Axis vs Allies doctrine structure

Post by **kwok** » 05 Dec 2016, 22:58

Here is a topic I think everyone has talked about but never as a direct topic. I know everyone has a lot to say about it, so I think it's helpful for us to spill it all out here and get a straight response from the devs.

I've got a LOT to say, so I'll try to be concise and think about the quickest way to say what I want later. But for now, before the 4.9.6 topic gets too cluttered, I thought I might as well post this topic now.

To start the convo with my opinion: I think that balance will never be achieved if axis and allies are fundamentally different, with one balanced and one specialized.
On top of this, we are slowly deviating away from the original concept of "axis are balance and allies are specialized" anyways and will only cause more balance issues without a single clear principle we can stick with when talking about balance.

Jalis · Post by **Jalis** » 06 Dec 2016, 02:20

Could allowing mixed factions in team solve the problem ? Point if players dont like it for historical immersion nobody force them to use option.

Post by **kwok** » 06 Dec 2016, 03:16

Personally I'd love that idea to work, just cuz a mirror 1v1 would be fun, but I think it would really mess with how things can be balanced because you will have a larger tree of possible game combinations. Like look at coh2 balance complaints. ESPECIALLY if devs want to continue with the whole "axis is balanced, allies is specialized"

Post by **kwok** » 06 Dec 2016, 07:11

Disclaimer if the huge wall of text below hasn't given a hint yet: I broke my promise in trying to keep it short. Sorry in advance.
Two claims I want to back:
1. I think that currently the doctrines are set up inconsistent with the original BK ideals (or at least what was described by the devs).
2. Furthermore, I think that the ideals set by the devs are in such a way that balance will never be achieved.
One long-term proposal:
It would be better for the game that WM doctrines are re-examined and re-designed to be more specialized while other doctrines from the rest of the factions are stripped down to their specialized intents.

1 Doctrines are not aligned with BK ideals of "Axis doctrines are balanced, Allies doctrines are specialized
There is a lot of contradiction in what the devs say and what actually is implemented into the game. Over a long history of "balances", the doctrines have started spilling out into different directions from the original dev statement. Below are some examples without details on when they were created, just describing the current state:

As we ask for more and more balance changes, I feel there is a general trend that we start to drift away from the dev statement.
Below is a quote from a dev that somewhat implies the unsteady nature of balancing between doctrines and difficulty in deciding whether a doctrine should or should not include something.

MarKr wrote:So...allies are still way more dependant on the team play, and you say it is OK, but just because BK doc misses something that can be provided by team mates, it just needs something to fill this weakness? Every Axis doctrine has some weak side - Terror has weaker early game than other doctrines (strenght is in late units which come...later), Def doc lacks defenses as it only has HTs and some TDs but no real tanks...we could find something for every axis doctrine...
So why is it OK for Allies to rely on team to fill in the weak spots but it is not OK for Axis especially if they need to rely on team way less?

Fundamentally, there is nothing wrong with what he said but it does reveal that there is some kind of conflict when decisions are made by devs on determining doctrine structure.

2 The ideals set by the devs are in such a way that balance will never be achieved
Often, we bring 1v1 scenarios to the balancing table even though devs have specifically repeated many times that the mod is not designed for 1v1s. Even still, devs have supported introducing 1v1 maps into the mod so it is difficult to NOT think of balancing in terms of 1v1s, especially when some maps and metas are "lane designed" where players will have multiple 1v1 like situations in a game. These 1v1 scenarios often come up in balance discussions because they come up in game by design and has snowballing impacts in the later stages of a game. That being said, when a player comes to the forum saying "I have no counter to ___" and the response is "rely on your teammate", it is only a somewhat fair response because in game it's possible that "relying on a teammate" equates to sacrificing a lot of strategic possibilities while opposing players need not worry about teamplay in a allegedly "team oriented game".
We talk in terms of counters but don't mention the tradeoffs to counters. Tweaking values will not be enough to fix these tradeoffs simply because while hypothetical value A moves in response to value B, value A may end up losing out against value C. But, value C cannot be adjusted because it will have ripple affects in a value B vs value C match up. It becomes circular. I recognize that string of sentences is difficult to follow, so a real example, just follow the history of JUST terror doc grenadiers:

This unit has gone on a goddamn rollercoaster ride of balancing. Meanwhile, each one of these changes have impacted ANOTHER unit and its values, which probably impacted ANOTHER unit and its values, which eventually came back and impacted how these grenadiers performed. The cost and the mp44s they could carry literally went down then back up. I could go into a deeper analysis and talk about those impacts, but you're going to get a much longer post and I've already broken my promise of keeping this short. After years of playing and multiple balances, how have we NOT gotten grenadiers balanced? Maybe this 4.9.6 we aren't talking about grenadiers, but I'll put my money down now that we will come back to terror grenadiers again if we keep balancing the same way we have been balancing.

Proposal: It would be better for the game that WM doctrines are re-examined and re-designed to be more specialized while other doctrines from the rest of the factions are stripped down to their specialized intents.
I never like to post a complaint without a solution. So, here is my really far out solution that is the best I can come up. I know it'll be a long challenge to implement, but I think it is worth pursuing and maybe make balancing much simpler.
By standardizing the doctrine designs, we can finally do away with all these talks about 1v1s and rightly say that the mod is not built for 1v1s. Or we can respond to 1v1 claims by simply giving the counter-pick doctrine without backlash in "but axis are supposed to be well rounded". The mod will cover itself logically and consistently.

It's a radical change from the original intents, but looking at it now the tunnel is actually not that long. PE has already began "specializing" even though some "well rounded" units have creeped itself into the faction. The only faction that needs a true overhaul is Wehrmacht which isn't so bad. There is already a slight framework in place for the WH doctrines. Defense doc is for defense and support, blitz doc is for strong inf and low tier tanks, terror doc is for high tier tanks and support. Meanwhile all the other specialized docs get stripped of their well-rounded capabilities. With this, games will truly be team oriented by all factions and players.
I won't get into too many specifics, those can be hashed out as long as the overarching idea is accepted.

This will help with balancing because doctrines can now be performance tested based on their designated capabilities. It will be easier to draw parallels between docs and how they perform against each other rather than trying to cross-analyze 5+ doctrines at a time. There won't be comparisons between arty doc, terror doc, defense doc, SE doc, inf doc, and RE doc because just because they all have arty. It will simplify down to the 4 artillery focused doctrines: arty, def, SE, inf. From here, you can easily calculate power:cost ratios between all the different units and feel safe placing those units in proper places and talk about tradeoffs within the scope of a doctrine rather than the huge complex possibilities of doctrine combinations. This will also do away with posts screaming "three terror docs vs allies ruins the game".

The alternative would be to make ALL doctrines well rounded, but that is such a grand endeavor that it may just shake the BK mod too the point of losing identity.

Sukin-kot (SVT) · Post by **Sukin-kot (SVT)** » 06 Dec 2016, 09:26

I don't agree that WH is "good all arround" it used to be like this, but no longer. As allies you can play solo as RAF, AB or RE ( also inf doc, but extremely high skill required ), basically this docs can deal with everything axis can bring up, as raf or ab I may need direct teammate support only in case of facing super heavy defences. Last axis doc which is a true jack of all trade is terror, but in needs strong support in early-mid stage, first 20-25 minutes of match you play as if you have no doc chosen at all.

Through last years axis docs started to be less and less independent, while allies got much more versatile and powerful ( compare Armor, AB and RE to how they worked few patches ago, RE and AB were dead ( AB could be played only by using x6 Johnsons and x6 RS squads, RE was a joke ).

I think it's too late asking for "more specialized" WH, while all updates of last few years were aimed on increasing allied flexibility.

Generally, I'm the biggest opposer of this "specialization". It simply sucks and makes gameplay boring ( look at TH doc, there is no single player who plays it more often than once in a century, 25 mins you are sitting with like no doc, then only you can do is spam silly tankbusters. Specialization = ruined fun. Is it fun to get blocked by a couple of units ( mg42, pak 38 + Puma) like it was with RAF? Is it fun to get steamrolled by a single Panther ( hello AB before the patches )?

TH doc is a living example why BK needs no spezializations, but exactly the opposite.

Teamplay should be something you get benefit and advantage from, but not essential, otherwise = oh, enemy have a bunker, well, I can't do shit, let's hope that my teammate is not a noob and knows English, so he will try to destroy this by his arty - I see only frustration from this kind of games.

Post by **kwok** » 06 Dec 2016, 09:38

I think we agree in terms of the current state of the doctrines: Axis has become more specialized, allies has become more versatile. And I think we both agree that we are moving in the wrong direction.
On top of that, I didn't mention in the post but I also prefer all factions be well rounded and teamplay should be a benefit but not essential which is what I stride for in my mod. Hope you can check that out some time.

What I disagree is that BK should be like this. But, it's only on two things that I assume is what devs want: easier to change and balance, stays closest to original intent when xali was still around. If it were my mod, I would probably agree with you and make all factions well rounded. But, BK isn't mine. I only have CoH2.

But, lets say we COULD make all factions well rounded. From this point it would be extremely hard to balance all and find differentiation between doctrines. How would you maintain identity between doctrines if doctrines can all counter each other? What would be the point of doctrines at all? When will "well rounded and balanced enough" be enough if we started mixing unit assortments between doctrines?

Sukin-kot (SVT) · Post by **Sukin-kot (SVT)** » 06 Dec 2016, 10:29

kwok wrote:But, lets say we COULD make all factions well rounded. From this point it would be extremely hard to balance all and find differentiation between doctrines. How would you maintain identity between doctrines if doctrines can all counter each other? What would be the point of doctrines at all? When will "well rounded and balanced enough" be enough if we started mixing unit assortments between doctrines?

I don't think it's that hard to achieve, RE, RAF, AB need no changes, they are almost perfect. Armor and BK only lack some better arty unit ( raf Cromwell is the brilliant example how a single unit can change the gameplay, axis don't dig deep into the ground when they face RAF since they know Cromwell can crush all their paks and mg's, allies don't need CW arty that bad anymore due to another doc which can deal with basic defenses by its own --> increase of the gameplay flow and less camping ). USA armor also needs just a single good arty unit ( arty Sherman will fit there perfectly ). SE and Arty are good as well. The only doc which will need huge rework is TH of course.

Post by **MarKr** » 06 Dec 2016, 11:52

I am sorry if this is too off-topic, but Sukin, do you realize that your solution is only in "add more arty"? I can remember people saying that there is actually too much arty in the game already and in late game it is simply arty fest most of the time. How will this help?
You also say

otherwise = oh, enemy have a bunker, well, I can't do shit, let's hope that my teammate is not a noob and knows English, so he will try to destroy this by his arty - I see only frustration from this kind of games.

and from one of the recent topics:

sgtToni95 wrote:An example (and big thanks to Kwok): i've been playing against a couple of players who just spammed mg bunkers all over the frontline, my mate was arty doc and trying to take them out with arty doing such little damage while i was using 2 inch to smoke on bunkers and take them down with 2-3 demo charges each. So those were BUNKERS (waaaaay more resistant than allies mg nests) and i didn't have any assault ability nor Big lethal bomb from above to take them down with 1 click.

It simply seems to me that many people see arty as a universal solution to everything and don't see other options they have.

sgtToni95 · Post by **sgtToni95** » 06 Dec 2016, 11:56

I agree with kwok's suggestion of making more specialized doctrines for all factions and stripping off those who have gained too much versatility for all the reasons he mentioned. I think good players like you Sukin are more affected by the eventual need of team-mates help, or having to help them, cause you could easily do it on your own. I think that making doctrines more oriented would make this choice more vital for the game's result in 1v1 scenarios, but it could push players to look for cooperation, which is not that bad imo. Warhawks told me there used to be clans in this game, and i really liked the idea of "noob camp" some players were trying to do. And MAYBE having a more teamplay focused game could even help to get some old and new players back to this mod.
I'm personally more an allies player, so i can't be totally objective, but Wehrmacht is the doctrine in which i have the best W/L ratio cause i find it a lot more easier to play since it has (imo) more valuable and versatile units (almost all inf getting buffs from tech tree and having both at and anti inf, same thing for mid-late tanks). With more specialized docs i think gameplay becomes quite more interesting and challenging, both to play (by "forcing" people to use underestimated or forgotten units/abilities to overcome the lack of those not included in the chosen doc) and to face.

Warhawks97 · Post by **Warhawks97** » 06 Dec 2016, 19:25

Good arguments for both sides.

Generally i do like the ideas of teamplay necessary for both sides for the same ammount. It was sometimes nasty to know that i cant do something against a certain unit(s) or docs with my own doc (i remember when camping as axis was easier as know with super old stupa ultimately showing up and you just prayed that your arty mate does the job or a lucky off map long tom or so).

But in case you knew that you could rely on teammates it could be hell fun to have specialized docs. In my old clan i even loved to play RE (when nobody else ever touched the doc) simply because i had a inf and armor player i could trust.

I think if we would have on both sides specialized docs game could be fun still. Sooner or later players would learn that they need help and that they have to help.

I think one very reason of not helping each other was because there had been all- rounders. Less skilled players only choosed them and those never made the experience of being in the need of help. Thus those who needed help never got help and became frustrated and finally started choosing those few multirole docs as well. Finally ending up in "3x terror in same game". Like saying: "Damn. Up yours!" I will do my own shit now.

I can remember endless games where Terror (or in old times TH doc players that had KT´s, panther and BK doc players with superior Tank IV´s, more powerfull stuhs and iirc even walking stuka) players blamed others that played more specialized coz for not being able to hold their side. Or RA players that got blamed to be unable to hold "their" side which forced me to force others to let RA players on a naturally less pressured side or embeded between other docs.

So in short: If all are specialized all would have to realize that teamplay is the key and i could imagine games could become fun. I loved to see teams acting dynamic with players frequently switching positions (rotating almost). But that required mates, teamplay, ts almost necessary and a good understanding of the game mechanics and huge unit knowlegde and esspecially very good overview to realize where own doc capabilities are used most effective.

But in the last 1-2 years of personal playing it was more like sukin said:

oh, enemy have a bunker, well, I can't do shit, let's hope that my teammate is not a noob and knows English, so he will try to destroy this by his arty - I see only frustration from this kind of games.

I dont know how often i got frustrated. Sometimes almost winning a game, map controle with 3 vs 4 while the last dude just had to move forward, getting some defenses up to maintain controle, or getting a silly sherman, or silly arty HT. But instead he ran for priest which took time and ground, or pershing which came too late and was far more as needed (or a tiger instead finishing with a bunch of pumas and tank IV´s).

From that perspective (and which seems more the style of the "modern BK players") it makes sense to use RAF, AB etc as example.

@markr: and yes, smoke might be an option here and there. But i also had games where our team had finally 4 or 5 mortars using nonstop smoke leading one ranger assault after the other but the damn last tool simply lacked. One and a half hour or repeated smoke and attack but it wasnt enough. Bunch of volksgrens in trenches, always remaned HMG (like to knock out one MG at a time it required smoke, two inf squads and a nade just to see how its recrewed by cheap pios again all time), Bunker hit by two satchels but as soon as you retreat a bunch of pios come back, repair instant and when you come again you see it almsot fully repaired and even reinforced. Or, you was just done with one bunker and the next was up right behind that *i just hit my head that hard that i got headaches for the next day".

So smoke is a tool for, lets say "timed defenses" like a pak+ HMG that can then be overruned. But its pointless (or frustrating) when the entire team camps arround.... every cheap unit with picked up LMG behind sandbags, always recrewed HMG and mortars and defensive line behind defensive line. And ultimately frustrating is it when you do all this hard micro with smoke and lots of units while your mortars get killed all the time by cheap rocket arty.

At this moment... at this very moment you just want to beat the shit out of the enemie by sending him arty. In an older game i faced such a game. 2 def doc. luft and TH. We barely used arty and if then well timed strikes rather than WW1 24/7 arty style. But there we just got idk, more than 10 howitzers, spared res and bombed the 88´s, and stuff to hell.

So sukin is right when he says that a certain ammount of arty is necessary if you dont want to rely to 100% on teammates. And he is definately not "always arty".

Or at the end all would have to use smoke mortars. Coz if one has to the defender can just use his cheap arty and kill the mortar (if he is smart enough to see the mortar and the smoke it does as enemie key element to success). So we would need the same right/rules for all which then comes back to either all specilized or all a bit of everything.

Sorry for that long post.

Post by **kwok** » 06 Dec 2016, 21:00

Ah I was waiting for Warhawks to come in. That damned guy spends more time on the forums when he could be helping me in coh2.

I agree with all conceptual ideas sukin and Warhawks have said. Personally I'd rather all well rounded, but I see the value and reason in all specialized as well. That being said, I'm open to helping out in anyway to make these ideas happen, if they are accepted to happen.

About what Warhawks last said: damn it's like I make one big deal about smoke and suddenly that's the only alternative to artillery... I guess it's about revealing one secret strat at a time. I'll make a bknc post about not artillery or smoke attacking. But even if there is a third way of attacking, what's to say that the situation you painted, Warhawks, doesn't call for arty? Or even better, perpetual mortar barrages to drain the defender of mp from constantly reinforcing those cheap units. Rocket arty costs more that mortars. Give him more zombie volks for all I care, his micro will break eventually at the nth volks and his army composition will be extremely unbalanced and inf centric. they just turn into m4 Sherman he food.

Post by **MarKr** » 06 Dec 2016, 23:14

@Warhawks: Perhaps I did not express myself clearly enough. I did not mean that smoke can substitute arty every time but very often "arty everything to dust" is not the only possible way you can use. However many players simply see arty as the only way to take down defenses. As in "oh, he has one emplacement over there...I need some arty now!" You said:

So sukin is right when he says that a certain ammount of arty is necessary if you dont want to rely to 100% on teammates. And he is definately not "always arty".

I was not talking about Sukin's suggestions in general, I was reacting to this:

Sukin-kot (SVT) wrote:Armor and BK only lack some better arty unit ( raf Cromwell is the brilliant example how a single unit can change the gameplay, axis don't dig deep into the ground when they face RAF since they know Cromwell can crush all their paks and mg's, allies don't need CW arty that bad anymore due to another doc which can deal with basic defenses by its own --> increase of the gameplay flow and less camping ). USA armor also needs just a single good arty unit ( arty Sherman will fit there perfectly ). SE and Arty are good as well. The only doc which will need huge rework is TH of course.

So basically he said that RAF is way better because they got an arty unit. US Armor can be better if they get an arty unit...so when I reacted to this topic, I was right - all proposed changes to balace things out was to add more artillery to doctrines.

Warhawks97 · Post by **Warhawks97** » 06 Dec 2016, 23:55

OK, got ya. But still it remains. Who decides which certain doc needs something from mates which the doc cant provide by itself? It currently looks pretty random... armor does, RAF does not and so on.

And thing with mortar is that if one side (like me back then with my bunch of 60 mm mortars) has to play the "smoky" way.... with good timing and micro and so on, why the other guy can just put his cheap rocket arty on my mortars and is done? And for me it means even more micro.... reman this, reinforce those, retreat this to also reinforce, and here comes counter attack and shit, my pak somehow died in another click to kill missile strike.

This was more my point here.

Post by **MarKr** » 07 Dec 2016, 01:57

Well, that is something people always ask "why do I need to do "this" when opponent can do "that" isn't this way of thinking what leads to "counter-counter-counter-counter-counter(10x more counter) arty games? Also in argumentation like this I always wonder why people say" add an arty unit to this and that doctrine" instead of "remove arty from this or that doctrine".

ShadowIchigo · Post by **ShadowIchigo** » 07 Dec 2016, 07:32

sgtToni95 wrote:I agree with kwok's suggestion of making more specialized doctrines for all factions and stripping off those who have gained too much versatility for all the reasons he mentioned. I think good players like you Sukin are more affected by the eventual need of team-mates help, or having to help them, cause you could easily do it on your own. I think that making doctrines more oriented would make this choice more vital for the game's result in 1v1 scenarios, but it could push players to look for cooperation, which is not that bad imo. Warhawks told me there used to be clans in this game, and i really liked the idea of "noob camp" some players were trying to do. And MAYBE having a more teamplay focused game could even help to get some old and new players back to this mod.
I'm personally more an allies player, so i can't be totally objective, but Wehrmacht is the doctrine in which i have the best W/L ratio cause i find it a lot more easier to play since it has (imo) more valuable and versatile units (almost all inf getting buffs from tech tree and having both at and anti inf, same thing for mid-late tanks). With more specialized docs i think gameplay becomes quite more interesting and challenging, both to play (by "forcing" people to use underestimated or forgotten units/abilities to overcome the lack of those not included in the chosen doc) and to face.

Wolf Tactics Clan and SVT.... the good ol'days :/ :/ bring em back.

Jalis · Post by **Jalis** » 07 Dec 2016, 14:15

V13dweller · Post by **V13dweller** » 07 Dec 2016, 14:52

Artillery addiction is a real problem, this is no laughing matter, remember, help is available, Artillery Anonymous exists to help you through your troubles, the first step in the recovery process is admitting and coming out with your problem.

People will always take the easiest option available, and due to this, no one wants to see artillery nerfed or removed as it is a vital part of their experience, and will make the game harder for them, and from as psychological perspective, people are not willing to remove something that makes their existance easier.

Artillery is used as much as it is for a multitude of reasons, mainly, it is Easy, it is the most efficient, and the most frustrating for the opponant.

Post by **kwok** » 07 Dec 2016, 22:32

I'm glad people are looking into my proposal and I would love to talk more and have more input. But, as a favor, before we get too far and talk about doctrine reworks and artillery, can I ask one thing from everyone?

Do you all agree with my first two claims?
1. The doctrines are not aligned with the statement "axis are well rounded and allies are specialized."
2. Balance is unachievable given factions differ fundamentally in that "axis are well rounded and allies are specialized."

How balance can be achieved is a proposal and subjective, but it doesn't seem like anyone disagrees the two claims.

Warhawks97 · Post by **Warhawks97** » 08 Dec 2016, 01:14

MarKr wrote:Well, that is something people always ask "why do I need to do "this" when opponent can do "that" isn't this way of thinking what leads to "counter-counter-counter-counter-counter(10x more counter) arty games? Also in argumentation like this I always wonder why people say" add an arty unit to this and that doctrine" instead of "remove arty from this or that doctrine".

I didnt say the opposite.

V13dweller wrote:Artillery is used as much as it is for a multitude of reasons, mainly, it is Easy, it is the most efficient

Yes. And so maybe it all comes back to cost efficency? I mean who is suprised that all get arty when the existing one is cheaper than anything else? The nebler for example is cheaper than most axis units. Only volks, pios, schwimm, /recon/krad cost less. So who is really surprised?

Or when howitzers or calli jeeps or whatever are cheaper than rangers? For brits arty is simply cheapest unit. Every inf squad costs more here. Even a silly sapper squad.

I am saying that for so long and for me this is the simple main reason that all available arty will be used once available. Only very few "pros" know that the way to win at the end is to get vet inf units and reconassaince. But also requires a lot more skills, is more risky and so on.

So just reconsider the arty/"Normal units" cost ratios.

That would solve many things.

@kwok:
1. yes
2. yes. Clearly.
The best here to do is not to play 1 vs 1 or 2 vs 2 and blame balance issues doc x has vs doc y. Instead we should try to exploit much more what docs can be combined with which and how. Focusing on how factions end up when they show teamplay.

Jalis · Post by **Jalis** » 08 Dec 2016, 01:31

kwok wrote:1. The doctrines are not aligned with the statement "axis are well rounded and allies are specialized."

Is it needed ? must it be like that ? it is I exterior opinion, but if it take this way, it means axis can live in autarcie when allies absolutly need coop, but also cant afford rookie players.

an other consideration from outside observer. Often pvp games are plagued by lobbies and fans - factions. It result anybody try to pull on its way. discution become biaised and propositions have for goal to give an advantage to its on lobby even at expand of common sense... But it is an open secret I presume.

For your question, I think achieve a balance with axe well rounded and allies specialised is not only difficult, but it is also a dangerous way. It could lead to a systematic reject of novice players on axis side, because a coordination between specialised factions will become crucial (allies side).

allies game could become -- There can't be a weak link because if that weak link falls apart then the team falls apart.

Post by **kwok** » 08 Dec 2016, 02:10

@jalis, So.... is that a
1. Yes
2. Yes
From you?

Jalis · Post by **Jalis** » 08 Dec 2016, 02:19

my lack of experience in pvp mecanics makes I cant honnestly answer question 1. Even I would have, my opinion would have poor value anyway.

question 2 I think my opinion is clear. so yes.

sgtToni95 · Post by **sgtToni95** » 08 Dec 2016, 15:14

Double yes from me too.
On point 2 I particularly agree since, as it's been said, 1v1 is possible or inevitable on this mod, and having "well rounded" vs "specialized" is probably not improving balance.

Sudatus · Post by **Sudatus** » 08 Dec 2016, 17:42

Im for fully specialized options too, seems fair and better for teamwork.

Blitzkrieg Mod Forum

Axis vs Allies doctrine structure

Axis vs Allies doctrine structure

Re: Axis vs Allies doctrine structure

Re: Axis vs Allies doctrine structure

Re: Axis vs Allies doctrine structure

Re: Axis vs Allies doctrine structure

Re: Axis vs Allies doctrine structure

Re: Axis vs Allies doctrine structure

Re: Axis vs Allies doctrine structure

Re: Axis vs Allies doctrine structure

Re: Axis vs Allies doctrine structure

Re: Axis vs Allies doctrine structure

Re: Axis vs Allies doctrine structure

Re: Axis vs Allies doctrine structure

Re: Axis vs Allies doctrine structure

Re: Axis vs Allies doctrine structure

Re: Axis vs Allies doctrine structure

Re: Axis vs Allies doctrine structure

Re: Axis vs Allies doctrine structure

Re: Axis vs Allies doctrine structure

Re: Axis vs Allies doctrine structure

Re: Axis vs Allies doctrine structure

Re: Axis vs Allies doctrine structure

Re: Axis vs Allies doctrine structure

Re: Axis vs Allies doctrine structure