5.1.8. beta (Doctrine rework, update 1)

[Black Panther]

Btw, grenades thrown from the buldings, still can be tossed out of their ranges with a pinpoint accuracy

[Warhawks97]

Also, grenadiers that cames from blitz call-in has too fast replenishment rate

I think that is an older bug that still exists (or again exists). I am sure that it had already been the case.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Well, so... Finally got some spare time to play some PvP and evaluate the changes more deeply.

I will try to briefly list down my points;

#1
BUG:
Stupa accurate long shot ability is bugged... it's not just a "reload consequence reset" issue, but actually.. if you order the Stupa to target a certain emplacement, the ability goes "yellow" and 1 or 2 seconds later, the Stupa will shoot... Right? Now, before it shoots.. go ahead and cancel the order and then see what happens! If you wait a little bit, it will still shoot. This way; you have used the ability for no cost, and even without triggering the re-charge time... I hope i have explained this glitch well enough.. but 1 more thing though, the Stupa doesn't rotate itself to aim at the target, you have to manually rotate it for some reason. Didn't test Stuh but it might be suffering the same issues as the Stupa...

#2
Now, this:

Command bonuses of command tank no longer work on StuPa/StuH because having extra range for these units (they already had more than 60 by default) was getting insane.

Ya, people complained about command tank "Recon bonus with Stupa/Stuh" before they got changed... Thus, you disabled all the command tank bonuses on those 2 particular units, and at the same time... Both the Stupa & Stuh were completely changed.

All this is fine until now... BUT then; you ALSO nerfed the command tank "Recon bonus" itself!!! Why????
No one complained about it with any other units... It was only problematic with Stupa and Stuh, as it allowed them to reach extreme firing range.

However, now that the Stupa/Stuh are changed.. and that the command tank no longer provide any bonuses to them... Then why the hell did you have to nerf "Recon bonus" as well??? Now the "Recon bonus" for command Pz4 tank does no longer give +10 firing range like the US command car...

Any logical justification behind this change? Or this change to the command tank "Recon bonus" is nothing more but an over-sight?
Do you realize that this "+10 firing range" was probably the only true reason to deploy the command Pz4 tank at all??
And do you really think it's worth to spend 50 ammo just to give +10 sight range now? While you could just get a spotter??
Not to mention, as I said before... How is it OP to provide +10 firing range for Blitz doc tanks, but not OP to provide the same for US armor tanks???

I hope it's just an over-sight, the command Pz4 tank "Recon bonus" really needs the "+10 firing range" advantage, just like the US command car.
Else, it's really not worth deploying.. period.


#3
Looking at the screen-shot for Blitz doc here on this topic... We have:
Blitzkrieg ability (2CP) >>> Pz4 (1CP) >>> Panther (2CP) >>> Panther ACE (2CP) = 7 total CP.

However, in the game... it's like this:
2 CP >>> 2 CP >>> 2 CP >>> 2 CP = 8 total CP.

Apparently you switched 1 CP from the Stuka airstrike unlock to delay Pz4 unlock once AGAIN ???!!!
Because, in the game.. the Stuka airstrike also requires 5 CPs only, instead of 6 CPs as shown in the picture...

What's your problem??
How do you think it's a good idea to delay Pz4 ??!! just have a closer look at what you are doing...
The player now needs 7 CPs to get cheap Pz4s, while he could just rush for cheap Panther.D after 6 CPs only!
Delaying the Pz4 is not an option.. not to mention US Armor doc can deploy mass produced Shermans after just 3 CPs.

#4
As said, the bottom line also needs to change completely.. as follows:
Battle-group support (3 CP) >>> Stupa/Stuh (1 CP) ----- Separation ----- Maultier (1 CP) >>> Stuka airstrike (3 CP)

So, obviously.. the ammo unlock would be removed and replaced with Maultier unlock which would be only connected to Stuka airstrike.
And the Leig.18 becoming doctrinal specific.

#5
US infantry doctrine doesn't need JacksonB1 as I believe it should be given to US Airborne.
Historically as well, the B1 Jackson has really supported US Airborne divisions by the way...

#6
- Mounted 50.cals still OP vs planes.

- WH AT squad is nerfed to death.

- i still believe US Armor doc off-map arty barrage by TC with 90 range is extremely over-exaggerated and unnecessary buff to an - already - powerful click to kill ability.

- The ammo upkeeps... it's really killing the game on some particular maps, they are good maps.. but with the new ammo upkeep policy, the game has become unplayable on those maps.. probably even with BK FUN MODE, there is just not enough ammo.. and camping is the only option.

- Hold fire ability for tanks with big reload, anytime soon?

That's all for now.

[Black Panther]

Ok Tiger, I don't agree with you.
WM has heavy tanks in every doctrine and would have in future. If they had a recon bonus, that would mean heavy tanks that already has +5 range, would get +10 range even more against every doctrine that they are facing and here we are comparing the only comparable doctrine to blitz - Armor.
To get same +10 range, you need to go for Pershing, will be it easier to get heavy tanks on pair with Blitz one? No.
Does scout car has L48 or 76mm gun on it's chassis and armor made of Adolfium? No.

Slugger in Infantry doctrine already costs too much and have standarized armor on pair with Sherman. It means that cost of almost-like a Pershing tank could be wasted by usual Panzer vehicles and pak36.

Also ammo upkeeps solves the problem of arty spamming games and it really helps the game to be cured

[kwok]

#1, thanks

#2, Actually I knew people who abused and reported it. The recon ability became a really obvious always use ability because It gave a lot of risk free shots. The other buffs don't do enough to impact a pure engagment, but the range buff instantly lets you take a first shot without needing to flank or execute any tactic at all. This will apply for both blitz doc AND armor doc btw...

#3, The panzer 4 is delayed and will continue to be an option as other tanks have been delayed as well. Its current performance as a unit far surpassed its availability relative to other units and became a cheese rush unit rather than a backbone tank. However, may be a cost reduction on the tank, still talking through that. If you want to rush for a cheap Panther, you may but the tradeoff is the fuel you lose out on in the early/mid game. I really recommend NOT rushing the panther, I've tried a few times and it is a struggle to survive to the late game.
If anything, Sherman 76s might ending up costing more CP as well. The game today has been a straight rush to the biggest tank, it makes many units obsolete.
The CP tree isn't meant to be a tech tree, that's what tiering is for. The CP tree is a strategic decision making tree. The pzer 4 is not meant to be a meta, always worth building safe option against every doctrine. You need to think how much you want to start catering your army composition choices to the situation. The pzer 4 is an all around good tank, so it should require significant tradeoffs to have it.
My recommendation for adapting to the new blitz doc is to really assess whether you want a tank based army against your opponent. If your opponent is rushing tank destroyers then maybe don't go down the tank path expecting to win. Make 75pak and push with stormtroopers instead. If your opponent is camping, maybe choose the bottom assault path instead specialized in taking out soft targets and emplacements. If your opponent is going for pure well rounded tanks like shermans, jumbos, pershing path, then THIS is when you start investing on units like the panzer 4 and panther and the upgrades around them.

#4, again the AP rounds are to help against late game armor doc. Having the maultier be behind an unlock would be a net nerf and make armor doc a very easy counter to blitz doc. As we move more docs towards having 1v1, counter picking doctrines isn't meant to be a viable option. That's literally the opposite of "well-rounded and for 1v1" if your doctrine choice decides the game.

#5, same as above, unless you think inf doc as an offensive option against tigers and panthers the jackson will stay in inf doc and probably be available in AB.

#6,
-Will look into the 50 cals.
-Agreed on the AT squad, we already started looking again at the unit and how it fits with the rest of the faction.
-The TC arty is meant to be able to take out front line emplacements that have a range of 80. Not sure how you're going to do that if you have to drive up to the defensive line. It is meant to be a tactical tool. If it's too "click to kill" then its cost can probably be reassessed as well as its CP availability.
-A lot of mixed opinions on ammo upkeeps right now. Until more feedback comes in and we make changes according, my recommendation is DO NOT RUSH OR SPAM artillery. Ensure you have a stable source of munition before building artillery. So far, I've been doing well with the arty change by adapting my play and building artillery later.
-Hold fire is planned to be available after some UI clean up. Larger doctrine structural changes will come first.

[Krieger Blitzer]

To get same +10 range, you need to go for Pershing, will be it easier to get heavy tanks on pair with Blitz one? No.

Please keep in mind the "+10 firing range" works with all tanks, not just heavy tanks.. this means you can have 3 Shermans and Command CAR with "Recon Bonus" and eventually out-range a Tiger1 tank for example.. because the Tiger1 would have 65 range but your Shermans will have 70 range.
Even deadlier when used with Jacksons, etc.

WM has heavy tanks in every doctrine and would have in future. If they had a recon bonus, that would mean heavy tanks that already has +5 range, would get +10 range even more against every doctrine that they are facing

Also, the Pz4 command tank is available only to Blitz doc.. so, it's not like WH can make use of this bonus for all their heavy tanks!

Slugger in Infantry doctrine already costs too much and have standarized armor on pair with Sherman. It means that cost of almost-like a Pershing tank could be wasted by usual Panzer vehicles and pak36.

I'm not saying that B1 Jackson would be OP in infantry doc.. but I just think it's not needed and could be moved to AB doc instead.
While maybe increasing the limit of 76 Jumbo on the other hand, from a limit of 1 to a limit of 2 Jumbos per time.. just my thought.

Also ammo upkeeps solves the problem of arty spamming games and it really helps the game to be cured

Ammo upkeep is to prevent arty spam.. understood, but then apparently it creates another serious issue... Which is heavy camping.

This will apply for both blitz doc AND armor doc btw...

if this means that US Command CAR "Recon Bonus" is also going to be changed accordingly and no longer provide +10 firing range, then fair enough.

If anything, Sherman 76s might ending up costing more CP as well.

Well, if the 76 Shermans would require more CPs as you say.. only then it would be fine.
Despite I'm afraid this would only make the game so boring...

Having the maultier be behind an unlock would be a net nerf and make armor doc a very easy counter to blitz doc.

No, think about it again.
Having the Maultier as unlock for 1 CP as I suggested, would only benefit Blitz doc overall...
Because this way you could also have Stuka airstrike earlier available after only 4 direct CPs.. and Leig.18 no longer replacing the 50mm Pak.

The TC arty is meant to be able to take out front line emplacements that have a range of 80. Not sure how you're going to do that if you have to drive up to the defensive line. It is meant to be a tactical tool. If it's too "click to kill" then its cost can probably be reassessed as well as its CP availability.

The range of 90 is fine, IF you are planning to increase the price of the ability...
Currently it costs only 85 ammo, while I would suggest that it costs around 120 or 130 ammo.

[Warhawks97]

#2, Actually I knew people who abused and reported it. The recon ability became a really obvious always use ability because It gave a lot of risk free shots. The other buffs don't do enough to impact a pure engagment, but the range buff instantly lets you take a first shot without needing to flank or execute any tactic at all. This will apply for both blitz doc AND armor doc btw...

I agree with your move.
Will recon ability become cheaper in return? Or perhaps + 15 sight range rather than just + 10 for 50 ammo?

#3, The panzer 4 is delayed and will continue to be an option as other tanks have been delayed as well. Its current performance as a unit far surpassed its availability relative to other units and became a cheese rush unit rather than a backbone tank. However, may be a cost reduction on the tank, still talking through that. If you want to rush for a cheap Panther, you may but the tradeoff is the fuel you lose out on in the early/mid game. I really recommend NOT rushing the panther, I've tried a few times and it is a struggle to survive to the late game.
If anything, Sherman 76s might ending up costing more CP as well. The game today has been a straight rush to the biggest tank, it makes many units obsolete.

From your argumentation it makes sense. Keep it with 4 CP. I wouldnt care if it gets cheaper. I also wouldnt mind about delayed 76 shermans, esspecially AB/INF. But can it get a bit more than 50% pen chance at max range? I else wouldnt see a point in getting 76 shermans when they get further delayed when your opponents multirole tanks are better.

The CP tree isn't meant to be a tech tree, that's what tiering is for. The CP tree is a strategic decision making tree. The pzer 4 is not meant to be a meta, always worth building safe option against every doctrine. You need to think how much you want to start catering your army composition choices to the situation. The pzer 4 is an all around good tank, so it should require significant tradeoffs to have it.
My recommendation for adapting to the new blitz doc is to really assess whether you want a tank based army against your opponent. If your opponent is rushing tank destroyers then maybe don't go down the tank path expecting to win. Make 75pak and push with stormtroopers instead. If your opponent is camping, maybe choose the bottom assault path instead specialized in taking out soft targets and emplacements. If your opponent is going for pure well rounded tanks like shermans, jumbos, pershing path, then THIS is when you start investing on units like the panzer 4 and panther and the upgrades around them.

Sounds reasonable.

#4, again the AP rounds are to help against late game armor doc. Having the maultier be behind an unlock would be a net nerf and make armor doc a very easy counter to blitz doc. As we move more docs towards having 1v1, counter picking doctrines isn't meant to be a viable option. That's literally the opposite of "well-rounded and for 1v1" if your doctrine choice decides the game.

I am kind of okeee... even though i agree more in having the bottom line totally used for offensive/anti camp units rather than a AP upgrade.

#5, same as above, unless you think inf doc as an offensive option against tigers and panthers the jackson will stay in inf doc and probably be available in AB.

hehe, its going to become interesting.

#6,

-Agreed on the AT squad, we already started looking again at the unit and how it fits with the rest of the faction.

You gonna buff, nerf, buff, nerf in the long run hoping for your "right settings". But no matter how much you change accuracy/rof etc, a rifle that acts like a gun isnt goot and nobody will ever be satisfied.... Perhaps you would really mind to start thinking about new ways to introduce AT rifles? Like something new rather than being "guns in a rifle" so that they fill a niche role rather than a AT gun replacmant? Idk, discuss it, gather ideas, provide alternative solutions about which players can discuss.

-The TC arty is meant to be able to take out front line emplacements that have a range of 80. Not sure how you're going to do that if you have to drive up to the defensive line. It is meant to be a tactical tool. If it's too "click to kill" then its cost can probably be reassessed as well as its CP availability.

My speaking. But i would keep it where it is. It does have its requirments such has having at least a stuart tank. Else you need shermans and this unlock.

Please keep in mind the "+10 firing range" works with all tanks, not just heavy tanks.. this means you can have 3 Shermans and Command CAR with "Recon Bonus" and eventually out-range a Tiger1 tank for example.. because the Tiger1 would have 65 range but your Shermans will have 70 range.
Even deadlier when used with Jacksons, etc.

Kwok said all will be reworked and US lose its range as well.
Also jacks does not have 65 range at default as far as i know+ having more range doesnt help when you cant pen your target.

I'm not saying that B1 Jackson would be OP in infantry doc.. but I just think it's not needed and could be moved to AB doc instead.
While maybe increasing the limit of 76 Jumbo on the other hand, from a limit of 1 to a limit of 2 Jumbos per time.. just my thought.

Perhaps both get it kwok said. But with that change to arty (AoE) effect and ammo upkeep it became much harder to counter tanks with arty. Thus the main anti tank weapon inf doc had for late game became far lass effective, so i am not sure if inf doesnt need it. I would say they do due to recent changes.

Spamming panthers and any kind of anti inf vehicle had always been a huge pain for inf doc.

Ammo upkeep is to prevent arty spam.. understood, but then apparently it creates another serious issue... Which is heavy camping.

give it some time. Perhaps people get used to it. Usually they relied on arty to counter anything, now they have to test out more ways. I am confident that they find ways. And people were used to totally anihilate all defenses with arty, while it might be actually enough to break one part of it. Allied didnt break the entire atlantic wall, just a very small part of it. Inf ww1 arty doctrine and tactics changed from trying to totally all enemies and their defenses towards well timed coordinated strikes prior to an attack. Perhaps arty+assault should be used as well here rather than nonstop bombardment untill everything is gone.

if this means that US Command CAR "Recon Bonus" is also going to be changed accordingly and no longer provide +10 firing range, then fair enough.

I just hope we will get something in exchange for paying 50 ammo.

Well, if the 76 Shermans would require more CPs as you say.. only then it would be fine.
Despite I'm afraid this would only make the game so boring...

If the target tables for tank IV remain such a mess, then yes.

No, think about it again.
Having the Maultier as unlock for 1 CP as I suggested, would only benefit Blitz doc overall...
Because this way you could also have Stuka airstrike earlier available after only 4 direct CPs.. and Leig.18 no longer replacing the 50mm Pak.

Tiger got a good point here.

The range of 90 is fine, IF you are planning to increase the price of the ability...
Currently it costs only 85 ammo, while I would suggest that it costs around 120 or 130 ammo.

Considering all the other requirments like a tank and a TC and then also the fact that you have to be at that part of the map (unlike other randomly placed strikes) i would say that even 95 ammo would be ok.

[kwok]

Sounds like the only thing left to talk about is the maultier and stuka.
The reason why the stuka is available so late is because it is a click to kill ability which is meant to be used tactically, not as a predominate method. It's not meant to be used the same way as say the artillery unlock for US that will have units immediately one shotted consistently if they dont have indirect support. Axis by unit design are more durable and are better to execute "absorb one hit, attack with another" tactics. Having an instant, anywhere on the map, indirect means of eliminating a unit for axis from the early to mid game is way too strong and would diminish the tactical layer of playing axis, which is more about unit position rather than unit micro.
Granted, this is also coming from future changes where camo shots are standardized. More to come about that....

Also, after looking at the 50cal stats in corsix, I don't see how they could be "too strong". On average, you'd need like 5-8 50cals blobbed together shooting at an incoming plane to bring it down. Would need replays to better understand how the scenario might play out, might be calculating wrong. Send them if you have them. I've already got a bunch of replays and so far none of them have planes getting shot down, but then again I haven't seen many stukas used at all. The stuh42 and stupa were basically doing just fine without the stuka. Blitz either won or lost by the time the stuka would've even been useful.

The common thing i noticed blitz player losing on is not playing aggressive enough and relying on camping until the panther... which is NOT how the doc is designed. That and a few other "exploits" ill say that are being corrected.

[Krieger Blitzer]

The reason why the stuka is available so late is because it is a click to kill ability which is meant to be used tactically, not as a predominate method. It's not meant to be used the same way as say the artillery unlock for US that will have units immediately one shotted consistently if they dont have indirect support.

Stuka airstrike can't be identified as "click to kill" ability anyhow.. and it can't be compared with any off-map arty barrage.
Simply because it's a plane that can be dismissed by killing it with AA units, while the off-map arty barrage clearly can't be dismissed.
Not to mention the Stuka is one of the slowest planes in the entire game.. and has a very loud "siren" sound that alerts the opponent players.

Also, after looking at the 50cal stats in corsix, I don't see how they could be "too strong". On average, you'd need like 5-8 50cals blobbed together shooting at an incoming plane to bring it down.

The behavior of mounted 50.cals against planes became so OP after the 50.cal buff against light vehicles. I'm absolutely sure a mounted 50.cal on a single Sherman can shoot down any Axis plane with only 4 to 5 "BULLETS" or even less.. the plane will be shot down as soon as the 50.cal starts firing.
And it's not a "coincidence" or something happens "rarely" but it's always like that... I can provide some scenes later.

[MarKr]

I can provide some scenes later.

Please, provide replays not videos. Replays allow us to inspect what is happening on the entire map (e.g. if it is really only the top MG shooting at a plane or if it gets shot at from other units too etc.) videos in these cases provide very limited view on the situation and "trust me, I checked" proved to be unreliable assurance in the past.

[kwok]

Full replays please, not selected YouTube clips. Better yet you can get a replay with Bk fun mode and have planes constantly fly over, test it 20 times and count how many get shot down. Then post. Will see how that compares to my calculation of approx how many should get shot down.

[Krieger Blitzer]

No worries, i will provide both.. the playback file AND video clips too.
it's going to be a test match especially made with a friend in order to check the efficiency of mounted 50.cals vs planes.
We will make sure that there will be no other AA units on the map except a couple of Shermans upgraded with 50.cals vs Henschels patrol.

I will get to do that game as soon as I have time for that.. but keep in mind it's not about how many planes will be shot down.. as it's actually more about how fast any of those planes would be shot down. The mounted 50.cals have slow rotation speed.. so, they take time to aim. However, as soon as they get the chance to fire, I bet it's less than 4 or 5 bullets and the plane is instantly gone! Something even Quad 50.cals can't do...

[kwok]

You can control the direction of the tanks and the 50cals. Use recon runs to fly over direction of the 50cals.

[Warhawks97]

1. The top mounted call 50 were some sort of "point it at any threat and push the trigger" weapon. You could aim at planes, vehicles, inf and you could kill all of them. And when a group of shermans manages to shoot down a plane, why not? Each tank payed at least 30 ammo for the top mount and that multiplied with 4 or 5 is a decent ammount of ammo. I would expect that such an investment would have an impact.
Also they rotate slowly and when henschels are being used while enemie tanks are engaged with friendly units, they wont aim at any plane or lets say they wouldnt be quick enough.

2. Kwok, you said stuka comes usually too late to make a difference to the outcome of the game. Isnt it a sign that its usless where it is? Perhaps it could really be unlocked after Blitzkrieg ability and before stupa/stuka. In total for 4 CP or so. That way, if anyone goes stuka, he would have to get 4 CP at first and he would delay his first tank IV´s and stormtroopers by a lot. So even if you bombs out an AT emplacment or MG nest, he still doesnt have that kind of hardcore units that would instantly flood this break and which would become unstoppable. It would at best be Grenadiers and Tank III that would make their path through the break, not panthers. Thus stuka wouldnt seem unfair to be available a bit earlier, likely before stupa/stuh.

[MarKr]

1) I would agree that 4 or 5 top mounted .50cals shooting down a plane relatively reliably is not a problem, especially since the MGs now need to be payed for. However, from the reports we received here from Tiger, it sort of sounds like even 1 or 2 of them shred planes incredibly fast, which would not be OK. That is why we ask for some replays to see what is going on, if there is a problem and if there is, to help us find the source.

2) Ehm...that is not what kwok said. He said that in the games he played/saw

Blitz either won or lost by the time the stuka would've even been useful.

So it means that the ability would have its uses but the game did not last long enough to use the Stuka.
Also the Stuka is more of a heavy-defense killer and the US faction does not have very strong emplacements to hide behind, the CW does. So the Stuka will become more useful once the CW faction receives its changes too.

[Viper]

the current blitzkrieg doctrine has weak artillery. and the new blitzkrieg doctrine artillery is only weaker. the doctrine capability to deal with fortifications.....is very weak compared to what it was before.

when you face heavy defense, what do you do with current doctrine? you just get 2 stuh and attack the fortifications from safe distance.

but with the new doctrine....what do you do? stuh and stupa cant do that anymore....and you need to pay more ammo and also upkeep. so, you get weaker stuh and stupa....and less ammo supply too or you wait 5 command point for the stuka....which will die to anti air anyway.


the new blitzkrieg doctrine is also weaker with tanks. no tigers with cool abilities and high hp, no panzer.iv spam and weaker offmap support........for the exchange of what? nothing.

im sorry.....but if you all fail to see, the new doctrines are very boring and much nerfed. armor doctrine is also a lot more boring and toooooo many command points to unlock good tanks.....so, the new armor doctrine is "armor doctrine, but without tanks" ........

[Warhawks97]

the current blitzkrieg doctrine has weak artillery. and the new blitzkrieg doctrine artillery is only weaker. the doctrine capability to deal with fortifications.....is very weak compared to what it was before.

when you face heavy defense, what do you do with current doctrine? you just get 2 stuh and attack the fortifications from safe distance.

but with the new doctrine....what do you do? stuh and stupa cant do that anymore....and you need to pay more ammo and also upkeep. so, you get weaker stuh and stupa....and less ammo supply too or you wait 5 command point for the stuka....which will die to anti air anyway.


the new blitzkrieg doctrine is also weaker with tanks. no tigers with cool abilities and high hp, no panzer.iv spam and weaker offmap support........for the exchange of what? nothing.

im sorry.....but if you all fail to see, the new doctrines are very boring and much nerfed. armor doctrine is also a lot more boring and toooooo many command points to unlock good tanks.....so, the new armor doctrine is "armor doctrine, but without tanks" ........

the new BK doc is focused on speed rather than stuh camping and waiting for panther. Timing, micro managment, unit combination. The artillery is a tactical tool here, not the focus of the doctrine.
The olds stuhs and stupas didnt prevent camping, they just made camping only viable for the side that has the stuh/stupa, while denying camping for the other side. So dont complain about stuhs arent preventing camping anymore when they themselves promoted and enforced the most camping gameplay.
They were also never designed to take out defenses entirley, no arty on earth could destroy every defensive position. Their goal was to punch a hole into one part of the defense, not to take out them entirley. Even the entire allied fleed with their massive guns would have never been able to crush the entire atlantic wall from norway to france. But thats simply not arty is doing.
So Perhaps you stop being used to camp behind stuhs and heavy tanks yourself before complaining that stuhs cant destroy campers anymore.

[Viper]

blitz doctrine was never about camping and waiting for panther, it is always about aggressive offmap support spam with many panzer.iv and stugs. stuh was only needed when your opponent decide to go full camping. so the stuh was the answer to camping.

but now......what does the new doctrine has to offer? only more camping.....just this time on both sides. you solved nothing.....the camping is only heavier.

[Warhawks97]

blitz doctrine was never about camping and waiting for panther, it is always about aggressive offmap support spam with many panzer.iv and stugs. stuh was only needed when your opponent decide to go full camping. so the stuh was the answer to camping.

The most frustrating camp games were against stuh/stupa. I quited many games bc of that. Just look at meaglin and his comrades or some of the SVT guys (rokosskovski or what it was). They only played camp game with stupa or stuh. Just last months out of 5 games where we had armor, AB and one CW doc (frogot what it was) 3 of them ended in stupid camp games with stupa or stuh or both. Pure base camp and long range sniping with these things and we had not a single god damn emplacment. So yes, these fuck units did create camp games bc the users didnt feel any need to attack at all. They just guarded their stuhs/stupa with panthers, 88 and what else shit they had. If they wanted to break defenses, they used arty, not stuh/stupas. I mean why attacking when you can just snipe the enemie units out one by one.

So the change is good.

but now......what does the new doctrine has to offer? only more camping.....just this time on both sides. you solved nothing.....the camping is only heavier.

You have maultier, stuka, stupa/stuh (anti emplacment ability), stormtroopers which on vet can ignore most defensive HMG fire, off map mortar strike from storm leader squad, smoke drop from various units, Blitzkrieg ability to ignore suppression and to let your units get into deadly grenade range or simply boosting the speed and rof of stuhs/stupas and other HE units.... etc etc.

[Viper]

stormtroopers need much ammo upgrades to be useful.....and now with ammo upkeeps, upgrading them with good weapons will only become harder. and you will spend too much command points on them to get veterancy.....but when the first high explosive sherman arrives, all your stormtroopers will be useless.

the point is.....maybe the new doctrines are more balanced, but also a lot more boring to play and they encourage more camping and much slower game pace.

panzer.iv need to be available after not more than 2 points. pershing need to be available after not more than 7 points. not telling you they should be available after only 5 points as they used to be....but max 7 points. because 9 command points for pershing is suuuuper boring....and pershing ace can be 9 points but not 11 points!!!!!!! 75 jumbo should not be more than 4 points....not 2 points as in the past, but for sure not 6 points either!!!!!!! and tigers in the future should not be more than 3 points. and 7 points for the ace tiger.......like that you still make the game balanced and believable without making it so boring to play.

[MarKr]

@Seha: You first say that BK doc arty is weaker than before and that StuH/StuPa is basically useless. I would presume you would not consider them worth building at all. Then you say that ammo upkeeps drag your ammo down too much...if you don't consider the Maultier, StuH and StuPa worth building, what is then giving you ammo upkeep? If you don't unlock them, you can get those Storms sooner and StuGs are still 0CP and still have no problem killing "HE Shermans". So you don't need to get PIV as soon as possible, you have other options.

The meta uptill now has been to rush the strongest units as soon as possible - for Axis it usually were PIVs/JPIVs and then directly to Panthers/Tigers/KTs/JP...the intent of the changes is to break this rush for the strongest units. You can try to do it but it is very risky. However the new unlock paths allow for alternate approaches and force players to make decisions about what to unlock instead of always unlocking stuff in the same order because it was always the best option. From what you write it seems to me that you also used the "rush for the strongest":

panzer.iv need to be available after not more than 2 points. pershing need to be available after not more than 7 points. not telling you they should be available after only 5 points as they used to be....but max 7 points. because 9 command points for pershing is suuuuper boring....and pershing ace can be 9 points but not 11 points!!!!!!! 75 jumbo should not be more than 4 points....not 2 points as in the past, but for sure not 6 points either!!!!!!! and tigers in the future should not be more than 3 points. and 7 points for the ace tiger

Because you basically ask for every strong unit in US and WM to be available a lot earlier.

We can understand that some people won't like it, but we simply cannot satisfy everyone. If we keep the old meta, people will leave because "the game has been the same for years, nothing new happens" if we change things, people will leave because "my formulas don't work, game is broken". We think it is better to provide more options in early and mid game and thus make it possible to keep the games in those stages a bit longer rather than going for the "skipping early and mid as soon as possible and rush lategame units" every time. As I said, we understand some people won't like it, and you're abviously among them, but we cannot change something back every time someone comes and says "this sucks, revert it". Sorry.

[Viper]

but we cannot change something back every time someone comes and says "this sucks, revert it". Sorry.

im not telling you to "revert back" at all. i told you dont revert back....but at the same time dont go too extreme.
carefully read again please:

pershing need to be available after not more than 7 points. not telling you they should be available after only 5 points as they used to be....but max 7 points. because 9 command points for pershing is suuuuper boring....and pershing ace can be 9 points but not 11 points!!!!!!! 75 jumbo should not be more than 4 points....not 2 points as in the past, but for sure not 6 points either!!!!!!!

so....as the underlined sentences show in my quotation.....im not telling you to revert back. and i agree these units need delay, but you should know that you went too extreme with it....to the stage of making the game so boring.

[MarKr]

And as I said, we cannot please everyone. For you "boring" is the new slower pace where rushing the strongest units is not as viable as it used to be. For others the rush style of play is boring.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Actually, i mentioned this before since the very beginning. When the beta was first released, i quickly noticed that the ideology of how the command points were being divided across the doctrines had been very poor and nearly out of touch.

That's why i also said many times when i was asked; as I stated how i think the beta is good "in principle" but currently "bad in practise" as i believe the design ideas are primarily good, but the methods how those ideas are being implemented into the doctrine.. isn't very well executed, while i definitely believe it could be done much better.


The question is; are the devs willing to keep adjusting those doctrines when more feedback is provided in order to assure the doctrines are fine-tuned as best as possible at the end, or are they simply going to pick over a static ideology of their own until everything is eventually cooked?!

I have to agree with Viper on some points, and by the way.. he wasn't the first one to provide such a viewpoint, and probably not going to be the last one. For example, "New BK Champion" already had a similar point of view:

it might be more balanced, "polished" whatever you think that means, but your ideas are just boring.

While i don't exactly share their point of view, yet... I guess it can't be ignored or disregarded. As i believe some of the points Viper has mentioned.. are in fact so valid.

Doubtlessly, satisfying everyone isn't possible anyhow.. nonetheless, I believe that finding the "middle ground" would be better for all, instead of sticking by a certain mindset of thinking or being so stubborn over a particular preset of ideas that aren't necessarily the most appropriate after all.

Definitions vary from a person to another, that's true! However, i think we can all agree that when something is called out to be "boring" by some players while they have also suggested to you their perspective on how they think it could be less boring.. then I believe it's not too hard to recognize that it might be worth re-thinking the design and probably considering that some of those suggestions might be actually proper.

Personally, i honestly can't see how delaying the Pershing at 9CPs for example would force players to look for any other alternatives at disposal.. as I think their only alternative otherwise, could be just quitting the game at this point.

Needless to say that 7CPs is still very reasonable if you think about it.. being not as early as before, moreover... Not as late as now. Which is the "middle ground" that i've previously talked about.
And the same could be done with everything else. Unless the devs are really thinking that their design is absolutely flawless.. which is something i'm not so sure why would they ever be so convinced with.

Just my thoughts regarding this matter...

[Warhawks97]

A few things i have to mention:

1. The descriptions. In the tec tree it still says that the armor jumbo unlock unlocks the 76 version. Also, in the tank depot, before choosing a doc, it still says that 75 mm jumbo requires armor doc unlock (if i recall correctly). So its quite confusing.
2. The single shot of (tested the 105 sherman) of these assault tanks are weird. Usually you have to stop the tank manually before shooting bc it says "Requires: Not moving". But when you are within a base area its not the case anymore. The tank stops automatically here and fires. What is also annoying is that you have to turn the tank manually into direction. The turret does not rotate towards the selected target. Generally the ability seemed to be "more usefull" to get two shots out (double shot abuse). Fix that and make the handling easier (stoping automatically, aim automatically and no dounble shot abuse). But so far it feels great how the new units are working. Having a purpose now. The short cooldown on that aility was a good idea. We wont need a more abilites that fire more rounds. The cooldown is enough to prevent your enemies to constantly counter-repair the emplacment.

3. What made me thinking as well was that the 76 sherman is so early available after we have just delayed tank IV H/J unlocks. As a first step i would move one CP from sherman mass production to 76 unlock. Thing is that it would also delay everything below it further. But i would try to keep the "unlock balance" between tank IV H/J´s and 76 shermans a little bit.
4. The self repair ability for shermans is more usefull now. Thing is i still cant interup it in case of incoming threats which means my tank is totally immobile for the next half minute or so.
5. The jacks A is really "costly" and squishy. It has firepower but its a real MP eater. Combined arms warefare becomes difficult, esspecially when Panthers cost barely more and thus forcing you to get sufficient numbers of them. Cost arround roughly 550 MP would be more appropriate. It would put it closer to the Achilles/Jagdpanzer IV/70. Before people went for Pershings anyway rather than doing that "side step" to jackson and so nobody really cared about it. Now player will have to use the jacks a lot more often.


Thats it so far.

Personally, i honestly can't see how delaying the Pershing at 9CPs for example would force players to look for any other alternatives at disposal.. as I think their only alternative otherwise, could be just quitting the game at this point.

I dont think so. I did quit as armor doc bc i often got no means to get through defenses. And all rushed Pershings bc it was quickly available. Why bothering with endless war machinery unlocks and stuff for silly shermans when you can get a pershing with good armor, firepower and a bunch of rep engis behind it in the same ammount of time. Whenever you tried to win with shermans via war-machinery or tank commander veterancy, it just ended up in massacres without any gains bc your tanks just clashed against enemie tanks and td like water against rocks.
Now i do love how i can get early access to arty strike as well as war machinery and ammo upgrade. It feels like it became a real alternative to straight pershing rush rather than pointless CP wastes bc you can use these tools now before encountering masses of TD´s and Panthers.
So you may say, people can quit bc they dont get pershings just in time, but i say people dont have to quit anymore when they got into a situation where not even a Pershing can help out. Now you may fail with pershings, but the other stuff might be the right way to win. That was what the devs wanted to achieve and i think they went into the right direction. The Pershing is for very special needs only, thats why it comes so late now.