[PE] Luftwaffe

[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

[Chubba]

who would rly take marksmantraining over what Bob gave us?

I would. And yes, over both current versions of Heroes of Monte Casino and the current Planned Offensive.

In before Groundfire calls me Hot Air.

[bbsmith]

Marksmen Training was actually really overpowered. When doing DPS calculations we determined the 3 G43s doing mid range damage at long range would obliterate units at long range, especially with FJ ambush.

[Groundfire]

I would. And yes, over both current versions of Heroes of Monte Casino and the current Planned Offensive.

In before Groundfire calls me Hot Air.

And why is that? Bob's Monte Cassino gives more buffs (including fall TB buffs and recieved acc. buffs to a unit in cover with soldier armor granting considerable survivability) and a more reasonable ambush buff.

An additional 33% acc. to the already 25% acc. ambush buff gives you 66% additional accuracy out of ambush.

Would you rly rather fire more and hit the same, or fire less and hit more? Eventually you will come out of the ambush and your 50% extra cooldown and reload will mean nothing because the bonus doesnt apply anymore.

Surely you cant like like Gren's Monte Casino for the "Evasive Manuvers" because its a mystery ability and you dont know what it is...

Marksmen Training was actually really overpowered. When doing DPS calculations we determined the 3 G43s doing mid range damage at long range would obliterate units at long range, especially with FJ ambush.

Alright, there you go, he does the numbers, I dont.

they found a super stacking buff for a certain unit, and a certain circumstance, which someone would find out eventually and exploit.

Every other time, especially on pgrens who cant ambush, it seems very underwhelming for a T4

[DarkSoldierX]

Its called tweaking. Tweak it to be better/worse. And guess what? I can have units in cover with soldier armour too without doctrine unlocks and buffs! OMG so survivablez i need a T4 and need to be in cover for less recieved accursey wuptedeedoo. And remember the enemy has to come to you which doesnt work out as planned against anyone with half a brain.

[Groundfire]

Its practically a free vet 1 bonus for standing in a fucking crater...



So whats wrong with "tweaking" this set of doctrines then? tbh, i think the one we have needs less tweaking.

[CommanderHolt]

The T3 and maybe even T2 need to be stronger as all the buffs seemed to be centered around the T4s really. There isn't much to go for 2 T3s.

[Chubba]

And why is that?

Marksmen Training was actually really overpowered. When doing DPS calculations we determined the 3 G43s doing mid range damage at long range would obliterate units at long range, especially with FJ ambush.

Do you think before you facepalm or do you just facepalm when someone doesn't agree with you? I didn't even know the numbers behind Marksmen Training (and mysthalin has given me a strict skepticism on any Argument based purely on math) but even I could tell Marksmen Training would have been a very powerful t4.

[Spartan_Marine88]

And remember the enemy has to come to you which doesnt work out as planned against anyone with half a brain.

It works quite well actually when they don't know your there, just find a bush/wall/crater in their path, click ambush button and profit

[Chubba]

just find a bush/wall/crater in their path, click ambush button and profit

in their path, click ambush button and profit

click ambush button and profit

click ambush button

With Fallschrimjagers?

Come again now?

[Spartan_Marine88]

With Fallschrimjagers?

Come again now?

do they auto cloak can't remember its late and i am tired

[CrazyWR]

Groundfire, why are you so adamantly opposed to the EliteGren version and pro-Bob's version?  EliteGren's version is more powerful, sure, but that can be tweaked downward.  It's more fun, it's more themed, and it's more similar to the rest of the doctrines.  It's clearly the version that should have been implemented originally.  What is necessary here is for the devs to realize they made a mistake and fix it, instead of being stubborn and sticking with the current version...

[Mysthalin]

So whats wrong with "tweaking" this set of doctrines then? tbh, i think the one we have needs less tweaking.

Elitegren's draft just needed tweaking in the numbers it provided, but otherwise - the doctrine was fun. And yes, I'd have taken marksman training without a second thought. Gamesguy's math proved that 3 G43s at long range would have about the same DPS as a full rifle squad at short range... Which would have been funny, to say the least(which is when we would have nerfed the long range capabilities of marksman training G43s).
What most people mean to say when they say they dislike Bob's draft is that they don't see any consistency in Luftwaffe. It just seems ever so random. Yes - you might get a pleuthora of buffs that put together are "better" than just one buff like marksman training - but they don't seem to follow a pattern and simply confuse the player. It doesn't seem like you're going down a specific tree - just getting random boosts to your company in various different fields.

[Firesparks]

It's not just about the number or how powerful the bonus is. Doctrine specialization is about fitting the doctrine to your preferred play style.

Some people may be just power gamer that min-max everything, but some of us like to pick a tree/doctrine because that's how we play.

The current luftwaffe just seems to be a bunch of bonus randomly scatter about the tree during a night of drinking.

Elite's tree have clear specialization. Mech defensive for boast to your defensive vehicle and flakcity. Superior planning for general boast to your infantry, and ambush for scouting and ambush.  

[EliteGren]

Evasive Manouvres was actually supposed to be the cloak from the Airborne ToV campaign for Fallschirmjagers(crawling cloaked). But there were arguments about them being made too similar to Stormtroopers, in the end it didn't make it in.

I'd like to point out that when designing Monte Cassino I wanted to take into account that unupgraded Fallschirms should also have a chance to get used. -50% cooldown on K98s would really be a helpful buff for them, the accuracy bonus atm doesn't help that much.

Anyway yes, Marksman training was going to be Super OP unless tweaked.

[Groundfire]

Groundfire, why are you so adamantly opposed to the EliteGren version and pro-Bob's version?

Because I put both of the writeup side by side, and without doing too much in depth DPS calculations on Marksman training, I made a decision that I liked Bob's version of Luft better, more fun and more inline with my style of play.  Do we have a problem with this?

It is entirely your opinion whether or not a doctrine seems more focused.

You say they arnt, I look at both lists and see nearly identical doctrine choices with the preference to put passive stat buffs as T4s instead of T3s, which tbh, I could care less about.

It's not just about the number or how powerful the bonus is. Doctrine specialization is about fitting the doctrine to your preferred play style.

It sure fits mine. Top tree still focuses on Falls, Middle on defensive vehicles and 88s, and bottom is general PE. I dont see a problem with a plathora or buffs that fix all those stupid things thats wrong with PE and make the army function better as a whole.

I would much prefer a large swath of individual unit buffs designed to promote a style of play than those doctrines that start with "All Infantry/Vehicles/Tanks get such and such buff". Im not bashing grens list, just making comparison, but I would much prefer (balance wise) the current planned offensive over any other broad "US carbines" type abilities like "marksman training" where you are pretty much forced to take maximum amount of G43 soldiers just because they have the buffs.

In a Marksman training army, fg42s, assault grens, pretty much all but dissapear.

Some people may be just power gamer that min-max everything, but some of us like to pick a tree/doctrine because that's how we play.

Yeah, and i'll bet you use the units that are buffed over the ones that are not too.


Im going on vacation now, see you guys in a few days.

[Mysthalin]

Yeah, and i'll bet you use the units that are buffed over the ones that are not too.

How is that in any way a bad thing? Now you're just attacking the person for his opinion with no solid base whatsoever.

[EliteGren]

In a Marksman training army, fg42s, assault grens, pretty much all but dissapear.

Not really, you'd have medkits on all your infantry including Assault grens and Falls, which by the way happen to have SF on their FG42s.

[Mysthalin]

Not to mention that marksman training does nothing for your short range firepower. If the enemy decides to charge you (commandoes, rangers, flamethrowers) - you'll still lose. STGs/FG42s would still be quite useful.

[Firesparks]

It sure fits mine. Top tree still focuses on Falls, Middle on defensive vehicles and 88s, and bottom is general PE. I dont see a problem with a plathora or buffs that fix all those stupid things thats wrong with PE and make the army function better as a whole.

I would much prefer a large swath of individual unit buffs designed to promote a style of play than those doctrines that start with "All Infantry/Vehicles/Tanks get such and such buff". Im not bashing grens list, just making comparison, but I would much prefer (balance wise) the current planned offensive over any other broad "US carbines" type abilities like "marksman training" where you are pretty much forced to take maximum amount of G43 soldiers just because they have the buffs.

In a Marksman training army, fg42s, assault grens, pretty much all but dissapear.

Yeah, and i'll bet you use the units that are buffed over the ones that are not too.


Im going on vacation now, see you guys in a few days.

top tree doesn't focus on falls. It's not until HOMC when you actually get something that buff fs
middle tree doesn't focus on defensive vehicle until you get fortress Europe.
the bottom is just a bunch of random bonus to vamp, mun ht, and lastly a bunch of buff to almost all the unit in PE.

I pick a buff tree because I use the unit. I pick hobart's funnies because I use alot of churchill. I pick the HEAT round because I use tiger. I don't pick churchill because of hobart funnies, nor do I use the tiger because of the HEAT round. Right now the luft doctrine tree is literally forcing you to use units that you don't want to, because it's giving you alot of secondary bonus that you don't really want in the first place.

I already have a style of play that I would like to use, instead of being told what style of play to use. The whole point of multi doctrine is to find one doctrine/tree that fits you.

People pick Luft because they like to use flakcity, cloaking kitty, and Elite infantry.Right now the Luft tree just seems to boast some random  collection of units