Should Tanks be able to reinforce infantry?

Talk about CoH1 or BKMOD1 in general.

Should tanks be able to Reinforce infantry nearby?

1. Yes (Add argument, but no bullshit argument)
13
72%
2. No
5
28%
 
Total votes: 18

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 5390
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Should Tanks be able to reinforce infantry?

Post by Warhawks97 »

viewtopic.php?f=27&p=43450#p43450

since it seems to become quite common that tanks are allowed to reinforce infantry nearby with more and more tanks being able to do so, i want to suggest to get rid of this "feature" alltogether.

1. Why got it even introduced? Tanks have never been intended to reinforce infantry. Not in vanilla, later coh´s or mods.
2. Churchill used to be the only one with this capability but at that time RE was a dead doctrine with nothing usefull to offer. So it made to some degree "sense" to have this as a feature to offer something special. But since churchills became quite capable and the doctrine overall a quite capable one, i wonder whether churchills are really in the need to have this "feature" since they have become quite capable combat and breakthrough units.
3. Halftracks have no other purpose as to improve and support infantry. Its a niche unit that is stripped out of its role and and more.
4. The most capable and destructive tanks in the game that have bad ass armor and, in case of the Sturmtiger and Tiger, also bad ass firepower. Do they really perform so poor that they need this?
5. Tanks in general are quite potent unit either by firepower, armor or general cost effectivness. Why on earth do they have to make halftracks obsolete and so fucking self-sufficient.
6. Tanks are not designed to be some sort of "mother ships". But right now Tigers, Sturmtigers and late churchills have become some sort of Star destroyers with massive firepower while being able to deploy TIE-Fighters (Infantry) arround them as guards and shields. Did i miss the point when we made the decision to turn every tank in BK into some fucking Land Cruiser or Land Carrier or Land Ship?



Give me one good reason aside from "Infantry rode on tanks into battle" bullshit or "That tank needs a feature to be usefull" bullshit. I mean in which concept of a tank in an RTS games makes this sense???
Build more AA Walderschmidt

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 744
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: Should Tanks be able to reinforce infantry?

Post by mofetagalactica »

Gameplay feature, easier use of mixed arms since infantry die fast, still would like halftracks and other dedicated units that do this, to have somekind of hability to lock-in place doubling his reinforcment range or even to an extend to make the whole territory he is located a reinforcement position.
Last edited by mofetagalactica on 15 May 2022, 18:33, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Krieger Blitzer
Posts: 4997
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, living in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Should Tanks be able to reinforce infantry?

Post by Krieger Blitzer »

Yes, no harm in allowing certain tanks to do so.
It's an ability that resembles soldiers embarking behind the tank.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 5390
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Should Tanks be able to reinforce infantry?

Post by Warhawks97 »

Krieger Blitzer wrote:
15 May 2022, 18:15
Yes, no harm in allowing certain tanks to do so.
It's an ability that resembles soldiers embarking behind the tank.
it does hurt the entire gameplay and makes dedicated HT´s kind of obsolete just that some tank dudes have even less mirco do handle. Whats the problem to get some fucking HT or whatever to keep inf units at strenght?
Build more AA Walderschmidt

User avatar
idliketoplaybetter
Posts: 454
Joined: 26 Feb 2016, 19:55

Re: Should Tanks be able to reinforce infantry?

Post by idliketoplaybetter »

I dunno, conceptually speaking this mechanic fits wherever it is applied currently, imo.

Not saying its good or bad, just fits. U go for sturmtiger? alright, support it with cheap inf around it. Can be fun actually. Not just blob back and forth to the HQ..imo.

Same with Tiger Ace and Churchill, honestly.


Halftracks arent suffering at the late game stage (when all heavy tanks reinf ability is provided), they are suffering much early, when majority of players ignore them.

Again, not like players rush for ACE TIGER instead of getting Halftrack for reasons of "instead". They just do so.
"You can argue only with like-minded people"

Consti255
Posts: 1140
Joined: 06 Jan 2021, 16:12
Location: Germany

Re: Should Tanks be able to reinforce infantry?

Post by Consti255 »

idliketoplaybetter wrote:
16 May 2022, 06:51
I dunno, conceptually speaking this mechanic fits wherever it is applied currently, imo.

Not saying its good or bad, just fits. U go for sturmtiger? alright, support it with cheap inf around it. Can be fun actually. Not just blob back and forth to the HQ..imo.

Same with Tiger Ace and Churchill, honestly.


Halftracks arent suffering at the late game stage (when all heavy tanks reinf ability is provided), they are suffering much early, when majority of players ignore them.

Again, not like players rush for ACE TIGER instead of getting Halftrack for reasons of "instead". They just do so.
agree.
There is also a different debate for static HTs with bigger reinforce range.
Nerf Mencius

User avatar
Krieger Blitzer
Posts: 4997
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, living in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Should Tanks be able to reinforce infantry?

Post by Krieger Blitzer »

Speaking of HTs reinforce by the way, i don't think we should turn them into retreat points.
Officers can already go inside them for retreating inf, and that makes them unique from any tank reinforce.

Red
Posts: 176
Joined: 05 Oct 2020, 12:40

Re: Should Tanks be able to reinforce infantry?

Post by Red »

For me the ability to reinforce is like any other ability something to be balanced. So I do not believe it would be good to per se reserve it for halftracks.

User avatar
Redgaarden
Posts: 565
Joined: 16 Jan 2015, 03:58

Re: Should Tanks be able to reinforce infantry?

Post by Redgaarden »

I dont really see a reason why not to. Propaganda doctrine dont really have any good infantry that could exploit it.
Rifles are not for fighting. They are for building!

User avatar
Krieger Blitzer
Posts: 4997
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, living in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Should Tanks be able to reinforce infantry?

Post by Krieger Blitzer »

Btw, the ability existed in vCoH on some tanks.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 5390
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Should Tanks be able to reinforce infantry?

Post by Warhawks97 »

Krieger Blitzer wrote:
17 May 2022, 07:59
Btw, the ability existed in vCoH on some tanks.
I am playing vcoh frequently currently. And no, not a single tank can reinforce inf nearby, not even churchills. There is not a single tank in any coh or coh mod that can do that. BK is the only retarded mod that turned tanks into halftrack/logistic/support hybrid utility vehicles. They have "Tank shock" to suppress inf but thats all.

What is true that HT´s after upgrade (quad cal 50, flamethrower and walking stuka) could still reinforce infantry nearby,
Build more AA Walderschmidt

User avatar
idliketoplaybetter
Posts: 454
Joined: 26 Feb 2016, 19:55

Re: Should Tanks be able to reinforce infantry?

Post by idliketoplaybetter »

I think this ability was added with the ToV, specifically used within those 3 game mods not that many people ever played.., alike manual turret control option, which it came also from.

But the thing, its not a bad addition. Again, people are not ignoring HT mobile reinf mostly not because few late game units can make it too.
Nor like id agree that HTs are anyhow vulnerable specifically on the frontline, more than anything else, as you guys point it to be.

They are cheap basic early to mid game units. Cheap for the most part. And that comes with some cons and pros.
"You can argue only with like-minded people"


User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 704
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Should Tanks be able to reinforce infantry?

Post by CGarr »

Jagdpanther wrote:
18 May 2022, 23:35
8 - 2 this mod is doomed
There's been tanks that can reinforce inf in the game for years, mod still seems to be doing ok though.

@Hawks
I voted yes. The tanks that have this ability are objectively weaker than others in their class, and they are dependent on inf support for close range defense (the churchills more-so than the tiger).

I agree that HTs aren't in a great spot currently, but I wouldn't say its because a small amount of tanks with the reinforce ability somehow made them obsolete. They've always left a lot to be desired, especially since they can't be used as clown cars in BK like their vanilla counterparts can (an understandable change). Frontline reinforcement isn't a good enough ability on its own to justify building these units. The ambulances can at least heal, but all the current HTs have to offer is a dogshit MG that isn't even threatening enough to deter enemy inf.

Removing reinforcement from the few tanks that have it isn't going to magically make people want to build more HTs, the issue is with the HTs themselves.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 5390
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Should Tanks be able to reinforce infantry?

Post by Warhawks97 »

CGarr wrote:
19 May 2022, 00:27
Jagdpanther wrote:
18 May 2022, 23:35
8 - 2 this mod is doomed
There's been tanks that can reinforce inf in the game for years, mod still seems to be doing ok though.

@Hawks
I voted yes. The tanks that have this ability are objectively weaker than others in their class, and they are dependent on inf support for close range defense (the churchills more-so than the tiger).

I agree that HTs aren't in a great spot currently, but I wouldn't say its because a small amount of tanks with the reinforce ability somehow made them obsolete. They've always left a lot to be desired, especially since they can't be used as clown cars in BK like their vanilla counterparts can (an understandable change). Frontline reinforcement isn't a good enough ability on its own to justify building these units. The ambulances can at least heal, but all the current HTs have to offer is a dogshit MG that isn't even threatening enough to deter enemy inf.

Removing reinforcement from the few tanks that have it isn't going to magically make people want to build more HTs, the issue is with the HTs themselves.

Churchills used to be weak and were never used. Most didnt know they can reinforce inf.Today they are quite capable when you go straight for them. So given their armor, decent anti inf power (and often times can overcome enemie mediums due to their armor) and abilities like tank shock i would say they dont need this feature anymore.

And Tigers and ST? That was an stupid move. Tiger is objectively not a bad tank, esspecially when going up in vet. The doctrine already is often labled "Tiger doc". This tank has many abilities, a powerfull gun and strong armor, lots of HP and can debuff enemie tanks. I dont quite understand why this tank needs to be able to reinforce inf on top of all that.

And ST? As already mentioned, that thing is going to do well enough in its main role with the new change to main weapon. Abilities like tank shock or whatever would make sense to such a unit, but being a rolling super fortress that acts as mother ship for the infantry not only behind the main frontline, but pretty much at or even "in" the enemies frontline when necessary. Come on, thats just hilarious.


And HT MGs are not weak at all. In HR games as WH i always go for the HT with its 15 ammo MG upgrade. Its the most cost effective and most important unit. I think what makes HT overall less valuable is the fact that everything goes Tank heavy in the late game and that most basic inf disappears in the later stages of the game. The more basic inf units and support weapons are being used, the more valubale is a HT that can provide necessary reinforcments right where its needed. But when you have just a bunch of elite units doing attack/retreat moves and a few tanks, there will be no real need for HTßs that provide constant reinforcments to frontline inf squads and weapon crews.
I used to play a lot with rifle squads from inf doc or Volksgrens and stormtroopers in BK doc and there i always had to get at least one HT, sometimes even two (when unlocking the BK storm HT).

But games seem to have been reverted back to a handfull elite squads usually to support some armor. And the fact that these tanks can now also take over the HT´s job doesnt help in this matter.
Build more AA Walderschmidt

Consti255
Posts: 1140
Joined: 06 Jan 2021, 16:12
Location: Germany

Re: Should Tanks be able to reinforce infantry?

Post by Consti255 »

Churchills are Infantry tanks from a doctrine perspective, even if this just meant supporting infantry with their push and give firesupport. Still, overall in a gameplay perspective it does make sense to give such tanks the ability to reinforce. It supports a faster more agressive playstyle which rewards mikro which i personally like and should stay. (does it makes sense realsiticly? No. But in terms of gameplay yes)

Tigers on the other hand i 100% agree with you hawks, that they DONT need this feature anymore, since they are a powerhouse on their own. Great abilitys, good armor, great gun, super good HE and a top MG. They are a heavy tank which should be used as it, not a infantry tank. Also, prop doc now has the ST which does that (i am a big fan of it honestly), while beeing more "balanced" since it cant stand its own against most threats.
So Tiger can go, ST can/should stay. It would be a senseful shift overall in this doc.
Nerf Mencius

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 704
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Should Tanks be able to reinforce infantry?

Post by CGarr »

Reinforcement on the tiger really isn't that strong, I don't know why you guys are tripping about it. Reinforcing around a tiger is just asking for your whole comp to get hit with arty. The ability is just there to encourage usage of supporting inf to compensate for the lack of a roof MG.

The Churchill falls off hard late game unless the axis player just completely ignores their heavy tank options. Reinforcement helps with that by letting them act as mobile bunkers late game, but again, it also begs for your comp to get hit by arty (especially with how close you have to get to the Churchill to reinforce).

The ST is objectively a waste of resources in like 95% of games, it fires one big shot every once in a while before turning into a punching bag until its year long reload finishes. The only thing it is useful for when the shot is down is trying to cheese tank fights by sending it in first to draw aggro, and good players are smart enough to just focus down other threats.

If you keep these tanks back to stay out of enemy vision and avoid barrages, they aren't doing their job, as stalling the game doesn't benefit either unit. The longer they wait in the backline, the more time the enemy has to field something bigger. Again, if you try to use them like HTs while pushing, its pretty easy to punish.
And HT MGs are not weak at all. In HR games as WH i always go for the HT with its 15 ammo MG upgrade. Its the most cost effective and most important unit. I think what makes HT overall less valuable is the fact that everything goes Tank heavy in the late game and that most basic inf disappears in the later stages of the game. The more basic inf units and support weapons are being used, the more valubale is a HT that can provide necessary reinforcments right where its needed. But when you have just a bunch of elite units doing attack/retreat moves and a few tanks, there will be no real need for HTßs that provide constant reinforcments to frontline inf squads and weapon crews.
I used to play a lot with rifle squads from inf doc or Volksgrens and stormtroopers in BK doc and there i always had to get at least one HT, sometimes even two (when unlocking the BK storm HT).
This is a joke, right? At best, an HT might kill a few basic inf models before the enemy just brings their own vehicle or AT to respond. They're not going to wipe unless another unit did the majority of the work already. Crewed weapon spam is just begging the enemy to get arty. Basic inf aren't bad, but having an HT around doesn't turn them into terminators, and it puts your HT in a really risky spot if you are on the offensive.

I've always played with a lot of rifles and volksgrens, and I can say for certain that I would rather spend the fuel on a unit that can actually do damage. Most maps have a lot of ambient buildings, just build an FOB if you need frontline reinforcements that badly. This is why I suggested that the firepower of HTs be buffed, that kind of change would do infinitely more in making HTs feel useful than removing reinforcement from a couple tanks ever could.
But games seem to have been reverted back to a handfull elite squads usually to support some armor. And the fact that these tanks can now also take over the HT´s job doesnt help in this matter.
That playstyle never went away, and it probably never will. People do it with literally all tanks in the game, not just the ones that can reinforce. It's popular because it's easy, both unit types (elite inf and tanks) are easy to micro together since you don't need a ton of them on the field to be effective and they cover eachother's weaknesses. Even experienced players like this playstyle because it lets them dedicate more micro to support units rather than just trying to micro a billion basic frontline units.

I see it most on Blitz doc and US armor doc, and neither of those docs have inf that can reinforce. Prop players often try it, but when you're using that many squishy inf squads in one area, its a wet dream for any allied player with indirect fire at their disposal, so there's a massive pretty massive trade off. PS doc can best utilize this playstyle because their entire doctrine is built around this playstyle, but PS doc is also quite resource hungry, and losses are much more impactful, so arty can punish them even harder.

Removing tank reinforcement will not make this kind of playstyle go away or solve any of the 'issues' you brought up. If you want the HTs to be useful, give them another purpose aside from just reinforcement. Reinforcement just isn't that strong of an ability on its own, especially when the radius for it is so short. It's not a bad ability, but no unit in the game should be balanced to be used exclusively for this ability. Even the ambulances can at least heal.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 4073
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Should Tanks be able to reinforce infantry?

Post by MarKr »

Consti255 wrote:
20 May 2022, 00:10
Tigers on the other hand i 100% agree with you hawks, that they DONT need this feature anymore, since they are a powerhouse on their own. Great abilitys, good armor, great gun, super good HE and a top MG.
I'm not sure if you know this but from the post it seems you don't so just to clarify - the reinforcement is present only on the "early" version of Tiger - the one that doesn't have the top MG. The "late" version and Ace cannot reinforce.

We gave it the ability because otherwise there would be no reason to choose the "early" version over the "late" version as the price difference alone isn't big enough to justify the absent MG. The "late" version is more capable of defending itself from infantry thanks to the MG, the "early" version needs more support from your own infantry to protect the tank from enemy infantry, since the Prop doc is an "infantry spam" doc, the ability fits there.

As CGar said - it is also a risky move as clustered infantry is begging for an arty shell.
Image

Red
Posts: 176
Joined: 05 Oct 2020, 12:40

Re: Should Tanks be able to reinforce infantry?

Post by Red »

MarKr wrote:
20 May 2022, 10:07
Consti255 wrote:
20 May 2022, 00:10
Tigers on the other hand i 100% agree with you hawks, that they DONT need this feature anymore, since they are a powerhouse on their own. Great abilitys, good armor, great gun, super good HE and a top MG.
I'm not sure if you know this but from the post it seems you don't so just to clarify - the reinforcement is present only on the "early" version of Tiger - the one that doesn't have the top MG. The "late" version and Ace cannot reinforce.
Just to complement:
According to a quick test, the PE TS early Tiger I can also not reinforce, so the only Tiger I than can reinforce seems to be the one in WH Prop Doc.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 5390
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Should Tanks be able to reinforce infantry?

Post by Warhawks97 »

MarKr wrote:
20 May 2022, 10:07
Consti255 wrote:
20 May 2022, 00:10
Tigers on the other hand i 100% agree with you hawks, that they DONT need this feature anymore, since they are a powerhouse on their own. Great abilitys, good armor, great gun, super good HE and a top MG.
I'm not sure if you know this but from the post it seems you don't so just to clarify - the reinforcement is present only on the "early" version of Tiger - the one that doesn't have the top MG. The "late" version and Ace cannot reinforce.

We gave it the ability because otherwise there would be no reason to choose the "early" version over the "late" version as the price difference alone isn't big enough to justify the absent MG. The "late" version is more capable of defending itself from infantry thanks to the MG, the "early" version needs more support from your own infantry to protect the tank from enemy infantry, since the Prop doc is an "infantry spam" doc, the ability fits there.

As CGar said - it is also a risky move as clustered infantry is begging for an arty shell.

Why we didnt just give S mines to early model tiger instead?
Red wrote:
20 May 2022, 12:32

Just to complement:
According to a quick test, the PE TS early Tiger I can also not reinforce, so the only Tiger I than can reinforce seems to be the one in WH Prop Doc.
Another good reason to just get rid of this feature for Tigers. Prop doc Tigers really dont need more features than they already have in this doc.



@CGarr:
HT´s in the early stage, esspecially the instant MG34 for the WH version is pretty powerfull when you open up with grens, pak, recon.

But anyways. If the HT´s would have some sort of abilities such as deploying medics, or having a Med upgrade to heal nearby inf or anything alike, that would really help.


Also i actually like how vcoh is handling them. There you can convert them into flamethrower HT or walking stuka for WH or into M16 for US. Having a similiar approach could make sense in BK too. You deploy a HT early on and later you can convert them into whatever you want. But unlike in vcoh they would then lose their reinforcment ability to make them not OP. Also i am not going to suggest to add walking stuka upgrades for all doctrines.


However, things could be like this:

Upgrades on HT´s:
1. MG upgrade
2. Medical equipment as to make them heal nearby infantry.

Doctrinal:
Walking Stuka
Flamethrower
M16 upgrade

(vehicles would lose the ability to reinforce)
Build more AA Walderschmidt

Consti255
Posts: 1140
Joined: 06 Jan 2021, 16:12
Location: Germany

Re: Should Tanks be able to reinforce infantry?

Post by Consti255 »

Red wrote:
20 May 2022, 12:32
MarKr wrote:
20 May 2022, 10:07
Consti255 wrote:
20 May 2022, 00:10
Tigers on the other hand i 100% agree with you hawks, that they DONT need this feature anymore, since they are a powerhouse on their own. Great abilitys, good armor, great gun, super good HE and a top MG.
I'm not sure if you know this but from the post it seems you don't so just to clarify - the reinforcement is present only on the "early" version of Tiger - the one that doesn't have the top MG. The "late" version and Ace cannot reinforce.
Just to complement:
According to a quick test, the PE TS early Tiger I can also not reinforce, so the only Tiger I than can reinforce seems to be the one in WH Prop Doc.
Than i would say get rid of it entirely on Tigers for Prop and just shift it over to the ST.
The early version could get the S-mines or maybe something else which compliment a more agressive playstyle.
Early Tiger = Early German doctrine = Blitzkrieg? Maybe something like a reload speed, short infantry buff or maybe a smoke arty call in ?
Nerf Mencius

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 4073
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Should Tanks be able to reinforce infantry?

Post by MarKr »

Consti255 wrote:
20 May 2022, 15:22
Than i would say get rid of it entirely on Tigers for Prop and just shift it over to the ST.
The early version could get the S-mines or maybe something else which compliment a more agressive playstyle.
Early Tiger = Early German doctrine = Blitzkrieg? Maybe something like a reload speed, short infantry buff or maybe a smoke arty call in ?
Or...you know...keep there the reinforce as it is something that's useful for the general doctrine's playstyle?
Show me a replay where it is abused, OP or it causes some other gameplay issues, then I will gladly consider it.
Image

Consti255
Posts: 1140
Joined: 06 Jan 2021, 16:12
Location: Germany

Re: Should Tanks be able to reinforce infantry?

Post by Consti255 »

MarKr wrote:
20 May 2022, 16:27
Consti255 wrote:
20 May 2022, 15:22
Than i would say get rid of it entirely on Tigers for Prop and just shift it over to the ST.
The early version could get the S-mines or maybe something else which compliment a more agressive playstyle.
Early Tiger = Early German doctrine = Blitzkrieg? Maybe something like a reload speed, short infantry buff or maybe a smoke arty call in ?
Or...you know...keep there the reinforce as it is something that's useful for the general doctrine's playstyle?
Show me a replay where it is abused, OP or it causes some other gameplay issues, then I will gladly consider it.
All i am saying is, that you have the ST now that reinforces and to avoid overlapping i suggested that the Tiger shouldnt keep it.
Also, as CGar mentioned every tank that has the reinforce ability normally has drawbacks. But honestly i dont see the draw back with the Tiger. (dont tell me the missing top MG). The pershing doesnt have one and cant reinforce.
Nerf Mencius

User avatar
Walderschmidt
Posts: 1249
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Re: Should Tanks be able to reinforce infantry?

Post by Walderschmidt »

^The Pershing also has competent infantry to accompany it (Combat Engies).

Wald
Kwok is an allied fanboy!

AND SO IS DICKY

AND MARKR IS THE BIGGGEST ALLIED FANBOI OF THEM ALL

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 5390
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Should Tanks be able to reinforce infantry?

Post by Warhawks97 »

MarKr wrote:
20 May 2022, 16:27
Consti255 wrote:
20 May 2022, 15:22
Than i would say get rid of it entirely on Tigers for Prop and just shift it over to the ST.
The early version could get the S-mines or maybe something else which compliment a more agressive playstyle.
Early Tiger = Early German doctrine = Blitzkrieg? Maybe something like a reload speed, short infantry buff or maybe a smoke arty call in ?
Or...you know...keep there the reinforce as it is something that's useful for the general doctrine's playstyle?
Show me a replay where it is abused, OP or it causes some other gameplay issues, then I will gladly consider it.


The Doctrine is already labled "Tiger doctrine". This just adds to the problem.

The Tiger in prop doc is and has:

1. Well armored and has a powerfull gun that oneshots many targets from superior range and with decent HE.
2. Has tank shock to instantly pin inf.
3. Scales extremely well with Vet and even more deadly abilities.
4. Can lay smoke.
5. Passively nerfs enemie tanks and units arround later.
6. Supported with global propaganda abilities will turn every enemie tank into usless pieces of shit.
7. Early available

So the question is: Does it need this feature? I think players who are not able to keep a halftrack behind a tank do not deserve to play strategy games or BK. This "one unit army" or "All it can do unit" or "Can do everything unit" or "can do it all unit" aka "Alien Mothership" is just extremely harmfull for the gameplay.

Prop doc is already stupid enough anti anti climatic for BK due to its fancy "conscript spam" or "creep spam" with its Dota II abilities. Tiger is the Hero, probably Shen or Chen or what his name is and the Volkssturms are the creeps he is playing with.

But ofc, the most hilarious and weird doctrine gets on top of it the most weird "Tank" if we can call it this way.


So, to answer the question, i can barely see a "playstyle" in this doc since everything in this doctrine is some sort of abuse. Magic debuff spam on your opponent anywhere on the map anytime, creep spam, most nasty artillery that is kind of abusive and on top of that a Tank that is not just a tank but a super versatile Mothership.

Some consider this doc to be the most powerfull doc, other say its the most usless doc. But it is probably one of the the most annoying doctrines with the most anti-climatic gamesytle that ever existed in BK.
Build more AA Walderschmidt

Post Reply