Whats the Point of the Tank Support doctrine?

Talk about CoH1 or BKMOD1 in general.
kwok
Team Member
Posts: 2058
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Whats the Point of the Tank Support doctrine?

Post by kwok »

OH MY GOD WARHAWKS ANSWER THE QUESTION!!! STOP TELLING ME WHAT TS SHOULDNT BE AND ANSWER YOUR OWN QUESTION!!! WHAT IS THE POINT OF TS???!!! NOT WHAT IS NOT THE POINT OF TS!!!

IN ONE SENTENCE CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT IS THE THEME OF TANK SUPPORT DOCTRINE?

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 2058
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Whats the Point of the Tank Support doctrine?

Post by kwok »

Warhawks97 wrote:
02 Aug 2020, 20:29

Thus: No one said to make TS doc being like BK doc! TS doc should not have this kind of Assault arty, air support, Blitzkrieg ability and such a strong inf.
MenciusMoldbug wrote:
01 Aug 2020, 23:26


So basically, this doctrine is meant to brute force its way to victory like blitzkrieg does in the beta; only you have to keep your stuff alive and can't lose your units because replacing them like blitzkrieg does when it pops manpower blitz is impossible. So you have to take on every engagement keeping in mind your positioning, that your flanks are secure so your retreating units don't get killed, and that there's always an escape path for your tanks if things get dicey.


This is exactly why, warhawks, you need to answer my question. Clearly you both have different conceptual ideas which extremely important to having a cohesive, good, well-thought out, balanced doctrine.

Take a look at blitz doc and armor doc in the beta, generally regarded as well-improved, it was designed from the top only by the devs and tested to tweak by the community. We redefined and solidified its theme and then took design changes from there.
Take a look at propaganda doc, it was more of a partnership between dev and community. The major theme was decided by the community but designed by devs. It has some issues but overall it's not TERRIBLE. It still struggles with being accepted by the community.

Now... look at TS... the devs openly admitted not knowing what to do with this doctrine. So the devs looked to the community to try their hand at figuring it out. According to you (who was on the original thread in designing it among others) it is a shitshow. Trust me in our process in how to design a doctrine. Get. A. Theme. First. Don't go into these wall of text details and what should/shouldn't be and how it's compared to other doctrines and etc etc etc.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3959
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Whats the Point of the Tank Support doctrine?

Post by Warhawks97 »

You have caps active.


I think it got said multiple times whats wrong with this doc:


The Tank line makes no sense to go for, we have 5 unlocks dedicated for infantry although it should be "its weak side", 80% of the unlocks is stuff every other doc has for free or less CP.

I mean.... 6 unlocks for Tanks in total, two for vehicles that can give arty and 5 for infantry.
I have no idea


What this doc should be?

A Doctrine with Tanks. Basically, simple as that. I mean what options have we? Every faction has a specific doc that is good with armor in its way.
So, this doctrine needs to have more unlocks dedicated to Tanks, and not one third dedicated to inf+1 for pointless AA emplacment.


Its a doc where tanks do provide certain boosts to the inf which gets buffs near tanks. But it shouldnt have that many unlocks.
And it was a stupid move to move the only inf unit away from this doc which would have perfectly fit in the role of a working infantry that supports its tanks.




Also it wasnt me who invented the name btw. So why blaming me when you dont really know for what the name actually stands for. I would have called this doctrine Panzer Tactics anyway.


For your question: There is no point currently. For me i would call it Panzer Tactics. The name "support" alone suggests to be some sort of support doc in teamfights. But then again it sounds like a doctrine that supports its own Tanks but no one actually knows with what since inf should be its weak side which "only" has 5 unlocks lmao. So the mistake was done on your side. If you would have said the doc focuses on tanks, it would be easy. And thats how i would make it: A Tank doc basically. What else can it be?

And i suggested it right from the first day to be this way. All these "in game decisions" between Tanks/TDs wasnt from me. And the entire inf stuff wasnt from me. I did not suggest to add inf massproduction to inf. PE should never be about inf mass-production and quantity.
I also didnt suggest Mark target which i would abandon entirely btw. I also didnt suggest CP´s for lmg unlock. Who the fuck get such ideas?
And i opposed the removal of the Heavy assault squad since this unit could only really shine in this doc. SE and Luft dont have much use for it.
So dont fucking blame me for this weird doctrine. I and probably most others had a clear picture of this doc with elite tanks.

Now look at it. F2 spam, Standard Rifle equiped infantry only and a weird tank line where even Luftwaffe can provide the neccessary tanks. It was not made by me. Not at all. Idk who you have listen to when making it.




And i dont see how mencius and me have different ideas.
Its all about brute force, doesnt matter where it comes from. In this doc by tanks for sure.

User avatar
Krieger Blitzer
Posts: 4052
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, living in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Whats the Point of the Tank Support doctrine?

Post by Krieger Blitzer »

What to do with Panzer Support doc for now:
- Swap Hotchkiss with Wespe.
- Add Panther.G
- reduce jagdpanther cost
- fix Marder vs small arms
- replace LMG upgrade with doubled AT efforts
- Maybe add 1 sniper.

inf capabilities can be discussed after final release.

On a general note however, PzGrens should have minesweeper.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 3102
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Whats the Point of the Tank Support doctrine?

Post by MarKr »

Krieger Blitzer wrote:
03 Aug 2020, 12:48
On a general note however, PzGrens should have minesweeper.
If I'm not mistaken, the "Field Craft" upgrade allows PGrens to cap faster but also to detect mines when they are not moving - same as vCoH.

Who will buy the Minesweeper upgrade which removes one weapon slot when you get a minesweeper ability for every squad with a one-time purchase?
Image

User avatar
Krieger Blitzer
Posts: 4052
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, living in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Whats the Point of the Tank Support doctrine?

Post by Krieger Blitzer »

MarKr wrote:
03 Aug 2020, 13:09
If I'm not mistaken, the "Field Craft" upgrade allows PGrens to cap faster but also to detect mines when they are not moving - same as vCoH.

Who will buy the Minesweeper upgrade which removes one weapon slot when you get a minesweeper ability for every squad with a one-time purchase?
That's because i think this upgrade should no longer allow PzGrens to detect mines.. but instead they should use minesweepers.

Why?
it makes PE inf always fall into mines as they can only detect them when not moving.. but as you move; you step over the mine and get wiped.
So, i think PE inf should have a minesweeper just like other factions; which would permanently detect mines around them over a wider area as well.

in other words; the "field craft" is unreliable in terms of detecting mines, minesweepers are much better.

MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 270
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

Re: Whats the Point of the Tank Support doctrine?

Post by MenciusMoldbug »

Actually, there's a hidden trick to the way you use field craft to detect mines. You got to queue up a lot of attack orders with the shift command in order to make them stop at regular intervals to spot mines around them. This is better explained here with a video attached at the bottom:
https://www.gamereplays.org/companyofhe ... ting-mines

Basically, mine sweeping with PE is way more micro intense, but I think the ketten also spots mine just in a small radius around it.

User avatar
Krieger Blitzer
Posts: 4052
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, living in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Whats the Point of the Tank Support doctrine?

Post by Krieger Blitzer »

MenciusMoldbug wrote:
03 Aug 2020, 20:52
Actually, there's a hidden trick to the way you use field craft to detect mines. You got to queue up a lot of attack orders with the shift command in order to make them stop at regular intervals to spot mines around them. This is better explained here with a video attached at the bottom:
https://www.gamereplays.org/companyofhe ... ting-mines

Basically, mine sweeping with PE is way more micro intense, but I think the ketten also spots mine just in a small radius around it.
Ya, it's stupid.. and the detection doesn't allow you to erase the mines, either.
Unlike minesweepers, they allow you to clean the ground.

MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 270
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

Re: Whats the Point of the Tank Support doctrine?

Post by MenciusMoldbug »

Well after some thinking, I'm going to present my idea on this doctrine without having to do any special makeovers or changing anything too fundamentally:

Image

So what I changed:

<> AA to Ammo Reserves:

Basically, the bottom left unlock will give your battle tanks HE ammo already upgraded, and your TD's AP ammo already upgraded. This is so you can save your munitions for the artillery change I have made for this doctrine. As for what AA this doctrine will have, they can get the 20mm halftrack from Defensive Doctrine, placed in their logistik kompanie to take over that role.

<> Artillery P4 Tank -> Stronger Artillery Abilities:

Basically, this ability after you get the Artillery P4 unlocks:

-Victor Target for your Arty P4, intended to be used with your single Wespe for firing artillery at targets within the Arty P4's vicinity.

-A quick fire short artillery barrage, with less artillery saturation but arriving a few seconds sooner and at a cheaper cost to fire than the normal artillery barrage. Intended to be used to destroy AT guns or decrew HMG's.

<> Hotchkiss to Wespe:

You unlock a Wespe with a build limit of 1 in this doctrine, the rocket hotchkiss goes to SE.

<> Mark target changed into vehicle mine drop:

Basically same thing as SE vehicle mine drop. I don't like mark target as an ability because it takes up the UI slot for suppressive fire for G43's on Pgrens, so I would rather have that back and instead give mine drop for PS light vehicles. Since the munition halftrack can already do this, it will instead get tellar mines when you unlock this ability.

What about the infantry weapon upgrades?

I would put those in the 'Infantry Support Center' building. So you could have 3 different upgrades unlocked for PS in the Infantry Support Center:

Tank (Group) Zeal:
250 MP 50 Munitions
- Gives the aura buffs for Panzergrenadiers involving the vehicles and tanks to all infantry in this doctrine. Panzergrenadiers have their aura buffs slightly increased (by about 5%).

Double Infantry Efforts:
150 MP 100 Munitions
- Unlocks a single LMG42 weapon upgrade for Panzergrenadiers.

Double Infantry AT Efforts:
150 MP 100 Munitions
- Unlocks a second Panzershreck for Tank Busters.

So the weapon upgrades are still locked behind stuff, but you need manpower and munitions to get them and not CP's, which are more important to be spend on tank and vehicle unlocks in this doctrine. In this way, the weapon upgrades don't seem so useless, and it's a real decision to make whether you want to dump your munitions into getting weapon upgrades in the infantry support center, or save it for stuff like vehicle mines and call-in artillery.

Side note about Sturm Pioneers and Hotchkiss in SE:

-Since Sturm Pioneers are going to be basically the only unit for this doctrine with MP40's and STG44's. I propose that the limit on Sturmpioneers should be removed, having a limit of 2 on them while units like combat engineers are available in infinite numbers doesn't really make sense to me. It's not like they are limited because a mass assault of Sturm Pioneer's is an OP strategy or something (They are squishy in HP and an HMG can lock them down), so I don't see a reason to have a limit on them.

-For the Hotchkiss rockets in SE, you basically need 2 things to get it:

>The Ammunition Supply Unlock
>Panzer-Jager Kommand or Panzer-Support Kommand

It's basically the 240mm Nebelwerfer on treads with 2 less rockets to fire. It's less squishy, can get out of harms way more often if it gets counter-barraged, but essentially its deciding on whether you want an armored nebelwerfer with less rockets or not.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3959
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Whats the Point of the Tank Support doctrine?

Post by Warhawks97 »

So we drop the idea of the 4 men special tactical infantry unit to be available for PE?


I am also unsure about the Mine-drop whether its needed or not.


And the Tank unlocks are more or less unchanged. Just one straight line with different purpose units merged together.

MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 270
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

Re: Whats the Point of the Tank Support doctrine?

Post by MenciusMoldbug »

I go with the assumption that Assault Grenadiers are not coming back to this doctrine, and it needs to be balanced around 1v1. This is actually the only doctrine in the entire game that is unable to lay mines without the use of munition halftrack (even the assault pioneers in this doctrine don't have s-mines), and since the other 'armored doctrines' on the allied side can lay mines with units; I just thought why not give them the SE mine drop for vehicles. I don't know what to do about the tank unlock path when the doctrine is almost finished, so I didn't touch it at all.

Actually, in my first draft of this, I wanted to replace the SE mine unlock here with 'Tank Awareness' that would increase all infantry AT weapon damage against tanks by +20% and give mark target to only tank busters. But again, I had to think of how to balance it around 1v1.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3959
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Whats the Point of the Tank Support doctrine?

Post by Warhawks97 »

I will throw in more suggestions to play with or ideas.


So, first of all it should be renamed bc "Tank support doc" has already caused enough chaos and misunderstanding. Its unclear what it actually means. A doc that uses tank as support or a doc that supports its tanks (in which case i have to say every armored doctrine has support stuff in it now).


So, its gonna be renamed into either Elite Panzer Tactics or Panzer Assault Tactics / Heavy Panzer Assault Tactics Second is my personal favorit because it defines more clearly what this doctrine is about.



As this is clear now i removed lots of stuff that makes this doctrine either campy or "cheap F2 spam like.




Tanks:
- Removed Panzer IV F2 !
-Added Panzer IV Command tank that either gets unlocked by mass-production or having its own unlock, depending on propsal.
- Panzer IV J can be build after mass-production.
- Panter D gets unlocked first for 880 MP/ 130
- Panther A is also available for its standard cost.
- Panther Mass-production unlocks the Panther G for 730 MP and 130 fuel or Jagdpanther for 850/150, depending which upgrade the player chooses in game.
Added Tiger (both versions) and KT. Depending which upgrade the player chooses, the JT is unlocked.
Both Jagdpanzer IV Variants available.
- Panzer III N instead of Stubby Panzer IV.


The Panther D is made more expensive so to prevent things happening like too early Panther D spam.
The Panther D will be for this reason be kicked out of BK doc or made also more expensive instead of being dirty cheap. They are earlier available but will cost you more than other Panthers.






Infantry:
-All infantry is affected by the single unlock that buffs the inf near tanks/Vehicles.
-PE Heavy assault grens will be 4 men squad with MP40 and with G43, STGs and lmg42 available.
-Standard grens can get MP40.
- Assault Pios removed (?)
- re-added double schreck that also improves AT squads Panzerfaust and unlocks the Hollowcharge mine for close close anti tank engagments.


Vehicles:

- Depending on propsal, i removed the unlock that drops fuel cost of vehicle by 5 fuel.



Artillery:
- Instead of Beobachtungspanzer being unlocked, this unlock simply adds arty capability to your Command Panzer IV.
- Wespe instead of Hotchkiss.


Res Trade:
As you can see i did add a ressource trade for fuel. Every Tank orientared doc in game has some sort of res-boosting stuff. Let it be supply yard special unlock, Buffed CW trucks for more income or res trade.

However, Res trade will be fundamentally changed. Once you use the ability it will be like the Ammo-MP trade that cuts the income of the gained ressource.
I decided against a ratio bc a ratio is quickly off-set when a map has like a 3 or 4 to 1 ammo income in relation to fuel. So the only drawback that has always some impact is to cut the income.

Its like a reversed supply yard. There you spend ressource now in order to have more later, res trade is the other way arround. You get more ressource now in exchange for having less later or at least not more than later. Its like with an credit which gives you money now but makes you pay interest in future.
Attachments
Panzer Support.jpg (New Proposal III).jpg
Panzer Support.jpg (New Proposal).jpg

User avatar
crazzy501
Posts: 18
Joined: 04 Feb 2017, 10:43
Location: Russia
Contact:

Re: Whats the Point of the Tank Support doctrine?

Post by crazzy501 »

Reading most of suggestions about PE doc I want to say one point: this doc don't need tigers and KT in action. In my own opinion there must be this:
Panzer3, JagdPanzer 4(48), Panzer 4 H/J (as reward switch) at lower costs (40 fuel for P4 J will be better than 60 for controversal of Shermans with 76), JagdPanzer 4(V) and Jagdpanter at top tier. And to support this mostly casemate tanks there must be general Assault Grens, which can obtain defensive buff in aura from near tanks.

In addition, general ammo/fuel trade for maps, where fuel points are rare.

I also like switch change from somebody for Wespe/Hotchkiss, coz in Arty doc Wespe do same job as Hummel what, I think, is a waste, but Hotchkiss there will be a good reward switch for 210mm stuka zu fuss.

And nothing to change with halftrucks and armored cars and their infantry buff aura, coz it was a good idea.

Sry for bad English, hope u understand my point

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3959
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Whats the Point of the Tank Support doctrine?

Post by Warhawks97 »

well, thats basically the old TH doc with just with some inf buffs added. Except that JT is missing which is completely lost in this case.

User avatar
crazzy501
Posts: 18
Joined: 04 Feb 2017, 10:43
Location: Russia
Contact:

Re: Whats the Point of the Tank Support doctrine?

Post by crazzy501 »

Warhawks97 wrote:
17 Aug 2020, 21:20
well, thats basically the old TH doc with just with some inf buffs added. Except that JT is missing which is completely lost in this case.
Yep, u right. Old TH doc concept was not bad in my opinion and it's gives us unique play style with this jagd-tanks.
Also, in my honest opinion, JT is OP. In current beta stage it can stay under ~105mm arty and Calliope fire and take little or no damage. And u can't penetrate it in front. So what's the point of adding it? Just for fun? Well, when I'm playing vs bots with this doc, it's ok, but I don't wanna play vs PE player (human or cpu), who potentially can build this super destroyer. With just a little support of jagdpanzers and stubby P4 it's can go straight to your base as knife in cheese.
In comparison, I think that Elefant from Def doc is more balanced than JT.
BTW if somebody wants super-unit for this doc, I prefer to see some kind of JagdPanther Elite unit, like Elite Panther or Elite Tiger in other docs. Also, that unit probably can provide some buff aura for tanks around it

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3959
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Whats the Point of the Tank Support doctrine?

Post by Warhawks97 »

Many disagree with JT being OP. But it depends on the situation. If one goes only straight for it with no support tanks it's easily taken out or immobilized with little tactical use.

Personally I never ever used it and prefer the Jagdpanther.
Same as I barely use the King Tiger, SP or other "super tanks".

However I would be sad to lose the tank. Every lost tank or unit is a lost capability that adds diversity.

Post Reply