5.1.8 beta (Blitzkrieg doctrine rework)

If there is something new, it will be posted here.
User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3887
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 5.1.8 beta (Blitzkrieg doctrine rework)

Postby Tiger1996 » 05 Apr 2019, 10:05

Alright, so... I have finally got the chance to get a closer look at this.

it's no secret that Blitz doc is my most played doctrine in the game, alongside US Armor and then US Airborne...
So, I suppose my feedback could be useful.. or at least that's what I hope.

First of all,
I was expecting the doctrine to be re-named to "Breakthrough" by the way.. it doesn't feel right to have the MOD name based on a particular doc.

Anyways, I like the concept of removing Tigers from this doctrine.. and I welcome the addition of Stupa and airstrikes.
However, I'm not exactly fine with the approach of how this was done or implemented...

To illustrate my viewpoint, I would like to begin by reacting to this:
MarKr wrote:That being said, we are aware that this new BK doctrine will have easier time defeating other doctrines - especially Brits.

in order to evaluate this, we will have to carefully compare between the current Blitz doctrine.. and the new design that we have here.
So, let me attach a picture of the current doctrine in the game:

Blitz.jpg
current Blitz doc


Now, looking back at the "new design" while comparing it with this current one...
I then dare to say that the new design is - in fact - severely weaker against the other current doctrines in the game, at the very moment.
Nonetheless; it's not weaker in all aspects; the design is flawed.. but at the same time, there are few extremely powerful tools that shouldn't be represented that way.

Why do I think so? Well...

First, the way how the command points were divided and the way how they were structured altogether...
in the current doctrine, the player can unlock Pz4 after only 2 command points.. in the new design, it's 4 command points.
That's 2 command points more than a Firefly! And as much command points as M36 Jackson.

Also, in the current doctrine.. players can reach heavy tanks (Tigers) only after 4 command points. Whereas in the new design, they are left behind without anything (except the off-map support) until finally unlocking Panthers after 6 CPs. Keep in mind also; Panther.D in Luft doc required 5 CPs, but now it's together with Panther.A unlock.. so the D version is now available 1 CP later in the game.

If the player wants to unlock just the "grenade volley" he needed 5 CPs in total, but now.. he needs 7 CPs!

Suppression StormTroops are earlier available but now they need to pay fuel for the half-track in order to call them (which is fine though).

Demolition SormTroops required 2 CPs, now 3 CPs. Not sure if it's a big deal, but these were just some examples to show you that the new design isn't necessarily more flexible than the current one...

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

So:
Warhawks97 wrote:1. Why is a call in ability that provides random units put in a tank unlock line. The Tank IV´s seem to come pretty late. Meanwhile 3 CP for a cheap MP only call in enables you to spam the shit out of your opponents without ever requiring any fuel.
2. While point 1 mentions the early spam capabilities without any fuel required, the Panthers are again veery late. Long barreld tank IV´s as well as Panthers are later avaialble than 76 shermans, jacks and pershings. Even inf doc can get 76 before BK gets long barreld tank IV´s. Tank IV J/H should be early available and the core of this doc along with stugs.


I agree with this... The off-map support required 5 CPs in the current doctrine, now only 3 CPs in the initial new design.
Whereas Panzer4 unlock is later available by 2 CPs, which is definitely weird...

Warhawks97 wrote:Top line:
Tank IV H/J (1 CP), Tank IV command (1 CP), Panther (3CP), Panther ace (2 CP). (i am not even sure if i would add one but well, all like these call in super elite units, i dont bc i throws all that fuel balance over board. I would make units either producable or, in case its an ace, a one time call in only).


Eventually, this could work.. but I would rather probably just separate the off-map support from the tank line in the top, and then I would switch 1 command point from the veterancy unlock and another from the airstrike.. then add those 2 command points to the off-map support, so it would require 5 CPs as it used to be. While at the same time, allowing Pz4 and Panthers earlier once again this way!
I will attach a picture to better explain that below...

Warhawks97 wrote:Unit changes to stuh and stupa:
1. 60 range both
2. Stuh will essentially be a stug III in terms of abilities and gets a bit more HP
3. Stupa gets better support abilites for inf and +200 HP.

You can boost the range again with Tank IV command tank up to 70 again. So with 85 basic range you would get 95 range :shock: ...... 95 range oneshot unit.... holly mother.


Now, here I have to disagree.. sorry!
Stupa, Stuh (and Scott) should never have less range, and if the range goes up to 95 with the command tank, then the command tank could just be disabled from buffing the Stupa or the Stuh, without lowering their basic range... So once again, I completely disagree with lowering their range.
Else, they are just useless then... Their range is totally fine now. So, that's just my opinion over this...

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

TheUndying wrote:
Volksgrenadiers wrote:Ostwind: Well why not but i think its still not much good and have weaker reaction on planes on many maps then US CW AA that shoot on every Axis plane that show even before map.


One thing I agree on: 50cals on Shermans and especially the 50cal base emplacement for US are WAY too effective against planes. No other AA compares to them when it comes to bringing down planes and that needs a nerf.


Thumps up.

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

Regarding the command tank - I wanted to say;
Previously, people complained about the US command car and how it's very uncomfortable to use due to the way how it works...
So, I don't really understand why adding another unit (Pz4 command tank) that works the same uncomfortable way!
The way how the CW command Cromwell works, is obviously better.

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

MarKr wrote:The thing is that StuPa is available later - you can only build it from the heavy tank factory. To get it you also need 7CPs which means that the opponent will be able to field some counters already.

Wait, how 7 CPs?
isn't Stupa only 3 CPs now? in Def doc it required 6 CPs, in the new design of Blitz doc, it's 3 CPs only.. or something I've missed?

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

Concerning the WH AT squad;
So.. basically, now they are CW AT boys but without camo!
Honestly, I would prefer the Pak36 (37mm) any day.. a squad with 60 range and low accuracy AT rifle with also low HP and inability to hide!!!
Do you really think you could catch anything with this? Catching a jeep would be already difficult, not to mention a Recce which needs 3 hits.. whereas the 50.cal would probably eat them in the first 5 seconds. Try to remove camo from CW AT boys and use them, then tell me how it feels...
Can't we just bring back the Pak36 then? I'm serious.

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

Back to the doctrine design;

Here is how I think CPs could be better divided...
SnapShot(0).jpg
new Blitz doc modified


So, this way... (Sticking to the rule of 30 CPs in total, for sure)

- Off-Map support will require 5 CPs again.

- Pz4 requires 2 CPs again.

- Panther.D requires 5 CPs, not 6 CPs (Panther.A now 5 CPs as well, but it's more expensive and requires upgraded production)

- Panther.G requires 6 CPs now, it used to be 7 CPs in Terror doc.. whereas in the new Blitz design, it requires 8 CPs.
But 6 CPs sounds fair because it's limited to only 1 tank right now! You can keep the price high (1370 MP or higher).

- Stupa requires 4 CPs, not 3 CPs. (Should no longer get bonus from command tank) _ Also; could be moved to heavy tank factory, with Panthers.

- Stuka airstrike now requires 5 CPs instead of 6 CPs.

- Storms veterancy unlock requires 6 CPs instead of 7 CPs.

- Mass production is 1 CP earlier available (Makes sense for a breakthrough doctrine).

- And finally, as Hawks said; no need for ammo unlock in this doctrine.
I would better suggest to add Booby Traps, the entire WH faction doesn't have any access to such a thing!
While all other factions do. The "booby traps" unlock can be then separated from the mass production line...


Running out of time once again, i'll come back later.

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 415
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: 5.1.8 beta (Blitzkrieg doctrine rework)

Postby Viper » 05 Apr 2019, 11:12

i was about to quote the part about storms veterancy unlock. it was a very wrong point. but i think you already edited. now it is correct.
and i like the idea of booby traps very much. americans have them with cqb units. british with sas. and panzer elite with sabotage unit.
airstrikes were added to blitzkrieg doctrine because wehrmacht had no planes. they should get booby traps too. because they have none.

Mr. FeministDonut
Posts: 333
Joined: 13 Aug 2015, 21:05

Re: 5.1.8 beta (Blitzkrieg doctrine rework)

Postby Mr. FeministDonut » 05 Apr 2019, 11:27

Dude Tiger, with all my love to you, booby traps and Stupa is will be bad in doctrine, unless it's fixed.
As I said before Stupa is just Tiger 2.0 multitask tank, being good as against emplacements, infantry and tanks too! And just saying that no a TD can reach them with their weaker shooting range from ambush to pen it's armor. You don't need to invest in PZ4 H or Panthers, when you can rush even faster to Stupa, than in DEF doctrine.

And about booby traps, doctrine is breakthrough, so I would more count like on smoke grenades for infantry upgrade or any others in such role abilities.
I more count on adding WH a mines, both AT and AI, through researching them in some kind of WH supply yard.
Let's leave boobies to Terror or Def, where it is more justified.

Also, if overall Stupa will be nerfed, it's better for a blitz to be more focused on early game, despite concept of being defensive faction, so the enemy could have more chances to wreck the player on middle/late game. Like, making CP investments less, more free ammo and less OP tanks like Panther Ace, give them a mobility that is usual US advantage.

Infantry tanks like Pz3 and Pz4 with short guns, as well as US should have abilities for buffing the infantry, by the damage, defence or just healing them, this will add more tacticool variates

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3514
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.8 beta (Blitzkrieg doctrine rework)

Postby Warhawks97 » 05 Apr 2019, 11:50

kwok wrote:
About the call in spam, it has been known for a while now, even during alpha testing. It’s a really tricky ability that has moved around so many times throughout and we still haven’t quite figured out it’s plcement. An idea came around later (as markr mentioned feedback post beta release). Still in discussion, playing games and showing replays with help. Understanding the timing and typical fuel consumption of the reworked doctrine is something we want to know more about to tweak the ability.


My opinion is to end all or most of the call in tanks. I mean it just makes cost balancing hard since few cost fuel, others not.
I would make all tanks buildable or call ins should also cost fuel. So you spare production time but in return have long cooldown on that unit before you can re-call it again.

Also battlegroups do make sense (eg brits sherman 76 or Blitz doc call in) but they should also cost fuel. The advantage over normal production is that you get numbers right away for an attack without having to wait and stockpile tanks untill all are build.

Thus i would suggest (eg for the armor doc) to have some sort of call in which provides you with numbers of tanks/vehicles quickly in order to make a quick and swift attack move once an opportunity occured. That call in could be whatever kind of mix... like two e8 and a normal sherman, just two e8, a jumbo and an e8, an Jumbo e8 (yes, after seeing the success of jumbos they up-armored e8 to have armor similiar to jumbos), or an e8 with halftack and combat engineers inside.....


These call ins would cost more than producing the tank in a normal way (two e8 call in would cost 850 MP and 120 fuel) but you get numbers right away, no production time and no unit stockpiling that eat upkeep. The downside would be that they cost a bit more and have also long cooldowns to prevent nonstop call in abuse and totally bypassing production.


In this sense i would also think about a Tiger battlegroup for upcoming terror doc rework which would cost.... yeah... 1700 MP and idk... 250 fuel? That makes me just thinking that a res trade ability like BK doc has it would be essential. Anyway.....Call ins should contain not just single units but rather battlegroups and if they contain tanks, they should cost fuel.


Regarding aces:
Srsly, i would make them single time call ins. They should be unique in combat effectivness, abilties and stuff, but i hate to see how late game sometimes is ace after ace... just spare MP to replace an ace once an ace is dead. That should not be the idea behind aces.



About the Stuka bomber, it is available so late because it’s and indirect and sometimes unstoppable way of killing emplacements which was not within the theme of blitz doc. Blitz doc was not meant to be played via camping, so giving it any indirect means of offense is a stretch. As of now there is no intention to move it unless tests prove otherwise. Panthers and stuh42s/stupa provide plenty of methods for eliminating AA emplacements or cars to pave way for the Stuka. We can look into the effectiveness of the 50cal against planes but we don’t expect that the Stuka will be helpful against armor doc anyways. Balances for 50cals against will be considered for a team game reason which will have to be later. It’s easier to focus on 1v1s first then move onto team games.


The docs name is Blitzkrieg doc afterall and i always wondered why there is no Stuka.... Stuka planes were the icon of Blitzkrieg. That was what Blitzkrieg was meant to be, combined arms, speed, bypass strong defenses while arty and planes bomb the strongpoints and heavy resistance.
Stuff like stuh and stupa are infantry support platforms meant to kill pillboxes and to add firepower to infantry, esspecially in urban warfare.
But they were still not meant to completely wreck all defenses by its own. Thus the idea should be that Stuka planes would primarily bomb AT guns and their emplacments (with help of inf), while stupa/stuh helps infantry against enemie Infantry and MG´s nests and the like (like stubby tank IV)

So, if it (stuka) wasnt the "theme" of blitz untill now, it should be and thus be one of the earliest stuff available.








Tiger1996 wrote:
First, the way how the command points were divided and the way how they were structured altogether...
in the current doctrine, the player can unlock Pz4 after only 2 command points.. in the new design, it's 4 command points.
That's 2 command points more than a Firefly! And as much command points as M36 Jackson.



I agree with this... The off-map support required 5 CPs in the current doctrine, now only 3 CPs in the initial new design.
Whereas Panzer4 unlock is later available by 2 CPs, which is definitely weird...



Its funny, first they pressed the Tiger into this "late game tank" thing, now they do the same with Tank IV´s. Is in future every axis tank supposed to be a late game tank?



Eventually, this could work.. but I would rather probably just separate the off-map support from the tank line in the top, and then I would switch 1 command point from the veterancy unlock and another from the airstrike.. then add those 2 command points to the off-map support, so it would require 5 CPs as it used to be. While at the same time, allowing Pz4 and Panthers earlier once again this way!
I will attach a picture to better explain that below...



yeah, perhaps 4 CP in total for the offmap could seem right. And perhaps a seperation from tank line.


Tiger1996 wrote:Now, here I have to disagree.. sorry!
Stupa, Stuh (and Scott) should never have less range, and if the range goes up to 95 with the command tank, then the command tank could just be disabled from buffing the Stupa or the Stuh, without lowering their basic range... So once again, I completely disagree with lowering their range.
Else, they are just useless then... Their range is totally fine now. So, that's just my opinion over this...



The role of stuh and stupa is the same as it was for stubby tank IV´s and stubby stugs. Are we going to give 85 range to stubby tank IV as well now?

Just as an comparision (i choose units of similiar cost)

1. Jacks A: 650/90.... weak armor, low HP, 60 gun range, no HE capabilties whatsover and nothing to handle inf. Its only there to stop tanks.
2. Panther D: 680/110: good armor, good HP pool, 65 range, can shoot HE and good pen values... but cant overrun stronger defenses.

Now the Stupa: 600/50/100 and less upkeep than panther. Has Top mounted MG34 and Panther armor. It outranges any of the mentioned tanks by far and oneshots most tanks, inf squads and emplacmants. The "only" weak thing on it is its HP. The rof is low as well but since you dont get shot at all most of the times and having always the first shot out as well as vet commander etc, this is not a big thing to deal with.


So a super range anti everything oneshot unit is a no per definition a no-brainer. You need nothing else but a recon. No skill during attacks, no micro-managment of multiple units to achieve success during an attack, no smoke dropping, no ammo investment into pre-artillery barrages or planes to knock out a strong point first.... you just make "attrition-bombing" for low cost nonstop.

I dont see how this can be fair in terms of cost when more costly units can do just like 1/4 of what a stupa can.






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

Concerning the WH AT squad;
So.. basically, now they are CW AT boys but without camo!
Honestly, I would prefer the Pak36 (37mm) any day.. a squad with 60 range and low accuracy AT rifle with also low HP and inability to hide!!!
Do you really think you could catch anything with this? Catching a jeep would be already difficult, not to mention a Recce which needs 3 hits.. whereas the 50.cal would probably eat them in the first 5 seconds. Try to remove camo from CW AT boys and use them, then tell me how it feels...
Can't we just bring back the Pak36 then? I'm serious.


We need new concepts for AT rifles in general, simple as that. There is no point in having Rifles that two shot vehicles just as easy as an 37 mm AT gun.



For WH i thought about reverting it back into a Rifle instead of being a grenade launcer. The 4 men squad would have two rifles which reload after each shot for 3-4 sec, roughly 50% basic accuracy at max range vs a not moving vehicle, also capabale of hitting soldiers with basic roughly 30% hit chance at max range and killing soldier in two hits. It requires roughly 4-5 hits to kill a vehicle like M20.
Both, AT rifle squad as well as pak 36 available. The AT rifles are just support and to deter vehicles and protecting flanks.

For CW it would remain as it is just with 3-4 shots required to kill a vehicle but also some sort of anti inf capabilites. Also, a factions special and to improve basic inf squads, those can also buy 1-2 AT rifles.






So, this way... (Sticking to the rule of 30 CPs in total, for sure)

- Off-Map support will require 5 CPs again.


4 seem to be ok, even 3... it just shouldnt delay tanks like Tank IV...

- Pz4 requires 2 CPs again.


most important.

- Stupa requires 4 CPs, not 3 CPs.

- Stuka airstrike now requires 5 CPs instead of 6 CPs.


Stuka planes are the icon of any Blitzkrieg of early ww2, thus should be one of the first things unlocked.


- And finally, as Hawks said; no need for ammo unlock in this doctrine.
I would better suggest to add Booby Traps, the entire WH faction doesn't have any access to such a thing!
While all other factions do. The "booby traps" unlock can be then separated from the mass production line...




The Bottom line could be:

Blitzkrieg ability (1 or 2 CP), Stuka plane (1 CP), Off map smoke (similiar to RA fashion, perhaps not sector wide but in a larger area), 1 CP, Off map call in and assault guns unlock (2 CP).


Wolfram ammo removed. A Blitzkrieg doctrine is not supposed to rush into heavy enemie tank forces. Anyone who thinks so has no idea what Blitzkrieg means. You rush over weaker defended areas, bomb strong points with planes, defend the rear guard of enemie forces... Halftracks, anti air weapons etc.

So what we need is not more AP ammo, but smoke, smoke, smoke. Thats why i asked for stuh 42 to become essentially a stug 3 with 105 mm gun....low cost, lots of support abilties, including smoke... Stupa the same just with better armor, more HP and better gun but later available due to tec delay.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3887
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 5.1.8 beta (Blitzkrieg doctrine rework)

Postby Tiger1996 » 06 Apr 2019, 13:05

- About booby traps, well ya.. it might not be very suitable in Blitz doc after all, as it would make more sense in Terror or Def, but i just had to remind everyone that WH faction has no booby traps at all, so it could be an option! For the Blitz doc, smoke screen might be more viable then.

- About the Stupa, Stuh and Scott.
I still don't think that their range is any problematic.. if there is any problem, then it's more of how their shells actually behave. The shells are probably too fast, the shells should have longer travel time. Performing more of a "loop" shot just like Churchill AVRE for example, rather than a direct hit... So, it would take some seconds in the air to reach the target, and not instantly hits. Perhaps tracers could be added as well, so the player can see the shell coming. This way it would be a lot easier to dodge, as it won't behave like a sniper anymore.. without having to touch the range. Accordingly, the 105 Sherman could also work the same way...

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3514
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.8 beta (Blitzkrieg doctrine rework)

Postby Warhawks97 » 06 Apr 2019, 16:16

Tiger1996 wrote:
- About the Stupa, Stuh and Scott.
I still don't think that their range is any problematic.. if there is any problem, then it's more of how their shells actually behave. The shells are probably too fast, the shells should have longer travel time. Performing more of a "loop" shot just like Churchill AVRE for example, rather than a direct hit... So, it would take some seconds in the air to reach the target, and not instantly hits. Perhaps tracers could be added as well, so the player can see the shell coming. This way it would be a lot easier to dodge, as it won't behave like a sniper anymore.. without having to touch the range. Accordingly, the 105 Sherman could also work the same way...


and i wouldnt even like super range for 105... for me these units are (would be) support that deliver heavy HE against trenches, houses, MG nests, infantry etc. If there is an AT gun i can use artillery/planes or cover it in smoke or whatever. Single super range units usually end up in camping.

It might be worth testing to give them a huge trajectory so that the shell has long travel times and thus giving time to move, idk.

MEFISTO
Posts: 75
Joined: 18 Jun 2016, 21:15

Re: 5.1.8 beta (Blitzkrieg doctrine rework)

Postby MEFISTO » 07 Apr 2019, 02:59

Hey guys I want to talk a bit about new German AT squad and their change in this beta, I thing they had to be NERF (less accurate, remove the mp40,) but remove the sand bags and less range (both) it is to much NERF, why I am telling you this? 1-without mp40 they are vulnerable to enemy infantry (it is fine they are AT guys) but no cover and no camouflage to avoid or hide from them. 2- no way to survive 50mm cal or medium vehicles without * camouflage (like CW AT boys) to wait the enemy get close and surprise them ( NEW German AT squad never had camouflage ) *less range, so you have to face enemy cars frontally at short range without any surprise (plus less accurate -it fine it had to be NERF-)

Mr. FeministDonut
Posts: 333
Joined: 13 Aug 2015, 21:05

Re: 5.1.8 beta (Blitzkrieg doctrine rework)

Postby Mr. FeministDonut » 07 Apr 2019, 03:40

MEFISTO wrote:Hey guys I want to talk a bit about new German AT squad and their change in this beta, I thing they had to be NERF (less accurate, remove the mp40,) but remove the sand bags and less range (both) it is to much NERF, why I am telling you this? 1-without mp40 they are vulnerable to enemy infantry (it is fine they are AT guys) but no cover and no camouflage to avoid or hide from them. 2- no way to survive 50mm cal or medium vehicles without * camouflage (like CW AT boys) to wait the enemy get close and surprise them ( NEW German AT squad never had camouflage ) *less range, so you have to face enemy cars frontally at short range without any surprise (plus less accurate -it fine it had to be NERF-)

No man, 37mm US AT doesn't have greece gun too and if they are going to be overruned, they cannot just retreat like Germans do now

MEFISTO
Posts: 75
Joined: 18 Jun 2016, 21:15

Re: 5.1.8 beta (Blitzkrieg doctrine rework)

Postby MEFISTO » 07 Apr 2019, 06:10

Mr. FeministDonut wrote:
MEFISTO wrote:Hey guys I want to talk a bit about new German AT squad and their change in this beta, I thing they had to be NERF (less accurate, remove the mp40,) but remove the sand bags and less range (both) it is to much NERF, why I am telling you this? 1-without mp40 they are vulnerable to enemy infantry (it is fine they are AT guys) but no cover and no camouflage to avoid or hide from them. 2- no way to survive 50mm cal or medium vehicles without * camouflage (like CW AT boys) to wait the enemy get close and surprise them ( NEW German AT squad never had camouflage ) *less range, so you have to face enemy cars frontally at short range without any surprise (plus less accurate -it fine it had to be NERF-)

No man, 37mm US AT doesn't have greece gun too and if they are going to be overruned, they cannot just retreat like Germans do now

37mm has camouflage and anti infantry shoot, and you know you can't compare them because 1 is an AT gun and the other AT squad and may be to weak to face a CW race or other 50mm cal now I think.

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 415
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: 5.1.8 beta (Blitzkrieg doctrine rework)

Postby Viper » 07 Apr 2019, 11:05

i agree with what mefisto and tiger said about the anti tank squad. it is badly nerfed. other solutions should be found.

and the ap ammo unlock can be replaced with smoke, booby traps or......leig18 :!: so it is no longer reward for 50mm anti tank gun and doctrine special.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3514
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.8 beta (Blitzkrieg doctrine rework)

Postby Warhawks97 » 07 Apr 2019, 11:11

MEFISTO wrote:37mm has camouflage and anti infantry shoot, and you know you can't compare them because 1 is an AT gun and the other AT squad and may be to weak to face a CW race or other 50mm cal now I think.


Lol, ok..... Devs apparently thought they could and gave AT gun damage and accuracy to an rifle. Now its a bit nerfed in accuracy and range but well, put behind sandbags (srsly dude, WH and Pios and Volks to build sandbags, how can you not be able to put sandbags up AT rifle squad?) or in a house and they are very good 360 degree denial units afterall. I only managed to make a game vs bots and there one squad held of bot vehicle spam.

And the last past you wrote is sad in itself, clumsy AT guns cant beat light tanks and gets overruned by them just like that, but this rifle squads makes a short job of recces etc.


Afterall i belive that the AT rifle squad for WH is something that wasnt thought till end... in every area: In its behaviour, in the faction style etc. Brits two or three shot kill AT rifles were "ok" bc you had to knock out just one early/mid game unit of CW and they were in huge pressure... rebuilding a early unit costs tec time. WH has good spam capabilties throughout early and mid game and having a 360 degree vehicle protection unit that denies access and thus covering a mob of Volksgrens was just a bad idea and i still hope devs find a better solution for WH instead of a crazy grenade launcher (which makes it even more laughable currently).


Viper wrote:i agree with what mefisto and tiger said about the anti tank squad. it is badly nerfed. other solutions should be found.


Yes, other solutions. I would go away from GrB 39 and make it a PzB 39 AT rifle squad. The squad would have 4 men, two 7,92x94 mm AT rifles which roughly require 4-5 hits to kill a vehicle. Accuracy per rifle would be roughly 35% vs not moving vehicles, 3,5 sec reload each rifle (it had no magazin) and roughly 25% chance to hit a soldier at max range.

Abilties:
Normal ambush and lock down. Ambush just ambushs the unit, lock down increases accuracy to roughly 55% against non moving vehicles and sight range.
the pak 36 would also be avaialble, either reward or both units available.


Viper wrote:and the ap ammo unlock can be replaced with smoke, booby traps or......leig18 :!: so it is no longer reward for 50mm anti tank gun and doctrine special.


smoke i would say... stormtrooper with stuka and smoke support. You can smoke AA so your stuka makes it through, or you smoke an AT emplacmant so that Stupa/stuh (hopefully losing range) could take out a MG nest or the AT emplacmant, or smoke MG nest so that storms can rush AT guns...
quickly available smoke would add so many quick tactical options.... the leig 18 should also find its place in BK doc whatsoever.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1659
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: 5.1.8 beta (Blitzkrieg doctrine rework)

Postby kwok » 07 Apr 2019, 11:34

AT squad
The adjustment this patch was still experimental. We knew in advance it’ll take a few more tries to make it work. For now, keep mentioning different ideas, include a strong reason why it works, and we will keep trying.

New BK doc against CW
As I mentioned before, the current rework is not entirely intended to match against the CW faction. In my personal opinion, it is extremely strong against every CW doctrine (even though the firefly is made available at 2CP as an example mentioned). But much greater reworks to CW are planned. So we have read the comments but we won’t treat those with as much weight.

Blitz doc rename
Personally I don’t care what it’s named. I don’t know about everyone else though. If you want to make a poll to rename fine by me. The design is intended to reward aggression as a playstyle, which brings me to my next point.

Blitzkrieg tactics applied
What Warhawks said is right in that the Stuka was included in the doctrine with the idea that it was iconic in the blitzkrieg historically. However, the doctrine is not meant to be a perfect parallel to the tactics used. The doctrine still needs to be designed to handle situations 1v1 across various stages of the game. This is why for example free AP is available. We want other abilities like the blitz ability, Stuka, stormtrooper upgrades, etc to be used. Slight savings on munition as well as giving some ability to fight against the doctrines former counter (armor doc) was the predominate reason it was included. It is intended to be a very late unlock if you notice how far down the upgrade tree it is. This is to match the timing of other allied late game tanks which is important since blitz doc lost its largest tank and will need to rely on “medium” size tanks.

Call in aces
How should the panther ace differentiate itself? What “unique” ideas do you have in mind?

Brb will write more.

Mr. FeministDonut
Posts: 333
Joined: 13 Aug 2015, 21:05

Re: 5.1.8 beta (Blitzkrieg doctrine rework)

Postby Mr. FeministDonut » 07 Apr 2019, 11:55

Btw, can heavy gren squad from PE could be deployed a bit late? I think deploying it in a first minute of match against sappers and rifles are a bit too harsh, giving into consideration how bolt rifles are deadly in those hands

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3514
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.8 beta (Blitzkrieg doctrine rework)

Postby Warhawks97 » 07 Apr 2019, 12:31

kwok wrote:AT squad
The adjustment this patch was still experimental. We knew in advance it’ll take a few more tries to make it work. For now, keep mentioning different ideas, include a strong reason why it works, and we will keep trying.


alright.

New BK doc against CW
As I mentioned before, the current rework is not entirely intended to match against the CW faction. In my personal opinion, it is extremely strong against every CW doctrine (even though the firefly is made available at 2CP as an example mentioned). But much greater reworks to CW are planned. So we have read the comments but we won’t treat those with as much weight.


Panther and stupa is just overkill vs CW. It requires CP but to be honest, stupa and one vet 1 stug with ambush will deal with brits alone. Those two units will beat two fireflies without taking a scratch. From then on its a matter of time untill panther+stupa decimates CW..... oh, and ostwind in case you face commandos.

I am curious how CW will be balance against it without creating literally a new faction.

Blitz doc rename
Personally I don’t care what it’s named. I don’t know about everyone else though. If you want to make a poll to rename fine by me. The design is intended to reward aggression as a playstyle, which brings me to my next point.


Leave it as BK doc. Breakthrough doctrine would suggest units like KT. Blitzkrieg means mobility... and thats what Panther does.

Blitzkrieg tactics applied
What Warhawks said is right in that the Stuka was included in the doctrine with the idea that it was iconic in the blitzkrieg historically. However, the doctrine is not meant to be a perfect parallel to the tactics used. The doctrine still needs to be designed to handle situations 1v1 across various stages of the game. This is why for example free AP is available. We want other abilities like the blitz ability, Stuka, stormtrooper upgrades, etc to be used. Slight savings on munition as well as giving some ability to fight against the doctrines former counter (armor doc) was the predominate reason it was included. It is intended to be a very late unlock if you notice how far down the upgrade tree it is. This is to match the timing of other allied late game tanks which is important since blitz doc lost its largest tank and will need to rely on “medium” size tanks.


And where is the problem to have stuka prior to Stupa?

Also how does this AP "saves" ammo? Bk doc can build cheap Tank IV´s, but in this state (7 CP to have Tank IV mass production!) nobody is ever going to build tank IV spam anymore. It would end up in feeding Achilles/jacks etc. So if i would have to make a decision after i´ve spend 4 CP for Tank IV unlock already to either spend 3 more CP for cheap tank IV´s or two more for Panther, the choice is more than obvious: Panther. And when you go for Panther you dont spend so much ammo for upgrading AP ammo bc you dont field panthers in the quantity of Hetzer/Shermans. Thus this ammo upgrade is kinda usless and doesnt help anything. Saving 25 ammo-50 bc you get two panthers? We would have a much greater benefit on a tactical level with smoke ability.

We would also have much greater ammo savings if AP ammo upgrade would be HE upgrade instead. That way players could rush for a stubby tank IV´s mass production and stugs and then saving 90 ammo per stubby tank IV, 35 ammo for each stug III and later saving further 25 ammo per tank in HE upgrade.


Furthermore Panther has always been BK doc workhorse when it had to face armor doc later on. So i dont really see a balance chance BK vs Armor just bc you have this AP upgrade which i still think is usless.... it doesnt help on a tactical level and it doesnt help saving any signigicant ammount of ammo (bc you just dont spam panthers like you spam hetzer/shermans and nobody spends 8 CP for cheap tank IV with AP upgrade when a Panther offers already much higher default firepower than a Tank IV does with special AP).


So the bottom line would be best with BK ability, Stuka call, smoke drop, Assault artillery. Or replace AP upgrade with HE so people could start stubby tank IV mass prod+saving 90 ammo for HE upgrade for each stubby tank and 25 for every tank in future for just 4 CP.

Call in aces
How should the panther ace differentiate itself? What “unique” ideas do you have in mind?


Idk, all abilties unlocked at default+ special ablities, better combat stats (accuracy, reload, even acceleration due to ace driver skills), group combat stats (aces would boost nearby tanks for example).... in return you can get only one ace per game. All other tanks that arent ace should be either call ins that cost fuel, combat groups that cost fuel to call in as well or simply producable units. But no more "this tank cost no fuel bc its a call in, this does bc its no call in and noboy knows why one is a call in and the other not" bullshit.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1659
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: 5.1.8 beta (Blitzkrieg doctrine rework)

Postby kwok » 07 Apr 2019, 17:50

About booby traps
In my opinion I’m inclined to say no to booby traps as the doctrine is originally designed to reward aggression and booby traps doesn’t quite fit that bill. If anything it belongs in defensive doctrine (but that doesn’t mean it will make an appearance there). It isn’t that necessary that all factions to have booby traps. Not all factions have incendiary grenades for example. Does it fit into CW at all? Maybe maybe not. It depends on doctrine design.

About smoke
You all know of course that I LOVE smoke and would want it in all doctrines. To be really transparent, one of my ideas around smoke didn’t make it into the doctrine rework
because it was deemed too strong with the combos possible. Lol but you’ll know I’ll keep trying to make it work.

About AP shells again
I think we are thinking way too current meta, where the assumption is the majority of the game will exist in the late panthers and Pershings only. Don’t forget the previous patch was a small lead into improving the viability of mid tier units and medium tanks. We aren’t just looking at panthers being able to take on Pershings but also rewarding the micro and tactics of panzer 4s being able to take on the likes of Pershings and even Churchills. That was why we reduced the HP of the Pershing, the p4 shouldn’t need as much firepower as the panther. As long as people say Shermans can kill tigers, so can P4s killing Pershings. This should be especially viable with all the P4 upgrades and command tank. The real worry is actually that P4s will be TOO strong. Which is why it kept flipping and flopping in order with the assault group call in. Believe me when I say that literally every idea mentioned in this thread about the assault group call in and panzer 4 unlock has been brought up and discussed before it was even mentioned here on this thread.

Is there anything else I haven’t addressed? I’m
far from home with no computer so it’s hard to read everything

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3514
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.8 beta (Blitzkrieg doctrine rework)

Postby Warhawks97 » 07 Apr 2019, 19:44

kwok wrote:About booby traps
In my opinion I’m inclined to say no to booby traps as the doctrine is originally designed to reward aggression and booby traps doesn’t quite fit that bill. If anything it belongs in defensive doctrine (but that doesn’t mean it will make an appearance there). It isn’t that necessary that all factions to have booby traps. Not all factions have incendiary grenades for example. Does it fit into CW at all? Maybe maybe not. It depends on doctrine design.


my thoughts, too.

About smoke
You all know of course that I LOVE smoke and would want it in all doctrines. To be really transparent, one of my ideas around smoke didn’t make it into the doctrine rework
because it was deemed too strong with the combos possible. Lol but you’ll know I’ll keep trying to make it work.


Smoke to op? thats a joke right? In other words, it cant get worse than a 3 CP cheap stupa that makes 80 range sniper oneshots vs everything. You guys have a funny way to think. I cant say how many people shot themselves after the game or during the game in dispair bc of stupas and how many range quited (must have been many), and you come up with a smoke drop being OP....
Srsly, ive seen it perhaps once in 8 years that RE doc used the sector smoke, and you gonna tell me now that a silly off map smoke drop will be OP?

About AP shells again
I think we are thinking way too current meta, where the assumption is the majority of the game will exist in the late panthers and Pershings only. Don’t forget the previous patch was a small lead into improving the viability of mid tier units and medium tanks. We aren’t just looking at panthers being able to take on Pershings but also rewarding the micro and tactics of panzer 4s being able to take on the likes of Pershings and even Churchills. That was why we reduced the HP of the Pershing, the p4 shouldn’t need as much firepower as the panther. As long as people say Shermans can kill tigers, so can P4s killing Pershings. This should be especially viable with all the P4 upgrades and command tank. The real worry is actually that P4s will be TOO strong. Which is why it kept flipping and flopping in order with the assault group call in. Believe me when I say that literally every idea mentioned in this thread about the assault group call in and panzer 4 unlock has been brought up and discussed before it was even mentioned here on this thread.



Fact is, most ran for pershings first and then shermans as meatshield. If a sherman killed a tiger it was then usually out of a situation where you had no choice and went out lucky of that engagment. But people prefer to play save and get their core units like Pershing, Panther, Priest etc asap. Alone the fact that the the vast majority plays pershings/jumbo/jacks over e8 tells me that its going to be less likely they will try it with Tank IV´s over Panther vs Pershings.

Also a armor doc e8 with first sandbags has much better chances to survive the first hit from a Panther (650 damage vs 770 HP) and even two with over rep. And against Tiger it has much better pen chances than a Tank IV vs Pershing and has a mobility advantage over Tank IV which makes escape/closing in maneuvers with shermans much easier as with Tank IV´s which are not more mobile than a heavy tank.
Tank IVs with their 636 HP gets also regularly oneshoted by 17 pdrs and 90 mm guns (650 and 800 max damage respectively) and even by 76 guns from hellcat when those are in ambush mode (750 damage from ambush max).

Imagine a Tiger would have Panthers armor and Tigers gun damage. That alone would be enough that nobody would try it by purpose to overrun that tank by numbers of shermans. But thats the situation Tank IV is facing when going vs Pershings, its even worse since Tank IV´s are less fast and accelerate slowly.


I think the approach of trying to make Tank IV´s a one to one Sherman copy is wrong. A Tank IV should not have a combat value in late game as an e8 has. I mean you cant compare them. When first shermans came to battle towards end of 42, the Tank IV has almost reached its maxium of upgrades.


The next difference is that a over-repaired e8 with sandbags will get out of an Hetzer ambush easier than a Tank IV will ever get out of an Achilles/jacks ambush due to more health and better speed of the sherman, lower rof and speed of hetzer compared to achilles and lower gun damage of hetzer compared to achilles. A Tank IV dies either outright or by the next shot that follows roughly 4 seconds later and which will surely pen the Tank IV.

The next difference why e8 ammo upgrade is so effective is bc you get it with Global War Machinery.


So, your whole approach with making Tank IV´s kind of "Sherman 2.0" has flaws that i list shortly:

1. Sherman 76/e8 with sandbags survives Panther hit for sure (damage wise), Tank IV wont survive 90 mm hit and often not a 17 pdr hit.
2. Vs Tiger sherman has better pen chance.
3. Sherman has better mobility, thus can go into battle or leave it whenever he wants to, Tank IV does not.
4. Sherman 76 (sandbags) will likely surive standard axis TD ambush due to HP, bounce chance, acceleration/speed advantage (escape), lower axis TD rof. Tank IV cant escape from Achilles/jacks ambush due to 0 bounce chance, high 17 pdr/90 mm gun damage, 17 pdr rate of fire, achilles speed.
5. Armor doc has global war machinery and supply yard. Thus get lots of shermans and saves lots of ammo due to ammo upgrade which is spend in global war machinery.



Bottom line:
1. Tank IV need to be earlier available. Max 2 CP. Just dont, pls, just dont try to make it somehow also a late game tank by trying to "push" it with such ammo upgrade unlocks. Kinda pointless.
2. We would do as BK doc a hell lot better if you would give us HE rounds for free. That combined with early Tank IV unlock would help to fight real Blitzkrieg style by flanking and then quickly killing the soft enemie rear guard (support inf, support weapons, emplacmanets, light vehicles). Their tanks will die soon after by schrecks and simply bigger guns. But if you keep trying to make it somehow armor doc 2.0, Panther will always be the way to go with.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3887
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 5.1.8 beta (Blitzkrieg doctrine rework)

Postby Tiger1996 » 07 Apr 2019, 20:50

kwok wrote:About booby traps
In my opinion I’m inclined to say no to booby traps as the doctrine is originally designed to reward aggression and booby traps doesn’t quite fit that bill. If anything it belongs in defensive doctrine (but that doesn’t mean it will make an appearance there). It isn’t that necessary that all factions to have booby traps. Not all factions have incendiary grenades for example. Does it fit into CW at all? Maybe maybe not. It depends on doctrine design.

Booby traps might fit better in other WH docs, agreed. However, how is it not necessary that all factions would have booby traps?
If that's the case... Then why else did Blitz doc get airstrikes now, for example? isn't it because all factions should have airstrikes?
isn't this the approach of well-rounded doctrines that you have decided to implement?!

I'd say it is necessary that WH would have access to booby traps at some point.
Or wait, I totally get your point though... I understand there are "alternatives" such as Shrapnel mines with StormTroops, which are unique.
And I'm also aware that still "not everything is meant to be the same" of course.. but then again, it's all about the balance ideology that you seek.

Most certainly however; the AP unlock is certainly un-needed here.. and if booby traps don't fit in Blitz doc, then you could add smoke barrage.. although I honestly don't think that "smoke barrage" is so much needed when you can already do that with mortars!

Thus, I would actually have to highlight the following suggestion:
Viper wrote:and the ap ammo unlock can be replaced with smoke, booby traps or......leig18 :!: so it is no longer reward for 50mm anti tank gun and doctrine special.

That's probably the best idea around here... LeiG.18 being a reward to the 50mm AT gun never made any sense.
Pak38 is a core unit that can never be replaced by anything.. so i think it's time to allow LeiG.18 on a specific WH doctrine, in a shape of unlock.

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

Needless to say, I'm still curious how MarKr stated that Stupa requires 7 CPs in this new Blitz doc design.. when it's only 3 CPs right now.
I wonder.. was it just a miss-calculation? Or something I've probably over-looked?

For the most part, the off-map battle group support should be delayed... Stupa should be delayed as well.
Pz4 unlock should be earlier available, alongside Panthers as well.. that's generally what needs to be done, one way or even another.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1659
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: 5.1.8 beta (Blitzkrieg doctrine rework)

Postby kwok » 07 Apr 2019, 22:01

About smoke again,
Yeah so if you deploy smoke on a tank for example and you use mark target and the attack buff from the command tank you basically have units with infrared vision through the smoke. It’s not like that’s not available today, it is, you just use mortars for smoke. The reason it isn’t used is because the delay in mortars make it something you have to plan versus insta react to. Making an insta ability let’s you use the super combo defensively as well which leads to essentially super impossible to hit and always accurate units.
Just because the stupa is OP doesn’t mean it’s okay to have other units OP.

About Sherman’s, P4s and AP rounds
Sorry I misread something I’ll be back to re-edit this post. But the following still stands:
all the other bonuses we are giving to P4s this rework will make them even more viable options assuming people use all the tools that are given (example command tank, blitz ability, smoke, etc. all things that were often ignored in the past because of how blatantly optimal other super unit options were). Try to at least try the doctrine and all it has to offer. I get a feeling this is all speculative again and you haven’t even TRIED.

I’ll be back in a bit to answer some of tiger’s concerns

About “balanced” idealogy
You misinterpreted what this whole “balanced” approach is. It’s not that every faction will have everything, this will never happen. It’s based on doctrines should have all capabilities to let them 1v1. This was specifically said and repeated multiple times through the course of many of my posts, through the survey, and in this thread itself. The Stuka was given to blitz doc because it lacked reliable indirect anti-emplacement capability (it was often said the maultiers was only good for anti inf but did not kill emplacements and we didn’t want to turn it into just a walking Stuka like terror doc). The Stuka bomber is an aircraft just because it seemed like it fit the theme not because it was an aircraft. It could’ve very much been a howitzer but that wouldn’t be as thematic.
The booby trap is a defensive anti inf capability, blitz doc already has plenty of options there.

About the Leig
I personally want to do something about this not being a reward unit to the 50mm tbh, but that’s a personal want. The only reason why the Leig is being used right now is because the at squad can cover for the 50mm. After adjusting the at squad the 50mm might find purpose again putting the Leig behind again. The problem is the Leig doesn’t provide enough new value compared to the mg42, which has really weird attributes that Warhawks would LOVE to explain again (and again and again...). So my fear is no matter what is done to the Leig, it will basically just be another variant of overlapping function to the mg42 or mortar. I don’t think it will fit in the blitz doctrine so shouldn’t be a CP unlock, but that’s just my opinion. Others might think different. But I’m open to hearing more ideas to replace the AP shells if every truly thinks it’s useless... just don’t come crying when armor and RE doc will forever counter blitz doc.
I have other plans for the Leig but it’s only my idea right now. It probably won’t come to light until much later (if it even does get agreed on...)

About stupa CP
I don’t remember how much, it might be an overlook. Regardless, 3CP or 7CP it will have the same CP as the stuh42 because they’re meant to be trade offs. Either you can have multiple assault tanks or one big one, that’s the tradeoff decision. It seems like the issue isn’t the fact that it’s available at 3CP but it’s overperformin relative to its tradeoff partner. So let’s just pretend it’s 3CP for now because that’s not really as important in the grand scheme of things. It’s easy to move CP around but not easy to create tradeoff decisions in a system of many units that tie together

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3887
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 5.1.8 beta (Blitzkrieg doctrine rework)

Postby Tiger1996 » 07 Apr 2019, 23:00

Terror would have Nebels, Def would have its various ways of artillery, Blitz doc would have the LeiG.18 and it's definitely different from a mortar!

LeiG.18 has much higher range and in fact quite powerful shells (ever since they were buffed in a recent patch) so the LeiG.18 would perfectly fit.

Mortars will do the smoke, and LeiG.18 would serve the light artillery purpose in the doctrine when you don't have enough resources for Maultier...

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

As for the Stupa, it did require 6 CPs in Defensive doctrine.. just keep this in mind. Now, it's available twice sooner, after only 3 CPs!
Not to mention, I don't believe the Stupa is any OP at the moment.. it does have its pros and cons. Though, i agree some adjustments are probably needed for the Stupa after all.. but not in the sense of nerfing or buffing, however.. more in the sense of actually fixing or tweaking the unit behavior.

There are quite some funny things in this doctrine design to be honest, as pointed out already.. but I appreciate the effort anyways.
For instance though; I mean, just... Why allowing off-map support 2 commands points earlier? While delaying Pz4 unlock with 2 CPs in return?
So, this way.. by looking at this new design; in order to have mass produced Pz4.H, the player would actually need to spend 7 command points!!!
Like seriously, whose idea was this?

At the same time, Stupa available too soon when Panthers are too late!
I totally understand that all of this is experimental at the end, but.. you just can't be more messy.
These are just.. completely weird stuff, which is hardly swallowed into the marbles of logic...

Regardless, I'd say the concept itself is still fine enough.. so, keep going!
But please pay attention to the details within the feedback that you guys receive.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1659
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: 5.1.8 beta (Blitzkrieg doctrine rework)

Postby kwok » 07 Apr 2019, 23:15

It was my idea to have the call in early at 2CP and P4 to be 4CP.
The original reason was with the new command tank P4s would be too strong too early and immediately rushed every game. I still fear this. The overall intent, not just for the doctrine rework, is to have a place for early to mid tier units. At 2CP, panzer4s will come the same time as Stuarts and chaffees.
The call in is still something to be honest I think needs a full rework. But I went around asking about the ability and people like it how it is as an ability. It’s availability and timing was hard to figure out because if it’s too early it’s way too strong. If it’s too late it’s super useless since the current meta is to rush and skip tiers as fast as possible. Hopefully the reworks will slow the towering and make it not so useless so quickly. If it’s moved out of the tank path the P4 will always be rushed and the call in will never even be unlocked unless a player is so far behind with no fuel in the mid game, then it’s just an emergency button rather than a strategic choice.

This is the truth, the call in ability has literally been all around the doc tree and landed in various places on the tank path three, including after the P4. It just happened to land before by the time the beta was released. Trust me it isn’t so simple as just moving it up down or out.

To be honest the early stupa is just like having a 2CP Tiger. A player will still need to get to T4 before even using the stupa. To put that into perspective. Reaching t2 and making 2 ops and not killing ANY unit will give you 2CP. Getting to T4 should be harder/not as viable in these reworks since we are pretty much majorly buffing mid game capabilities and intentionally trying to make obvious rushing non-viable (or trying to. Obviously this isn’t working because of the call in problem explained above but we are working on it). Ironically, this is what I was trying to explain to Warhawks with his 2CP Tiger but this time it’s like the opposite argument.

The thing that I think people keep misunderstanding is seeing the doctrine tree like a tech tree. It’s not. It’s a tree of options and unlocking something on the doc tree means you open a capability. What we don’t want is for a capability to be tied to a tier. If inf doc builds At emplacements within 3CP and blitz doc hasn’t even started putting CP into the stupa which will come at 6CP, it means that blitz doc won’t have a reliable way to get past that AT emplacement for at least 20mins of the game. This gives inf doc the tempo for that entire time.

So there is logic to this and it’s really not as simple as put more CP to make it come earlier/later.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3887
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 5.1.8 beta (Blitzkrieg doctrine rework)

Postby Tiger1996 » 07 Apr 2019, 23:35

kwok wrote:It was my idea to have the call in early at 2CP and P4 to be 4CP.

Ah, no wonder then... :P I already recognized it might be one of your oblivion ideas :lol:
Felt like something similar to the Luft doc suggestions you made few months ago, not surprise :D

kwok wrote:The original reason was with the new command tank P4s would be too strong too early and immediately rushed every game. I still fear this. The overall intent, not just for the doctrine rework, is to have a place for early to mid tier units. At 2CP, panzer4s will come the same time as Stuarts and chaffees.

So, you were trying to give some more space for mid tier units.. well, how about allowing the mid tier units earlier??
At this point, you wouldn't need to delay the higher tier units!! They can't be delayed.. else the game would be super boring on low resources.
Not to mention the mid tier isn't skipped as fast in standard resources games, it's skipped only if you play high resources.. but you can't force everyone in the community to play high resources... And you certainly shouldn't.
I personally like to play both, based on my preferences at each time.

kwok wrote:The call in is still something to be honest I think needs a full rework. But I went around asking about the ability and people like it how it is as an ability. It’s availability and timing was hard to figure out because if it’s too early it’s way too strong. If it’s too late it’s super useless since the current meta is to rush and skip tiers as fast as possible. Hopefully the reworks will slow the towering and make it not so useless so quickly. If it’s moved out of the tank path the P4 will always be rushed and the call in will never even be unlocked unless a player is so far behind with no fuel in the mid game, then it’s just an emergency button rather than a strategic choice.

I'm one of the players who like the call-in ability as it is right now, but I don't mind if it's changed either.. but that's depending on how exactly it would be changed though... And for this ability to be an "emergency" is a strategic choice already. Nothing is wrong about it! Blitz doctrine is meant to be aggressive, so this call-in is a way to keep being aggressive when you are in a drawback situation in terms of fuel reserves, it's very justified.

kwok wrote:This is the truth, the call in ability has literally been all around the doc tree and landed in various places on the tank path three, including after the P4. It just happened to land before by the time the beta was released. Trust me it isn’t so simple as just moving it up down or out.

Yes, don't worry... I pretty well understand how it's not simple, I'm not born yesterday.
The thing is, it's actually not too much complicated either.. you just need to calculate it right and count every change in relation to others.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3514
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.8 beta (Blitzkrieg doctrine rework)

Postby Warhawks97 » 08 Apr 2019, 03:09

kwok wrote:It was my idea to have the call in early at 2CP and P4 to be 4CP.
The original reason was with the new command tank P4s would be too strong too early and immediately rushed every game. I still fear this. The overall intent, not just for the doctrine rework, is to have a place for early to mid tier units. At 2CP, panzer4s will come the same time as Stuarts and chaffees.


not really, stuart and chaffe are 0 CP. The biggest issue for them are AT rifle squad, not slow Tank IV´s.

And all that early tank IV thing wouldnt have been that successfull/fearfull if it hadnt its "mini tiger armor" and complete domination over US medium armor, regardless of Command tank IV. But you kept mini tiger armor and now you put the Tank IV into late game as well and justify that with command tank IV. Congrats.

The call in is still something to be honest I think needs a full rework. But I went around asking about the ability and people like it how it is as an ability. It’s availability and timing was hard to figure out because if it’s too early it’s way too strong. If it’s too late it’s super useless since the current meta is to rush and skip tiers as fast as possible. Hopefully the reworks will slow the towering and make it not so useless so quickly. If it’s moved out of the tank path the P4 will always be rushed and the call in will never even be unlocked unless a player is so far behind with no fuel in the mid game, then it’s just an emergency button rather than a strategic choice.


In 2 vs 2 most rushed for it. Few MP for fully upgraded tank, perhaps vet 1 stug IV late and inf squad fully upgraded.


To be honest the early stupa is just like having a 2CP Tiger. A player will still need to get to T4 before even using the stupa. To put that into perspective. Reaching t2 and making 2 ops and not killing ANY unit will give you 2CP. Getting to T4 should be harder/not as viable in these reworks since we are pretty much majorly buffing mid game capabilities and intentionally trying to make obvious rushing non-viable (or trying to. Obviously this isn’t working because of the call in problem explained above but we are working on it). Ironically, this is what I was trying to explain to Warhawks with his 2CP Tiger but this time it’s like the opposite argument.


Its better than a Tiger. And Stupa strategy was always just camp and wait untill it arrives, no matter how early or late it was available. The unit itself "frees you" from any early push. You will just wait untill it arrives. You just have to hold a minimum long enough.

Anyway, i have no cloue what you are actually trying to say here. I lost the track. Buffing mid game capabilties? Where exactly, cant find it since you put tons of CP on mid game units.
In comparision to the old stupa: You now need a building more for 300/60. Thats not much. 60 fuel sounds much but considering that players will know that they dont need to make mid game Tank IV push due to Stupa alternative, it means they spend less fuel for mid game tanks. Its much saver to get perhaps one call in and save fuel for stupa rather than investing it in risky Tank IV´s that might get unlucky against a 57 mm AT gun.

All old players that frequently used stuh 42 (eg maeglin) never made any attack in mid game and relied only on long range sniping while Tank IV´s only stood guard before being replaced by panthers. And that will be the case with stupa now, just a minute or two later.


The thing that I think people keep misunderstanding is seeing the doctrine tree like a tech tree. It’s not. It’s a tree of options and unlocking something on the doc tree means you open a capability. What we don’t want is for a capability to be tied to a tier. If inf doc builds At emplacements within 3CP and blitz doc hasn’t even started putting CP into the stupa which will come at 6CP, it means that blitz doc won’t have a reliable way to get past that AT emplacement for at least 20mins of the game. This gives inf doc the tempo for that entire time.


There is an early game at first and points need to be taken before spamming any emplacment. If you havent won early enough with inf doc, stupa will kill you anyway. Besides lucky long tom strike i dont see anything inf got to handle the stupa. Inf players will be dead if they dont manage to win the game before stupa arrives. Going for emplacments before having the game won already is suicide, its the last any inf player will go for.

So there is logic to this and it’s really not as simple as put more CP to make it come earlier/later.


havent found the logic yet.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1659
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: 5.1.8 beta (Blitzkrieg doctrine rework)

Postby kwok » 08 Apr 2019, 09:05

Tiger, I think you might be surprised about which ideas were my ideas.

The mid tier units can’t be made earlier, both because there isn’t a strong mechanism for it and there’s barely any time for opening/early tier units. The only mechanism to make mid tier units earlier right now is removing fuel costs from things like the motor pool or hq upgrade and those are easy to achieve. It’s also not just availability but viability too. The ideal is to have all units being useful through the entire game, some units especially infantry need a ramp up time to get the veterancy to be useful in the later stages of the game. The early game even on low resources is already so short with units that are never used after the 10 minute mark.

You’re right in that have an emergency option for the call in is okay, but what is not okay is if that it’s its only use. If it serves no other purpose

Brb. I’ll have time later today to answer more

User avatar
idliketoplaybetter
Posts: 263
Joined: 26 Feb 2016, 19:55

Re: 5.1.8 beta (Blitzkrieg doctrine rework)

Postby idliketoplaybetter » 08 Apr 2019, 10:15

Hey, i would not want to add another passiveagressive topic for this guys to bite u devs up, but here i've read about the argument of this rework to be in favour of more an iconic/historic view, and therefore, blitzdoc gets Stuka. Which is cool.

Although there was nor less iconic thing, and that was Pz3. Maybe there is a sense to play its integration to the doctrine somehow too? maybe that can help resolving early-mid-late/pz4-CP-offmap combat group issue, as it could be a good additional option for Axis players to go, instead of either Spamming pz4, skipping tiers and so on?

Have you even guys considered it to WM/BKdoc?

Its just, i havent seen pz3 from PE much in use since..hmm, since it's been introduced i think.
"You can argue only with like-minded people"

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1659
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: 5.1.8 beta (Blitzkrieg doctrine rework)

Postby kwok » 08 Apr 2019, 11:19

Don’t have time to respond much but I like that thought about the p3 a lot. Will think about it


Return to “Announcements”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests