Whats the Point of the Tank Support doctrine?

[Warhawks97]

I am sorry to come up with this again but it keeps bothering me. We already had discussions and polls about various issues in this doc. Who whishes can check out these already existing links.
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3673
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3679
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3678
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3680
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3684
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3683
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3685




We had a talk or lets say many talks about it and the thing is, this doc isnt good for anything. If someone picks this doc, everyone is like: "Good, they didnt take BK doc".

BK doc feels a lot like what Tank support doc should feel like. Cheap and good medium tanks, decent infantry support and good and many Panthers later.

So when i break this doc down and compare it with BK doc, there are just two reasons why anyone should pick this doc over BK:
1. Jagdpanzer IV/70
2. Jagdpanther


Everything else is better in BK doc:


1. Tanks:
BK can get Tank IV H and J, both cheaper in Massproduction, has BK ability that boosts the tanks ind speed and overall combat performance. And has two Panther variants for low cost. Even Panther Ace. And a Panzer IV command Tank.
And i would argue that Bk doc is even better in terms of tank destroyer bc the Stug is so versatile and costs less than a JP IV/48.

2. Off map mortar strike:
It costs CP to get in Support doc. In BK or WH in general you get it from your officer just by having the last HQ upgrade. No CP needed. Additionally, Bk can call one from its Stormtrooper leader squad.

3. Artillery:
Bk gets the Maultier for 0 CP and its as destructive as Hotchkiss. A single missile hits harder from Hotchkiss. But The overall destruction to an larger area is generally greater when using a Maultier. Its one of the best rocket arty units in game.

4. Infantry Support:
Hands down, BK inf is many times over better than in Tank support doc. Its self sufficient, has an forward deploy, retreat and healing truck, has tons of cool abilities, can clear stuff effectively, has lmgs, AT weapons and mid/close range weapons.

What has Tank support doc? No lmg unless you pay 4 CP for it. No AT weapons, no close range weapons. And stormpios are not comparable to stormtroopers.

5. Ressources to deploy Tanks in the first place:
Bk can swap arround Ressources as they wish. All you need is ammo.

6. Repairs:
Since Germans got repair Bunkers, you dont need any infantry anymore to rep tanks. The quick repairs for PE had once been something that put PE ahead of WH but as of right now, i dont see any difference anymore in terms of repair capabilties between PE and WH. Everybody just uses rep bunkers.





BK currently feels like being the better Tank support doctrine than the actual Tank support doc.


I was looking for ideas how to make the Tank support doc to become an actual Tank support doctrine. So this is a topic to generate ideas in the first place.


The first things i would change and what i would kick out:

1. 20 mm Emplacment. It cant be more useless since you can get the unemplaced version right from start which as AA weapon is probably just as effective as the emplaced one. Instead, add the 20 mm Halftrack that Def doc uses for 0 CP. Problem about AA solved.
2. LMG upgrade. Thats garbage. 4 CP for an LMG is garbage
3. Mark Target ability. So you have one type of inf using it but most go with stormpios and SS squad as inf support due to their better utility.
On top of that, Armor and RE doc get it just by choosing the doc, so, whats the point?
4. Cheaper inf. You spare 30 MP per squad but its still arround 300 MP. So we spend 300 MP for infantry spam that only can get rifles. Its basically paying 300 MP for a unit that is basically a Volksren squad just without lmg or close range weapons.
I rather invest into an SS squad and have a unit with lmg, STG´s, schrecks, whatever the situationr requires, before i get 3 squads for 900 MP that all have still just rifles and a surviviability of Volksgrenadiers with slight buffs when near a tank.
5. Cost reduction for vehicles. So far its not really like this doc gets out soo many vehicles. PE is in general not using as many vehicles as WH as it seems. Usually it comes down to healing HT, scout cars (but most of them at a stage before this is unlocked). And idk if its worth to spend CP to spare 5 fuel for each vehicle and therefore delaying other areas tec like getting tanks actually.




How i would change unlocks:


1. Panzer IV Support:
I thought about two ways:
The first one would be that the Tank IV H would cost 0 CP basically and that there is a 2 CP unlock that makes the H cheaper and unlocks the J version. However, the current armor of the Tank IV H and tank IV´s in general would make this option OP.
The second thought was to first unlock the H for 2 CP, then mass production of Tank IV´s which also unlocks the J, and ultimately unlocking the Panther that provides you with cheap D´s and G´s. Perhaps after that even a Panther G mass production (?)

2. Heavy Tank support:
I wasnt sure if its needed at all and when, how. Is the Tiger needed or not? Should it be linked to the Tank IV H or not? Like you unlock the H and then decide whether to go down the Tiger path or Panther path.

3. Panther Support:
As said, it this doc should be able to provide Panthers like BK doc does currently. Idk if we could afford a independent Panther line which i dont think coz that would mean Panthers would hit the field after 4 CP. (?) Which, again, wouldnt be a big problem when there is counter available like 4 CP jacks for low cost, M10 achilles and Comets and stuff.

4. Tank Hunters:
Again, which and when should be available? Linked to normal Tank line, completely different line? I could imagine that each tank line gets its own TD version. Like the Tank IV´s have theirs, Panthers have their TD version and Tigers theirs?
And if so, unlocks the Panther unlock also the Jagdpanther and the KT unlock also the JT?


My initial thought was that the Tank IV H and J should play a major role in this doc.

Thus the Tank IV H would be available right away for no CP. The only concern there is that US would have no counter to that. Or a low CP cost of like 1, max 2.

5. Stug´s would fit veeeery well in here, esspecially the III. Its capabilties and abilties might get unlocked along with the buff for infantry when being near Tanks.

6. Infantry:
Forget about cost reduction for inf units that only have rifles.
There should be two unlocks for the inf: Vehicle and Tank buff.
Also re-add the heavy assault squad so that this doc gets actually something that can fight under various conditions instead of just sitting arround with rifles behind sandbags near TD´s.


7. Artillery.
Hotchkiss shouldnt be in there in the way it is. The Wespe might be more appreciating.


And what questions remain:
If we know what tanks it should have, should there be a decision in game to be made to get which tank? Like KT or JT or Panther or Jagpanther? Or having simply everything available? Lots of questions but the point is, that doc is not gonna work and too much crap unlock which dont add capabilities other doc already have for 0 CP.

And playing a doctrine for just two units (IV/70 and Jagdpanther) is garbage. One might just pick def doc and get similiar units (IV A and Elephant which has vastly better armor than JP and costs no fuel).



That was just some sort of quick brainstorming.

[MenciusMoldbug]

I'm going to tack my ideas on here too because I would really like to see this doctrine improved:

Replace LMG34 unlock with 'Double infantry AT efforts:'

Why do this? Well, the voicelines for this ability are there, its already setup just fine like it was in VCoH (and we had it working in TH doc before), and Panzer Support kind of needs double shrecks and double AT nades, because using only tanks to take on armored units is not a good strategy in the long run. + I never bother getting the LMG upgrade because there are far more crucial unlocks to take over it. I know the intention behind it and I was kind of the one asking for a LMG for this doctrine but I just use the SS squad if I need LMG's now. This unlock puts a lot more decision making into what I really want to get because it is very useful in the early stages of the game when I wish to do something other than rush F2's.

Replace Mark Target with 'Panzer Assault Grenadiers:'

What are 'Panzer Assault Grenadiers?' Well, they are assault grenadiers except they start at 4 men (can upgrade to 5 with the increased squad size upgrade) and cost 250 MP and 1 CP to unlock. They are basically dollar store assault grenadiers so panzer support like blitzkrieg doctrine can have some sort of good mainline infantry to carry the assault. But unlike stormtroopers, they are not strong enough to attack by themselves starting only at 4 men and going to a maximum of 5 in squad size. So they are always going to be sticking close to the tanks/vehicles if they wish to get the maximum effects of the aura buffs. Maybe the panzer grenadier reserves unlock could also change so it basically buffs this squad in terms of utility. Like giving them smoke grenades (they had the Nebelhandgranate and its basically the stick grenade so you just need to make it turn into a smoke cloud instead of explode) to not get instantly countered by snipers or something.

Combined Tank Advance unlocks Tank Assault for Panzer Support Battle Tanks:

Warhawks has already linked my thread here (thank you) so I don't need to explain again why I would like PS to have that.

Let Panzer Support choose which Tank/TD to unlock in each phase:

The reason I would like this is having only a single fuel upgrade to choose which path you want to go down skews with vehicle teching because the JP4/70 comes way later than it needs to be in the game to fight enemy armor like early churchills/jumbo rush. Also because locking the player down a tank or TD line forces them to play in a single style and I don't like people being forced into a specific strategy on some maps because its always the best option.

All Infantry units of Panzer Support Doctrine should benefit from vehicle and tank aura buffs:

This doc gives up on special super infantry stuff (incinedary grenades, fallshrimjagers) in exchange for these aura buffs. Having them only on panzer grenadiers limits your playstyle to only a few types of strategies you can actually employ if you wish to use these unlocks to their maximum potential. I really don't like being locked into an obvious play style like spamming panzer grenadiers for the aura buffs. So I rather have a mix of infantry that all can benefit from it.

I'm not really asking for much and I know big term changes are impossible right now but maybe 1 or 2 changes here and there can make this doc a lot more fun to play before the beta goes live.

[kwok]

There's a lot of things that bother me about this post...
First, it doesn't answer the question in the topic: WHATS THE POINT OF PANZER SUPPORT DOCTRINE?

Both people who have posted so far have been active participants in deciding the original design of the doctrine in the thread here:
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3432


The main criticisms that have been coming out are basically what I originally criticized the community proposal that devs were more or less handed to deal with.

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.

Before i go critiquing point by point of all the suggestions I want to ask some basic things first.

So here's a question for you all.... WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE TANK SUPPORT DOCTRINE???
IS IT A DOCTRINE USED TO SUPPORT TANKS? IS IT TANKS USED TO SUPPORT OTHERS?

We are SO SO close to releasing... please don't fucking scrap this entire doctrine after it has been already shared with a bunch of axis fanboys and gained some notoriety. The doctrine barely has a meta around it because of how new it is. Instead of fisting your own visions on what kind of doctrine you want and how you want it to play out, maybe look at the doctrine and find more ways it can be played currently. Because I can give like 20 reasons why it is NOT like blitz doc and another 20 reasons why it doesn't need most the suggestions here.

[Warhawks97]

So, every player who played this doc and i talked to and everytime i or others played with it, said that there is no point going for this doc bc for everything "it can" another "can do better". Its basically just F2 spam and jagdpanther.



Like really, the buffs provided to the infantry by tanks and vehicles doesnt really makes it better. Its still just a squad with rifles that forces me to spend lots of CP into lmgs which every other faction and doctrine has by default. The Blitzkrieg stormtroopers working super well combined with medium tanks.
This infantry does not bc its still just sandbag hugging. You dont get many advantages from fast moving infantry that has to stop in order to shoot properly and when you have no reason to "close in quick" because you only fight from afar.
An MP40/STG squad that quickly closes in on enemies when near vehicles, thats a dangerous combo for sure. Or that takes less damage during its approach to target.
But a squad with weapons made to be used from long range and while not in move that likes to hug sandbags to be effective that gets a speed buff from vehicles? Its a joke in itself.

And even with cost drop... its still just a 295 MP Volksgren/Rifle squad, if even that. Its tons of wasted CP into something other doctrines can do literally by default.

[Krieger Blitzer]

My quick opinion: (copying from Discord)

i think the tech lines of TDs and regular tanks should be separate in Panzer Support doctrine, while ensuring early available Hetzer (2 CP max) as well as early available Pz4 tanks.. also, it should have Wespe (without removing it from SE doc) and Hotchkiss should be moved to SE doc.

Also, the doctrine should have deploy-able Panther.G tanks, not Panther.D tanks.. Panther.D is already available in both Blitz and Luft docs.
With no more than 6 CPs for the Panther. Or probably 7 CPs...

And as replacement of the LMG42 upgrade for PanzerGrenadiers, i would put the "doubled AT efforts" unlock.. allowing 2 Shrecks for the AT squads.
So, i'm agreeing with Mencious there.

The doctrine can still access LMG42 on the SS squad called by the HauptOfficer.

in addition to this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3748

[kwok]

No one answers my questions... great.

[Warhawks97]

No one answers my questions... great.

This one?

First, it doesn't answer the question in the topic: WHATS THE POINT OF PANZER SUPPORT DOCTRINE?

Yeah, whats the point. Atm its all about spamming F2´s. Thats all. Thing is BK can do the same.
So what else it has other docs have at default or can do better?
Nothing, except having a elite unit like the Jagdpanther. Thats all.


As Mencius said, what BK doc is, that feels like a tank support doc which from my understanding supports the team with Tanks. And Bk doc is ten times better in doing this.


So it needs something BK does not already have, sometimes by default like rocket launcher arty or off map mortar strike.


Thats why many say that a lot of unlocking stuff needs to be kicked out. Like 20 mm emplacment, cheap standard inf spam (which actually isnt cheap even when cheaper), lmg unlock, mark target and all that stuff.



The doc would then focus on providing all sorts of tanks to the team that work in conjunction with vehicles and infantry.



The core would be the medium tank Branch:
Thats why i would make Tank IV H/J earlier avaialble, the H perhaps even at default. So the first unlock you get for 2 CP or 3 is Tank IV mass production that makes all version cheaper and the J available while H and F2 are available from start. H requiring an upgraded production though.

There will also be the stug III available which via some unlock receives its full capabilties.

from the Tank IV Mass-production you get two sub-lines:
Panther/Jagdpanther which cost in total 5-6 CP. That unlocks either all Panther variants or the Jagdpanther, depending on how you decide in game. Unlock the Jagdpanther via upgrade or the panthers via upgrade.
Alternatively, it unlocks the Panther D or A and after that comes a "Panther mass production" unlock that unlocks Panther G for 720 MP and 130 fuel as well as dropping Panther D cost to what it costs atm in BK doc.
The player, however, can decide to unlock the Jagdpanther instead of the Panther G by unlocking it via upgrade in game.

The second line would be the Jagdpanzer IV line.

The Panther D would be removed from BK doc and instead only given to Luft and Tank support doc for originally the 800+ HP.
In Tank support doc the mass-production of the Panther would drop its cost and add the Panther G or Jagdpanther, depending on players decision.


A independent branch would be the heavy Tank. Tiger comes for 4-5 CP and following that comes the KT or JT between which players must decide again in game.



So in total, there would be 6 Tank "Tank only unlocks" (Jagdpanzer IV/48, IV/70, Panther D, Tiger, King Tiger/Jagdtiger) as well as two Mass production unlocks that also unlock new tanks (Tank IV mass production/Tank IV J, Panther mass production/Panther G/Jagdpanther) and a Stug III capability unlock.
Two times, the player would have to decide at least: Jagpanther or Panther G and KT or JT.




Also the doc gets wespe instead of the Hotchkiss. But wespe will also remain in SE doc.

[kwok]

First, it doesn't answer the question in the topic: WHATS THE POINT OF PANZER SUPPORT DOCTRINE?

As Mencius said, what BK doc is, that feels like a tank support doc which from my understanding supports the team with Tanks. And Bk doc is ten times better in doing this.

If this is the case, then I say no because the whole point of the doctrine reworks is to make factions well-rounded and capable of 1v1's. If the entire theme of the doctrine is to support other players then it should be rejected. Don't argue this point because it would put us right back in the starting of the entire doctrine rework project and was already argued to the most nauseating extent a year ago. This is what it is.

If you're playing the doctrine like you would blitzkrieg doctrine, then I think the problem isn't necessarily the doctrine but you. Yes, of course blitzkrieg doctrine does everything blitzrkeig doctrine is supposed to do better because it's literally blitzkrieg doctrine.

I'd say go back to the drawing board and try again. Maybe look for what this doctrine is good at already in a 1v1 setting and then make slight tweaks to cover its weaknesses. NOT force a new playstyle. Play 1v1's with the doctrine and then against the doctrine and then come back to give suggestions. I'd be happy to help you with that.

[mofetagalactica]

Instead of replacing the MG 42 unlock, just improve it to something like "weapon support unlock" that makes you able to equip panzer grenadiers with mg42's and Panzerschreck's plus double AT grenade hability.

I would like to see something like that on infantry doc for riflemens too, once you unlock any rapid response/ defensive unlocks your riflemens are able to upgrade with bazookas or they get free at nades.

[Warhawks97]

First, it doesn't answer the question in the topic: WHATS THE POINT OF PANZER SUPPORT DOCTRINE?

As Mencius said, what BK doc is, that feels like a tank support doc which from my understanding supports the team with Tanks. And Bk doc is ten times better in doing this.

If this is the case, then I say no because the whole point of the doctrine reworks is to make factions well-rounded and capable of 1v1's. If the entire theme of the doctrine is to support other players then it should be rejected. Don't argue this point because it would put us right back in the starting of the entire doctrine rework project and was already argued to the most nauseating extent a year ago. This is what it is.

If you're playing the doctrine like you would blitzkrieg doctrine, then I think the problem isn't necessarily the doctrine but you. Yes, of course blitzkrieg doctrine does everything blitzrkeig doctrine is supposed to do better because it's literally blitzkrieg doctrine.

I'd say go back to the drawing board and try again. Maybe look for what this doctrine is good at already in a 1v1 setting and then make slight tweaks to cover its weaknesses. NOT force a new playstyle. Play 1v1's with the doctrine and then against the doctrine and then come back to give suggestions. I'd be happy to help you with that.

you got to get a talk with mencius about that and the issues of balance in 1 vs 1 and teamfight. As he said, in teamfights you see the true capabilties of factions and their doctrines.


Most games are team games and thats where the big balance issues result from. As i said, better talk with mencius about it. He is better in explaining it.


But what you say is that Tank support doctrine cant be picked, aside from 1 vs 1. But even there, BK doc will always be the better option.
You didnt answer why anyone should ever take this doc over any other. Other docs have the stuff this one gets available earlier and for less or no CP (like lmgs lmao).

I would already argue that the doc does have more use in teamfights as in 1 vs 1 fights. In teamfights you can at least spam F2 with vet level and later providing a Jagdpanther.

But in 1 vs 1... you really wanna tell me that you would want to spend 4 CP for an lmg in a 1 vs 1 game? Thats suicide.
Or a super expensive jagdpanther? in 1 vs 1? Come on, how many times did you see a Jagdpanther in a 1 vs 1 game? Never i guess.

So, when it comes down to 1 vs 1, BK is even more superior to this doctrine for many reasons:

1. Super cheap TD for 1 CP and low cost. Unlike TS doc that doesnt have cheap 1 CP 400 MP TD with good anti inf power.
2. BK doc doesnt need 4 CP to get lmgs. It gets several in their volksgren squads for low cost.
3. BK doc gets something like a stug III...cheap, versatile, supportive. Perfect unit for Tank/inf combo. Where do i see that in TS doc?
4. BK doc gets hands on all tank IV variants at the same time and cheaper also. TS doc does not.
5. BK doc can res trade which is super usefull in 1 vs 1 bc you can get away with just owning ammo points.
6. BK inf is ten times better
7. BK has cheaper Panthers and more variants.
8. BK has off map mortar strike for 0 CP from officer.
9. BK doc has 0 CP rocket arty
10. BK doc has Puma.


These things make this doc in 1 vs 1 a lot more attractive than TS doc. And in teamfights TS doc makes only sense when going for JP basically.


But as i said, go talk with mecnius about this in detail about 1 vs 1 and teambalance.
If you stick with your opinion here, TS doc is going to die in the long run.
Too many pointless unlocks and in terms of cost efficiency of units other docs are also better.

[Krieger Blitzer]

i think Panzer Support is - by far - the worst doctrine in 1v1 games.. no good inf, no good early tanks available, only expensive tanks which are even more expensive compared to other Axis doctrines, and weak later available arty.

The old TH doc from 5.1.7 is in fact much deadlier in 1v1 games.

[Warhawks97]

The old TH doc from 5.1.7 is in fact much deadlier in 1v1 games.

simply for the fact that you could spam hetzers early and use hotchkiss for 0 CP as well as having good inf.


You basically said in a few words what i tried in a long post.

[MenciusMoldbug]

To keep it simple, the issue with PS in team games is the problem of doubling capacity. Think of the wehrmacht faction and its doctrines; every doctrine has a unique set of units and unlocks that enhance them in someway that you cannot find an overlap for if you choose another doc for wehr. Now look at PS, you have:

- P4 Rush/P4 Spam (Blitzkrieg can take over this role, especially since Blitzkrieg can get cheaper P4 H's)
- Panthers (Luftwaffe gets the same panther they do but with better infantry)
- Tigers, King Tigers (Propaganda can take over this role, so you are better off going the TD route in unlocks)
- Hotchkiss (Rocket arty is a plenty, so many others can take over this role instead of wasting CP unlocks towards this unless you just want to munition dump into something)
- Cheap (not that cheap) rifle infantry (this is what volksgrenadiers are for)
- Unit specific buff (Ok, so panzergrenadiers get buffed, but they are meant to act like chaff and cannot. Because they are inherently 'elite units' and thus cannot be made cheap)

Personally, the removal of assault grenadiers is like removing volksgrenadiers from blitzkrieg because you don't need chaff infantry when you have elite stormtroopers who can take over that role. You play panzer elite because you have elite units as a core part of the faction, if I want to spam rifles with F2's I can do that in another doctrine (and don't forget, this doctrine doesn't have any buildable snipers either while the other 2 PE docs do). Even the armored car mortar barrage is a sort of doubling capacity because the officer for wehr can already do that. So the only unique things PS is bringing into team fight is the JP4/70 (though def already has that) and the Jagdpanther.

So what would I do:

- Since you do not get any sort of special doctrine infantry, you should get assault grenadiers back and they should always be a core part of panzer elites unit diversity. No reason to remove them just from PS if PE is not going to get any sort of really cheap chaff infantry with good upgrade selections like volksgrenadiers for wehrmacht. Also, the aura buffs should apply to ALL their infantry, not just panzer grenadiers. That would make their units really unique over the other PE doc's infantry.

- Rapid precision mortar/artillery strikes, current mortar and artillery strikes from the armored car and the artillery tank take too long to arrive, have too much saturation, and cost a bit too much. They should be cheaper, arrive faster, and have slightly less or overall less saturation to emphasize their use in breaking specific strongpoint tools (like AT guns)

*Not really a change I'm asking for but to bring up the point again: This is why I ask for a special 'Assault' ability for PS tanks as a way to make them 'unique.' There is 0 difference between a Luftwaffe panther and a PS panther and if you are only picking a doc to get a panther then you know which doc is better.

Just 2 or 3 changes are needed to make it better. Removing assault grenadiers limits the doc way too much in terms of what it can do, I know the reason is it's supposed to have 'weak infantry' because it has everything else. But it does not get immediate artillery options like blitkzrieg does so it's another con against them to pick this doctrine over the others. It should at least have the assault grenadiers back because it's one of those low-power doctrines which doesn't show any sort of usefulness in the early-mid game and only shows its potency when it has both jagdpanthers and hotchkisses later on (which is way too far away in most games).

[Warhawks97]

To keep it simple, the issue with PS in team games is the problem of doubling capacity. Think of the wehrmacht faction and its doctrines; every doctrine has a unique set of units and unlocks that enhance them in someway that you cannot find an overlap for if you choose another doc for wehr. Now look at PS, you have:

- P4 Rush/P4 Spam (Blitzkrieg can take over this role, especially since Blitzkrieg can get cheaper P4 H's)
- Panthers (Luftwaffe gets the same panther they do but with better infantry)
- Tigers, King Tigers (Propaganda can take over this role, so you are better off going the TD route in unlocks)
- Hotchkiss (Rocket arty is a plenty, so many others can take over this role instead of wasting CP unlocks towards this unless you just want to munition dump into something)
- Cheap (not that cheap) rifle infantry (this is what volksgrenadiers are for)
- Unit specific buff (Ok, so panzergrenadiers get buffed, but they are meant to act like chaff and cannot. Because they are inherently 'elite units' and thus cannot be made cheap)

Personally, the removal of assault grenadiers is like removing volksgrenadiers from blitzkrieg because you don't need chaff infantry when you have elite stormtroopers who can take over that role. You play panzer elite because you have elite units as a core part of the faction, if I want to spam rifles with F2's I can do that in another doctrine (and don't forget, this doctrine doesn't have any buildable snipers either while the other 2 PE docs do). Even the armored car mortar barrage is a sort of doubling capacity because the officer for wehr can already do that. So the only unique things PS is bringing into team fight is the JP4/70 (though def already has that) and the Jagdpanther.

So what would I do:

- Since you do not get any sort of special doctrine infantry, you should get assault grenadiers back and they should always be a core part of panzer elites unit diversity. No reason to remove them just from PS if PE is not going to get any sort of really cheap chaff infantry with good upgrade selections like volksgrenadiers for wehrmacht. Also, the aura buffs should apply to ALL their infantry, not just panzer grenadiers. That would make their units really unique over the other PE doc's infantry.

- Rapid precision mortar/artillery strikes, current mortar and artillery strikes from the armored car and the artillery tank take too long to arrive, have too much saturation, and cost a bit too much. They should be cheaper, arrive faster, and have slightly less or overall less saturation to emphasize their use in breaking specific strongpoint tools (like AT guns)

*Not really a change I'm asking for but to bring up the point again: This is why I ask for a special 'Assault' ability for PS tanks as a way to make them 'unique.' There is 0 difference between a Luftwaffe panther and a PS panther and if you are only picking a doc to get a panther then you know which doc is better.

Just 2 or 3 changes are needed to make it better. Removing assault grenadiers limits the doc way too much in terms of what it can do, I know the reason is it's supposed to have 'weak infantry' because it has everything else. But it does not get immediate artillery options like blitkzrieg does so it's another con against them to pick this doctrine over the others. It should at least have the assault grenadiers back because it's one of those low-power doctrines which doesn't show any sort of usefulness in the early-mid game and only shows its potency when it has both jagdpanthers and hotchkisses later on (which is way too far away in most games).

well said.

[Krieger Blitzer]

My biggest problems with Panzer Support doc currently, is the 3CP Hetzer & late arty.

Desperately needs Wespe and earlier Hetzers.. inf capabilities can wait.

[Warhawks97]

My biggest problems with Panzer Support doc currently, is the 3CP Hetzer & late arty.

Desperately needs Wespe and earlier Hetzers.. inf capabilities can wait.

The Tank line is flawed a lot, not just the Hetzer. It needs changed. But that got said multiple times already.


Late arty is also not a big thing bc you get off map relatively easy and if it gets Wespe, things will be fine.


But the inf is a major problem. inf is a core element and on top of that having something thats more than not so cheap spam of rifle inf.
On top of that inf is somehow considered to be important, else there wouldnt be so many unlocks for it (5 in total).
Its just that the way it got implemented is nonsense.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Its just that the way it got implemented is nonsense.

Agreed.

[MarKr]

I know the reason is it's supposed to have 'weak infantry' because it has everything else.

It is basically "I know it should have weak infantry but I don't care".
If we do this then what will we get? A doctrine that has access to the strongest tanks and TDs in the game which have strong guns and so there is little need to put ammo into AP upgrades for tanks, has semi-elite infantry with unlockable boosts that put them almost to elite level which makes it less needed to buy even the HE upgrades for tanks and you can rather buy upgrades for infantry. It has arty available in several forms and what is the down-side of this doc? "no immediate arty options"? So the change here is adding elite infantry which is present throught the entire game because they have no early-mid game non-CP arty?

Other suggestions such as re-adding more tank/TD unlock lines is something I don't wanna do because that is what we had in the first TS version and people said that once you start unlocking one line, there is no reason to unlock the others. I'm pretty sure Hawks will reply how this different because (reasons 1,2,3...) but current fact is that a concept with many tank/TD unlocks has been here already and people didn't like it.

On one hand I am really tempted to just say "OK whatever, we'll do what you ask" and let you guys deal with the shitstorm that I am fairly sure will come once good players start abusing the crap out of this doc. On the other hand, I know that people who suggested these changes will take no flak for it and everyone will give us, the devs, shit about it even if the ideas came from the community so I am hesitant to invest my time into something that I believe will be OP as fuck because we'll take the flak for it and will need to re-re-re-rework it again.

From the suggestions here I would probably be OK with changing Panther D for G, possibly even the Tiger I for the late version. The passive bonuses changed so that they work only near tanks, not TDs to make some difference between the tank (attack) line and TD (defensive) line. Wespe probably too, if it's switched with Hotchkiss in SE. If you really, really want those 4 men squads as Mencius suggested a few days ago, fine, but I would remove the SS and probably even the Assault Pios so that the doc has some doc-specific infantry but the "weaker infantry" is still present at least in form of options. But keeping the tank selection in the current way or in any way that was suggested here along with 6 men Assault Grens, Assault Pios, the SS squad and the PGrens with the standardized Kar98 stats will just make it the new "choose every time" doc just as Luft used to be.

[kwok]

Its just that the way it got implemented is nonsense.

Agreed.

I mean... that's what ends up happening when you try to pool the community's opinion on how to design a doctrine when none of them could answer or still answer "what is the point of the doctrine"....

@everyone over the course of thread after thread where this question was asked frequently i don't think anyone but two people answered this question. cgar but it seemed like others didn't like his idea me included but i'm starting to think it's better than nothing. and warhawks but i very clearly said that won't work. please please give an answer especially since i know a lot of you were on the original thread with designing this. we are at our wits end trying to figure out this doctrine, the last 3 patches have just been around this doctrine that has been mostly community lead/decided. it's majorly delaying the release of the beta. honestly at this point we just need to get something that's good enough and we can balance it later. but a really really really strong foundation needs to exist. otherwise you're just going to have to let the devs take all of it in their hands as they did with blitz doc, armor doc, and inf doc which seem to have the least issues structurally (except in the beginning with blitz doctrine and that one call-in ability... but it was just one). terror doctrine was a mix of dev and community but in the end it seems like people are catching on to it with time. i hate to blaming... but seriously the biggest headaches have been balancing brits faction and PS doctrine which have been community driven.

@warhawks
yeah i hear what you're saying you don't know a lot of potential aspects of a doctrine until it's in a team game setting but that doesn't eliminate the fact that it needs to be a 1v1 capable doc first with balancing for team coming later. the whole point of the doctrine reworks is literally to standardize the approach for doctrines and it was decided a year ago it would go for a well-rounded doctrine versus a specialized. so, please just hep to figure an idea instead of just criticizing the existing one.

unifying under a specific theme first is important otherwise everyone will have their own idea of what a doctrine SHOULD be and the complaints will NEVER end.

[Krieger Blitzer]

From the suggestions here I would probably be OK with changing Panther D for G, possibly even the Tiger I for the late version. The passive bonuses changed so that they work only near tanks, not TDs to make some difference between the tank (attack) line and TD (defensive) line. Wespe probably too, if it's switched with Hotchkiss in SE. If you really, really want those 4 men squads as Mencius suggested a few days ago, fine, but I would remove the SS and probably even the Assault Pios so that the doc has some doc-specific infantry but the "weaker infantry" is still present at least in form of options. But keeping the tank selection in the current way or in any way that was suggested here along with 6 men Assault Grens, Assault Pios, the SS squad and the PGrens with the standardized Kar98 stats will just make it the new "choose every time" doc just as Luft used to be.

Despite the inf capabilities of the doc is considered weak, yet... i would be fine with no changes in this regard.
So, personally i don't demand a doc-specific infantry unit; and i would keep the current inf setup of the doctrine.

However; ONLY IF the doc would have Hotchkiss swapped with Wespe (which will also stay in SE doc), and LMG unlock changed to doubled AT efforts.
in addition, i still think Hetzer at 3 CP is a bit too much, but i would be fine with it IF the Marder is finally fixed as it shouldn't die to small arms fire.


And yes, it would be nice to have deploy-able Panther.G in this doctrine.

[MenciusMoldbug]

About the hotchkiss:

Yeah, I think you can move the rocket hotchkiss into SE, SE already has the 280mm nebelwerfer rocket battery at 0 CP's which has the same effect the hotchkiss does except it's not on tracks and shoots 6 rockets instead of 4.

For 1v1 capabilities:

I still think giving this doctrine good infantry selection will not make it broken because it has 0 good counters to snipers unless you manage to get lucky with the SS squad and it snipes the sniper with their own sniper model in the squad (or your facing brits and they don't get the RAF snipers). Like the best counter against snipers PS has is smoke or rocketing them with the hotchkiss currently, now if the hotchkiss moves into SE (which I think it should), the Wespe is not going to be very efficient in killing the snipers and has to get really, really lucky hitting them with the first shot or they will scamper away from the targeted area. In a 1v1 game, you cannot rely on a team to counter snipers for you, there's no wehrmacht player providing you backup with counter snipers and so a sniper will always be doing attritional losses on you and you have to make big plays to find a way to kill him. Now in team games, this is less of a problem because hey you got your team mates to help you out but in 1v1 the very weak counters to snipers start showing.

Now if PS had a buildable sniper to stop them from getting sniped to death, I would say ok, they don't need more infantry power, but they don't have that, and now they don't have good infantry anymore to make up for the fact they don't get a sniper either while the other 2 PE docs have one and some good infantry to play around with.

Now, if you ask me what the doctrine is about (for 1v1):

+You have good tanks
+You have cheap tanks if you can't afford the good tanks
+You have good infantry selection
+Your core infantry get buffed around tanks, making them unique compared to the other 2 docs PE has which don't get aura buffs on core infantry
<>Your infantry and tanks are meant to work in conjunction with one another, they cannot operate alone, and are weaker/provide no buffs when they are not sticking together.
-No good sniper counter
-*If hotchkiss change goes through* You have only 1 artillery option and that is a Wespe with a limit of 1, you are going to have to get creative with the mortar, artillery barrages from your armored car and artillery tank if you wanna break through strongpoints.
-On a long enough time scale, you can get emplacement spammed to death, so sitting around is not an option even if you go the TD line.

So basically, this doctrine is meant to brute force its way to victory like blitzkrieg does in the beta; only you have to keep your stuff alive and can't lose your units because replacing them like blitzkrieg does when it pops manpower blitz is impossible. So you have to take on every engagement keeping in mind your positioning, that your flanks are secure so your retreating units don't get killed, and that there's always an escape path for your tanks if things get dicey.

That's what I personally think the doctrine should be all-about, I personally take no offense if that's not how it's meant to be or turns out. Testing the doctrine out, the major flaws I list is to point out that it's not as fun to play as Luftwaffe or SE, because as Luftwaffe you have a lot of options available to you; even doing silly stuff like just using luftwaffe to destroy all the sector points on the allied side of the map. I just wish PS could have more diversity in its playstyle like Luftwaffe does (and that's why I made a thread about making the Jagdpanther cheaper but reducing its stats so you have more options on how you approach things). I personally would take a 'weaker' doc with more options in playstyles than a strong doc that plays in a certain way most of the time but I can understand if people don't share my opinion on that.

EDIT: You know, I would be pretty ok with the infantry capabilities of this doc if they just got a sniper like the other 2 PE docs have one so they don't get sniped to death. I'll go make a thread on that actually.

[Warhawks97]

"Balanced for 1 vs 1":

Once again, why should anyone pick this doc in 1 vs 1 when every other doctrine has most of the stuff locked behind CP in TS for 0 CP.
There is little this doc can offer in 1 vs 1 which other docs cant do better.



Its weird that we get told "inf shouldnt be its strenght", yet we have 5 unlocks just for infantry. And in total 7 CP or so spend into infantry.
And all we get is Rifle inf with an lmg after lots of CP that afterall costs 300 MP and which has stats like volksgrens.
Only near tanks it can fight effectively but since you have spend 7 CP into your inf just to have them with an lmg and down to 300 MP per squad, how am i supposed to get tanks? Thats another 2-3 CP before this inf can actually fight in the way its supposed to.


For 10 CP i do get luft inf+ Panther in luft doc.
For 10 CP i get a bunch of buffed volkssturm supported by tiger and de-buffing the enemie
For 10 CP i get Cheap panzer IV´s, even H version and J, in BK doc combined with powerfull elite inf.




So its weird. If someone tells me a doc is supposed to have inf that works with tanks i would expect some special inf units designed to work very well with tanks. But then i get told "inf should be the weak side". So we have 7 CP´s and 5 unlocks wasted into something that is "supposed to be its weak side".

It would have been better if you had said "The inf is not supposed to work without tanks". But saying "Inf should be its weak side" but then still making 5 unlocks for infantry and so many CP´s is a contradiction in itself.




@about the 4 men squad.
I checked brits, tested it a bit and its not surprising it doesnt work. It costs 360 MP and you have more or less just this truck as recruiting pool. There is no specifically designed support unit for it.



The idea behind a 4 men PE squad would be to have it very cheap and perhaps deployable by the HT.


Removing Stormpios might be one thing but then we cant build an MG emplacment anymore i think.




So either inf is its weak side and thus would barely have any inf unlock at all, or it does have infantry that is supposed to fight in a unique way.


But this here is like playing inf which is supposed to be "weak with infantry".


If you want a doc to be weak with inf, dont add so many unlocks that are traget infantry.


Instead you could have added barely any unlock for inf at all and kept the Heavy Assault grens and their standard stats. The result would be the same, just players wouldnt waste so many CP´s and unlocks for something that doesnt give you an advantage over other doc/faction infantry.

[kwok]

Did anyone fuckin read what I wrote????????

It looks like only mencius answered:

So basically, this doctrine is meant to brute force its way to victory like blitzkrieg does in the beta; only you have to keep your stuff alive and can't lose your units because replacing them like blitzkrieg does when it pops manpower blitz is impossible. So you have to take on every engagement keeping in mind your positioning, that your flanks are secure so your retreating units don't get killed, and that there's always an escape path for your tanks if things get dicey.

That's what I personally think the doctrine should be all-about, I personally take no offense if that's not how it's meant to be or turns out.

Is this how we are going to design it? Basically blitz doc but for PE? Is this our decision?
If that's the case then we can just copy paste files from blitz doc into PS and then will you all be happy?

[Warhawks97]

Well, lets put it that way: No other doctrine combines tanks and infantry so well as BK doc does. And BK doc does spend just 4 unlocks for infantry with a total of 8 CP.

TS doc spends 5 unlocks with a total of also 8 CP only into infantry as well.
Only inf doc has more infanty related unlocks (and RAF) with a total of 6 unlocks and 10 CP.

Def doc spends even less into inf and gets far more out of it after 3 unlocks as TS gets after 5.

The difference is: Inf and BK doc are supposed to have a strong inf. TS is supposed to have infantry as its "weak side".

Its like saying Royal Arty docs weak side should be its artillery.

Or we could just as well put 5 different airplane unlocks into armor doc and then say "Airplanes should be its weak side".


You cant make 1/3 of the tec tree related to a certain branch and then say it should be its weak side. You spend too many CP´s into something that every other doctrine has by default basically.
Bottom line:
No Other doc spends that many unlocks and CP´s in their supposed "weak side" as TS doc.





If infantry was supposed to be its weak side, you would have made max two unlocks for infantry, just like RE and Armor doc. In both infantry is just a support part and thus have only 1-2 unlocks.

But you simply cant relegate so many unlocks into its infantry when it shouldnt be a strong part of it. If you put that many unlocks and CP´s into it, its not a "weak side" anymore.


Thus: No one said to make TS doc being like BK doc! TS doc should not have this kind of Assault arty, air support, Blitzkrieg ability and such a strong inf.


What needs to be removed from this doc:
20 mm emplacment unlock
Cheap inf unlock
Mark Target
LMG upgrade


They all need to go since this doc does not have a focus on it. The main unlocks should be tanks and vehicle related with just max 2 unlocks for infantry stuff.
Any more unlocks and CP for infantry related stuff would make it look like inf plays an essential role which actually is not.



What should remain for its infantry which is supposed to play a support role:
Buff near vehicles
Buff near Tanks

I would sum it up into one unlock called "Mechanized Infantry Training" or something like that for 2 CP that unlocks both things at once. Every inf unit would be affected by it.
The LMG unlock would be replaced by double shreck for the AT squad. Basically the old unlock that also adds the Panzerfaust 100 to the Squad.
Heavy Assault grens remain in this doc.

As a possible third upgrade could be "MP40 supply" for the Basic grens so that they can do some assault stuff.
Perhaps MP40 could always be available to TS basic grens or it can be linked to the "Mechanized Infantry Training" or "Improved Mechanized Infantry Training".


So basically this doc would have two unlocks for its inf, similiar as RE doc.
2 CP: "Improved Mechanized Infantry Training" (Unlocks the buff near Tanks and vehicles at once and enables basic Grens to be fully upgraded by MP40.

1-2 CP: "Double Panzerschreck and Panzerfaust 100"



Heavy assault grens should be a small tactical squad for PE bc this is what PE really lacks. Small, easily available tactical squads.
Basically what Mencius described.
They start of with MP40, cost 260 MP for 4 men, can upgrade two STG or fully G43 (2x2) and one lmg42.
On top of that the transport HT would be able to deploy them.




The Basic PE grens would always be able to be upgraded with G43 and lmg42. It would take over the role of the mainline fighthing infantry force while all other inf squads are "special purpose" infantry only for special tasks and support like AT squad and the porposed small assault squad.




As for Tanks it would, as many times suggetsed, heavily rely on Tank IV´s, esspecially H and J affected by the Mass-production.
Then a small heavy Tank line with Tiger and KT/JT, Panther with various versions and the option to go JP or Panther G.
And a small TD line with the Jagdpanzer IV series.


That way this doc would not have special elite inf like BK and instead only a small support inf branch with two unlocks for infantry instead of 5 (!).



The small squads would be a Faction thing bc this is what PE needs. The option to deploy small tactical squads that can quickly do certain tasks.
And since you argue that 4 squads wont work anyway we can assume that this doc would not have any sort of "OP inf that roflstomps my commandos omg".



This doc would simply have a few elements from other docs without being as good in any of them like the others.
- You can get many Tank IV´s but without being supported by Stormtroopers or Rocket arty (when wespe comes) and without Blitzkrieg ability.

-It can get some very decent TD´s but without being able to field something like the elephant that combines armor, 88 mm gun and ambush and being generally far less effective in the defense as Def doc. They also cost quite something.


- You get some unlocks that improves your inf a bit to support the tanks, similiar to RE doc or armor, but still different as they are no flat buffs that always apply.
Its inf will always be tied to vehicles and tanks.

-Has Heavies but they do not have the support Propaganda doc provides to them.



Docs pros:
A good variety of Tanks that includes plenty Medium Tanks, TD´s, Heavies and Panthers. However, the play has to make a decision twice in the game.
Infantry works wll in conjunction with its Tanks and vehicles. Its standard inf can get more upgrades.
Punctual precise artillery.
Cheap Medium Tanks.


Docs cons:
Infantry is heavily dependend on armor and vehicle support.
No cheap mass-barrage rocket artillery with big AoE
Majority of units is quite expensive.
very weak air defense.



If you want, create an Alpha for that scenario and let us test it and see how it would work out. Othewise we spend more months with talking and at the end we would still have only a half breaded doctrine of which no one knows whether its inf should be able to actually do something or not.

[Walderschmidt]

Why not give the G43 squads the marksman ability like British Infantry sections and be done with it?

Wald