Armored doctrine does not work

[Shanks]

Hi

I really believe that the doctrine of armor lacks units (I think units are missing to add), should first improve their artillery (not comparable to that of bk) and something basic, rangers should have two light machine guns to be usable in all doctrines (I think ), I can not believe that a simple volksgrenadier is stronger than the rangers of USA, besides you can not even say that you can enter with your great pershing in enemy territory (a simple at 50 mm can do it pieces with his stielgranate 42, Even PE has it), well I know that bk is also about working as a team, but I think just as the doctrine of armor is very weak, I could say a lot of things about it, but this is not the place, the Defensive game only favors AXIS

In this particular game I know that tavares was not a good artillery support for the allies, and there was no good coordination on the side of the allies, should have entered the weakest side, but it was a good game anyway

Tiger:Armor
Dolphins:Airb
TAVARES:Inf

vs

Figree:Terror
BEREN:Luft
kenshin:Def

Link

[Panzerblitz1]

Armour doctrine lack units? No.
More artillery in tank doctrine? Hell No.
Volks are stronger than Rangers? Nope, not in Bk for sure.
Rangers with 2 lmg? No.
Defensive game favor only axis? Not at all.

[JimQwilleran]

Armor is the worst doc to fight def, luft and terror. All these docs can lock and kill armor easily. I'd advise you to first see the enemies docs and then pick your own. That will help you not to be countered by 3 enemy docs at once.

Volks are stronger than Rangers? Nope, not in Bk for sure.

Yes, in shank's game possibly buffed with def doc or zeal from terror, at max distance - volks win, and you are not covincing at all when you say "no because no".

[Shanks]

Never spam volks with lmg? Also I never see in games that are used to the rangers (except infantry doctrine).
why?
Not to mention the grenadiers ... I will only use rifle spam with BAR and halltracks?
Even so you can see that the AXIS uses all types of infantry available (and with a lot of life), with powerful machine guns.
TH of PE has hotchkiss, for much better than the caliope to sweep emplacements and kill infantry, combined with BK is lethal = powerful tanks + powerful infantry + powerful arty.
Do not believe?

(My English is bad nami, I may not express myself well)

[Shanks]

Armour doctrine lack units? No.
More artillery in tank doctrine? Hell No.
Volks are stronger than Rangers? Nope, not in Bk for sure.
Rangers with 2 lmg? No.
Defensive game favor only axis? Not at all.

It is true that the defensive game is not in favor of the axis, but neither for the allies, I just say because there are many who say OP allies, and do not perform fortifications with eje that are very strong and give time to make a war of attrition , Everything depends on the movements in combination in bk.

I think the rangers are weak at a distance, they should have a weapon more that can do good damage at distance (whatever)

[Krieger Blitzer]

Armor doc is my most played US doc by far, and it's not weak at all... The fact that it doesn't perform well against Def doc is absolutely normal. However, other than that; Armor doc is very devastating.. in this game here, we just didn't play well.

[Shanks]

If Luft, SE, TH, Terror and def can destroy the armor, including bk
How is it possible that it is strong ?, but nevertheless, bk can against the other two doctrines of USA. Imagine that only a Stug III, can kill infantry and shermans, "also sherman easy" with its famous AT position, where most of your Sherman shots fail you, Stug IV definitely kills any sherman "also the armor jumbo "And can come as reinforcement with infantry for 850 of cash. It is insoluble and that is not all the power of the bk. Not to mention that the bazuka of the USA does not usually cause serious damage to the panzer as the "H" by the amount of machine guns that they possess you can not approach them or they would be protected by Volks and depending on your "Power Shermans" that can be destroyed with a 50 mm AT, or worse, with a 75 mm. To improve your Shermans you have to go through a long process, in which you could get a tiger such time.

[Panzerblitz1]

Not it is Not! What do you want to bet that Rangers are stronger than Volks? How much?
I don't want to hear about upgraded units, versus non upgraded units, we don't balance a game that way.

So prove me that non upgraded rangers are weaker than non upgraded volks... and you'll win the Bet,

You could also test upgraded rangers versus upgraded volks if you want to, it you're still not sure.

There is nothing to fix here, or to add.

[JimQwilleran]

If I win the bet, can I become a moderator?

[Shanks]

I will prove it to you panzerblitz 1, lololol namii!!

[MarKr]

@Shanks: You need to realize that Armor doctrine, or actually US doctrines and their units in general, are not meant to win in 1 unit vs 1 unit situations. Since you talk about Shermans and PIVs and StuGs - if you place Sherman 76 vs Panzer IV H (both medium tanks of comparable tier) then PIVH has at max range 68% to penetrate Sherman while Sherman has 49% to penetrate PIVH.
On the other hand PIVH costs 550MP 80F and takes 75 seconds to build (without any improvements), while the Sherman costs 430MP 55F and takes 45 seconds to build. Of course you as Armor doc you can upgrade your Shermans with sandbags to gain 10% more HP and become harder to penetrate by 15% (PIV H then has 57.8% chance against it). These upgrades are investments but they automatically apply to Shermans you build in the future so with more Shermans built, the price per unit per upgrade goes lower and the doctrine gives you ways to build the tanks cheaper and faster - the Sherman 76 goes down to 335MP 45F. Add to all this that as US Armor doc, you get two upgrades that add you +5 fuel income each (which over the course of game gives you significant ammount of fuel) and also can get MP upkeep reduction on units (so basically your MP generates faster) and also you can get -33% fuel upkeep on tanks which basically again increases your fuel income.
These upkeep upgrades simply mean that even if your opponent builds same ammount of units as you, then he pays way more for them then you and while your units are alive, you regenerate more resource than him, so if you smash your units into each other a both of you lose all of your units, you can build up your army faster than him because you have more resources.

So as far as Shermans go, they are simply worse than PIVs, but for cheaper prices you can build more. Of course, managing more units is harder, but that is simply how the doctrine is made.

[Panzerblitz1]

If I win the bet, can I become a moderator?

This won't happend, but prove me that volks are stronger than rangers without upgrades.

[Shanks]

@Shanks: You need to realize that Armor doctrine, or actually US doctrines and their units in general, are not meant to win in 1 unit vs 1 unit situations. Since you talk about Shermans and PIVs and StuGs - if you place Sherman 76 vs Panzer IV H (both medium tanks of comparable tier) then PIVH has at max range 68% to penetrate Sherman while Sherman has 49% to penetrate PIVH.
On the other hand PIVH costs 550MP 80F and takes 75 seconds to build (without any improvements), while the Sherman costs 430MP 55F and takes 45 seconds to build. Of course you as Armor doc you can upgrade your Shermans with sandbags to gain 10% more HP and become harder to penetrate by 15% (PIV H then has 57.8% chance against it). These upgrades are investments but they automatically apply to Shermans you build in the future so with more Shermans built, the price per unit per upgrade goes lower and the doctrine gives you ways to build the tanks cheaper and faster - the Sherman 76 goes down to 335MP 45F. Add to all this that as US Armor doc, you get two upgrades that add you +5 fuel income each (which over the course of game gives you significant ammount of fuel) and also can get MP upkeep reduction on units (so basically your MP generates faster) and also you can get -33% fuel upkeep on tanks which basically again increases your fuel income.
These upkeep upgrades simply mean that even if your opponent builds same ammount of units as you, then he pays way more for them then you and while your units are alive, you regenerate more resource than him, so if you smash your units into each other a both of you lose all of your units, you can build up your army faster than him because you have more resources.

So as far as Shermans go, they are simply worse than PIVs, but for cheaper prices you can build more. Of course, managing more units is harder, but that is simply how the doctrine is made.

That's exactly what I questioned, I understand your explanation, but to get to the point of improvement, you had to keep positions (fuel specifically), watch volks (can make sandbags) + sniper + AT 37mm, which can shoot high rounds Explosive (if I'm not mistaken) + mortar 81mm vs rifleman + sniper + AT 37mm + mortar 60mm. Who would win? (It's just an example, besides there is not much difference in the cash expenditure in the two armies)
If armored can reduce sherman's price, bk can also do it (you can also reduce the speed of panzer construction). You can order off map reinforcements with fully equipped infantry and equipped tanks, much better than a simple jumbo off map, Since for example if it comes the stug IV is going to destroy the Jumbo, could even use the infantry that came as reinforcement and is far better than the M 10, also only for 850 of cash vs. 750 of Jumbo.If anything comes out Control, maybe you can resort to AT 50 mm (stielgranate) Bk has two maultier vs 1 caliope (I know you have to spend fuel for the maultier and not for the caliope). I can continue to make comparisons, like hellcat and scout, but no longer. I just ask to improve the rangers maybe, and if it is possible to have the 81 mm infantry mortar, put it also in armor, this is just to be able to support the Tanks, make infantry that dies fast vs. lmg for example = to lose resources (well it is known that tanks must go with infantry)
Thanks for the explanation Markr you took away me a doubt

[MarKr]

My explanation about Shermans was to more to compare the stage of game where opponent builds medium tanks and units such as StuGs. Now you are asking more in general. Here the situation is a bit more complicated. You say that to get to the bonuses of better resource income you need to get through the early game where opponent builds Volks and PaKs etc. But you have 37mm AT too - it has "canister shot" which kills infantry quite well too. Opponent builds Volks? You can build Rifles or Rangers too.

"Opponent has StuG IV from reinforcements which kills Jumbo"...StuG IV has frontally at max range 25% chance to penetrate Jumbo. Jumbo at the same range has 70% chance to penetrate StuG IV. So the chances are in favor of Jumbo. So the cost of Jumbo is justified.

Then you compare M10 and StuG IV, saying that StuG is better. In terms of firepower it is probably better, but then M10 can ambush and has the ability that has lower range but can penetrate even Panther frontally. So in certain situations M10 has good potential too. But as Armor doctrine, you also have Hellcat and most importantly Jacksons.

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.

This is the basic difference between Allies and Axis (and I know some players hate to hear this) - Allies are "specilized" while Axis are "allrounded". That means that as Allies you usally have upper hand in some area (arty/infantry/tanks) but as Axis you usually have two of the three better (or at least above-average) but Axis cost more so having everything is expensive. When you play Armor, the idea is that you don't primarily deal with infantry - one of your team mates provides infantry while you provide tanks (which they, in turn don't need to build as much). If you need to deal with infantry you need to use your units which are good at killing infantry - M4 sherman, Sherman Croc, or Scott. And that is why we cannot do this:

I just ask to improve the rangers maybe, and if it is possible to have the 81 mm infantry mortar, put it also in armor, this is just to be able to support the Tanks, make infantry that dies fast vs. lmg for example = to lose resources (well it is known that tanks must go with infantry)

You have ways to kill infantry, and buffing infantry in doctrine that is not meant to have good infantry is not really a good idea. I know that when you only use vehicles, they you are vulnerable to AT, but for Armor doc infantry support should come from team.

[speeddemon02]

Getting both fuel upgrades early on from the supply yard add up fast

[Shanks]

@MarKr
First: the high explosive shot of AT 37 mm of "AXI" in general is much better than the AT 37 mm shot of USA, never seen someone who knows how to play with volks come recklessly to attack riflemen in cover, but That create sand bags to fight, while you could shoot high explosive of AT 37 mm to force removal of riflemen or "to finish them" even to the vicker !!!, besides you remove a ranger does not serve of much also, it is but I prefer to request riflemen With captain ranger who brings a platoon of riflemen with 7 units and BAR; When the volks get lmg is much stronger than a ranger, without the help of his older brother "the grenadier", that is why I say that the rangers have to be improved, you rarely see ranger being used in armor doctrine. Or have you seen it?

Second: according to my experience the Jumbo can not win the Stug IV, since this one has the AT position and the Jumbo tends to fail the shots, I invite you to try it, it is true that the Jumbo does him a good damage "but In the course of time the Stu IV can tear you apart"
Not to mention that the Stug IV can use antiblindaje, that tends to destroy the jumbo cannon. Or is it that I always have such bad luck?

Third: The m10 is not so effective at the time of assault, however until the Stug III is more useful to advance, can liquidate Sherman 76mm and infantry !!! Again the AT position makes it lethal, you mentioned the panther; No one moves this tank in a preposterous way, besides if you are going to attack the panther with the M10, you need 3, it is not cheap, it would be better a Jackson. What I mean is that you can not be as offensive with the doctrine of armor, as with BK

Fourth: Do not talk panzer IV spam, you're right, you're always looking for fast heavy tank, and with regard to pershing; I never consider them a danger when I play with BK, I only use AT squad or better yet, 50 mm (stiel garnet), you can not count on the USA 57 mm AT (equivalent to 50 mm AXI), and your AT squad is not As effective as the "wher" unless you are an infantry doctrine

Fifth: I think that what I said responds because of the need to have a better ranger and mortar of 80 mm, since the "wher" can have it in all doctrines, the scout already comes in advanced game and is expensive Which justifies its price). The problem with armor is early gameplay, too much suffering, and then for you to advance with a Sherman M4 "with high explosive" you need to destroy the "AT" normally camouflaged !!! And as soon as the caliope arrives, the BK, for example, has already become stronger. Surely you tell me "use the mortar caterpillar", makes you lose fuel and delays you in the tanks. Now a question. When did you see that the BK needed another doctrine to help him in infantry? This is unstable in my opinion, but I enjoy it when I use it

[Krieger Blitzer]

M10 is superior to Stugs, from ambush.. you could snipe Stugs from distance using the so called "hit and run tactics" ability. And killing the Jumbo with Stug, requires huge luck. Armor doc might have some problems in early and mid game against Blitz doc, nevertheless... I assure you that Armor doc would eat Blitz doc alive in late game, removing the M16 Quad AA halftrack from Armor doc was probably the biggest nerf, yet.. as long as you somehow survive early and mid game... Blitz doc would have no chance.

Rangers are not even needed, Armor doc can cap points using jeeps.. and u have HE Shermans, Scott and 2 M15A1 half-tracks in addition to snipers to deal with enemy inf. Pershing has HE rounds, and Jacksons are deadly from ambush! Not to mention Blitz doc later can't do shit against the SP. Also, sandbagged Shermans are able to bounce off Pak40 shells quite reliably.
Armor doc even have very good chances against TH doc in 1vs1 games btw...


Though, as a side subject; since we speak about tank battles.. I know it might be off-topic, but i really wonder why both the Firefly and the Achilles are available in ALL CW docs. I think RA doc probably shouldn't have Achilles, and RAF shouldn't have Firefly.. in that case, I am almost convinced that 95mm Cromwell should be a doctrinal unlock, while replacing the Firefly completely in RAF doc.

[MarKr]

And here we go again...what ever I tell you, you will come with a "what if" scenario...same as Tiger.

so, just in short...you say "volks with lmg strong...Rangers need to be imporoved"...funny that in situations like these nobody ever says "opponent's unit needs to be nerfed", it is always "my unit needs buff".
anyway @ your "first": I have seen units getting killed by 37mm Canister shot...Rifles vs. Volks...not really "recklesly Volks attacking Riflemen in cover" but "Riflemen attacking Volks whilebuilding cover"...yes, I've seen that And no, I have not seen Rangers being used much...at least not Armor doc, because, as I said, Armor doc is focused on tanks and vehicles, not infantry.

@your "second": and according to stats, Jumbo wins vs StuG due to better penetration. The static position of StuG increases vision range by 15, weapon range by 10 and reload time by 25%, no penetration bonus. So when Jumbo has 70% chance and StuG has 25%, Jumbo mostly wins. I say mostly because RNG can make crazy stuff sometimes but in general if you test this 100 times, I bet the average win score will fit. Remember the buttered-bread effect.

@your "third": now you're jumping from SutGIII to StugIV but whatever. Yes, M10 might be better on defense, but for offense you have better toys.

cannot be with the doctrine as offensive as with BK

? Once first of BK player's tanks get ambushed by M36, I want to see how much offensive he will be...M36 can fuck up Tigers and Panthers in no time, so I really want to see which BK player would just ignore the fact that behind any corner can lurk a camoed 90mm gun which can pose a significant threath to his most expensive toys. I can give you the stats if you want, I did it for Wurf not that long ago, Tiger vs Perhing: Perhing has way better chance. Perhing vs Panther: chances more or less equal, Perhing has better AP shots though.

@your "fourht":I was talking in 1v1 battle of Pershing vs Tiger/Panther. If Pershings are no trouble at all, then tell me - after 90mm guns got buff vs Tigers and Panthers why so many people said that "BK is useless vs armor now"? Anyway. For 50mm PaK to use the rocket effectively, they need to be camoed. Armor doc has spotters.

@your "fifth":

because of the need to have a better ranger and mortar of 80 mm, since the "wher" can have it in all doctrines

. as I said

Allies are "specilized" while Axis are "allrounded". That means that as Allies you usally have upper hand in some area (arty/infantry/tanks) but as Axis you usually have two of the three better (or at least above-average) but Axis cost more so having everything is expensive.

The problem with armor is early gameplay, too much suffering, and then for you to advance with a Sherman M4 "with high explosive" you need to destroy the "AT" normally camouflaged !!!

...and the problem with Terror is early game too - everything is expensive as hell and when you lose a unit, it hurts. Armor is similar in this, early game sucks, team needs to carry you but you can significantly support your team if they carry you to later phases of the game. Same with Terror, same with TH.

Now a question. When did you see that the BK needed another doctrine to help him in infantry?

Answer: Rarely. Because BK doc has good infantry and good tanks. Lacks good arty. Armor doc has good tank capabilities, but suck at infantry and arty too (though Calliope is better than Maultier). But I already said:

Allies are "specilized" while Axis are "allrounded". That means that as Allies you usally have upper hand in some area (arty/infantry/tanks) but as Axis you usually have two of the three better (or at least above-average) but Axis cost more so having everything is expensive.

[Warhawks97]

Bk has two maultier vs 1 caliope (I know you have to spend fuel for the maultier and not for the caliope).

Once calli was also limited to two. Cant say the reason why it got limited to one while other rocket arty with bigger punch isnt that strong restricted.
Two callis could allow armor doc to push more continousley and disrupting the reconstruction of a defensive line or even the construction of a whole new one when you was just about to deal with the first.


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. Inf doc off maps and inf pared with HE shermans, e8 and off map tank commander arty worked out pretty well as long as you played straight forward without larger "breaks" during the game.


The 50 mm Pak from PE has no Rocket shot. Only Wehr has. And that thing has limited range and costs 100 ammo. Yes it can kill any allied tank but i am fine with that.



@Tiger: That last off topic suggestion isnt a good one. M10 are back ups and not really well for supporting assaults. RAF needs the fireflies. What else could provide propper support against axis armor in late games.

And RE needs the M10. When the game speeds up the M10´s are what keeps RA in game. I guess nobody would like the have RE at the end as pure snail doctrine that cant provide some quick support where its needed.

[Shanks]

Only an AT of 50 mm of the "wehr" can stop half army sherman, and you would have to resort obligatorily to mortar caterpillar, sniper or caliope; But the "Wher" has more economical options to pass an AT of 76mm USA, for example, maybe .... a 81mm infantry mortar, which is also a good support and you must counter with another mortar (obligatorily with A mortar oruga USA, if you are a doctrine of armor), if the mortar AXI is behind hedges, or more economical even !!!, the "Werh" can use the AT 37mm with "high explosive" to shatter your AT 76 mm, you understand my point ?. This is just basic, not to mention camouflaged units of BK, that can infiltrate or ambush you or the AT 75mm, almost no sherman can do anything, when there is an AT 50 mm in the field accompanying the infantry AXI; Friends, I know that the armor doctrine is "tanks" but you need infantry support, and they tell me, "your partner must support you with infantry", meanwhile the AXI, has twice as INFANTRY !!!. And tiger my friend, perhaps you do not realize what you say ?. The doctrine of TH of PE, is specially designed to destroy any tank allied, omg, is the same as saying "the doctrine of armor can easily gain DEF doctrine". Now, I hope you understand what I mean, do not Can play only with ARMOR, because the countermeasure would be AT !!!, and spend resources on units like mortar, caliope USA, or infantry that does not help, is a waste of valuable time and resources, you talk as if it were that when you play With ARMOR, it is easy to maintain your territory necessary for its development, there is no doubt that the doctrine of armor is strong, but it requires TIME AND RESOURCES FOR ITS DEVELOPMENT !!! I ask you to read carefully what you explain before responding again, Thank you.

[Redgaarden]

Call ins > Artillery > Emplacements > Heavy tanks > Ligth vehicles > Snipers > Medium tanks > Falls > Infantry > Builders > Rifles.

According to my accurate calculations. We can clearly see that armor falls in the "top 3 best companies" catagory at a staggering 3rd spot falling behinde almost every other doc in the game.
If you love uncertainty, coin flip engagements, by far the absolut worst infantry in the entire game, not having any anti air avalible (seen 50cal top gunner and 20mm armoed car more effective than m15) AND no tools for destroying, emplacements, artillery pieces, supperior tanks and bunkers. Then fear not! armour doctrine has all the nothing you could ever dream off.

In conclusions. Armour doc is ONLY armor. No artillery. No emplacemetns. No Infantry. No call-ins. Half your tech tree is about shermans and you have a one time only super pershing that can be clicked once and killed. So Watch out for cloacked units, Jagdpanthers, Henchels, 280mm Rockets, 150mm guns and king tigers. That makes you good vs 2/6 enemy doctrines. As long as your teammates can handle the other 4, Then you should be in good shape.

Armour Doc: ̶C̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶i̶n̶s̶ ̶> ̶A̶r̶t̶i̶l̶l̶e̶r̶y̶ > E̶m̶p̶l̶a̶c̶e̶m̶e̶n̶t̶s̶ > Heavy Tanks > L̶i̶g̶t̶h̶ ̶v̶e̶h̶i̶c̶l̶e̶s̶ > Snipers > Medium tanks > F̶a̶l̶l̶s̶ >̶ ̶I̶n̶f̶a̶n̶t̶r̶y̶ > Builders > Rifles

Note. Ligth vehicles represent anti air.

P.s Rangers are extremely cost inefficent. Sure they can beat volks, but expect to trade them 1v1 and losing 100 more manpower than your oppnent.
I would classify volks as supperior than rangers.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Hey, Shanks... I totally understand your viewpoint, Armor doc is lacking some good tools in early and mid game.. but this is actually the case with most Axis doctrines too. However, i think that when you say: "Only an AT of 50 mm of the 'wehr' can stop half army sherman" is a little bit an exaggeration, don't u think? ^^
I have even seen the 50mm Pak38 still bouncing off ordinary HE Shermans without sandbags quite often.. and sometimes even at medium range, and not just maximum range. It's not extremely accurate too... Can be very inaccurate sometimes, the 100 ammo rocket ability is obviously not cheap, requires 3rd phase upgrade and also has limited range. Not to mention there are a lot of ways to eliminate Paks... Calliope is enough to kill AT guns as well as infantry groups, snipers can do the job too. Shermans in Armor doctrine are cheap, and you don't need infantry, so you will usually have enough manpower to maintain 2 snipers on the battlefield.

There is no doubt that TH doc is superior.. but this doesn't mean that defeating it in 1vs1 as Armor doc is entirely impossible... Everything can happen in this mod as long as you u have enough skills and using the right strategy, that's all I meant to say

I would classify volks as supperior than rangers.

Volks might be more cost sufficient than Rangers in Armor doctrine, but I think Rangers from inf doc are definitely better.. specifically when their price is significantly reduced, with cheaper weapon upgrades as well as positive camo

[Shanks]

@Wharhawks97:You said:"The 50 mm Pak from PE has no Rocket shot. Only Wehr has. And that thing has limited range and costs 100 ammo. Yes it can kill any allied tank but i am fine with that" I was referring to the light vehicle Sd.kfz. 250/10 Pak 36 of 37mm with stielgranate, even more dangerous by its mobility

@Redgaarden:You are great, excellent explanation, now I think that Panzerblitz 1,understand my concern for the ranger, not is effective in the doctrine of armor.
On the other hand you said something even more important "In conclusions. Armor doc is ONLY armor .No artillery .No emplacemetns .No Infantry .No call-ins .My your tech tree is about shermans and you have a one time only super pershing that can Be clicked once and killed.We Watch out for cloacked units, Jagdpanthers, Henchels, 280mm Rockets, 150mm guns and king tigers.Which makes you good vs 2/6 enemy doctrines.As long as your teammates can handle the other 4, Then you Should be in good shape ".Although I think it would only be good vs 1/6 enemy doctrines.

@Tiger 1996:You said:"Hey, Shanks... I totally understand your viewpoint, Armor doc is lacking some good tools in early and mid game"(This defines the last stage of the game and you know very well)" but this is actually the case with most Axis doctrines too"(lie)"However, i think that when you say: "Only an AT of 50 mm of the 'wehr' can stop half army sherman" is a little bit an exaggeration, don't u think? ^^
I have even seen the 50mm Pak38 still bouncing off ordinary HE Shermans without sandbags quite often.. and sometimes even at medium range, and not just maximum range. It's not extremely accurate too... Can be very inaccurate sometimes, the 100 ammo rocket ability is obviously not cheap, requires 3rd phase upgrade and also has limited range. Not to mention there are a lot of ways to eliminate Paks... Calliope is enough to kill AT guns as well as infantry groups, snipers can do the job too. Shermans in Armor doctrine are cheap, and you don't need infantry, so you will usually have enough manpower to maintain 2 snipers on the battlefield"(This doctrine if you need infantry, you are contradicting in what you said first, the AT of 50 mm if you can stop half army Sherman and you know it, you should read again what I wrote, please)"There is no doubt that TH doc is superior.. but this doesn't mean that defeating it in 1vs1 as Armor doc is entirely impossible... Everything can happen in this mod as long as you u have enough skills and using the right strategy, that's all I meant to say"(I did not say it was impossible at any time, of course, you could win TH rookies, but in a game of "expert player vs. expert player", TH will definitely win. TH, his name says it all! Maybe just jagdpanzer spam will suffice ....)

[Warhawks97]

Ive been always saying that a doc should have at least two things that are in a good conjuction and which makes sense.

Because doing just one thing is one thing too less. Its too easily countered. I also now what you mean with economical ways. Like, oh there is a AT gun? get a cheap nebler and its done usually.

Even a specialized TH doc has more than just one thing. It has nice supportive infantry (let alone the Grenadier upgrade that helps detecting hidden TD´s on the minimap) that can perform assaults. Assault grens and stgs for clearing resistance and AT but also stormpios that kill any heavier defenses. And rocket artillery (that is one of the strongest in terms of damage and able to knock out emplacments) that comes very early, cheap and without any CP or limits. So its main role and force (AT and Tankhuters) are being supported by decent Infantry and capable rocket arty (for def and off).

So basically every doc has one (BK and Terror more) strong core supported with necessary support coz everything needs at least one capable support type.

And armor doc is so far the only doc that has one core thing but nothing besides (A single calli cant be considered as really capabale support) that.


We had discussions about making Rangers inf doc only (to which we found lots of support but which got rejected) as they serve no real purpose in AB or armor and that combat engineers for armor doc for at least having inf support that can also do some quick simple repairs at least. But Devs rejected it. Idk if they ever switch their mind.


Another thing was to give armor doc one calli and one 105 for tougher targets.
I would largely vote to give armor back its second calli. That way enemies would have less time to rebuild/crew their defenses while you prepair next assault. So you can open assault with calli, attack, go back for repairs/referesh and second calli denies enemies to return/building new defenses.
So the gameplay would be more forward orientated.


Now you may come with "omg, again more arty?" Well, i dont think that this change will make the gameplay look more ugly. And makes more sense than Nebler in Luft doc or arty in RAF doc.
Another argument might be "use smoke". Well its one thing to assault with inf and another with Tanks. For smoke you need to know quite exactly where opponents are and where you will be. If you overseen an MG or running in another, you click retreat... simple as that.

Tanks are much more complicate in attack and retreat. Overseen one AT gun or TD and half of your tanks will be dead or unable to retreat. Besides it requires one barrage of smoke (or more) for attack but also a followed barrage to escape your tanks. The ammount micro is uncomparable higher when using smoke+tanks as when using infantry+smoke.


For that reason, second calli or 105 would be logical, fair and of top of that, still "Armor only" without adding airstrikes or any further infantry.

[Shanks]

I think that two caliopes would be OP, but if this doctrine needs better artillery, I've been thinking of removing the 75mm howitzer in infantry doctrine (infantry doctrine does not need it), to give armor doctrine, which Can have two, this would not be OP; With respect to the rangers, should be improved as a basic unit of US, maybe give them two lmg and increase the price to 400, I do not think this does OP to US (I know this will affect the infantry doctrine, that's why I say That he will raise the price and that he can acquire 2 lmg per 150 of ammunition); For example BK has good infantry too. It is only for a better balance and this will improve the performance of the US, I really see very few people playing with the US "doctrine of armor"

(Is only a suggestion, if someone has a better idea or an idea, please say so, anyway after making the changes people will talk, it would be nice to try and if it is OP remove it again)