Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 386
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by CGarr »

I should preface this by saying that I'm pulling most of this from a picture that Mencius posted here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3418. Here's the picture for reference:

Image

With the recent doctrine reworks in the beta and the beginning of the transition to working on brits and PE, I figured getting discussion going on what should be done for the doctrines of these 2 factions. Tank Hunter being the most broken of the bunch, I'm assuming it'll probably get a total revamp the same way terror did, and after giving it some thought, I think using Mencius's idea as a base would be a good start.I talked to Kwok about this suggestion a bit and made a case for why I think it would work, as well as making some adjustments to make the doctrine tree focus a bit less on just unlocking bigger tanks. Since I already gave a solid argument in that discussion, I'll just post the conversation here.

My initial case for considering Mencius's idea (broken into parts to make it an easier read):
"
so JP4 fills role of medium killer early on same as usual.
then you have nash and 4/70
nash has fuck all armor but big dick gun and is best used defensively
4/70 can be used on the offense

moving on
panther () and KT
panther is a really strong medium/heavy you can get multiple of and that has a turret (to support 4/70 when pushing since its casemate)
KT is fat fucking heavy with a ton of armor that can go head to head with most tanks
thats your late game
you push by supporting that with inf and it does the tank job
where as panther line you can have multiple

JP and JT should honestly be a reward unit choice since they play like exactly the same role except one cloaks and one is bigger
if not just make JT reward with KT
either way
it doesnt need a spot
JP makes sense on that line since you would have the choice of either trying to make nashorns work late game as your heavy killers (not bad but vulnerable) or you can wait out the JP
after which you basically have a casemate heavy
i personally don't like JP or JT
but JP kinda makes sense I guess

the rest looks fine
fits really well with an "elite armored" doc kinda thing
but it has a counter
there's hardly any anti emplacement weaponry
Hotchkiss to keep it balanced in terms of the new philosophy on doctrines all being 1v1 capable
but other than that not much

that thing could take the place of JT on the tree with no prereqs
or better yet put the vet crew thing in that slot and put arty down with the commander arty
you say there isn't much choice but I feel like that's wrong for at least this one reason:
tank lines play different roles, with the decision between them being made by whether or not you're on the offensive

left line can push out of a losing fight (as we saw in last nights game a bit) with the 4/70, moving into panthers to retake the initiative at a lower cost than waiting out tiger, and into JP to finish the game

top line is gambling on whether or not you're confident in saving up for the KT after holding out with mainly non doctrinal shit, JP4 and maybe a nashorn if you're desperate or decided to grab some of the other stuff in the tree first rather than waiting to fill out later
It basically assumes you already have the initiative
and if you don't then you better be confident in holding out with paper tanks until then since there isn't a p4 or anything like that
(I personally don't think there should be since blitz (or WH in general) has that covered)
you should be forced to make due with nondoctrinal stuff and the JP4 until you have the units you need if you go top
"

Kwok's response after reading:
"
you didnt really talk much about the rest of the doctrine
only the tank unlocks
how would the other picks mix in with the decision making?
"

My answer to the issue he brought up:

Image

"
goat says maybe put tellar mines as first in the chain for inf AT
so mines -> double -> mark tank
"

Continuing from this (text part of the conversation stopped here and neither of us really remember the conversation):
The answer to Kwoks question would be that the doctrine is centered around these AT focused tanks with their supporting inf just being the already serviceable PE nondoctrinal inf (which fit the combined arms role really well). The doctrine is pretty much built for this kind of doctrine already seeing as how their standard inf are already off-brand elites. The focus should be on the tank unlocks themselves serving the answer to increasing levels of allied offensive and defensive power (respectively) while maintaining an anti-tank theme. Upgrades would help the player stay relevant as more than just a tank focused doctrine late game, and hotchkiss unlock/call-in abilities would be used to support pushes without serving as proper counter arty (hotchkiss has low range but high damage, smoke doesn't directly counter arty, instead just helps against it's defenses).

The player player would trade the indirect fire and sabotage capabilities of blitz for a heavier emphasis on armor and anti Armor, still retaining those other tools but in a weaker form that would only really serve well to support the tanks. It'd be more comparable to armor doc, but again mostly specialized to counter armor heavy docs (RE and armor), stand even with infantry heavy docs (inf and to some degree RAF) and get countered by indirect centered docs (arty, air, also to some degree) quite heavily due to its slow buildup and emphasis on heavies.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3984
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Warhawks97 »

CGarr wrote:


My initial case for considering Mencius's idea (broken into parts to make it an easier read):
"
so JP4 fills role of medium killer early on same as usual.
then you have nash and 4/70
nash has fuck all armor but big dick gun and is best used defensively
4/70 can be used on the offense


If you ask me, Nashorn doesnt really makes sense when the doc is about to be turned into a heavy elite armor doc rather than pure TD.
Its not even a "cheap defense". It costs about as much as a IV/70 and generally provides the only advantage to take out some bigger tanks but for the most part IV/70 gets the job done in the defense.


moving on
panther () and KT
panther is a really strong medium/heavy you can get multiple of and that has a turret (to support 4/70 when pushing since its casemate)
KT is fat fucking heavy with a ton of armor that can go head to head with most tanks
thats your late game
you push by supporting that with inf and it does the tank job
where as panther line you can have multiple



I would simply divide the unlock branches somehow into medium and heavy. Both containing their respective "MBT" and TD´s. Again, Nashorn doesnt find any place in this regard.


JP and JT should honestly be a reward unit choice since they play like exactly the same role except one cloaks and one is bigger
if not just make JT reward with KT
either way
it doesnt need a spot
JP makes sense on that line since you would have the choice of either trying to make nashorns work late game as your heavy killers (not bad but vulnerable) or you can wait out the JP
after which you basically have a casemate heavy
i personally don't like JP or JT
but JP kinda makes sense I guess



They are not the same and shouldnt be reward at all. The JP is a mobile, hard hitting tanks with armor good enough to stand fights. The JT in contrast is slowy and usually only a super heavy damage sponge that literally cant get penetrated by normal means from the front. It can hit hard in a shot but most of the time its too slow and slowly shooting as that it would really go out for the "hunt". Only when the enemie has no more places he can run to you might score some kills.

On top of that, i am more like Figree going for less rather than more reward options.



the rest looks fine
fits really well with an "elite armored" doc kinda thing
but it has a counter
there's hardly any anti emplacement weaponry
Hotchkiss to keep it balanced in terms of the new philosophy on doctrines all being 1v1 capable
but other than that not much

that thing could take the place of JT on the tree with no prereqs
or better yet put the vet crew thing in that slot and put arty down with the commander arty
you say there isn't much choice but I feel like that's wrong for at least this one reason:
tank lines play different roles, with the decision between them being made by whether or not you're on the offensive




I dont know whether the hotchkiss or the rocket upgrade should cost CP. I also dont know how its arty will look like. Units like JT and KT can absorb damage and JT HE can demolish emplacmants. What is needed is some sort of HE tank dealing with inf and emplacments. Stormpios can also be used as anti emplacment. Esspecially when they will become smaller in squad size and thus cheaper and thus easier to be used in their primary role in clearing defenses.

left line can push out of a losing fight (as we saw in last nights game a bit) with the 4/70, moving into panthers to retake the initiative at a lower cost than waiting out tiger, and into JP to finish the game



In this case, a simple Panzer IV and added JP IV line would do the job rather than mixing TD´s with normal tanks. Its the same mistake we had in old def doc where we have put an assault arty unit in the middle of a TD branch. Tank branches have to keep tank branches, TD branches TD branches. These can perhaps be divided into heavy and medium etc.


Very old TD doc had a tank line from Tank IV H to Tiger to Panther to JT and a seperate TD line. The only thing that needs to be changed is that we get medium and heavy lines (sounds a bit like WoT).


top line is gambling on whether or not you're confident in saving up for the KT after holding out with mainly non doctrinal shit, JP4 and maybe a nashorn if you're desperate or decided to grab some of the other stuff in the tree first rather than waiting to fill out later
It basically assumes you already have the initiative
and if you don't then you better be confident in holding out with paper tanks until then since there isn't a p4 or anything like that
(I personally don't think there should be since blitz (or WH in general) has that covered)
you should be forced to make due with nondoctrinal stuff and the JP4 until you have the units you need if you go top
"



I think there has to be a Tank IV as cheap workhorse for mid game. Else the only option for players will be to spam cheap Jagdpanzer which will get crazy boring. The Tank IV is an axis workhorse and esspecially H and J need to be more widespread unlike Tigers. Limiting tank IV H and J to like one doc will be a great mistake for axis gameplay. It ends up in only camping untill Super expensive heavies come out.


Image




As said, dont mix TD´s with normal Tanks too much. People dont like to unlock something they dont need so that they later get what they need. If they want tanks, give them tanks, if not, dont force them to. Same goes for TD. US also done unlock jacks anymore to get Pershing which is a good thing. And no one unlocks M10 in order to get 76 shermans.


So either seperate it into Tanks and TD. Or Medium Tanks, Heavy tanks and medium TD and heavy TD. Personally i would base all unlock arround the Tank IV H which will be the early workhorse for the doc and allowing very early pushing instead stupid hiding behind Jagdpanzer IV´s which so early will also be just an overkill. Who needs a IV/70 when the enemie has just gotten stuarts (i know i exaggerate a bit).

Having the Tank IV H as core for all further armor unlocks, we can add medium TD (JP Iv series), then elite medium armor with Panther and JP and an super heavy branch with Tigers and its respective TD verions.




Also why is "PE inf Mark tanks" seperated from "Tank awareness"? I dont even know if PE inf has enough slots left to mark tanks. I think there should one slot be left at least for basic PE inf. So these three inf buffs should be connected. They dont have to be a straight line but they should be connected.

Also, depending on how future PE inf looks like, either basic or heavy assault grens could also get the ability to upgrade schrecks when double schreck for AT squad gets unlocked.


Tellar mines. US doesnt have to unlock them. And to be honest, such things would fit a lot better currently when added to SE doc when i think about it. This doc is more going into the offense. So Nashorn and Tellermines would fit better in SE doc.


Smoke drop? I would add smoke abilties to some PE vehicles or some sort of command Tanks/vehicles. But idk if its needed as a doc unlock. I personally would say no.

Two things that would fit better would be increased production speed of tank producing buildings. Or at least for medium tanks like Panzer IV and Panthers.
The second would be ammo supply for the TD´s so that they get special AP rounds right away. These three things can be linked with Fuel supply and increased production speed. In returns, tank commander arty, smoke drop and tellermines would be removed as goes the rocket tank to make place for Tank IV H/J which are actually must haves in this doc

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 630
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by mofetagalactica »

Also, hotchkiss has no place here i would totally move it to SE and put normal nebelwerfer and a call-in for tanks kinda like the armor us one.
This unit is one of the reason why this doctrine among with L70 can lock-in and heavily counter some of the US docs.

Don't want to move hotchkiss? Then expect the same defensive playstyle of current TH sitting behind jagds and destroying any offensive infantry enemy formation that comes in search of your tanks in a matter of seconds with no time of reaction, because the time between using the hability and the rockets falling is so fast that you will surely loss half of your infantry units before retreating.

I understand the reason of why warhawks want to see more PZ4 J/H in a doc that used to had just TD's, in order to support/defend units that are not good againts infantry (wich should be the obvious counter to this doc) such as jagds. But meantime the hotchkiss still being seen on TH then forget about getting PZ4's cause it wouldn't be necesary.

Why normal nebelwerfer? Mostly because it gives you enought time to react to retreat/move your offensive formation before getting insta-wiped ('cause of sound and long animation)

I also expect the Wespe getting reworked into a cheap mobile support gun instead of artillery to deal with enemy emplacements, the only mobile indirect artillery weapons on SE should be Hummel and Hotchkiss Rockets, also it would be great if someone looks into corxis and check received accuracy againts hotchkiss with different guns 'cause its seem to be a "ghost tank" like hetzer/jagds were before getting patched.

Also be aware that the "mark" hability that a few ones suggested one beside revealing the unit also boosts accuracy againts him wich could be used againts infantry or wathever shit that moves with 0 cost and i don't really think that adding more "maphacks" should be good, where's the surprise,skill,imagination,anticipation?

At least the new defensive doc has to build OP's to get his "maphack" wich can be countered by just destroying the OP lol.
But "Tank awareness" Most stupid hability ever just unlock and whoalaaa WOOOW I CAN SEE EVERYTHING WOW LOOK ENEMY HAS 4 TANKS ON THE FOG! Im gonna CAMP UNTIL I GET MY JAGDPANTHER!! and BOMB THEM 200 TIMES YES BOMB BOMB BOMB WITH HOTCHKISS!!! SO I CAN BE 100% SURE THAT I CAN WIN THAT BATTLE YES YES!!!.

¿How do you counter this hability/unlock iluminate me please?

Tank awareness would only make scense if such doc had only Weak armor/Strong gun TD's like the m10's and Hellcats. But why the hell a L/70 , Panther / KT / JT / PZ4 would need tank awareness? They can go toe to toe with almost every Allied AT lmao.

MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 271
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by MenciusMoldbug »

Tank awareness is a really weird ability because it doesn't fit BK's philosophy involving ambushes. Allied TD's can basically never 'ambush' a TH doc's tanks because they just need an infantry squad next to it and they can see hidden TD's through the fog of war and basically never confront them if they don't think the odds are in their favor. Think about how RE would go about killing a jagdtiger knowing they have tank awareness and can see all their tanks within a huge radius in the fog. You basically have to hope the PE player messes up or you get a lucky engine/immobilization critical.

The best way I think you can improve tank awareness is to make it a flat damage buff for infantry vs vehicles. So infantry would do 25%+ damage they would usually do with their usual AT nades, shrecks, panzerfausts, etc. Basically re-work the ability so these PE infantry have been given the 'know-how' of allied tank schematics. So they know these allied tanks weaknesses and are basically gunning for those weak points to do massive damage.

I had no idea how to fill the whole tree when I was thinking stuff up to be honest. I don't really like how mark target works for TH right now so I would remove it from all their TD's but give them something equal in return. So I thought of marking tanks with infantry instead.

I thought about it a bit more now and I managed to make the tree like this (within the 30 command limit for all docs):

Image

I honestly think TH should turn into 'The Tank Doctrine' for axis. Blitzkrieg has Panthers, Terror has Tigers, Def Doctrine has Ferdinands. Luftwaffe would have it's Tiger/Panther and SE would have Captured Shermans, Hetzers, and Nashorns. But the new TH should have it all. Basically an 'Elite Steel' Doctrine (would be very fun to play for skirmish players too).

The bottom colored group zeal icons are the thing I was talking about when re-working Panzergrenadiers here. Basically the aura buff for when infantry are near vehicles. First CP upgrade would be buffs near vehicles, than second one would be buffs near tanks.

The Cheaper TD production next to to the P4 line and leading to the Panther line is instead replaced with faster tank production for both Panzer-Support and Panzer-Jager buildings.

Rest of the stuff is pretty much the same. Probably only 'crippling' thing about this doctrine would be is that all your tanks are very expensive. You do not get any sort of 'cheap stuff' everything you have is 'top of the line' (as it should be for Panzer Elite) so you can't actually afford to risk losing your first P4 H when you get it.

I connected fuel exchange with veteran tank crews because otherwise it might have come too early (but if people want they can keep fuel exchange by itself and just have the veteran tank crew connected to faster production). I delayed the Tiger by a CP because Terror should get the Tiger earlier than this doctrine. In exchange, the new tank doctrine can get the earliest P4 H (Which I think should be ok considering luftwaffe can get very good infantry pretty early on and SE can get nasty rocket artillery and Wespes pretty fast).

I'm still not sure if I should leave Panther in another tree like I did here or connect it to the Tiger -> King Tiger tree so the King Tiger is properly delayed enough. There isn't enough command points to go around to properly organize everything into it's own branch but this is the best I could do to give every tank their own 'route.' The Tiger isn't necessarily 'inferior' to the Panther (has a nice long range shot ability after all) so I wouldn't necessarily put it in a 'upgrade path' like tree; but then again delaying the King Tiger might be more important.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3984
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Warhawks97 »

So far i do like this approach and the rework of tank awareness. Another idea would be that this ability doesnt reveal hidden or even non moving tanks in fog of war. But what it does is to make all tanks and vehicles visible on the mini map that are moving. Kind of the soldiers have been trained to listen to tank noises coming from far away. So you are aware when enemies send tanks against you but wont allow you to have a map hack like ability.


When i think about stuff like mark target, i would perhaps remove it completely from the game for all units (Recce, M20, TD´s etc). It just doesnt really fit the game nor does it find into this period. 25% accuracy boost against marked target and thats for 0 cost. Its like neutralizing cover when used vs inf.

For recon units i would rework it into some sort of "reconassaince mode". It reduces speed of the unit but increases detection range. You can give it to recon units like bike/jeep m20 and other cars which would help to patrole more effectively against snipers. You can toggle it on and off. But mark target as such has to get kicked out of the game. Too much no brain and abuse.


Back to the unlock lines. The idea Menicus gave is quite awesome already but i would fix it a bit. And i would prefer to have that boost near vehicles and tanks to be a faction upgrade, not a doctrinal one.


So i try to give a slighlty changed unlock path system:






JP IV/48 -> JP IV/70 I Fuel Exchange <- Increased Production Speed
I -------------------------------------------------------I
Panzer IV H/J -> Panther -> Jagdpanther I Wolfram Ammo supply for TD´s
I ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiger I Free Slot I Veterancy Tank Crew <---------------------Tank Awarenes
I -----------------------------------------------------------------------------I
King Tiger -> Jagdtiger I Improved Anti Tank Training <- Second Panzerschreck





To be honest, idk how much infantry and anti inf anti tank training should get enhanced. The doc gets tanks with guns that can take out any target in a shot. Adding so much AT power to the inf would perhaps lead to overcapability.

The inf should get geared towards even more effective work in combination with tanks instead of plain AT improvment. But idk how to achieve that.


The upgraded production speed should also aim at specific units rather than entire buildings. Pretty much all units in those two buildings would be affected except Tigers, KT and stuff which should stay more exclusive i would say.

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 630
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by mofetagalactica »

Guys on what we know of the latest patch, luft only has 4 buildings to get max tech wich means you can tech up faster than before as PE.

¿Are we going to have problems with peopple rushing the big boys?
¿Or the 4th building tech upgrade will be way more expensive in order to delay the biggest tanks?
¿Luft would be the only one only having to build 4 buildings to get max tech?

If we enable all the biggest tanks on a single doc, wich would be cool i know, ¿What buildings and tech are they going to need in order to be built?
Pershings has been seeeeriously delayed and didn't receive any buff whatsoever so take that in mind.

Oh i also wanted to add, the hability to get fuel per ammo would be something that would also push faster teching for TH watch out with that, i really wouldn't like seeing KT's , JT's being available so fast in field (Not tested of course, but its a probability).

Maybe if the JT's get a rework to make them slow and weaker rear armor they shouldn't be a problem but they're like seriously strong with no probs at fighting 90mm/17p guns, afterall allies has only 1 chance to get SP and CW dosn't have any super strong tank like centurion/black prince.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3984
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Warhawks97 »

I thought luft doc is a bug or mistake. All td type units should require tank hunter command which includes Marder.

This TH would require both buildings. Tanks in support command and tds in TH command building.

Jagtiger would or should be unlocked after kt so it would come late enough.

MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 271
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by MenciusMoldbug »

Afaik the Pershing currently is 9 CP's in the beta patch. With the current command point cost I put up so far the KT is 9 CP's as well. You can probably delay the big boys even more by adding another fuel upgrade in the PE tank factory like WH's Heavy Tank Factory has with needing the 2 fuel upgrades before being able to get a King Tiger.

So here's revision 2 based on what I've read here:

Image

With this and another fuel upgrade in the tank factory to get it; it should be delayed long enough like the WH KT is. Question mark is whatever you guys think is best to put in.

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 630
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by mofetagalactica »

I kinda preffer this one, but like i said we don't know the buildings and again ammo per fuel is OP at 1 CP unlock (Just 2 CP and you can rush PZ4's with Fuel exchange) and i think it shouldn't be on the doc, we also had a little push on ammo income on the beta latest patch if you don't make arty so yeah.
Here's a mix of what has been proposed here plus some other cool stuff available in order to avoid rushing.

TH DOC PROP.png


-Puma (+5 fuel cost to current cost) would be a command car with the hability to call-in artillery once you CP unlock it.

-L/70 would be locked behind upgraded production

-And the AT team buff would be unifyied into double shrek and vet.

Edit (forgot to add lmao) :
-Adding normal maned nebelwerfers (maybe) and moving hotchkiss to SE.
Last edited by mofetagalactica on 18 Nov 2019, 05:07, edited 2 times in total.

NeedAmmo97
Posts: 1
Joined: 11 Jun 2018, 05:00

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by NeedAmmo97 »

mofetagalactica wrote:I kinda preffer this one, but like i said we don't know the buildings and again ammo per fuel is OP at 1 CP unlock (Just 2 CP and you can rush PZ4's with Fuel exchange) and i think it shouldn't be on the doc, we also had a little push on ammo income on the beta latest patch if you don't make arty so yeah.
Here's a mix of what has been proposed here plus some other cool stuff available in order to avoid rushing.

TH DOC PROP.png

-Puma (+5 fuel cost to current cost) would be a command car with the hability to call-in artillery once you CP unlock it.

-L/70 would be locked behind upgraded production

-And the AT team buff would be unifyied into double shrek and vet.

Im agree with the furro.

MEFISTO
Posts: 159
Joined: 18 Jun 2016, 21:15

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by MEFISTO »

mofetagalactica wrote:I kinda preffer this one, but like i said we don't know the buildings and again ammo per fuel is OP at 1 CP unlock (Just 2 CP and you can rush PZ4's with Fuel exchange) and i think it shouldn't be on the doc, we also had a little push on ammo income on the beta latest patch if you don't make arty so yeah.
Here's a mix of what has been proposed here plus some other cool stuff available in order to avoid rushing.

TH DOC PROP.png

-Puma (+5 fuel cost to current cost) would be a command car with the hability to call-in artillery once you CP unlock it.

-L/70 would be locked behind upgraded production

-And the AT team buff would be unifyied into double shrek and vet.

+1 I really like the doctrine just like that, you will have the ability to pick what kind of heavy tank you will use depending on enemies faction or doctrine, the real tank doctrine.

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 386
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by CGarr »

mofetagalactica wrote:I kinda preffer this one, but like i said we don't know the buildings and again ammo per fuel is OP at 1 CP unlock (Just 2 CP and you can rush PZ4's with Fuel exchange) and i think it shouldn't be on the doc, we also had a little push on ammo income on the beta latest patch if you don't make arty so yeah.
Here's a mix of what has been proposed here plus some other cool stuff available in order to avoid rushing.

TH DOC PROP.png

-Puma (+5 fuel cost to current cost) would be a command car with the hability to call-in artillery once you CP unlock it.

-L/70 would be locked behind upgraded production

-And the AT team buff would be unifyied into double shrek and vet.

Edit (forgot to add lmao) :
-Adding normal maned nebelwerfers (maybe) and moving hotchkiss to SE.


Honestly aside from the command car being the 50 mm puma rather than a 20 mm and mark target no being present (from what I can tell), I like this one the most of what I've seen so far.

I think a 20 mm would make more sense than the 50, since it'd likely be built instead of a 20 mm car rather than alongside one since the fuel is better used for teching. Anti inf will always be useful (as seen with the US M20 car), but the 50 mm has limited capabilities later in the game since shermans can generally handle them without issues and they aren't amazing at anti-inf.

As for mark target, I figured it'd be changed for this doc to only be usable against vehicles and not every inf squad has to have it, although if that's the case I guess it doesn't really need a doctrine unlock. An unlock in the upgrade building would make more sense than cp if its just on a few squads. If there are no squads, maybe putting it on all of the light vehicles (most PE players will usually have a 28 mm car just sitting around later in the game if it doesn't die midgame) would be a decent alternative, just giving food for thought.

I support the hotchkiss removal (and would even say don't add nebels) but Kwok mentioned that people would probably flip their shit if it wasn't available so I left it in to see what people here would say. If you ask me this doc really doesn't need arty in general and I'd prefer having a flame hetzer available alongside a standard mortar squad (like wehr 81mm mortar) since AT guns in their various forms should be the main counter to this doc given its built around using tanks that are specialized in killing tanks (armor wouldn't really be a viable counter and air isn't reliable enough for the cost unless they go for super-heavies). I think this doctrine should be entirely reliant on direct engagements rather than using indirect fire to kill (smoke is a support that doesn't do anything on its own so I'm not really counting that), it'd be the only doctrine in the game that has the tools available to easily go head to head with any other doc and win (PE inf are good enough to deal with most inf and this doc's armor options are going to be the best of any axis doc, which speaks for itself).

From what I can tell, a lot of people in the games I've played would prefer a more micro-reliant doctrine that is well equipped for head on fights but lacking in indirect, as indirect in any doctrine generally lends itself to a more defensive play-style even with otherwise mobile doctrines (why push when you can hold and bomb them out). It sometimes feels like BK has something against more aggressive play with how light vehicles have gotten slowed down and how in general the best solution is always to just hold and bomb something to hell since most docs don't really have an affordable option to spearhead (blitz does with the panther but that tank has a small window of superiority before going back to indirect fire and ambush becomes the preferred option again).

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3984
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Warhawks97 »

MenciusMoldbug wrote:Afaik the Pershing currently is 9 CP's in the beta patch. With the current command point cost I put up so far the KT is 9 CP's as well. You can probably delay the big boys even more by adding another fuel upgrade in the PE tank factory like WH's Heavy Tank Factory has with needing the 2 fuel upgrades before being able to get a King Tiger.



Your idea looks good. But we dont have to blance the CP cost one to one. If a Pershing requires 9 CP, i wouldnt care if KT comes for 8. Its simply a different gameplay philosophy where i would say that axis or this specific doc is made for head on attacks, while US armor is more about flexibility and a bit more about replacing stuff quicker.

What is actually problematic is that Tigers have gotten cheap when no one knew what to do with them. No they have a place, have support stuff and early available but are still cheap as fuck.
If Tigers are unlocked early and Pershings later, then only the cost difference between them need to be big enough to balance it out. Early but expensive vs late and cheaper.



So here's revision 2 based on what I've read here:

Image

With this and another fuel upgrade in the tank factory to get it; it should be delayed long enough like the WH KT is. Question mark is whatever you guys think is best to put in.



I like it a lot. However ammo and fuel trade should cost more CP. We dont have to put all CP only on tanks. One could be spared on Tiger and Panther line respectively.





mofetagalactica wrote:I kinda preffer this one, but like i said we don't know the buildings and again ammo per fuel is OP at 1 CP unlock (Just 2 CP and you can rush PZ4's with Fuel exchange) and i think it shouldn't be on the doc, we also had a little push on ammo income on the beta latest patch if you don't make arty so yeah.
Here's a mix of what has been proposed here plus some other cool stuff available in order to avoid rushing.

TH DOC PROP.png


-Puma (+5 fuel cost to current cost) would be a command car with the hability to call-in artillery once you CP unlock it.

-L/70 would be locked behind upgraded production

-And the AT team buff would be unifyied into double shrek and vet.

Edit (forgot to add lmao) :
-Adding normal maned nebelwerfers (maybe) and moving hotchkiss to SE.




Not bad either but a few lines dont make a lot of sense for me as well as other issues.


1. Like why is Tank commander vet, fuel trade and ammo in one line? How do they fit to each other.

2. Also going straight for TD´s and camp arround looks a lot more appealing again while i think the doc should be geared more towards offensive. Why going 6 CP Panther or Tiger when you can get 4 CP IV/70 for half the cost?

3. Having the Tank IV H/J as starting point and as the first tank available would be the way to go with to prevent that.

4. I also understand the axis TD´s a bit different from allied. Allied invented the TD branch due to experiences of 1940. They were supposed to quickly react on enemie breakthroughs and to destroy the armored spearhead. They were used like common tanks but the main idea was to bring bigger guns quickly to the needed location. Thus there is a point why they are not put into main tank lines. Axis TD´s however were invented and build for bit different reasons:
- Increase production of tanks: Removing Turret spares a lot of time and ressources
- Cheap and light defense right at the front with big gun and decent frontal armor and to counter superior numbers of tanks (Hetzer, JP IV and Stugs)
- In contrast there were those that were designed to act purely in the offense as very long range anti tank weapon (Jagdpanther, Jagdtiger).
- Driving fortress with long range gun (Elephant, Jagdtiger).
- Cheap emergency mobile anti tank platforms ( Marders, Nashorn).


Thats why i didnt put all TD in one line like allis have it simply bc axis had different sorts of TD for various roles. And thats what i tired to reflect here and what menicus translated into a usefull picture. The Jagdtiger with its armor is a lot more in line with the KT and being simply a even better armroed battering ram for the extrem situation. If you have to counter many enemie tanks, the cheap IV/70 is the way to go for. If you need a mobile hard hitting AT gun with superior mobility, you will go with Jagdpanther. If you need a cumbersome battering ram to knock at the opponents door, you go for the JT. Thats why i didnt put all axis TD in a line bc they all have different roles.



I do admit however that adding some special Reconassaince vehicles with special abilities and utility to an armored doc is indeed a great idea and i think all armored focused docs should have some sort of that. US already has it. Every armored division or and tank division does have light vehicle and reconassaince attachments.

So what this doc needs is a special light vehicle branch is you added it as well as some sort of special inf support that comes in form of improved AT squads but there should be one more thing in order to get proper inf support. RE has sappers, armor has combat engis. PE does not need a special squad bc PE already has lots of special inf but perhaps the Heavy Assault Pgrens or assault pios could get some sort of special treatment within this doc.


Perhaps the experienced Tank crew thing can be removed in favour of some more infantry support capabilties? If you ask why i would say there would be two reasons:
1. Axis were not able to fill all tanks with experienced crews anymore at that time.
2. I think it might become a bit OP when all heavy beasts that get lots of crazy abilties with vet role out at vet 1 right away.

Alternatively i would add:
1. A single Ace unit. Tiger or KT. and/or
2. The ability to recruit Tank commander at vet 2. So you can improve a few single Tanks right away without having every beast at vet right away.


mofetagalactica wrote:I kinda preffer this one, but like i said we don't know the buildings and again ammo per fuel is OP at 1 CP unlock (Just 2 CP and you can rush PZ4's with Fuel exchange) and i think it shouldn't be on the doc, we also had a little push on ammo income on the beta latest patch if you don't make arty so yeah.
Here's a mix of what has been proposed here plus some other cool stuff available in order to avoid rushing.


Tank IV H/J for one or 2 CP is not a big deal.

However the fuel trade is a thing.
If we think about res trade we should consider that more than half of axis docs will be able to trade res in a single click.
BK can trade MP and fuel for ammo, Terror fuel for ammo, TD doc fuel for ammo, SE ammo for fuel.

I think res trades that work in a single click without real drawbacks should different and more like the BK doc MP trade. Getting a big ammount of another res right away, but in turn your income rate in this specific res is cut by at least 50% for 3 mins. It helps you to get a powefull army for the upcoming attack right away, but if you waste it you might get fucked. Res trade by a click is a bit too much of a no-brainer, esspecilly when you dont need much of the traded ressource. That would solve the abuse and potential spam issue.





MenciusMoldbug wrote:Image


I post that pic again coz i got a few more ideas that combines menicus and Figrees ideas.

The Panther and Tiger branches get swapped. Tiger is where Panther is now, KT where JP is and in the top right corner will be the JT linked to KT below. Where tank awaranes is right now will be a single Tiger ace unit linked to the Tiger below.

Panther and JP take Tiger and KT slots.

At the place where JT and AT squad vet upgrade is currently will be The tactical vehicle branch. What and how exactly is open for ideas. Probably a Puma with 50 mm gun and an unlock that adds abilties in some ways.
Second Panzerschreck and vet upgrade will perhaps be unified.

Right where the question mark and Panzerschreck upgrade is will be some sort of inf support branch. It can contain buffs to grens near tanks in whatever form, The second Panzerschreck/schreck vet upgrade and Tank commander vet unlock.

In any way, the bottom right corner (4 slots) will be left open for inf buffs and tactical vehicle support.



The bottom left, where ammo and fuel trade is placed will stay. Ammo will provide Wolfram rounds to all TD´s and cost 2 or 3 CP. Fuel trade is 2 CP but all res trades will be reworked to be more like BK doc MP trade. You get a signifiant ammount of one res but its income is halfed for 3 mins as a result.


Also i think ace units need to be reworked. Instead getting called over and over again for only MP, they should be single call ins like the SP. Too often a single ace units holds out long enough to be instantly replaced by another once lost.
Ace units should instead buff nearby units but cant be called a second time. So you should know exactly when to call them to support your push.

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 630
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by mofetagalactica »

With your proposal with just 2 cp i could be rushing for panzerIV easily using fuel exchange and pz4j/h unlock, i tought we wanted to avoid that?, and for 1 cp more you could have pz4 with free AP upgrade and with 2 cp more i could buff them with tank awarenes and free vet 1, were is the non-rushing incentive in your proposal?

Please take in mind cp number compared to other reworked docs and add some cool stuff for cheap CP so peopple won't go straight into rushing panthers/L70/JP.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3984
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Warhawks97 »

Did you read what I wrote?

The tank IV thing wouldn't be an issue if it gets just slightly weaker armor.

Fuel trade would be reworked being like the mp trade. You get an amount of fuel but fuel income gets cut by 50 or more percent for the next 3 min.

And finally only the td get ap ammo for free after unlock.

Idk where the prob is? Rushing IV/70 for just 4 cp is just as worse I would say.

Finally I said that fuel trade would cost more than 1 cp. So pz IV and res trade costs at least 3 cp and the player would be left without real td at that time

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 630
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by mofetagalactica »

Warhawks97 wrote:Did you read what I wrote?

The tank IV thing wouldn't be an issue if it gets just slightly weaker armor.

Fuel trade would be reworked being like the mp trade. You get an amount of fuel but fuel income gets cut by 50 or more percent for the next 3 min.

And finally only the td get ap ammo for free after unlock.

Idk where the prob is? Rushing IV/70 for just 4 cp is just as worse I would say.

Finally I said that fuel trade would cost more than 1 cp. So pz IV and res trade costs at least 3 cp and the player would be left without real td at that time


Made this one having in mind what you and mencius said then
Attachments
thdoc.png

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3984
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Warhawks97 »

Not bad. But why is IV/70 in panther branch? And why do you want the jp iv unlocked before tank iv? The jp IV has even better armor as the normal tank iv and camping becomes more likely. Things that speak for tank iv coming before jp iv and why IV 70 should not be in panther line.
1. It is derived from tank iv line.
2. The panther tanks are upper class mediums which are just excellent in the attack role.
3. The Jagdpanzer IV's are a lot more defensively.
So I choose the panther to keep pushing the attack and jp IV when I am pushed into the defense.

But as a whole I like it. But Tiger ace is not preferred as it seems, or?

MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 271
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by MenciusMoldbug »

That last tree looks really nice. It's what i wanted to do with fuel exchange actually when I realised having it too early with a P4 unlock would be too gruesome. One thing bothering me about it though is why do I need the Panther to unlock the JP4 L/70? Is it to delay the Jagdpanther because it currently has elite stats and is OP as f@$%? The Jagdpanther can always be tuned down to be a normal TD that doesn't have super duper amounts of HP and insta-kill shot as an veterancy unlock. In return it can be a lot cheaper than it is now. Because the doctrine won't have the cheaper TD unlock available the Jagdpanther would be 1000 MP / 180 Fuel; just a bit cheaper than King Tiger. I would make it around 800 MP 140 Fuel (or a bit cheaper/around the price of a Panther G) with tuned stats in line with it's cheaper cost.

I would have preferred if the JP4 L/70 was connected to the JP4/P4 line. It should be a dead end in itself as the last thing you can get out of the 'P4 Line' as it were before moving onto the bigger boys; but that's a personal preference of mine.

Also I agree with CGarr that this doctrine doesn't need the hotchkiss and it might not even need the nebelwerfer. TH was actually lacking an add-on unit like Luft and SE has with getting a Sniper if those doctrines are chosen. Maybe give TH a mortar team unlock if they really need to bomb stuff out but the hotchkiss is too good in this doctrine. Current TH needed the hotchkiss because none of their 'tanks' were capable of taking on infantry. But if you got Tigers, Panthers, and King Tigers the Hotchkiss on top of them is overkill.

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 630
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by mofetagalactica »

Warhawks97 wrote:Not bad. But why is IV/70 in panther branch? And why do you want the jp iv unlocked before tank iv? The jp IV has even better armor as the normal tank iv and camping becomes more likely. Things that speak for tank iv coming before jp iv and why IV 70 should not be in panther line.
1. It is derived from tank iv line.
2. The panther tanks are upper class mediums which are just excellent in the attack role.
3. The Jagdpanzer IV's are a lot more defensively.
So I choose the panther to keep pushing the attack and jp IV when I am pushed into the defense.

But as a whole I like it. But Tiger ace is not preferred as it seems, or?


1. Normal jp4 is weaker than pz4j/h because its not a multirole unit and has a huge weakness to infantry, sherman 75mm also seems to be reliable enough to deal with them, camping without hotchkiss wouldn't be worth as before.

2.Panther is on the same line than L/70 because it has the same gun and almost the same armor, they could be swapped places from one to another. Why did i put the panther first? to delay the rushing of cheaper L/70 (with faster production update) since the price of the panther already gets delayed enough while being behind building upgrade and the L/70 not. Also to delay the jagdpanther like mencius guessed since its op as fuck and has elite stats.

@mencius the dead end of the jp4 and L/70 is what i don't like about placing them there, since for a few more cp you could just keep teching up and up on the panther branch to get the overly op jagdpanther.

Theres a fucking ton of incentives in the proposed doc to not rush panthers and L/70's like they do in live version i would totally go for unlocking this route (img below) to get a longer early/mid-game and not just wanting to jump into late game as fast as possible.

th2doc.png

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3984
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Warhawks97 »

mofetagalactica wrote:
1. Normal jp4 is weaker than pz4j/h because its not a multirole unit and has a huge weakness to infantry, sherman 75mm also seems to be reliable enough to deal with them, camping without hotchkiss wouldn't be worth as before.


I wouldn't say so. The jp IV have pretty good armor that are better than tank iv if my memory serves me right.
Also camping will be effective bc instead of Hotchkiss it helps you to easily hold out untill panther and kt. And in teamfights it would be the ultimate camp.

2.Panther is on the same line than L/70 because it has the same gun and almost the same armor, they could be swapped places from one to another. Why did i put the panther first? to delay the rushing of cheaper L/70 (with faster production update) since the price of the panther already gets delayed enough while being behind building upgrade and the L/70 not. Also to delay the jagdpanther like mencius guessed since its op as fuck and has elite stats

@mencius the dead end of the jp4 and L/70 is what i don't like about placing them there, since for a few more cp you could just keep teching up and up on the panther branch to get the overly op jagdpanther
.

Unlock trees should be made to reflect a purpose. I wouldn't want to unlock a infantry unit to get access to a tank or whatever example you want. The IV70 has armor and gun of a panther but their roles are largely different.

Your thinking and tec lines are more based on how to delay stuff. But that also means that less strategic decisions have to be made bc one line gives you everything.

If you put iv70 as dead end, the player would have to tec on a totally different direction in order to get panther. In your proposal this line would be the ultimate line as it has panther and cheap deadly td.



Finally Jagdpabtger can be easily tuned down to 800 hp instead of 1000. And Zimmerit is gone that drops taken damage by 25%. The max damage of 76 gun is 600. You can make your calculation by your own.






Theres a fucking ton of incentives in the proposed doc to not rush panthers and L/70's like they do in live version i would totally go for unlocking this route (img below) to get a longer early/mid-game and not just wanting to jump into late game as fast as possible
.

Well, he might get a jp for 7 or 8 cp. But he has no cheap defensive options left.

But when you put all tank ivs and panthers in one line, that would be the ultimate line. Why tecing anything else?

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 630
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by mofetagalactica »

Warhawks97 wrote:I wouldn't say so. The jp IV have pretty good armor that are better than tank iv if my memory serves me right.
Also camping will be effective bc instead of Hotchkiss it helps you to easily hold out untill panther and kt. And in teamfights it would be the ultimate camp.


Then your memory is failing, play the game more and you will notice that the normal jp IV can be relaiable pen by 75mm sherman and neither has HE like the stug IV and his "ghost" stats were nerfed changes has been proved and tested already another example is that stug's IV didn't turn the game into camping sim city after adding cammo to it, so leaving normal jpIV as a starting point for tank unlocks will neither make the game a camping simulator, its better than being shouted by WH BK players that will come and scream at you for leaving panzer H/J for 2cp unlock when in bk is only adquirable after 4cp.

You know what turns games into camping simulators? Cammoed panther's gun.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3984
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Warhawks97 »

So where is the difference? What I and menicus propose would end up in 6 cp for the IV/70. And no panther unlocked and no Jagdanther even in sight.

In your proposal the IV 70 is at 9 cp but panther is already available and Jagdpanther is right next door.


And I don't think iv70 deserves 9 cp. It's good but not worth 9 cp. Jumbos coming earlier and I assume that Churchills won't require that many cp in future.

And jp isn't worth 12 cp when hp get down to normal 800 hp, no Zimmerit and only one instead of 2 ambush shots. 8 cp max I would say.

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 630
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by mofetagalactica »

Warhawks97 wrote:So where is the difference? What I and menicus propose would end up in 6 cp for the IV/70. And no panther unlocked and no Jagdanther even in sight.

In your proposal the IV 70 is at 9 cp but panther is already available and Jagdpanther is right next door.


And I don't think iv70 deserves 9 cp. It's good but not worth 9 cp. Jumbos coming earlier and I assume that Churchills won't require that many cp in future.

And jp isn't worth 12 cp when hp get down to normal 800 hp, no Zimmerit and only one instead of 2 ambush shots. 8 cp max I would say.


https://gyazo.com/f7ea20bba95819184823e8ec950b7587 , i see IV/70 being rushed for 4cp.

The IV70 deserves to be delayed its a panther gun that can be cammoed, , can one-shot any of the allies tanks wich makes it more dangerous than trying to go toe to toe with a panther that you can see coming while being more expensive than IV/70.

Early churchills dosn't have any HE and their cannon isn't that strong having IV/70 just for them is overkill, there are plenty of other ways to deal with them even 75mm can pen them on cammo and you have double shreck with veted AT team available early.

¿Would this make more scense now?

th3doc.png


Comparition to beta docs:

Inf doc.jpg

Armor Doc Rework.png

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 2090
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by kwok »

OKAY ALL, I think I gotta say some personal opinion stuff.

I didn't want to get into this until I had my own ideas because I don't like complaining without a solution. But, I really disagree with the direction of the conversation.

On a really summary level, here's my thoughts on the proposed rework: It's basically "How to fit all the biggest tanks into a doctrine with strong infantry and rocket artillery". If we wanted that we would've basically just kept terror as it was before because that's exactly what terror was, maybe move some JPs/JT path into terror and call it a day. Instead we went with the vote to make terror with volkssturm and now we're just moving terror to PE?? Just for all of your FYI, within the dev team I DID suggest moving terror as a doctrine to PE but after consideration we decided against it.

The doctrine reworks puts so much emphasis on high cost singular units, it kind of contradicts the tons of complaints we heard about how PE as a faction is too much focus on high cost that it is too punishing when a single unit is lost to RNG or a small mistake. Just because panzergrens become smaller in squad size (something I cautioned against) doesn't mean that it becomes okay to make every other unit high cost. In most of these reworks, 8/16 of the unlocks are about unlocking some sort of tank, when it comes to unlocking it really doesn't matter which path you choose... If you choose to unlock between tank destroyer vs tanks, it basically makes it pointless to go down the other branch because the CP choices will need to scale with the other doctrines. Example: If i choose to go down JPzrs instead of Tigers, then I might as well continue up to the JPnthers because getting a tiger would require MORE CP for less capability. If I go the otherway around and choose Tigers first, I might as well finish going King Tiger instead of JPzrs. Mencius' revision seems less linear than most others, but it still suffers from a similar issue where the entire doctrine is basically a decision tree around fuel income. Do I have a lot of fuel? If not go cheaper fuel path, if so go heavier path. And then all the other 1CP unlocks are "how to kill other tanks harder", essentially become a hard counter to armor doc which is completely against what we are trying to achieve on these reworks.

The ideas seem like to me in summary: Terror doc for PE but with only tanks behind CP locks plus the pgren bonuses around tank idea from the other thread just tacked on.
There's no real theme or playstyle idea around this except "LETS MAKE ALL THE HEAVY TANKS HERE AND MAKE THEM EVEN BETTER AT KILLING TANKS!!! oh yeah and some inf stuff" If that's what you all want, something like a "Panzer doctrine" (which i bet all the wehraboos and world of tank fans are salivating over) we can DO that... but I'd really go about it differently. Take the armor reworks for example, so far from what I've heard from people who play the beta and uploaded replays, armor doc is a lot more playable now because even though it is revolving around the theme of tanks, it's build on how tanks can address different situations, NOT how to unlock all the different tanks in the doctrine and how to make those tanks kill other tanks.

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 630
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by mofetagalactica »

kwok wrote:OKAY ALL, I think I gotta say some personal opinion stuff.

I didn't want to get into this until I had my own ideas because I don't like complaining without a solution. But, I really disagree with the direction of the conversation.

On a really summary level, here's my thoughts on the proposed rework: It's basically "How to fit all the biggest tanks into a doctrine with strong infantry and rocket artillery". If we wanted that we would've basically just kept terror as it was before because that's exactly what terror was, maybe move some JPs/JT path into terror and call it a day. Instead we went with the vote to make terror with volkssturm and now we're just moving terror to PE?? Just for all of your FYI, within the dev team I DID suggest moving terror as a doctrine to PE but after consideration we decided against it.

The doctrine reworks puts so much emphasis on high cost singular units, it kind of contradicts the tons of complaints we heard about how PE as a faction is too much focus on high cost that it is too punishing when a single unit is lost to RNG or a small mistake. Just because panzergrens become smaller in squad size (something I cautioned against) doesn't mean that it becomes okay to make every other unit high cost. In most of these reworks, 8/16 of the unlocks are about unlocking some sort of tank, when it comes to unlocking it really doesn't matter which path you choose... If you choose to unlock between tank destroyer vs tanks, it basically makes it pointless to go down the other branch because the CP choices will need to scale with the other doctrines. Example: If i choose to go down JPzrs instead of Tigers, then I might as well continue up to the JPnthers because getting a tiger would require MORE CP for less capability. If I go the otherway around and choose Tigers first, I might as well finish going King Tiger instead of JPzrs. Mencius' revision seems less linear than most others, but it still suffers from a similar issue where the entire doctrine is basically a decision tree around fuel income. Do I have a lot of fuel? If not go cheaper fuel path, if so go heavier path. And then all the other 1CP unlocks are "how to kill other tanks harder", essentially become a hard counter to armor doc which is completely against what we are trying to achieve on these reworks.

The ideas seem like to me in summary: Terror doc for PE but with only tanks behind CP locks plus the pgren bonuses around tank idea from the other thread just tacked on.
There's no real theme or playstyle idea around this except "LETS MAKE ALL THE HEAVY TANKS HERE AND MAKE THEM EVEN BETTER AT KILLING TANKS!!! oh yeah and some inf stuff" If that's what you all want, something like a "Panzer doctrine" (which i bet all the wehraboos and world of tank fans are salivating over) we can DO that... but I'd really go about it differently. Take the armor reworks for example, so far from what I've heard from people who play the beta and uploaded replays, armor doc is a lot more playable now because even though it is revolving around the theme of tanks, it's build on how tanks can address different situations, NOT how to unlock all the different tanks in the doctrine and how to make those tanks kill other tanks.


I guess you will have to change the name of tank hunter to any other thing and change theme of it because either way it will end up being a terror copy or def copy.

About the armor doc, meh... the greatest addition was the 105mm sherman while being reworked into anti-emplacement unit, the doctrinal tree was freshen up thats true but...
They will be still being lock by other docs unless someday u realise that every USA armor unit needs a proper look-at one by one on price/stats/accuracy.
So at the end of the day armor still needs a lot work.

The Airbone reworks were pretty....half done? , could have been better and same as usa still needs a look-at one by one on some price on the support drop branch.

Infantry got a big boost and change on the way of playing to fight againts different docs thanks to priest, jacksons or jumbo 76mm and the easier way to unlock the hability to get cheaper inf.


So far the best sucesfull reworked docs where mostly the WH's wich i love all 3 of them, still need some small fixes on forgotten units 'cause other of the same kind got price reduction, so cheers, i hope you can at least take some of the proposed parts of the tree lines proposed here tho.
Last edited by mofetagalactica on 19 Nov 2019, 05:14, edited 5 times in total.

Post Reply