Then someone says that Armor doc NEEDS something but you cannot agree on what it is...Shanks says the Armor needs arty, Redgaarden says that Armor desperately needs good infantry and some anti-emplacement and also AA. Really guys
I'm saying I dont want more artillery for armour doc and pointing out that the anti air in armour doc is shit compared to before. And I dont think armour doc is shit since it good in situational times like most other american docs.
What AAs do TH have? They have the Opel with flak (which can be penetrated literary by anything that shoots) and they have some Armored car, tha can shoot at air - the effectivity of this units is vs planes is way lower than the effectivity of M15A1.
I find this debatable armored car are quite decent in anti air when in groups of 3 compared to the limited M15A1 which are only 2. I dont know if M15's are better in anti air than armored car but I dont think the difference makes it up for lacking 1 less vehicle.
Combat engineers in Armor doc "so that they have something fir quick repairs". IIRC they come with SMGs (grease guns) and can be upgraded with Thompsons or Flamethrowers - they would be purely close-range (while Rangers with rifles can attack at longer ranges...yes, not as effective as Kar98s but definately better than SMGs), they have less HP than Rangers...so how would they actually be any better than Rangers? They can fix tanks? Well, yes, but when you send them fixing something while they are under fire, they die like flies, they need to be out of combat. Armor already has Pioneers who actually repair faster than Combat engineers and since they also need to repair out of combat, aren't they better choice?
The thing about combat engineers is that they dont cost many munitions to become good compared to Rangers. The grease guns are quite comparable to garand at max range even while moving. And as armour doctrine the thing you want Rangers/Combat engineers for are destroying pak guns most preferably under smoke cover. And when combat engineers are equipped with 1 or 2 flamethrowers they destroy pak guns entirely much faster than a single bazooka while killing the crew and do not suffer much from the smoke cover. The repair is just a nice side bonus. so in conjuction they are cheaper, more firepower, more utillity than rangers.
And speaking of the overall balance, we are moving them from infantry doctrine to armour doctrine is just shift in who has to spend the resources to get them on the field. And I think rangers are total waste of manpower intil you get veteran training. When you get fully upped rangers in infantry doctrine (Which is 7 unlocks and 12 cp's?). That is the time they finally become better than grens.
And "there was a test game where 4 Henschel strikes destroyed 30 Shermans"...ok, let's say 7 shermans destroyed per Henschel strike? If only there was some way to make that Henschel ability pretty much useless...something that would immediately replace your lost tanks with new ones...oh, wait, there is!
You got me there. Even in the test run the remaing tanks were still always enough to beat whatever luft could throw at armour qutie handely. So it's quite true that casualties aren't a big deal for armour doctrine. So even in the worst case scenario armour doc could still push forward.
But what gets me the most is the fact that Shanks and Redgaarden say that Armor simply NEEDS some changes because otherwise is useless while Tiger and Warhawks say that Armor is very powerful, you only need to play it right. So how is it possible that some players think that Armor is useless while other players think the same doc is OK? If it were really so weak, everyone (or at least majority) would be on the note and there would be many "Armor doc is useless" topics.
Like Tiger, Armour doctrine is also one of my favourite doctrines. It's just very often I lost becasue I chose armour doctrine. Because I wanted to play it for fun In a very competetive game, so I agree it should result in my loss. I'm just saying the doctrine is extremely situational. And the doc shines brightest when combined with a good teammate, otherwise it's most often just meh.
And then there is also the little thing that I often have seen where the entire doc is taken down by a single unit like a kt or jagdP or in a extreme case, a regular tiger.
logically means that the difference is in skill and so with good skill the doc is good. And we cannot change docs based on this factor.
Though I would like to agree. I dont think the skill of the induvidual is very important in a team game like this. Teamowrk is equally important as skill. Since there is no way in hell you're getting through 2 jagdpanzers without wasting insane amounts on resources.
Like the talk with blitz vs emplacements. Yes bk can destroy emplacements but at a high cost.
Without big artillery from inf doc. Or airstrikes and ammo supply from airborne doc. Then armour doc wont have a good time vs emplacements or tank hunters.
It can lack Ani air just like terror or TH does or SE. Though i dont think M15 is bad in this role. At least when it can shoot at the airplanes.
They dont kill the airplanes and you can't counterbalance with more guns, sicne they are limited to 2.
And you dont need ranged inf units when you have scott and shermans. So The argument "Rangers can fight on more ranges" isnt reasonable anymore.
Grease guns are fine at long range.
OR if you are SOOOooo inclined to be the tough type of armor, which contradicts the "death in a tin can" motto shermans are known for... make a jumbo and choose tank commander arty tech tree.
Jumbo doesn't have that much extra health and the extra armour is negible in lategame often making it look like a regular sherman.
Regardless though, Armor doc being my most played US doc of all time.. then I guess I have to completely agree with MarKr. Armor doc isn't in desperate need of infantry support, and comparing it with TH doc doesn't really make much sense.
They can live fine without infantry.
Ironically enough even infantry doctrine can play a game without infantry. But armour doctrine can't play a game without amour.
P.s how do I quote the name of a person? I noticed all my quotes lack the name of the person I'm quoeting.
yy 
in fact, I play with new players more often than with my actual team-mates... Later I could inform them about my true identity 
