Panzerblitz1 wrote:No it is not, "if well played" ---> if well played was to quote in that case Sir, well played, you just skipped the most important word to make this sentence yours
I am inventing semantics, am I? You're the one who's trying to equate
Panzerblitz1 wrote:<U.S. armour doctrine is unique and has all what it need to perform well as tank doctrine, this doc is complementary with other U.S. docs, and work great with team mates.>>.
with
Panzerblitz1 wrote:armor doc is a lethal doctrine if well played in collaboration with your team mate.
And you have the impudence to claim my paraphrase is a complete fabrication when you don't even bother to maintain YOUR own conditional relationship on collaboration.
Hey, YOU there. Panzerblitz1 simply said "if well played in collaboration with your team-mates" and then later you came by claiming that Panzerblitz1 said "in highly collaborative play" So I really wonder where did you get that 'highly' from? Moreover, both his sentences are absolute facts.. you either should acknowledge them as they are, or just keep silent... Your argument is far off. And has nothing of importance to the game balance! Either clearly provide your ideas concerning the game, or just don't keep discussing on fundamental topics.
MarKr wrote:Do you personally have the feeling that Armor doc is somehow super-relying on team in other stuff than dealing with AT guns?
As for my personal feelings on Armor doctrine, yes I feel Armor doctrine is super reliant on teammates with dealing with just about anything. I aim to finish games within 30-45 minutes. Even on a very favorable early game largely earned by a teammate on a typical map, the fastest shermans can be built is about roughly 11 minutes in. Fifteen minutes of dead weight is lame and in the event that things go wrong, a resource starved armor doctrine is not much fun. But that's personal feelings.
MarKr wrote: So as I said:
MarKr wrote: is typing into chat "send arty here (ping position)" or "AT here, can you kill it with infantry? (ping position)" for you "highly collaborative play"?
No, but the last time we directly talked about collaborative play, it was about coordinating unit purchases to avoid inefficiencies (me using collaborative play to avoid the uselessness of 2013-2016 PIATs). That kind of collaboration is unrealistic to expect out of random games.
drivebyhobo wrote: yes I feel Armor doctrine is super reliant on teammates with dealing with just about anything.
OK, your oppinion. Then we have:
Tiger1996 wrote:Armor doc is my most played US doc by far, and it's not weak at all...
Warhawks97 wrote:I wouldnt say armor is weak. Just extremely frustrating sometimes when your mates have never heared anything about teamplay. Personally i never played Armor doc with random teammates.
On the other hand, when you got a mate who did his job i could extremely enjoy playing armor.
kwok wrote:i 100% armor is fine balance-wise.
DolphinsAreGaySharks wrote:Armor doc is pretty well balanced at the moment and personally one of my favourites.
So obviously not everyone has problems playing Armor doc, so I will leave them to have discussion with you on why they feel that way.
Tiger1996 wrote:Hey, YOU there. Panzerblitz1 simply said "if well played in collaboration with your team-mates" and then later you came by claiming that Panzerblitz1 said "in highly collaborative play" So I really wonder where did you get that 'highly' from? Moreover, both his sentences are absolute facts.. you either should acknowledge them as they are, or just keep silent... Your argument is far off. And has nothing of importance to the game balance! Either clearly provide your ideas concerning the game, or just don't keep discussing on fundamental topics.
Do you always take things so personally? Are you not familiar with a paraphrase? Logically my paraphrase is the same. Syntactically, both well (in his usage) and highly are adverb modifiers.
Panzerblitz1 wrote:You're playing the smart ass drivebyhobo, or i wasn't clear enough, possible, not a big deal anyway.
You accused me of sinister intent. I don't see it as a big deal either but I will defend myself.
Do you always take things so personally? Are you not familiar with a paraphrase? Logically my paraphrase is the same. Syntactically, both well (in his usage) and highly are adverb modifiers.
To answer your question, no I don't. Though, my point is.. just clearly provide your ideas\suggestions concerning the game if u have any... Rather than to keep discussing on such vague subjects forever; that's all I meant to say.
MarKr wrote: Yes, BK doctrine can reduce costs of PIVs too, but cannot reduce their upkeep which you as Armor doc still can do and even after the cost reductions your Shermans are still cheaper. Also how often have you seen BK players spam PIVs? They usually save resources for their strongest tanks - Tigers and Panthers. But here your doctrine counters them perfectly. Pershings (not just SP but Pershings in general) are superior to Tigers and at least equal to Panthers. But still, you have faster resource generation so even if you lose Perhing in battle with Panther, you can afford a new one faster than if BK player loses in similar battle his Tiger/Panther. Not to mention that M36 has same effective gun, is faster cheaper and can ambush. As far as Tank combat goes, Armor doctrine counters BK doctrine well. Sure, BK has Storm troopers but they cost lots of MP. If they get Storms, they delay building tanks. They build tanks, have less MP for Storms. If they have resources for everything and you can barely build a tank then they probably control more of the map but in such case it is expected that they will start to push you hard, just as well in opposite situation you would push them hard.
MMm i used to spam PzIV H with the cheap bk doc and is OP as fuck, since if you're againts only USA (armor) you can pretty much kill every single tank of them easily and also their infantry since PzIV are really good againts infantry too and you can pretty much make the same amount of tanks than the USA armor doc. So i would say that Blitzkrieg is pretty much a better version of what armour has to offer.
I guess when they say "OP allies" they're speaking of the british ones since they can do better than USA in every one of their docs.
and you can pretty much make the same amount of tanks than the USA armor doc. So i would say that Blitzkrieg is pretty much a better version of what armour has to offer.