Terror doctrine

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
User avatar
Butterkeks
Posts: 492
Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 17:42
Location: Germany

Re: Terror doctrine

Postby Butterkeks » 05 Feb 2016, 15:39

Sukin-kot (SVT) wrote:I also think that Panther G sight shall never be changed, that's exactly what makes this tank unique and cool. Grens can get higher reinforce cost though.


Ok, then I want to have an long tom arty barrage for tank doc 76w for 25 ammo. Because this makes the unit unique and cool, and therefore it can also never be changed again (otherwise the unit won't be unique anymore). Doesn't matter that it's OP, since it's unique then!


Devilfish wrote:Actually this is kinda misleading point of view. Those 2 pgrens were supported by mg nest, at gun, mortar and puma (until it was destroyed for the second time). Additionally by volks upgraded with mg34 who came free from triage center. And it wasn't like nothing. Andrusha spammed inf decently, doing huge trouble to "OP" pgrens. Rifle grenades on cooldown, little support from nobody by firing jeep rockets in the right moment of infantry battle between me and andrusha. Soon andrusha built double 107 mortar pits, well covered by terrain, not mentioning i was short on ammo, spending it to equip pgrens and volks. At the moment i knew that i simply won't be able to hold it against US inf spam. So i went for panther and again and again, because inf wouldn't have last against that US spam, no chance.


Well yes, I admit that it was a bit oversimplificated. But my point still was how those Panther Gs got killed, not like "bazookas to the front and they were killed" like Tor stated, but more like "Heavily damaged by everything else, still doged 90% of zookas, then got killed by it".

Regarding the mortart pit: I think it was somehow strange when the Panther G killed the crew with three shots :D

I can only state what I am saying since he beginning of this thread:
The main problem with Terror Doc is not a specific unit being way to OP (except for that Panther G gun sight) but mainly how it has only units like that.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1744
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Terror doctrine

Postby kwok » 05 Feb 2016, 18:02

To be honest, I don't understand how players struggle with a doctrine with reliable arty, powerful tanks, and strong infantry or standard (because volks are still not as bad as people say they are. The only doctrine I might possibly forgo the volks is bk doc, but most of the time I don't). You have lmgs, hmgs, and Pumas to counter "USA inf spams", all of which are pretty affordable and mobile enough to avoid arty. You have stugs and later panthers to essentially counter any tanks except maybe the super Pershing (but two panthers which cost less mp than a sp should be enough to stop it). You have rockets to basically clear out any critical position in the enemy's formation, or nebels which is a lot more affordable but retains a degree of mobility while being cheaper than any American on map arty. Terror doc also has off map arty as well if anyone noticed.
I feel like most players who do not do well with terror has clearly made bad strategic decisions. There is a low micro intense/resource cost solution to any attack and late game units that can turn the tables very quickly.
The only fall back to terror doc imo is they aren't fast and don't have the long standing durability on a large map that bk doc and def doc can do respectively. But this means nothing on a small map, because you don't need speed when you can take two steps outside your base and be exactly where you need to be. And you reinforce or repair at your base which is two steps behind you. Terror doc is EXTREMELY popular right now. Multi terror is often joked in my games as "we can be real dicks and go double terror." It's not standard because stomping an opponent isn't as fun as a good balanced game. But terror is definitely played more than other docs and will almost exist in a huge portion of the games today. Hardly do I feel like there needs to be balance adjustments, but I honestly think there is a fundamental problem with terror doc because it has no good trade offs on a small map. Big map? I'm not really sure, but I could imagine it would be tougher, which is probably something worth trying.

User avatar
Butterkeks
Posts: 492
Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 17:42
Location: Germany

Re: Terror doctrine

Postby Butterkeks » 05 Feb 2016, 22:02

kwok wrote:To be honest, I don't understand how players struggle with a doctrine with reliable arty, powerful tanks, and strong infantry or standard (because volks are still not as bad as people say they are. The only doctrine I might possibly forgo the volks is bk doc, but most of the time I don't). You have lmgs, hmgs, and Pumas to counter "USA inf spams", all of which are pretty affordable and mobile enough to avoid arty. You have stugs and later panthers to essentially counter any tanks except maybe the super Pershing (but two panthers which cost less mp than a sp should be enough to stop it). You have rockets to basically clear out any critical position in the enemy's formation, or nebels which is a lot more affordable but retains a degree of mobility while being cheaper than any American on map arty. Terror doc also has off map arty as well if anyone noticed.
I feel like most players who do not do well with terror has clearly made bad strategic decisions. There is a low micro intense/resource cost solution to any attack and late game units that can turn the tables very quickly.
The only fall back to terror doc imo is they aren't fast and don't have the long standing durability on a large map that bk doc and def doc can do respectively. But this means nothing on a small map, because you don't need speed when you can take two steps outside your base and be exactly where you need to be. And you reinforce or repair at your base which is two steps behind you. Terror doc is EXTREMELY popular right now. Multi terror is often joked in my games as "we can be real dicks and go double terror." It's not standard because stomping an opponent isn't as fun as a good balanced game. But terror is definitely played more than other docs and will almost exist in a huge portion of the games today. Hardly do I feel like there needs to be balance adjustments, but I honestly think there is a fundamental problem with terror doc because it has no good trade offs on a small map. Big map? I'm not really sure, but I could imagine it would be tougher, which is probably something worth trying.



Ehm...
So you're basically saying that everyone chooses Terror Doc because it can stomp every Allied Doc, but you don't think it's too strong?
Or am I misinterpreting? ^^

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1744
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Terror doctrine

Postby kwok » 07 Feb 2016, 04:05

I'm saying terror doc has enough to handle every situation and is probably over powered on a small map. It's hard to find any situation a terror doc doesn't have immediate and simple means to directly counter an opponent, especially so on a small map. On a large map, thoughts pending because no one is willing to play large maps even though it helps address almost 70% of the trash talked about on this forum.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1744
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Terror doctrine

Postby kwok » 07 Feb 2016, 04:06

Personally, I find terror doc too easy.

User avatar
Cyberzombie
Posts: 76
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 01:45
Location: Germany

Re: Terror doctrine

Postby Cyberzombie » 07 Feb 2016, 13:22

Personally, I find terror doc too easy.

It really depends imo.
It can get easier after starting to spam grens unless the enemy starts to use double snipers or later on HE-Shermans.
Against brits it get's really easy when you started your first gren assault because they get most of the time simply shred. Brits MGs are just free XP for those grens and Recces/Crusaders just get killed my dozens of schrecks. The infantry itself can be deadly but is too expensive to spam them too.
Once the first panther rolled out then it's too easy. You have a unit that is extremely deadly to inf and tanks which results in quickly achieved vets. So you can use that unit to attack but also you it as one of the best defense in game since you will see everything that could engage/kill this tank log before anything coul be in range. Counter to that? None. The terror player doesn't necessarily need any scouts anymore so you can't do a shit against the scout view of the Panther unless you manage to kill it (mostly impossible when attacking since the terror player sees everthing in time and will either retreat, fire stukas or send masses of inf with stgs and schrecks to kill the approaching units).
So in my opinion this tank would be way easier dealt with when you could actually engage it. But this is currentlly hardly happening. So please consider removing that huge sight.

JimQwilleran
Posts: 1107
Joined: 07 Jan 2015, 15:05

Re: Terror doctrine

Postby JimQwilleran » 07 Feb 2016, 14:54

If the sight problem is too touchy I would think about something else instead. When I played vs Terror dozens of times combined AT guns, wolverines, rangers and tank hunters managed to hit the panther and damage it to around 5~1% of health. But then I have nothing else to kill the retreating tank (bazooka reloading time 2x longer then shreck), the axis top mg is too dangerous to chase it, advancing wolverine would fail... The only thing I can do is using arty barrage or sneaky CBQ/paratroopers from behind (unless the tank is guarded).

The thing I am talking about is:

The reverse speed of tanks is too high, when BADLY damaged tank is driving backwards (not on a road) it should be max 15 km/h. If we lowered the reverse speed of tanks like tiger and panther (that doesn't really differ with forward speed in this mod), we would only punish the players that rush with their tanks without any consideration for traps or AT guns. Also this would get some realism to the game and force axis players not to use Panther as solution for everything, as retreating would be harder.

Most of the the German tanks were experiencing mechanical failures that have 0 reprezentantce here. The bigger part of destroyed axis vehicles were killed by airstrikes and artillery strikes (due to American war philosophy - superior firepower doctrine), and this also is not so well shown here. Americans were not like Russians, they didn't rush the tanks with superior numbers... If they encountered a tank, they called for heavy support...

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1744
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Terror doctrine

Postby kwok » 07 Feb 2016, 15:54

unless my opponent dominated me early game, the chances of mid game double sniper production is pretty low because they either have upkeep and reinforcements to take care of, or they are focusing on teching to maintain the lead. If I'm wining then they are definitely focused on reinforcing, unless they switch to double sniper which is an extremely costly move, because the mp cost and the build time will let me pump out a puma with no fear of at.
So that really only leaves the early and late game to decide for double snipers. Early game I'm not gren spamming because I am not going to commit in case they DO decide to go double sniper mid game. That would be a huge strategic failure on my side of I lock into a decision blindly. If they go early game double sniper, that's a huge win for me because they will have little cap power and give my schwim even MORE leverage than it currently has. Double sniper at gun opening? That's ballsy... It works against some people but the only person who does that consistently and reasonably well is messuupgood. But if you know it's coming, easy counter. If you spot it early, easy change up. If you catch it too late, shame on you. You had 500 years to see it coming and 450 years to set up against it.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1744
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Terror doctrine

Postby kwok » 07 Feb 2016, 15:58

Unless all of you are saying messuupgood is NOT the noob you all claim him to be... And have trouble against his identical opening every goddamn time (literally as axis and allies).
The only way double sniper succeeds as an opening is with a really good partner/team pairing. But it's such a trade off because you basically MUST forfeit one side of the map to cover the snipers. If the other team decides to go 1 person per sector as an opening like most people do, then two players are stalled fighting one while the other team gets free critical point capture and probably a fuel lead.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3622
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Terror doctrine

Postby Warhawks97 » 07 Feb 2016, 20:40

@nami:

Yep. Would agree to lower reverse speed but idk if its possible so easily.

About Hellcats and M10 they mostly work only from ambush. But then panther pops smoke and retreats. The second shot will fail most of the time.
The ambush gives M18 (maybe also M10) a x2 pen modifier. So ambush+ vet commander+HVAP+ shooting from closer distance does actually work. Chance in that case, shooting from long range (approx 30 range out of 60 gun range) you pen with 72,43%. But thats with x2 pen modifier from ambush and commander. Take that away and you wont really pen. And as ambush is the only real chance for a closer ranged shot the pen of a standard M10 trying to finish panther is like 22% with costly HVAP shooting from max range.

And the combo of +35 sight range boost with panther gunsight makes superior maneuvering of own tank forces impossible. The Guy with Panther has just one tank to controle that sees every incoming threats coming very early. It also has a speed advantage (over shermans) or at least isnt slower. Meanwhile the attacker has to controle many tanks, has no sight which means he needs additional spotters that also require mirco. And most inf isnt an option due to axis massive top mounted MG´s (which maybe gets also boosted with Panther G gunsight due to accuracy boost which might affect the top mounted MG as well).

Attacking a Panther usually needs a well combined attack. Last time with kwok and shadow we pushed a panther into a corner using many shermans (which all died) to block it and commandos to use gammon (of which most also died) using Priest on it when we finally blocked it with shermans. But iirc it escaped with 0.0001% hp and we had all tanks dead, commandos retreated and priests on cooldown. The Panther was vet 4.

Idk.... rework of gunsights might help. Making them more standardized with +20 or 25 sight range instead + 35 and slight accuracy boost and adding those to panther A and D as well. In return i´d like to test Binocular ability on M20 with like + 20-30 sight bonus. That way Axis would use their widely used gunsights on Tanks (combined with ambush sight boosts) in addition to spotters, allied would use mobile recon vehicle like Recce and M20 with binoculars in addition to spotters.

@nami II: Us didnt only wait calling heavy support. They just used the terrain and flexibility combined with more tanks. Using the terrain and numbers+speed of tanks to flank axis forces was most effective vs tanks. Airplanes and arty proved mainly effective vs inf, vehicles and stuff arround the tanks.


@kwok. Nicely pointed out.

Wake
Posts: 304
Joined: 07 Dec 2014, 17:22
Location: USA

Re: Terror doctrine

Postby Wake » 07 Feb 2016, 21:08

Warhawks actually has a really good idea with the M20 Scout car and giving it binoculars. It's called a "scout" car, so it should have a role like that! I almost never see it being built anyway, as there is almost no point in it right now.
Image

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3622
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Terror doctrine

Postby Warhawks97 » 07 Feb 2016, 22:47

Wake wrote:Warhawks actually has a really good idea with the M20 Scout car and giving it binoculars. It's called a "scout" car, so it should have a role like that! I almost never see it being built anyway, as there is almost no point in it right now.


viewtopic.php?f=15&t=454

more or less denied.


Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MarKr and 27 guests