Doctrine Ability Balance/Look-thru: US Infantry and Defensive/Terror

[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

[lionel23]

In light of the new doctrines (which I think are pretty badass, if you ask me), I would like to suggest some changes to at least two doctrines I play and know very well.

US Infantry: Change the T3s around for Grenade Experts and Allied Grit.
Reason: Rifle Training is totally suited to using riflemen, and the vet 2 sticky range would benefit them more than bazookas (which are unlocked via a crappy T2, and only gets 1 to counter Light Vehicle spam and being on a fragile platform have a poor job of countering said Light Vehicle spam).  The emphasis on Rangers for that extra HP would be better suited to Tank Reapers, while the extra nades and sticky stuff better for riflemen.  Otherwise, both trees heavily favor ranger-heavy armies due to rangers being all around better for Rifle Training and Tank Reapers well... the only infantry that can carry 2 bazookas and make use of it the best (and we all know the ATG is given lots of love in that tree so that's a non-issue).

US Infantry: Make Mobile Cover Better
Reason: Mobile cover only doing a reduced damage instead of accuracy bonus?  The aura is small as heck which literally requires the vehicle to be practically on top of them, while at the same time with the change to M3 HT pool being 2, you can no longer have plentiful cover to take full advantage of this.  Recommend a 15% incoming accuracy in light of the new doctrines and just to make it not the worst 'cover' considering all other aura tank abilities from other doctrines (like the hull down one from Royal Engineers, for example)

US Infantry: Specialist Equipment, Make it better
Reason: Very expensive T2 unlock that offers very little, unless smoke grenades have been significantly changed since last time I used them before the wipe.  One bazooka at more than half price does not cut it for riflemen, as they get raped by vehicles that are suppose to be weak against it (ACs, Pumas, Infantry HTs with dudes).  Rangers can at least stand and not be suppressed after one volley and have double the weapons and better armor, while riflemen get crappy suppression thresholds, lower life, no fireup or elite armor, and only one bazooka.  Suggestion would be to make it 'Specialist Packages', such as 4 BAR, no suppression kits; 2-4 Bazooka AT packages, 'mixed' package (maybe a Bazooka and sarge with SMG, etc).  With all appropriate costs.  Also would like the idea of Support Teams for Rangers too (BAR options with no suppression, or heavy Anti Infantry package with 2 Bars and 4 SMGs for appropriate costs)

US Infantry: Assault Teams needs seriously looking at
Reason: Unless you center the entire army around 'smoke', the entire unlock is useless.  Other than the Assault Engineers, which is pretty much a MP appropriate upgraded engineer squad, the assault riflemen are utter trash.  5 men, crap armor, and costing just as much as Engineers in terms of pool.  As a T3 Unlock on top of that!  A T1 unlock I can make pure ranger armies which have all around superior armor (to take advantage of the healing center), better AT and better AI weapons, as well as able to stand off against axis standard infantry much better than Riflemen can.  Needs to come down in price/pool OR adjusted for 6 riflemen.  Even better would be to give them body armor to make them better at assaulting, which rangers can do far, far better.

Wehr Defensive: Fatherland Defense needs better bonuses (compared to Heavy Support T4 Terror).
Reason: Okay, 20% HP isn't all that bad, but considering that T4 Terror gets 33% HP on their support weapons, all support weapon guys get Mp44s, AND Ranger/Elite armor on top of that... for SUPPORT?  That's a defensive buff if anything to withstand stuff. Or airborne's Easy Company T4 giving their best infantry 25% more life, as well as no exhaustion, quicker recharge on Fire-up, and damage and LOS bonuses... jeez!

Wehr Defensive: Equipment Surplus, cheaper Shreks
Reason: In my mind, Defensive should be the 'tank reapers' of the axis side.  They get double shreks and I have been told that the 2nd shrek is given a whooping 20 MU discount.. yay, okay... it's still on a 4 man squad that is fragile as heck to light vehicle spam of the fast variety (Stag,Greys, etc).

Wehr Defensive: Defensive Positions buff?
Reason: The T3 from Terror's Specialist Weapons Experts gives them reduced shrek aim time to aid their shreaks.. I have to ask.. why?  They specialize in Dual LMGs, 4 man KCH and assorted infantry-related buffs... I would think pull the shrek bonus away from them and give it over to defensive.

Wehr Defensive: Doctrine Tree Reevaluation
Reason: Fatherland Defense, not a bad buff but considering Terror's overall doctrine, it makes much more of their company viable defensively than a defensive company. 20% more per man on a KCH might be good, but a 4man KCH has more life and power than their defensive counterpart, whileas a majority of the terror tree also adds things like enchanced medkits, reduced shrek aiming, more life on Volks, better and tougher support teams (which I believe defensive should be about), Stronger MG42 buff (great for countering a ranger charge due to dropping suppression for more accuracy and thus more damage), and even a better neb barrage... can we get a look at making some more things that don't necessarily just cause 'cloak' for stugs or heck move senior officers into the defensive tree line instead of the 'hidden' tree line?

Wehr Defensive: Ready Munitions needs better cooldown for fausts (AT Duty improvement)
Reason: Again, my expectation that Defensive should be like the Axis Tank Reaper, an 8 second reduction for the faust is not enough to improve the faust (which with it goes down to 27 seconds).  Fausts I see are needed by non-AT infantry to help counter or scare away light vehicles who tend to dodge lots of shrek shots.  Looking at the US Infantry reduced stickies (which are really meant to disable vehicles), they get a whooping 22 seconds off their recharge (a 48% cooldown reduction compared to a 22% reduction for the faust, which really is needed a lot more).

US Infantry and Wehr Defensive: Reexamine the Doctrine Unlocks and make them worthwhile.
Reason: Wow... just looking at airborne and terror I really can't help but say a vast majority of them are good!  Good job!  Problem, not so with the other two doctrines I'm familar with. Cheap mines and MP only upgrades for cloak for an upgrade for airborne, while there are dual LMGs, assault nades, marksman grenadiers and silenced sniper rifles for Terror.. jeez louis!  That's just some awesome choices.  And with the ability to cloak all of Airborne too with the right equipment and doctrine choices... there is so much variety there.  I would LOVE an option for US infantry to get the option to pay for ranger armor on the crappy US support teams to make them worthwhile as a mainline infantry choice (either via unlock or upper Doctrine specialization choice).  Locked and Loaded itself is just a weaker T4 when compared to the vast benefits of the other T4s considering the stats.  And Defensive should be about better infantry DEFENSIVELY, as that is the whole point of their doctrine, staying power.  Ideally that T4 Heavy Support should go to buffing their staying power defensively rather and make defensive, well.. someone hard to kick from a territory just like British troops are at being defensive with their tougher infantry than Americans.

I can, sadly, only speak on behalf of doctrines I play extensively and well, so if someone would like to post their own thoughts on their own doctrines (ie. armor, blitz, etc), then feel free.  I am not mentioning them not because I don't think there are no issues with them (there could or could not be one), but I do not have hands-on experience with them to fully make an informed judgement on that.  My 2 cents on this.

EDIT: Brought up to me by someone, and it actually makes sense.  Switch Fatherland Defense with Heavy Support.  20% more HP on Grens that can use LMGs while moving or 20% more life on 4-man KCH while giving defensive the elite armor/MP44 support teams makes more sense overall to me.

[Jodomar]

I would have to agree with what he is saying

[Groundfire]

I got mixed feelings.

1.) Carbines are OP. The last thing we should be doing is giving Carbine rifles out of the box, vet2 sticky range.

Yes, it would benefit them more, but you are dulling the tree specializtion. We should not blend the AI and AT trees of Inf co. otherwise you skew the balance of that tree, by making all-around killing machines.

2.) Fuck no on heavy support change to Defensive.

Terror is an aggressive doctrine. Having an aggressive Heavy Support player with good front line MG and Pak micro is just fucking ace.

Support weapons are not always defensive weapons.

Pair a Heavy support MG42 with an Oakleaves KCH and watch the kills wrack up.

[Hicks58]

Commandos feels pretty much shafted in light of these new doctrines tbh.

Compared to the rest of the doctrines, there are few unlocks that actually help you specialise in the doctrine that you have chosen... Using Commandos.

I mean, for example, the Commandos themselves get only one buff. An extra 15% health. The poor sods are the only elite infantry in the game which has zero anti tank options. Granted, they have the highest point blank DPS in the game (Not sure though... Falls w/FG42 are on a similar standing).

Commandos are paper thin on their approach to their intended victim, and more often than not rely on ambush tactics or pure surprise. The former is excruciatingly hard as you see Commandos a mile off and run in the opposite direction and let the first AC on field deal with them. With the latter, dropping your glider into an advantageous position is difficult to say the least - And your enemy WILL hear and more than likely see you coming.

Using Commandos in combined arms is like using a Firefly as support... They aren't killers, they are a deterrent. Push comes to shove and they get forced into combat while part of a combined arms force and with their current armour they WILL feel the hurt very quickly against a reasonable enemy force.

I don't know what the Commando Doctrine is currently aimed for, but it really doesn't represent the infamous hit and run style tactics that the British Commandos were famed for.

Bottom line, I could live with Commandos not being able to take too much heat, if they could have a half decent way of getting to their target and getting out - Yes I DO know they have the smoke ability, but you have 350 MP and 165 MU combat ineffective while your waiting on the recharge, IF they survive their little rush with few casualties.

I'll leave that post there before I go any further with Royal Commandos.

[lionel23]

I got mixed feelings.

1.) Carbines are OP. The last thing we should be doing is giving Carbine rifles out of the box, vet2 sticky range.

Yes, it would benefit them more, but you are dulling the tree specializtion. We should not blend the AI and AT trees of Inf co. otherwise you skew the balance of that tree, by making all-around killing machines.

Sticky bombs don't kill things, they are mainly disablers.  It would disable tanks at best, unless you're mass sticky a light vehicle.  Currently both trees support only ranger companies due to lack of good buffs to riflemen (no HP, really?  Only rangers?) and single bazooka is horrible in a US company, considering its more expensive to get a T2 and pay a higher MU cost for a single bazooka when you can buy two for a discount on a better squad that can fight an Infantry HT and not get suppressed or have the best chance against a locked down MG Scout Car (which with rangers generally lose 50% hp from a burst of that thing before their 2nd volley of bazookas).

2.) Fuck no on heavy support change to Defensive.

Terror is an aggressive doctrine. Having an aggressive Heavy Support player with good front line MG and Pak micro is just fucking ace.

Support weapons are not always defensive weapons.

Pair a Heavy support MG42 with an Oakleaves KCH and watch the kills wrack up.

Yes, support weapons should always be charged into positions...  They are SUPPORTING, not doing the physical assaulting.  I'm sorry but that ability is totally out of place with the assault/agressive style of terror I think.  You're talking the weaker, lackluster Defensive tree against a pure elite support warmy with 4 man KCH.  You could run a better defensive company with terror than a defensive player could do with his own company.   The 20% HP bonus for Terror would make their 4 man KCH and tanks that much more scary, in the eyes of terror while elite armor, mp44 support teams means you can't just charge willy nilly into defensive support weapons, better than 20% HP on defensive support weapons...

[CafeMilani]

I got mixed feelings.

1.) Carbines are OP. The last thing we should be doing is giving Carbine rifles out of the box, vet2 sticky range.

Yes, it would benefit them more, but you are dulling the tree specializtion. We should not blend the AI and AT trees of Inf co. otherwise you skew the balance of that tree, by making all-around killing machines.

Sticky bombs don't kill things, they are mainly disablers.  It would disable tanks at best, unless you're mass sticky a light vehicle.  Currently both trees support only ranger companies due to lack of good buffs to riflemen (no HP, really?  Only rangers?) and single bazooka is horrible in a US company, considering its more expensive to get a T2 and pay a higher MU cost for a single bazooka when you can buy two for a discount on a better squad that can fight an Infantry HT and not get suppressed or have the best chance against a locked down MG Scout Car (which with rangers generally lose 50% hp from a burst of that thing before their 2nd volley of bazookas).

very funny^^
u know that a locked down scout car has MG42 ange and damage?  

2.) Fuck no on heavy support change to Defensive.

Terror is an aggressive doctrine. Having an aggressive Heavy Support player with good front line MG and Pak micro is just fucking ace.

Support weapons are not always defensive weapons.

Pair a Heavy support MG42 with an Oakleaves KCH and watch the kills wrack up.

Yes, support weapons should always be charged into positions...  They are SUPPORTING, not doing the physical assaulting.  I'm sorry but that ability is totally out of place with the assault/agressive style of terror I think.  You're talking the weaker, lackluster Defensive tree against a pure elite support warmy with 4 man KCH.  You could run a better defensive company with terror than a defensive player could do with his own company.   The 20% HP bonus for Terror would make their 4 man KCH and tanks that much more scary, in the eyes of terror while elite armor, mp44 support teams means you can't just charge willy nilly into defensive support weapons, better than 20% HP on defensive support weapons...

what means "you cant just charge willy nilly.."? is that what you usually do or what?
maybe you should think about some new tactics other than hit the fire-up button on your rangers.

[Malevolence]

2 MP44s doesn't rape charging rangers any worse than 2 MP40s does. That is to say, not significantly.

Adding MP44s instead of MP40s to the support weapons is pretty much lip-service with no tangible benefits. The largest bonus MP44s have over MP40s is the movement modifier being larger than "crap" percent, and if you're assaulting with your mg42 to use your MP44s you're doing it opposite-day-level wrong.

[3rdCondor]

I agree with lionel but I have another few suggestions.

I feel that canister shot should be reintroduced and that T17 stun should be reintroduced. I also feel that assault grenades need to be reimplemented.

[gamesguy2]

2 MP44s doesn't rape charging rangers any worse than 2 MP40s does. That is to say, not significantly.

Adding MP44s instead of MP40s to the support weapons is pretty much lip-service with no tangible benefits. The largest bonus MP44s have over MP40s is the movement modifier being larger than "crap" percent, and if you're assaulting with your mg42 to use your MP44s you're doing it opposite-day-level wrong.

Two mp44s is a massive improvement over the 2 pio mp40s support weapons currently have.

[Jazzhead]

It seems like the killing power of the support weapon crews would only be noticeable vs weak units like rifles, but anything else (and most of the time it's the elite inf with fire-up that you have to worry about) is still going to shread the crew.

[lionel23]

@Aloha - And I do, I use cover extensively and can survive much, much longer than other blobber allies that love to stand either really close together and in negative cover (argh you fools! Get in cover and last longer!)

And people know that those scouts cars have ridiculous dmg and suppression, Burn4Me was in a game against said gimmick company consisting of tons of those (it was the game that he dropped cloak airborne on their spawn.. lol).

[Groundfire]

Yes, support weapons should always be charged into positions...  They are SUPPORTING, not doing the physical assaulting.  I'm sorry but that ability is totally out of place with the assault/agressive style of terror I think.  You're talking the weaker, lackluster Defensive tree against a pure elite support warmy with 4 man KCH.  You could run a better defensive company with terror than a defensive player could do with his own company.   The 20% HP bonus for Terror would make their 4 man KCH and tanks that much more scary, in the eyes of terror while elite armor, mp44 support teams means you can't just charge willy nilly into defensive support weapons, better than 20% HP on defensive support weapons...

Ohh ho, im gonna make you eat those words.

Like im using Heavy support MG42s for the stg44s they get.

[lionel23]

Oooo ooo oohhhh Groundfire!  Bring it on, biatchhhhhh! *puts on the cool Ranger shades* 

[Killer344]

It seems like the killing power of the support weapon crews would only be noticeable vs weak units like rifles, but anything else (and most of the time it's the elite inf with fire-up that you have to worry about) is still going to shread the crew.

Did you notice the same T4 that gives them mp44s also boosts their effective HP? It grants them Elite Armor and 33% HP as well.. I really doubt they'll get shredded :p.

[Jazzhead]

It seems like the killing power of the support weapon crews would only be noticeable vs weak units like rifles, but anything else (and most of the time it's the elite inf with fire-up that you have to worry about) is still going to shread the crew.

Did you notice the same T4 that gives them mp44s also boosts their effective HP? It grants them Elite Armor and 33% HP as well.. I really doubt they'll get shredded :p.

Well it is still only 1-2 guys...unless they're Rambo or something 

[gamesguy2]

It seems like the killing power of the support weapon crews would only be noticeable vs weak units like rifles, but anything else (and most of the time it's the elite inf with fire-up that you have to worry about) is still going to shread the crew.

Did you notice the same T4 that gives them mp44s also boosts their effective HP? It grants them Elite Armor and 33% HP as well.. I really doubt they'll get shredded :p.

Well it is still only 1-2 guys...unless they're Rambo or something 

Ya it's a bit weak atm, should give them the ability to step off the gun and fight as a 3 man squad who can't move.

[Jodomar]

^Now that would be bad ass

[Mysthalin]

Heavy support is OP lol.

Goodbye flanking an HMG : hope you brought a sniper or howitzer - otherwise it's tough shit.

[LCII^Bun-Bun]

Actually, I have to agree: I once saw a gun recrewed with KHC (I honestly can't remember wether it was CoH or EiR, I think EiR) and those guys raped half a riflemen squad of me because at first I didn't notice and just went t oclose combat.... at long rage you are fucked though

[LeoPhone]

Actually, I have to agree: I once saw a gun recrewed with KHC (I honestly can't remember wether it was CoH or EiR, I think EiR) and those guys raped half a riflemen squad of me because at first I didn't notice and just went t oclose combat.... at long rage you are fucked though

ehmm, no.

pak and mortar will have only one mp44, mg42 two.
these guys  arent kch. just stay at long/medium range and they'll die in no time.
just like how assault grenadiers fail vs anyone, exept when they are at close range.