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.
kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1953
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by kwok »

Non-constructive ranting within spoiler. Skip it if you're not warhawks
Spoiler: show
It just looks and feels like as if the devs have forgotten what kind of mentality most BK players have.
THIS WHOLE FUCKIN DOC WAS ALL OF YOUR (community) IDEA, NOT THE DEVS WTF. YOU DONT EVEN PLAY THE GAME SO WHAT SENSE OF BK MENTALITY DO YOU EVEN HAVE ANYMORE. I LITERALLY SAID NEARLY THE SAME THINGS YOURE SAYING NOW BEFORE WE EVEN MADE THE CHANGES. NOW THAT WE MADE THE CHANGES AND YOU REALIZE IT, YOURE SAYING THAT WE ARE THE ONES WHO MESSED IT UP???

DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN I SAID THIS RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS THREAD

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.
2qerll.jpg
In risk of getting banned for not being constructive, here's some constructive comments.

About cost dropping TDs,
Sure I personally also agree it's too strong of an unlock. Can we reasonably replace it in some way? Any suggestions?

About hotchkiss,
I actually kind of like the idea of replacing it with the grille but I also wonder if that would make it even stronger than having the hotchkiss because the range and precision of that unit would let PS players too rely on camping oriented strats. At least with the hotchkiss, the tiny tank has to move up close enough to the target. Is the destructive power between the grille/hotchkiss really all that different?
I also like the idea of making hotchkiss a vertical shooting arty only, that could also work. Not sure though.

I'll comeback and answer the rest of you in a more reasonable manner after I've cured myself of the cancer warhawks gave me.

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 305
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by CGarr »

kwok wrote:About cost dropping TDs,
Sure I personally also agree it's too strong of an unlock. Can we reasonably replace it in some way? Any suggestions?

About hotchkiss,
I actually kind of like the idea of replacing it with the grille but I also wonder if that would make it even stronger than having the hotchkiss because the range and precision of that unit would let PS players too rely on camping oriented strats. At least with the hotchkiss, the tiny tank has to move up close enough to the target. Is the destructive power between the grille/hotchkiss really all that different?
I also like the idea of making hotchkiss a vertical shooting arty only, that could also work. Not sure though.

I'll comeback and answer the rest of you in a more reasonable manner after I've cured myself of the cancer warhawks gave me.
1. Mencius mentioned this 9000 IQ suggestion, I'd support it:
MenciusMoldbug wrote:That's why I think it should not be dropping the TD prices at all. It should be something like 'Panzer Reserves' cost drop where all your non-cp tanks like Marder III or Marder I, P4 F1, and even adding a P4 F2 that doesn't require CP's should drop in costs so in case you don't have the fuel to spend on the bigger tanks you can get some kind of tank out if you need one. I personally never see the Marder ever being built with the cheaper TD unlock because the hetzer is only 80 MP and 5 fuel higher in cost to get because of that.

I would tweak the ability like this:

Panzer Reserves cost drops:

- Marder 3 or Marder 1 drop in cost from 360 MP 40 Fuel to 300 MP 30 Fuel

- P4 F1 from 400 MP 45 Fuel to 340 MP 35 Fuel

- Same thing with P4 F2 for price drop as above indicated by P4 F1 if it gets added

It looks like this doctrine struggles a bit early-mid game when you know you can get the tank buildings but you can't get a tank. This would be there to help alleviate that issue without making their TD's bonker strong by dropping their price by so much (imagine if the price drop was applied to the jagdtiger).
2. The hotchkiss firing in the air could work since it'd give more reaction time. The grille could be made into a direct fire only platform and have range similar to that of the 105mm sherman when that thing could still snipe TD's it had line of sight on, even they were cloaked (attacking a point on the ground rather than a unit). It has no armor or self defense and its slow as hell, so i dont think it'd be OP but testing would tell more. I dont think the doctrine needs a blanket arty option like the hotchkiss personally, the units available are definitely strong enough to handle a crowd so arty is only really necessary for AT guns, emplacements, and maybe TD's.

One step better (in my opinion) would be sabotage squads without infiltration (no spawning out of buildings). You could crawl through holes in defensive lines, wait for smoke cover from either an offmap call in or a mortar HT, and then sprint in with a satchel (bundled grenade is kinda buggy and might be too punishing as the only option IMO), or you could throw a bundled nade in and crew it yourself. If you're feeling really ballsy you can plant a demo charge before while crawling and then decrew it with a nade, which would allow you to possibly wipe whatever squad recrews it with the demo as well as finishing off the emplacement. This doc is starved for MP inherently due to its reliance on light inf spam, AT guns, and light vehicles for a frontline. Even when tanks hit the field, you still need plent of inf around to repair and scare off AT guns / inf. As such, I dont think this would be OP but testing would be the best way to tell. It's definitely more risky than simply pointing and clicking with arty or long range HE.

Last option I could suggest would be a really big smoke drop call-in (same price as hotchkiss barrage) that thoroughly blankets an area in smoke. It'd either be available from the command tank or just globally, and would have a long cooldown so it doesn't melt someone's toaster computer via spam. Possibly allowing the barrage to continue over a period of time would also be nice, maybe 7 seconds, the duration needs testing. This would allow you to make all-in pushes without too much risk to your inf (HE might still tear them up and it would open a counterplay opportunity in the form of artying the smoke to just wipe the inf, so it wouldn't be completely OP. An alternative to this would be creeping smoke similar to what the brits have. I really think that more smoke additions (especially in this doc) would help with the issue of campy playstyle that is inherent to BK, as it allows for more consistent option to make aggresive pushes without suffering major loss, at the cost of micro tax.

Walderschmidt
Posts: 391
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Walderschmidt »

After playing more PS, I gotta say, it makes zero sense for the TD price reduction to be in PIV -> (King)Tiger line. If I want to go for Tiger it's just two empty CPs. Would rather it be its own unlock or linked with TD somehow.

Will play more.

Wald
Kwok is an allied fanboy!

AND SO IS DICKY

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3745
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Warhawks97 »

kwok wrote:


About cost dropping TDs,
Sure I personally also agree it's too strong of an unlock. Can we reasonably replace it in some way? Any suggestions?
what goal is the doc supposed to achive ultimately if i may ask? More focused on TD´s? (In that case adding AP rounds for the TD´s only as in old TH doc might be an option again).

If it should be geared towards tanks and attacks (so less on camping) while TD´s are more of a support branch (like in basically all allied docs) you should do something for the tanks...Vet for Tanks or something. Or simply a proper tank line that includes Panther. Why Panthers? Well, the Tiger thing is overall quite special. Its nothing you get in numbers usually and abilities and gun power usually matters more than anything else. But overall i would argue that a doc cant survive on tigers alone, let alone launching assaults, unless they get special treatment. Sure, that inf part is still there but rifles alone wont save the day+ the infantry is based arround tanks. The attentions has to be on Tanks, not just one Tank arround which all your inf dances arround.

Arty? Well, it helps to make a push but overall you will find yourself pretty outplayed without TD´s and just one Tiger on the field. Its an error many players have already made over and over again. Thus the TD´s will remain a must go unlock (at least till IV/70) if you want to stay alive but that means "camp a lot".

The Tank IV can be usefull as mobile multirole platform but quickly loses its usefullness quickly once Numbers of M10, shermans and 17 pdrs show up.
The Tiger gets too costly in all regards and isnt mobile enough. The KT is too special, limited to one and takes time to get the ressources. So if a game becomes fast you havent got many options as of now. You can either go for TD´s and try to slow the game down and create a save zone. But that means that docs primary role and pretty much best and only way to play will be again "sitting arround". And its going to do that even more so since you can add a number of grens being boosted when sitting next to the TD´s.

If you have a doc that has infantry building up arround tanks, you have to make sure enough tanks are fielded. As of right now, only TD´s seem to be able to achieve this in this doc. Thus you create some sort of "RE Axis style" where the JP IV´s will play a similiar role as churchills. Slowly creeping forward with inf in support. Sounds borring to me.

You can try to throw out lots of tank IV´s along with grens and hope the best but you might end up in just feeding the enemie and you are left depleeted and without back-up.

So unless you want the doc to have its main task in fielding lots of TD´s i would say you have a few options:
1. TD-mass production is replaced by what Menicus said. Some sort of "Tank reserve mobilization". That would make non CP Tanks and TD´s cheaper but should also drop the cost of tank IV´s and adding cheap Tank IV J´s so that you can maintain a number of tanks.
The advantage would be to havea steady supply of tanks to make your infantry actually usefull without spamming TD´s like shit.
2. Add Panther to fill the gap between Tank IV´s and Tigers. Its mobile, can be fielded in sufficient numbers and mutlriole (A/G version). But also durable enough to not only feed the enemie.
3. Anything that helps tigers in the field. So your unlock line would look like Tank IV unlocked for 2 CP (4 is quite a lot for a doc supposed to be focued on tanks), 2 CP for tiger and then you can either unlock a vet 1 for your tigers for 1 or 2 CP or go for the KT in case you think even more armor matters more than vet steps on existing tigers.
The issue still is that you have only few tanks which isnt good for your infantry.
4. Or, finally, after Tank IV unlock you can decide between Panther or King Tiger and forget about Tiger I altogether as it wont have much use when unlocked late and without any support measures. And instead of TD mass-production you would unlock either Vet 1 for Tanks, AP rounds for TD´s or "Activating Tank reserves" that drops the cost of all non-CP TD´s and Tanks and the cost of Tank IV H/J and perhaps even unlocking the Tank IV J.


My favorit right now would even be option 4 with "activating Tank reserves". Forget about Tiger unless you want to set a focus on the tiger with buffs etc. If not, throw it away. Even though it would be sad.
Why? Bc that seems to me the only real way to overcome the issue of supplying the Infantry with a sufficient tank fleet that is not just based on TD´s but powerfull enough to not just feed your enemie. If just one Panther supports 2 Tank IV´s, you would have a considerable tank fleet to handle threats while boosting your infantry sufficiently.




About hotchkiss,
I actually kind of like the idea of replacing it with the grille but I also wonder if that would make it even stronger than having the hotchkiss because the range and precision of that unit would let PS players too rely on camping oriented strats. At least with the hotchkiss, the tiny tank has to move up close enough to the target. Is the destructive power between the grille/hotchkiss really all that different?
I also like the idea of making hotchkiss a vertical shooting arty only, that could also work. Not sure though.
Grille in its current state would be OP with its GPS guided shell. It could snipe out nasty Hidden TD´s, finish off damaged tanks while you retreat into safety with your own and so on.

The Grille was actually an infantry support gun. The heaviest infantry gun ever build. I would wish it would get into its role as such. Its basically an oversized leig 18 serving the same purpose. It would work as a a close range 150 mm gun shooting direct and indirect fire. But idk if this doc would be the right place. As said, i could even Imagine SPG´s like Wespe and Priests acting in armored doctrines instead of defensive/inf doctrines.

But i find neither hotchkiss nor Grille suited in this doc. Wespe or Maultier looking most appealing to me, but i think thats just me.Te Grille belongs to infantry heavy docs, the Hotchkiss in docs that fights with everything it gets hands on since its basically a "Mini-Beutepanzer".

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1953
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by kwok »

Warhawks97 wrote:what goal is the doc supposed to achive ultimately if i may ask?
I literally have no clue. Devs didn't design this.

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 305
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by CGarr »

Warhawks97 wrote:what goal is the doc supposed to achive ultimately if i may ask?
Personally, I was pushing towards a more high-skill high-reward approach by trying to severely limit its access to spammable indirect fire, but since the doc needs to be accessible, it looks like the arty is going to stay. With that in mind, this doc went from blitz with heavies and no arty to propaganda doc 2.0 by the looks of it. I'd be fine with the grille as a direct fire unit, just trying to avoid it if possible since in practice things like that and the 105 sherman tend to just shoot the ground in front of them instead of their intended target, if a higher firing arc is possible that might solve it.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1953
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by kwok »

bump please. otherwise we will prob go with mencius' idea.

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 305
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by CGarr »

kwok wrote:
25 Mar 2020, 23:18
bump please. otherwise we will prob go with mencius' idea.
I'm down for this, a price drop for the pz4 J would be nice if the F2 doesn't get added (not the H, the J since that thing's slow ass turret makes it feel more like an armored M10 than a mini-tiger like the H).

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1953
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by kwok »

Oh one more thing. I think most people here said to replace fuel exchange. I sort of agree either that or heavily tuning it down and adjusting its CP down by 1. Any other ideas?

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 305
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by CGarr »

kwok wrote:
26 Mar 2020, 08:26
Oh one more thing. I think most people here said to replace fuel exchange. I sort of agree either that or heavily tuning it down and adjusting its CP down by 1. Any other ideas?
If you do this then the doc might actually end up needing the panzer 4 F2 lol. I'd be on board with tuning it down at least, not sure how I feel about removing it since people's ideas for replacements haven't been much to write home about. Aside from the global smoke drops I keep bringing up I'm out of ideas for doc tree unlocks for this doc.

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 473
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Viper »

this doctrine right now is very bad...........no good infantry, no good artillery (or not available early enough to counter emplacement spam), and maybe no tanks too.....because every tank in the doctrine is way too expensive to afford.......this doctrine is currently the worst, hands down.

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 305
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by CGarr »

Viper wrote:
27 Mar 2020, 16:55
this doctrine right now is very bad...........no good infantry, no good artillery (or not available early enough to counter emplacement spam), and maybe no tanks too.....because every tank in the doctrine is way too expensive to afford.......this doctrine is currently the worst, hands down.
PG spam is pretty good normally but with the 3 buffs you can have stacked on them (officer, vehicle aura, and tank aura) they're pretty strong. You also don't really need elite inf when you can have 2 20mm pumas for 40 fuel.

Said 20mm cars also have a really strong mortar strike that only costs a couple CP's to unlock. This doc also has access to cheaper mortar halftracks if you need more indirect boom boom but haven't unlocked the hotchkiss nukes yet.

The tanks are expensive if you try to rush them. They are cheap if you just get the cheap vehicle unlock and then hold out with those until you can unlock the fuel trade ability. If the fuel trade ability gets removed they will probably add a cheaper tank like the panzer 4 F2 as a 0cp option to compensate.

If you're going to complain about this doc being weak complain about the actual problems like it's lack of a cheap counter to deal with snipers (not counting suicide vehicles as cheap because that entire manpower investment is lost if it dies). Complain about the cheaper TD unlock that is in the breakthrough tank unlock line for some reason even though it doesn't help you get those tanks cheaper.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1953
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by kwok »

Bump time.

Okay couple of idea changes here. A major component that we warned about and people are starting to catch on is that the doctrine just has a bunch of unlocks that are redundant. It's all about unlocking various units that don't have much difference (TD's versus tank line). That being said, one idea I had was to still have both types of units available but in a way where you'd only be able to choose one of the types in game. This is to streamline the doctrine unlocks, add additional capability to the doctrine for more varied gameplay, and still keep unit availability without being redundant. A player will be able to build both T3 building. If you upgrade one of the buildings, it will unlock a one specific path (TD or Tank) for the game. You will not be able to upgrade the other building and unlock the other path. This means that during a game, choosing which building you upgrade will matter and lock you into that CP path for the game. The top vehicle unlock line in the doctrine will unlock both kinds of units but only one will be available depending on which building you upgrade.
panzer-support 20200412.jpg
Additional Changes Proposed:
- Panther be added to the Panzer Support building // This is to add some equivalence to the JPIV L70
- PzIV F2 be added to the Panzer Support building // This is to provide viability in getting the Panzer Support building pre-vehicle unlock without diminishing player's ability to maintain general power while tiering up.
- Remove camo bonuses from TDs // viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3575
- Pgrens will be able to upgrade LMG42s after the CP unlock // This is to address the concern that since assault grenadiers are no longer available for the doctrine, the doctrine lacks long range supporting infantry.
- After choosing the doctrine, Pgrens will be able to build 20mm AA guns. After CP unlock, Pgrens will be able to build 20mm AA gun emplacements. // One area this doctrine lacks is anti-air. The static gun was chosen because the doctrine is already highly mobile in other areas (durability, anti inf, anti tank). Adding high mobility to AA will make this doctrine have an uncounterable offensive composition. I don't care if panzer divisions had mobile AA... this doctrine will NOT be getting that. Give airborne doctrines a chance to at least bombard AA guns with their light howitzers so they can call airstrikes.
- Mencius' suggestion included:
MenciusMoldbug wrote:
10 Mar 2020, 18:39

That's why I think it should not be dropping the TD prices at all. It should be something like 'Panzer Reserves' cost drop where all your non-cp tanks like Marder III or Marder I, P4 F1, and even adding a P4 F2 that doesn't require CP's should drop in costs so in case you don't have the fuel to spend on the bigger tanks you can get some kind of tank out if you need one. I personally never see the Marder ever being built with the cheaper TD unlock because the hetzer is only 80 MP and 5 fuel higher in cost to get because of that.

I would tweak the ability like this:

Panzer Reserves cost drops:

- Marder 3 or Marder 1 drop in cost from 360 MP 40 Fuel to 300 MP 30 Fuel

- P4 F1 from 400 MP 45 Fuel to 340 MP 35 Fuel

- Same thing with P4 F2 for price drop as above indicated by P4 F1 if it gets added
Last edited by kwok on 16 Apr 2020, 07:02, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Krieger Blitzer
Posts: 3957
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, living in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Krieger Blitzer »

kwok wrote:
15 Apr 2020, 03:49
Bump time.

Okay couple of idea changes here. A major component that we warned about and people are starting to catch on is that the doctrine just has a bunch of unlocks that are redundant. It's all about unlocking various units that don't have much difference (TD's versus tank line). That being said, one idea I had was to still have both types of units available but in a way where you'd only be able to choose one of the types in game. This is to streamline the doctrine unlocks, add additional capability to the doctrine for more varied gameplay, and still keep unit availability without being redundant. A player will be able to build both T3 building. If you upgrade one of the buildings, it will unlock a one specific path (TD or Tank) for the game. You will not be able to upgrade the other building and unlock the other path. This means that during a game, choosing which building you upgrade will matter and lock you into that CP path for the game. The top vehicle unlock line in the doctrine will unlock both kinds of units but only one will be available depending on which building you upgrade.

panzer-support 20200412.jpg

Additional Changes Proposed:
- Panther be added to the Panzer Support building // This is to add some equivalence to the JPIV L70
- PzIV F1 be added to the Panzer Support building // This is to provide viability in getting the Panzer Support building pre-vehicle unlock without diminishing player's ability to maintain general power while tiering up.
- Remove camo bonuses from TDs // viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3575
- Pgrens will be able to upgrade LMG42s after the CP unlock // This is to address the concern that since assault grenadiers are no longer available for the doctrine, the doctrine lacks long range supporting infantry.
- After choosing the doctrine, Pgrens will be able to build 20mm AA guns. After CP unlock, Pgrens will be able to build 20mm AA gun emplacements. // One area this doctrine lacks is anti-air. The static gun was chosen because the doctrine is already highly mobile in other areas (durability, anti inf, anti tank). Adding high mobility to AA will make this doctrine have an uncounterable offensive composition. I don't care if panzer divisions had mobile AA... this doctrine will NOT be getting that. Give airborne doctrines a chance to at least bombard AA guns with their light howitzers so they can call airstrikes.
- Mencius' suggestion included:
MenciusMoldbug wrote:
10 Mar 2020, 18:39

That's why I think it should not be dropping the TD prices at all. It should be something like 'Panzer Reserves' cost drop where all your non-cp tanks like Marder III or Marder I, P4 F1, and even adding a P4 F2 that doesn't require CP's should drop in costs so in case you don't have the fuel to spend on the bigger tanks you can get some kind of tank out if you need one. I personally never see the Marder ever being built with the cheaper TD unlock because the hetzer is only 80 MP and 5 fuel higher in cost to get because of that.

I would tweak the ability like this:

Panzer Reserves cost drops:

- Marder 3 or Marder 1 drop in cost from 360 MP 40 Fuel to 300 MP 30 Fuel

- P4 F1 from 400 MP 45 Fuel to 340 MP 35 Fuel

- Same thing with P4 F2 for price drop as above indicated by P4 F1 if it gets added
Gotta be my first post in decades...

This new modified design seems much better, although i disagree with only 2 points;
- Camo bonus shouldn't be removed, otherwise TDs would be rendered useless.. not forgetting that camo was nerfed quite a handful times already.

- TDs price reduction shouldn't go away.. as i believe it should affect both TDs and the big cats too.
Depending on which path the player decides to go...

Keep in mind though, there is 1 problem with this design:
The command points required for a Panther tank for example, would be too much.. whereas the command points required for the JagdPanther would be justified.. since they are sharing the same unlock. This means that the TD path would be more preferable, given the fact that some big cats would be severely delayed this way!

One suggestion:
Experienced crew unlock should give Tiger tanks the same bonuses as "Tigers buff" unlock in Propaganda doctrine.

I think Panther.G would be available in this doctrine, right? Also, i think both Tiger1 models (H & E) should be available to deploy at the same time.. noting that the E variant would require upgraded production of course, and both KTs variants (P & H) should be available to deploy at the same time as well.. one at a time. So, they shouldn't be a reward to one another.. same goes for Propaganda doc.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3745
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Warhawks97 »

Overall a nice idea kwok.

But i am not sure if its great to force players into such extremes. Its one thing to decide whether you go for JP or Panther or KT and JT. But having to decide between Hetzer and a Tank IV H or between JP IV/70 or Tiger is mad. First because neither IV H nor Hetzer are an overkill even if both are available. Its like forcing players to decide between M10 and 76 sherman. The second is mad because IV/70 does have nothing in common with a Tiger.

At the end, it is always perferable to go with TD´s for the average player. Its safer in the first place (Putting a IV/70 in ambush and wait is one thing, mastering a Tiger for high cost is another one) and the high CP cost for IV/70 and JP are more justified as for the Tiger and Panther.

The overall layout (inf with long range weapons, favourable CP cost for TD´s, Hotchkiss still in place and static AA guns) makes TD´s absolutely preferable. You need to be an aggressive guy and Tiger fanboy to go the Tank branch.

I think the only two decisions worth to make are JP and Panther as well as KT and JT. But Tigers should not compete with IV/70 and Tank IV H noth with Hetzer/ IV 48.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1953
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by kwok »

I think between hetzer/pziv will be not upgrade specific. Should be able to get both. But beyond that, (between jp70 and tiger and forward) is reasonable. This is assuming that camo bonuses are different too, don't forget. JP's might be safer but they will essentially get a nerf so it becomes a decision of playstyle between the JP and Tiger.

And yes.... we are aware we are essentially creating a doctrine for the Tiger fanboy on this doc... don't forget devs didn't originally come up with the idea. At this point we are trying to salvage it.

User avatar
Krieger Blitzer
Posts: 3957
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, living in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Krieger Blitzer »

One thing forgot to mention, not sure why the fuel trade got removed altogether...

Also, what JP nerf are we talking about?

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1953
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by kwok »

JP nerf through weaker camo bonuses.

Fuel trade got removed based on feedback from the community. See earlier this thread. It basically made it so there was no punishment for trying to rush late game big tanks. There was also a lot of excess fuel for the doctrine from other fuel cost drop unlocks.

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 305
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by CGarr »

Overall, I like everything about the new tree (assuming you mean the panzer 4 F2, the one with the long 75mm, will get added as I think the panzer 4 F1 is already available and that thing isn't really going carry much on it's own).

The only big thing I disagree with is the AA emplacments, not because of realism but because it just doesn't make sense from a gameplay perspective, at least in my opinion. AA emplacements are incredibly easy to kill and they cost enough fuel that they aren't really worth building since they are static and even if you ignore their fragile nature, you're not getting much bang for your buck in terms of coverage. You mentioned that the fuel trade would be removed (which I personally am fine with, heavy spam/rushing was just cheesy even if it was fun to use or play against IMO since allied docs are better equipped to deal with heavies now), I think that on it's own is enough that this doc wouldn't be hard to fight with air docs, especially since they'd have a huge advantage in the early/mid game since this doc doesn't have a counter to snipers or liberal use of indirect fire and light vehicles aren't really capable of holding out on their own against an equally skilled player who uses a lot of builds a lot of AT units since anti-inf won't be as important for them against this doc.

One suggestion I can think of since you seem really opposed to the idea of "high mobility" AA is making the AA truck in the PE HQ (this could possibly apply to all other AA trucks as well) significantly slower but a bit more durable and then giving it the ability to hull down, which would make it less vulnerable to rocket launchers and give it more suppression. It'd basically serve as an emplacement in that it'd be slow enough that enemy units could easily catch and kill it without it running away, but you wouldn't run into the issue of not being able to cover your one or two heavy tanks (no fuel trade so no more heavy spam) without spending enough that you could've bought a third.
kwok wrote:
15 Apr 2020, 20:08
I think between hetzer/pziv will be not upgrade specific. Should be able to get both. But beyond that, (between jp70 and tiger and forward) is reasonable. This is assuming that camo bonuses are different too, don't forget. JP's might be safer but they will essentially get a nerf so it becomes a decision of playstyle between the JP and Tiger.
I agree on this decision to condense the tank lines, the doc is too CP hungry for what you get in it's current state, at least until late game. The hetzer and jpzIV/48 are still available even if you don't choose the TD line so it's not like you don't have any passive options (both of these have HEAT and can kill allied heavies if you can't do it with your own).

I'll have to playtest it before I can comment on the inf upgrades but the PG's are going to be scary with MG42's, not sure if they'll be OP though.

MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 211
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by MenciusMoldbug »

I prefer unlocking the tanks in a zig-zag method. JP4 L/70 or Jagdpanther feel like core units vs heavier armor on the allied side. If you go for the tank options from TIger -> Panther -> KT and a Pershing comes along, the only real contender who has a good chance of winning is the KT. So the smart choice would be to always pick the TD line to get the Jagdpanther or JP4 L/70 vs Armor Doctrines.

What I mean by zig-zag method in this case is you can have the JP4 L/70 unlock and then the Panther right afterwards (The Panther Gun options) to KT or JT. Or you can do the other unlock being Tiger to Jagdpanther (The 8.8cm Gun options) to KT or JT. I'm not sure how I would do the final unlock. It could be another choice where you get to choose if you want to use Jagdtigers or Kingtigers for the rest of the game. I think leaving it to be a linear choice of pure TD or pure Heavies is a bit too limiting but maybe that's just me.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1953
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by kwok »

Yeah I meant F2 (the long barrel one). Edited.

About the AA guns, having them easy to kill is kind of the point given this doctrine is filled with things that are designed hard to kill. From a durability perspective, what difference would it be that the AA gun is a built emplacement versus it being a just as expensive and more fragile car that can move? The only thing that the truck would be better at durability wise would be its durability against mortars because it can move. Other than that, it's the same or even weaker in terms of durability.
MenciusMoldbug wrote:
16 Apr 2020, 03:31
I prefer unlocking the tanks in a zig-zag method. JP4 L/70 or Jagdpanther feel like core units vs heavier armor on the allied side. If you go for the tank options from TIger -> Panther -> KT and a Pershing comes along, the only real contender who has a good chance of winning is the KT. So the smart choice would be to always pick the TD line to get the Jagdpanther or JP4 L/70 vs Armor Doctrines.

What I mean by zig-zag method in this case is you can have the JP4 L/70 unlock and then the Panther right afterwards (The Panther Gun options) to KT or JT. Or you can do the other unlock being Tiger to Jagdpanther (The 8.8cm Gun options) to KT or JT. I'm not sure how I would do the final unlock. It could be another choice where you get to choose if you want to use Jagdtigers or Kingtigers for the rest of the game. I think leaving it to be a linear choice of pure TD or pure Heavies is a bit too limiting but maybe that's just me.
You are right in that the Pershing would negate the Tiger and below until the King Tiger. But that's also like saying the Tiger negates everything Jumbo and below. The pershing also comes at 9CP now whereas in the proposed state the Tiger and Panther come at 5 and 8 respectively. There were also many changes added where the game now plays out longer in the early-mid stages so rushing to something like the pershing isn't as viable. With this spacing of CP there is a window of time in the game for nearly all units to come into play.

You are right though that if you face the Armor Doctrine it is always better to go the TD line, especially since it's an armor doctrine and the tank destroyer line is called tank destroyer. You could also say though that if you face infantry doctrine it is always better to go the tank line because the TDs are essentially wasted because you really wouldn't need anything more than a hetzer to kill tanks fielded by inf doc. The doctrine as well as other doctrines are designed to hold counters to other doctrines with flexibility. The hope is that a doctrine does not outright eliminate another doctrine like in the case of old tank huter doctrine against armor (with zimmerit, ap shells, cheaper TDs, super TDs, etc.).

The zig zag method would still hold the same problems as this method because you will still run into the situation where some units are just not optimal against some match ups. For example, just because you CAN get the panther against armor doctrine doesn't mean you WILL for the exact reasons you mentioned. All it does is take up real estate for potentially other tools the doctrine can have to make the doctrine fun or viable. Limiting the choice within a game will hopefully be counter balanced by other aspects of the doctrine which will add variety to game style. For example, say you DID choose the tank line against an armor doctrine, hopefully you aren't entirely dead in the water because options like stronger pgrens with marked target and fuel reduction upgrades will help you stay in the game until you can get the KT. This is at least an option for a armor doc vs pzer supp doc to have a back and forth game versus in the past where tank hunter just smashes armor doc so hard it's not worth playing. Or in the beta as it is currently where the immediate counter to armor doc is to go TD line at any point of the game you notice armor doc was chosen, then abusing fuel trade into a jpanther because that's all you really needed (the JT is just to make your opponent feel worse about their self).

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3745
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Warhawks97 »

I would argue that the Tank IV H (J), JP IV (48 and 70) and perhaps the tiger could be stock units.
Thats my opinion on that. Only when it comes to Panther/Jagdpanther and KT/JT it choice might be required. The only thing is that i cant say how the unlock lines should look like.

Another pretty fancy way would be to make a decision at each tier. Like you decide between Tank IV and Jagdpanzer IV line, then between Panther and Jagdpanther thing and finally between KT and JT. The Tiger wouldnt really find a place here to be honest.
So you could get like combos like having the JagdpanzerP IV line, then Panther and finally Jagdtiger. Or vise versa.
The Jagdpanzer IV/48 and IV/70 would be unlocked by the same unlock, just the IV/70 would require the upgraded production.
At the other hand, because you refuse a Panther gun when going with tank IV H/J, the Tank IV H would be affected by the mass-production unlock so that you can get more of them as compensation.

Gurkenkilla
Posts: 37
Joined: 16 Aug 2015, 15:01

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Gurkenkilla »

Gurkenkilla wrote:
08 Mar 2020, 19:08
The Flame Tank 38(t) is available in the wrong one of the two Tank Buildings and you need 3 Command Points to unlock it which is too much for an early support unit. It should be availalbe in the Tank Support Building without the need of an unlock.
Can we see this changed?

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 305
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by CGarr »

kwok wrote:
16 Apr 2020, 07:02
About the AA guns, having them easy to kill is kind of the point given this doctrine is filled with things that are designed hard to kill. From a durability perspective, what difference would it be that the AA gun is a built emplacement versus it being a just as expensive and more fragile car that can move? The only thing that the truck would be better at durability wise would be its durability against mortars because it can move. Other than that, it's the same or even weaker in terms of durability
I was suggesting the durability changes to put the truck on par with the emplacements in terms of survivability, but that was just to make it something worthwhile to purchase later in the game, as the current truck is squishy enough for its cost that the resources are generally better spent on more armor. Making it more durable when stationary via hull down would just turn it into an expensive emplacement that can be moved around, and it would behave similar to defense doc's mobelwagen tank (albeit much more vulnerable on the move and probably more vulnerable to arty even when stationary).

The reasoning behind my suggestion for this is that this doc is meant to be mobile, with vehicles/tanks and infantry being its primary focus. As such, players probably won't want to spend resources on a stationary AA solution since it wouldn't be able to keep up with the rest of their army, meaning it'd be next to worthless during an offense as anything other than a predictable point to retreat to when things go wrong. Sure, its cheap individually, but the cost evens out when you take into account the fact that you'd have to build multiple vs spending the same amount on a single truck that can move with your troops and can't be used against you, at the cost of being less durable. The emplacement doesn't have to go away, but the truck should be available alongside it since out of all the axis docs, this one makes by far the most sense to have mobile AA in terms of theme. As far as balance goes, every other doc in the game regardless of faction has mobile AA-specialist units, so I don't see the issue with having one here. Terror heavies are arguably scarier than PS doc's and the vsturms are pretty comparable to PGrens by the time heavies are out, especially alongside an upgraded volksgren squad or 2, so I don't see why it'd be unreasonable to give PS doc mobile AA considering terror has a whole ass ostwind at its disposal. Sure, the ostwind has a unit cap but that's an easy fix for the PS doc AA truck, just limit it to 2 trucks as well.

On top of all these arguments, it just feels like a waste of a CP slot to have that upgrade only give you the sandbag version of a single mediocre emplacement when everyone else that has a comparable emplacement gets them for free. Having the truck also be unlocked would make this unlock a lot more attractive, especially since the truck could be used for unorthodox pushes early game if you get it fast, rush to a point, and hull down. You'd be spending a significant amount of fuel and thus be forcing yourself to either forego getting any other light vehicles in the early-mid game or delay your teching significantly, but you'd possibly lock down a fuel point from the enemy. This would allow for players to choose to gamble reaching midgame sooner but risking not having vehicle support if that one more easily countered truck get killed.

Post Reply