Does SE need changes right now?

[Krieger Blitzer]

- Is it really that weird? P4's are only like 5 inches taller than an M18, I'd imagine it'd be similarly easy to camo (especially when compared to something like an Elefant). In a macro sense, the P4 would function in pretty much the exact same role that a Hetzer currently does, as a slightly better TD option that is still quite cost efficient. In a micro sense, you get a tank that can engage both inf and tanks with a decent level of effectiveness while still having the ability to ambush, similar to an M18. Again, having a noncasemate tank capable of ambush would definitely help differentiate SE from other Axis docs, as it would be the only doc with a unit that functions in this manner.

in my opinion; it's extremely weird and doesn't fit.. also it's not about the size of the tank but rather the role.
Pz4 is a medium tank, which - in no way, shape or form - should ever be converted into a TD.

Otherwise we will start seeing Tigers, Shermans & Pershings (perhaps also Churchills) with camo.. cuz why not!
Elefant is a TD so that's why it currently does what it does.

===================================

Speaking of the suggestions by Hawks, i prefer no changes done to current SE doc except increasing the cost of Hummel or making it buildable.

EDIT:

3. The assault and demolition branch now got extended by the Elephant. The Elephant would now fill the role of an assault gun like tank rather than a TD. (which was actually its main role). The Tank would ofc lose its ability to ambush since it would work now as a mobile rolling fortress that covers the infantry from enemie tanks.

You want a Heavy Tank Destroyer to become a useless handicapped Assault Gun that barely even moves???
Literally everywhere on the internet, and in every game; the Elefant is categorized\defined as a "Heavy Tank Destroyer" so since when did you make it an Assault Gun??!! How is it even an Assault Gun when it lacks mobility?? I'm bewildered.

[Warhawks97]

in my opinion; it's extremely weird and doesn't fit.. also it's not about the size of the tank but rather the role.
Pz4 is a medium tank, which - in no way, shape or form - should ever be converted into a TD.

Otherwise we will start seeing Tigers, Shermans & Pershings (perhaps also Churchills) with camo.. cuz why not!
Elefant is a TD so that's why it currently does what it does.

In Theory all tanks could perhaps be camoed as every mulipurpose tank could be used from an ambushed position. True.
But thats not my intention. The Panzer IV however wouldnt be OP from an ambush position and add a unique feature to the doctrine.
But generally i have no clear thoughts on it so far. But probably agree that we would keep the tanks in their main roles.

My all out favorit solution however would be that only AT guns and low silhouete Tanks like Hetzer and Jagdpanzer IV would camo. Gun ranges would be increased to arround 80 for most tanks with with long barrled 75 mm guns and bigger as long as they dont move. So ambush would not mean to make a huge tank or vehicle invisible with magical cloaking devices, but instead shooting from the fog of war of your enemie would essentially mean to ambush your enemie. I played vcoh recently and there i felt like getting ambushed by marders with their long range simply because i couldnt see them due to lack of forward elements.
Hetzers and Jagdpanzer IV´s could be fitted with camo nets which would make them really invisible when in cover and not moving...

But anyways, thats just dreams.


===================================

Speaking of the suggestions by Hawks, i prefer no changes done to current SE doc except increasing the cost of Hummel or making it buildable.

which wouldnt fix the incredible awful design of this doc and how boring it is to play as and against it. Its a waste dump consisting of lots of randomly fixed, or isolated, abilities. There is no real design idea behind other than just bombing the crap out of everything and spam beuteshermans later on since you have no ammo/fuel left after the nonstop arty usage.

You want a Heavy Tank Destroyer to become a useless handicapped Assault Gun that barely even moves???
Literally everywhere on the internet, and in every game; the Elefant is categorized\defined as a "Heavy Tank Destroyer" so since when did you make it an Assault Gun??!! How is it even an Assault Gun when it lacks mobility?? I'm bewildered.

Call it assault gun type TD. Yes, its a TD, and the stug assault gun was fitted with a long barrel gun in order to use it as TD. And later casemate TD´s were based on that assault gun idea. Any armroed turretless TD is based on the idea of an assault gun that supports infantry in the offense, let it be a stuh against emplacment or a so called Panzerjäger (Jagdpanzer). The stuh also means Sturmhaubitze or Storm Howitzer but its still labled an assault gun. The Elephant is equiped with a gun dedicated to destroy gun but its still based on the idea of an assault gun that supports infantry in the offense.

So while both, Nashorn and Elephant are Tank Hunters, one is an Self Proppelled Anti-Tank-Gun used from defensive positions only that could only fire from a stationary position, otherwise its gun was fixed for traveling, and then there was the heavily armored Elephant supposed to work offensively as an assault gun to support friendly infantry. Elephant and Jagdpanther had essentially the very same role and that was supporting infantry during offensive operations.
So Nashorn and Elephant had nothing in common in their role and operationally intended use, hence different branches.
However, the Elephant performed poorly in its role due to its weight and lack of mobility and thus got used heavily in the defensive. However, its afterall an offensive weapon, essentially a moving fortress.

One branch is offense that is based on infantry supported by assault guns like Stuh and Elephant, one to clear emplacments, one to clear the path from enemie tanks. But both heavily in an infantry support role.

Nashorn, Marder and Hetzer are so far purely defensive weapoons designed to strike from prepared defensive positions (Nashorn) and ambush (Hetzer).

Perhaps dont get crazy just because you heae "Assault Gun". I dont even know what you understand by that, but to me its a unit designed to support infantry in offensive operations against specific targets.

On a side note: Russian ISU 152 and ISU 122 were both assault guns, however, the ISU 122 was a better TD due to its trajectory compared to the ISU 152 which still had a better trajectory than the previous SU 152, but performed still better in its HE role vs soft targets.
ISU 85 and ISU 100 were also assault guns, but purely designed to destroy tanks.

[CGarr]

I am so glad to see you both, CGarr and Mofeta in the forum again. I was afraid you have also already abandoned it entirely.

And thx for the detailed feedback. And i already set the past days on the desk thinking deeply about SE doc. Bad thing is, in 1-2 weeks university work starts again so i will be short in time then.

Good luck with the upcoming semester, I'm in the middle of one and it's going a bit rough

1. Ammo HT removed as unlock. Artillery barrages in general would increase by average +10-15, sometimes more. However, when investing into ammo HT´s artillery in general can be used at riughly the prices we have been used to accross all factions.
2. The TD branch has been extended. There is now an unlock that enables vehicles and and Tanks like the Panzer IV to ambush. so this doc would have a unique way of using Panzer IV´s as TD´s.
3. The assault and demolition branch now got extended by the Elephant. The Elephant would now fill the role of an assault gun like tank rather than a TD. (which was actually its main role). The Tank would ofc lose its ability to ambush since it would work now as a mobile rolling fortress that covers the infantry from enemie tanks.
4. Alternatively to the cheaper Marder unlock could be a vet unlock for TD´s. I Think we should drop marder cost to 320 MP anyways since i feel like 360 is too much. After upgrade of the Panzerjäger Command building the cost would automatically drop down to 320 MP or even 300. So there wouldnt be a need anymore to unlock a cheaper production via CP´s.
5. The Infantry upgrade would automatically enable infantry to use incendiary ammunition and Flamethrower

I like these ideas, currently working on the revised tree but I'll incorporate these as well. Still a bit iffy on which unlock should include the ambush ability, but I'm willing to playtest it with the setup that you proposed.

in my opinion; it's extremely weird and doesn't fit.. also it's not about the size of the tank but rather the role.
Pz4 is a medium tank, which - in no way, shape or form - should ever be converted into a TD.

So your only arguments are "it feels weird" and handwaving towards arbitrary naming conventions? Seriously, go to any forum or source document where people talk about tank naming conventions and you'll see how inconsistently they are applied, as well as how little of an impact it has on how the vehicle is actually used.

Many officers often used their "TD's" in a fire support role to just shell enemy positions with HE, doesn't seem like the naming convention stopped them from doing so. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M10_tank_destroyer : "Typical missions included providing indirect artillery fire by augmenting divisional artillery units, following and supporting the lead elements of an infantry assault, attacking obstacles such as fortifications..."). TD and medium tank are just naming conventions, they're not laws.

Take the firefly for example, it's technically a medium tank, but nothing is stopping it from being primarily used to destroy tanks (both in CoH and IRL), just as a TD does. Another example is the M18, technically a TD, but it's obviously not bad at killing inf (again, both in CoH and IRL).

The same logic can be applied to long barrel P4s, nothing is stopping you from using it in a TD role, its has a nearly identical gun to the hetzer (if you want to get really technical, the P4 J's gun has better pen than the hetzer's, and both use the same ammo).

Otherwise we will start seeing Tigers, Shermans & Pershings (perhaps also Churchills) with camo.. cuz why not!

Firstly, not sure why you're acting like this would be the end of the world; again, camo nets exist, and there's no magic label telling the crews that they can only use them on TD's. From a game design perspective, there's other mods that have done this with 0 resulting issues, and there's even examples in BK of this being completely fine. Again, look at the M18, a tank that performs very similarly to how a P4 with ambush would (sure, no armor, but it costs substantially less and it's fast, so it's on similar footing in terms of survivability).

Secondly, we're suggesting this specifically because multiple people have stated that they feel like SE doc's mobile anti-armor options are too similar to Def doc's. Nowhere in this thread has anybody suggested "just give every tank in the game camo", this is just slippery slope fallacy.

You want a Heavy Tank Destroyer to become a useless handicapped Assault Gun that barely even moves???
Literally everywhere on the internet, and in every game; the Elefant is categorized\defined as a "Heavy Tank Destroyer" so since when did you make it an Assault Gun??!! How is it even an Assault Gun when it lacks mobility?? I'm bewildered.

The Jagdtiger is a "Heavy Tank Destroyer", but it doesn't have camo. Why is this such a controversial topic to you? Both have a shit ton of armor.

On a related note, this got me thinking about how pretty much nobody uses the Jagdtiger on PS doc except when they want a heavy door knocker. Should we just swap the Jagdtiger and Elefant?

I feel kinda stupid for not having thought of this before, there's no point in changing how the Elefant functions when we have another (currently rarely used) unit that fits the role perfectly and could take it's place without much controversy. I think everyone can agree, that tank is an amazing bullet sponge, and it's big ass HE shot fits with the whole Assault Demolition branch in the doctrine tree Hawks proposed.

[CGarr]

Waiting on some feedback from friends, so it's a bit unfinished but here is my revised tree so far:

SE doc tree revision 040322.png (103.52 KiB) Viewed 1712 times

Need to fill the question mark slot, no idea what to put there or what line to connect it to.




Was thinking one of the following for the remaining slot:

- passive camo for pgrens and assault pgrens
----- branches from the assault pio upgrade

- Sniper for SS squad
----- branches from the assault pio upgrade

- doublestacked teller mines and anti-inf mines (same model, just twice as much damage and higher cost), as well as firebomb traps for inf similar to the one the schwimm has
----- branches from booby trap unlock

- increased defensive stats for kettens and obsv HT
----- branches from the observation HT

- vampyre HT (prob OP as shit on an arty doc, so I'm iffy on this one)
----- branches from the observation HT





Changes from Hawks tree:

- moved a bunch of shit around to better reflect the times at which things would actually be useful in a game:
------ mortar bunker last seems kinda wasteful, I feel like it's more valuable if you get it down mid game, but doing so would be really difficult if it was at the end of the branch.
------ moved the TD's around. Hetzer unlocks first (it is less versatile than the camo P4 option, weird to see it be last unlock rather than first even though I understand Hawk's reasoning)
- Removed firestorm, as we'd have the arty call-in from the ammo HT



- top right slot is binos and detection of vehicles in adjacent sectors for officer squad (latter part subject to change, wanted more than just binos there to justify the 2 CP cost)

- replaced Elefant with JT since it makes more sense as a heavy support gun, the latter doesn't get much use in PS doc anyways and this doc needs a meatshield more than a heavily armored 'sniper' tank

[Consti255]

I would definitley like the passive camo for panzergrens, heavy grens and assault pios for that unlock and swap some CPs arround.
Maybe just 1 for the top right corner bino unlock and make the camo unlock cost 2 CP.

[Warhawks97]

Waiting on some feedback from friends, so it's a bit unfinished but here is my revised tree so far:

The first thing i maybe should have brought up that i am generally trying to keep unlocks from top to bottom and perhaps left to right to have an overall more organized unlock system rather than unlocks spreading in all directions which makes doctrine reading super difficult when watching at them first before deciding which doc to go.

Alright, lets begin.

Left denial arty branch:
Does it need one more unlock next to the four it has? I mean vampire would be OP and should have a totally different function than it has now. A Bunch of axis teams already play Luft+ def in order to use vampire to coordinate def docs arty.
SS squad sniper? I think it has caused issues and when recrewing weapon teams, those were sometimes filled with snipers only. Ask Dondreon about more details. So no comeback for squads with integrated snipers. Sniper ability would be a different thing though when this squad would get a single scoped G43 or 2 via an unlock, but idk.
Increase survivability? The HT stays usually far enough in the backyard with its huge spotting range and krads would barely feeld a difference once spotted i think.
But i agree with the sector arty/bunker swap. Sector arty will be a pretty powerfull ability since it would literally sweep and blast the entire sector for several sectors instead of landing GPS guided ammunition on single targets in the sector.

SE branch:
I would also keep the SE branch with 4 unlocks and maintain the sabo squad. Its such a core unit since it has satchels and these explosives for houses that destroys the house and everything in it literally entirely. Cost 75 ammo and is a super unique feature of this sabo squad. So if you wouldnt mind, i would keep the SE branch large and a core branch of this doc.
Perhaps the ability to camo your infantry would be unlocked along with the sabo squad. 6 CP in total for sabo squads and "all infantry ambush" seems fair to me.


Demo branch:
The JT is a pretty cool idea. You are also right about the names and roles of tanks. The name is one thing, usage another. Panthers and Fireflies could easily be called TD´s as their main role was to knock out tanks while certain TD´s worked as arty (m10) or assault guns/door knockers.

However, idk if it makes sense to have three units with big ass HE in one branch while still lacking AT options. Elephant is the better AT unit due to its rate of fire than a Jagdtiger. On the other hand the JT could work as an upscaled like version of the stuh lmao. But still, why we need three big as HE units? What kind of door do we expect to open?

I also wanna come up with new TS doc ideas that i am working on.

Top right unlock:
I think having more recon units (see recon topic) would change a lot of things. Also the observer HT has a really big as sighting range, so idk if we need even more spotting unlocks in a doctrine. Also i want to add the sdkfz 234/4 75 mm Pak puma as doctrinal unit that combines scout capabilities with anti tank.


TD branch:
I was just about to reconfigurate something.
First of all i would love to test the Hetzer as a final TD. It would be a completely new design. Also i want the Hetzer being as cheap as possible. Literally for a cost a Marder has like being literally an Marder replacment for the late game. Being an early game unit would just set the price again at about 400-450 with which i personally struggle with as SE right now. Often times i only have this one Hetzer that has to carry me. So its not really a cheap AT option for the late game i wish to have it.

1. So, the first unlock would be cloaking tactics that enables Panzer IV´s and Grens to camo.
2. the second would be perhaps be the Nashorn already for in total 4 CP (call me crazy, but we have docs that have a tigers for 4 CP. Nashorn is already vulnerable to a lot of things.)
3. The third one would be the Puma with Sdkfz 234/4 with 75 mm pak. This unit will not only be a pure TD kind of unit, but also gets a few observation abilities because this unit is afterall a recon vehicle. I also find it quite too powerfull asset to be simply a non-doc unit for the early game that overshadows Marders and often times even Hetzers and other TD´s due to its punch and mobility (and crazy veterancy boosts btw).
I think it would kinda be a cool doctrinal feature to have a TD/Recon unit that can scout, shoot and run.
4. The last unlock would then be a Hetzer.


Marder cost reduction will be in place once the Jäger-command gets its production upgrade.

[MarKr]

Waiting on some feedback from friends, so it's a bit unfinished but here is my revised tree so far:

As I look at this topic, there are quite some inconsistencies between the reported "problems" and suggested solutions to them. For example, one of the reasons for changes to SE was something like "this doc has nothing to do with Scorched Earth tactics" and then came a list of changes to make the doc more "SE themed". I mean...if the basis of the "problem" is the name then we can simply change the name to something like "mobile arty, defense and mines tactics" and the "problem" is solved without any need for changes. But on a more serious note...

Someone said here that the TD branch is too similar to Def doc branch and so there are some suggested changes to that, but at the same time this suggestion gives the static 105 howitzers to SE and removes the Hotchkiss. Def doc's arty options are static 105, mobile 150mm (grille) and offmap "orbital strike" (offmap hummel barrage). With the suggested change the SE's arty options will be changed from mobile rocket arty, mobile 150mm and offmap orbital strike (sector arty) to static 105mm, mobile 150mm and orbital offmap. So doesn't this make the arty options of this doc pretty much the same as those of Def doc? Sure, they are unlocked in different branches and armor options are not arty options but the complaint about "too similar armor options" is already there so how does this not prepare ground for "too similar arty options" complaint in the future?

People in other topics complained about "camo everywhere" which they see as a problem and a killer of the "fun factor" for them. Some of the suggestions here ask for camo for tanks and also for the main combat infantry - pretty much creating a "camo-focused" doctrine. Apart from the obvious complaints that will come from the people who already complain about camo, isn't this going to lead to more campy games? If SE will be able to camo their TDs, StuGs, tanks, PGrens and Assault Grens (+ all the other units that already can use camo), won't people be afraid to push anywhere because "camoed units can be lurking behind every corner"? Won't people rather choose to arty every place where they expect a camoed units? Because that is what used to happen in the past - rather arty everything than risk losing my units.

Given that there were complaints about the focus/theme of the current SE - what is the focus/theme of this suggested doc then? A Scorched Earth tactics (boobytraps, disabling points, mines, Sabotage squad), supported with artillery (105, Hummel, Nebels, sector arty), ambushes (StuGs, TDs, camoed infantry) and strong defenses (all the Hetzers, Nashorns, heavy bunkers) but also viable assault options (CP-buffed assault pios and grens, stugs, JT)? What is the downside of this doc?

A side note:

- Sniper for SS squad

It is not possible to add a specific soldier type into a squad with an upgrade or unlock. It is possible to expand squads (such as with the "7 men squads" upgrade) but this automatically adds another soldier that the squad already has, so in this squad it would be just another Stormtrooper with their stock weapon. But even if there was a way, the sniper was removed for a reason so putting it back would make little sense.

[Krieger Blitzer]

I wish i had enough time to respond all posts...

So your only arguments are "it feels weird" and handwaving towards arbitrary naming conventions? Seriously, go to any forum or source document where people talk about tank naming conventions and you'll see how inconsistently they are applied, as well as how little of an impact it has on how the vehicle is actually used.

That's not my type of argument actually.. it's yours.
Your reasoning was "it would feel unique" for SE to have Pz4 with camo, i answered that it would feel weird instead... There is nothing unique about making a medium tank behaving like a TD when the doctrine already has TDs, unless ur definition of "unique" could mean that Storms should have "wings" because.. this won't break the balance after all, as u say. They will be able to fly but exposed to incoming fire! So why not.

The same logic can be applied to long barrel P4s, nothing is stopping you from using it in a TD role, its has a nearly identical gun to the hetzer (if you want to get really technical, the P4 J's gun has better pen than the hetzer's, and both use the same ammo).

Ye, also nothing is stopping us from giving Panther camo, it has same gun as JPz L70 so why not??

Nowhere in this thread has anybody suggested "just give every tank in the game camo", this is just slippery slope fallacy.

We did not see it in this topic, ye.. but at this rate, we will see it in future ones.

From a game design perspective

Glad u mentioned this, because.. did u know this is actually my job? I am studying video game design in Birmingham University, UK. And in my opinion, while i appreciate the brainstorming.. yet, most of the suggestions provided really hurt my eyes.

The Jagdtiger is a "Heavy Tank Destroyer", but it doesn't have camo. Why is this such a controversial topic to you? Both have a shit ton of armor.

You used the tank size argument, so i came back at u with ur own logic.. Diamler & Jeeps are smaller in size than Pz4, Hellcat & Hetzers.. so why don't they have camo as well?? You see, that's the pattern of discussion u used urself to support ur own suggestions... So, i am glad to see that u think this pattern makes no sense.


That said, the Elefant is a sniper TD unit with an accurate gun.. JT has bigger 128mm gun but inaccurate, so it's more of a breakthrough TD rather than a defensive one; thus it has no camo.

@Hawks

There is no real design idea behind other than just bombing the crap out of everything and spam beuteshermans later on since you have no ammo/fuel left after the nonstop arty usage.

And i'd support you if the suggestions were fair, but the ideas given make things only worse by far.

[Warhawks97]

As I look at this topic, there are quite some inconsistencies between the reported "problems" and suggested solutions to them. For example, one of the reasons for changes to SE was something like "this doc has nothing to do with Scorched Earth tactics" and then came a list of changes to make the doc more "SE themed". I mean...if the basis of the "problem" is the name then we can simply change the name to something like "mobile arty, defense and mines tactics" and the "problem" is solved without any need for changes. But on a more serious note...

I do like the idea of SE and would like to play a doctrine that feels like an actual SE doc. I dont want to always only change names. It doesnt change the fact that the doctrine is outright stupidly designed and unfun to play or to play against. Then the random unlocks and a weird tree that literally spreads in all directions that consists purely of artillery... artillery right, left, everywhere like cancer. The doctrine literally dies a arty cancer death. Its literally just arty without any brain or concept. A name change doesnt make a product better.

So your suggestion sounds to me like a marketing idea. The product doesnt do what it is promissing. Oh, lets just change the name, keep the product a BS product but who cares.
Like you sell a anti aging cream that doesnt make you look younger and people complain about it. So you change the name into "face cream" and keep selling the nonsense product.

Someone said here that the TD branch is too similar to Def doc branch and so there are some suggested changes to that, but at the same time this suggestion gives the static 105 howitzers to SE and removes the Hotchkiss. Def doc's arty options are static 105, mobile 150mm (grille) and offmap "orbital strike" (offmap hummel barrage). With the suggested change the SE's arty options will be changed from mobile rocket arty, mobile 150mm and offmap orbital strike (sector arty) to static 105mm, mobile 150mm and orbital offmap. So doesn't this make the arty options of this doc pretty much the same as those of Def doc? Sure, they are unlocked in different branches and armor options are not arty options but the complaint about "too similar armor options" is already there so how does this not prepare ground for "too similar arty options" complaint in the future?

Wait with that grille. I am not done with doctrine suggestions, so hold your beer for a while. Def would also get a revision to get away from "i spam 105 asap" doctrine to an actual doctrine that is focusing more on defense.


1. SE would retain the 210 mm nebler though.
2. On top of that the with the 105 arty in SE doctrine should hopefully work in conjunction with the arty HT. I was even thinking about linking the 105 with sector arty so that you activate the 105 on a sector like CW overwatch and the 105 fires at targets that enters the sector. If you have two 105, you can use both. Or two types of sector arty, one used to barrage an entire sector before the enemie can take it that is used via the HT and at the same time 105 gets an ability that "overwatches" the friendly sector.
In anyway, Sector arty is not going to be a 2 minute long sector denial ability firing GPS shells from orbit via Rail guns. Instead it would obliterate the sector entirely for about a minute so that no one can stay inside of it.
3. Also check the entire branch. Def doc arty branch or arty denial branch is entirely different for what the def doc is going to get. One unit might be the same. But thats like saying: "Oh, TS doc and Prop doc have Tigers and KT, the doctrines are the same." Or RAF and AB. Are they the same just because they both have recon flights and rocket runs??
And also, you have made M10 and shermans to be always the same unlock accross all US factions. You have created very repetetive gameplays with always the same "unlock all arty/ unlock all tanks asap" system.
So get the full picture and how branches are supposed to work and to define a doctrine as whole.
4. The Factions would be, hopefully, largely different. So its not just the doctrines, but also the factions, esspecially the two axis factions, that would work totally different right from its core. And just because two unlocks are the same in each faction (like 105 howitzer or Tigers or whatever) doesnt mean both factions are no quite literally the same. I mean for real, for years now you have managed to mirror the factions with similiar tec, tiering, unlocks etc and filled with units that are soooo fucking similiar to each other.

People in other topics complained about "camo everywhere" which they see as a problem and a killer of the "fun factor" for them. Some of the suggestions here ask for camo for tanks and also for the main combat infantry - pretty much creating a "camo-focused" doctrine. Apart from the obvious complaints that will come from the people who already complain about camo, isn't this going to lead to more campy games? If SE will be able to camo their TDs, StuGs, tanks, PGrens and Assault Grens (+ all the other units that already can use camo), won't people be afraid to push anywhere because "camoed units can be lurking behind every corner"? Won't people rather choose to arty every place where they expect a camoed units? Because that is what used to happen in the past - rather arty everything than risk losing my units.

That camo is in general so extremely powerfull is not our fault actually. I know even in vcoh ambush added some boosts the the Hellcat for example, but Bk carried on. These are the boosts ambush provides:
1. Penetration
2. Damage
3. accuracy
4. Vision
5. Range
7. Rate of fire
8. Harder to hit by return fire
9. Ambush in mid combat magically
10. Camo big ass vehicles in flat open terrain (AT Halftracks)

What i would do instead:
I already said that ambush is an extremely powerfull offensive tool actually. Go close to your enemie, go ambush, boom.
You already have the most powerfull ambush system in place which i (and kwok) suggested to chhange:

1. Ambush only grants you a bit additional vision and accuracy. If you want more pen, let the target get closer and try use special AP ammo. But being able to strike targets from even greater distances with even greater penetration is simply nuts.
2. A lot of units would lose their ambush mode unless special ambush techniques are unlocked or camo nets bought.
3. The main "ambush" would be to try to shoot from out of the fog of war. But that would require larger gun ranges to which i see no issues. We have long range camo shots (EG Jagdpanther) with insane boosts to an already insanely powerfull weapon, long range AT emplacments (85 usually) and so on. So magically go invisble wouldnt work and if then only for AT guns and tiny TD like Hetzers with camo nets. But Elephants, Jagdpanthers and other huge tanks going invisible just like that in the middle of a literally plain field (that has one tiny crater that apparently is enough to hide an entire Elephant quite literally) to hide a tank wouldnt be the case anymore.
4. We have crawling infantry with Thompsons and zooks or with STGS etc that can go invisible right in front of the feets of an enemie soldier which apparently is ok for you. I only suggest to have Grens with Rifles or perhaps some STG and MP40 to hide in cover and you say its OP.


But you blame me of creating an "OP ambush doctrine".

Given that there were complaints about the focus/theme of the current SE - what is the focus/theme of this suggested doc then? A Scorched Earth tactics (boobytraps, disabling points, mines, Sabotage squad), supported with artillery (105, Hummel, Nebels, sector arty), ambushes (StuGs, TDs, camoed infantry) and strong defenses (all the Hetzers, Nashorns, heavy bunkers) but also viable assault options (CP-buffed assault pios and grens, stugs, JT)? What is the downside of this doc?

1. The infantry by far not as elite as many others like late game Rangers or storms that carry all kind of weapons with lots of HP and boosts.
The suggested boost here is far away from that. Mainly buffing the assault pios with some slight HP buff, making abilities cheaper and add flamehtrowers and flame nades to grens. The infantry doesnt even have Schrecks to defend themselves vs vehicles etc.
2. Normal Bunkers would entirely disappear from PE faction. Its nonesne to have them still in place.
PE Grens in SE doc can build bunkers if i remember correctly but are lacking basic Sandbags. How silly is that pls?
3. No fanzy off-maps that give you tons of momentum like the current firestorm can bring you out of nothing anywhere.
4. The offense doesnt have some swift, powerfull multirole tanks. So when you move on for an attack, the enemie has lots of time to prepare. Getting stuh and Elephant will be quite costly and elephant is afterall a target to planes and enemie arty. Both, Hummel and Elephant will easily cost you over 200 fuel and a nice ammount of fuel upkeep.
5. Getting everything will not only be costly, but will take a while since for instance Hummel, Sector arty, Hetzer and Sabo squad will sit on the bottom of each branch. As of right now you need just a handfull of CP in order to get Hetzers and Elephants along with firestorm and sector arty.


So all in all the doctrine relys on dirty traps, hidden TD´s striking from a distance but being squishy, defensive artillery and an offensive style that moves rather slowly forward with turtle like assault guns and slow speed. There is no high HP super elite inf, no AT for inf, No panther or Tiger paired with crazy buffs or debuffs for the enemie and so on.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Quick summary to last post by Hawks:

"Can we re-balance the whole game to what i think is better plz ?? Remove flank speed, remove camo, remove current def doc, remove current SE, remove off-maps, remove Bk Mod & create Hawks version..."

And once again going over the camo & ambuah etc, although we already discussed that.. to which it has been quite obvious that the current ambush\camo system isn't even a problem anymore given how tanks now get revealed instantly after 1 shot & take way longer to re-hide, not to mention the spotting tools literally exist everywhere in the game to reveal crawling inf & hiding units in general, to the point that currently ambushed TDs & crawling inf are sometimes actually pointless to use.

Don't take this personally the wrong way Hawks, but i am very against these suggestions.

[Warhawks97]

Glad u mentioned this, because.. did u know this is actually my job? I am studying video game design in Birmingham University, UK. And in my opinion, while i appreciate the brainstorming.. yet, most of the suggestions provided really hurt my eyes.

I would actually think that it would be you who would stare at the doctrines and factions and see how poorly they are deisgned. Perhaps not all, but most. Unlocks randomly added into doctrines, doesnt matter if they fit or not, chaotic structures, sometimes it requires CP just to get poor unit (eg unlocking F2 tank in some docs) while other docs have insanely powerfull stand alone unlocks such as Armor docs 1 CP combat engi unlock or CW Canadian Army doctrine canadian Inf vet upgrade.

Whenever i look at the doctrines in BK, i am like: "Whats the actual idea behind them?" There is now.
One example here from germany: We have lots of streets that get some modest "repairs" over the years that are just awfull to drive. In Germany we call this "Flickenteppich". My Translator says "rag rug" in English. BK doctrines are in many ways just such a "Flickenteppich" that i would almost call it a crime. SE is probably the worst of it. As i said, i am facing SE literally nonstop over the past weeks and its always the same silly boring dogshit.


We have put so much effort into trying to "balance everything" that we have a situation where a lot of doctrines lack a clear design. Essentially being a huge "Flickenteppich" (rag rug) as a resuhlt of so called "Balance fixes". Same goes for the factions. When i came to BK PE for instance had early Mortar HT, CW early mortar Pit. Some called it balanced, others not. I was fine with it. Today we delayed the PE Mortar HT so that it comes not early than that of any other faction and CW mortar pit has never been seen again (just like the M5 Recce). Instead all 4 factions can start immediatly with normal infantry mortars.

That said, the Elefant is a sniper TD unit with an accurate gun.. JT has bigger 128mm gun but inaccurate, so it's more of a breakthrough TD rather than a defensive one; thus it has no camo.

Both were designed to destroy armor. The JT got the 128 mm due to the next generation of russian tanks such as the IS2. So in principle both are primarily tank killers to fire from range.

The Elephant is also a breakthrough and infantry support TD. Thats why it has this big ass armor. Move forward together with infantry, resists all AT fire and fire the 88 mostly vs enemie armor, but this gun happens to be also a nice HE delivery system.

@Hawks
And i'd support you if the suggestions were fair, but the ideas given make things only worse by far.

Oh, i remove firestorm, move Hummel a down the unlock line and in a different branch as to not have a 5 unlocks in a row which all have one goal: "Rain more arty" and give its artillery an actual role in each branch.

Ofc i am making things worse. I only try to get this doctrine away from 24/7 bombardment and focus more on the SE part as well as giving them a branch that gives them at least some offensive capabilities without sacraficing too much of its vital defense units.

Why dont you create you own SE and add two more artillery unlocks which are all put into the already existing one in order to get even more. You can remove the mines from vehicles and mortar Bunker since i havent seen them in any of the SE games i was forced to play against (which was literally every time someone took SE).

Quick summary to last post by Hawks:

"Can we re-balance the whole game to what i think is better plz ?? Remove flank speed, remove camo, remove current def doc, remove current SE, remove off-maps, remove Bk Mod & create Hawks version..."

Its not about balance. Read my follow up answer. The Game and most doctrines have become a real nightmare of quick balance fixes that we in germany would call such a thing "Flickenteppich" (Rag Rug?) but barely a well designed game or doctrine. Its pure chaos to be honest.

I also didnt say "remove camo" or "flank speed" or whatever you claim here
Markr: "Dont add too much camoed units Hawks"
Tiger one post later: "Hawks want to remove camo, stop him!".
Like really guys?

What i want is:
1. that vehicles should not be able to camo in flat open terrain
2. Largest big as tanks dont camo so easily everywhere without special camo unlocks/upgrades. Best example are Elephant and camo. Like: "Oh, there is a tiny crater barely large enough to hide a soldier. Lets quickly move our Elephant there and make it invisible. I always cant stop by laughing when i see such things happening.
3. Camo being not the best offensive weapon due to its insane range/damage/accuracy/Pen rof boost. Camo itself is freaking powerfull.
4. Flank speed being not even as broken in vcoh, so why we have a worse flank speed system than vcoh has when BK is supposed to make things better?

So what you are saying is bullshit. I mean what is BK mod? BK standing for Blitzkrieg. So i would love to have cool doctrines that provide various options and not just pseudo opions aka "if i dont unlock tanks, i am dead" and which are well designed instead of being a said "rag rug", no repetetive unlocks aka M10 or 76 Sherman, different faction designs instead of having mirrored factions, a more dynamic gameplay rather than rushing down the same because its so effective and ww1 scenarios.
I am just having still a passion for this game. As i said, many once did.

And once again going over the camo & ambuah etc, although we already discussed that.. to which it has been quite obvious that the current ambush\camo system isn't even a problem anymore given how tanks now get revealed instantly after 1 shot & take way longer to re-hide, not to mention the spotting tools literally exist everywhere in the game to reveal crawling inf & hiding units in general, to the point that currently ambushed TDs & crawling inf are sometimes actually pointless to use.

Don't take this personally the wrong way Hawks, but i am very against these suggestions.

Markr said people might get afraid of going anywhere when we add too much ambush. A concern i can share with him. But according to you it wouldnt be a problem having literally everything go camo since we can so easily uncloak everything at an instant

Ambush remains a thing, esspecially when you can counter enemie vision. Ofc, if you dont get the upper hand in intelligence and hide units on the same map on the same spot over and over, things might get tricky for your camo attempts.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Camo being not the best offensive weapon due to its insane range/damage/accuracy/Pen rof boost.

And some TDs are only useful thanks to these boosts.. specifically the range bonus.
Your suggestion instead was to remove all bonuses (apart from accuracy & sight) & literally make them all sitting ducks... Long range tanks hitting from ambush are usually expensive & are especially designed exactly for that, and u want them totally naked, with no purpose or role.. other than sitting there waiting for arty strike or being outnumbered at close range.

And big tanks being able to camo in craters isn't a problem either.. because either u break the camo altogether or accept the fact that this is just a game... And wasn't it CGAR who used the argument that technically u can hide anything & not just TDs?? If it's about the visuals.. we can add some trees on top of the Elefant to make it more appealing.

Currently in the game, from a blance point of view.. camo\ambushed units are not OP, and are countered in various ways, the camo system was already nerfed several times & currently it's in a good state. You only want to change it for "realism" concerns.

Its not about balance. Read my follow up answer. The Game and most doctrines have become a real nightmare of quick balance fixes that we in germany would call such a thing "Flickenteppich" (Rag Rug?) but barely a well designed game or doctrine. Its pure chaos to be honest.

Your opinion, but i don't share it... i think the game now is very balanced & actually fun.
Arty can be annoying, yes.. but better than any times in the past, compared to old Bk Mod times.
Moreover, if it's really not about balance & just about design.. then i am not ready to keep going in circles again & again for another overhaul (which won't be the last at this rate) just because somebody thinks the game should taste better... Sometimes this "randomness" in doctrines, is actually what makes it fun.. not everything has to be standardized.. not to mention most of the suggestions given only reflect a certain playstyle.

Markr said people might get afraid of going anywhere when we add too much ambush. A concern i can share with him. But according to you it wouldnt be a problem having literally everything go camo since we can so easily uncloak everything at an instant

Untrue; I was against giving camo for Pz4, so no.. i am not "OK" with everything going camo.

[Warhawks97]

And some TDs are only useful thanks to these boosts.. specifically the range bonus.
Your suggestion instead was to remove all bonuses (apart from accuracy & sight) & literally make them all sitting ducks... Long range tanks hitting from ambush are usually expensive & are especially designed exactly for that, and u want them totally naked, with no purpose or role.. other than sitting there waiting for arty strike or being outnumbered at close range.

If you have the upper hand in vision, accuracy and the guranteed first hit, how does it make you a "sitting duck"?
I have already said that tank warefare could be better if tanks could engage each other from a larger range, IF they have the vision to do so. So if you fire from a range beyond the actual vision range of your opponent, that already gives you a huge advantage esspecially when you are the first to fire, ambush or not, doesnt matter. On top of that many of these tanks have auch a powefull gun by default that any boost to it is like turning it into an atomic bomb to kill ants. Elephant is just one example.
Like: "Oh, we have a big ass armored tank with big ass gun that insta kills everything 90% of the times".... lets turn it into an super boring ambush unit to make sure it really only sits arround".
I think camo more often than not turns tanks like these into sitting ducks simply because every arty rains down on them as soon as are seen cloaking somewhere.

But you pointed out another thing: expensive. Yeah, lets take an otherwise cheap tank, add some ambush that adds insane extra boosts and make thus sure it costs a hell lot of ressource by increasing its cost by 50% or more. So people would want to make absolutely sure they only engage from ambush. The result is: A Sitting, expensive duck that should only be used from ambush where it can get decloacked and artied easily. Welcome to campers arty party.
Despite that, M10 doesnt really cost all that much and is no sitting duck.

If we think the camo away from elephant we could drop its cost for sure. Now standing i think at 1400/210 it could get down to 1000 and 180 easily. Ambush and stationary mode turns it into a sitting duck and adding additional cost.

Likewise Panzer IV ambush wouldnt be problematic if it wouldnt turn it into "everything terminator" with all its boost. The stug is a nice example. Actually well balanced in terms of cost, its cost are simply too low in BK when counting in the ambush factor.

And big tanks being able to camo in craters isn't a problem either.. because either u break the camo altogether or accept the fact that this is just a game... And wasn't it CGAR who used the argument that technically u can hide anything & not just TDs?? If it's about the visuals.. we can add some trees on top of the Elefant to make it more appealing.

Big as tanks dont need camo since
1. Their basic gun is usually super powerfull and ambush just adds massive cost to them
2. Ambush turns every tank at some point into a sitting duck and perfect arty target, esspecially when they cost a lot
3. So despite visiual stuff, what would speak against it when using a slow, heavily armored with big ass gun and 200 mm frontal armor into a vehicle that can push against enemie fortifications rather than just sitting arround in a boring ambush mode that it doesnt even need to stop enemie armor?

Currently in the game, from a blance point of view.. camo\ambushed units are not OP, and are countered in various ways, the camo system was already nerfed several times & currently it's in a good state. You only want to change it for "realism" concerns.

"Balanced" as long as both sides get enough artillery and have at least one player rushing up tanks. Other then that i dont see any balance between artillery and any other unit.

Your opinion, but i don't share it... i think the game now is very balanced & actually fun.
Arty can be annoying, yes.. but better than any times in the past, compared to old Bk Mod times.
Moreover, if it's really not about balance & just about design.. then i am not ready to keep going in circles again & again for another overhaul (which won't be the last at this rate) just because somebody thinks the game should taste better... Sometimes this "randomness" in doctrines, is actually what makes it fun.. not everything has to be standardized.. not to mention most of the suggestions given only reflect a certain playstyle.

"Fun". I wish we could share this view. I think many of us are pretty pissed of going always through the same and having most docs only unlocking the very same path, usually arty and tank heavy.
And compared to old times? As i said, i feel no difference in the volume of arty in general except perhaps that players play less often RA aka Canadian doctrine since they used to be mandatory due to insane camping situations.

And certain playstyle? Honestly i have no idea how my playstyle would be with SE after these changes. So i did not create a "playstyle" and then try to make the doctrine fit into it. I dont like my current gamestyle which is usually A: "Rush medium tanks with armor, BK or TS doc" or B: "Rush artillery+M10/Hetzer when playing inf/SE doc". So, essentially i am going to completely destroy my own playsytle with my proposed changes.
But yeah, keep blaming me for whatever you want to.

[Consti255]

Glad u mentioned this, because.. did u know this is actually my job? I am studying video game design in Birmingham University, UK. And in my opinion, while i appreciate the brainstorming.. yet, most of the suggestions provided really hurt my eyes.

"It is fine as it is." A game desinger quote right from EA.
Every game designer looks up at games and brings up pros and cons of a change. And wight how necessary it is.
Often you just say, this game is fun and balanced, so no change.
You cant accure someone that he wants to change something base on his playstyle, while you protecting changes base on your own since years.

When i comes to the name change what ever doc, i think scorched earth in general is a awesome doc theme and i think it could work out brilliant with a doc branch connected with ambush and traps.
Gonna post later ti your response Markr.

[idliketoplaybetter]

If any changes were needed, I'd rather wish to see SE doc sort of a prolonged idea of "trophy"/captured vehicles and equipment doctrine. Alike already existing firefly.
So instead of having pz4 camo version, there be m10.
Cheaper and or call in units equiped with 1919mgs and so on..

Not a fan of just adding more camouflage slowgoing sabo units. Just my view

[CGarr]

So your only arguments are "it feels weird" and handwaving towards arbitrary naming conventions? Seriously, go to any forum or source document where people talk about tank naming conventions and you'll see how inconsistently they are applied, as well as how little of an impact it has on how the vehicle is actually used.

That's not my type of argument actually.. it's yours.
Your reasoning was "it would feel unique" for SE to have Pz4 with camo, i answered that it would feel weird instead... There is nothing unique about making a medium tank behaving like a TD when the doctrine already has TDs, unless ur definition of "unique" could mean that Storms should have "wings" because.. this won't break the balance after all, as u say. They will be able to fly but exposed to incoming fire! So why not.

Fuck man, its really obnoxious to argue with you when you don't read anyone's posts fully and take random quotes out of context. I never said it would 'feel' unique, I very clearly stated that it would 'be' unique. Those 2 words are not interchangeable.

In the entirety of the Axis roster, there is currently not a single example of a turreted tank that can camo. Thus, camo P4s on SE would 'be' unique. That is an inarguable fact. Does that make sense, or do I need to make a slideshow with pretty pictures so it's easier for you to understand?

And unlike your sarcastic example of storms with wings, people in this thread are making unopposed arguments for why camo P4s would benefit SE doc and the game as a whole.

The same logic can be applied to long barrel P4s, nothing is stopping you from using it in a TD role, its has a nearly identical gun to the hetzer (if you want to get really technical, the P4 J's gun has better pen than the hetzer's, and both use the same ammo).

Ye, also nothing is stopping us from giving Panther camo, it has same gun as JPz L70 so why not??

Because implementing that change for any of the docs that have panthers would accomplish nothing for bringing them more in line with their theme or addressing an issue with their current unit roster.

Giving P4's camo would perfectly line up with SE's theme of using traps and ambushes to punish careless pushes by opponents and to more quickly capitalize on any ground taken during offensives by making said ground harder to retake.

The Hetzer just doesn't fit this role (casemates are objectively harder to use while on the offensive, being able to peek corners without rotating the hull fully saves vital seconds). As such, it would take a different role in this doc, acting more similarly to the M10 (and pretty much directly taking the marder's place once unlocked).

Nowhere in this thread has anybody suggested "just give every tank in the game camo", this is just slippery slope fallacy.

We did not see it in this topic, ye.. but at this rate, we will see it in future ones.

Your rebuttal is to repeat yourself using the same exact same non-argument that I had just pointed out. Nice.

From a game design perspective

Glad u mentioned this, because.. did u know this is actually my job? I am studying video game design in Birmingham University, UK. And in my opinion, while i appreciate the brainstorming.. yet, most of the suggestions provided really hurt my eyes.

I said "from a game design perspective" to differentiate the statement from my prior arguments which were more based on whether the idea is realistic, as your views all seem to stem from a tank was classified as in real life, even if this is a stupid way of looking at how that tank should be balanced in the game. It was not an appeal to authority, as you seem to have interpreted.

I can barely read whatever the hell you've written half the time, and you rarely ever make any arguments beyond "I don't like X" or "it's always been this way, no reason to change", so I don't see why you find it relevant to bring up your major in game design or that you go to a specific school. It doesn't seem to be helping you much here, so congrats I guess? If you're limited on time (as we all are), maybe try actually think of a solid argument instead of wasting everyone's time repeating the same non-sense appeals over and over?

The Jagdtiger is a "Heavy Tank Destroyer", but it doesn't have camo. Why is this such a controversial topic to you? Both have a shit ton of armor.

You used the tank size argument, so i came back at u with ur own logic.. Diamler & Jeeps are smaller in size than Pz4, Hellcat & Hetzers.. so why don't they have camo as well?? You see, that's the pattern of discussion u used urself to support ur own suggestions... So, i am glad to see that u think this pattern makes no sense.

I brought up size in the context of the P4 and M18 to cover all possible bases that you could make an argument from, as you've used height of tanks in the past to justify stupid things like evasion modifiers on the Hetzer. Not sure what this has to do with the random ass quote you picked to reply to.

If you'd actually bother reading my posts, that was not the backbone of my argument. I clearly stated my main argument for implementing a camo unlock for P4's here:

5. Hetzer unlock: If we're trying to get away from the heavy emphasis on casemates that both Def Doc and PS doc (when played conservatively) have, is there any reason we are sticking with a Hetzer for this slot?

- If it just needs to counter shermans and light vehicles, a camo P4 option would easily fill the same purpose while also allowing the doc to be significantly more aggressive in playstyle. Looking at all the complaints on this thread, the campy nature of SE in the current meta seems to be a big issue.

- The price of a P4 J is pretty close to the Hetzer.

- Both have reasonable defensive stats (at least in the context of fighting shermans), on top the first shot advantage that comes with ambush. The P4 would also be able to make better use of these armor stats on the move, as it would be able to respond much more quickly to threats while still remaining mobile (by virtue of having a turret).

- The guns would probably perform pretty similarly. The P4 presumably wouldn't have HEAT, but you have to unlock a heavy TD in the same unlock path anyways, so this probably isn't a big issue, especially in the role you described (sherman/vehicle spam counter).

That said, the Elefant is a sniper TD unit with an accurate gun.. JT has bigger 128mm gun but inaccurate, so it's more of a breakthrough TD rather than a defensive one; thus it has no camo.

Cool, what does this have to do with what I said? I was giving yet another example of why naming conventions are irrelevant to the conversation, and why trying to fit the Elefant into a category rather than just balancing it around what it needs to do for the doctrine it is in is stupid.

You didn't justify anything, you just gave the Elefant a label and decided that label is why it needs camo. It's a giant casemate that is nigh-impossible to pen frontally and that instantly kills anything in front of it. It is extremely prone to being airstriked or arty'd because of this, so there is no point in having it sit still. You said it yourself, there are spotter tools literally everywhere in BK now, so camo isn't going to save it from death via indirect fire, the user's only options are to move it constantly or keep it away from the frontline.

Anyways, in the sentence immediately after the one you quoted, I suggested just using the JT instead, specifically because it is already suited for the job and thus neither tank would need any adjustments beyond switching places.

@Hawks

There is no real design idea behind other than just bombing the crap out of everything and spam beuteshermans later on since you have no ammo/fuel left after the nonstop arty usage.

And i'd support you if the suggestions were fair, but the ideas given make things only worse by far.

You've given a grand total of 0 reasons as to why they'd make things worse, you just keep saying they will. Amazing. I'm sure justifying the reasoning behind why you want something in a game to be a certain way is not a useful skill for working with game/mod dev team

[Krieger Blitzer]

If you have the upper hand in vision, accuracy and the guranteed first hit, how does it make you a "sitting duck"?

Stripping off the range advantage from bigger TDs (JP, Nashorn, Elefant, etc) would be a severe nerf to all of them altogether for various reasons.
Each tank would also suffer from different issues, so not all would be the same... For example, the Nashorn would be little to null without the range advantage given the weak armor and slow mobility. JagdPanther\Elefant without range advantage would mean that they would have to get in range of AT guns & handheld AT weapons to score hits, risking for more immobilizations or damaged engine specifically by PIATS & Gammon bombs, or by getting flanked much easier.

Not to mention that with no range advatnage, flanking a turretless TD (no matter big or small) with 2 Hellcats would be super easy to circle.
Don't forget also that the range advantage was given in the past at the cost of higher reload times & less wide cone of fire for these particular tanks. Currently, these tanks fit the role of long range snipers while being expensive. What you want to do is change this to being rather mediocre units (sacrificing their iconic status as well) while making them cheaper.. which actually does no different in terms of balance apart from changing the game-play and how these tanks are used. You will only get to see more Elefants\JagdPanthers deployed which will die more often as a result of the nerf... Which feeds into the "mobile game-play" style that you are hoping for, as i am aware u hate to see single high vet capable tanks. This, however; goes against the Axis game-play and how these tanks are meant to be utilized.. and most Axis players using these tanks (based on experience from various ww2 games) won't be expecting them to have such a short range.

As of now, tanks such as Elefant & JagdPanther or Nashorn do fit their role with no balance issues.. and counters for camo do exist, so i don't see why a change to the ambush system is necessary.

I have already said that tank warefare could be better if tanks could engage each other from a larger range, IF they have the vision to do so. So if you fire from a range beyond the actual vision range of your opponent, that already gives you a huge advantage esspecially when you are the first to fire, ambush or not, doesnt matter. On top of that many of these tanks have auch a powefull gun by default that any boost to it is like turning it into an atomic bomb to kill ants. Elephant is just one example.
Like: "Oh, we have a big ass armored tank with big ass gun that insta kills everything 90% of the times".... lets turn it into an super boring ambush unit to make sure it really only sits arround".

You speak saying "IF" tank warfare would have tanks engaging one another at longer distance.. well, currently we don't have this in BK Mod so i think that's another overhaul that you are hoping to submit?? Accordingly at this point, these ambush system suggestions don't go in-line until every other single overhaul you suggested would consecutively have to be implemented eventually, as to completely change the face of the game... That's mad.

Do you even ever play with heavy tanks to begin with?? You only use medium tanks, right?
Here is a challenge for you:
---> Now, go play a game with Elefant and use it without camo.. then show me plz how useful it's going to be in your hands.

I think camo more often than not turns tanks like these into sitting ducks simply because every arty rains down on them as soon as are seen cloaking somewhere.

So, if tanks like these in your opinion are already sitting ducks even with these many bonuses that they currently have including the range.. then how are they going to be no longer sitting ducks without nearly 3rd of the bonuses???

Despite that, M10 doesnt really cost all that much and is no sitting duck.

Guess why? Yup, u guessed it.. it's the Flank Speed that makes the M10 not a sitting duck, which allows the M10 to quickly escape when spotted.. or chase down weaker\damaged retreating enemy vehicles. The same Flank Speed ability that u seek to remove.
in addition to the high rate of fire, needless to say.

If we think the camo away from elephant we could drop its cost for sure. Now standing i think at 1400/210 it could get down to 1000 and 180 easily. Ambush and stationary mode turns it into a sitting duck and adding additional cost.

The cost u written belongs to the JT, the Elefant currently is at 1000 MP \ 150 F which is very reasonable and not very expensive for 5 CPs.
This again shows that you nearly never used anything bigger than a Pz4, so show me some Elefant gameplay without camo and prove me wrong.

Big as tanks dont need camo since
1. Their basic gun is usually super powerfull and ambush just adds massive cost to them
2. Ambush turns every tank at some point into a sitting duck and perfect arty target, esspecially when they cost a lot
3. So despite visiual stuff, what would speak against it when using a slow, heavily armored with big ass gun and 200 mm frontal armor into a vehicle that can push against enemie fortifications rather than just sitting arround in a boring ambush mode that it doesnt even need to stop enemie armor?

1. This basic cannon takes ages to reload, they are usually also helpless vs inf rushing with Gammon bombs.
2. As stated, when you think TDs with current camo bonuses are already sitting ducks.. then reducing camo bonuses only expands the problem.
How does reducing camo bonuses make camo more useful & no longer sitting ducks??
3. Already addressed... Armor doesn't save u from immobilization.

"Fun". I wish we could share this view. I think many of us are pretty pissed of going always through the same and having most docs only unlocking the very same path, usually arty and tank heavy.
And compared to old times? As i said, i feel no difference in the volume of arty in general except perhaps that players play less often RA aka Canadian doctrine since they used to be mandatory due to insane camping situations.

And certain playstyle? Honestly i have no idea how my playstyle would be with SE after these changes. So i did not create a "playstyle" and then try to make the doctrine fit into it. I dont like my current gamestyle which is usually A: "Rush medium tanks with armor, BK or TS doc" or B: "Rush artillery+M10/Hetzer when playing inf/SE doc". So, essentially i am going to completely destroy my own playsytle with my proposed changes.
But yeah, keep blaming me for whatever you want to.

Let me remind you that the current doctrines are a result of the re-work that was agreed on by most players based on polls back then.
Your suggestions only lead to more overhauls, a never ending cycle of overhauls.. some players never get satisfied and will always complain.

"It is fine as it is." A game desinger quote right from EA.
Every game designer looks up at games and brings up pros and cons of a change. And wight how necessary it is.
Often you just say, this game is fun and balanced, so no change.

it's because i prefer to give up arguing with people posting walls of text(s) and complaining nonstop for endless balance crusades.
Wiser that way.

As for the Pz4 with camo, it's simply a suggestion that is completely out of place.. not even worth discussing to be fair.
That said;
Going to completely ignore last post by CGAR, i don't discuss people with this attitude.
it's not like i didn't try to explain him my viewpoint in details before.. i still remember the Panther topic (viewtopic.php?p=38493#p38493) when i literally posted an essay with even precise values\numbers provided.. but he still never got it, so; not going to waste my time discussing him again.




NOTE:
viewtopic.php?f=27&t=4768
just to conclude.

[Warhawks97]

Stripping off the range advantage from bigger TDs (JP, Nashorn, Elefant, etc) would be a severe nerf to all of them altogether for various reasons.
Each tank would also suffer from different issues, so not all would be the same... For example, the Nashorn would be little to null without the range advantage given the weak armor and slow mobility. JagdPanther\Elefant without range advantage would mean that they would have to get in range of AT guns & handheld AT weapons to score hits, risking for more immobilizations or damaged engine specifically by PIATS & Gammon bombs, or by getting flanked much easier.

Where the fuck did i say "stripping off ranges"? The range would simply stay at what they have with camo now. The guns penetrate everything and kill everything at an instant anyways already, regardless of camo or not. I also suggested to buff the accuracy of these tanks to be the same as that of Panther and Tiger guns many times over. So why we have to go over this again now??

So how in fucks name sake am i going to make them more vulnerable to handheld AT when they would have 80-85 range as standard range??!!??

Not to mention that with no range advatnage, flanking a turretless TD (no matter big or small) with 2 Hellcats would be super easy to circle.
Don't forget also that the range advantage was given in the past at the cost of higher reload times & less wide cone of fire for these particular tanks.

Again, except for Jagdpanther and Elephant that had 5,5 second reload nothing else changed. The turretless tanks like stugs, Jagdpanzer IV and Hetzer always have had an extremely long reload, so its not that we changed them "in particular". In Fact stugs and Jagdpanzer IV/70 simply stayed at 7 seconds. Firefly, Pershing, Tigers, Panthers, they all got an increased reload time. But they are not part of this debate apparently.

Dude, the basic range of Jagdpanther, Elephant and KT even got increased from 65 to 70 default range. Elephant reached 75 only in stationary mode which instantly triggered a long tom strike. I fought endlessly long to get this basic range increase for these units years ago and now you are again blaming me that i would want to nerf them again?? Really?
So these tanks have become a lot more deadly due to reworks done without relying on ambush and stationary modes. Now i am suggesting to add their ambush ranges as default ranges and you still come up and complain they would be usless.
CGarr said everything we need to now. Dont label them by their name but look at what they have to achieve in a doctrine.

Currently, these tanks fit the role of long range snipers while being expensive. What you want to do is change this to being rather mediocre units (sacrificing their iconic status as well) while making them cheaper.. which actually does no different in terms of balance apart from changing the game-play and how these tanks are used. You will only get to see more Elefants\JagdPanthers deployed which will die more often as a result of the nerf... Which feeds into the "mobile game-play" style that you are hoping for, as i am aware u hate to see single high vet capable tanks. This, however; goes against the Axis game-play and how these tanks are meant to be utilized.. and most Axis players using these tanks (based on experience from various ww2 games) won't be expecting them to have such a short range.

Yeah, just repeating myself.... Elephants, Jagdpanthers, they all got their all ambush/stationary mode ranges as standard ranges, yet you complain. Where is your problem? The units used to have much less range and being more expensive and people used them with effect. But you make a big fuss out of nothing even when suggesting that parts of their ambush range would stay.

As of now, tanks such as Elefant & JagdPanther or Nashorn do fit their role with no balance issues.. and counters for camo do exist, so i don't see why a change to the ambush system is necessary.

You said yourself, a lot of counters to camo exist. So how does ambush help the elephant exactly when it cant hide from enemie bombardment?
As said, look at what these things have to achieve rather than just labeling them by their names.

You speak saying "IF" tank warfare would have tanks engaging one another at longer distance.. well, currently we don't have this in BK Mod so i think that's another overhaul that you are hoping to submit?? Accordingly at this point, these ambush system suggestions don't go in-line until every other single overhaul you suggested would consecutively have to be implemented eventually, as to completely change the face of the game... That's mad.

Its not a secret that the entire gun system in BK is a mess. Range, range brackets, accuracy stats. Ive been asking for a change here for a long time.
The accuracy for example first doesnt drop at all and then, within a few inches of distance they cover, loses 25% of it most of the time.
The brackets itself are a mess since "point blank shots" are literally impossible to achieve.
So slight range increases along with fixed range brackets and accuracy stats would enhance tank to tank combat a lot as it allows for much better fine tuning.

Do you even ever play with heavy tanks to begin with?? You only use medium tanks, right?
Here is a challenge for you:
---> Now, go play a game with Elefant and use it without camo.. then show me plz how useful it's going to be in your hands.

Now, i dont, esspecially not Elephant since all i can do is to put it into camo and hope it wont get revealed and bombed to dust before it can ever fire a single shot. Most heavies are meme units. Turning them into idle ambush units just makes things worse as it adds up cost for absolutely no gains except being perhaps lucky enough to get a shot against an unexpected careless M20 or sherman. But after that i have to keep it moving anyways.
CGarr already said that heavy tanks survive by moving arround, not by going into ambush modes or stationary modes just to get bombed to dust.

So, if tanks like these in your opinion are already sitting ducks even with these many bonuses that they currently have including the range.. then how are they going to be no longer sitting ducks without nearly 3rd of the bonuses???

I can clearly see how ambush helps them from not being sitting ducks. Impressive logic incoming.

Guess why? Yup, u guessed it.. it's the Flank Speed that makes the M10 not a sitting duck, which allows the M10 to quickly escape when spotted.. or chase down weaker\damaged retreating enemy vehicles. The same Flank Speed ability that u seek to remove.
in addition to the high rate of fire, needless to say.

Most of the time the M10, if it fails to penetrate, gets killed by the enemie. It takes perhaps a second too long to deactivate camo ability and activate flank speed. Most M10 survive a failed ambush by the enemie failing to hit or to oneshot it. The M18 is also not a sitting duck without flank speed.

I dont even know what you wanted to say here. You came up that most TD are expensive and need the massive ambush boosts. I just said that not all are expensive..... but anyways.

The cost u written belongs to the JT, the Elefant currently is at 1000 MP \ 150 F which is very reasonable and not very expensive for 5 CPs.
This again shows that you nearly never used anything bigger than a Pz4, so show me some Elefant gameplay without camo and prove me wrong.

Yeah, as i said, i dont pick it since the Nashorn is more important to have.
Why would i use a 1000 MP / 150 fuel unit just for an ambush when a ~580 MP/ 85 fuel TD with the same gun can do exactly the same?
Do you see the tragedy in front of your eyes. Nobody needs a 1000 MP 150 fuel unit with 200 mm of armor as an ambush unit when an unarmored unit for half the cost is doing this job just as well.
This is why we give both units into this doc but in different branches. One for camoed ambushes, the other for aggressive pushes.

1. This basic cannon takes ages to reload, they are usually also helpless vs inf rushing with Gammon bombs.
2. As stated, when you think TDs with current camo bonuses are already sitting ducks.. then reducing camo bonuses only expands the problem.
How does reducing camo bonuses make camo more useful & no longer sitting ducks??
3. Already addressed... Armor doesn't save u from immobilization.

1. Congrats, you just learned that these tanks need nonstop infantry support. In BK as well as in real life.
And how does camo fix it? When they know your location they rush you with gammon anyways unless you cover it with inf. So learn to cover these tanks with your inf rather than praying that nobody locates you.
I mean since you are interested in ww2 tank warfare, you would see that this is exactly their main weakness. Hence you have to provide infantry cover at all cost. The tank was meant to drive behind or together with infantry and support those during attacks.
The reload is also not as long as you might think and it doesnt really matter since all targets you engage with it are usually dead with the first shot while being immun to incoming counter-gun-fire.
2. As stated above. How does damage and pen boost to an already oneshot and everything penetrating gun help here exactly?
I repeat what i already brought up:
Heavy Tank A: Gets bombed to dust by arty
Heavy Tank B: Goes into ambush mode and gets super STrOnK ambush bonuses. Gets more pen to its already everything penetrating gun, more damage to its already oneshotting gun, gets more range to its alreadys superior range, gets more accuracy and a faster reload and OMG, its a Godzilla like unit...... Gets bombed to dust by arty anyways.

3. Dude, really, you make irrational comments here.

You are a sitting duck, camo or not. You are vulnerable to arty and planes, camo or not, your weakness is infantry, camo or not, your gun pens everything, camo or not, it kills 90% of all units in an instant, camo or not.
Use the Elephant along with supporting inf, hence we put it together with an infantry upgrade in one branch to underline how it should work. It got put in a line with infantry and stuh for a reason. They are meant to complement each other.

Let me remind you that the current doctrines are a result of the re-work that was agreed on by most players based on polls back then.
Your suggestions only lead to more overhauls, a never ending cycle of overhauls.. some players never get satisfied and will always complain.

There was some sort of referendum iirc with some overall ideas. But the designs of the doctrines were not debated long. I brought some ideas up for TH doc on how it could look like.
But from what i gathered here is that docs like Prop or SE are not really loved docs. SE hasnt changed too much compared to the old version except for having gotten even more and more nasty artillery and an Elephant that is an sitting duck. Most seem to prefer the nashorn today when it became a reward unit.

So far i agreed roughly to how BK and Luft doc looked like and armor doc.
However i for my part would have never agreed to doctrines like current SE. Tank support doctrine is a nice concept but the unlock design is pretty garbage. The idea there is a much better suited as faction design rather than doctrine design.
And def doc? I would have never agreed to 2 CP howitzers at this low cost.
So we had an talk about rough doc ideas but we never got design pictures prior to their actual release. At least not that i would remember.

it's because i prefer to give up arguing with people posting walls of text(s) and complaining nonstop for endless balance crusades.
Wiser that way.

We are debating things that we see as problematic. Thats why forums exist.
I mean we can either type the entire day long "yes, i want changes" or "no, its fine as it is". But this isnt going to get us anywhere.
I for my part gave up going from campers arty party to another arty party to yet another arty party with always the same unlock sequence.
Its always the same procedure. Small, sometimes intense early game skirmish for ressource points. Then dig yourself in and perpare for artillery before medium tanks start rolling out in huge numbers, even when there is no fuel.

As for the Pz4 with camo, it's simply a suggestion that is completely out of place.. not even worth discussing to be fair.
That said;
Going to completely ignore last post by CGAR, i don't discuss people with this attitude.
it's not like i didn't try to explain him my viewpoint in details before.. i still remember the Panther topic (viewtopic.php?p=38493#p38493) when i literally posted an essay with even precise values\numbers provided.. but he still never got it, so; not going to waste my time discussing him again.

both sides brought up values. And it was a debate about Panthers role in BK which to this point was simply treated like a "Tiger 2.0" and heavy.

You always see everything as an "balance complain" which is not. We are talking about designs of doctrines and how and what units should accomplish.
For me it seems that everything is fine for you as long as there is an damn expensive bad ass tank that can potentially whipe an entire army on its own. For me and many others such "solo super tanks", kind of "put all on one card units" are just boring. Because they either win an entire war on their own or a bad RNG ruins your entire game. The SP is probably the very best example of such a BS solo warrior tank where everything comes really down on RNG.

But from a gameplay perspective such units are always problematic for an RTS game that has various where success isa actually a matter of unit composition and effectively bringing together different assets.

[Redgaarden]

Haven't read everything but my qualms is, There should be no buff to infantry at all. So no camo. Read something about pz4 having stealth which I'm against.
Usually TD have camo and ho HE, Elephant has no HE but a weird camo ability. That shouldn't ever be used, like why would you ever use it? oh no the biggest meanest tank the allies have is coming towards me!! oh wait *Bamb* it's dead.

Strong TD should not be effective at killing anything other than tanks a reason we gave the shitty TD (Compared to JP) to SE was because it shouldn't be better tank destroyer doctrine than PS.

I'm kinda against this whole rework thing because I really like the core concept of Hummel, Mediocre/good infantry one big Elephant, supported by some mediocre tank destroyers like Hetzer. If anything I think SE should get a nerf and remove firestorm and replace it with 210mm Nebel.

Hotchkiss should just be removed from the game imo. It feels cheap to use and annoying to face against.

Giving P4's camo would perfectly line up with SE's theme of using traps and ambushes to punish careless pushes by opponents and to more quickly capitalize on any ground taken during offensives by making said ground harder to retake.

arty doctrine can already bomb a point so much that the enemy can't even cap a point inside their own lines without getting bombed.

Despite that, M10 doesnt really cost all that much and is no sitting duck.

eh, m10 is hampered more than hetzer. And can't really survive on the frontlines due to pretty much anything. It dies to zooks, Arty, And y caliber AT gun. M10 is just waiting in the background when it finally sees an opportunity to actually shoot something. There is not much point in going for the m10 currently other than an ATG that doesn't die to stray rocket fire. Can't really compare it with a Hetzer. Nor pz4 that can camo.

If we think the camo away from elephant we could drop its cost for sure. Now standing i think at 1400/210 it could get down to 1000 and 180 easily. Ambush and stationary mode turns it into a sitting duck and adding additional cost.

Dont think camo should reflect on the combat value of the elephant since it's like never useful for it. It's already cheap enough as it is.

"Fun". I wish we could share this view. I think many of us are pretty pissed of going always through the same and having most docs only unlocking the very same path, usually arty and tank heavy.
And compared to old times? As i said, i feel no difference in the volume of arty in general except perhaps that players play less often RA aka Canadian doctrine since they used to be mandatory due to insane camping situations.

Only retards didn't use arty in the old days since US troops/Tanks needed to have 6x the number just to break even in combat value. We're not
Noobs didn't know how unplayable US used to be since they literally only had 2 units that could actually fight being the M16 and combat engineers. Everything else was worthless. US didn't have a single thing that could penetrate German heavy tanks frontally in any doctrine.
arty buffs are incredibly rare and nerfs common.

Its not about balance. Read my follow up answer. The Game and most doctrines have become a real nightmare of quick balance fixes that we in germany would call such a thing "Flickenteppich" (Rag Rug?) but barely a well designed game or doctrine. Its pure chaos to be honest.

This game is a nightmare, there is no rhyme or reason on why certain units are like they are, there are over 20 halftracks in the game. There are no instructions in which tanks is better than the other. Does it make sense that a tiger can beat a Jumob? not really but it does. The game is unbalanced like all hell. But we have tried to make all the top meta picks be almost equally strong so people can play with equally strong armies in the end and pretend that most of the little broken things dont exist.
The game is balanced enough so it's playable and decent fun. I haven't ragequit in a long time because I found something to be so horribly unbalanced that there is no reason to play against it.

remove off-maps,

Rocket off-maps kinda ruins the point of having any combat infantry at all. Maybe if there came a global side pop up like when you have radio spy thingy that says what your opponent just build. or any other form of warning that there were indeed rockets incoming or making anti air guns shoot the rockets from the air.
Currently you can just kiss goodbye and squad that doesn't change direction where it's walking every 5 sec or for gods sake actually stands stills and aim. It's faster to call in a rocket than reload your gun it feels like.

I do like the idea of SE and would like to play a doctrine that feels like an actual SE doc. I dont want to always only change names. It doesnt change the fact that the doctrine is outright stupidly designed and unfun to play or to play against. Then the random unlocks and a weird tree that literally spreads in all directions that consists purely of artillery... artillery right, left, everywhere like cancer. The doctrine literally dies a arty cancer death. Its literally just arty without any brain or concept. A name change doesnt make a product better.

I dont mind there being only one arty path and remove firestorm. But you do get sabotage infantry, Shermans heavy tank destroyers, incendiary bombs fuel trade, hetzers.
I find it to be one of the most fun and balanced doctrines with a lot of strong stuff but nothing completely overpowered. So when I play against it, it is easy to counter, and when I play with it I dont feel lacking in any way since it has everything.

[Consti255]

Usually TD have camo and ho HE, Elephant has no HE but a weird camo ability. That shouldn't ever be used, like why would you ever use it? oh no the biggest meanest tank the allies have is coming towards me!! oh wait *Bamb* it's dead.

Actually many TDs have HE. Achillies, Marder 3, Hellcat , AT HTs and so on. Wouldnt say that HE isnt present in TDs at all.
Also, the elephant gun is so powerfull you dont need the ambush to oneshot most tanks.
This thing is so slow and vulrnable to flanks, that i would rather have some abilitys instead of the camo. Maybe even a cheaper pricetag.

Strong TD should not be effective at killing anything other than tanks a reason we gave the shitty TD (Compared to JP) to SE was because it shouldn't be better tank destroyer doctrine than PS.

Def doc and SE have the Nashorn aswell. They are as good as the JP when it comes to tank killing potential. The JP is just more survivable due to its speed and armor and better at chaseing. IF you are even in need to chase the enemy since the Long 88 does oneshot most tanks. TS is just better at killing SPs and thats it.
A one time unit which is rare.

I'm kinda against this whole rework thing because I really like the core concept of Hummel, Mediocre/good infantry one big Elephant, supported by some mediocre tank destroyers like Hetzer. If anything I think SE should get a nerf and remove firestorm and replace it with 210mm Nebel.

Where is the overall difference to def doc ? They have grens and mediocre TDs aswell. Also a 150mm assault/arty gun. I dont see any necessary reason why one of this docs after all should exist when the other does. With so much arty options? If you want to play arty, just play def doc. And dont come along with this sabotage branch. Noone ever goes that route first or even second in a serious game. Iwould like docs that are viable playing all pathes as first unlock.

Hotchkiss should just be removed from the game imo. It feels cheap to use and annoying to face against.

Nothing against it, if the 210mmNebel gets fixed.

eh, m10 is hampered more than hetzer. And can't really survive on the frontlines due to pretty much anything. It dies to zooks, Arty, And y caliber AT gun. M10 is just waiting in the background when it finally sees an opportunity to actually shoot something. There is not much point in going for the m10 currently other than an ATG that doesn't die to stray rocket fire. Can't really compare it with a Hetzer. Nor pz4 that can camo.

A Camoed M10 is way better than a Hetzer. You can double shot aswell with the APHE (aka Heat) same as the hetzer. And use flank speed to finish targets or get in cover after the 2 shots. Hetzer are overpriced 75mm guns. Why geting a hetzer when you can get a 75mm puma, which costs no CP,less MP and less fuel, while beeing faster and haveing the vet damage reduction? Hetzer right now are a let down if you ask me.

Rocket off-maps kinda ruins the point of having any combat infantry at all. Maybe if there came a global side pop up like when you have radio spy thingy that says what your opponent just build. or any other form of warning that there were indeed rockets incoming or making anti air guns shoot the rockets from the air.
Currently you can just kiss goodbye and squad that doesn't change direction where it's walking every 5 sec or for gods sake actually stands stills and aim. It's faster to call in a rocket than reload your gun it feels like.

true. I would stick with normal offmaps not the firestorm or the prop doc one.

[Redgaarden]

Actually many TDs have HE. Achillies, Marder 3, Hellcat , AT HTs and so on. Wouldnt say that HE isnt present in TDs at all.
Also, the elephant gun is so powerfull you dont need the ambush to oneshot most tanks.
This thing is so slow and vulrnable to flanks, that i would rather have some abilitys instead of the camo. Maybe even a cheaper pricetag.

Achilles still has HE? thought that was removed. And yeah, Elephant definitely doesn't need camo since you dont want the tank to sit still. And I'll say this again, Flanking isn't a viable tactic in this mod, so the elephant is not vulnerable to flanking. I can't think of any ability that the elephant needs. And I think it should stay at current price and definitely not cheaper due to how strong it is. It should not be spammable.

Def doc and SE have the Nashorn aswell. They are as good as the JP when it comes to tank killing potential. The JP is just more survivable due to its speed and armor and better at chaseing. IF you are even in need to chase the enemy since the Long 88 does oneshot most tanks. TS is just better at killing SPs and thats it.
A one time unit which is rare.

Nashorn can't brawl with regular pershing as well as JP can.

Where is the overall difference to def doc ? They have grens and mediocre TDs aswell. Also a 150mm assault/arty gun. I dont see any necessary reason why one of this docs after all should exist when the other does. With so much arty options? If you want to play arty, just play def doc. And dont come along with this sabotage branch. Noone ever goes that route first or even second in a serious game. Iwould like docs that are viable playing all pathes as first unlock.

Defensive doctrine has better infantry, emplacement, same kind of arty if not stronger. worse TD than SE and less medium tanks. Defence sacrificed tanks and light vehicles for better infantry.
Sabotage is perfectly viable as a 2nd or first branch depending on what you're facing. I would like SE nerfed so sabotage isn't viable as a first pick. SE doctrine has too much cp less good arty like the 210mm nebler. The thing doesn't bug out if you shoot within their maximum range. SE is super strong currently due to how fast it can get Heavy TD, Manpower only TD, 0 cp op rocket arty. Cheap arty.
I would rather make their rocket arty cost cp and forcing SE to play a campy style than let them be able to push all game long.

A Camoed M10 is way better than a Hetzer. You can double shot aswell with the APHE (aka Heat) same as the hetzer. And use flank speed to finish targets or get in cover after the 2 shots. Hetzer are overpriced 75mm guns. Why geting a hetzer when you can get a 75mm puma, which costs no CP,less MP and less fuel, while beeing faster and haveing the vet damage reduction? Hetzer right now are a let down if you ask me.

I prefer the machine gun and extra no vet survivability. I can't really ever see a reason why you would get Heat shells to a m10. Hetzer can fight outside of camo which Puma struggles with due to 50.cal and getting oneshot. M10 is a good stationary TD but hetzer can actually move and brawl with other tanks.
I'm not a big fan of TD where you use munitions to keep it viable.

[Consti255]

Achilles still has HE? thought that was removed. And yeah, Elephant definitely doesn't need camo since you dont want the tank to sit still. And I'll say this again, Flanking isn't a viable tactic in this mod, so the elephant is not vulnerable to flanking. I can't think of any ability that the elephant needs. And I think it should stay at current price and definitely not cheaper due to how strong it is. It should not be spammable.

it is a turretless heavy tank without top mg that is slow. So it is definitley vulnarable to flanks. Especially from flank speed and or infantry.

Nashorn can't brawl with regular pershing as well as JP can

In terms of offensive capabilitys yes, you still have the long 88s. And that is what i said. TS is just better at killing SPs and MAYBE normal pershings. Nothing more.

Defensive doctrine has better infantry, emplacement, same kind of arty if not stronger. worse TD than SE and less medium tanks. Defence sacrificed tanks and light vehicles for better infantry.
Sabotage is perfectly viable as a 2nd or first branch depending on what you're facing. I would like SE nerfed so sabotage isn't viable as a first pick. SE doctrine has too much cp less good arty like the 210mm nebler. The thing doesn't bug out if you shoot within their maximum range. SE is super strong currently due to how fast it can get Heavy TD, Manpower only TD, 0 cp op rocket arty. Cheap arty.
I would rather make their rocket arty cost cp and forcing SE to play a campy style than let them be able to push all game long.

The only difference is that SE has the Elephant but def has the Pak43. Every other TD is the same in both docs. The 210mm is just a buggy piece of garbage, not worth even thos you dont pay CP. You want SE even more campy ? it is right now even more campy as def doc and the most campy doc in the whole game. Which i absoultely disagree it should be that case. Panzergrens with a FULL building menu with bunkers, roadblocks and trenches. You even have a mortarbunker with storm pios.
Def is way more agressive as SE in the current patches. Even tho def has less vehicles, they still have a shit ton lol. 20mm HT with super fast firerate, cheap 75mm HTs, normal HTs and the 28mm HT. Sure you dont have scout cars, but do they make so much diffrence?

I prefer the machine gun and extra no vet survivability. I can't really ever see a reason why you would get Heat shells to a m10. Hetzer can fight outside of camo which Puma struggles with due to 50.cal and getting oneshot. M10 is a good stationary TD but hetzer can actually move and brawl with other tanks.
I'm not a big fan of TD where you use munitions to keep it viable.

Because you can solo Tigers with the APHE upgrade out of camo? The Hetzer suffers the same, when played vs armor or RE when faceing jumbos or chruchills. Even the Mark 6 shits on the Hetzer when he doesnt have the Heat shot. Also, the 75mm puma often stays on max range, where .50cals arent as effective against it.
Kepp in mind you pay extra tiering, extra ressources, extra CP for the Hetzer over the Puma. IMO the Puma is superior compared to the Hetzer