How to play PE for dummies(or Smokaz)

[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

[CrazyWR]

Stop trying to play it like Americans.






More to be added when I feel less aggravated.

[Smokaz]

Stop thinking that there is a good way to play a army with severe limitations, instead of just being cornered into playing one certain way. That's making up for defiences, not a playstyle.

[lionel23]

Well certain armies to tend to suck at certain things... ie if you are an assaulty type army with infantry, US infantry is the way to go with allies, not so much with commandoes, they are more defensive, way better support teams.

Look at the US Mortar HT, can't fix the dang US mortar so may as well make it a vehicle to deal with all those pesky infantry, right? Heh.

[AmPM]

Actually, this last post of yours brings up something I've been meaning to talk about.

The obsession of filling in weaknesses in doctrines through new units and abilities.

STOP DOING IT.

[Groundfire]

How is creating the ability to make Inf coy all mechanized filling in weaknesses?

If anything it just improves something they could already do but wasnt realistically competitive.
That's not filling in a weakness. Giving Inf coy heavy tanks is filling in a weakness

Giving Luftwaffe support weapons on a high tier unlock is filling in weaknesses. (but tbh, they need it bad)

[AmPM]

How is creating the ability to make Inf coy all mechanized filling in weaknesses?

If anything it just improves something they could already do but wasnt realistically competitive.
That's not filling in a weakness. Giving Inf coy heavy tanks is filling in a weakness

Giving Luftwaffe support weapons on a high tier unlock is filling in weaknesses. (but tbh, they need it bad)

TBH, it should be separated more like this:

Infantry = Support Weapons, Rifles/Rangers, Arty
Armor = Tanks, TD's, Light vehicles, Mech Infantry units
AB = AB, offmaps, recon

Then you could have nicely balanced doctrines, each with the variety of Axis doctrines.

[CrazyWR]

agree with ampm 100%

[Groundfire]

TBH, it should be separated more like this:

Infantry = Support Weapons, Rifles/Rangers, Arty
Armor = Tanks, TD's, Light vehicles, Mech Infantry units
AB = AB, offmaps, recon

Then you could have nicely balanced doctrines, each with the variety of Axis doctrines.

I like how its clearly stated in the quote above, that this is how the doctrines need to be structured, but then I wonder why everyone bitches about rifle blobs, LV spam and AB spam.

NO no no, we want you to use only these units in this combination and only at the right amounts.

This statement is very contradictory to the general tone of balance towards allied doctrines and you wonder why some people want alittle variety around here.

Really? really? Airborne are supposed to be structured around Offmaps and recons? Kinda hard to do when you at the best get 2 strafes and bombing runs. When those run out, what are you left with? Airborne spam...That's a wierd way to look at army structure.

Really? do we want to have Armor doctrine focus a tree on infantry and mechanized infantry? I thought we were going for armored theme here? There's no reason why that cant be moved to the doctrine that really should have this kind of focus.... um what was it called again?

oh yeah, infantry.

Shoehorning people into playing broken, spammy play styles is not fun or balanced and yet, this is what we wanna keep?

[Smokaz]

This topic is awful. It should be split up into the actual discussions, or closed.

[Unkn0wn]

Moved to eirr related discussion, this is not worthy of the strategy section.

[nugnugx]

PE + bad PE player = 




allied players 

[Illegal_Carrot]

words

He's right though. The three doctrine trees shouldn't encourage the spam of any one unit, but they should fit various play styles and themes.
Defense (as underwhelming as it is) is the perfect example of this:
The Defense Specialization tree focuses mostly on infantry units digging in an holding out as long as they can with a stalwart defense. The Ambush Specialization tree focuses on units getting into positioned fire zones and ambushing the enemy. Artillery Specialization obviously focuses on using Defense's vast array of artillery to its greatest degree, as well as advanced scouting for said artillery.
It doesn't encourage the spamming of any one unit or type of unit, allows for several different play styles and company builds, and thematically fits the doctrine very well.
Sure, the different trees make things fairly linear, but it seems to be the doctrine style that the devs have chosen, so there's not much you can do.
Though personally, I'd much rather go back to the old 5x5 list of abilities where you chose 4/3/2/1. It allowed for the greatest customization of companies, freedom of doctrine unlocks and accommodated the largest number of play styles. It was simply a better system, and I don't know why it was replaced.

[AmPM]

Groundfire, your idea that Infantry means THE SOLE USER OF AMERICAN INFANTRY is flawed.

Mech Infantry were assigned to Armor Divisions, so they could keep up with the attack. Giving Armor an Infantry line focused on Mech use means that they A) get more to play with, without B) Over buffing their fucking Armor units through the roof like it currently does.

So far you seem like the person least interested in balanced play, and far more interested in how few units you can get an allied doctrine to buff so you get OP stuff.

Take AB: You could make 3 trees with the new one.

AB Infantry
AB Support
Glider Units

Unlocks
AB Glider tree
AB Support Weapons tree
Offmaps tree

AB could get more new units delivered by Glider, zook, and .50 cal jeeps uparmored jeeps, Pack Guns, normal Infantry that can still deploy rapidly. You could make a balanced force that can deploy quickly, without relying completely on buffing the AB Infantry squad over and over and over again.

[Illegal_Carrot]

Glider-based Riflemen would actually be pretty awesome. It'd still give AB the strike-anywhere AI capabilities that AB Rifles get, but without stuff like AB armor and Fire Up.
Something like a Zook Jeep would be nice, too. Give AB some nice themed toys (like Commandos get) without it getting to ridiculous.

[AmPM]

Something like a .50 cal Jeep with Jeep HP, slightly lower speed and accel and HT armor.

[Groundfire]

Groundfire, your idea that Infantry means THE SOLE USER OF AMERICAN INFANTRY is flawed.

Never said this, but any significant infantry buffs should belong in infantry company

Mech Infantry were assigned to Armor Divisions, so they could keep up with the attack. Giving Armor an Infantry line focused on Mech use means that they A) get more to play with, without B) Over buffing their fucking Armor units through the roof like it currently does.

Or conversly, we can just give armor the assault halftracks and infantry can be overbuffed, since were just throwing around vauge implications on what giving one particular doctrine a T3 halftrack is going to turn out like.

Gameplay > Realism, just like how I support Heavy support in a terror doctrine because its an alternative play style. Armor has alternative playstyles without the need for an assault halftrack.

Infantry however, are just strictly delegated to the 3 outta 4 genres of unit type. Infantry/AT/Arty, whereas all other doctrines are but not focused enough that it becomes a restriction of you try to do something else. When you play TR, your a TR guy and nothing more, its not beneficial to play it any other way.

So far you seem like the person least interested in balanced play, and far more interested in how few units you can get an allied doctrine to buff so you get OP stuff.

please dont pretend as if you know my balance opinions better than I do Mr.ImgoingtoplaydownthePak40asmuchaspos sible.

[AmPM]

Yea, cause as you can see from all the choices it is an excellent weapon, in fact its sooo good I don't even use it, despite having 4 available to me.

[Groundfire]

Yea, cause as you can see from all the choices it is an excellent weapon, in fact its sooo good I don't even use it, despite having 4 available to me.

Just because you dont use it for some reason doesnt mean that it's not objectively a good weapon.

I dont say it's OP, im just pointing out that you dont even acknowledge it as theoretically a moveable improved 17pounder with much weaker targets to shoot at with no negatives at the moment aside from some DPS mumbojumbo that doesnt apply to tanks and most AT weapons.

[AmPM]

And yet, in practice, it is less effective.

And yes, DPS does matter, because thats what you are applying while you are shooting at tanks closing with you and when providing cover for other units. Its not often the PaK 38 only gets 1 shot off.

[Mysthalin]

Groundfire - it's simply fact the pak38 is a lot more reliable in it's role. The fact the targets are weaker actually benefit the pak - since that much penetration simply isn't needed the majority of the time.