[WM] Terror Wishlist v2 (Doctrine Abilities)

[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

[Demon767]

jeeze we already got new doctrines and now we want to change. not saying i dont want the change. i just wish we could all agree on one thing without it being debated to be changed later on. im sure the devs are getting sick of coding the same shit over and over again

[NightRain]

Even you can agree that current blitzkrieg suxs :p

[spinn72]

Even you can agree that current blitzkrieg suxs :p

Isn't current Blitz exactly the same as old blitz?!

[smurfORnot]

noup,old one buffed tiger better...

[AmPM]

jeeze we already got new doctrines and now we want to change. not saying i dont want the change. i just wish we could all agree on one thing without it being debated to be changed later on. im sure the devs are getting sick of coding the same shit over and over again

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the doctrines being designed and implemented without regard to a theme or any actual input from the player base. I know they do the doc suggestion threads, but those mostly seem to be about getting a random ability here or there to fill in a spot that's empty.

Then you have weird stuff, like the insistence on putting a Recon ability into each doctrine and mixing buffs all around in the doctrine to make it completely general in what it actually buffs without any real focus, theme or weakness other than it may not buff everything as well as another doctrine.

If the doctrines were each built on a theme, limited what units they buffed to said theme, and each had an inherent weakness in what was available for them, the game would get more interesting again, as you would know that playing Blitz with a tank focus means your infantry will lose, but your armor will win. Instead, we have mediocre armor buffs for blitz (p4 with HEAT etc still loses to standard Upgun Sherman) along with shitty infantry buffs up until a T4.

This goes for most doctrines. As I said earlier, each doctrine buffs just about everything, the key is finding the one that buffs the widest variety of stuff the most.

[smurfORnot]

+1

it would be much better if doctrines were more focused,each on one theme,instead how they are curently designed.
even though I quite like new luft,compared to new one,except T4's which are kinda meh.
Blitz as mostly agreed is mediocre.
Defensive is also,so so,kinda weird it doesnt buff support weapons more except half dead extra guy at T4.
and so on.

[Unkn0wn]

I see AMPM is still king of gross exaggerations.

[Mysthalin]

(p4 with HEAT etc still loses to standard Upgun Sherman)

Disregarding the fact that there's no real reason why a HEAT P4 should be de-facto winning against a Sherman that has paid 60 munitions that is almost purely an anti-P4 weapon, the HEAT P4 will actually win roughly 40 percent of the time, and every time it will lose will still leave the Sherman with a mere 20-30 percent health.

This is ignoring such things like skirts or veterancy on the P4, or the ability of the P4 to get rear shots off at the upgun sherman(or movement causing misses).

[smurfORnot]

well,what would be bad if u could had blitz p4 with buffs that beats standard sherman with upgun,but still loses to armor upgun sherman with his buffs?

[Mysthalin]

Because the blitz buff improves the P4 againt absolutely everything, not just the Sherman, whereas the sherman upgun is pretty much nothing more than an anti-P4 upgrade that you actually pay resources for?

Not to mention that the P4 with HEAT can already beat the upgun sherman, and if not - extremely severely damage it in all engagements.

[smurfORnot]

I would still rather buy upgun option for p4 than skirts.

how is it only upgrade against p4,doesnt it also help him against stugs,and even heavier tanks(side hits and stuff perhaps?)

[Groundfire]

Yes, we all know that everyone evar would like an upgun for their P4 so it can take the sherman but this is not how the aysemmetric CoH balance works.

It may seem "unfair" but if P4s could do everything, there would be no need for panthers and tigers outside of company flavor. The heavier non doctrinal tanks (panthers) exist in order to deal with US fuel costing AT.

[Mysthalin]

how is it only upgrade against p4,doesnt it also help him against stugs,and even heavier tanks(side hits and stuff perhaps?)

Side hits do not exist in CoH.

StuGs are probably the only valid thing you listed - if anyone used them, that is.

The heavier tanks will just lulz at shermans - regardless of upgun or not. Even if the bonuses were any more tangible the Shermans are just not an adequate unit vs heavy tanks.

[smurfORnot]

StuGs are probably the only valid thing you listed - if anyone used them, that is.

well,stug and p4 is more than 50% of axis armor,ofcourse you wont go with sherman against panther, and only blitz has tiger.

[Mysthalin]

Well then, you must inherently agree that the upgun is a 60 munitions upgrade designed entirely to make the sherman better versus StuGs and P4s.

[Unkn0wn]

Time to get back on topic

[LeoPhone]

Yes, we all know that everyone evar would like an upgun for their P4 so it can take the sherman but this is not how the aysemmetric CoH balance works.

It may seem "unfair" but if P4s could do everything, there would be no need for panthers and tigers outside of company flavor. The heavier non doctrinal tanks (panthers) exist in order to deal with US fuel costing AT.

*hint* make upgun cost fuel *hint*

[Groundfire]

*hint* make upgun cost fuel *hint*

Unit upgrades cost munitions, leophone.

Plus, that's just a buff to the upgun. I got no problem letting go of an M10 to get "ALL" of my upguns.

[LeoPhone]

puma upgun costs fuel.

[Killer344]

no, it doesn't, it works as a different unit. Regular pumas use 6 pop, up-gunned pumas 8.