Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3659
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Postby Warhawks97 » 14 Jan 2020, 18:28

Viper wrote:
Warhawks97 wrote:5. Is the JP fixed? Last time i checked it it still had 1000 HP although its just a Panther

this is not a bug.


remnant of vcoh if you will where you could get just one per game if you will. But thats not the case anymore. Panther has 800 HP, not 1000.

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 459
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Postby Viper » 14 Jan 2020, 18:37

panther has 800, jagdpanther (different tank) has 1000.
like tiger and jagdtiger.

different tanks, different prices, different cannons, different health.

nothing unusual.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2886
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Postby MarKr » 14 Jan 2020, 18:52

Warhawks97 wrote:Saying that 4 men squad doesnt work bc it doesnt for brits is nuts because the entire faction is different. (...)

I would just like to point out that kwok never said that 4 men squads don't work for CW so they cannot work for PE. His full post was:
(EDIT: OK, he actually said it, I missed that part, but the point stands that main reason against small squads is still the following quote)
kwok wrote:In my old CoH2 mod I experimented with a set up where regular large squads existed as well as smaller squads with much more utility. For example, larger squads did not have grenades or sprint while smaller squads did. What ended up happening was players completely ignored the small squads and only used the large ones.

Having small squads is much more micro intense and the squad itself is significantly less powerful. If the squad is 4 instead of 6 men, the effectiveness of the squad doesn't just go down 1/3, but much more. Just as an example scenario, say you face a double sniper. With a 6 man squad, you have essentially 2 cooldowns worth of time to execute a tactic before you are reduced to 2 men and decide to retreat. With a 4 man squad, after the initial single volley from double snipers, you would want to immediately retreat.

We are testing this idea right now with the assault squad in brits but you can see immediately players are calling for a way to expand that squad size without even trying the patch yet.
So he said that he had a playable version of his CoH2 mod where players were not forced to use 6 men or 4 men squads, they had both available and could choose what to use and they almost exclusively chose the larger squads even when they had a lot less utility. He also states what was the reason for it (2nd paragraph).

So he was not even speaking theoretically but from his own experience where the smaller squads were applied in praxis. He only pointed at the fact that people see a mention of a new squad that has only 4 men and immediately suggest ways for possible expanding the squads, without even trying the unit in-game. This suggests that people seem to know that small size squads are somewhat less useful than bigger ones.

We have some smaller squads for specific purposes (like SE Sabo squad, Storms Suppression and Demo squad) but current hands-on experience advises against building a whole faction around small size squads.
Image

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1790
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Postby kwok » 14 Jan 2020, 19:43

@warhawks

1. Agreed to an extent... The hope is that fuel will be spent more in the early/mid game to prevent fuel banking and Uber tank rushing. Especially with recent armor and CW faction changes making other threats come earlier. We will see if this holds true if we can implement this and observe beta test games.

2. I LITERALLY said that yes I understand the British assault squad is different but I ALSO said it’s not the only reason. When a 4 man squad loses one man its effectively losing two. Taking two losses is essentially a full squad removed from the engagement because most people don’t want to risk losing a full squad with only two men remaining and will retreat. Grenades, mortars, and artillery are even more dangerous and will squad wipe a lot easier. I get there’s a problem with the PE squads... but the solution isn’t smaller squad sizes. Trust me, I’ve literally TRIED this. Also, it isn’t necessarily a “problem” if people want PE to represent “elite” as in their name... by faction design from vcoh days the units are meant to be strong and expensive.

3. Ah I forgot to add details there. I’ll edit/update on the original post.

4. That’s also what I said in my concerns. We can keep that as a potential option after test games.

5. As far as I know, viper is right. There’s no documentation that it’s a mistake. Doesn’t mean it has to be true or correct, it’s just not a bug.

6. Redundant.


Another idea discussed was removing assault grenadiers from the doctrine or even going so far as to making them doctrine specific, SE only, since strong infantry are available already for Luft and TSupp (via buffs)

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1790
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Postby kwok » 22 Jan 2020, 16:04

Bumping topic to get some further agreements so that we can start working on the doctrine.

It seems like there is some main concern about how infantry fit into this doctrine more than anything. The worry is it starts to seem too much like propaganda doc but just overall stronger. Came up with some new proposals to steer it away from those concerns.

First of all, while it's true both propaganda doc and tank support doc have a lot of overlap in units and will likely be "high skill high reward" doctrines, there will still be some major differences. Propaganda doc is focused on more cheap infantry with a playstyle around using abilities to manipulate the battles. A lot of the micro is spent more on applying target abilities and using supporting units (including tanks) to deliver power hits since mainline units (like the volkssturm or even tiger) can't operate on their own. Meanwhile the tank support playstyle is heavily focused on very precise build orders, unit placement, and micro of own units.

Couple of changes I would say to the doctrine from my last proposal:
-Vehicle aura buff would give most light vehicles an aura that provides panzer grenadiers a non-stacking -10% cooldown reduction within a 35 radius
-Vehicle aura buff would give most light vehicles the ability (15mu) to activate a sprint aura for infantry within a 35 radius. Imagine the old CW LT buff.
-Tank aura buff would give most tanks an aura that provides panzer grenadiers a non-stacking -10% received accuracy while the infantry is moving within a 35 radius
-Mark target will only apply to vehicles not infantry, potentially will be used by infantry instead of tanks (so an infantry unit will have to "relay the armor target" to the tanks in your army)

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3659
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Postby Warhawks97 » 22 Jan 2020, 22:30

I still hope that at least the vehicle aura buff would become a factional thing for pe, not just tank support doc. The tank aura buff could remain a tank support thing. But PE should really should get something that really makes it different from other factions

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1790
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Postby kwok » 23 Jan 2020, 07:04

[sarcasm]
But PE should really should get something that really makes it different from other factions

You mean like having a combat unit for a construction unit
Or tier 1 combat vehicles?
Or non-doctrinal elite infantry?
Or doctrines specifically based off historical divisions?
Or nearly all combat infantry being able to repair vehicles?
Or an entire building dedicated to upgrading base infantry?
Or a non-linear tier structure that allows effectively 2 choices of buildings for each tier?

Maybe it needs something really really different like squad sizes that makes the squads basically useless against a sniper spam, or completely gets wiped by one grenade, or one mortar, or one artillery shell?

[/sarcasm]

Sorry for the really heavy sarcasm but this was brought up so many times before and doesn't add any constructive feedback to this topic in particular. As I mentioned before on Mencius' earlier post, I really don't think this is a buff we want for the entire faction. Without lowering squad sizes as a counter balance, it would just be a flat buff. But if you DID lower squad sizes, the faction itself would take a HUGE HUGE hit and change on not just playstyle but required skill to even play. This is not in the philosophy of doctrine reworks, therefore won't even consider it an option as of now. Revive the topic again after we finish doctrine reworks if you really feel THAT strongly about it.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3659
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Postby Warhawks97 » 23 Jan 2020, 14:25

i refered to the faction as a whole benefiting more from infantry paired with vehicles, not just one doctrine of it.

So far its much easier to combine simple Volksgren and Halftracks/20 mm vehicles as it is to combine PE inf with vehicles. The fact that their core inf can repair vehicles doesnt really helps as it effectively takes out both, the vehicles and your main line inf out of combat. As WH its way easier to fall back with your vehicles, repair it with a cheap repair unit while your inf keeps fighting. In early stage (i know and you know that i start with standard res) i often cant get my vehicles repaired in time untill i get the thrid building up with its repair station upgrade.

And the combat stats of my main line inf and even the better infantry isnt better (actually worse) than that of new Volksgrens and WH grens while spending effectively more.


So:

You mean like having a combat unit for a construction unit

thats really special and that really helps the faction. Its like saying brits is special bc they have a 315 MP sapper squad. Wow, what an advantage.

Or tier 1 combat vehicles?

WH cant get vehicles out that fast perhaps, but they can get their vehicle building way quicker now as well. In order to get both, inf and vehicle building, they both pay about the same.

Or non-doctrinal elite infantry?


Their combat stats arent superior to that of Volksgrens and WH grens (which are actually better or just as good at least)

Or nearly all combat infantry being able to repair vehicles?


which, as mentioned above, isnt much of an advantage in early mid stage bc you have to draw your combat inf out of combat. So for the duration of repair you end up having little left to fight with. But i mentioned it above.

Or an entire building dedicated to upgrading base infantry?

Well, even with some of them used you dont necessarily end up better than WH once. Cap rate for example wont bypass that of basic WH grens even when you upgraded the cap rate buff. The combat buff is good but Terror and def doc buffing their inf as well by doctrinal upgrades.


Or a non-linear tier structure that allows effectively 2 choices of buildings for each tier?

Which i actually hope for all factions to be less straight linear and more flexible in tecing. The last two buildings is not so much of a bonus i would say, depending on which doc you play. WH gets tanks and TD´s (stugs and JP IV) out of one and the same building. So you can say its a bit different as PE gets tanks and heavy tanks out of the same building while WH gets tanks and td´s out of one.


So the general feeling is that PE is still quite a mirror to WH on a a factional level and boths infantry combat strenght is at the same level with PE having pioneer capabilties added to their main inf which can be an advantage but also a disadvantage. Its a difference but non that would make me to decide playing PE. Choosing PE is mainly based on: 1. Do i need Mobile howitzers for a long arty battle? and 2. Luftwaffe forces and air strikes?
But no one chooses PE or WH bc their factional gameplay is so fundamentally different.


Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests