Proposed Armor Rework

[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

[Illegal_Carrot]

As many of you may know, in the 'How to play PE for dummies' thread, I suggested a Mechanized Infantry Support tree for Armored doctrine. Due to the positive responses that received, as well as encouragement from some of the devs, I decided to give my own Armored Doctrine ideas a go.
Here it is:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AjOvnhZkt-wldE12dHl3RUU5b25pT2lVeklvRFZEOEE&authkey=CM6vhLYM&hl=en#gid=0
(some of the cells have comments explaining them, so be sure to check those out)

The doctrine is mostly my work, but Salan, Lionel23, AmPm, Heartmann and FraxinusJerichanus all contributed a bit, and have all given it a thumbs up.

It lacks the polish and balance of a finalized doctrine, but the groundwork is definitely there: various specialization trees that suit many different playstyles, abilities that encourage the use of combined arms and various different unit types, specializations that buff units in the correct way without going overboard, trees that are designed with the others in mind (ie if you go a T4/T2/T1, or T3/T3/T1), and unlocks designed to correctly support every tree and playstyle without being overpowered.
I was also sure to avoid any sort of 'I WIN' abilities or buffs.

So, I've gotten positive responses from some of the more well-known members of the community; what do the rest of you think?

Edit: Here it is in Word Processor format, if that's what you'd like:
https://docs0.google.com/document/d/1vKHTVkoHnT5bUiEjd5xO2-QJlLVmM0gRht5dzd-GywE/edit?authkey=CLb_ldEM&hl=en#
(it lacks comments explaining some things, though)

[Illegal_Carrot]

So, I tried to capture a few key ideas when designing this doc: specialization trees that allow for greatly varied playstyles and company builds, trees that are both balanced with and designed with the other trees in mind, and unlocks that are fun and interesting without being gimmicky or overpowered.

The Anti Blitzkrieg Warfare tree was designed to counter the Blitz. Not the Blitz doctrine, but the actual, real-life Blitzkrieg tactics: speedy attacks, quick assaults, and armored spearheads. This doctrine focuses mostly on being able to rapidly respond to enemy movement, and taking out enemy armor.

The Veteran Tank Crews tree was designed with armored aces in mind: veteran crews whose experience has lead to greater survivability and accuracy on the battlefield. At its core, this tree is about quality over quantity.

The Mechanized Infantry Support tree was, quite obviously, designed with infantry support in mind. It's a break form the conventional 'Armor doctrine = better tanks' trend, and is definitely the most teamwork and support oriented: it highly encourages combined arms tactics, the use of every unit type, and team coordination.

If there's anything you'd like me to explain, or anything you'd like me to go into detail on, feel free to ask.

[TheIcelandicManiac]

hey sorry for disturbing you but can you post the other doctrine reworks too or just the page that contain all of the rework?

[LeoPhone]

calling it in (4D) is just too complex and too hard to use. doctrine stuff should work basically all the time and not under some weird circumstances.

calliope should be a t3

croc with reload buff doesnt make sense
croc with top hmg is OP

rest looks good, not op, spread out buffs to everything like all the new doctrines look like (even though i dont really like the new approach, its quite boring)

[bayarea510]

There are some typos there, it's M26 Pershing, not m16.

[salan]

I don't know what i contributed beyond reading it over for ya, and I am by no means an active 'dev' but its great to see some community work offered as suggestions to the devs, sometimes they will take parts, sometimes they will take chunks sometimes they will take nothing.. but at least its there for them to see and discuss.

[Illegal_Carrot]

hey sorry for disturbing you but can you post the other doctrine reworks too or just the page that contain all of the rework?

http://forums.europeinruins.com/index.php?topic=16388.0

calling it in (4D) is just too complex and too hard to use. doctrine stuff should work basically all the time and not under some weird circumstances.

How is it too complex? Infantry near tank = get buff. No infantry near tank = not get buff.
Tanks get an accuracy bonus, light vehicles get a dodge bonus, and both are not slowed by terrain. Infantry get an accuracy bonus. Not that complicated.
Plus, it's less complicated than most of the buffs in Bob's current Armor rework.

calliope should be a t3

Why? The Calliope has always been a T2 unlock..

croc with reload buff doesnt make sense

Check the comments. It's not a reload buff on the Corc.
"RoF buffed through various means; be it shorter reload, shorter cooldown, increased burst duration, etc."

croc with top hmg is OP

No it isn't? No one really takes Crocs, even despite the cheap repair and awesome Dozer buffs. This will help make them less of a joke.

(even though i dont really like the new approach, its quite boring)

What do you find boring about it?

There are some typos there, it's M26 Pershing, not m16.

Oops, fixed the typo.

[Mysthalin]

White Phosphorus for T-17s.

No. No.

Just.. That thing isn't coming back.
It isn't.
No.

[Demon767]

I like boobs tbh

[Illegal_Carrot]

White Phosphorus for T-17s.

No. No.

Just.. That thing isn't coming back.
It isn't.
No.

Well, I see a couple of things wrong with that.
Firstly, Bob's Armor rework includes WP, and even has them on M8s. So they're definitely planned on coming back.
Secondly, WP's cost and effectiveness could (and should) be changed  for balance purposes. Just increase the recharge and decrease the duration and it's good.
Third, it would further differentiate the T17 and the M8 armored cars. The T17 with WP (again, so long as it's balanced for cost/effectiveness) would be furthered in it's role as an offensive quick-attack type unit, while the M8 with Smoke would fill more of a general purpose support role.

[Demon767]

I dont see the need to bring WP back in the first place

[Mysthalin]

Just because it's in the rework now doesn't mean it'll be there once it's done .

And if anything - WP rounds is something used best in a support role(where ATGs can shoot the stunned tank to death). Whereas the M8 has always been the quick assault kind of unit. But that is semantics, really.

[Killer344]

ugh.... just thinking about dealing with WP + sticky again gives me the creeps.

[Smokaz]

I don't know what i contributed beyond reading it over for ya, and I am by no means an active 'dev' but its great to see some community work offered as suggestions to the devs, sometimes they will take parts, sometimes they will take chunks sometimes they will take nothing.. but at least its there for them to see and discuss.

Just out of curiosity, can you point out a public suggestion outside of balance issue that was ever used?

[EIRRMod]

Heya Illegal, there will be a Doctrine discussion happening tommorow 21st 9pm GMT

Check for the thread that is talking about Armor (soon to be posted) and make notes on what differences etc are that you'd like to discuss.

Cheers =)

[salan]

Just out of curiosity, can you point out a public suggestion outside of balance issue that was ever used?

Hopefully that changes some eh ?

[EIRRMod]

Just out of curiosity, can you point out a public suggestion outside of balance issue that was ever used?

* Changes to how Supply worked (Individual caps --> Group caps)
* Hard-capping of Heavies / Unique units
* Reduction of Artillery amount/uses in-game
* T17 tweaks

And thats off the top of my head.

Or were you just trying to be smartass?

[Smokaz]

No I was actually curious. Considering the mass input I feel usually goes into EIRR.

It's interesting to see what changes are directly attributed to the community.

I'm sure there are more

[EIRRMod]

No I was actually curious. Considering the mass input I feel usually goes into EIRR.

It's interesting to see what changes are directly attributed to the community.

Theres a lot more, Unkn0wn is quite good and filtering through the community discussions and putting forward ideas from within it

I guess we should document it more tbh, but a lot of influence will come from you guys, after all, this mod is for you all =)

[LeoPhone]

Why? The Calliope has always been a T2 unlock..

Firestorm has also always been a T2, even before the drift nerf.
the calliope however is buffed by the doctrine (less recharge & regain maingun)
A fully operating sherman with a barrage that's a bit more useful than a firestorm. how could that be a t2?