5.1.8. beta (Doctrine rework, update 1)

If there is something new, it will be posted here.
User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3900
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

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

Postby Tiger1996 » 05 Jun 2019, 03:40

I was just saying that allowing Stug4 to ambush by default, while at the same time delaying Pz4 to 4 CPs, simply makes the Stug4 completely dominant over Pz4 at every game stage... Not just early or late game, but literally all the times! Because the Stug4 serves the purpose of being a TD as well as good inf killer, Pz4 on the other hand can't ambush and doesn't really have any clear advantage that justifies paying entire 4 command points for it...

Also; I wonder, if Pz4 requires 4 CPs... Then how much a Firefly or Achilles would require?! Keeping in mind Jackson requires 5 CPs at the same tier.
And how much a Tiger1 tank would require accordingly???!!!
Don't tell me 6 CPs because that would be too late, and don't tell me 4 CPs like the Pz4 because that would be definitely ridiculous to have Pz4 and Tiger1 available after the same amount of CPs, having Tiger1 after 5 CPs might work though.. although it shouldn't be more than 4 CPs originally.

Do you see now how many problems would it make to have Pz4 at 4 CPs?
it just doesn't make any sense.. not to mention 76 Shermans would have to be delayed too, and that's a whole new problem.

Moreover, is Stug4 also going to remain a non doctrinal unit that requires no unlock whatsoever?
if YES, then what about M10? if NO, then how much CPs the Stug4 would require and which doctrine would have it?

User avatar
Black Panther
Posts: 80
Joined: 04 May 2019, 14:54

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

Postby Black Panther » 05 Jun 2019, 06:35

Ok I have a brilliant idea of making Panzer H a separate unlock to please everyone, so you can unlock it asap as you want it, for exchange of slowing the panther game

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2823
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

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

Postby MarKr » 05 Jun 2019, 08:34

The point was to delay the PIV. It seems to me that people here have the way of thinking "Sherman = medium tank, PIV = medium tank so if I want to counter Shermans, I must have PIV so they need to come at the same time" but PIV is by no means a counterpart to Shermans because PIV has stronger armor and their guns have better overall stats. If they are available at the same time, you can basically wipe your ass with Shermans because PIV are good counters to them, and Panthers are even stronger against them, which then leads to rushings Pershings because they would (again) be the best option you have to safely kill PIV and have relatively equal chance against Panthers.

If Armor player rushes Pershings (because Shermans are basically waste of resource because they are immediately outclassed by PIV available at the same time) then BK player will rush Panthers because PIV is in a disadvantage vs Pershing and we're back at the "rush the strongest unit" gameplay which we said we wanted to eliminate with the reworks.

So the Shermans are available a bit earlier but it is not like the Axis players have nothing to kill them with - there are 50/75mm AT guns, Halftracks with 75mm L48, Halftracks with the stubby 75mm (which have the HEAT shot), Pumas with 50mm (or the version with 75mm L48 too) Geschutzwagens, Marder III and other units.
Image

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

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

Postby Viper » 05 Jun 2019, 09:20

MarKr wrote:PIV is by no means a counterpart to Shermans because PIV has stronger armor and their guns have better overall stats. If they are available at the same time, you can basically wipe your ass with Shermans because PIV are good counters to them

excuse me.....what :!:
any 76 sherman is more than a match to panzer4.h and easyeight sherman can kill even tigers.......you are describing panzer4 tanks, right? or did you misspell???? go play now and put a 76 sherman head to head against panzer4 and you will see that they are VERY equal in game......or maybe 76 sherman is even better because it's cheaper, has better mobility and can have sandbags.

you really think 76 sherman is that much inferior to panzer4 :?: thats an implication of zero gameplay experience........the 50cal alone is already a big advantage and makes the sherman a much more capable tank than panzer4.


do i need to remind you that panzer4 ausf.j now require 5 command points to unlock?? YES. 5 command points, not only 4 command points.

you spend 5 command points for panzer4 and 6 command points for panther........if you see no problems with that....i dont know what to tell you.


panzer4 is the backbone of German ground military forces in normandy and is supposed to be the backbone of the blitzkrieg tactics.......delaying it too much is a stupid idea.

and if you lower the stock price, it will be even more stupid (sorry) because mass production unlock will become even more pointless like this......

panzer4 ausf.h should require 2 command points.....and 3 command points for ausf.j and maybe stug4 should become unlock too.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3555
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

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

Postby Warhawks97 » 05 Jun 2019, 10:15

kwok wrote:Okay. About the Panzer IV

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

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


Sorry, but Panthers have always felt to be counter to everything. It got the sweet spot between armor/firepower/multirole and cost. AB afterall uses good zooks as well as M10s and Hellcat. So the Panther proved to be in the very long run superior. At least that was my experience. At some point even Tank IV mass production isnt enough anymore.


Also that makes me wondering even more.
Situation 1:
I face armor doc. My best bet would be choosing Panther D for numbers and using Blitzkrieg ability as often as possible. Generally it seems more usefull to me to use my ammo in order to shoot as often as possible since regular pen power of panther is enough vs shermans, so number of shots matters more. And Pershings can be outspammed by Panther D. So i imagine two Panther D (not a big deal actually and often seen in the past by Luft doc) vs one Pershing. I would spend less or the same ammount of ammo for BK ability as i would for activating two times AP and thus getting of a lot more shots against the Pershing.

Situation 2:
I face AB doc and run for Panzer IV mass production. Their best tank is a sherman. Why do i need AP then when Panzer IV mass production is meant to counter numbers of soft targets?

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


I'll come back to respond to warhawks later but I think he is starting to udnerstand potential build orders.

I got them... just the AP rounds seem even more weird now after this explanation.




Tiger1996 wrote:I was just saying that allowing Stug4 to ambush by default, while at the same time delaying Pz4 to 4 CPs, simply makes the Stug4 completely dominant over Pz4 at every game stage... Not just early or late game, but literally all the times! Because the Stug4 serves the purpose of being a TD as well as good inf killer, Pz4 on the other hand can't ambush and doesn't really have any clear advantage that justifies paying entire 4 command points for it...


kwok is right in so far that Tank IV offers generally more offensive capabilties and battlefield survivability. But its true that the usual path will be lots of Stug IV´s which will counter any threat and wait/camp untill Panther as the "answer to everything".

Also; I wonder, if Pz4 requires 4 CPs... Then how much a Firefly or Achilles would require?! Keeping in mind Jackson requires 5 CPs at the same tier.
And how much a Tiger1 tank would require accordingly???!!!
Don't tell me 6 CPs because that would be too late, and don't tell me 4 CPs like the Pz4 because that would be definitely ridiculous to have Pz4 and Tiger1 available after the same amount of CPs, having Tiger1 after 5 CPs might work though.. although it shouldn't be more than 4 CPs originally.


Good question. It would look weird to have fireflies as fast or even faster deployed than Tank IVs which in my opinion should be a workhorse among the german army.

But i would be Ok to have Tigers earlier available than Panzer IV H/J. They arent a "tier up" or straight improvment over the Panzer IV, they are a new ctaregory of tanks: Heavy tanks. Thus Panther is an improvment over Panzer IV and playing the same role as those, thus Panther has to be avaialble than Tank IV H/J, but Tigers can be before or after them (pretty much like in reality).


not to mention 76 Shermans would have to be delayed too, and that's a whole new problem.

Here i can just agree. The axis workhorse tank comes later than the US "special" versions of shermans.

Moreover, is Stug4 also going to remain a non doctrinal unit that requires no unlock whatsoever?
if YES, then what about M10? if NO, then how much CPs the Stug4 would require and which doctrine would have it?

Stug IV´s can share the same unlock as Tank IV´s, its the same chassis. But idk if its necessary.





MarKr wrote:The point was to delay the PIV. It seems to me that people here have the way of thinking "Sherman = medium tank, PIV = medium tank so if I want to counter Shermans, I must have PIV so they need to come at the same time" but PIV is by no means a counterpart to Shermans because PIV has stronger armor and their guns have better overall stats. If they are available at the same time, you can basically wipe your ass with Shermans because PIV are good counters to them, and Panthers are even stronger against them, which then leads to rushings Pershings because they would (again) be the best option you have to safely kill PIV and have relatively equal chance against Panthers.



Oh, so you realized that Panzer IV armor (pretty much all of them) is totally overrated or the 76 (and the 57 mm vs early Panzer IV models) is total crap, a toothless monster. But instead fixing it you are reversing it. The 76 shermans should be there as a couter to the up-armored tank IV models which should be the axis workhorse. But you are reversing this, probably realizing that 76 gun sucks vs medium armor, even against the shitty 50 mm armor tanks, and instead adding the 90 mm to more US docs.

If Armor player rushes Pershings (because Shermans are basically waste of resource because they are immediately outclassed by PIV available at the same time) then BK player will rush Panthers because PIV is in a disadvantage vs Pershing and we're back at the "rush the strongest unit" gameplay which we said we wanted to eliminate with the reworks.


And i always wonder why the PZ IV has so much better armor and firepower compared to 76 sherman.


So the Shermans are available a bit earlier but it is not like the Axis players have nothing to kill them with - there are 50/75mm AT guns, Halftracks with 75mm L48, Halftracks with the stubby 75mm (which have the HEAT shot), Pumas with 50mm (or the version with 75mm L48 too) Geschutzwagens, Marder III and other units.


Still, the 76 shermans should be later available and a counter to up-armored medium tanks while tank IV´s should fill the worhorse role. I dont care so much when the Tank IV H/J is available (3 or 4 or 5 CP), i just care that stuff like Firefly and 76 shermans shouldnt be earlier available and that the Panzer IV H/J should not be considered as a "counter" to 76 shermans. They should be on pair in terms of armor and firepower with shermans being better in mobility and multirole aspects, hence better and later available (or at the same time) than Tank IV H/J´s.




Viper wrote:excuse me.....what :!:
any 76 sherman is more than a match to panzer4.h and easyeight sherman can kill even tigers.......you are describing panzer4 tanks, right? or did you misspell???? go play now and put a 76 sherman head to head against panzer4 and you will see that they are VERY equal in game......or maybe 76 sherman is even better because it's cheaper, has better mobility and can have sandbags.


They are quite equal. The 76 easy eight is better in speed and shermans in general in acceleration and both 76 shermans have more HP. The Panzer IV H has clearly the edge in firepower and armor. The Panzer IV H has 65,1525% pen vs 76 sherman at max range (55,379625% with sandbags) and 62,853 vs easy eight sherman (53,42505% with sandbags).
Sandbags are an add on and costs Mp and fuel, skirts on H are at default. Cal 50 is also an extra to pay.
The 76 guns pen chance vs H is 49,68%.

And the 76 is not cheaper. The tank IV costs just half the fuel upkeep a sherman does. Even after upkeep reduction upgrade the sherman costs more.

So if you put both units, H and e8 in raw conditions in 1 vs 1, the H is better slightly. It is cheaper (upkeep MP and fuel), has the better gun and better armor. The e8 can hope that Tank IV rolls a few low damage shots and count on his slightly higher MP pool to win the fight or to run away with its better mobility.
Fully upgraded with sandbags and cal 50 and smoke launcher the e8 seems to be overall better, but i wouldnt like to send it 1 vs 1 against a tank IV H.

And that Tiger argument is nonsense. A panzer IV can pen a Pershing equally good as a sherman can pen a Tiger. But axis arent forced to send a sherman against Pershings, so you see Pershings die less often to Tank IV´s.

And if you look at secondary stuff, such as other weapons that can counter each tank, then i would say shermns face a lot more cheap counters on the battlefield than Tank IV´s does.




you really think 76 sherman is that much inferior to panzer4 :?: thats an implication of zero gameplay experience........the 50cal alone is already a big advantage and makes the sherman a much more capable tank than panzer4.


as said, the Tank IV is better default tank, the e8 overall more versatile after several upgrades. But these are extra payments.


do i need to remind you that panzer4 ausf.j now require 5 command points to unlock?? YES. 5 command points, not only 4 command points.

you spend 5 command points for panzer4 and 6 command points for panther........if you see no problems with that....i dont know what to tell you.


If you set it in relation to the two CP for 76 shermans, 5 CP´s for jacks and 4 CP for firefly, it indeed looks weird.


panzer4 is the backbone of German ground military forces in normandy and is supposed to be the backbone of the blitzkrieg tactics.......delaying it too much is a stupid idea.


agreed. But it would feel acceptable if fireflies/76 and stuff would be delayed as well. And devs should drop the idea of Panzer IV H/J´s being a counter to 76 shermans. Currently they are, lets say equal in 1 vs 1, both with their pros and cons. But the tank IV H/J should never be considered to be a counter, instead 76 shermans should be considered to be an "answer" to them.

and if you lower the stock price, it will be even more stupid (sorry) because mass production unlock will become even more pointless like this......

panzer4 ausf.h should require 2 command points.....and 3 command points for ausf.j and maybe stug4 should become unlock too.[/quote]

MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 148
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

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

Postby MenciusMoldbug » 05 Jun 2019, 19:45

I've been thinking about Airborne and Infantry Doctrine's AT capabilities that doesn't cost CP's. Outside of the 76mm towed AT gun what else do they have they can use which is non-doctrinal? The infantry AT team? If the 76mm Sherman is going to be delayed the M10 has to be non-doctrinal because outside of that tank or the M10 I don't know what US player can do against a good defense line with lots of Stug 4's and P3's or whatever.

My firm belief is that all US doctrines should have some sort of fast mobile unit that doesn't cost CP's which can handle stuff that has armor. So M10 should 100% be non-doctrinal for all US Docs. British can keep the M10 Achilles as a CP costing tank because it's basically a Jackson in disguise with HE rounds (doesn't have to buy it's engine for munitions either).

I'm thinking for infantry doctrine they should get something that buffs emplacement HP as replacement for the M10 unlock. Airborne can have the M10 unlock become the M18 Hellcat unlock; maybe they get unlimited hellcats or a bigger limit on the amount they can field (1 is too little honestly).

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1698
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

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

Postby kwok » 05 Jun 2019, 20:06

For the 5th time, CW and PE changes are planned later so their current state is NOT something to be compared with. The Achilles and firefly will find their place the same way other unlocks between WM and US have found theirs.

I think the discussion among devs with having 76 Shermans 3CP instead of 2 came up much earlier than the convo here on this forum. We decided no for a couple reasons:
- For AB and Inf doc they are not an unlock path that scales into anything of significance. Potentially might change for inf doc.
- For armor doc, the unlock is too fundamental for the doctrine itself. Unlike blitz doctrine where the panzer 4 is NOT meant to be the center point of the doctrine. Aggression in a combined arms manner is the theme.
-The 76 Sherman can be stopped reliably with base axis units (75mm pak, stug as mentioned in this topic, panzershcrecks). Meanwhile the panzer 4 requires upgrades on top of base units to be stopped reliably.
-The 76 Sherman requires more CP and resource cost to scale while the panzer 4 starts strong (mentioned already
-The panzer 4 can be supported via various other kinds of units in the mid-late game whereas the Sherman will predominately be supported by other kinds of vehicles only (for now...)

I get the sense the main arguments and proposed changes here by Tiger and viper isn’t about balance, as they want to take away some doctrine choices for things that exist for blitz doc without an unlock wall, so a net nerf. What they want is on principle to have tanks available earlier not just for the p4 or blitz doc but all docs that have armor. This unfortunately we will not do because on principle we want the OPPOSITE. While the intent of the reworks was to make doctrines well rounded, we figured we might as well work towards making the early/mid game more interesting. We have gotten so many comments about how so many units are just never used. We address this by making tank based unlocks in general more gradual in progression. In the games we have played and replays analyzed so far, we feel we have successfully done that.

Brb will respond about AP unlocks later.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1698
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

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

Postby kwok » 05 Jun 2019, 21:28

AP Rounds:

Also that makes me wondering even more.
Situation 1:
I face armor doc. My best bet would be choosing Panther D for numbers and using Blitzkrieg ability as often as possible. Generally it seems more usefull to me to use my ammo in order to shoot as often as possible since regular pen power of panther is enough vs shermans, so number of shots matters more. And Pershings can be outspammed by Panther D. So i imagine two Panther D (not a big deal actually and often seen in the past by Luft doc) vs one Pershing. I would spend less or the same ammount of ammo for BK ability as i would for activating two times AP and thus getting of a lot more shots against the Pershing.


Sure if you think that's enough that's great. Having AP rounds increases your chances of winning that scenario. The game is about influencing RNG to the greatest extent possible. RNG still happens when the double panther Ds can't penetrate the pershing.
Also, what if players want to use NOT the panther D but the panther (i can't remember the letter but the better one) which is a better all around tank than the D? Those aren't as spammable and essentially have the same matchup against pershings as the panther D.

Situation 2:
I face AB doc and run for Panzer IV mass production. Their best tank is a sherman. Why do i need AP then when Panzer IV mass production is meant to counter numbers of soft targets?


You won't need them, so don't get them. Just like how you don't need the stuka bomber against armor doc or you don't need the jackson against def doc. The problem is when you DO need something, is it possible to GET it? What can blitz doc have to help against armor doc? Is there a stopping point where armor doc will outright block everything blitz doc can do as it had in the past?
AGAIN, we are open to changing/moving the AP rounds out but there needs to a replacement. Putting the maultiers or having cheaper grenades is not going to help blitz doc fight off a super pershing that essentially provides near unkillable support for the now very flexible armor doc.

About the m10, maybe. Let's see how far this 76 sherman convo goes... UNLESS replays clearly show us differently, we are drawing the line in the sand right now: the panzer iv is NOT going to be earlier than 4CP. Halftracks and light tanks need a chance to shine. So far no replay here has been posted while i've gotten replays outside of the forum from other people that tell us a different story than what's being told here.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3555
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

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

Postby Warhawks97 » 05 Jun 2019, 21:56

kwok wrote:For the 5th time, CW and PE changes are planned later so their current state is NOT something to be compared with. The Achilles and firefly will find their place the same way other unlocks between WM and US have found theirs.


ok

I think the discussion among devs with having 76 Shermans 3CP instead of 2 came up much earlier than the convo here on this forum. We decided no for a couple reasons:
- For AB and Inf doc they are not an unlock path that scales into anything of significance. Potentially might change for inf doc.

Just a thought. Perhaps AB dont need a 76 sherman at all? Instead M10 becomes default unit and the two tanks unlocked would be M18 and M36 (B or A).

Generally, as i would argue, this is what would help AB in most scenarios, not a single 76 sherman here or there which is a pure gamble with its 50/50 gun even against Tank IIIs and such.
Ive never seen any AB player using more than one 76 sherman, if any at all, but i saw many with Hellcats and M10.


- For armor doc, the unlock is too fundamental for the doctrine itself. Unlike blitz doctrine where the panzer 4 is NOT meant to be the center point of the doctrine. Aggression in a combined arms manner is the theme.


ok, thats reasonable. But Perhaps 76 sherman might require improved production or an unlock in the WSC perhaps. 76 mm M1 sherman turret unlock.




-The 76 Sherman can be stopped reliably with base axis units (75mm pak, stug as mentioned in this topic, panzershcrecks). Meanwhile the panzer 4 requires upgrades on top of base units to be stopped reliably.

we know this. But i would even go as far to buff its armor, at least against 50 mm guns, in exchange for slightly later availablity. If not by CP, then by WSC unlock or something.

-The 76 Sherman requires more CP and resource cost to scale while the panzer 4 starts strong (mentioned already
-The panzer 4 can be supported via various other kinds of units in the mid-late game whereas the Sherman will predominately be supported by other kinds of vehicles only (for now...)


which again makes me asking: Why is the 76 gun so bad against Tank IV armor in general. Since Tank III´s also use Tank IV armor, it is a really nasty thing to see these tanks keep bouncing off from standard default tanks.


We have gotten so many comments about how so many units are just never used. We address this by making tank based unlocks in general more gradual in progression. In the games we have played and replays analyzed so far, we feel we have successfully done that.



Yes, but you keep the 76 sherman a 2 CP unit. Right now you got to rush it bc the stuff you get in the motorpool is not that usefull (i doubt the stuart will be seen more often as it does now) so you keep skipping that unit in order to get shermans asap.

So what you say here would logically include/affect 76 shermans as well, not just tank IV´s. I am fine with the many CP´s to get Tank IV´s and stuff, but pls do the same with 76 shermans as well. And if the 76 doesnt feel effective enough for the late appearance, just buff it. Make the 76 capable of killing Tank III´s effectively and all these 50 mm armor tank IV´s at least and boost its armor slightly, esspecially against 50 mm guns.

And for AB it can be removed when M10 becomes default unit and with Hellcat and Jackson taking shermans slot.




kwok wrote:AP Rounds:


Sure if you think that's enough that's great. Having AP rounds increases your chances of winning that scenario. The game is about influencing RNG to the greatest extent possible. RNG still happens when the double panther Ds can't penetrate the pershing.
Also, what if players want to use NOT the panther D but the panther (i can't remember the letter but the better one) which is a better all around tank than the D? Those aren't as spammable and essentially have the same matchup against pershings as the panther D.



The question is, does it need more support vs armor doc? Blitzkrieg ability, Command tank, stug IV´s and late comming pershings.
Also my point was what is better to spend the ammo for (assuming you dont have endless to use BK ability and AP). I would say BK ability bc it makes you shoot more often, your basic pen is very well and it boosts all units, not just one, even helping schrecks to get into position and turning your AT guns into high rate of fire guns.


You won't need them, so don't get them. Just like how you don't need the stuka bomber against armor doc or you don't need the jackson against def doc. The problem is when you DO need something, is it possible to GET it? What can blitz doc have to help against armor doc? Is there a stopping point where armor doc will outright block everything blitz doc can do as it had in the past?
AGAIN, we are open to changing/moving the AP rounds out but there needs to a replacement. Putting the maultiers or having cheaper grenades is not going to help blitz doc fight off a super pershing that essentially provides near unkillable support for the now very flexible armor doc.

About the m10, maybe. Let's see how far this 76 sherman convo goes... UNLESS replays clearly show us differently, we are drawing the line in the sand right now: the panzer iv is NOT going to be earlier than 4CP. Halftracks and light tanks need a chance to shine. So far no replay here has been posted while i've gotten replays outside of the forum from other people that tell us a different story than what's being told here.



and again, who said that it needs a boost vs armor doc when pershing will be delayed, 76 sherman removed, cheap Panthers added as possibility and command tank IV available.

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

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

Postby Viper » 05 Jun 2019, 22:00

kwok wrote:We have gotten so many comments about how so many units are just never used. We address this by making tank based unlocks in general more gradual in progression.
kwok wrote:the panzer iv is NOT going to be earlier than 4CP. Halftracks and light tanks need a chance to shine.

you really think you are giving chance to halftracks and light tanks to shine by delaying panzer4 under the excuse of being too op.....but at the same time allowing stug4 td spam instead :?: you only changed the meta from panzer4 spam to better stug4 spam, still no place for light tanks here.

and you only delay panzer4 because you think they are op.....and like warhwaks said, instead of tweaking their stats.....you just blatantly delay them.
but you keep 76 shermans available too early.....although you say you want to give more space to light tanks :!:

you just make no sense. full of bullshit.

kwok wrote:Unlike blitz doctrine where the panzer 4 is NOT meant to be the center point of the doctrine

the panzer4 is OF COURSE meant to be the center of blitzkrieg tactics, not stug4 which is a td.....

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3555
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

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

Postby Warhawks97 » 05 Jun 2019, 22:04

Viper wrote: halftracks and light tanks to shine by delaying panzer4 under the excuse of being too op.....but at the same time allowing stug4 td spam instead :?: you only changed the meta from panzer4 spam to better stug4 spam, still no place for light tanks here.

and you only delay panzer4 because you think they are op.....and like warhwaks said, instead of tweaking their stats.....you just blatantly delay them.
but you keep 76 shermans available too early.....although you say you want to give more space to light tanks :!:



yeah, that was my saying. It just feels like a "lie" when you say you delay Tank IV for the sake of giving vehicles and light tanks more time to shine while keeping 76 shermans and stugs so early available.

Its a contradiction. You would have to delay 76 shermans and at least the stug IV´s by requiring tank IV unlock if you really want to give light tanks and other stuff a chance.

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

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

Postby Tiger1996 » 05 Jun 2019, 23:13

Totally agreed with Viper and Hawks latest statements...

And to top it off, here is how Blitz doc should look like:

SnapShot.jpg


The picture says it all, I don't think I have to explain anything further...

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

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

Postby Viper » 05 Jun 2019, 23:24

Tiger1996 wrote:And to top it off, here is how Blitz doc should look like:

even better......i think mass production unlock should be a sub tree downwards the panzer.iv.h unlock, linked with it, right in replace of storm troop halftrack unlock.....and then you move storm troop halftrack unlock to be in replace of demolition team unlock (demolition team unlock can be removed totally because like you say they are available in the halftrack already) and then in replace of the mass production unlock.....you bring back the ap ammo unlock to be linked with blitzkrieg ability.......you understand me? can you do a picture with this?

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

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

Postby Tiger1996 » 05 Jun 2019, 23:48

Got it!
Brilliant idea by the way...

Here you are:

SnapShot(0).jpg


I just had to quickly edit the original picture which I posted above, so you might notice some weird color patterns.. but the image is fine.

So, now... That's what has been modified:

- AP ammo unlock linked with Blitzkrieg ability.
- Demo Storm unlock removed.
- Mass production right below Pz4.H unlock.

User avatar
Black Panther
Posts: 80
Joined: 04 May 2019, 14:54

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

Postby Black Panther » 05 Jun 2019, 23:57

Tiger1996 wrote:Totally agreed with Viper and Hawks latest statements...

And to top it off, here is how Blitz doc should look like:

SnapShot.jpg

The picture says it all, I don't think I have to explain anything further...

Wow, Tiger, so instead of diversity we currently have in beta rework, you want to rework doctrine into full meta play with spamming of Pz4 j/h right from the start?

And also, I don't agree about 76mm not being delayed - being a problem to balance. You've got vet 0 ambush for a Stug, that was always multi-role tank, while having skirts on, having a huge advantage of fighting the same tier 75mm. So it has a camo now, what do you want more buffs to Germans?
How is delayed Pz4 is going to give WM a huge pain in the ass, while we have Stugs with camo? I don't get why you want this way

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

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

Postby Tiger1996 » 06 Jun 2019, 00:05

What diversity are you talking about in the beta rework man?!
in the beta... Stug4 is the spam meta, therefore in the picture I posted.. as you can see the Stug4 is now requiring CP unlock, since it's a TD.
And as a result of that, Pz4.J is now available after 2 CPs and Pz4.H after 3 CPs... Or do you prefer Stug4 (TD) spam for zero command points?

I mean like really... Tell me, what is more OP; Stug4 spam (with camo) for zero command points.. or Pz4.J spam for 2 CPs?
Stug4 spam is indeed more OP at this point... So, having Pz4.J after 2 CPs won't be a problem since 76 Shermans cost 2 CPs too, as well as M10.
The problem is bigger when you have Stug4 spam dude!

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1698
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

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

Postby kwok » 06 Jun 2019, 00:17

Note taken about the stugs, I see where you’re coming from. But not convinced yet.
Stugs (tier 3 unit) and halftracks/light tanks (tier 2 units) are barred by tier, that’s what splits them. The reason why P4s take away from the T2 is not because it’s too strong but because it is rushed especially since it’s role is not the same as the P4. Unless you’re saying the stug is going to be rushed instead of the P4, then yes stigs do have a problem. But that’s not what replays are showing us right now. Versus there are many games on non-beta where the first vehicle blitz doc would get is the panzer4.

If you feel that strong about the stug then play the beta and prove me wrong. We have no problem making changes as long as there’s enough backing/reason.

Edit: I see there are more posts I haven’t read, I’ll come back to edit later.


Also please refrain from this type of posting
you just make no sense. full of bullshit.

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 459
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

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

Postby mofetagalactica » 06 Jun 2019, 04:21

kwok wrote:Note taken about the stugs, I see where you’re coming from. But not convinced yet.
Stugs (tier 3 unit) and halftracks/light tanks (tier 2 units) are barred by tier, that’s what splits them. The reason why P4s take away from the T2 is not because it’s too strong but because it is rushed especially since it’s role is not the same as the P4. Unless you’re saying the stug is going to be rushed instead of the P4, then yes stigs do have a problem. But that’s not what replays are showing us right now. Versus there are many games on non-beta where the first vehicle blitz doc would get is the panzer4.

If you feel that strong about the stug then play the beta and prove me wrong. We have no problem making changes as long as there’s enough backing/reason.

Edit: I see there are more posts I haven’t read, I’ll come back to edit later.


Also please refrain from this type of posting
you just make no sense. full of bullshit.


Maybe make blitzkrieg have only stugs3? The problem about it would be that they will not have any kind of decent armored vehicle that can cammo other than halftrack 75mm.

I really didnt had any issue about this pz4 or stug problem, i had momments in blija map where it was more usefull to use 3 pz's than just 1 panther D. Cause the enemy had m10 with APHE and tons of infantry, i didn't use stugs just because can be oneshooted by 76mm's while the pz4 has more resilent armor againts them and has the power to supress the infantry.

And in the case i had panther A as reward, i couldn't really rush it even if i had the cp's to unlock it that fast, since it cost way more to produce and you have upgrade the heavy tank factory.

So yeah, somethimes when you're facing a whole army of m10's and rangers, going for panzer4 mixed with infantry and using blitzkrieg habilities are more than enought to anihilate them while using the pz'4s as shields.

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

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

Postby Viper » 06 Jun 2019, 04:40

mofetagalactica wrote:Maybe make blitzkrieg have only stugs3? The problem about it would be that they will not have any kind of decent armored vehicle that can cammo other than halftrack 75mm.

if it will be only stug3 then it should stay to require no command points.....but as you said, it will be problem to not have any real td in the doctrine....so i think it is best to have stug4 unlocked with stuh and stupa like Tiger showed us.

and it can be the late model stug4 version in blitzkrieg doctrine....the early model version can be available a bit earlier in terror doctrine.

kwok wrote:The reason why P4s take away from the T2 is not because it’s too strong but because it is rushed especially since it’s role is not the same as the P4. Unless you’re saying the stug is going to be rushed instead of the P4, then yes stigs do have a problem.

looks like you finally started to understand what we are saying.....although we repeated this point like how many times? you only see it now? anyway.......i dont know what do you still want to be convinced about.....it's clear like the sun and the moon....

panzer.iv should be early available....stug4 should require command points. and if you think panzer4 is too strong, you can tweak it and lower its protection against 75mm and 57mm cannons....so, cromwell and 75 sherman can have better chances....but dont delay the backbone tank of the german army.

and just like how i asked Tiger to swap the mass production unlock downwards panzer.iv unlock.....i want to ask you as well to swap armor doctrine mass production unlock to be downwards sherman unlock.....because it makes no sense to have experienced tank crews unlock among tank line tech tree.....so you need to move the experienced tank crew unlock elsewhere.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1698
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

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

Postby kwok » 06 Jun 2019, 07:18

Viper wrote:

kwok wrote:The reason why P4s take away from the T2 is not because it’s too strong but because it is rushed especially since it’s role is not the same as the P4. Unless you’re saying the stug is going to be rushed instead of the P4, then yes stugs do have a problem.

looks like you finally started to understand what we are saying.....although we repeated this point like how many times? you only see it now? anyway.......i dont know what do you still want to be convinced about.....it's clear like the sun and the moon.....


do you realize you just quoted me with with just 1 sentence of my post and took it completely out of context? I wrote 165 words and the only ones that seemed to stick to you at all is 21of them.

no... we are not just now realizing what the argument you're trying to make is. we actually have drafts of doctrines where the stug is behind a CP unlock way long before this rework was posted for the exact reasons you mentioned (and private messages of those drafts can prove this, but i don't want to leak out other information that isn't confirmed yet).

here:

early drafts screenshot.png


here is the rest of the post that you can address:
kwok wrote:
Note taken about the stugs, I see where you’re coming from. But not convinced yet.
Stugs (tier 3 unit) and halftracks/light tanks (tier 2 units) are barred by tier, that’s what splits them.

...

But that’s not what replays are showing us right now. Versus there are many games on non-beta where the first vehicle blitz doc would get is the panzer4.

If you feel that strong about the stug then play the beta and prove me wrong. We have no problem making changes as long as there’s enough backing/reason.

Edit: I see there are more posts I haven’t read, I’ll come back to edit later.


Also please refrain from this type of posting
you just make no sense. full of bullshit.


Also, just taking how your arguments are going compared to how others have been framing theirs, you said it yourself you REPEAT but dont bring any new points to the table. This does NOT change how the devs will make their decisions. If you look into my screenshot, clearly at SOME point of the drafting of doctrines I agreed with you (though less and less the more we talk), but I'm not the only one who makes decisions. The only way new arguments get discussed within the devs if good arguments are made on the forum. This goes for EVERYONE (Warhawks... Tiger...), not just viper. Sorry I will just use viper as the most recent example. Nothing against viper specifically, the example is just convenient.

Viper, let's break down just your last post and why your argument is NOT being recognized because you just started a new one.

Viper wrote:
and just like how i asked Tiger to swap the mass production unlock downwards panzer.iv unlock.....i want to ask you as well to swap armor doctrine mass production unlock to be downwards sherman unlock.....because it makes no sense to have experienced tank crews unlock among tank line tech tree.....so you need to move the experienced tank crew unlock elsewhere.


Your claim: should swap armor doctrine mass production unlock to be downwards from sherman unlock
You reason: because it makes no sense to have experienced tank crews unlock among tank line tech tree

I could just easily say:
You cannot have panzer 4's be for 4CP because it makes no sense to have a medium tank available at 2CP.

If you want to know where I'm getting MY information about what is truth in the beta/reworks and what is just repeating claims, one person JUST posted now.
Figree has been one of the best testers so far, I know for a FACT that he has played the beta multiple times with replays to prove it. This has been his experience:
mofetagalactica wrote:
I really didnt had any issue about this pz4 or stug problem, i had momments in blija map where it was more usefull to use 3 pz's than just 1 panther D. Cause the enemy had m10 with APHE and tons of infantry, i didn't use stugs just because can be oneshooted by 76mm's while the pz4 has more resilent armor againts them and has the power to supress the infantry.

And in the case i had panther A as reward, i couldn't really rush it even if i had the cp's to unlock it that fast, since it cost way more to produce and you have upgrade the heavy tank factory.

So yeah, somethimes when you're facing a whole army of m10's and rangers, going for panzer4 mixed with infantry and using blitzkrieg habilities are more than enought to anihilate them while using the pz'4s as shields.

I have figree's replays, i've played against figree multiple times, i have something other than someone saying "This is bullshit" to analyze.


We are moving on now. I think the next patch has been locked; we'll take feedback from this thread for the one after the next. Don't expect many stug changes or for panzer ivs to have CP cost lower than 4CP for the next patch. Maybe something will change by the next next. There were some ideas we did like through this.... "discussion...."
Last edited by kwok on 06 Jun 2019, 08:34, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 459
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

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

Postby mofetagalactica » 06 Jun 2019, 08:05

Warhawks97 wrote:
Viper wrote: halftracks and light tanks to shine by delaying panzer4 under the excuse of being too op.....but at the same time allowing stug4 td spam instead :?: you only changed the meta from panzer4 spam to better stug4 spam, still no place for light tanks here.

and you only delay panzer4 because you think they are op.....and like warhwaks said, instead of tweaking their stats.....you just blatantly delay them.
but you keep 76 shermans available too early.....although you say you want to give more space to light tanks :!:



yeah, that was my saying. It just feels like a "lie" when you say you delay Tank IV for the sake of giving vehicles and light tanks more time to shine while keeping 76 shermans and stugs so early available.

Its a contradiction. You would have to delay 76 shermans and at least the stug IV´s by requiring tank IV unlock if you really want to give light tanks and other stuff a chance.


I think this would be a little of way too much work and would require something like balance updates, meanwhile warhawks like the tittle says we are getting doctrine rework updates these updates are not focused on full balance so having to do tons of changes on vehicles stats could be something double edged after having changes in doctrines.

And about light tanks:
I've tried a few times doing new swarm offensives using light vehicles since 37mm got standarized, and it works pretty well with the greyhound that has 42% chances of penetring the rear of a panther, chaffes also got pen multiplier on cammo, stuarts are still a weird vehicle to use because of how slow they are, but i think they got changes on the HE.

We will still have the problem of light tank phases because everyone will still want to rush to sherman or stugs, but believe me its a little better than before, rushing feels more dangerous now.

Again regarding stug4 i had a few games where rushing these tanks wasn't really that usefull since the enemy knew this and had cammoed chaffes before-hand and it blew to pieces my stugs, so i think another big difference on stugs and pz4's is that they're more usefull on defensive or slow advance scenarios, while i feel the pz4,pz3 and panther is the workhorse of offensive scenarios.

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

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

Postby Tiger1996 » 06 Jun 2019, 10:00

For me, it just looks like.. whoever the person who reworked both Blitz and Armor doctrines, was intentionally trying to desperately screw himself up... Despite having a lot of free space to maneuver through the doctrinal items, yet.. that person just chooses to set really meaningless limitations over his head. As much clueless as that person might have been, the results clearly reflect that state.

I mean, regarding Viper's observation concerning the mass production unlock in Armor doctrine... I would probably just wonder why is it made this way?

Wouldn't it have been much more organized to have Mass Production beneath Sherman unlock.. and AP Ammo unlock right next to it? While re-placing the crew veterancy unlock(s) all in a single line together with War Machinery unlock?? Do i also have to make a picture to demonstrate that or you can already imagine what is in my head?

The way how it is currently.. is just odd, to say the least. Not just Armor doc of course, but the situation is obviously worse with Blitz doc, thus... I had to create a picture for it. Now you can compare both versions of Blitz doc, and honestly tell me which one is more believable.

Also, the rule of the thumb is supposedly as follows:
First, you unlock something.. then you make it cheaper or mass produce it, not the opposite! You don't FIRST mass produce something THEN unlock it afterwards... I mean, what if the player chooses to unlock mass production first actually before unlocking Shermans? it's not wrong, but very odd indeed.

Therefore, i have to agree with anyone saying that mass production unlocks should always be linked with their original unit unlock.. so, the Sherman unlock should LEAD you to the mass production, and not the contrary.

it's always better to keep things up to a particular line with common similarities among the same tech tree.. exactly just as how you have a separate branch for artillery unlocks, so on and so forth...

Glad to hear that devs are liking some of the suggestions here though... Hope to see things re-organized better in the future.

CGarr
Posts: 50
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

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

Postby CGarr » 06 Jun 2019, 11:24

Having read through the posts on the 5th page of this topic, I wouldn't mind seeing both panzer 4's (H and J) at 4 cp and maybe even giving blitz the pz4 F2 where tiger had put the H in his last proposed tree arrangement. Given the arrangement he provided, I think setting the pz4 H/J unlock to 2 cp and the mass production upgrade to 1 cp would be ideal, alongside reducing panther to 2 cp so it is at 6 total again. All of these changes together would mean early panzer 4's in the form of the F2 (2 cp for upgraded production) would be available, while pushing the strong pz4 models to 4 cp would mean light tanks would still have more time on the field before they have to worry about being smacked by the big boys (H/J and upwards).

On a similar note, I think people would actually be more willing to build 76 shermans if their pen was buffed, as 76 guns across the board perform terribly against these absurdly beefy medium tanks which is a shame considering they're meant to be able to deal with heavies.

As I understand it, buffing their pen would mean that these guns would also perform better against heavies, but I don't see this as an issue considering they are the heaviest field guns available to the US faction and even the movable version is used more like an emplaced gun in the beta due to the new packing times. If it is possible to just buff the 76 gun on the shermans alone, I think this would be ideal, but if not it shouldn't be too much of an issue.

To compensate for this buff I think the 76 sherman unlock should be 3 cp and locked behind upgraded production like the jackson, as at that point the gun would perform more in line with tanks at that level of teching. Additionally, if their guns are buffed, then the sandbag upgrades should make the 76 shermans cost increase with each level of upgrade to justify their more panther-like performance after the upgrades and alongside their new guns. I don't want to see these tanks spammed to a ridiculous degree, but I think these buffs and cost increases would make the 76 shermans more respectable units, as right now they feel out of place seeing as how a 75mm sherman and TD combo works better in most situations.

I've got replays demonstrating how difficult it currently is to win head on engagements with even pz4's when you don't have the muni to spend on AP shots (which is not often considering how much muni US has to use to stay competitive mid to late game with their relatively weak stock units). I think the upgrades in teching and cost would justify the performance increases, especially considering the sandbag upgrade would actually have trade offs aside from the initial cost and a slight speed debuff.

A US player reaching the stage at which they could rely on upgraded sherman 76's to kill pz4's reliably and possibly contend with tigers and panthers without having to spend a large sum of muni every encounter would mark the transition into the late game in the same way that a blitz player reaching the stage at which they can use panthers to reliably smack down every tank allied tank except pershings and even have a strong fighting chance against the pershings once one factors in the blitz doc buffs given by the command tank and blitz ability.

Despite some of the toxicity in the recent posts between some people, I really like most of the ideas proposed by everyone in the recent posts on this topic and I think the changes I just listed would be the best way to incorporate those suggestions in a manner that makes everyone happy and hopefully leaves the game in a better state than it was previously.

Edit: Forgot to add, I agree with Figree in that no matter the case of what should be done, future changes that take these new opinions into account should be postponed until the balance updates. Right now, the dev team is working on just getting the groundwork for all the doctrine reworks into place. As such, they might not all be completely balanced until the reworks are done, after which balancing fixes can begin again. To save everyone from the headache, I think we should take this into mind when discussing these proposed changes and recognize the fact that our balancing ideas might be taken into consideration but not implemented until after the doctrine reworks.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3555
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

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

Postby Warhawks97 » 06 Jun 2019, 13:16

Tiger1996 wrote:
Wouldn't it have been much more organized to have Mass Production beneath Sherman unlock.. and AP Ammo unlock right next to it? While re-placing the crew veterancy unlock(s) all in a single line together with War Machinery unlock?? Do i also have to make a picture to demonstrate that or you can already imagine what is in my head?

Therefore, i have to agree with anyone saying that mass production unlocks should always be linked with their original unit unlock.. so, the Sherman unlock should LEAD you to the mass production, and not the contrary.


Well, i think the current unlock line in armor doc does make sense. The standard sherman does not require CP´s so now you dont need to unlock 76 first before using 75 mm sherman mass-production. As long as there is a default unit affected, mass-productions can stay independent.

Mass-production and and war machinery have the same goal: Quickly replacing losses. Thus i think that was a good idea.

And the veterancy or rather the faster exp gain rate down below shermans affects only sherman crews. So basically you first improve more or less regular shermans by unlocking the 76 version of it. Then you help them through combat by giving their sherman crews the ability to vet up faster (and if needed unlock veterancy 1 level among all tanks). Then you boost the sherman again by unlocking the jumbo version of it. And Ultimately, the sherman isnt enough anymore, no matter how much you boost the crew, and go for a whole new tank: The Pershing.
So for armor doc i do like it really as it is now. One line improves your standard tank and gives a better one in the end, the other branch helps you to replace losses faster.

One thing i would like to add here: With sherman mass production unlock the cost of stuart should drop in cost as well. So its not just a Sherman mass production unlock with quicker production speed, but also gives you lots of light tanks. At the end, with tank depot upgrade and this unlock the stuart would cost less than 300 MP. Why else would anyone in armor doc use 340-310 MP stuart when he gets shermans for 350 MP.



Also, the rule of the thumb is supposedly as follows:
First, you unlock something.. then you make it cheaper or mass produce it, not the opposite! You don't FIRST mass produce something THEN unlock it afterwards... I mean, what if the player chooses to unlock mass production first actually before unlocking Shermans? it's not wrong, but very odd indeed.


As said above, regular shermans dont need an unlock, so mass production can be a sperate one, esspecially when light tanks would get affected as well.

For Bk doc its indeed a bit weird. Before beta the mass production dropped the cost of tank IV D and Ostwind, now both are gone and Tank III is probably not affected.

But still, i would keep the H version earlier available over the J. Simply bc why else would anyone use H when one can just spam J right away. The J should remain the later stage meatshield of tank IV versions and unlocked ammong the Tank IV mass production as we were and still are used to. The J does not need a sperate unlock. That it gets unlocked by mass production makes sense as this tank is the definition of Tank IV mass production.
Thus i do like to have the Tank III->Tank IV H unlock. But the mass production could be put down below the H version and unlocking the J. Having this unlock independent makes only sense when it would drop the cost of any default unit (like tank IV D and Ostwind in the past).

One thing i could think off is to have the Tank IV F2 (or G version) as a default unit for Bk doc that gets a bit cheaper by mass-production.


CGarr made a very good post in general. I will break it down and respond:

CGarr wrote:Having read through the posts on the 5th page of this topic, I wouldn't mind seeing both panzer 4's (H and J) at 4 cp and maybe even giving blitz the pz4 F2 where tiger had put the H in his last proposed tree arrangement. Given the arrangement he provided, I think setting the pz4 H/J unlock to 2 cp and the mass production upgrade to 1 cp would be ideal, alongside reducing panther to 2 cp so it is at 6 total again. All of these changes together would mean early panzer 4's in the form of the F2 (2 cp for upgraded production) would be available, while pushing the strong pz4 models to 4 cp would mean light tanks would still have more time on the field before they have to worry about being smacked by the big boys (H/J and upwards).


Good one, i would even go as far as to make the F2 a default tank (for BK doc at least) in perhaps the compensation of giving the stug IV some sort of unlock, at best together with the the H unlock. This doc is meant to be aggressive but i am sure most will hide behind walls of cheap 0 CP ambushed Stug IV´s through mid to late stage and teching for panthers.
Thus the default part of this doc should be Tank III N with 75 mm HE gun for anti infantry/emplacment, Tank IV F2 (or G) for firepower against shermans and stuff and stug III as multirole cheap infantry support weapon. The F2 (rename it G version pls) would get cheaper by Tank IV unlock.
The Tank IV H would afterall require 4 CP and J 5 CP in total. This way the tank IV massproduction line can stay as it is bc it drops cost of an default unit. Thus no need to link it with anything anymore.

On a similar note, I think people would actually be more willing to build 76 shermans if their pen was buffed, as 76 guns across the board perform terribly against these absurdly beefy medium tanks which is a shame considering they're meant to be able to deal with heavies.


They were designed in 42 to combat future Tank IV improvments, not to deal with tigers and Panthers. Both were believed to occure in small numbers only. They were right concerning the Tiger, but Panther numbers caught them by surprise.


As I understand it, buffing their pen would mean that these guns would also perform better against heavies, but I don't see this as an issue considering they are the heaviest field guns available to the US faction and even the movable version is used more like an emplaced gun in the beta due to the new packing times. If it is possible to just buff the 76 gun on the shermans alone, I think this would be ideal, but if not it shouldn't be too much of an issue.


The 76 was bad vs heavy armor, esspecially panther front armor. Vs Tiger its hard to say since they actually never or barely encountered each other till 45.

But what the 76 needs is a buff vs all that medium armor stuff like tank IV´s and Tank III´s. It had no issues going through 50 mm of armor.
It should be buffed vs all axis mediums below panther

To compensate for this buff I think the 76 sherman unlock should be 3 cp and locked behind upgraded production like the jackson, as at that point the gun would perform more in line with tanks at that level of teching. Additionally, if their guns are buffed, then the sandbag upgrades should make the 76 shermans cost increase with each level of upgrade to justify their more panther-like performance after the upgrades and alongside their new guns. I don't want to see these tanks spammed to a ridiculous degree, but I think these buffs and cost increases would make the 76 shermans more respectable units, as right now they feel out of place seeing as how a 75mm sherman and TD combo works better in most situations.

I've got replays demonstrating how difficult it currently is to win head on engagements with even pz4's when you don't have the muni to spend on AP shots (which is not often considering how much muni US has to use to stay competitive mid to late game with their relatively weak stock units). I think the upgrades in teching and cost would justify the performance increases, especially considering the sandbag upgrade would actually have trade offs aside from the initial cost and a slight speed debuff.

A US player reaching the stage at which they could rely on upgraded sherman 76's to kill pz4's reliably and possibly contend with tigers and panthers without having to spend a large sum of muni every encounter would mark the transition into the late game in the same way that a blitz player reaching the stage at which they can use panthers to reliably smack down every tank allied tank except pershings and even have a strong fighting chance against the pershings once one factors in the blitz doc buffs given by the command tank and blitz ability.


That the 76 sherman should cost 3 CP in exchange for better 76 gun against axis mediums and perhaps a sherman armor buff against 50 mm AT guns should be out of question at that time.
And AB doc could have its 76 sherman unlock replaced by a Jackson B unlock which is then limited to one unit at a time (max 2).
Armor and inf doc would pay 3 CP for 76 shermans (with buffed gun stats), armor doc gets squishy Jacks A, inf doc the Jacks B and armor doc a single Jacks B as well for the loss of 76 sherman.


About the sandbags increasing build cost wouldnt make sense. We could then make it like skirts where you upgrade each tank individually. But this is where US and and Axis have their fundamental differences. US gonna pay once a lot into something (supply yard, sandbags, cheaper weapons, smoke) but from then on no exta payment anymore. The more you build the less you have payed for each tank. If you build just one sherman but unlock all sandbags, you then payed 600 MP in upgrade for one tank. But the costs of sandbags gets divided among all build shermans. If we change that we could just as well introduce the "axis model" where upgrade each tank which is good for low production rates, but bad if you produce more.


As a final note it seems necessary to overhaul the tank IV (Tank III) armor and allied guns.

If the Tank F2 keeps and F2 its armor wasnt thicker than 50 mm. All 76 shermans should have no trouble going through it, even the 75 mm should have the pen stats the current 76 gun has against it (67,5% pen max range). If it becomes a G model it would have the standard Panzer IV J armor. The difference would be that the J is vastly cheaper.

That means:
Tank IV E, F1, F2 would have Tank IV armor type (50 mm armor) and allied 57 mm, 75 mm would receive a buff against them, in particluar the 76 would make a short job of them.

Tank III N, Tank IV J (and In case F2 turns into G) they would use Tank IV armor type but with that reduced received pen modifier the H/J use it to reflect the 80 mm thick armor. The G and N perhaps less decent modifier as it was just an added plate. The 76 guns would receive a buff against them.

The best armor would be the Tank IV_skirt_type. However the 76 gun would receive some buffs here as well.


I can imagine now that BK doc would have Tank IV F2, Tank III N and Stug III in their default arsenal. The Tank III N would be against inf and having best armor, making it the spearhead. The Tank IV F2 would be against tanks. The F2 and basic sherman would meet each other at equal terms. The sherman with better armor and slightly better rof, the tank IV F2 with better gun and damage. Pen chance against each other would be quite equal.
The stug III would be the back up allrounder with support abilties for nearby inf.


Edit: Forgot to add, I agree with Figree in that no matter the case of what should be done, future changes that take these new opinions into account should be postponed until the balance updates. Right now, the dev team is working on just getting the groundwork for all the doctrine reworks into place. As such, they might not all be completely balanced until the reworks are done, after which balancing fixes can begin again. To save everyone from the headache, I think we should take this into mind when discussing these proposed changes and recognize the fact that our balancing ideas might be taken into consideration but not implemented until after the doctrine reworks.


thats true. Cant await to see the remaining docs being reworked, in particular def, terror and luft.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1698
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

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

Postby kwok » 06 Jun 2019, 15:05

Other than this part....
For me, it just looks like.. whoever the person who reworked both Blitz and Armor doctrines, was intentionally trying to desperately screw himself up... Despite having a lot of free space to maneuver through the doctrinal items, yet.. that person just chooses to set really meaningless limitations over his head. As much clueless as that person might have been, the results clearly reflect that state.


the final closing notes are much better in terms of quality of posting. Thanks all.

As for WHY certain upgraded CP unlocks are broken as independent, the general "rule of thumb" you mentioned wouldve created a tree looking like this:
blitz tree reorg.png


This T shaped tree adds no actual gameplay difference from having it be broken up, ideally a player would KNOW a tree unlock is useless from another. The T shaped tree just becomes an annoying jigsaw puzzle to fit into a 4x4 grid.

That being said, yes there are places we can optimize how the tree plays out but there comes points where the decision to put dependencies of the tree is a question of "necessary" vs "practical".
We could then also say that the Fuel resource swap is pointless if you don't have tanks so it should be connected too, the Battlegroup uses tanks so it should be connected to the tank path and StuH/StuPa are buidable tanks so they should be connected to tank and Panzer Fabrik paths... Is it practical to build trees with pure dependencies where players can figure it out and leave less room for other blocks of capabilities?

Just something to think about as you come up with ideas. The drawing of the doctrine draft I uploaded is one of many that were physically drawn out first (and probably crumpled up and tossed out).

CGarr wrote:Edit: Forgot to add, I agree with Figree in that no matter the case of what should be done, future changes that take these new opinions into account should be postponed until the balance updates. Right now, the dev team is working on just getting the groundwork for all the doctrine reworks into place. As such, they might not all be completely balanced until the reworks are done, after which balancing fixes can begin again. To save everyone from the headache, I think we should take this into mind when discussing these proposed changes and recognize the fact that our balancing ideas might be taken into consideration but not implemented until after the doctrine reworks.


We still encourage new ideas though. The reason why we release betas is to get early thoughts as we build these out. We could do this like a typical video game company and just sit back and work on this for a whole two years then come up with a beta that will undoubtly get BLASTED with criticism, requiring another whole year to make changes. During those whole 3 years, no changes to BK will be made, not even hotfix balance changes because of version control. In that time BK will definitely die as a community.

So the deal devs make is devs work with the community. No matter how much devs bitch about the community, devs always had to, now more than ever because they were kind enoguh to let me in to their behind the scenes conversations as a player and speak with pvp experience. Other video games do NOT have this level of interaction with dev teams, but this is possible because the BK is small enough. The thing is it's more about how you say it rather than what you say. That's what matters most.
Next is patience. I tell this to others especially when they direct message me on steam. Would you rather the devs spend 2 hours responding to ideas or 2 hours working on modding? If you want to make sure your idea is heard and POTENTIALLY incorporated in the mod, then post on the forum. Devs might not respond because theyre busing working, but they will read it and there's a record of it. If you steam message it or discord message it, it won't be remembered and devs have to take the time to respond.
Thank you for your appreciation (though I personally accept any of it because in terms of work done, it was mostly done by the other members not me), my suggestion is to message the others your thanks and not bother them with suggestions! You can bring your suggestions here.

Cant await to see the remaining docs being reworked, in particular def, terror and luft.

I also can't wait.... 6 months later and I still hate luft lol.


Return to “Announcements”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 49 guests