Luftwaffe somewhat messed up?

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[gamesguy2]

Nobody knows exactly lmao, because it's different depending on green/red/yellow/trench/garrison/smoke, but Bob told me it was around 50% better.

Twice as good for heavy/garrison, 2.5x better for smoke, half penalty for light.

[CrazyWR]

Who likes the new luftwaffe? The only thing I have been looking forward to was the riflegrenades which performs amiably although the smoke ability they are supposed to have wasn't added. With the ambush bonus they can score some nice hits plus they work when covered by smoke, can shoot through buildings and inside halftracks which is really good imo. Ace suggestion, yes I take all credit.

But what about the rest of the doctrine?

I am somewhat dissapointed about what this doctrine looks like currently, and this isn't about my set of ideas being molested (I suggested a very different draft) but something I have been hearing from a lot of other players upon my return.

The current doctrine is a mess. Some of my gripes/confusion are as following:

Mechanized Scout
- Swimm already can't move while cloaked, it shouldn't be penalized for using cloak. Penalties for cloaking shouldn't be there. I think its bugged as well, cause it sure wasnt cloaking when i tried to cloak earlier.

Weapons Training
Hello, is this doctrine ability built around PE stealing the better support weapons of other factions? Inventive, but pretty limited.

Fortress Europe
FSJ build faster? What are FSJ building? They are a specialized combat troop, the waffles are the engineer-like unit. FSJ should get a different bonus, if anything at all from the FE T4.

I could go on, but what I think this doctrine suffers the most from is that its too spread out. Look at the bottom passive T4, Planned Offensive. Its a bucket of different buffs just splashed together. Some of it is just plain silly too, infrared sights in WW2? Where's my lazors?

we've been through all this in your absence smokaz, Bob and Gamesguy refuse to implement your/EliteGren's version, so there's fuckall you can do about this POS version in now.  

here: http://forums.europeinruins.com/index.php?topic=15920.0 and here: http://forums.europeinruins.com/index.php?topic=15826.0


oh, and in the future, all doctrines are going to be modeled after luft, instead of conforming luft to the doctrine design now, and implementing a few nerfs to balance things.

[Killer344]

More like, you're clueless about who to blame/doctrine guidelines, so don't.

[Groundfire]

I just hope we take this as some kind of omen. Yes, the doctrines need to be balancable but they have to be fun too.

If all doctrines are to become exacerbated versions of no-doctrine factions, no creativity, no theme/loose theme, then why even pick a doctrine at all?

We know that its possible to create doctrines that fall outside the guidelines and are balanceable. Terror is very much balanced, I think and fun at the same time. Each tree emphasizes a playstyle without changing the direct role of how Wehrmact should be played.

Yes, doctrines can be refined to be balanced off of each other, but we just need to be very careful on where we tread next.

We can all help tbh. theres no reason for this kind of development to exist solely in a vacuum.

[salan]

More like, you're clueless about who to blame/doctrine guidelines, so don't.

blame me, it usually works for a while

[salan]

I just hope we take this as some kind of omen. Yes, the doctrines need to be balancable but they have to be fun too.

If all doctrines are to become exacerbated versions of no-doctrine factions, no creativity, no theme/loose theme, then why even pick a doctrine at all?

We know that its possible to create doctrines that fall outside the guidelines and are balanceable. Terror is very much balanced, I think and fun at the same time. Each tree emphasizes a playstyle without changing the direct role of how Wehrmact should be played.

Yes, doctrines can be refined to be balanced off of each other, but we just need to be very careful on where we tread next.

We can all help tbh. theres no reason for this kind of development to exist solely in a vacuum.

I gotta agree with you there!  Lack of theme kills desire to play the factions after you get past the cool unit factor ;(

[Smokaz]

The devs need to hold one doctrine in their hands and say "this is close to what we want the doctrines to be like" so people can actually critique either the implementation or the reasoning behind the implementation's ruleset in that doctrine or compare others to it

[Mysthalin]

Groundfire - the doctrines are like basic iron. In contact with fresh air - they rust. Hence they're put in a vacuum.

[Groundfire]

Yoda Says: No sense, your post does make.

[AmPM]

The devs need to hold one doctrine in their hands and say "this is close to what we want the doctrines to be like" so people can actually critique either the implementation or the reasoning behind the implementation's ruleset in that doctrine or compare others to it

+1

Doctrines need to stick to theme's, that's why people play them.

[Mysthalin]

Ground - you did have basic chemistry, right?

[Groundfire]

mysthalin - I know why Iron rusts. The contextual ideas and standards a doctrine should be based around is not Iron.

I also understood your metaphor and I dont think that attitude should be taken as an approach to doctrine design.

[MittinsKittens]

@Ground, but, but, what about buffs to Iron Cross'
/smug :3