5.1.8. beta (Doctrine rework, update 1)

If there is something new, it will be posted here.
User avatar
Viper
Posts: 417
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: 5.1.8. beta (Doctrine rework, update 1)

Postby Viper » 31 May 2019, 09:22

Warhawks97 wrote: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.

stupa serve the purpose of draining your ammo income very well for no benefit.....in most games you get +30 ammo income on average, with 1 stupa....your income is cut to the half....and you still need 45 ammo to use the long shot ability vs fortifications every single time.....and they will repair it anyway. so it serves the purpose of being too useless......and you cant target normal anti tank guns but only emplacement versions.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2820
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 5.1.8. beta (Doctrine rework, update 1)

Postby MarKr » 31 May 2019, 10:51

Tiger1996 wrote: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.
I just need to remind again that this is your subjective opinion and not a universal truth. You don't like it, seha doesn't like it, some others surely don't like it too. However just here on the forum blacktigerace seemed to be generaly in favor of it, Mencius pointed at some specific points he thought to be problematic but spoke nothing of poor design or execution, Hawks likes it, mofeta on Discord also said that it is mostly good (again some smaller things here or there) nobody from the Alpha testers said anything negative about the concept either. As I said, we cannot please everyone, this time you're in the displeased group.

Tiger1996 wrote: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?!
You say here that you provide feedback which is negative so the game should be adjusted or otherwise we're acting contrary to feedback and we will "cook" ("mess up", I guess?) the mod in the end. You seem to completely ignore the fact that players also provided feedback which contradicts yours, supporting the changes and their execution. "Acting based on feedback" does not mean that we will do everything anyone says.

Tiger1996 wrote: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:
You should have quoted a bit more from that post because it clearly said:
It might be more balanced, "polished" whatever you think that means, but your ideas are just boring. I have lost interest a few patches ago, but this one only adds to my disappointment.
so clearly that one is not just about the beta changes but in general about changes made long before the beta.

Tiger1996 wrote: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.
Sure, I mean, whenever someone says that the game is boring and provides a solution to make it not boring, we do it. That is why we do this whole thing - here is the post which made us start this rework:
TotallyNotMadeUpQuoteByMarKr wrote:I want to say that the current playstyle of BK mod is very monotonous - start the game, use the same build order maybe with very slight changes here or there, then try to rush the strongest unit of the tier, completely ignore most of the other stuff the faction/doctrine has, then tier up and get the strongest unit of that tier, however don't stay in this tier any longer than needed because you need to rush the strongest unit the faction offers.
I am sorry to say this but this is really boring, some units could shine but due to the rush, they are not used too much or at all.

Another extremely boring part of the game is artillery - especially the onmap howitzers which people "share" in the team and then there is almost neverending stream of barrages everywhere. Even on smaller maps where one arty piece would provide enough cover, ppl just build....like...four of them and bombard every place where they even just suspect to find the enemy.And those assault howitzer? Oh, boy... outrange any tank and very accurate which means they can kite for ages and turn any attack into dust if they have some protection from other units.

Also the doctrine designes are sort of weird because some (especially allies) are so specialized that there are counter-doctrines and once you select a doctrine first, the opponent can just select the counter and then you are slowly losing the game which isn't particularly fun, especially when most axis doctrines don't suffer from this.

I think it would be better if all doctrines had kinda "allrounded" design so that just simple doctrine selection isn't half of your win-factor.
Also the arty "sharing" should be fixed because artyfests are boring as hell... I think it would be good to have some system which would keep arty viable but would punish needlesly excessive arty usage. The assault howitzers should be changed too. Their role was supporting attacks by destroying fortified positions from safe distance, not sniping tanks. And finally - the unit rush. I would love to see some more options in the game rather than just always rushing one unit because it is the most effective with almost no drawbacks (such units could be in the game but then they should be quite hard to get).

Anyway, thanks a lot for your work, you guys are great and I love you sooooo much! I think I will name my first born "MarKr"!
So we did this based on the feedback and now we should change it based on someone else saying that now it is boring? Well, OK but I kinda think that when we're done with "unboringization" of the game by the suggestions of seha, the original poster will say it is boring again and then we will need to re-change it according to him and then seha comes and says the re-change of the re-change of the change is boring and he has solution to make it not boring, so we'll make re-re-re-re-re-re-change and then Hawks will say that THAT version is boring so we will change it accoriding to him and then you will come and say that the changes applied according Hawk's suggestions are boring and we will change it again. I mean...all of them are players, all of them would call it boring and all of them would provide "less boring perspective" so we should re-think the design over and over, right?

Now jokes aside, we cannot do it that way - there will always be someone who will come and say that something is boring and they have "better" idea. We would end up changing the same thing in 50 consecutive patches and people would still come up with "how to do it better".

As you speak about this, I would say it is not as important that people call something boring, but rather why they call it boring. In your quote of NewBKChampion he even admits that the game is more balanced but he does not like it because we removed/fixed/changed things that were blatantly OP or abused to gain unintended advantage. For some people it was more fun when you could crush HMGs and mortars with HQ trucks - it was an unintended thing but should we have kept it in the game because some people liked to abuse it and after removing it they would call the game "boring"? So yes, for me it is more about why people find the game boring. If they say it is boring because you use the same units all over and over because the others are just too weak and have no use in comparison and because of that the matches are mostly the same repetitive and boring, then I think it should be changed, because having variations and more useful options in the game is, in my oppinion, better. If people complain that their strongest units come later so they basically cannot rush them anymore, so they need to use different/better unit combinations than before (or actually use some unit combinations), then I can understand that for some people it might be boring (simply because they enjoy crushing stuff with the strongest units) but it is not the way we want the mod to go, thus we won't change things to be more like that based just on "it would be more fun".

Tiger1996 wrote: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.
This is another example of differences in individual perception - you say that with later Pershing you can just quit the game. Hawks few posts above says that now he doesn't feel any need to rush Pershings because there are alternatives that can be used instead of going directly for Pershings every time.
Image

User avatar
Black Panther
Posts: 78
Joined: 04 May 2019, 14:54

Re: 5.1.8. beta (Doctrine rework, update 1)

Postby Black Panther » 31 May 2019, 10:55

That was a good post, showing the problem.
Just learn to express your opinion without whinning how bad is everything else.
Tiger1996, those changes are litteraly make things less boring and introducing new look at battlephases, where previously players rushed only one thing and there was old-boring two meta's for each doctrine. I don't get what you wanted it to be look like, because you simply don't share your view how things should be in global ways! Instead, what I see for each patch comes, is a bug spotting (which is good), whinning about how things go wrong (which is bad), and also some neutral things. I would be glad if you shared your opinion with a new fresh look on how doctrines should looks like.
And also, Jackson in inf doctrine, if it's not really needed and also being a risky vehicle to play, it means there are no problems to implement this at all.
Brevity is sister of a talent.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3900
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 5.1.8. beta (Doctrine rework, update 1)

Postby Tiger1996 » 31 May 2019, 12:20

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.

You see?
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...

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3547
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.8. beta (Doctrine rework, update 1)

Postby Warhawks97 » 31 May 2019, 12:42

Tiger1996 wrote:


- 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?!


I am fine with 6 CP when it can really withstand even heavier anti tank weapons.
The Jumbo was a prime example of "rush asap and use quick before it becomes useless again". Going for heavy tanks such as jumbo should be a long term decision, not a quick "i rush for thing before the enemie get proper defense".

The only thing i criticize here is the question whether inf needs a 76 jumbo when it has elite inf, good arty and a tank with big canon.



- 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...
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.


thats something that can be tweaked. No one said that the upkeep values are final.
But thats an easy thing to change.

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!


thats something we could think about. But first i would tweak upkeep and then see how it works.


Tiger1996 wrote:- 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.


thats true. Many maps dont provide much ammo, esspecially revised versions.
Also as an option could be that barrages cost less or free. But that would be "flatrate" shooting. Like i shoot simply bc i pay anyway for it.






- 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.


and that would end up in rushing for them again. Why would anyone bother to use anything else when they outperform everything else. As said, such units should be long term decisions.

- 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.


I would leave it first, but 76 shermans should be a bit delayed as an adjustment.


- 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.



The damage wasnt a big prob i would say. The cooldown is very short. In conjunction with changed upkeep it might be possible to make better use of the short cooldown of the ability.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3900
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 5.1.8. beta (Doctrine rework, update 1)

Postby Tiger1996 » 31 May 2019, 13:05

No one said that the upkeep values are final.
But thats an easy thing to change.

if the ammo upkeeps are not final and could be tweaked then it's a good thing to hear...

However, about the Pershing and Jumbo again..

and that would end up in rushing for them again.


They would be rushed "again" only if they cost 5CPs and 2CPs as they used to be.

But with 9CP and 6CP for each of them accordingly, they are only becoming "outsiders" I'm afraid... Pershing costs 830MP and 150 fuel, with 9CP is simply too much.

Thus, 7CPs and 4CPs sound to be just the right place.

Panthers require 6CP and Ace Panther requires 8 CPs just as they should.. so, having the Pershing at 7 points right in between, would be just so appropriate.. specifically when we keep in mind that Tigers would be earlier available than Panthers.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2820
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 5.1.8. beta (Doctrine rework, update 1)

Postby MarKr » 31 May 2019, 13:15

Tiger1996 wrote:- 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?
Different doctrine means different options and units available which means different possible unit combinations which means higher effectiveness which is compensated by later availability.
With what exactly could you combine Jumbo in Infantry doctrine? Infantry. What can you combine it with in Armor doctrine? Jackson or even Pershing so you have combo of strong armored HE tank with a weaker-armored tanks with strong AT guns - you could get nothing nearly as effective in Infantry doctrine.

Tiger1996 wrote: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?!
Yes because there are other viable options to carry you through the phases of the game to the point where you can unlock Pershing/Jumbo for the CP cost they now have. (it was explained in this topic by other people)

Tiger1996 wrote:- Do you realize that having Stupa with 15 ammo upkeep is like having a Tiger1 tank with 15 fuel upkeep?
Fuel upkeep and ammo upkeep are different because most maps have more total ammo income than fuel income, also it is necessary to field several vehicles in every match and every vehicle has a fuel upkeep so in general you have less fuel income than ammo income and more vehicles which all consume fuel, thus on average fuel upkeep needs to be lower, while really high fuel upkeeps are applied only on the strongest units. You don't need to go for arty in absolutely every game and even when you decide to go for arty, and in every game you will have less arty units than vehicles, thus higher ammo upkeep on arty unit is justified.
Tiger1996 wrote: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...
Kingtiger, Jagtiger, Elefant, Pershing, Pershing Ace, SuperPershing - all are above 7.

Tiger1996 wrote: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!
One of the reasons for ammo upkeep on arty is force players to make decisions -
Do you REALLY need the arty unit? Maybe it will be better to try different tactic than just bomb the opponent
You already have one arty unit, do you REALLY need another one or do you want it "just for the heck of it"?
There are the upkeeps limiting the arty usage but we also introduced new options to doctrines. You can decide what to use - arty is safer but eats your ammo so you need to decide how many you will get and if you really need it. Other options might be more risky but you would have no unit to eat your ammo income so you will be able to support your units with more abilities. Decisions.

Tiger1996 wrote: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.
30 ammo income is usually on small maps (bigger maps have usually more, especially with OPs), do you need longrange arty on such small maps? Isn't there some cheaper solution to defeating your opponent? Decisions.

Tiger1996 wrote: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.
I didn't say he agrees with absoluely everything. There are plans for several changes in armor thickness for several Allied tanks, you'll need to deal with the tanks as BK doc and if you'll need to pay separately for every AP ammo upgrade on every tank and then pay activation costs on every unit it will be pain in the ass, especially with costs of other abilities and ammo upkeep, the unlock can be a serious resource saver.
Image

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3900
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 5.1.8. beta (Doctrine rework, update 1)

Postby Tiger1996 » 31 May 2019, 13:50

thus higher ammo upkeep on arty unit is justified.

Probably yes, but still not that high.. specifically when the unit also costs munition to build.

Kingtiger, Jagtiger, Elefant, Pershing, Pershing Ace, SuperPershing - all are above 7.

But nothing close to 15 fuel upkeep...

most maps have more total ammo income than fuel income

Keep in mind though, ammo is literally needed on every single ability and weapon upgrade for each unit in the game.. including tank upgrades.

There are plans for several changes in armor thickness for several Allied tanks

If this means that Jumbo and Pershing might have more armor to compensate their late availability.. Well then, that's fine at this point.

the unlock can be a serious resource saver.

The player wouldn't really need this ammo unlock to save up for his AP ammo upgrades if you just tune down the upkeep values as suggested...

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 417
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: 5.1.8. beta (Doctrine rework, update 1)

Postby Viper » 02 Jun 2019, 05:55

76 jumbo (5 command point) in infantry doctrine cost 780 manpower and 80 fuel only??? same fuel as panzer4 ???

i think 76 jumbo should cost 800 manpower and 110 fuel at least......and limit of 2 not only one. and jackson b1 can cost less, because the armor is weaker now.....but not too much less.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3547
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.8. beta (Doctrine rework, update 1)

Postby Warhawks97 » 02 Jun 2019, 10:40

I want to make a few more notes.


1. I still dont see much reason for the 76 Jumbo in infantry doctrine. I think that rangers, arty and jackson are more than capable of dealing with anything the enemie throws at you or to break your opponents.
Reasons why i would afterall vote for 76 Jumbo sherman in armor doc as a reward/optional unit to 75 mm jumbo:
-I dont see a real problem with 76 jumbo and pershing acting together or why they are more dangerous than 75 Jumbo+Pershing (which i think is more dangerous as combo due to their different roles)
-Jumbo in armor doc requires a decent ammount of CP.
-If the timed HE of the 76 would be turned into a single shot HE, the 76 jumbo/Pershing combo wouldnt be much more dangerous than 75 HE jumbo with pershing (which i would always prefer if i had a choice).
-76 Jumbo and Pershing would be more like having to similiar units working togehter with one having a better gun. The 76 Jumbo would work as a kind of "early Pershing"
- It feels weird that inf doc can get a heavy armor Tank that can go head on with Panthers/Tigers after 5 CP, while armor doc requires 9 for the Pershing as first tank to go head on.
- Since Jackson B uses a Jumbo chassis, it would simply be an upgraded sherman. I would also make the 76 sherman in inf doc costing 3 CP, thus 76 and Jackson together 6 CP in inf doc.

2. The AT guns require quite a very long time to be picked up before you can move it. Even medium AT guns become extremly unflexible. I think you over did it here a bit, at least for medium AT guns, the heavies are ok this way.

3. Priest limit of 1 in inf doc is very harsh and unneccessary. Most of the time you would want to get a priest for 8 CP as inf doc would be in arty parties when everything else got stuck. Which means that one wouldnt be enough to make a difference in order to gain arty superiority over your enemies. Futhermore the ammo upkeep should be the main restriction to artillery, not strict numbers in corsix. Usually, if you dont have to dominate enemies arty or to gain the upper hand against them, you wouldnt go for priest at all for 8 CP (normal arty would be enough) and if, you wouldnt get two due to the upkeep. In short the only reason going for priest is when your team requires you to beat the opponents arty and to gain arty superiority. But with this super strict limit this will become a diffcult task. Which in turn means that in an emergency situation, RA doc might be chosed "just in case" if artillery domination would be required. As long as you need arty as support and using tanks/inf as well, you wouldnt get more than one arty unit and if, then only when your job is nothing else than providing arty support for your team and heavily arty contested areas, thus the limit should be two priests, not one.

4. Any plans to get a less cumbersome and unflexible healing for US? I would really think about sepperating healing and collecting wounded into two different buildings and/or adding some sort of mobile healing.

Edit:
5. Can you (re-add) the Ranger captain into the Ranger truck? Why got he even removed patches ago?
6. Any chance that Supply yard could be more seperated from other buildings and tec-requirments? Even if you want to focus on infantry for a long part of the game (unlocking tanks first at the very end) you still have to go pretty far with your tec (which in turn means that you can spend less mid-early game for infantry and stuff).

User avatar
Black Panther
Posts: 78
Joined: 04 May 2019, 14:54

Re: 5.1.8. beta (Doctrine rework, update 1)

Postby Black Panther » 02 Jun 2019, 12:31

I don't think 76 in Inf doctrine is anyhow good, because it simply comes at the time that Panther might arrive or any other heavy tanks. It might be on pair with Tiger, but not Panthers definetely, so for me personnaly its a bad choice taking 76 over a over-priced Jackson.
AT now more having a nerf, than a trade-off, yeah.
Also, 75mm Jumbo in Armor doctrine don't have any purpose at all, no reason to deploy it right now, when you can get a same gun for 30 fuel. Any chances for a price drop off?

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3547
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.8. beta (Doctrine rework, update 1)

Postby Warhawks97 » 02 Jun 2019, 14:38

Black Panther wrote:I don't think 76 in Inf doctrine is anyhow good, because it simply comes at the time that Panther might arrive or any other heavy tanks. It might be on pair with Tiger, but not Panthers definetely, so for me personnaly its a bad choice taking 76 over a over-priced Jackson.
AT now more having a nerf, than a trade-off, yeah.


I am not quite sure what your point is. Apparently we both think 76 jumbo in inf doc wasnt a good move. From my perspective its better for inf to get jacks anyway as anti tank firepower is more needed than thick armor since you can crush defenses with other tools.
The next reason is that it looks kind of weird to have a 76 jumbo, that can go head on against tigers and sometimes, with some luck, against panthers, is available for inf doc right after 5 CP. Meanwhile Armor doc needs 9 CP to get his type of unit that go head on with german big cats while those themselves come after 6 CP or more with higher cost than the jumbo does. It doesnt look right. Hence 76 jumbo fits better in armor doc for 6 CP. It would also be the weaker in combo with pershing than the 75 mm jumbo does since 76 and pershing would serve a similiar role with both vulnerable to inf.


Also, 75mm Jumbo in Armor doctrine don't have any purpose at all, no reason to deploy it right now, when you can get a same gun for 30 fuel. Any chances for a price drop off?


it does makes a lot of sense. For example when teaming up with pershings. In normal occassions any gun could take out a normal sherman and thus leaving the Pershing quite vulnerable to infantry. The Jumbo can operate even in heavily contested areas with lots of guns aiming at it. You can take out HMG nests and infantry while being under fire even from 75 mm AT guns and tank guns. Any normal sherman would have to leave the combat area whenever a gun points at it. Thus a combo of Pershing and a single 75 mm Jumbo sherman can pose a much bigger threat than a Pershing and lets say two or even three normal shermans which can be taken out by any kind of hidden gun and thus leaving the Pershing unprotected. Its an extremely effective assault tank that can take out AT guns and clearing the path for infantry. The only tank of similiar capabilities are churchills.

So its not just about the gun, its about the ability to operate this gun under difficult circumstances that makes the jumbo variant of the 75 mm sherman so valuable.

User avatar
Black Panther
Posts: 78
Joined: 04 May 2019, 14:54

Re: 5.1.8. beta (Doctrine rework, update 1)

Postby Black Panther » 02 Jun 2019, 14:54

It has a same capabilities as churchills, but I think Jumbo is more vulnerable to crits and HP, I think? Dying faster, than a Churchil

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3547
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.8. beta (Doctrine rework, update 1)

Postby Warhawks97 » 02 Jun 2019, 15:56

Black Panther wrote:It has a same capabilities as churchills, but I think Jumbo is more vulnerable to crits and HP, I think? Dying faster, than a Churchil


the armor is not quite the same sadly, but devs said changes might come and a jumbo may becomes a jumbo as it deserves.

edit:
I correct myself, they have got an armor boost in this patch. The Panther and others are still as effective as bevor, but PZIv´s and Stugs and 75 mm Pak40 are drastically less effective against jumbo now.

So yeah, the is a massive difference between normal 75 mm sherman and 75 mm jumbo. The Jumbos armor is like 10 times more resistant.


Its side armor is afterall very poor considering that it was a heavy tank with also thick side armor very similiar to Tigers. In this aspect tigers and churchills are far ahead of the jumbo. Even the 50 mm AT guns go through the side quite frequently

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3900
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 5.1.8. beta (Doctrine rework, update 1)

Postby Tiger1996 » 03 Jun 2019, 10:15

I just came to the conclusion that Demo Storm squad "unlock" is actually a "filler" and completely un-needed.. because they are already available to deploy from the StormTroops half-track, that's why the Demo Storm squad has been always unlocked together with regular Storms in the current Blitz doctrine, while the new Blitz doc has Demo Storms and regular Storms as separate unlocks...

The only benefit of the unlock is how you can deploy them from houses, but.. then again, this way you are actually unlocking them twice.

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 417
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: 5.1.8. beta (Doctrine rework, update 1)

Postby Viper » 03 Jun 2019, 17:07

good. so they can add maultier unlock in replace of demolition team unlock.....without removing ap ammo unlock :P

User avatar
Black Panther
Posts: 78
Joined: 04 May 2019, 14:54

Re: 5.1.8. beta (Doctrine rework, update 1)

Postby Black Panther » 03 Jun 2019, 20:43

let's add to blitz also an orbital strike, reinforcments from the moon nazi base, whats more?

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 417
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: 5.1.8. beta (Doctrine rework, update 1)

Postby Viper » 03 Jun 2019, 21:25

maultier is nothing new to be added....it's already there.
so if it becomes unlock....it will be a restriction....not an addition....but it will help to make the doctrine less crowded with useless unlocks and better organizing command points.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1690
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: 5.1.8. beta (Doctrine rework, update 1)

Postby kwok » 04 Jun 2019, 16:10

The demo squad will be fixed so that it will require the unlock before being deployed from the halftrack.

The maultier will not be put on the unlock tree only for the sake of putting all the artillery on an unlock branch. We find this "just because" logic not as strong as other strategic level impacting reasons that we've explained already.
As blitz stands to be an aggressive doctrine, some type of rapid artillery against soft targets is a minimum no matter what branch of the doctrine unlock path is chosen. This will keep the infantry or tank path viable against the more camping oriented doctrine unlocks. If the opponent continues to further their camping playstyle through deeper unlocks, that's where the additional indirect support unlocks will become helpful.
Your suggestion would be counter intuitive to the exact criticism you mentioned of the rework.

If you all find the AP unlock truly useless, then we are open to hearing alternatives that will be able to ensure blitz doctrine can effectively match a late game armor doctrine. Even though we like the other suggestions mentioned here, they do not match the original intent of the AP unlock and does not fill the gap created if replaced. Keep thinking, we will too.
For right now, my experience of using the doctrine I've been unlocking AP rounds and enjoy saving the MU for either stormtrooper equipment or the expensive blitz ability for some hyper triple panzer iv flanking. So personally, I do not find it useless and don't want to replace it with what is essentially something available for free already (whether it be smoke, maultiers, etc other ideas mentioned so far)

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3900
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 5.1.8. beta (Doctrine rework, update 1)

Postby Tiger1996 » 04 Jun 2019, 17:42

We find this "just because" logic not as strong as other strategic level impacting reasons that we've explained already.

Speaking of strategical level impacting reasons or tactical aspects and so on...

Does anybody have an idea what is the tactical or the strategical purpose of Pz4 and mass production unlocks in Blitz doc now?
For me, if we even imagine them totally removed from the doctrine.. it would still work without any issues.

Why would anyone spend 4 CPs for Pz4 and then further 3 CPs for mass production unlocks (total 7 CPs) when he could just play with Stug4 combined with Pz3.N which both require no unlock.. while also going straight forward to unlock Panther.D after 6 CPs ??!! Keeping in mind how the Stug4 is definitely a much better option than Pz4 because it's cheaper, and can ambush right away, also with HE rounds...

I mean, to simplify my point, here is how much command points the player would need to spend if he chooses to play either of the 2 combinations:
- Stug4 + Pz3.N + Panther = 6 CPs needed.

However;
- Pz4 + Mass Production + Panther = 9 CPs needed.

So, don't you think that Pz4 in Blitz doc has actually become "so pointless" to say the least?!
it serves no purpose whatsoever, except for occupying "unlock" items on the doctrine tech tree.. it's "just there" if I might say.

As blitz stands to be an aggressive doctrine, some type of rapid artillery against soft targets is a minimum no matter what branch of the doctrine unlock path is chosen.

That's exactly why I keep stating that LeiG.18 should be Blitz doc exclusive and no longer reward of Pak38, because it's an arty unit...

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1690
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: 5.1.8. beta (Doctrine rework, update 1)

Postby kwok » 04 Jun 2019, 19:31

I wouldn't classify the leig18 as a "rapid artillery" and wouldn't fit the same tactical aspects as the maultier. It was not used as an arty unit in the same way as say a mortar or howitzer as often historically. The mortar halftrack is more effective (i hate mortar halftracks) in this regard.
To be honest.... I can't remember which patch... some where down the line of tons of versions worked on... the pak 50 and leig18 are no longer reward units of each other.... sorry you'll just have to wait for that change to come out whenever it does.

I'll be back to talk about the P4s in more detail later. I promise I'll respond, just need to take care of work.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3547
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.8. beta (Doctrine rework, update 1)

Postby Warhawks97 » 04 Jun 2019, 20:06

kwok wrote:
If you all find the AP unlock truly useless, then we are open to hearing alternatives that will be able to ensure blitz doctrine can effectively match a late game armor doctrine. Even though we like the other suggestions mentioned here, they do not match the original intent of the AP unlock and does not fill the gap created if replaced. Keep thinking, we will too.
For right now, my experience of using the doctrine I've been unlocking AP rounds and enjoy saving the MU for either stormtrooper equipment or the expensive blitz ability for some hyper triple panzer iv flanking. So personally, I do not find it useless and don't want to replace it with what is essentially something available for free already (whether it be smoke, maultiers, etc other ideas mentioned so far)


I am not quite sure what this means "balance vs armor doc". The Panther as well as Panzer IV or stug dont have so many issues penetrating enemie tanks. Furthermore US ammo unlock is only for shermans, the BK one provides these AP even to Panthers. I would understand if it would be given to Panzer IV´s only in order to keep them more attractive in the later stages.
Also it seems generally more attractive to me to spare as much ammo as possible and use command tank abilites to boost all nearby tanks or using the Blitzkrieg ability which doubles your ammount of shots being fired. The main "issue" Axis have in tank battles is not their penetration power, but rather their ability to take out enemie tanks fast enough before getting shot by them. And the only tank in armor i would use AP against would probably be the Pershing. Jumbo isnt a threat for panther and it will pen it anyway sooner or later.
In short: Command tank abilites as well as the Blitzkrieg ability seems a lot more usefull to me when i would fight against shermans and stuff, rather than using AP ability.
Hence no need to for AP ammo at default.



So my alternative for ammo upgrade: Cheaper grenade usage or more precise, cheaper `Stielhandgranate´ (the 25 ammo nade) so that you can use them a lot more often during your assaults. This way you would probably save tons of ammo as well. Perhaps even an upgrade that makes grenades as well as HE rounds cheaper to use. Could be called improved supply or something, or assault meassures.




Another question:
Are we going to get M10´s as a basic tank destroyer for US? Just asking.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1690
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: 5.1.8. beta (Doctrine rework, update 1)

Postby kwok » 04 Jun 2019, 21:44

Warhawks97 wrote:And the only tank in armor i would use AP against would probably be the Pershing



Ding ding ding. There’s the answer. Prior to the rework a single unit, the Pershing plus support, countered the entire blitz doc.
There’s also the prospect that the jumbo can be dealt with not just with panthers but panzer 4s as well. Where one panther can’t cover the entire map (cuz we are playing on large maps... right...?) the panzer 4s with AP rounds have some capability to handle large amounts of allied armor.


Also unfairly looking ahead for Churchill’s and their capabilities. This is unfair to say though because the focus now is WM and US, CW will require a whole new wave of balancing.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3547
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.8. beta (Doctrine rework, update 1)

Postby Warhawks97 » 04 Jun 2019, 21:53

kwok wrote:
Warhawks97 wrote:And the only tank in armor i would use AP against would probably be the Pershing



Ding ding ding. There’s the answer. Prior to the rework a single unit, the Pershing plus support, countered the entire blitz doc.
There’s also the prospect that the jumbo can be dealt with not just with panthers but panzer 4s as well. Where one panther can’t cover the entire map (cuz we are playing on large maps... right...?) the panzer 4s with AP rounds have some capability to handle large amounts of allied armor.


Also unfairly looking ahead for Churchill’s and their capabilities. This is unfair to say though because the focus now is WM and US, CW will require a whole new wave of balancing.



alirght, but i guess i will see the pershing far less often. And regarding jumbo, its armor got buffed, so tank IV´s even with AP will have less chances to kill it as in old version without AP. But it doesnt matter since its the 75 mm jumbo so i can shoot as long as i want, no time to haste.

So, effectively speaking, the few times Pershing will show up wont justify to go an entire path over tank IV mass production up to AP ammo when i would consider simply lots of panthers using Blitzkrieg ability and command tank as a much saver way to deal with anything armor doc throws at you, no matter if armor is going to spam shermans (where BK ability will be largely more usefull over AP) or sending a few Pershings which i would preferably take out the way i always used to (mix of AT guns, Panthers with good commander and schrecks from elite stormtrooper).

So, i am still not sure if all this justifies the AP unlock. To sum it up:
- Less pershings due to later avaialbility, probably facing shermans more often
- Going Panthers and BK ability paired command tank IV seems to be overall more usefull rather than AP and prior Tank IV mass prod unlock
- I wouldnt give up the nice old storms with their schrecks backing up panthers just to give panthers easier AP which might be usless when my panther dies first shot from a 90 mm gun or when it get killed before making a second shot.


-Edit:
Also the Panther D can be used for BK doc which is more spamable. As luftwaffe doctrine i managed to outnumber my oponents Pershings and sometimes even managed to overrun SP.
So i would just got for the D, BK ability and perhaps Command Tank IV. It would overwhelm most Pershing users i guess.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1690
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: 5.1.8. beta (Doctrine rework, update 1)

Postby kwok » 05 Jun 2019, 03:10

Okay. About the Panzer IV

Question
Does anybody have an idea what is the tactical or the strategical purpose of Pz4 and mass production unlocks in Blitz doc now?

Answer
Yes the answer is to have a scalable spam of reliable tanks against doctrines that have cost effective AT weaponry. For example, when facing airborne doctrines and their airstrikes, a panther is marginally better than a panzer iv since airborne doctrines don't have extremely heavy tanks. If anything, panthers are overkill and a waste of resource when pressed against the ropes because they are more expensive than their countering units available in airborne doctrines (ex. airstrikes, camo'd tank destroyers, infantry with AT weapons)

Question
Why would anyone spend 4 CPs for Pz4 and then further 3 CPs for mass production unlocks (total 7 CPs) when he could just play with Stug4 combined with Pz3.N which both require no unlock.. while also going straight forward to unlock Panther.D after 6 CPs ??!! Keeping in mind how the Stug4 is definitely a much better option than Pz4 because it's cheaper, and can ambush right away, also with HE rounds...

Answer
True, a combo of Stug4 and Pz III is stronger than 1 Pzer IV. But a stug and a pz iii cost at least a total of 700mp and 70fu whereas a cheaper pzr iv that has a combined role can be as low as 550mp and 55fu (still prone to updates. This is the "balancing phase" of doctrine reworks so exact prices are prone to change). Controlling 1 unit is also much less micro intense than 2 units. Additionally, in terms of offensive capability, the P4 triumphs over the stug4. and in terms of durability, the panzer iv j triumphs over the pzer iii.

In terms of "pointless" i greatly disagree and since playing blitz doc I have always gotten one against every doctrine faced so far except occasionally against armor doc (depended on decision points of the game). Granted, there are areas of improvement so we are making tweaks in the next patch but I would say none of the improvements are on the structure of the doctrine path itself. Mostly cost and performance adjustments around the p4 but not necessarily pzr iv directly.


That is just the SHORT answer. There's a lot more reason why the pzer iv was done this way, a LOT of discussion among other players and dev memebrs. I can't explain it all now, maybe later.

I'll come back to respond to warhawks later but I think he is starting to udnerstand potential build orders. I want to say consider facing other doctrines and for each of those doctrines (including armor) what if the player chose a different build path. This is a big part of the rework, how to build variety within a doctrine so it isn't just a meta path every game. In the past doctrines use to counter other doctrines. Now, we are hoping that doctrine paths counter other doctrine paths, so there is a controllable dynamic within a 1v1 itself.


Return to “Announcements”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 55 guests