Replacing useless tree upgrades from terror doc

[QWERTYAndreas]

First off, i will say that i think terror is representing one thing: the last, desperate try of the 3rd Reich. Furthermore its about psycological warfare (to make the opponent afraid)

The goliath is nice for that purpose. It just need a Little longer camo, while moving to engage a tank. When moving it will be spotted by infantry. This will scare the player from driving along with a tank, and force them to search for something that migth, or migth not, be there.

Some sort of crewable weapons, that cam be build by engineers. See fueltraps too. Also some sort of decoys, like PaKs or HMGs and Tigers

Some sort of nebelsmoke that just makes smoke. Has he shoot a nebel? Do i have to retreat?

Fueltrap: you spend fuel, to pour over a small part of the battlefield. Its lit with explosives. Use it to create improvised traps, or deny cover by making the enemy think you have trapped it. Effective, terrifying, dangerous and cost fuel....

A higher sniperlimit, like Wake said.

This would be about psycological warfare.

[Warhawks97]

First off, i will say that i think terror is representing one thing: the last, desperate try of the 3rd Reich. Furthermore its about psycological warfare (to make the opponent afraid)

The goliath is nice for that purpose. It just need a Little longer camo, while moving to engage a tank. When moving it will be spotted by infantry. This will scare the player from driving along with a tank, and force them to search for something that migth, or migth not, be there.

Some sort of crewable weapons, that cam be build by engineers. See fueltraps too. Also some sort of decoys, like PaKs or HMGs and Tigers

Some sort of nebelsmoke that just makes smoke. Has he shoot a nebel? Do i have to retreat?

Fueltrap: you spend fuel, to pour over a small part of the battlefield. Its lit with explosives. Use it to create improvised traps, or deny cover by making the enemy think you have trapped it. Effective, terrifying, dangerous and cost fuel....

A higher sniperlimit, like Wake said.

This would be about psycological warfare.

nice

[Yummy]

The half things you described was carried on by Scorched earth tactics - to use all possible ways to delay enemy invading and to destroy all possible supplies that the enemy could capture, more or less it is turned into artillery doctrine in BK. Terror doctrine is exactly about propaganda, boosting the morale of soldiers, demoralizing the enemy soldiers, using flamethrowers in urban fights etc... and for me only terror should have tigers and PE TH.

[V13dweller]

The Goliath could be fixed by reducing its hit chance by a massive amount, as right now its way to easy to hit.

Such a small device moving so fast should be a real challenge to hit, especially with a rifle.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

You need bunker for buying goliafs, they still will be veeeeeeeeeeery rare.

[Warhawks97]

You need bunker for buying goliafs, they still will be veeeeeeeeeeery rare.

PE can build them from ammo HT. Dunno know if WE can do so as well. If not it could be added.

And yes, it should be somewhat harder to hit.


@Yummy: Yeah, BK Tank IV and Panther, Terror Tiger and KT. But why PE only TH´s? I dont see the sense behind it. We have it atm and its stupidly annoying and boring. Also All PE have Marder and Hetzer so Tigers and Panthers wouldnt hurt having them in one PE doc as well at least (meaning not luft doc).

[Yummy]

That's what I said TH doc should have tigers and weak panthers, but without price reduction. But on the otherhand armor update makes tanks really unrealistic and destroy the balance (I tank about panzer IV with armor update) able to bounce off infantry updated bazookas and to take up to 3 hits from firefly gun. What about a tiger with armor update . Also you should take under consideration that they can spot ambushed TDs, so any changes with that doctrine should be very carefully carried on. The doctrine was changed for a reason because it was way too OP before and now it would be even more with infantry dying faster and limited artillery.
Furthermore I had a game yesterday, where tiger ace survived USA air strike with 10 hp. I ask why is that? What tank can survive 500 lb bombs that cost 300 ammo?

[Warhawks97]

That's what I said TH doc should have tigers and weak panthers, but without price reduction. But on the otherhand armor update makes tanks really unrealistic and destroy the balance (I tank about panzer IV with armor update) able to bounce off infantry updated bazookas and to take up to 3 hits from firefly gun. What about a tiger with armor update . Also you should take under consideration that they can spot ambushed TDs, so any changes with that doctrine should be very carefully carried on. The doctrine was changed for a reason because it was way too OP before and now it would be even more with infantry dying faster and limited artillery.
Furthermore I had a game yesterday, where tiger ace survived USA air strike with 10 hp. I ask why is that? What tank can survive 500 lb bombs that cost 300 ammo?

actually no tank can. Elephant and JT btw never die from airstrikes when having 100% HP. But be glad that the tank received even damage. In a game i had on halfaya the opponent used the 300 ammo AB doc air raid ability and all my tanks (Ostwind, stug IV late version, tank IV J) survived direct bomb hits and only the stug got crit damaged with main gun destroyed.


so you want tigers and panther in PE or only TH´s? this post says "yes" or tiger etc, the first one "no". oO

[Kasbah]

Coming back to the title of this post I also think Goliaths should stay with the mentioned modifications.

Also, it wouldn't hurt in a psychological warfare/ terror doctrine as Andreas described it, if Nebelwerfer limit was increased to 3. As I said in some other post no other unit has been so heavily nerfed from version to version (cost increased from 35 to 50, freezing time after every shot, freezing time after every movement and even getting out of the barracks, so no way to go to the rally point immediatly, and then limit to 2). A limit of 2 is OK for Luft, an aerial doctrine, but for psy warfare, 3 nebels with this frightening sound and smoke could fit. The victor target cost could then be increased from 35 to 50/65 ammo to make it more fair.

One more sniper could also be good. Or simply a veteran sniper option.

[Warhawks97]

Coming back to the title of this post I also think Goliaths should stay with the mentioned modifications.

Also, it wouldn't hurt in a psychological warfare/ terror doctrine as Andreas described it, if Nebelwerfer limit was increased to 3. As I said in some other post no other unit has been so heavily nerfed from version to version (cost increased from 35 to 50, freezing time after every shot, freezing time after every movement and even getting out of the barracks, so no way to go to the rally point immediatly, and then limit to 2). A limit of 2 is OK for Luft, an aerial doctrine, but for psy warfare, 3 nebels with this frightening sound and smoke could fit. The victor target cost could then be increased from 35 to 50/65 ammo to make it more fair.

One more sniper could also be good. Or simply a veteran sniper option.

Nebels may have kind of "set up time" and dismanteling" but still they are usually the first arty that hits the field, Is cheap to build and salvo is fast. The cost increase of salvo was alongside all other arty so it was not a specific nerf but a general arty barrage cost increase.

Still i agree, add third nebler to terror only and adjusted VT cost as you suggested.

About three snipers i am not sure. 3 of them + offcier would be everything needed to kill every inf and defense oO. Insta kill weapon crews etc.

[Wake]

About three snipers i am not sure. 3 of them + offcier would be everything needed to kill every inf and defense oO. Insta kill weapon crews etc.

Well, that is terrifying, the whole point of terror. But remember, if a terror doc player actually wanted to make 3 snipers, he would have to spend 1050 MP. In order to be cost effective, the snipers would have to kill 1050 MP worth of enemies. For comparison, they would have to kill more than 4 entire rifleman squads. Building 3 snipers would limit production of everything else, so if the enemy built a vehicle, those snipers are a waste.

[Warhawks97]

About three snipers i am not sure. 3 of them + offcier would be everything needed to kill every inf and defense oO. Insta kill weapon crews etc.

Well, that is terrifying, the whole point of terror. But remember, if a terror doc player actually wanted to make 3 snipers, he would have to spend 1050 MP. In order to be cost effective, the snipers would have to kill 1050 MP worth of enemies. For comparison, they would have to kill more than 4 entire rifleman squads. Building 3 snipers would limit production of everything else, so if the enemy built a vehicle, those snipers are a waste.

you just cant compare like that. Kill is not= kill and there are kind of important kills and less important. Like a pak is instantly killed, a vehicle rushs through and game might be done. Whats worth the win?

Call it tactically usefull kills. A HMG that kills 30 people during a game but without any real tactical impact is less good as a lets say puma that kills 5 men in its life but those are imporant kills that may turned the game.


And currently, as i am playing quite often against terror now and even double terror it is fearsome to see two gren squads in early game with stg and the neblers when starting to shoot like a minute later.

[Kasbah]

After thinking a little more about it, I don't think 3 snipers would be a good idea. Who is going to spend 1050mp on them? I rarely build 2 and I rarely see people using 2 so... I don't think if this option was available I would build myself 3. A veteran battle hardened sniper would make more sense (the cost could be increased)

Anyway I would really like to see 3 nebels with a Victor Target cost increase.

Also, would it be possible that one of the grenadiers would have a KCH skin? It wouldn't change anything in the gameplay but I really liked the skin and I think it would be good to keep it in one of the members of the Terror squad.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

2 snipers but like the old SE once, with high rate of fire ^_^ . Can somebody tell what are the stats for SE sniper now? It seems to me that now it fires even slower than WH once ( or the same), but have lower accuracy.

About nebels limit: Im always saying that limiting them was stupid idea, the problem was with very low cooldown time, you could call them every 2 minutes, and it was used effectivly against british defences, also clearing the area of hiden paks. 5 nebels itself is not a problem, for sure you cant use all without VT cause its 250 ammo, but VT makes sense only against static targets, due to very long fly time of rockets and their sound players always just move his units away, this rockets also have extremly low damage against tanks, and this 2 nebels vt is worthless, because cant even kill the weakest emplacements, like mg or mortar nest. Moreover,i had several games and all are just exploiting this limit (Maeglin, Endro, me also ), burn crews with flamethrower, buy 2 more, once again, 2 more = you have 6 of them, i think this fake limit which can be avoided so easily is just sensless.

Conclusion: Give back 5 nebels, for 75 ammo VT price, cooldown already significantly increased, thats preventing overusing.

Im also all for adding 1 more 105mm sherman back and adding it to VT, because 1 inf doc still cant handle all german defences, cw arty must have ( and! i didnt noticed that recces now share cooldown, yesterday i had 3 recce and used VT with them one after another).

[Warhawks97]

2 snipers but like the old SE once, with high rate of fire ^_^ . Can somebody tell what are the stats for SE sniper now? It seems to me that now it fires even slower than WH once ( or the same), but have lower accuracy.

About nebels limit: Im always saying that limiting them was stupid idea, the problem was with very low cooldown time, you could call them every 2 minutes, and it was used effectivly against british defences, also clearing the area of hiden paks. 5 nebels itself is not a problem, for sure you cant use all without VT cause its 250 ammo, but VT makes sense only against static targets, due to very long fly time of rockets and their sound players always just move his units away, this rockets also have extremly low damage against tanks, and this 2 nebels vt is worthless, because cant even kill the weakest emplacements, like mg or mortar nest. Moreover,i had several games and all are just exploiting this limit (Maeglin, Endro, me also ), burn crews with flamethrower, buy 2 more, once again, 2 more = you have 6 of them, i think this fake limit which can be avoided so easily is just sensless.

Conclusion: Give back 5 nebels, for 75 ammo VT price, cooldown already significantly increased, thats preventing overusing.

Im also all for adding 1 more 105mm sherman back and adding it to VT, because 1 inf doc still cant handle all german defences, cw arty must have ( and! i didnt noticed that recces now share cooldown, yesterday i had 3 recce and used VT with them one after another).

PE sniper fires still faster like all other. As intended and nothing got changed in rof afaik. Not sure though.


I also removed this arty limits. Killed also howitzer crews that way. Will become more often to have VT that can break bunker. The 4 vs 4 we played was basically lost when you got the bunker on one ammo point (and my jeep coudlnt avoid that mg42 walks into position over the open field to protect bunker set up). We had no CW arty and when i saw the second bunker at the other side of the map i basically knew that we cant win it anymore. I hate limits of units and equipment that i simply needed to keep a match going. So i add my vote to your demands and expand it over all arty units ( as i am used to). Limit overuse of arty simply by cost of barrages, cooldowns of barrages, VT cost and cooldowns.

[Wolf]

Jeez, I would expect something else from experienced players, this is getting old, these "VT is a must, 6363974 arty pieces is a must, otherwise VT is useless". Sorry guys, no, just no, there were other changes to make especially bunkers weaker to OTHER MEANS of attack than arty. You are making it like bunker is undestroyable, unavoidable, whatever. VT in fact shouldn't even be there, because it makes inbalance in other arty modes costs and ignores range. And again NO, you don't need xyz nebels to destroy emplacements, you have other ways to destroy them.

"1 inf doc still cant handle all german defences" AAAAAND? You are not supposed to handle multiple players defense (especially defence doc's) with one doc, with arty, when you are focused on infantry.
"We had no CW arty and when i saw the second bunker at the other side of the map i basically knew that we cant win it anymore." WHAT? What the hell seriously, what are you playing, that 2 bunkers mean lost game?
Again, ARTY IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ONE SOLUTION TO RULE THEM ALL! Arty doc is supposed to be strong in arty, and maaaaaybe SE, but thats it.

Really, I thought about you two as kinda experienced, but these two sentences are something I'd expect from somebody new on BK.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

Jeez, I would expect something else from experienced players, this is getting old, these "VT is a must, 6363974 arty pieces is a must, otherwise VT is useless". Sorry guys, no, just no, there were other changes to make especially bunkers weaker to OTHER MEANS of attack than arty. You are making it like bunker is undestroyable, unavoidable, whatever. VT in fact shouldn't even be there, because it makes inbalance in other arty modes costs and ignores range. And again NO, you don't need xyz nebels to destroy emplacements, you have other ways to destroy them.

"1 inf doc still cant handle all german defences" AAAAAND? You are not supposed to handle multiple players defense (especially defence doc's) with one doc, with arty, when you are focused on infantry.
"We had no CW arty and when i saw the second bunker at the other side of the map i basically knew that we cant win it anymore." WHAT? What the hell seriously, what are you playing, that 2 bunkers mean lost game?
Again, ARTY IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ONE SOLUTION TO RULE THEM ALL! Arty doc is supposed to be strong in arty, and maaaaaybe SE, but thats it.

Really, I thought about you two as kinda experienced, but these two sentences are something I'd expect from somebody new on BK.

Maybe you should have some 4vs4 matches to understand us wolf. Really, bunker with mg + pak + some other units which are just walking arround = you can do NOTHING without arty. And look at simple statistic, in 90% matches of good players there is a CW arty, if no, than 90% that the game is lost for alies, it wouldnt be so if there were really "many alternative ways".

[Kasbah]

Coming back to the terror doc tree, do you think our suggestion of adding one nebel to terror and increase the cost of VT could be implemented Wolf? Actually 35 is not high, even for 2 imo.
Also, do you like the idea of keeping the skin of the KCH for one member of the grenadier's squad?
And about the sniper I don't know what do you think. One more/veteran/nothing...

Thx

[V13dweller]

I'd personally, like to see more G43's on the Wehrmacht side, right now they are PE exclusives.

And MP-40's, the MP-40s are a only really used by Volks or Assault Pioneers, and can't be used by others.

[Warhawks97]

Jeez, I would expect something else from experienced players, this is getting old, these "VT is a must, 6363974 arty pieces is a must, otherwise VT is useless". Sorry guys, no, just no, there were other changes to make especially bunkers weaker to OTHER MEANS of attack than arty. You are making it like bunker is undestroyable, unavoidable, whatever. VT in fact shouldn't even be there, because it makes inbalance in other arty modes costs and ignores range. And again NO, you don't need xyz nebels to destroy emplacements, you have other ways to destroy them.

"1 inf doc still cant handle all german defences" AAAAAND? You are not supposed to handle multiple players defense (especially defence doc's) with one doc, with arty, when you are focused on infantry.
"We had no CW arty and when i saw the second bunker at the other side of the map i basically knew that we cant win it anymore." WHAT? What the hell seriously, what are you playing, that 2 bunkers mean lost game?
Again, ARTY IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ONE SOLUTION TO RULE THEM ALL! Arty doc is supposed to be strong in arty, and maaaaaybe SE, but thats it.

Really, I thought about you two as kinda experienced, but these two sentences are something I'd expect from somebody new on BK.

Maybe you should have some 4vs4 matches to understand us wolf. Really, bunker with mg + pak + some other units which are just walking arround = you can do NOTHING without arty. And look at simple statistic, in 90% matches of good players there is a CW arty, if no, than 90% that the game is lost for alies, it wouldnt be so if there were really "many alternative ways".

yeah. 2 vs 2 is lazzy cheese game compared to that. In 2 vs 2 there are by far less emplacments and the fights not so intensive. When you striked back enemie units its easy to prepare for explosive charges and to destroy the bunker or whatever. In 3 vs 3 and 4 vs 4 there are just a lot more units from so many players always at different positions etc. Maybe 1 of 100 bunkers get blwon up by by the charges of engineers. Some by satchels but only 3 docs have them and one of them need a lot of CP to get satchels or the abilties to get close to it.

In the game we had there was a very intensive fight and me and my mate could stand their attacks with shermans and commandos but the Bunker was basically undestorable even when we got in range to it as the next enemie attack came soon. The micro i did need with my mortar HT to kill the 5 or more 50 mm paks was already huge as the mortar had slightly more range than pak and the paks + schreck squads from 2-3 players came often from different positions and moving all time. In Two vs two it is really lazzy compared to that. So basically i had to move my shermans against enemie inf but getting not to close to their paks. Moving sniper all the time and the mortar had to be moved after every second or third shot. Hardly enough to get the 50 mm pak. I think i played very very good and maybe even excellent but expecting then from me to blow up a bunker easily "btw" with engineers which is protected by an mg that was somewhere, PE mortar carrier and paks maybe is just crazy. Maybe you should listen to all of us because we are experienced, trying many different docs and combinations on many 3 vs 3 and 4 vs 4 maps. I dont say that arty isnt sufficient on small 2 vs 2 maps and just 1-2 emplacments. But on large maps, with unrevealed areas and hidden units were a single arty piece covers only a small part of the map unless using CW arty is something different. So many more factors and units that can be send by many players to avoid that a bunker get rushed and blown up by charges. Unlike in 2 vs 2 where you have time to blow it up when enemie retreats and reform t base doesnt exist in 3 vs 3 and 4 vs 4. Watch our games on steam Beta or ask for replays.

[Wake]

Warhawks and sukin are right, a bunker requires artillery to kill.

How else do you destroy a bunker? It requires 2, sometimes 3 demolition charges to blow it up and that needs engineers, an incredibly weak unit, going into enemy territory and becoming very vulnerable for about 10 seconds, at any time the enemy can use any unit to come up and kill the engineers.

Fire doesn't kill the bunker. You would have to take a tank and have it shoot at the bunker for about 5 minutes straight before it died.

AVRE is good, but that's doctrine-specific and costs 720 MP.

Also, an AT gun behind the bunker, camouflaged, also counters these.

[Wolf]

Warhawks and sukin are right, a bunker requires artillery to kill.

How else do you destroy a bunker? It requires 2, sometimes 3 demolition charges to blow it up and that needs engineers, an incredibly weak unit, going into enemy territory and becoming very vulnerable for about 10 seconds, at any time the enemy can use any unit to come up and kill the engineers.

Fire doesn't kill the bunker. You would have to take a tank and have it shoot at the bunker for about 5 minutes straight before it died.

AVRE is good, but that's doctrine-specific and costs 720 MP.

Also, an AT gun behind the bunker, camouflaged, also counters these.

Satchels, smoke... or well, get to it from other side, if you are not playing noodle map, also don't play open field mostly maps. BK is ment for 2vs2 and 3vs3 plays. If there aren't enough half-city maps for 4vs4, then suggest ones which are like that.

AVRE is doctrine specific, however arty (doc) is also doctrine specific
I am not sure about plane bombs, if they are less effective, they could be more.

[Yummy]

Wolf, stop acting like a dictator, rather ask the community with a poll, like the good old Xalibur.

[Wolf]

Lol, you mean these like 6 polls he made once, and then disappeared? Really?

I just don't agree what they write, and sorry but I am not going to increase arty, because somebody considers two bunkers gg in 4vs4 game.
And no, its not only engineers who can destroy bunkers.

And by the way, why don't you ask Xalibur then?

Don't forget, that bunkers perma MG was reduced, satchels effectivity against it was increased, other defensive units got fixed - stupa etc. Other docs bunkers are more expensive/less resistant. And not to forget that even the Inf VT which I was against a lot was added. So you have much much better chance against bunkers than you had before, and no, please don't tell me that you used more than 4 howitzers on inf doc before. And yeah, howitzers are generally cheaper.

[Yummy]

To ask Xalibur what? And what makes you to believe that you are more competent than everyone here?
2 howitzers in 3v3 and 4v4 maps are a joke, either make them movable (like other COH mods) or remove the limit AND remove the VT for all doctrines including arty ones, because this ability is silly and exactly VT makes artillery overpowered... that's why you started with limitations on first hand. Think about my suggestion before to refute it because of pure obstinance.

P.S. Making Stupa superbad is another problem that I am mad at you .