need artillery tank commander, cheaper sherman production, war machine etcetera... to survive mid game vs camouflage SAtugIV and F2 spam, by the time you think you can go for pershings you will see panthers or tigers on the field and you will have a sad 75mm jumbo, now you can plus Axis heavy tank unlock vs Armor, Armor does not have a strong mid game combo to hold vs tigers and panthers till Pershing's Arrive.

Post Reply