Armored doctrine does not work

[Redgaarden]

I think armour doc is in some desperate need of some good infantry. And some kind of anti emplacement. And they definitely need some kind of anti air, I did test with Tiger before where he had henchels and I had 2 m15 11 shermans of various kinds. the m15 killed like 2 airplanes out of 4 henchel runs. I lost like 30 shermans including jumbos in that testing run. The sherman top gunners had more kills than the m15 (Not surprising when you have 6 times the number) but indivudialy shermans had more air kills than the m15 (Lie but not far from the truth)

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)

The problem with Rangers other than their insane cost for non infantry doc, are their base garands. Their base weapons have no special charastistic other than sharing the worst traits from most weapons. sharing the trait of a common smg in that they are a close range weapon and sharing the characteristics of a bolt action rifle that can hardly fire on the move. We should first agree on what rangers are supposed to be and rework them to fit that purpose. Currently they are a manpower waste infantry doctrine can use its big excess of manpower for.

[Panzerblitz1]

This is crazy talk, as we said before armour doctrine is a tank doctrine, not the AB, not the infantry.
Put 2 m15 AA maxton squad and you'll live better, what about the rangers? 350cp is a big deal? When grenadiers are at 410 and comes later with more expensive gears and costs? Rangers get thompsons, bazooka and LMg for medium range, with strong HP, what do you need more?
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, if you want more AA's, planes, or excellent infantry, take AB/Inf, but you'll not get the best U.S. tanks with it.
Who need anti tank emplacements in a high mobile doctrine like armour doc? Leave that to your U.S. infantry buddy in game.

Same for PE tank hunters and lufwaffe, when they work together they are a trully pure combo on the battlefield.

Lets put AT emplacements, strong infantry, and great AA capacity to all! What about more artillery too?

U.S. armour doctrine Work! What doesn't work is poor doctrine choice and wrong game strategy.

[Shanks]

You read what was written before, Panzerblitz 1? I realize, that talking here, and exposing a problem, IS A LOST TIME !!!!!!. Meanwhile the doctrine of armor will not be used, end of Story, thanks for nothing
You are a closed person.But it does not matter, thanks for what you did so far, it's fun to play the same, when you know that this unbalanced.......Look again at the replay please, and tell me what you would do in this type of situation (it was the tiger who wore armor, not a noob)

[Panzerblitz1]

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.

Yes? So? I Think Tiger said it all no? And i completely agree on that.

[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 ....)

Oooo!

[Panzerblitz1]

Yes so? Depending how you play the game some people will say tank hunters is shit, some players will also said armour doctrine is shit, bottom line is armour doctrine is a great doc if you know how to play it combined with another U.S. doctrine, i think Tiger can show you some extreme pawnage in pvp's using U.S. armour doc just to show you that what you're saying or thinking isn't true.

[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.

Read

[Krieger Blitzer]

@Shanks
I have had a lot of games when I completely dominated my opponents with Armor doctrine, probably the most amazing was this one:-
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=1389
This game is now quite old, can't recall exactly which version, but the playback file won't work properly with the current BK version for sure, but Armor doctrine didn't change much since then. Except that M16 AA half-track was removed from Armor doc, then replaced by M15A1, and the Luft airplanes were improved. However, in that game Nedkil was inf doc, and I was Armor doc.. against both Wurf as Terror and Endro as Luft. Sadly I never had the chance to upload this particular game as a video though, nonetheless... I have uploaded very similar games to that one, perhaps I could send you some links on Steam if u want.. and guess what, i have recently succeeded achieving similar results as Armor doctrine even with the newer BK versions too! So, I can see no real issue with Armor doc to be honest.

And if you take a closer look at the scoreboard screen-shot of the replay you have posted here, you would notice that I still had more kills than losses!! It's true that we lost at the end, and it's also true that I couldn't advance at all. But I believe that this was due to lack of team-play and bad co-ordination. And not because Armor doc is helpless anyhow!

Believe me, If I have acquired any serious balance issues with Armor doc, i would have not hesitated for a second to come down here and speak about them... I really love this doctrine, just so much.

[Warhawks97]

This is crazy talk, as we said before armour doctrine is a tank doctrine, not the AB, not the infantry.
Put 2 m15 AA maxton squad and you'll live better, what about the rangers? 350cp is a big deal? When grenadiers are at 410 and comes later with more expensive gears and costs? Rangers get thompsons, bazooka and LMg for medium range, with strong HP, what do you need more?
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, if you want more AA's, planes, or excellent infantry, take AB/Inf, but you'll not get the best U.S. tanks with it.
Who need anti tank emplacements in a high mobile doctrine like armour doc? Leave that to your U.S. infantry buddy in game.

Same for PE tank hunters and lufwaffe, when they work together they are a trully pure combo on the battlefield.

Lets put AT emplacements, strong infantry, and great AA capacity to all! What about more artillery too?

U.S. armour doctrine Work! What doesn't work is poor doctrine choice and wrong game strategy.

Everdy doc has so far one core thing in which it is very good and (BK and terror even two core things) and supportive stuff.

When i mentioned TH doc i was saying that even this highly specialized doc has next to its core (Tankhunters) also very good inf support and arty that can knock out any allied defense you can think off.

Inf and AB are good in terms of inf. Both have arty support and off maps planes (or arty). So a core and support.

And armor.... has just armor with n practially no support.




About Rangers:

Red is right what he said. What are they good for? Whats their role. Its an smg rifle behaving on the move like bolt action.

You forgot that WH Grens have better rilfe stats than Enfield commandos and healthpool comparable of Elite Infantry (even better sometimes).
You can use them as very deadly ranged unit but also deadly assault unit with good mid and close range firepower.

But i agree that adding any superior inf to armor doc makes little sense. Second calli and increased activation range for the tank commander off map.

[Panzerblitz1]

So i guess we are in agreement here.

[Warhawks97]

And that means what exactly now? That armor doc shouldnt get any superioir infantry is obvious. But what will be its support for tanks. Like every doc has next to its core(s) stuff that works as support and in conjuction. And assuming that allied can purely rely on their armor thickness is negligent.

I still prefer the combo of two calli and combat engineers that can blow up bunkers and supporting tanks in the field.

[Redgaarden]

I still prefer the combo of two calli and combat engineers that can blow up bunkers and supporting tanks in the field.

I know you have played this mod alot longer than I. But I fail to see how a 2nd calli will help, it already has like half a minut of constant nuisance barrage. Do you really need a whole minute where enemies can't enter a zone?
Maybe I'm just stupid but have you tried to blow up bunkers with combat engineers? (Demo) They try to set the explosvies right infront of the mg gunner and will never ever be able to complete them (even with smoke). I haven't tried to plant them away from the bunker to get them from doing the surround build of demo and killing themselves. I would be happy if you could enlighten me how combat engineers can kill mg bunkers (Which are 99% of all bunkers).

If we give armour doc combat engineers. Could they get satchel charge instead?

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.

I was implying here that the doctrine is supposed to be supported by a teammate. As which many people have already said they are.

[MarKr]

Guys, I don't really know where to start...we say something and the reply is "can't you read what I wrote???", yes, we can, we reacted to it but you don't seem to read or take into consideration what we wrote. So it is OK, that you don't listen what we say, but we have to listen to what you say?

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...so we'll have a doctrine with best tanks of all Allied doctrines, the ability to spam their medium tanks, with arty in form of Calliope and 75mm howitzer, with good AAs and also good infantry? Please tell me, what exactly will be the weakness of this doctrine? And once that happens, Axis players will cry how OP that is, Allies players will cry why Armor has everything while the rest always lacks something...real nightmare. What you don't realize from your position is how these changes would affect the gameplay on big scale, not only in the doc itself.

Rangers are cheaper than Grens or Assault grens of PE and, again, US has upkeep reducing upgrades that make you afford the units faster than the opponent, so if you need to (team mate cannot give you infantry for some reason) you can build more of them. TH have sort of solid infantry because they lack anti-infantry power in their TDs (which is their main force) while Armor doc has some anti-infantry capability on most of their tanks - top MG + HE which now works. As for "TH has arty" - they have Hotchkiss with 4 Stuka rockets, which are actually weaker than stuka rockets in Terror doctrine and their "emplacement-killing" potential is not god-knows-how mindblowing either. 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. 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?
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!

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.

Then you start the "Armor stinks" topic where you play double armor vs Luft and Def doc. I said already that BK mod is meant to be played in teams because then you can combine dontrines and support each other in your weak spots. If you select two same doctrines, that means that you have both same strenghts and both same weaknesses and that means that ou are both VERY good with the doctrine or you are VERY foolish. Because you don't support each other at all and if opponent chooses doctrines that are strong in the aspect which is your weak point, then you are gonna have really hard time winning...who would have guessed? Armor builds tanks and has limited infantry and arty support. Luft has Panther (you can counter them easily with Pershings, so here you are OK) then they have planes (here you have limited AAs; if one of your team was Infantry or AB, you would have M16s; if he was CW then you could have had bofors oro Crusaders), Luft also havs flak36 88mm which eat your Shermans for breakfast (you can decrew them with Calli but opponent will recrew fast). Then you have Def doc - with, again, AT emplacements (75/L48 emplacement, Pantherturm and flak36 88mm) which they can build anywhere and then they can build JPIV L48 and L70 and also Elephant, so you play double doc vs a team that chose very good counter docs vs your doctrine picks. So what do you expect? You miraculously win?

From my point of view as a dev (who has to consider impact of ALL changes on the entire game), I can see two people who say that Armor doc is weak and two people who say that Armor doc is OK. From my point I am more inclined to believe those, who say that the game is OK because if someone can win with the doc most of the time, while someone cannot, then it 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.
So debate with those who say that the doc is OK, try to learn from what they say and you will be able to make the doc strong in your hands too.

[Shanks]

@Markr--Wow, you think I do not know that changing something in armor will have an impact? It is just what I want!!!, if you did not realize, nowadays there are not many who play with armor, it is always preferable in 90% to play with airbone; In particular I think our friend Tiger 1996 is an AXIS player not so much ALLY.

I do not understand very well that you wanted to say about my last replay, easily win the doctrine of armor !!!. In this last game, I did not do any "bunker AT" until the 22 minutes of game, is something insolite, only need of a AT of 50 mm to stop half army Sherman, I did not have the necessity to use a AT of 75 mm and if I'm not mistaken Sherman "easy" is the equivalent of the panzer H. Do you think that "H" could stop with a 57 mm AT? .Es more, I did not have the need to advance with my partner, he won practically alone vs two Doctrines of armor, gives me the impression that you did not see the repetition, not even the "elephant or the panther", I am Kenshin in that game

I read what you write, but it seems that you do not read what I write, unfortunately, most "ALLY" players, play with the British and can not understand me well; You talk a lot about team play; But what does the logic tell you? If you play as a team, the opponent can also do it .... Tigre 1996 himself said: "The doctrine of armor lacking good tools, early and middle game": This two stages, define the last stage of the game. Do not you believe it? Which means that if you combine it with another doctrine, you will also have a disadvantage, and the enemy will double strength in that disadvantage

[Warhawks97]

Nice Markr. But still there is that question in the room. When all docs in this game has at least one supportive stuff (quite capable one) to push the advance. Why does armor lacks. Does it really change something to send more armor when armor already failed to successfully advance? sheer numbers have and are still not a good option for a successfull advance. Even for the infantry we learned that sheer rifle spam will never win the day. It had arty and finally got some capable infiltration rangers which gives infantry doc more than just a "conscript spam".

I will simply list down the docs and what tools they have for the offense or to push their advance. Note the word advance. It usually consists of a core force and supportive stuff.

Options for advance:
BK doc:
Core:
Infantry
Armor with good Guns

Support:
Arty (Rocket arty with incendiary effect, infantry off map barrages, stuh with long range)
Their infantry has nade bundles and satchels for clearing defenses and can infiltrate


Terror:
Core:
Armor with good guns
Inf


Support:
Off maps
Various artillery


Def:
Core:
Infantry
Arty

Support:
Armor with strong guns


Luftwaffe:
Core:
Infantry

Support:
Arty
Armor with good guns
Airplanes


SE
Core:
Arty
Support
Infantry
Inf with satchels


TH:
Core:
Armor
Tankhunters
Infantry

Support:
Arty
Infantry


RAF:
Core:
Infantry

Support:
Airplanes
Arty
Tanks with powerfull guns (vs inf and tanks)

RE:
Core:
Armor

support:
Artillery
Infantry with satchels

RA:
Core:
Arty

support:
Tanks with powerfull guns (vs inf and tanks)


AB:
Core:
Infantry

Support:
Arty
Airstrikes
Tanks good vs inf
Inf with off map barrages
Inf can use satchels


Inf:
Core:
Infantry

Support:
Artillery
Infantry with satchels
Infantry that can infiltrate
Tanks good vs inf
Armor (Jumbo)

Now comes armor doc:

Armor
Core:
Tanks and Armor with strong guns (vs inf as well as tanks)

Support:
Artillery


So far the theory. But that support arm falls off inadequate. Its either not able to bust defenses (not even a single emplacment) or it comes too late and is more "adding arty to mates arty" as a tool for advances by their own.

As i typed this down and as i read the stuff about missing mid game tools. I was thinking about making the commander off map coming earlier?

The tec tree change might be as follows:

Tank commander off map (like 2 CP)->Tank veterancy-> Tanks gain veterancy faster

The other would be vehicle cap (1 CP)-> Tellermines

The Tank commander off map could be activated from stuart tanks or chaffes as well. This way armor doc would initiate its advance similiar to inf doc. One well placed salvo right when the game is going to get campy. After that the armor doc could outplay its so called "mobility" much better. Mobility in late game doesnt help if you cant get nowhere in mid game because your enemie blocked you down.

Having a second calli would be appriopriate to keep up in late game scenarios.
Combat sappers having thompson removed. Instead only Flamethrower, Mine searcher and Satchels. That way they would fit excellent to armor assault role.

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.

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.

[speeddemon02]

Get enough .50 cal top gunners on tanks and they will take out planes, I know it is a lot, but I have seen it

[Shanks]

@Warhawks97--If you fulfill what you proposed, I would not need the ranger to be better at a distance, since I would not have problems for the advancement
I agree with what you say

[kwok]

i 100% armor is fine balance-wise.

i will probably say though... on small maps armor just isn't fun for the reasons warhawks touched on lightly. i use basic US inf just fine as supporting elements and make combined arms with tanks without too much issue. anti-emplacement... i mean.... the freakin scott is perfect for it. worst case scenario, god forbid i use a mortar... which everyone seems to forget is essentially light artillery that "every doc should have".

the only "issue" is that armor doc isn't fun on small maps because there is a point that it's easy to choke point the map with a single 50mm gun which counters more than half the armor doc tech tree. but if people are SO FREAKING SET on playing small maps, then honestly they deserve to get schwacked. armor doc strengths are mobility and volume with the occasional power punch mixed in. what it's NOT is a mega durable which most people like to believe tanks should be about (i disagree). armor doc shouldn't play like axis tanks i think, it gets rid of its unique traits of cheap and strategic units while axis tanks are more expensive and tactical. if armor doc were played on large maps, you'd be able to control more with the mobility of vehicles and powerful guns. 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.

so yes, i agree armor doc isn't fun on small maps and i rarely play it. interpret that how you want.

EDIT: sorry if im aggressive guys. i drank.

[Krieger Blitzer]

In particular I think our friend Tiger 1996 is an AXIS player not so much ALLY.

My most played faction is WH, then right after it.. comes US at the 2nd place... Then comes CW at the 3rd place; and lastly PE in the 4th place, being my least played faction. So, I might have some slight tendency to Axis.. definitely yet, I play Allies so much for sure!
Though, it's probably worth to mention that during the last 2 months.. I've actually had so many losses with all factions, due to unstable internet as long as I stayed in Egypt back then... Which caused me to simply drop out of so many games.

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.

The Tank commander off map could be activated from stuart tanks or chaffes as well. This way armor doc would initiate its advance similiar to inf doc. One well placed salvo right when the game is going to get campy. After that the armor doc could outplay its so called "mobility" much better. Mobility in late game doesnt help if you cant get nowhere in mid game because your enemie blocked you down.

Let me remind you that this off-map arty barrage costs only 75 ammo, and in fact.. it's also a lot more precise and much more devastating than the inf doc 105 off-map arty barrage! Therefore I really can't agree to such a proposition. Also, increasing the activation range of this ability would only make it more devastating than it is already. This ability doesn't need more range, you could always hide with your tank behind houses or hedges and then activate it without exposing your tank to anything...

Keep in mind also that the Calliope recently got cheaper, and was swapped with the 76 Jumbo.. allowing the Calliope to be available earlier at a cheaper price, I think the Calliope deals a lot of damage against grouped inf and AT guns, I have also seen the Calliope destroying low HP Panthers and Tigers who retreated way back in order to have some repairs. 2 Calliope would be very OP, therefore I must disagree with this suggestion as well.

And adding Combat Engineers to Armor doc won't really change anything, and I think MarKr already clarified why...

M10 from ambush (using hit and run tactics ability) as well as 57mm halftruck, are more than enough to destroy Stugs from safe distance... And yes, the 57mm half-track might not be very reliable in penetrating Stugs.. but the high speed combined with long range, you would have the chance to keep abusing ur target from long range until u penetrate.

Tigre 1996 himself said: "The doctrine of armor lacking good tools, early and middle game": This two stages, define the last stage of the game.

Yes, I said this.. but in late game, Armor doc is completely superior to Blitz doc, specifically with the existence of the SP. Blitz doc literally have nothing to compete with the SP at all... Except "luck" maybe!
When used wisely, SP could completely overturn the fate of the game to your own favor in just few minutes against Blitz doc.

in conclusion, I believe that Armor doctrine is powerful enough, and doesn't really need any kind of improvements.

[drivebyhobo]

i think Tiger can show you some extreme pawnage in pvp's using U.S. armour doc just to show you that what you're saying or thinking isn't true.

"Pwnage" highlight reels are meaningless. I can show you War Thunder clips where biplanes beat jet fighters. Does that justify that biplanes being normally matched against jet fighters? Lucky call of duty style "pwnage" videos only show favorable RNG. Statistical convergence matters much more than some highlight reel.

[Krieger Blitzer]

I think Panzerblitz1 was referring to PvP videos like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz69YrOu2xA) or that (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxreLPx0hL4) Where obviously Armor doc dominated everyone... These were not just highlights but rather some serious games full of hardcore BK players from both sides.

[drivebyhobo]

I think Panzerblitz1 was referring to PvP videos like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz69YrOu2xA) or that (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxreLPx0hL4) Where obviously Armor doc dominated everyone... These were not just highlights but rather some serious games full of hardcore BK players from both sides.

I know about the pvp videos. My point is that, if you only watch videos where Armor doctrine dominates, you could for example, incorrectly deduce that the Super Pershing is invincible because in the videos you never see a Super Pershing die.

[idliketoplaybetter]

To be more constructive, i believe we have to seperate few things(apparently basing our opinions on several replays is bad choice and it wont proove anything)

So first of all, lets be honest, there is a huge gap in skills between players now.Many smurfs, many newcomers, even more no-more noobs-not yet pro's.All that brings its portion of frustration and balance questions, multiplied by game itself inperfection and personal impressions on what perfection must be(expectings).


With that done, lets not put our attention, on what is obvious from our personal view.
What im saying, is that any, every, each doctrine can be usefull/abused/useless, coming from - uniqe ingame situation, map, playstyle and skill, there are so many factors..that appliying balance topic name "does not work" is irrelevant from the start at all.

[Krieger Blitzer]

@drivebyhobo
But from an opposite perspective; would you consider the SP suddenly unreliable when you see it get killed? The SP never died in the 2nd video. However, the first video on LaFiere.. my SP actually died... Yet, we still won the game. Armor doc also had the highest score with also a very decent kills/losses ratio. I have some other videos where I even lost the game as Armor doc.. don't really want to spam the whole place with a lot of links to such videos though, but I just wanted to show that if you take a closer look, you would find out that Armor doc can be very devastating, even more than AB or inf docs.

[Panzerblitz1]

i think Tiger can show you some extreme pawnage in pvp's using U.S. armour doc just to show you that what you're saying or thinking isn't true.

"Pwnage" highlight reels are meaningless. I can show you War Thunder clips where biplanes beat jet fighters. Does that justify that biplanes being normally matched against jet fighters? Lucky call of duty style "pwnage" videos only show favorable RNG. Statistical convergence matters much more than some highlight reel.

We are repeating over and over that u.s. Armor doc is good and not "shitty" as they said, im not talking about video clips here, but when you're saying you can't win anything playing armor doctrine, its good sometimes to check other players style, and strategy, and i think videos is good for that, its like using utube and check how to install your oven, its giving you precious informations, armor doc is a lethal doctrine if well played in collaboration with your team mate.