[us] airborne doctrine too powerful.

[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

[WriterX]

Also, how many Oakleaf KCH squads will you have? One? Maybe two? How many AB squads will the enemy have?

[Malevolence]

If you gimp RR effectiveness against vehicles then an RR squad will be useless. Their whole purpose is powerful infantry-based anti-vehicle. They can't fight other infantry effectively. Fighting anti-tank infantry with a vehicle is always a gamble so use the appropriate unit for the appropriate situation.

[LeoPhone]

If you gimp RR effectiveness against vehicles then an RR squad will be useless. Their whole purpose is powerful infantry-based anti-vehicle. They can't fight other infantry effectively. Fighting anti-tank infantry with a vehicle is always a gamble so use the appropriate unit for the appropriate situation.

allied tank destroyers seem to have no trouble at all beating axis anti-tank infantry.
and as this guy said

Also, how many Oakleaf KCH squads will you have? One? Maybe two? How many AB squads will the enemy have?

even if you manage to kill an RR squad with elite anti infantry squads (i doubt it) there are still a million more.

it is nice the RR AB cannot kill any other infantry. but the axis also cannot kill the AB with their own infantry. simply because the AB is also kept at max range because of the type of weapons they have (RR and BAR) and if they do get too close, just use fireup. using rifles at max range to slowly kill the AB sometimes works a bit, but then they simply use the AB medic. axis are forced to use vehicles.

[Malevolence]

allied tank destroyers seem to have no trouble at all beating axis anti-tank infantry.

You can StuG powerslide nearly as well as you can M10 Jack-knife. Fireup just makes it worse if it's activated too late. The difference between the two is made up for in the power of the standard anti-tank gun between both factions. I see no reason this is relevant given axis have no elite anti-tank infantry to compare to.
 

and as this guy said even if you manage to kill an RR squad with elite anti infantry squads (i doubt it) there are still a million more.

If you manage to kill 1  BAR rifle squad with elite anti infantry squads (i doubt it) there are still a million more. This argument is invalid for obvious reasons. Just because there's a lot of something doesn't make it OP, it just makes it numerous.

it is nice the RR AB cannot kill any other infantry. but the axis also cannot kill the AB with their own infantry. simply because the AB is also kept at max range because of the type of weapons they have (RR and BAR) and if they do get too close, just use fireup. using rifles at max range to slowly kill the AB sometimes works a bit, but then they simply use the AB medic. axis are forced to use vehicles.

You are trying to think about how to balance the game based around annihilation victory. If they retreat to use an airborne medic you consolidate your one or two free sectors now that their anti-tank support left. Rinse, repeat, victory by territory control.

You can push airborne back with infantry, or kill them if they engage too close, or you can try your luck sniping them with tanks or other guns. That's pretty much how you win against any other unit in the game, I don't see the problem.

[Masacree]

Charge Easy AB Rifleman squad with BARs that is Vet 3. I wish you luck

morituri te salutant

[LeoPhone]

You can StuG powerslide nearly as well as you can M10 Jack-knife. Fireup just makes it worse if it's activated too late. The difference between the two is made up for in the power of the standard anti-tank gun between both factions. I see no reason this is relevant given axis have no elite anti-tank infantry to compare to.
 

m10 is faster, and since axis infantry have more health its much better to run over axis inf than it is allied. m10 can also be used to flank paks and kill tanks. something the stug has quite a bit more trouble with. the elite anti-tank infantry of the axis is obviously the stormshrecks. a unit that has to operate much closer to the enemy and has no fireup.

If you manage to kill 1  BAR rifle squad with elite anti infantry squads (i doubt it) there are still a million more. This argument is invalid for obvious reasons. Just because there's a lot of something doesn't make it OP, it just makes it numerous.

i mean that once you have used up everything in your company that would fit as "the counter to AB" there are still more AB. even kch take great damage when fighting AB rifles.

You are trying to think about how to balance the game based around annihilation victory. If they retreat to use an airborne medic you consolidate your one or two free sectors now that their anti-tank support left. Rinse, repeat, victory by territory control.

You can push airborne back with infantry, or kill them if they engage too close, or you can try your luck sniping them with tanks or other guns. That's pretty much how you win against any other unit in the game, I don't see the problem.

this seems indeed quite the only way to deal with AB effectively. but win by territory control is a lot harder and forces the player to be agressive(some companies arent build for this at all).
and it is not pretty much how you deal with any other unit in the game.

[Malevolence]

m10 is faster, and since axis infantry have more health its much better to run over axis inf than it is allied. m10 can also be used to flank paks and kill tanks.

And... axis have better anti-tank coverage to prevent squishing. So that's pretty much about even from where I'm standing.

the elite anti-tank infantry of the axis is obviously the stormshrecks. a unit that has to operate much closer to the enemy and has no fireup.

Hm, I had forgotten about stormtroopers. Very unpopular unit these days, good point to bring them up. I would say that stormtroopers contain a lot more firepower and stealth to make up for the lack of fireup, but really they are just a touch too expensive to be even in my opinion. Still, though, two squads of stormtroopers can kill an m10 outright with some luck, or a second volley if they position to the side to avoid squishing. They avoid being squished by killing the target or being invisible and therefore undetectable to assign orders to squish, airborne avoid being squished by running away. Both can avoid being squished perfectly adequately, and further the slightly improved squishing power of the m10 over things like the stug are in turn countered by its fragility and superior static anti-tank coverage from the axis and such things as I've said.

i mean that once you have used up everything in your company that would fit as "the counter to AB" there are still more AB. even kch take great damage when fighting AB rifles.

Well, you don't fight anti-infantry elite infantry with other anti-infantry elite infantry unless you're willing to take some casualties. You would use a tank on airborne riflemen, ideally, or some other bullet-proof or range-zoning weapon. Of course if you have no indirect weapons left, and there are airborne RRs with the airborne riflemen, then I can see how that might pose a problem that only KCH could solve and at a loss to boot.

Another possible solution is to use a HMG and a knight's cross squad or the like. The HMG will threaten suppression, meaning that the airborne either run away, giving you territory, or attack you, letting you shred them with the knights cross. This of course assumes that your opponent doesn't ALSO have an HMG counter like a tank which would need an at-gun or a mortar which would need a counter-mortar or any more complex theorycrafted scenarios (it's silly enough as it is without adding more variables).

A major trend I'm seeing here is "I CAN'T CHARGE AIRBORNE WITH ANTI-INFANTRY INFANTRY" and "I CAN'T KEEP MY TANK ALIVE AGAINST BEING POKED BY RRS". Changing that dynamic backwards, such that the airborne infantry have to charge you, and you bring the fight to the RRs is ideal. Things like mines would help with this, which are undervalued and underutilised I've found.

this seems indeed quite the only way to deal with AB effectively. but win by territory control is a lot harder and forces the player to be agressive(some companies arent build for this at all).

Well, give me a company composition that cannot force territory victory through skirmish-retreat-repeat against airborne with an airborne medic? I can't really think of one if you use the units right.

And winning by territory control isn't "harder". It should be the primary way to achieve victory. Territory control gives you popcap and victory, killing units only gives you victory. Territory control for minimal expenditure should be your primary objective in any game of EiR.

and it is not pretty much how you deal with any other unit in the game.

Well, how do you deal with any unit in the game, then, if not any of those things? Please, list them.

[NightRain]

HMGs and Snipers are awsome vs Airborne that has wasted all their Strafes and bombings

[WriterX]

I think I should structure my opinion fully on the topic.

I find as a Wehr Defensive player that playing against the US AB is one of the toughest tasks I can possibly have. There are a number of reasons for that:

1) AB rarely operates alone. I have seen a combination of 3 AB squads with RRs and a sherman as cover. It is impossible to kill the sherman with a Pak, because the RRs will take down the Pak in one salvo. Using any sort of vehicle means exposing yourself both to the RRs and Sherman (unless it is a heavier tank like a Tiger). Using infantry against the ABs means the Sherman will be able to take down the infantry, while the ABs Fire Up and run away.

Of course, you can attempt to combine your forces to battle that threat, but there is a very likely chance you will only take down the sherman, while the ABs fire up and flee, most likely causing you heavier losses than they themselves will take.

2) AB squads, for some reason rarely lose troops to ordinary fire. I have seen a six man AB squad down to a quarter of its health bar, without losing a single man yet. That means that if somewhere in the rear is a field medic, they will be brought back to full health and capable of rejoining the fight, as if nothing happened.

On the other side of the barricade, the Wehr Defensive and Terror Doctrines do have the stable means of supplying frontline troops with constant healing, but unlike the medics it's not nearly as mobile. The PEs Scorched Earth doctrine have also the stationary means of supply medical aid. In practice though, when a Wehr or PE squad does reach a med station on average they would have lost already one or two men, which counts for half their effectiveness.

3) Fire Up is a wonderful way for Hit and Run tactics. Say what you want about the after effect, if the Axis player does not plan a push, he will not be able to persue them. Only vehicles can realisticaly persue a Fired Up AB squad, and if the AB squad has RRs, it will not be successful at all.

Fire Up is also the means to escape a Pinning situation. Connected with the earlier statement on durability, a mortar shot which directly hits a fully healed AB squad will take down maybe one man. If the ABs are pinned they can quickly escape with the Fire Up. Same goes for an unsucessful attack. A Fire Up and retreat to a safe area means that the Axis player will be left without a chance of chasing them down.

4) Anywhere, any time. You advance deep into enemy territory, it is possible that behind you dropped a single AB RR squad. What that means that, if you do not realise it (which is most often not possible untill too late) you will lose not your crew, but any gun that you left semi defended in the rear.

Realisticaly, you cannot keep an eye everywhere, and no matter how much practice you have, there is always a chance your gun will be destroyed by the unseen enemy. You send help to the gun, it is already most likely too late. By the time you arrive the ABs might had gone Fire Up and escaped somewhere into the map.


What I usualy notice that does work against ABs is a massive concentration of force. You see a blob you must drop everything on them in as short a time as possible. Artillery, mortars, HMGs, you cannot let the ABs react with the Fire Up. If that happens it is almost certain they will escape.

[smurfORnot]

I plan to use 280mm nebels,5 of em,as seen do wonders against inf ,and just as well against tanks...10-15 of them in company should be just enough 
combined with some senior officers,and let the party begin 

[Malevolence]

I think I should structure my opinion fully on the topic.

I find as a Wehr Defensive player that playing against the US AB is one of the toughest tasks I can possibly have. There are a number of reasons for that:

1) AB rarely operates alone. I have seen a combination of 3 AB squads with RRs and a sherman as cover. It is impossible to kill the sherman with a Pak, because the RRs will take down the Pak in one salvo. Using any sort of vehicle means exposing yourself both to the RRs and Sherman (unless it is a heavier tank like a Tiger). Using infantry against the ABs means the Sherman will be able to take down the infantry, while the ABs Fire Up and run away.

This is common theorycrafting bias. You are attempting to defeat a vastly superior force in terms of population, resource cost, and unit diversity with a single "kind" of unit. There is no miracle cure for this situation and it is very important to recognize that. Assigning positive bias to the "unkillable" airborne and sherman blob in addition to positive statistical bias in giving them more diversity and cost than the "one unit solution" makes this an unsolvable, and unnecessary, conundrum.

Of course, you can attempt to combine your forces to battle that threat, but there is a very likely chance you will only take down the sherman, while the ABs fire up and flee, most likely causing you heavier losses than they themselves will take.

And why would the airborne and tank cause heavier losses than the one sherman you are able to kill? Why would you be able to kill the sherman and not the airborne? The sherman is FASTER than the airborne, fireup or no, shouldn't that give it better survivability? This is another issue that is being addressed incorrectly. What if you combined a pair of mine pios, a mortar, a pak and a skirted panzer 4 against this theoretical set of 2 or 3 RR airborne and a sherman, stubby or otherwise? Airborne hit the mine and take instant losses, the mortar pounds them unless they retreat, and if they advance the skirted p4 squishes them because fireup is on and collission avoidance is off. Airborne are effectively eliminated having either advanced and died or retreated and are no longer in range, and then the panzer 4 and pak overwhelm and force retreat or kill the Sherman. There's a handy theorycrafted solution to the theorycrafted attack of an RR blob and a tank. So why is it necessary, or even statistically likely, that this bunch of airborne and the tank are going to take less damage than you do when the opposite is clearly possible?

2) AB squads, for some reason rarely lose troops to ordinary fire. I have seen a six man AB squad down to a quarter of its health bar, without losing a single man yet. That means that if somewhere in the rear is a field medic, they will be brought back to full health and capable of rejoining the fight, as if nothing happened.

This is a good point, airborne armor type makes them very resistant to bullets... but on the flip side, very flammable (and I believe susceptible to mines and grenades, but I've not reviewed what armor types do in a long time).

If you do not possess sufficient "burst damage" to kill airborne then attempt to grind them back and control the map as I suggested above. There's always that one game every so often where a guy calls on a tiger start and keeps it alive until the end with over 50 kills, but then loses anyway on territory. Similar idea applies.

On the other side of the barricade, the Wehr Defensive and Terror Doctrines do have the stable means of supplying frontline troops with constant healing, but unlike the medics it's not nearly as mobile. The PEs Scorched Earth doctrine have also the stationary means of supply medical aid. In practice though, when a Wehr or PE squad does reach a med station on average they would have lost already one or two men, which counts for half their effectiveness.

This is negativity bias. Statistically axis squads are less vulnerable to losing members to the general attrition of combat because they are more resilient as a result of having fewer members. You are just remembering the negative results of your squads being a man down more often because it's bad, just like how you also remember the airborne being full men or down only one or two, because it's bad for you.

3) Fire Up is a wonderful way for Hit and Run tactics. Say what you want about the after effect, if the Axis player does not plan a push, he will not be able to persue them.

So be prepared to pursue airborne squads with your team, then. If playing against every doctrine is the same there is no point to the doctrines. If Airborne makes you chase them, then that's what it takes to beat airborne. If blitz makes you take more jeeps or build wire fences to stop stormtroopers, then that's what it takes to beat blitz.

And as to units being unable to reasonably pursue fired up squads, no, infantry can't really chase and kill them for at least a little ways, but a sustained pursuit is effective. The key is knowing just how far you can sustain such a pursuit before you overextend, and communicating this to your team so that they are prepared to support your newly-gained saliant is a good idea.

Same goes for an unsucessful attack. A Fire Up and retreat to a safe area means that the Axis player will be left without a chance of chasing them down.

Again, I think you are placing too much emphasis on killing the units for annihilation victory when there are other objectives available that you can be pursuing. If your support heavy army cannot keep up with the airborne, then wait until you repulse an attack, and then take that time between them retreating, healing, and coming back for another go to move up and fortify the line, progressing towards victory. It is a common flaw in thinking that support weapons and being defensive means to stay put, but a defense that is unable to reposition will be brought down by planned strategic effort, much like the maginot line. A weakness will be identified, and it will be exploited. By moving your line up, if you are not a mobile force able to easily pursue to any extent, not only is progressing towards territory objectives, but also helps to keep your defensive line strong and fresh without giving the other team a chance to learn and gauge the strengths and weaknesses of your position. A more strategic application of the age-old "reposition your HMGs".

4) Anywhere, any time. You advance deep into enemy territory, it is possible that behind you dropped a single AB RR squad. What that means that, if you do not realise it (which is most often not possible untill too late) you will lose not your crew, but any gun that you left semi defended in the rear.

Realisticaly, you cannot keep an eye everywhere, and no matter how much practice you have, there is always a chance your gun will be destroyed by the unseen enemy. You send help to the gun, it is already most likely too late. By the time you arrive the ABs might had gone Fire Up and escaped somewhere into the map.

No, maybe you can't realistically keep an eye on the whole map. But you can keep an ear out for the very distinctive airdrop noise, even through fog of war. If you hear airborne drop and can't confirm them ahead, then make sure to tighten up the behind... so to speak.



Now, I'm not trying to say, necessarily, that airborne with RRs are not too powerful. Perhaps they are. But what I am most definitely saying is that it's important to evaluate your statements for logical consistency and rationality and to not rely on anecdotal examples too heavily. Additionally it's very important to play the game to its full extent, and not add any additional "rules", like you are playing for annihilation victory. In another thread many people were frustrated when they were winning an annihilation victory only to be defeated in territory control - but both are part of the game, and you absolutely must consider both objectives equally valid - though some companies are better built for one than the other, or use the former to achieve the latter, or use the latter to achieve the former.

[WriterX]

I have to agree with you Malevolance. I am unfortunately a bit prone to negative bias. The specific example I described in 1) was something that made me grit my teeth over to the gums. The ABs effectively destroyed the Pak that only fired once at the sherman, which then in turn destroyed the HMG which tried pinning the Fired Up ABs. The rest of my infantry, with no hope of acting was quickly pushed back and slaughtered by the sherman and ABs.

On a few occasions I think the RRs have taken out my Vet 2 Infantry from the far distance that they were at. The massed fire of six RRs means one of them has to hit eventualy.

But, going back on topic to RRs. I do not know what can be done about them. In terms of game mechanics they are damn accurate and have incredibly high travel speed making it impossible for a vehicle or stationary gun to escape if its caught off guards. Schreks might do more damage, but they are much easier to evade from the shots that came from the tip of its range. An RR once it fires takes less than a second to hit a target, at least it seems that way.

Perhaps if the accuracy of RRs was lowered that would influence the game somewhat in a positive manner. Other than that, perhaps higher costs of the upgrade.

[DarkSoldierX]

Heres a tip! Fix those healthbuffs for AB. A 6 man squad that has the health of a sherman but the dodgability of M8, yet the accursey of a sniper with the anti- surpression abilities of Jesus and the retreating speed of a frenchman, you wonder why they are so good.

[Grundwaffe]

I think the AB are all balance except the damage, 1 rr rocket hurts the kt like 5 hp in front armor. - I see that often.

[Groundfire]

I think the AB are all balance except the damage, 1 rr rocket hurts the kt like 5 hp in front armor. - I see that often.

All at weapons only do like a quarter of their normal damage if they dont penetrate. That's normal

[Grundwaffe]

All at weapons only do like a quarter of their normal damage if they dont penetrate. That's normal

Bah..

[Firesparks]

All at weapons only do like a quarter of their normal damage if they dont penetrate. That's normal

all small arms do zero damage
most tank shell and inf atw do 15% damage
57mm, 88mm flak, 50mm ht, 50m pak, 6 pdr do 50% damage
marder and 17 pdr does 35%. Marder get 50% with a doc ability.

the atg still hurts alot even if it deflect. The 57mm deals 75 dmg if it deflect. By comparison the Sherman do 87.5 dmg

This is common theorycrafting bias. You are attempting to defeat a vastly superior force in terms of population, resource cost, and unit diversity with a single "kind" of unit. There is no miracle cure for this situation and it is very important to recognize that. Assigning positive bias to the "unkillable" airborne and sherman blob in addition to positive statistical bias in giving them more diversity and cost than the "one unit solution" makes this an unsolvable, and unnecessary, conundrum.

Raid give the US player an extra squad to work with. The axis needs to defeat a superior force in terms of population. Even if it's not the RR that's specifically broken, there is something wrong with the AB somewhere.

And why would the airborne and tank cause heavier losses than the one sherman you are able to kill? Why would you be able to kill the sherman and not the airborne? The sherman is FASTER than the airborne, fireup or no, shouldn't that give it better survivability? This is another issue that is being addressed incorrectly. What if you combined a pair of mine pios, a mortar, a pak and a skirted panzer 4 against this theoretical set of 2 or 3 RR airborne and a sherman, stubby or otherwise? Airborne hit the mine and take instant losses, the mortar pounds them unless they retreat, and if they advance the skirted p4 squishes them because fireup is on and collission avoidance is off. Airborne are effectively eliminated having either advanced and died or retreated and are no longer in range, and then the panzer 4 and pak overwhelm and force retreat or kill the Sherman. There's a handy theorycrafted solution to the theorycrafted attack of an RR blob and a tank. So why is it necessary, or even statistically likely, that this bunch of airborne and the tank are going to take less damage than you do when the opposite is clearly possible?

You should know that even being a tank and faster doesn't actually give the sherman better survivability.

And to your theory crafting. The AB can hit fire up to negate the suppression.
The US might be using more munition in his setup, but the ability to bring up more firepower at one moment is an advantage. 

[Malevolence]

I have to agree with you Malevolance. I am unfortunately a bit prone to negative bias. The specific example I described in 1) was something that made me grit my teeth over to the gums. The ABs effectively destroyed the Pak that only fired once at the sherman, which then in turn destroyed the HMG which tried pinning the Fired Up ABs. The rest of my infantry, with no hope of acting was quickly pushed back and slaughtered by the sherman and ABs.

Well, that was a less than ideal engagement. Some things to turn those around in your favor are to invest in bunkers (if you are defensive and they are up-armored bunkers of some kind preferable, otherwise they are vulnerable to all sorts of instant RR gibbing and so must be used and abandoned with caution), mines, or of course, barbed wire: no infantry can charge straight through barbed wire, and even though they carry the weapons to break it, it gives you one volley where they aren't gibbing your units and are instead gibbing free (!) barbed wire. With puma phase armor being reputedly fixed or modified I wouldn't count too hard on pumas, but flamethrower infantry could prove a viable counter. A pioneer with a bunker, mine, and flammenwerfer attached are all the anti-airborne you need, or perhaps two of them, to complement an otherwise normal force. If that sherman gets engine damage/immobilized, or the airborne get unexpectedly pinned and are working on a shot clock of about six seconds with fire-up that can really turn the battle in your favor - it's a forced do-or-die if he advances (exactly what you want) vs a retreat, where you can advance and refortify. Smoke would be reasonably successful, as well, since it isn't like your HMG will suppress them anyway.

There's plenty of counters around, and I'm happy enough to suggest some. If you'd like any more feel free to ask.

On a few occasions I think the RRs have taken out my Vet 2 Infantry from the far distance that they were at. The massed fire of six RRs means one of them has to hit eventualy.

This is an issue with any primarily anti-tank shell, though. AT gun sniping is notorious for being incredibly obnoxious, but I'm all for keeping that kind of thing in the game just because it's already random and that can't be fixed, might as well enjoy the randomness.

But, going back on topic to RRs. I do not know what can be done about them. In terms of game mechanics they are damn accurate and have incredibly high travel speed making it impossible for a vehicle or stationary gun to escape if its caught off guards. Schreks might do more damage, but they are much easier to evade from the shots that came from the tip of its range. An RR once it fires takes less than a second to hit a target, at least it seems that way.

Perhaps if the accuracy of RRs was lowered that would influence the game somewhat in a positive manner. Other than that, perhaps higher costs of the upgrade.

If there had to be a change, I'd suggest slightly raising scatter first. That is the real strong point of RRs, and it'd put them in line with other anti-tank options a bit closer.

Raid give the US player an extra squad to work with. The axis needs to defeat a superior force in terms of population.

So get that blitz ability that gives more pop and call it even? I prefer as few variables as possible in my theorycrafting.

[Firesparks]

So get that blitz ability that gives more pop and call it even? I prefer as few variables as possible in my theorycrafting.

join operation spread out your bonus between your team. Having 3/2 extra pop per player can't really do much, and it's not even until a 4v4 where JO actually provide more bonus (kind of). There's also the tree as a whole to think of. I would say Easy company tree is more powerful than the light warfare tree.

You just like taking variables out of your theory crafting until the situation matches your ideal.

[Malevolence]

join operation spread out your bonus between your team. Having 3/2 extra pop per player can't really do much, and it's not even until a 4v4 where JO actually provide more bonus (kind of). There's also the tree as a whole to think of. I would say Easy company tree is more powerful than the light warfare tree.

You just like taking variables out of your theory crafting until the situation matches your ideal.

No, I like to remove unnecessary baggage. Airborne RRs being too powerful is the topic, not "Airborne doctrine is too powerful". The fact that we're dealing with shermans and at guns and rifles oh my in the first place is practically going too far, to be frank.

If you want to nerf RRs on the basis of one doctrine ability, how about you petition to nerf the ability instead of the RR?