Black Panther wrote:I would be glad if you shared your opinion with a new fresh look on how doctrines should looks like.
I'm not sure how long you have been around on this forum right here.. but i have already provided my perspective before: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2670
However, if we stick to the ideology of how the devs are planning the doctrines to look like, then I would have to clearly state the following:
MarKr wrote:As I said, we cannot please everyone, this time you're in the displeased group.
I wouldn't categorize myself in the capacity of what you call the "displeased group" as I'm actually fine with the changes in principle as already mentioned.. but i do also have some obvious objections on how things are executed or implemented.
If we jump straight to the actual points without deviating too much from the core subject... Then I do have some concerns:
- if we agree that Pershing was available too early after only 5 command points.. and that it should be delayed, then why does it have to be 9CPs in particular and not 7CPs for example? And if we agree that 75mm Jumbo was available too early in infantry doctrine after 2CPs, then why does it have to require 6CPs in Armor and not 4CPs on the other hand?
Are you absolutely sure that 9CPs for the Pershing and 6CPs for the 75mm Jumbo, are the completely appropriate values? If yes, what makes you so convinced with that? And why not 7CP and 4CP for example?!
- Do you realize that having Stupa with 15 ammo upkeep is like having a Tiger1 tank with 15 fuel upkeep?
Tell me.. what is the most expensive tank in terms of fuel upkeep? is there ANY vehicle in the game with more than 7 fuel upkeep?? I highly doubt...
Despite this, when i tell you that it might be actually needed to give +5 or at least +10 default ammo income for all factions as a result of the new ammo upkeep values... Your response was only "No, it is not needed" while I'm curious how you are so sure!
15 ammo upkeep is basically 50% reduction to your ammo income most of the times... And that's just because of only 1 unit alive, which is now significantly less effective unit as well... Not to mention the Stupa still costs munition to deploy.
My suggestions were clear, but here is how i would list them again, just so nobody comes and claims that i'm only whining without providing any solutions:
- First, the ammo upkeeps are over-exaggerated, so.. we will need to modify them:
MarKr wrote:- Added ammunition upkeep to artillery units:
1-- Pack howitzer, LeiG18, Autocar, Scott: 5 munition
2-- Calli Jeep/Sherman, Maultier, 150mm Nebels, 95mm Cromwell/Churchill, 25 pounders: 8 munition
3-- 105mm arty (US/WM howitzers), Priests, Wespe, Stuka HT, Hotchkiss, 105 Sherman, StuH42: 12 munition
4-- 210mm Nebels, Hummels, Sturmtiger, Grille, StuPa: 15 munition
1_Pack howitzer, Leig.18, etc »»» 3 ammo upkeep.
2_Calli jeep, Maultier, etc »»» 5 ammo upkeep.
3_105 howitzers (alone) »»» 12 ammo upkeep.
While the rest; Wespe, Priest, Stuh, etc »»» 7 ammo upkeep.
4_Stupa, 210 Nebels, etc »»» 9 ammo upkeep.
105 howitzers would have highest upkeep as they were deemed to be OP, not to mention that now they are unlimited... And other units have max 9 ammo upkeep, just the same way how you shouldn't really add more than that for tanks as fuel upkeep. Ever seen a tank in the entire game with such a high fuel upkeep of 15 ??? That's just pure insanity.
- Secondly, i would re-organize the command points in Armor doctrine so that Pershing would require 7CPs and 75mm jumbo at 4CPs maximum... Otherwise, I'm afraid the Pershing is simply becoming an "outsider" and no one would ever choose to go that path.
- Thirdly, i would not delay Pz4 in Blitz doc more than 3 command points, else.. it would become so pointless to invest any further command points into mass production later in the game when you could just better invest the same amount of points for Panthers.. not to mention that if you keep Pz4 at 4CPs, you might have to delay Shermans across all US doctrines accordingly.. which isn't going to be easy task to achieve, since they are often linked with other unlocks, and delaying them would also mean to delay the other unlocks too.
- Fourth, how many times was it mentioned that ammo unlock is un-needed in Blitz doc and that it would be better to have Maultier as unlock while allowing LeiG.18 as an exclusive unit to Blitz doc? While also allowing Stuka airstrike slightly earlier?
And btw, even Hawks (whom you categorized yourself as somebody who is positive about the changes) has already expressed his agreement about the ammo unlock and how it's un-needed.
- Lastly, the long shot ability for Stuh, Stupa and Scott should deal higher damage vs emplacements, or the new doctrines design should have no more "improved fortifications unlock" like in RE or Def doc which makes emplacements nearly un-killable.
I can't say it any better...