517 vs 518

[Viper]

can't describe it any better

MODERATOR EDIT: Topic moved here from the "Balancing & Suggestions" section as it is a complaint in nature which does not suggest anything new for balancing.

[MarKr]

Oh my god, guys! He's right! Only now this topic with all those nicely structured and well versed arguments opened my eyes. We need to take action!

*mimics radio static*MarKr to devteam, MarKr to devteam! If you're hearing this, we need to revert the changes! Effect immediately! For more details about the decision, read the post on the forum. I know it is a lot of reading but it is an eye opener! MarKr over and out! *mimics radio static*

[Viper]

you dont need to revert the changes, just leave the game alone......or keep 518 *re-mess* on beta forever so people can always get back to 517 and play.

and dont act like nobody told you before in details why 518 is worse.....you only listen to your parts of the feedback.

[MarKr]

There are people who expressed that in more detail, there are also people who didn't agree with that opinion (so it is not like we don't listen/read the stuff here), but you can't really expect us to change everything again because SOME people don't like the changes. Especially when many of the things they complained about were made on purpose. E.g. some units were delayed to prevent rushing them every time - some people complain about them being delayed. Some changes were made to make the vehicle stage of the game last longer - same people complain that vehicle stage lasts longer (and cannot rush their prefered units). Some doctrines gained more AT power because they severly lacked some - complaints that the doctrines can kill tanks easier now.
So yeah, if there are complaints against something that the reworks were meant to bring, we don't really rush to change them back, especially when the changes have their intended effect. We know that not everyone likes the fact that they need to find new buildorders and that they need to react to what is happening in the game rather than just follow the "rush the strongest unit in the next tier strategy because it gives you the best chances to win" but we expected that not everyone will like it. It is impossible to make anything that everyone will like. Even if we stopped development at 5.1.7 there are people who dislike the "balance" there too so those people would dislike that decision, when we took the path we're walking now, some people dislike that too. I'm sorry that you're at the "dislike" end this time but we cannot please everyone.

[Viper]

it's not about what units to rush or what else......you started this beta with clear ideology....to make doctrines more well rounded for 1vs1 games.....but you are not following this ideology.

look at your new doctrines and compare them with the old ones.....the old ones were much stronger, more versatile and better in 1vs1 than they are now.

you nerfed some very strong and already well structured doctrines instead of buffing others to their level........

[Warhawks97]

look at your new doctrines and compare them with the old ones.....the old ones were much stronger, more versatile and better in 1vs1 than they are now.

Armor doc faces TD: two hetzer, one IV/70 and a 20 mm car-> armor doc totally locked

AB faces BK doc: Panther and Ostwind or something similiar (when the map leaves space to maneuver)-> AB is in serious trouble

Armor faces 88 guns: Locked down.


Just to name a handfull of examples.

you nerfed some very strong and already well structured doctrines instead of buffing others to their level........

Well Structured *Def doc*

[Viper]

AB faces BK doc: Panther and Ostwind or something similiar (when the map leaves space to maneuver)-> AB is in serious trouble

Armor faces 88 guns: Locked down.

you are taking sides here, and no surprise....only the side you favor, the allied side.

i talked more generally without specifying any examples.....but when you look at the new terror and blitzkrieg doctrines, you will know what i am talking about.....very unreliable and weaker versions of those doctrines compared to the older ones, and hardly able to 1vs1 anything as good as they did.

although it was possible to improve the diversity of the "locked" allied doctrines to match the more diverse axis ones.....but instead of doing this, they choose to nerf them to buckles....the devs picked the right ideology but implemented the wrong one.....and some veteran players said this before, i am not the first to say.....
sukin, tiger, bk champion?

Armor doc faces TD: two hetzer, one IV/70 and a 20 mm car-> armor doc totally locked

and what now? axis tds are useless....take forever to ambush....but allied tds hide in a blink of an eye, this must be pleasing to players like you.

[Warhawks97]

you are taking sides here, and no surprise....only the side you favor, the allied side.

i talked more generally without specifying any examples.....but when you look at the new terror and blitzkrieg doctrines, you will know what i am talking about.....very unreliable and weaker versions of those doctrines compared to the older ones, and hardly able to 1vs1 anything as good as they did.

although it was possible to improve the diversity of the "locked" allied doctrines to match the more diverse axis ones.....but instead of doing this, they choose to nerf them to buckles....the devs picked the right ideology but implemented the wrong one.....and some veteran players said this before, i am not the first to say.....

The Terror doc was played like shit bc you never made a "bad choice" with it. No matter which direction the game went, you could tec to match it. It was overversatile.

What is the alternative? Making all docs terror docs in old fashion? Like Putting Rangers (the new better version of them), Jumbos, Pershings and powerfull artillery into one doc? Thats what you want?


No one said that work on terror doc is complete. But the old one was not really a "doctrine". It was more like a combination of all doctrines put into one.

And BK just has some delays here and there, like all docs have got certain things delayed. But it kept all it tools so far. It lost its Tigers? I never ever used Tigers in BK doc and it was my most successfull doctrine.
Storms lost their lmg? I barely used lmgs on regular storms. When i had Volks alive, those were good enough with lmg as ranged combat unit. There is only the Ostwind that i used a quite a lot and which is gone now. But thats a loss i can handle. I can spam more Tank IV´s more or less without spending any CP with the F2 version.


And you want to tell me that allied docs are not more diverse now? Alone that inf doc got a 90 mm gun is a huge help to deal with late stages big cat spam that occure(d) esspecially in teamfights.

And the new arty branch for armor doc is a big help to prevent enemies from building "death lock camp games".


And inf doc has at least some means with priest to maintain its artillery base in late stage. Even though the 1 unit limit is harsh.

and what now? axis tds are useless....take forever to ambush....but allied tds hide in a blink of an eye, this must be pleasing to players like you.

An ambushed Panther gun mounted on a tank that has an armor strenght of a Tiger is a usless unit. I fully agree with that. No one wants it anymore and its not a threat at all.


And i said about the ambush times and ambush system that it sucks and that i would want the allied TD having same long re-ambush times as axis.
I still hate re-camo mid combat when both tanks almost touch each other.

Last week or so i watched Figrees stream in an 5.17 game and there it was again: One tank touched the revealed TD and was about to fire when the TD went invisible. Right next to the tank. The commander of the tank was about to spit down on that TD and went camo right in front of his eyes.
Thats truly an exciting moment for the guys playing the TD´s. Brain malfunction, day saved anyways due to Harry Potter camo system.
I told Figree to upload the game right in that moment when i saw that, he sadly never did so.

[MarKr]

look at your new doctrines and compare them with the old ones.....the old ones were much stronger, more versatile and better in 1vs1 than they are now.

I would say this depends on what doctrine you speak about. Axis doctrines? Then you are probably right - they were often stronger and almost always better suited for 1v1 games. Allies doctrines? Hardly. Infantry doctrine had no direct answer to heavy tanks, apart from praying to RNG that their artillery will hit and immobilize those tanks. AB was also missing some more AT capacity, especially in early game before they got their hands on their TDs. Armor doctrine was easily locked down by several Axis doctrines, especially camping tactics gave them very hard time.

As for Axis, Defensive doctrine was probably the least favorite one among players because it was strongly restricted in its capability to do many things, unlock paths were a mess and in general it was mostly picked just to abuse the StuPa. BK and Terror were in large part very similar in playstyle where BK had slightly worse tanks and a bit better infantry while Terror had a bit better tanks but slightly worse infantry.

you nerfed some very strong and already well structured doctrines instead of buffing others to their level...

I dare to say that we keep the "ideology". However, you expected us to do it differently than we did it. Does that mean that it is objectively a bad change? I would use an example to demonstrate what I mean - let's say that the average situation in pre-rework was this:

prerework.jpg (10.8 KiB) Viewed 5507 times

You expected us to buff everything to the level of the strongest/most picked axis doctrines. That would look like this:

expectations.jpg (11.87 KiB) Viewed 5507 times

Indeed, this would bring all doctrines to the same level and all would be well-rounded.
However we decided to bring them to the same level by buffing the weaker ones but nerfing the strongest ones so that they meet with their performance somewhere in the middle, rather than pumping every doctrine to the level of the current strongest. So like this:

intention.jpg (11.7 KiB) Viewed 5507 times

The reason why we didn't go with the "2nd picture" is that it would mean that there would be a lot less doctrine-specific units and the doctrines would feel less unique. Example would be BK doctrine which in 5.1.7 has very solid tanks, one of the strongest infantry in the game and still some artillery. If we wanted to make Armor doc similarly effective, it would mean that they would need to get elite infantry - Rangers, with same unlocks as they have in Infantry doctrine. Infantry doctrine already has Rangers but lacks the tank force that the BK has so they would need to get some heavy tank and the only tank comparable to Tigers/Panthers is Pershing.... so Pershing in Infantry doctrine...great... If we wanted to keep the comparison strictly in US/WM faction, then AB would need some buff to infantry to have some similar level of performance to Storms and also some solid tanks that could go against heavies...what would that be if the only one comparable is Pershing? Well...why not, right? We want "2nd picture" approach. Even better if you wanted to compare the AB to Luft- AB patrol would need to be changed to drop "aimed" bombs (so very little chance that a bomb won't hit anything, AB would need to get a solid AT emplacement (even 17 pounder would not match with the utility of 88mm gun), the infantry would drop fully upgraded with weapons and they would still need to get Pershing to match up to Panthers on the "tank" level.

Some people would probably like it, some would not. We think that "3rd picture" allows for more uniqueness in the doctrines so went with that.

[kwok]

Okay guys... let's be really practical here. What are we going to achieve in this conversation? Here's the answer: wasted time debating and arguing about things that can't be organized into actionable items to make changes into the beta.

Here's a question to all the players on this forum:
Do you want the dev team to focus on responding to these threads or to actually make updates to the game? Take your pick.
We spent a LONG time trying to slowly change how the forum works, generate more participation by ALL players on the forum, organizing how topics are written, all of it so that we can start MAKING changes faster. Take a look at the latest changelogs on the beta, it's almost ALL community driven changes.

Do we have to revert to these kinds of posts?

[The New BK Champion]

I like how no one of you ever considers not making any changes at all. You guys have become literally grotesque in my eyes. And I agree with viper, now it's all a fucking mess with no sense whatsoever. Good luck with your hobby.

[Warhawks97]

I am staying behind Markr. I wouldnt want pershings in all three US docs or 17 pdrs in AB doc just match up.

And not making changes at all so that the same abuse of units like stupa continues forever and totally messed up pointless tec trees like def doc?
there were three times over the last year when people managed to make me play 5.17. And in all three battles was a stupa abuse. Such fun. And that was just one example.


Not everything is perfect, but changes happens all over the place for thousands of years. I better have someone who cares about the game and makes adjustments than having a game that doesnt get support at all. When xalibur left years ago everybody was unlucky because necessary changes were not made, like simple bug fixes or other OP shit getting nerfed. And guess what? Everybody was unlucky expect a handfull players that could abuse the Stupa and Grille (25 ammo per shot back then) forever. So everyone got pissed.

Now we have changes going on, many necessary for years, others perhaps not. And i am glad to see that the game continues and is not left to die.

I would say we wouldnt even play BK anymore and no one would know about it without the current dev team. Let alone how they managed to get the game into steam and so on which made many things easier (like getting games at all) and kept the game alive.

[mofetagalactica]

I will always be forward evolving gameplay, sticking with the same "perfect" balance will just make the game stick in forever boring metas, that can be abused like they do in current live version, and even when they balance this last beta, 1-2 years later i will be bored and i will want it to keep evolving before a i get bored of it, thats how old games survive these days.

[idliketoplaybetter]

Viper1996 and co. - dont be toxic.

It's 3 guys, doing their best for around 20 people over old game. Just be more real on what you think is real, please.

I can't say better than Figree. It would have died years ago, like many other mods, if they would have made its "perfect" version of the balance.

And just before you said im just behind someone and sure dont listen.

No.

I'm not a big fan of "overally balanced" docs, recent tendency.
I'm not fan of poll system, i dunno how, people voted for Volksturm (i was like huh, aint that should be something for def doc possible changes rather?)
List can go on..

No matter how constructive or not u are, ur just making silly jokes on peoples work that u, me, and prolly none of 20+- people playing would never make, not to say, maintain for years.

Just think twice, ur not funny, not clever, just nothing.

[Viper]

I dare to say that we keep the "ideology". However, you expected us to do it differently than we did it.

the ideology you are taking is far from the presumed one. i will not argue about the "ways" because it can be done in many different ways.

but the way you choose to implement. is contradicting the ideology. you said doctrines will be better in 1vs1. but terror is now weaker in 1vs1. armor is weaker in 1vs1 and blitzkrieg is weaker in 1vs1. any player would choose to play with those doctrines from 517 if they will do 1vs1 because the 518 version of these doctrines are very fragile and have many flaws. here is another player from another recent topic posting nearly the same:

Blitzkrieg doctrine always was a PIV and stugIII and StugIV spam with heavy infantry; heavy Infantry was it's stroger side (stormtroopers full equiped) do not why the LMG42 was remuved from their arsenal, also why the call in was that NERF, first "It was to strong, change to a PIII then PIII is to strong what will be the next? engeneers with MP44 and a jeep? this doctrine weackness always was the late game vs Armor (it is fine since Allies needs to have some doctrines to counter axis doctrines that's balance) also it's good that BK dock get stronger vs camping game (It was another weackness of this doctrine in the late game) I woul like to keep this doctrine as a strong heavy enfantree and medium armors spam with a decent late game.

if we take blitzkrieg doctrine as example. the doctrine was nerfed severely. it does not serve any special purpose or have any real early game breakthrough elements. even the panzer.iii is now worse than halftracks after the nerf. you made it act like a heavy tank with extremely slow turret.
panzer.iii is not a turtle, it's a light tank and it was designed to have mobility.

and terror doctrine is way worse.
below average infantry, expensive tanks and no good mediums. and nerfed light vehicles which now need to stop to aim correctly.

where is the versatility in this? aren't doctrines supposed to handle everything for 1vs1 battles?

E.g. some units were delayed to prevent rushing them every time - some people complain about them being delayed.

in the beta.....most heavy tanks are earlier available than in 517.
tiger ace is earlier available by 4 commands points. king tiger earlier by 1 command point.
only the pershing and super pershing are available later. the changes make no sense from the balance viewpoint.

Take a look at the latest changelogs on the beta, it's almost ALL community driven changes.

all community driven changes?
one of the hottest topics since the beta released was 76 sherman vs pz4. the 76 sherman is available way too early and pz4 way too late.

another hot topic was the td problem. currently axis tds take much longer to hide than allied tds.

but all the changes i see are something else. and some are very unimportant.
so unless you tell me the hot topics are being looked into, or there is no reason for me to calm down.

I will always be forward evolving gameplay, sticking with the same "perfect" balance will just make the game stick in forever boring metas, that can be abused like they do in current live version, and even when they balance this last beta, 1-2 years later i will be bored and i will want it to keep evolving before a i get bored of it, thats how old games survive these days.

old games like bk mod with high learning curve can only be saved by not losing the backbone players of the community who play the game regularly since many years. you will never find good replacement of such players when the game is ageing quickly year after year.

and a "mess" like this rework will only make you lose more players alike. and i don't think the small community can afford it.

Viper1996 and co. - dont be toxic.

i think your post is the most toxic one here. and very personal.
so enough with your BS because Tiger has been offline everywhere for almost a month now.

[kwok]

Take a look at the latest changelogs on the beta, it's almost ALL community driven changes.

all community driven changes?
one of the hottest topics since the beta released was 76 sherman vs pz4. the 76 sherman is available way too early and pz4 way too late.

another hot topic was the td problem. currently axis tds take much longer to hide than allied tds.

but all the changes i see are something else. and some are very unimportant.
so unless you tell me the hot topics are being looked into, or there is no reason for me to calm down.

viewtopic.php?f=27&t=3364

FInal notes: stop making these kinds of posts. We literally have THREE of these kind of posts going on now with many overlapping topics:
viewtopic.php?f=27&t=3360
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3361
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3335
Again... we are not ignoring we are just not able to keep up. The question you ask is, would you rather have devs spend time actually making changes or writing repetitive unstructured responses? It took me 20 minute to type everything out here and will take me another 20 minutes to write the same things on the other partially identical topics for each topic. That's almost a total of an hour dicking around typing on the forum where in that time we could probably actually take one of your suggestions here and actually implement it. Your choice.


Here are examples of GOOD posts:
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3344
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3354
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3347
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3330
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3242
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3358 (somewhat good)
Thank you all.

I currently don't see any specific topic on 76s vs pIVs...
What I can do is basically link every change from the last changelog to the exact topic that it was born from (initiated by the community or from me on behalf of the community because for whatever excuse they provide they couldn't press the single "create post" button. I will do the same for you, have fun:
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3412

I know you won't say thanks, but you're welcome anyways.

[MarKr]

Seha, I will react to you but it will be my last reply to you in this topic because, as it has been said here - this is not productive in any way.

but the way you choose to implement. is contradicting the ideology. you said doctrines will be better in 1vs1. but terror is now weaker in 1vs1.

If I am not mistaken we said that "the doctrines will be better SUITED for 1v1 games" that doesn't mean that every doctrine will be better in 1v1 than it used to be. Better suited for 1v1 means that you will be able to play 1v1 with any doctrine without dependent on team mates cover your weak sides (which is obviously not possible in 1v1 when you have no team mates). This is not very viable in 5.1.7 because Allies are specialized and often have "blind spots" which are meant to be covered by team mate, because 5.1.7 is in the "BK is not balanced for 1v1" system.

Honestly, what did you expect? That "all doctrines in 5.1.8 will be better in 1v1 than they were in 5.1.7"? It would mean a flat buff to every doctrine which would mean that doctrines that were stronger in 1v1 would remain stronger and weaker doctrines would remain weaker. What sense would it make to implement something like that?

Anyway, "weaker" and stronger" are relative things. Do you know what made some Axis doctrines stronger? Take a look at this:

pic1.jpg (9.7 KiB) Viewed 5393 times

Yes, you guessed it - the red line. It shows the difference in strength between doctrines. So, the shorter the red line, the less difference in strength there is and consequently it becomes harder and harder to tell which doctrine is stronger and which is weaker. Even if the "strong" axis doctrines remained untouched and we would just buff the rest to their level, how long would the red line be in that case? There wouldn't be any line (because they would be on the same level), so those doctrines would no longer feel stronger than the others. The only difference would be that instead of complaining "you nerfed the strong doctrines, why?" there would be complaints "you buffed everything else a lot and didn't change anything about strong doctrines, why?".

armor is weaker in 1vs1

They have everything they used to have + now have Combat engineers as specialized infantry + better ways to deal with emplacements and campers. Some stuff is delayed but delays were implemented to every doctrine. How is expanding doctrine's capabilities "weaker"?

blitzkrieg is weaker in 1vs1

compared to the 5.1.7 it might seem so but it doesn't lack any capability in 5.1.8 - it has infantry, tanks, and artillery to take out campers.

any player would choose to play with those doctrines from 517 if they will do 1vs1 because the 518 version of these doctrines are very fragile and have many flaws

BK is not really fragile, it requires different playstyle compared to 5.1.7. If you play it the same way as in 5.1.7 then you'll have a hard time. It is true that Storms are now in a weird position but you might have noticed that this topic has been brought up, we about it and are looking for some solution.

Terror/Propaganda is VERY different from 5.1.7 - it is no longer a "genetically beefed up cloned brother" of BK doc. It is now still in balancing (and will be for some more time) because it brings a completely different take on a doctrine.

if we take blitzkrieg doctrine as example. the doctrine was nerfed severely. it does not serve any special purpose or have any real early game breakthrough elements. even the panzer.iii is now worse than halftracks after the nerf. you made it act like a heavy tank with extremely slow turret.
panzer.iii is not a turtle, it's a light tank and it was designed to have mobility.

People said that the doctrine can put a good ammount of pressure on the opponent, if played correctly. (so much for "no real purpose")
I don't know what "early game breakthrough elements" it used to have but does not have now. It certainly gained more breakthrough elements later in the game.
PIII has more HP, different and stronger armor, PIII has stronger gun (well, depending on type of HT - HTs with the same stubby 75mm are obviously same, long 75mm are stronger, the rest is weaker). You can get the PIII with a call-in for no fuel cost, coming equipped with ammo upgrades which saves you 115 ammo. So I don't know in what book is that "worse than HT". If you were talking about realism with the "it was light tank (etc.)" then no, it wasn't - it was classified as a medium tank. As for "it was designed for mobility" - offroad speed was about 19km/h (for comparison Tiger 1 offroad speed was about 16km/h) so...so much for "designed for mobility" (not that this matters, realism isn't a main argument for any change but it sounded like you were talking about realism. If not, ignore the last part).

and terror doctrine is way worse.
below average infantry, expensive tanks and no good mediums. and nerfed light vehicles which now need to stop to aim correctly.

Infantry is combat-wise below average, but it is also below average with cost. There are also more ways (compared to other doctrines) to improve their performance + you have ways to make enemy units less effective to make up for the weaknesses.
Heavy tanks are expensive but also more effective with the new passive ability. Terror doesn't have any "good medium" in 5.1.7 either but they still have the PIV F2 which is available without any unlock now and can be fielded before enemy unlocks and builds some hard counters. Also, Propaganda now has a buildable StuG IV late which is (iirc) a bit more durable than the versions they had before.

in the beta.....most heavy tanks are earlier available than in 517.
tiger ace is earlier available by 4 commands points. king tiger earlier by 1 command point.
only the pershing and super pershing are available later. the changes make no sense from the balance viewpoint.

This is very simplistic and narrow point of view. Yes, they are available sooner. However, have you tried rushing them? If rush them and your opponent is half way decent, you will lose before you get the chance to build these tanks because if you try to unlock them as soon as possible, you need to skip on many unlocks that are more important/useful in earlier stages of the game. Just because something can be unlocked sooner, it doesn't mean that unlocking it as soon as possible is a good idea.
Really, show me a real replay where someone rushes to get a Pershing/Panther/Tiger as soon as possible and pulls it off. Or actually in this matter, show me any of your replays which shows the problems you're mentioning here.

Aaaand here we go - another hour spent on a topic, which will lead to no productive end. So as I said - my last reply in this matter.

[MEFISTO]

700mp call in for a PIII nerfed and a grenadiers squad it’s a expensive joke any advantage in the mid game( like to go through and brake enemies line in the early mid game as a bk dock? Any advantage in the late game? Defensive has artillery and TH, Terror has good late game and good arty airborne good with air strikes, artillery good arty and infantry and now a good M36 Jackson or jumbo each doctrine has his identity what about bk doctrine?

[Warhawks97]

700mp call in for a PIII nerfed and a grenadiers squad it’s a expensive joke any advantage in the mid game( like to go through and brake enemies line in the early mid game as a bk dock? Any advantage in the late game? Defensive has artillery and TH, Terror has good late game and good arty airborne good with air strikes, artillery good arty and infantry and now a good M36 Jackson or jumbo each doctrine has his identity what about bk doctrine?

Mobility advantage? You compare brute force with brute force.

I would recommend you to check out German Blitzkrieg in ww2 against france. The Germans only had tiny, poorly armored and machine canon armed Panzer II´s as main force. Only a handfull Panzer III were able to engage French Char B1´s. But even their 37 mm guns couldnt really pen the Char B1.
So according to you, germans would have never managed to break french lines according to you. But they did.

When you spare 90 ammo for Tank III and ammo for the Mp40 on grens, you can use Blitzkrieg ability which basically removes suppression, increases your units speed and rate of fire. And the spared fuel can be used for Tank IV that boosts your firewpower.

And you would pay over 800 MP for these two units individually, so 700 MP for both and no fuel or ammo is a very good trade.

[MEFISTO]

I am not going to argument with you 700 is to much for a nerf PIII and stop talking about History because we are trying to balance a game not to make it as you want base on historical things if you look for history how many Pershing were in combat? What about the SP? So stop your historical .... I am sick, if you check my stats I play more with Allies than Axis, I just want a balance game, we have people here that only wants to buff a side and nerf the other, I am sorry if I am being rude but I am really sick to read the same all the time sorry about that!

[Warhawks97]

When i played luftwaffe in the past, i sometimes managed to overrun the SP just with numbers of cheap Panther D´s. Basically you just need to throw everything at it at once.

Also, when you use Blitzkrieg ability, two cheap Panthers can lay havoc among more expensive pershings.

And how is 700 MP for Fully loaded Pz III and MP 40 equiped Gren squad a nerf? wrf?lmao? Holly fucking dolly shit? Those two units alone would cost over 800 MP, hundreds of ammo and fuel. I just dont get behind this nonsense bullshit claim.


I guess you never even used Blitzkrieg ability, right? I often just spammed Tank IV´s, not loading any ammo and used this ability instead.
And as i said, my most successfull doc has always been BK doc and i never ever used anything bigger than Panther. That tank was good enough.

And the SP got delayed in CP by a a lot. So you can technically outspam your opponent with Panthers which would force him to get jacksons which in turn means SP delayed further.

I am also sick of this endless narrow minded SP BS. How many SP have been in games ive played and not few died sometimes all out of a sudden. Lucky shreck rolls, double Panther, mix of arty and tanks/planes.

But you guys always come down to that single fucking SP and try to balance EVERY axis doctrine with SP.... You compare entire axis doctrines with one god damn Tank that makes one appearance in a game.
This is fucking sick.


BK doc hasnt lost capabilities except Tiger. But many good BK players never used it anyway (while a few others did nothing else but using Tiger). So its not really a lost capability. I would dare to say that Panthers are the better way to counter SP simply bc they are cheaper, more mobile and have higher pen chances.