Axis doctrines rework!

[Warhawks97]

I may ask a question? Just a general one. Is BK doc or assault doc more based on mobility, speed and combined arms and thus more focused on medium tanks? Kind of germanys strategy in 39-42. Or is it more, as i can read out of the announcment, brute force with thick armor and powerfull canons, thus Tiger/Panther/KT orientated with current Stugs and Panzer IV´s in support?

@Jalis and Tiger: Coh is based on events taking place 44-45. Let it be the maps (France/Germany), units (KT, Jagdpanther, Hetzer, Tank IV H/J, 6 shermans, Pershing) or weapons (STG, G43). Italy does belong to western fronts so Elephant has perhaps a legitimation. It didnt exist in vcoh though.
In BK we also have desert maps which clearly took place before 44, so BK is kind of unspecific time. However, simply looking at the unit composition, the assault doc in my opinion need to be based on heavier tanks rather than mediums. Let alone the reason that you would have to outmaneuver stronger enemie tanks such as 76 shermans and pershings which at the end would afterall outspam your tank III´s due to supply yard. And making a single axis doc more quantitativ would break the entire faction design and team game balance since you could spam Tank III`s while being supported by Jagdpanthers.
But i could imagine to see the Tank III N in assault doc while the Tank IV D would swap over to defensive doctrine for example.

Also when saying that Tank III´s have no reason to be there bc its 44, then the Tank IV D would have also been removed already.

Tank III´s would fit in support orientated docs and in supportive roles. For example def doc, SE or whatever. Or in case Terror would become a infantry orientated doc backed by assault artillery and assault guns the tank III´s could serve nicely there. Like german infantry divisions have received older tank models.
Thing is we have no target table for tank III specific and just two possible Tank IV´s target tables (tt). The issue here is that both of these tt´s overperform. Take the normal Tank IV target table used by Tank IV F2. Its supposed to reflect 50 mm of armor but the us 76 gun still struggles to pen with less than 70% pen chance. That would mean that even the outdated Tank III´s like L and M versions, supposed to provide a minimum in armor support, would become a match to 76 shermans. If those with their 50 mm gun would receive pak 50 stats they would be able to fight even 76 shermans head on. Can you imagine how silly that would look like? Same with allied 57 mm gun. More than capable in killing Tank III´s they would then have hard times killing them.
Giving them tank IV D armor would make them perhaps a bit too weak as these tank III models had more than 30 mm armor.

So alone this issues in the current target tables would make adding more tank III´s difficult. They would all overperform against tanks that should outclass them by far.

[Kr0noZ]

Actually, I'd use Panzer III in place of SDKFZ 234-based units, so less speed but slightly better armor (although Panzer III was also a fast tank relatively speaking). But, as Markr said, if he has no plan to include the Panzer III L/M models in the rework the whole discussion is kinda pointless.

Maybe we can get that as a reward choice at some point (like Panzer III M instead of the Puma as they are pretty similar in terms of armament but different in the speed-armor ratio), I could see that working nicely.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Well, ya.. adding new units to the game would always be nice... It's more about giving a new feel to the game, a new heart!
Specifically when it's about adding one of the most produced German tanks during ww2 actually, I bet that it's something welcomed by the majority.

[Warhawks97]

To be honest, i dont like a mod more just bc there are more units or always new added. I am more concerned that the units i get will do something new, specific and having a reason to be where they are. If we find a place for a unit, its fine. The ST but also SP to some degree are kind of those. I am not disliking their existence, just that they got thrown in without purpose. Dont tell me now that US armor needs the SP. The only reason they need it is bc all other guns are broken. Sure, that way we can "create" a "need".

The best reason i could see here to add a tank III is in order to replace the Puma type vehicle(s) in order to put those perhaps in certain docs. That way axis would be more focused on such tanks rather than on more flexible vehicles with similiar capabilites and thus creating a real difference in terms of mobility between US and axis.

[Jalis]

Dont tell me now that US armor needs the SP. The only reason they need it is bc all other guns are broken. Sure, that way we can "create" a "need".

Broken is a word to use in case of accidental mistake. When it had been made in conscience to serve a purpose the adequate word is cheated.

But it is something we both know and you tried to change these 5 last years without success. And really there is not reason to hope anything about that.

[Panzer-Lehr-Division]

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.

agreed with agent.... bad idea...


Edit: And then what?.. just because allies have specialized doc axis have to do so too?. this mode is getting pretty much a "mirror game". It's fun having different faction, different methods, different strength just like specialized vs Allrounder.. i mean allies and axis already basicly have same mirror late/start up Units. Early Jeep spamm/ early schwimm spamm as for example, now what? just because allies ab doctrine is inf specialized only luft has to be too? oh man.. whatever

[MarKr]

Maybe you have sometimes noticed that Allies players ask why Axis have everything while Allies often lack something and without help of the team mate they have hard time dealing with some situations? Why is it OK for Allies and not for Axis?

Do you know what are the most played Axis doctrines? Wow, good guess - Blitz, Terror and Luft. Have you ever thought about why it is so? People usually say that it is because they are "most fun to play"...cool, but what makes them more fun to play? It is the ability to handle pretty much any situation without the need of assistence from the team mates. This is even weirder - why do these 3 doctrines have the privilage of being superior in this way while the remaining 9 are behind?
You also say that the game becomes more "mirrored" and your example is early game jeep/schwim...so you say the situation was better when Jeep was a pea shooter with no suppression and killing power while Axis Bike/Schwim was way supperior in pretty much every way (aybe except for HP)? I mean...sure, the units were more different, one was useful and one was utterly useless...so I don't see a problem in this. AB/Luft comparison - I think you misunderstand the extend of changes here. It is not going to be turned into an "AB 2.0" but since you started comparing AB and Luft, then let's see the whole picture:
AB:
Infantry becomes good after investing ammo into weapon upgrades, having HQ squad around and also in numbers which costs you lots on MP, ammo (which you thus cannot spend on airstrikes) and since you need numbers, AB is quite micro heavy. Your strongest AT gun is 76mm which has trouble penetrating even medium tanks, heavy tanks are huge gamble...AP ammo can help but that is again spending ammo. You can use airstrikes vs heavy tanks but AA became more effective so the opponent can kill your planes before they drop anything and in the end even if they don't kill the planes, the tanks can leave the hit-zone and then you again wasted ammo.

Now Luft - infantry is very strong even without upgrades, comes with best weapons in the game (so you don't need to spend ammo on that), they have several unlocks that make them even harder to kill. They cost more, true, but survive easier and you can have max two and two of them which is easier for micro management. If opponent brings their tanks (and that means for most doctrines Sherman 76), you can easily kill that with Hetzers/JPIVs but if you feel like it you can even bring out Panther and in case you wish to dig in, you have flak 36. Your Panther can be killed by 17 pounders (which can be spotted and killed/avoided by proper recon) and by 90mm guns (only in single doctrine), also you can face Achilles/Firefly/Comet - Achilles and Firefly are getting some tweaks in availability too, Comet is in a single doctrine and now easier to kill (no longer super tough armor). On top of that you have airstrikes that can do the recon for you, that can go after infantry (in case your elite soldiers for some reason become unable to handle some situation), then you have bomber patrol designed to bring down heavy campers and you have AT patrol that (unlike AB) rarely misses. Btw your 88s can shoot (medium strength) arty anywhere on the map thanks to VT...

So, if they lose, let's say Panther, then I can see how bad the situation would be for them....no way to kill tanks except for Hetzers, 88s and airstrikes, no way to kill infantry, except for usage of own infantry, butterfly bombs, airstrikes flak38 guns, Wirblewind and maybe some other units too, no way defend their ground except for emplacements and tons of abilities and no way to get indirect fire support anymomre except for 88s, LeiG18 and airstrikes...oh that would be poor Luft doctrine...

[Kr0noZ]

LOL, serkasm mode on full blast there xD
Well, Markr has a point there, however... I remember times when most German doctrines were simply stronger because ALL the german stuff was much stronger across the board for, well, no reason other than being overengineered german stuff with higher price tags so it had to be always better, right?
Obviously, those times are long gone (even if some ppl here tend to claim less than realistic performance on US equipment since forever, despite that stuff having been buffed a lot over the years).
I have a sneaking suspicion that at least some of the reservations come from people who are afraid that teir favourite playstyle might become more difficult and they have to adapt if bigger changes to doctrine design are made; It would probably warrant some extensive playtesting before releasing a definnitve version, but since steam offeres the option to simply have a beta version, I'm sure Markr will take advantage of that to get needed feedback on the subject.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Ya, testing versions would be absolutely necessary, and not just for these reworkings.. but also with other things.
For example, I was thinking if there it would be possible to have some sort of a permanent testing version of which is meant to allow the testing for some of the ideas that are proposed by various players.. some ideas could be candidates of being tested first, depending on how much each idea is interesting... For instance; I never liked how tanks in Bk Mod have as much sight range as infantry units, and even superior sight range when tank commanders are inside! So, I was thinking to suggest dramatically decreasing the sight range for all tanks while in return increasing their overall shooting range. Therefore a tank with a commander inside would no longer have 85 sight range when it's not moving, but then hardly just 40 sight range.. in return the standard shooting range for most tanks could be increased from 60 to 70 perhaps.

This would make tanks harder to use by their own but in return more rewarding when supported with scouting.
You see.. such initial ideas definitely have a lot of other deep elements of course.. as this was just a short demonstration of the idea, nonetheless... evaluating the impact of such ideas would never be possible without a "free-roam" test version!
==================================================================================
Also, regarding the doctrines rework... I would just like to point out something:

Clearly, the current game balance does not urgently require any doctrines to be reworked in the first place by the way...
I mean despite that some Axis doctrines are more "all-rounded" yet the game is still perfectly balanced at the moment, at least to some extent.
Most of these "all-rounded" Axis doctrines still lack enough game-play flexibility, which means that they are more vulnerable when correctly countered with spam tactics of specific units. I'm not really going to clarify this much further as it's not my primary point here after all, however.. my actual point is that the doctrines rework should not be centered or based on the idea that currently Axis doctrines are more superior.
As I can assure you that this would be a terrible mistake then...

On the other hand the rework should be more focused on bringing new strategies and excitement to the game. Otherwise it might not be worth it!
And in my opinion this can not be done if the core idea of the project is apparently not very welcoming to suggestion of adding new units whenever possible. If doctrines are to be reworked, then I am pretty sure that we would be able to find the appropriate place for these new units... I mean that adding new units would be more than just "because they are cool" but rather actually for a good balance reason with a new approach.

[MarKr]

I have a sneaking suspicion that at least some of the reservations come from people who are afraid that teir favourite playstyle might become more difficult and they have to adapt if bigger changes to doctrine design are made

You too? And I thought I was the only one with this feeling

[Krieger Blitzer]

Sure thing by the way, some players will definitely hate to see their favorite play-style no longer applies.. that's when the game meta is changed. However, I would just like to say that this is exactly the reason why I earlier hoped to see BIGGER changes happening to the Axis doctrines design!
Same as Kr0noZ stated; as I think drastic changes would be needed too, even to the point of adding completely new units and strategies if possible.
Otherwise the tweaks would be just totally dull or unworthy I'm afraid; and if that's the case.. then it would be better to keep all docs as they are.
Just further clarifying my viewpoint here...

[Viper]

this is exactly the reason why I earlier hoped to see BIGGER changes happening to the Axis doctrines design!

maybe give some examples for the big changes?

[Panzer-Lehr-Division]

Maybe you have sometimes noticed that Allies players ask why Axis have everything while Allies often lack something and without help of the team mate they have hard time dealing with some situations? Why is it OK for Allies and not for Axis?

Do you know what are the most played Axis doctrines? Wow, good guess - Blitz, Terror and Luft. Have you ever thought about why it is so? People usually say that it is because they are "most fun to play"...cool, but what makes them more fun to play? It is the ability to handle pretty much any situation without the need of assistence from the team mates. This is even weirder - why do these 3 doctrines have the privilage of being superior in this way while the remaining 9 are behind?
You also say that the game becomes more "mirrored" and your example is early game jeep/schwim...so you say the situation was better when Jeep was a pea shooter with no suppression and killing power while Axis Bike/Schwim was way supperior in pretty much every way (aybe except for HP)? I mean...sure, the units were more different, one was useful and one was utterly useless...so I don't see a problem in this. AB/Luft comparison - I think you misunderstand the extend of changes here. It is not going to be turned into an "AB 2.0" but since you started comparing AB and Luft, then let's see the whole picture:
AB:
Infantry becomes good after investing ammo into weapon upgrades, having HQ squad around and also in numbers which costs you lots on MP, ammo (which you thus cannot spend on airstrikes) and since you need numbers, AB is quite micro heavy. Your strongest AT gun is 76mm which has trouble penetrating even medium tanks, heavy tanks are huge gamble...AP ammo can help but that is again spending ammo. You can use airstrikes vs heavy tanks but AA became more effective so the opponent can kill your planes before they drop anything and in the end even if they don't kill the planes, the tanks can leave the hit-zone and then you again wasted ammo.

Now Luft - infantry is very strong even without upgrades, comes with best weapons in the game (so you don't need to spend ammo on that), they have several unlocks that make them even harder to kill. They cost more, true, but survive easier and you can have max two and two of them which is easier for micro management. If opponent brings their tanks (and that means for most doctrines Sherman 76), you can easily kill that with Hetzers/JPIVs but if you feel like it you can even bring out Panther and in case you wish to dig in, you have flak 36. Your Panther can be killed by 17 pounders (which can be spotted and killed/avoided by proper recon) and by 90mm guns (only in single doctrine), also you can face Achilles/Firefly/Comet - Achilles and Firefly are getting some tweaks in availability too, Comet is in a single doctrine and now easier to kill (no longer super tough armor). On top of that you have airstrikes that can do the recon for you, that can go after infantry (in case your elite soldiers for some reason become unable to handle some situation), then you have bomber patrol designed to bring down heavy campers and you have AT patrol that (unlike AB) rarely misses. Btw your 88s can shoot (medium strength) arty anywhere on the map thanks to VT...

So, if they lose, let's say Panther, then I can see how bad the situation would be for them....no way to kill tanks except for Hetzers, 88s and airstrikes, no way to kill infantry, except for usage of own infantry, butterfly bombs, airstrikes flak38 guns, Wirblewind and maybe some other units too, no way defend their ground except for emplacements and tons of abilities and no way to get indirect fire support anymomre except for 88s, LeiG18 and airstrikes...oh that would be poor Luft doctrine...

No reason to become angry or something. i just wrote my opinion. markr..

[Krieger Blitzer]

maybe give some examples for the big changes?

Absolutely! I can definitely provide some examples to be more precise...


Now, everyone.. please bear your mind with me, a whole punch of ideas are incoming, so called "big changes" would literally mean:

- Luft doc could no longer be about elite expensive infantry, so Fallis for example don't have to be a 6 men squad with 6 FG42 but possibly 6 men as they are.. but equipped with 2 MP40 and 4 Kar by default, with possible upgrade of x2 FG42 for 50 ammo which is available twice.. eventually the squad would have to be cheaper and probably available in higher numbers, so.. the current limit of 2 squads could no longer apply.
Fallis could also lose the PanzerShreck eventually, they don't really need it!

- Gebrigs on the other hand could have the PanzerShreck beside the Pzfaust, also no need for scoped G43 but regular G43 riles are enough... I mean they should be weaker against inf, therefore could also become cheaper.

- Luft doc should also lose Hetzer, but in my opinion they could keep the Panther.D while RAF doc could lose the Achilles but can keep Firefly.
RA doc would lose both Firefly and Achilles.. they still have 17pdr emplacements though so it shouldn't be an issue.
RE doc would surely keep them all...

- Blitz doc (or Breakthrough doc then..) could lose access to all heavy tanks, in return they should have some limited air support (just the single Stuka airstrike for example) So the Luft doc would only have the Stuka anti emplacement air patrol and Blitz doc would have the single Stuka airstrike on the other hand... That's beside Panzer.IIIs (both N and M) in addition to Pz4s and only 1 Tiger, which is the Tiger ACE. So the ACE will be the only heavy tank available for that doctrine. Stuh42 tanks would be no longer available for this doc though! StormTroops could just stay.

- Terror doc would include all heavy tanks and assault tanks, all variants of Tiger1 (both H and E) being available after 4 CPs at maximum as well as both Panther.A and G being available at 6 CP maximum. Panther.A and Tiger.H could be available BEFORE the upgraded production of the Panzer Factory, while both Panther.G and Tiger.E as well as King Tiger would be available only AFTER the upgraded production of the Panzer Factory! Additionally, no longer walking Stuka as it should be then available for SE doc in return.. but Terror doc would have Stuh, Stupa and SturmTiger...
Which means that Stupa will be no longer available for Def doc but only the Grille.

- 150mm Nebels would be moved from Terror to Blitz doc, so the Maultier will also stay in Blitz doc...
So, the Blitz doc will be only about medium tanks as I previously stated, Pz.3 and Pz.4 with 1 airstrike and Nebels + Storms and a single heavy tank.

- SE doc would lose Panzer3 N and - as mentioned - would also have walking Stuka. And also, no need for Nashorn in SE doc anymore...

- Bigger changes also mean that Grenadiers should no longer be available to all WH docs, but only Terror doc.
Neither should Rangers be available to all US docs, but only inf doc... And the 75mm Jumbo Shermans would have to be moved to Armor doctrine.

I could keep going on and on.. but these should be enough examples I think!


If the planned doctrinal changes.. are anything less drastic than this scenario, then it might be all worthless.

[Kr0noZ]

Sorry Tiger, but I don't agree with these ideas. Most of them would be horrible.
Let's get into that:

- Luft doc could no longer be about elite expensive infantry, so Fallis for example don't have to be a 6 men squad with 6 FG42 but possibly 6 men as they are.. but equipped with 2 MP40 and 4 Kar by default, with possible upgrade of x2 FG42 for 50 ammo which is available twice.. eventually the squad would have to be cheaper and probably available in higher numbers, so.. the current limit of 2 squads could no longer apply.
Fallis could also lose the PanzerShreck eventually, they don't really need it!

That would make the special infantry worse than the regular infantry choices in almost all ways unless you upgrade them a lot; also they start being good at a time when their impact is probably not that great anymore. Even if you increase the limit, it won't do much good for those units.

- Gebrigs on the other hand could have the PanzerShreck beside the Pzfaust, also no need for scoped G43 but regular G43 riles are enough... I mean they should be weaker against inf, therefore could also become cheaper.

This basically complements the first change, and goes similarly off track. It would turn them into the only elite AT inf, but if Falls get so much worse vs inf that you can just as well use normal infantry, these guys also become less useful because if you use regular units for everything ales already, sou can just get regular AT inf or whatever as well...

I don't know what the purpose here would be, it kinda mirrors the US Airborne units except harder to justify.

- Luft doc should also lose Hetzer, but in my opinion they could keep the Panther.D while RAF doc could lose the Achilles but can keep Firefly.
RA doc would lose both Firefly and Achilles.. they still have 17pdr emplacements though so it shouldn't be an issue.
RE doc would surely keep them all...

So you'd let them keep the one tank that barely made sende to start with (Panther) but remove what is essentially a basic PE AT unit? Why?
The changes for CW are more understandable, but with RAF i'd actually let them have the Achilles but without some of the abilities.

- Blitz doc (or Breakthrough doc then..) could lose access to all heavy tanks, in return they should have some limited air support (just the single Stuka airstrike for example) So the Luft doc would only have the Stuka anti emplacement air patrol and Blitz doc would have the single Stuka airstrike on the other hand... That's beside Panzer.IIIs (both N and M) in addition to Pz4s and only 1 Tiger, which is the Tiger ACE. So the ACE will be the only heavy tank available for that doctrine. Stuh42 tanks would be no longer available for this doc though! StormTroops could just stay.

Soooooooo... make the whole thing revolve around 1 single overrated tank again? Nope. If you want to do Blitzkrieg-style stuff, the whole thing needs redoing. If you go for late war tank companies, the composition would be bad as well.

- Terror doc would include all heavy tanks and assault tanks, all variants of Tiger1 (both H and E) being available after 4 CPs at maximum as well as both Panther.A and G being available at 6 CP maximum. Panther.A and Tiger.H could be available BEFORE the upgraded production of the Panzer Factory, while both Panther.G and Tiger.E as well as King Tiger would be available only AFTER the upgraded production of the Panzer Factory! Additionally, no longer walking Stuka as it should be then available for SE doc in return.. but Terror doc would have Stuh, Stupa and SturmTiger...
Which means that Stupa will be no longer available for Def doc but only the Grille.

Sounds, again, out of focus. All heavy tanks in one doctrine means you only use half of them at all. And then they still have arty...

- 150mm Nebels would be moved from Terror to Blitz doc, so the Maultier will also stay in Blitz doc...
So, the Blitz doc will be only about medium tanks as I previously stated, Pz.3 and Pz.4 with 1 airstrike and Nebels + Storms and a single heavy tank.

At which point you have the same "alround" doctrine again as before - why even touch it then?

- Bigger changes also mean that Grenadiers should no longer be available to all WH docs, but only Terror doc.
Neither should Rangers be available to all US docs, but only inf doc... And the 75mm Jumbo Shermans would have to be moved to Armor doctrine.

Did you steal that from me? If you remember, I dropped that idea myself shortly after talking about it because it leads to all sorts of problems...

[Warhawks97]

I am not sharing the concern that doctrines would be too mirrored just bc axis docs would be more specialized. The different units alone, different weapons working differently (eg M1 now) etc.

I fully share this opinion:

Maybe you have sometimes noticed that Allies players ask why Axis have everything while Allies often lack something and without help of the team mate they have hard time dealing with some situations? Why is it OK for Allies and not for Axis?

Do you know what are the most played Axis doctrines? Wow, good guess - Blitz, Terror and Luft. Have you ever thought about why it is so? People usually say that it is because they are "most fun to play"...cool, but what makes them more fun to play? It is the ability to handle pretty much any situation without the need of assistence from the team mates. This is even weirder - why do these 3 doctrines have the privilage of being superior in this way while the remaining 9 are behind?
You also say that the game becomes more "mirrored" and your example is early game jeep/schwim...so you say the situation was better when Jeep was a pea shooter with no suppression and killing power while Axis Bike/Schwim was way supperior in pretty much every way (aybe except for HP)? I mean...sure, the units were more different, one was useful and one was utterly useless...so I don't see a problem in this. AB/Luft comparison - I think you misunderstand the extend of changes here. It is not going to be turned into an "AB 2.0" but since you started comparing AB and Luft, then let's see the whole picture:
AB:
Infantry becomes good after investing ammo into weapon upgrades, having HQ squad around and also in numbers which costs you lots on MP, ammo (which you thus cannot spend on airstrikes) and since you need numbers, AB is quite micro heavy. Your strongest AT gun is 76mm which has trouble penetrating even medium tanks, heavy tanks are huge gamble...AP ammo can help but that is again spending ammo. You can use airstrikes vs heavy tanks but AA became more effective so the opponent can kill your planes before they drop anything and in the end even if they don't kill the planes, the tanks can leave the hit-zone and then you again wasted ammo.

Now Luft - infantry is very strong even without upgrades, comes with best weapons in the game (so you don't need to spend ammo on that), they have several unlocks that make them even harder to kill. They cost more, true, but survive easier and you can have max two and two of them which is easier for micro management. If opponent brings their tanks (and that means for most doctrines Sherman 76), you can easily kill that with Hetzers/JPIVs but if you feel like it you can even bring out Panther and in case you wish to dig in, you have flak 36. Your Panther can be killed by 17 pounders (which can be spotted and killed/avoided by proper recon) and by 90mm guns (only in single doctrine), also you can face Achilles/Firefly/Comet - Achilles and Firefly are getting some tweaks in availability too, Comet is in a single doctrine and now easier to kill (no longer super tough armor). On top of that you have airstrikes that can do the recon for you, that can go after infantry (in case your elite soldiers for some reason become unable to handle some situation), then you have bomber patrol designed to bring down heavy campers and you have AT patrol that (unlike AB) rarely misses. Btw your 88s can shoot (medium strength) arty anywhere on the map thanks to VT...

So, if they lose, let's say Panther, then I can see how bad the situation would be for them....no way to kill tanks except for Hetzers, 88s and airstrikes, no way to kill infantry, except for usage of own infantry, butterfly bombs, airstrikes flak38 guns, Wirblewind and maybe some other units too, no way defend their ground except for emplacements and tons of abilities and no way to get indirect fire support anymomre except for 88s, LeiG18 and airstrikes...oh that would be poor Luft doctrine...

and this one:

LOL, serkasm mode on full blast there xD
Well, Markr has a point there, however... I remember times when most German doctrines were simply stronger because ALL the german stuff was much stronger across the board for, well, no reason other than being overengineered german stuff with higher price tags so it had to be always better, right?
Obviously, those times are long gone (even if some ppl here tend to claim less than realistic performance on US equipment since forever, despite that stuff having been buffed a lot over the years).
I have a sneaking suspicion that at least some of the reservations come from people who are afraid that teir favourite playstyle might become more difficult and they have to adapt if bigger changes to doctrine design are made; It would probably warrant some extensive playtesting before releasing a definnitve version, but since steam offeres the option to simply have a beta version, I'm sure Markr will take advantage of that to get needed feedback on the subject.

The changes are perhaps less bc of balance when assuming both teams are skilled players and now what they have to do and able to play as team. But Things are bad among casual players bc all round usually wins at the long hand. All- rounders need to be killed early on. And not every player has the right meta with alli doc to do exactly this.

I am excited to see the coming changes.

However i do not agree on tigers ideas on doc changes. If the assult doctrine is supposed to be the primary axis assault doc or one of them it would then be quite impossible to win just with mediums and storms unless this doc would have some kind of supply yard- thus killing the faction design and making things really mirrored to use lehr words. Medium tanks and storms are sufficient within the first 20-30 min. But when a decisions hasnt been made up to this time a Panther is mandatory. Even me, the ultimate tank IV and stug lover, has to skip sooner or later to panther except a made is doing this. But since this doc is the assault doc it would make little sense to be highly dependent on mates when it comes to the core assault force. That air and arty support is then provided by others makes sense, but not in terms of specialized assault tanks.

I also dont see terror doc as the ultimate heavy tank doc. Terror is the usage of weapons of fear and propaganda to boost the own soliders. Tigers might make sense as a terror tool but in its core concept of tigers its suited much better in the assault doc. They didnt use so many KT during battle of bulge just for propaganda reasons, but to actually break through enemie lines.
Here, the weapons with greatest fear and demoralization factor would be nebler, walking stuka, flame salvos and simply the ST.
But their ranges reworked so that they wont act as counter arty.

Also CW is dependent on achilles and firefly. RA could be overruned too easily. One quick nebler salvo or off map on at gun or emplacment, one tank IV and the doc would be dead.
CW has what it needs. It has not too much and not too less. If times of availability would get changed as announced and perhaps reload times changed (like firefly will need longer to reload due to its powerfull gun) there wouldnt be a need to remove anything.

As for luft i wouldnt mind having the reg 5 starting with MP40 and Fg42 as upgrade and thus cheaper to call but i actually agree with Kronoz. But overall i would keep the elite status bc they have simply been the most elite soldiers. The gebirgs could perhaps be a call in but defniately keep the scoped G43. This doc should keep its defensive options and characteristics. And in some cases you need powerfull stuff that can be powerfull in doing that without spending lots of res needed for counter attacks. So you quickly switch between offense and defense. A clear difference to AB doc here.
About panther i am really unsure but i would keep hetzer as standard PE tank just like CW has achilles.



Rangers for inf doc only and combat engis+75 jumbo to armor only: yes.


What i would like to add about the being mirrored stuff. I would wish a clear distinction between PE and WH faction design. As different as their docs are, their faction designt is just too similiar. PE needs more flexibility and variety in combined arms opening games. Sure you can go inf and logistic car but still.


And finally a arty rework. Atm normal howitzers falling off too short. Require unlock, are static and being countered too easily. I would have (all howitzers) with more range. 275 standard for stationary, 225-250 for movable. 300 with long range shot (CW upgraded and axis special ammo). Cost for static howitzers would go up to between 400-500 MP and 35-55 fuel.
Rocket arty some range cuts to be at arround 140- max 170 range.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Alright Kr0noZ ^^
First of all... I would like to notify that these ideas were just "examples" of how "drastic" the changes have to be in order to actually look interesting enough and worth the efforts.. though, I admit that these ideas were not 100% well-thought after all, accordingly I'm clearly not sticking firmly with these ideas or anything.

So, for example you are right when you say:

- Terror doc would include all heavy tanks and assault tanks, all variants of Tiger1 (both H and E) being available after 4 CPs at maximum as well as both Panther.A and G being available at 6 CP maximum. Panther.A and Tiger.H could be available BEFORE the upgraded production of the Panzer Factory, while both Panther.G and Tiger.E as well as King Tiger would be available only AFTER the upgraded production of the Panzer Factory! Additionally, no longer walking Stuka as it should be then available for SE doc in return.. but Terror doc would have Stuh, Stupa and SturmTiger...
Which means that Stupa will be no longer available for Def doc but only the Grille.

Sounds, again, out of focus. All heavy tanks in one doctrine means you only use half of them at all. And then they still have arty...

Clearly, there is a flaw here with my design.. because Stuh, Stupa and SturmTiger can be currently considered arty units!
My bad though, I forgot to include that it could be also possible to reduce SturmTiger range, as well as Stupa and Stuh...
I mean that further tweaks on certain units might be then necessary as a result of these changes.

As of the heavy tanks all being available in 1 doc, you are right again.. this way just few of them will be usable. At this point though, another idea would be to allow only Tigers for the Breakthrough doctrine, but Terror would only have Panthers on the other hand.. or vice versa.
Accordingly, Pz3.M (if added) would be only a reward unit maybe for the 50mm Puma.. nothing more or less!

You see.. my ideas are not reflecting an ultimate perspective, they were just quick made examples of how drastic the changes could look like.

==============================================================

As for Luft inf, I'm glad to see Hawks somewhat agreeing here with me... Fallis really don't have to be immortal units, but they could be more versatile and durable.. yet, with 4 FG42 I think they could be still capable to eliminate any enemy infantry, and perhaps LMG34 upgrade too.
Though, you are probably right about Gebrigs...

==============================================================

So you'd let them keep the one tank that barely made sende to start with (Panther) but remove what is essentially a basic PE AT unit? Why?
The changes for CW are more understandable, but with RAF i'd actually let them have the Achilles but without some of the abilities.

My idea was more focused on "less TDs" as I believe tank destroyers shouldn't be available in every doc...

If you remember, I dropped that idea myself shortly after talking about it because it leads to all sorts of problems...

Well, I think me and Hawks both disagree with you on this one.. nonetheless; I'm aware that discussing these doctrinal matters, usually lead to very huge arguments and therefore a lot of disagreements as well as agreements too. As it's usually a very deep balance concern if I could say so!
Though, that's exactly what I wanted to point out here.. reworking doctrines won't be easy, and might be very controversial too... And as consequence; I started this topic so that everyone would have the chance to speak their mind about the subject.. this way MarKr could have more understanding of the mind-set for players in this community regarding the matter

[mofetagalactica]

Remember when we had the "fully armor doc rework" that only had a few insignificant changes in his doc tree and a few tweaks in stats?

I think ppl will be dissapointed cause they expect big changes, and im pretty sure that they will make the less changes possibles by maybe changing a little the tree unlock of every axis doc , and delete 1 heavy inf/tank unit from everydoc.

[MarKr]

No reason to become angry or something. i just wrote my opinion. markr..

And I did not get angry, only pointed at parts of your argumentation that seemed flawed to me, that's all.

Just further clarifying my viewpoint here...

Your viewpoint's clear: Big changes + new units GOOD, small changes + no new units BAD. No need to repeat it in every other post in this thread.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Your viewpoint's clear: Big changes + new units GOOD, small changes + no new units BAD. No need to repeat it in every other post in this thread.

Hmm, that's not my point exactly though.. but I will skip that


I'm talking now with Kr0noZ on Discord btw and so far we both agree that Pz3 Ausf.M could be an appropriate replacement for 50mm Puma, and therefore short 75mm Puma could no longer become a reward for the 50mm Puma but rather a regular unit which is available to only 1 doc maybe.

Also, for Hawks...
I think finally now me and Kr0noZ both also agreed on the following reload times which u have suggested before:
Though, it's worth to mention that Kr0noZ said they should be tested first.. which is something I also agree.
(you can disregard any previous reload times I suggested in the past)

- 76 Shermans = 4.5 to 5 seconds reload time (from currently 6 to 7 secs) and I think including the Jumbo 76 Sherman too.
Stugs, Panzer4, and generally L/48 guns already have this 5 seconds reload time I think...

- Tigers, Panthers, JgPz L/70, jacksons, Pershing, Firefly = 7.5 to 8.5 seconds reload time.
Panther and Pershing keep Rapid Shot ability, and Firefly as well as Jackson B1 also keep static position ability, no change to abilities...
Tiger1, Pershing and Panther would have +5 more basic range, so only these 3 tanks will have 65 basic range.

- Comet reload will be 6.5 to 7.5 seconds (a bit faster than others with the same gun because very weak armor and later available).
Comet also keeps Rapid Shot ability.

- Elefant, jagdPanther, KT and SP = 8.5 to 9.5 seconds.
All of them should have 70 basic range.
So; this means +5 more basic range for Elefant and JagdPanther, and more narrow cone of fire for jagdPanther eventually as it's misleading now.
The static position for Elefant would also increase range from 70 to 80 instead of currently from 65 to 75 range.

- JagdTiger = 11 to 14 seconds.

Note:
Also already talked with Hawks about these reload times before I post them btw... So; I think me, Kr0noZ and Hawks are now on agreement here!

[MarKr]

Note:
Also already talked with Hawks about these reload times before I post them btw... So; I think me, Kr0noZ and Hawks are now on agreement here!

Wow, that is soooo cool!
Note:
btw... So; you are on agreement here but me, I and myself are on disagreement there so we don't really care.

[Krieger Blitzer]

.............wooow!!! WTF! So? When I say that I agree with somebody on something, u get triggered??
That was so salty and also disgraceful from ur side to be honest...

Man... If u disagree, just say that u do.. and give ur reasons, but if u get to be salty; then we are really going nowhere.

[MarKr]

It is not about the fact that you and somebody agree on something - no problem there. It is the way you present it - senteces such as

Also already talked with Hawks about these reload times before I post them btw... So; I think me, Kr0noZ and Hawks are now on agreement here!

- this weird, pompous style of pointing out that someone else agrees with you makes it sound like "look, they agree! Now it has more weight and thus should be implemented". Don't tell me now "i never said that!" - I know you did not explicitly say it but every language has ways of implying things without explicitly saying them and even if you do this unintentionally (which I sort of doubt due to several occasions where you pointed at your level of English being above the level of some other users here) it still sounds that way and that is what "gets me triggered" because even if you don't intend to imply anything, why to mention it at all? There is no benefit to it, no added weight to your argument in that. Do I, Kronoz, Warhawks or anyone else actually mention anywhere how many people agree with their ideas? I cannot see that anywhere - why would they? They can say it themselves if they wish so.

[Krieger Blitzer]

MarKr, why are you complicating things? You are making things so difficult, despite being very simple.

Clearly, I had a lot of arguments with Hawks and Kr0noZ regarding the matter... As you might have already noticed here on other forum topics too!
So, the reason I mentioned that they both agree.. is only that I wanted to say that we have finally reached a point altogether, nothing more or less.

Though, let's imagine that I didn't mention in my post that they both agree.. what would happen? They would come and post themselves, right?!
Aaaaand, does this make any difference??!!

It's not about weight or whatever.. please take my words simply as they are, no need to go so deep within the lines!
Otherwise.. similarly this way;

So; you are on agreement here but me, I and myself are on disagreement there so we don't really care.

I could also say that with this sentence you pretty much saying "you all 3 agree on that? huh, who cares as long as I don't! I count as 3 persons alone..." Don't you see how much this sentence is pretty insulting? Not to mention that I don't even mean it the way that "you think" I do...

And man.. no one said that these reload suggestions should be "implemented" but we are only saying "why not testing them at least?" that's everything.

[MarKr]

MarKr, why are you complicating things? You are making things so difficult, despite being very simple.

Don't turn this into a melodrama, please.

So, the reason I mentioned that they both agree.. is only that I wanted to say that we have finally reached a point altogether, nothing more or less.

because even if you don't intend to imply anything, why to mention it at all? There is no benefit to it, no added weight to your argument in that.(...) They can say it themselves if they wish so.

Though, let's imagine that I didn't mention in my post that they both agree.. what would happen? They would come and post themselves, right?!
Aaaaand, does this make any difference??!!

1st of all, I doubt they would come here just to say that they agree with you on something. 2nd, the difference is (or would be) that they speak for themselves instead of it looking like you speak for others - again, this affects implications and all sorts of other things.

It's not about weight or whatever.. please take my words simply as they are, no need to go so deep within the lines!

It is not about me, I take it as you write it but it has already happened that somebody started argumenting with crap like "Tiger said others agree with him, why don't you listen then?" - so it is more about the effect of these implications on people who are actually unable to "take your words simply as they are".

I could also say that with this sentence you pretty much saying "you all 3 agree on that? huh, who cares as long as I don't! I count as 3 persons alone..."

You interpret it in a wrong way. It says "you all 3 agree on that? huh, who cares as long as I don't! What I think counts..."

Don't you see how much this sentence is pretty insulting?

It is not really insulting, it only uses loads of sarkasm.

Not to mention that I don't even mean it the way that "you think" I do...

every language has ways of implying things without explicitly saying them and even if you do this unintentionally (...) it still sounds that way

And man.. no one said that these reload suggestions should be "implemented"

Don't tell me now "i never said that!" - I know you did not explicitly say it(...)