Axis doctrines rework!

[Krieger Blitzer]

So, I know some of you might be already aware about this FB post:
https://www.facebook.com/CompanyOfHeroe ... =3&theater

Very interesting news so far Though, I just have a few questions:

- This rework would be introduced in the next patch straight away??
I hope not, as I believe that these reworkings should be excessively tested with the participation of various players within the community.

- Luft doc apparently receiving an independent officer unit? Cool

- For the possible renaming of "Blitzkrieg doctrine" to "Assault doctrine" I would like to say:
Not against the idea, however... I think this doctrine could also receive some new units if possible! For example, Pz.3 N could be moved from SE doc to this new Blitzkrieg doctrine, and also it would be perfect to add Pz.III M to the game for this doctrine...
I am pretty sure there is a fully existing model working for this unit, it's basically same as the "N" version but with 50mm long barrel quick firing gun.

Also, maybe importing the Pz.2 from Afrika add-on to this new "Assault doctrine" would be great. And perhaps this doctrine would lose Tigers and in return would have some air support?? Just throwing some thoughts here!

Generally, if there is a massive doctrine rework currently planned for Axis doctrines...
Then I think it is necessary for everyone to drop off their ideas

[Kr0noZ]

And I'm apparantly the one ho started the mess xD
Good Job me...
Although, I wonder - why is this not in the announcements on the forum?

[Warhawks97]

wow, Nice annoucment.

Just "assault doctrine" sounds after all unspecific. There can be two types of it. The mobility kind of this with lots of light and medium tanks. Literally current BK doc without tigers. But since the announcment says "Head on head" i would call it rather "Heavy Assault Doctrine" since its purpose seems to be going straight through defenses quickly. Perhaps even "Breakthrough Doctrine".
But Tank II´s and III´s wouldnt fit in it since it plays in 44 and not 40-42.

Would be nice if King tiger would finds its place there ultimately.

For Terror doc i think its rather bad to keep this all-rounded part. Simply bc cost doesnt matter so much anymore when maps get bigger and more players involved.
Terror doc could be nicely focused on aggressive and boosted infantry suported by assault guns such as stupa and medium ranged rocket artillery.

And what we need is a Artillery rework or at least better distingush better with each doc having their specific arty types that reflect the doctrines role
Long

There would be
1. Ranged howitzer support. That includes inf doc 105, def doc 105, wespe, Hummel, Priest and 25 pdr. Those would have a basic range of 275 (250 for spgs. Range increase for SE and RA would bring both to 300 and Hummel to 325. The cost of the static howitzers would go up costing approx 400-500 MP and 35 to 55 fuel.
2. Medium ranged howitzer support. Those would have a range of 150-180. That includes the 105 sherman, Perhaps Grille, 75 mm Pack howitzer and CW 75 mm HT, 88 guns (def doc).
3. Close fire support weapons. Range would be 100-120. Those include the LIG 18, 95 mm churchill and cromwell.
4. Assault artillery or rocket artilley. The range would vary from 130-160 range. Includes all rocket arty units. Nebler would lose their dismantling time and barrages perhaps slightly faster fired to allow faster relocating.
5.Heavy short ranged assault artillery. Thats the Sturmtiger. Range 120.
6. Infantry support assault guns. Those are stuH´s and sturmpanzer IV. Their range would be 60 like tanks have. Both ( or at least stuh) would receive a HEAT shot. Stuhs will also not require a unlock and will be unlocked right after doctrine pick and cost same as the stug III. Both would receive an ammount of infantry and assault support abilties like calling in smoke, boosting nearby infantry, suppressive fire and also hull down pos for stuh in case a emplacment has to be taken under fire for a while and thus boosting its resistance to damage. Scott would also go down to 60 range. However its not a infantry support unit.
7. Off maps. Here i think the only kind of off map shall be howitzer strikes. Firestorm and the def doc missiles falling from sky do not really fit in BK. It would be replaced by types of howitzer arty. The Axis many different types of heavy arty. 150 mm howitzer (basic heavy arty) but also the so heavy mortars. Most famously the 210 mm and 170 mm Mrs...Both suited to replace the rockets from def doc.

With this being said, each doctrine would have its style and its arty that fits to it with each having a purpose.

[MarKr]

Although, I wonder - why is this not in the announcements on the forum?

I said on FB that more stuff would come later and it did not seem necessary to start a new topic with not really much to say yet. Later when there is more to speak of I will start an announcement topic for that.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Fully working model of Panzer.3 Ausf.M on the 4p map called Bizory ^^
Screenshot taken from my WorldBuilder

PzIII.M

I think implementing this unit to the game would be more than glamorous! Pz2 from Afrika add-on could replace Puma in the new Blitz doc as well.

And btw, the Terror doctrine could have both Tiger1 tank variants, the Ausf.E (from Blitz doc) beside the Tiger1 Ausf.H which is currently in Terror.
Same way, it could have both Panther.A (from Blitz doc) and Panther.G which is currently in Terror doc.. one unlock, but 2 units in Panzer factory.

Just "assault doctrine" sounds after all unspecific. There can be two types of it. The mobility kind of this with lots of light and medium tanks. Literally current BK doc without tigers. But since the announcment says "Head on head" i would call it rather "Heavy Assault Doctrine" since its purpose seems to be going straight through defenses quickly. Perhaps even "Breakthrough Doctrine".
But Tank II´s and III´s wouldnt fit in it since it plays in 44 and not 40-42.

Would be nice if King tiger would finds its place there ultimately.

For Terror doc i think its rather bad to keep this all-rounded part. Simply bc cost doesnt matter so much anymore when maps get bigger and more players involved.
Terror doc could be nicely focused on aggressive and boosted infantry suported by assault guns such as stupa and medium ranged rocket artillery.

And what we need is a Artillery rework or at least better distingush better with each doc having their specific arty types that reflect the doctrines role
Long

Breakthrough doctrine sounds like a nice name, but I think Pz3s can still fit in!

And yes, finally KT would find a place hopefully.

I agree with what you said about Terror, it could probably have all assault weapons and heavy tanks, starting from Stuh, and ending with SturmTiger... I'm thinking of Terror doctrine as 2nd "Armor doc for Axis" since that Tank Hunter doctrine wouldn't be enough to include all Axis tanks.
The difference would be that TH doc would pretty much stay as it is (just without Pz4.H perhaps) since that this doc is mainly about tank destroyers!
On the other hand Terror would be the ACTUAL tank doctrine for Axis with all heavy tanks that have turrets... Tigers, Panthers, King Tigers, etc.

Breakthrough doctrine on the other hand could be about light armored and cheap stuff (Pz3 and Pz4) with some light air support too, together with StormTroops and so on.

At this point too, I can't see a reason why US Armor doc wouldn't have 75mm Jumbo Shermans... Also, an Artillery rework might be needed too.

[Jalis]

Pz III have nothing to do in BK like it is now ; from june 6 1944 to may 8 1945.

Production was halted by summer 1943. The PZ III as combat vehicle was at least very rare at coh classical period. Most had been lost, or converted. If you find some PZ III operational from june 44 to end of war it is PZ III N, other are Befehlpanzer III (command tank) or ARV (armoured rescue vehicle) conversion for exemple. Roughly same fate than the P38T you can find only as Wespe grille or hetzer.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Bk Mod has nothing to do with these history facts though! Elefant for example wasn't in the western front in the first place but it's already in the game.
Same with the Super Pershing which is highly controversial whether if it has actually participated in the war or not...
So ya, let's not start any historical bluff here!

[Jalis]

Elefant was in the westerm front, in Italy for exemple.
SP is not controversial, what is controversial is what it killed and if it killed, but is presence is not.

Coh is based on historical fact, for people who dont like historical games but like coh like game, you have supreme commander in science fiction for exemple.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Italy has no place in CoH1, with "Western Front" I meant the Normandy... France and Holland.

Super Pershing existence in ww2 as true participant in the combat, is controversial.

CoH is only based on a historical incident, which is ww2. However, game units are not meant to be historically accurate.. not even in Bk Mod.

[Jalis]

I feel you a bit aggressive, that can happen when you are wrong.

So Italy is not in Europe and is not western front ?

Bah sorry, but you are wrong. Roughly for COH you can have a montecassino battle without problem. It perfectly enter in coh theater where western front is simply the theater where US / Brits fought against german during the period from june 6 1944 to may 8 1945.

For sp In was myself not a big fan for its addition at bk, But at least I can argue against its presence in the western front.

PzIII on an other hand is an anachronism.

Probably I can find exemple of PZ III M in Normandy, or even speculations, but it would not be serious to add it like if it was a credible feature.

[Krieger Blitzer]

I feel you a bit aggressive

I'm not aggressive... Yet!


However; if u keep with the history talk here.. then yes, I might be eventually pissed off, and become real aggressive as well.

[Jalis]

And what, if you upset once more ? You will order me to shut up ?

Ok be serious. Anyway you go the wrong way. Dont stay on historical or technical argumentation, you are running to a wall.

I gave my opinion about the PZ III at coh bk for historical reason. I stay in my domain, I dont argue about pvp balance.

Now You can argue about the reasons you wish it . There is a problem or a miss in an axis or pe faction and this tank would repair it ? (It is just an exemple.)

[Krieger Blitzer]

Ok, you actually did this before in another topic with me.. when you managed to talk about how you think Bk Mod had some national agenda tendencies, not just that.. as you went even further saying that you are not too inclined in PvP anyway... Which is what you manage to repeat here once again... Despite that the other topic name was "Large Scale PvP Experience" and despite that this topic here is also aimed at the PvP community.

Clearly, there is a forum section called "history and realism" where you can freely discuss that. However, here on this topic we are generally discussing PvP related stuff and game balance, which means that if I suggest adding a ww2 unit to the game.. you can freely speak your opinion about it for the game balance, nonetheless... You are not free to drag the topic on history matters whatsoever here.

Reasons I suggest to add the Panzer.III Ausf.M are very clear.. given how doctrines might be reworked, then this unit might be important for the balance when placed in the correct doctrine. Though, I'm obviously not suggesting to add this unit to the game with current docs, as there is no need.


SO, if you are here not willing or interested to discuss about PvP stuff.. then yes, you better shut the **** up!

[Jalis]

???

Wake up, it is not balance section to try to make me shut for fallacious reason. Change your glasses, we are on the general coh1.

I gave my opinion why PZ III have nothing to do here for historical reason, but you on an other hand, you gave no valid nor specific reasons, even not for balance.

So I suggest you to play the little dictator elsewhere, I m not impressed at all

[Krieger Blitzer]

Topic derailed, reported.

[Jalis]

you reported yourself ?

Do you realize you spent all this time, not to say us why Pz III is important for bk, nor in which faction, nor how it could be useful to balance pvp.

No all your energy havnt been spent to defend your cause, but just to forbid others to speak.

[Viper]

Do you realize you spent all this time, not to say us why Pz III is important for bk, nor in which faction, nor how it could be useful to balance pvp.

but he answered you how it can be important:

Reasons I suggest to add the Panzer.III Ausf.M are very clear.. given how doctrines might be reworked, then this unit might be important for the balance when placed in the correct doctrine. Though, I'm obviously not suggesting to add this unit to the game with current docs, as there is no need.

and about faction for pziii he said:

Breakthrough doctrine on the other hand could be about light armored and cheap stuff (Pz3 and Pz4) with some light air support too, together with StormTroops and so on.

breakthrough is blitzkrieg doctrine, wh faction......

No all your energy havnt been spent to defend your cause, but just to forbid others to speak.

but he said you are free to speak, just not in history:

Clearly, there is a forum section called "history and realism" where you can freely discuss that. However, here on this topic we are generally discussing PvP related stuff and game balance, which means that if I suggest adding a ww2 unit to the game.. you can freely speak your opinion about it for the game balance, nonetheless... You are not free to drag the topic on history matters whatsoever here.

idea for more pziii in bk mod was only welcomed on discord. and this topic is about pvp game doctrines balance, in general.

[Jalis]

Excuse me Seha but for me why Pz III is so important for balance was not clearly explained.

You speak about very blurred argumention such as -- Breakthrough doctrine on the other hand could be about light armored and cheap stuff (Pz3 and Pz4) --
An allusion to stormtrooper could be related to bk faction. However technically a Pz III M at bk would be a PZ IV armour with a puma gun. last time I played I paid my PIV J 380 and 30 fuel, puma 370 and 35. real place for a new vehicles between these two would need explanations.

Reworking a faction is not only a matter of balance, even for a pvp game. It is also a matter of coherence and credibility. It is on the two last the PZ III is a problem.

Last there is plenty of problems I pointed at bk and that were changed years later, or are still present with no plan to correct it. What I want to say, is it is not because I disagree on something, I will be a danger for Tiger1996 if it dont fit with its goals.

[MarKr]

Guys, stop. You don't even know what we have in the concepts of the doctrines and details about the reworks and there are already fights about this. So no, there are NOT going to be new models implemented. Reasons are still the same - we already have tons of them and not all of them are used and adding new units "because it would be cool" is not a reason good eough.

Also I would like to ask you to refrain from all those "add X! Also Y is absolutely needed! It would be good if Z was there too!" The concepts are already made and we will not change them at least until they reach testing phase. Because if everyone tells us "what needs to be in reworks" we will keep changing the concepts forever and will never release the damn thing because there will always be someone new to have some more ideas.

[Devilfish]

In my opinion, very terrible idea. Making doctrines more specialized will result in much bigger frustration for new and casual players, because instead of playing what they like or what they are in mood for, they'll be forced to calculate their doc combos and cooperate with other random players, which will be impossible. Thus, population of active player-base will decay at even faster rate. Obviously, it depends on how severe these changes will be, but the above described effect will apply nonetheless.

Of course, high reward for good team-play seems amazing and fair on paper, but great team cooperation pays off even now. If you make doctrines more and more specialized, it will become mandatory and unfortunately unachievable for most players, as mentioned above.

[MarKr]

How does that differ from the situation that players of Allies have been in for past several years? Or are you saying that new and casual players play on Axis now?

We're NOT talking about drastic changes such as "Luft will be infantry-based, so no more tanks for Luft what so ever". The changes are more to level the allrounded docs of Axis to "Allies type of focused". Specifically several Axis doctrines have access to strong infantry, strong tanks and also strongs arty. Which Allied Doc has this? Allied docs are usually strong (or at least capable) in two factors, but lack in some other - Infantry doc has arty and relatively good infantry now but no tanks that would pose a serious threat to Axis, AB has airstrikes instead of arty, capable infantry but again, lacks in tank force, Armor doc has significant advantage in tanks but in terms of infantry they lack. So something like this is planned for Axis, and if it works for Allies, why should it be a problem for Axis?

[Devilfish]

Exactly as you said, it'd be much better to actually make allied docs less specialized than making axis more.

[Krieger Blitzer]

@MarKr
If you announce for doctrinal Axis rework.. then u must be serious about it! I mean for example; how are u going to make Terror doc more specialized without removing walking Stuka from it? Or how u would make Blitz doc more specialized without removing the heavy tanks from it? When u do that in case of Blitz doc in particular.. u would eventually need something to fill the gap with! If there is no more going to be heavy tanks for that doc, then lighter tanks which are cheaper and earlier available (Such as Pz3 N & M) should be involved. Otherwise the rework would be either insignificant to the point of being not worth it, or just a rework that has no taste to say the least...

I think you must have taken into consideration that there would be definitely a lot of arguments going around once you announce such news.. so, it should not be a surprise anyhow! Though, u should not be discouraged or simply disregard adding new units that could actually fill some empty places only because you might want to avoid interacting with a shock wave of various opinions regarding the matter.

Therefore my point is; either a serious doctrinal rework with drastic changes.. or better keep everything as it is for Axis and just do for Allies what Devilfish just said.

[MarKr]

Exactly as you said, it'd be much better to actually make allied docs less specialized than making axis more.

This approach makes all doctrines more similar to each other and basically makes doctrines more and more obsolete because they offer less and less variety.

If you announce for doctrinal Axis rework.. then u must be serious about it!

Really? I guess I've spent countless hours working on it because I was just kidding, I mean...why should I be serious about it? That would be nuts!

I mean for example; how are u going to make Terror doc more specialized without removing walking Stuka from it? Or how u would make Blitz doc more specialized without removing the heavy tanks from it?

Haven't I just....I think I have....where is it? Oh, here:

You don't even know what we have in the concepts of the doctrines and details about the reworks and there are already fights about this.

Therefore my point is; either a serious doctrinal rework with drastic changes.. or better keep everything as it is for Axis and just do for Allies what Devilfish just said.

I guess you will be dissapointed then.

[Krieger Blitzer]

I guess you will be dissapointed then.

I'm afraid this way we all would...
Though, I definitely can't judge anything now, so the only thing I can do now is to just sit and wait as everyone else to finally see what kind of surprises you are preparing! So, let's see.