[US] Armor

[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

[RikiRude]

There were some things said in the other thread that sparked discussion for me, but I didn't want to derail the thread.

In reference to armor and blitz. Someone noted that they would like to see a tree dedicated to armor for blitz, and someone said the armor tree is a little misguided. I can concur.

I really think armor would benefit from a tree dedicated to light vehicles. As it is now you have buffs in all three T4s that help everything to an extent. It would be nice if one tree was all about buffing your LVs, and then maybe one to pershing and shermans, and another to the TDs you have. Also I think there needs to be some buffs to the cali other than it gaining its main gun back from a T4.

Of course I think the rest of the doctrines should be implemented before we go over the ones that are already in game as well, but wanted to put this out there to see other peoples opinions on how armor is working for them thus far.

Also is anyone using tank command for a T4? Jackmcrack has been the only player I've seen use it in the past.

[Demon767]

That was I

I said i Wished it was like that, unfortunately that would resort in us going back to the same old doctrines we had before. which frankly at this point in time id rather just deal with the doctrines now and get everything in place so the mod doesnt die

[Mgallun74]

true that is.

[Hicks58]

It was me who said that Armour is currently misguided; however my primary point was that all doctrines are either misguided, or have "Loony Toon" abilities at the moment.

Tbf, I think Armour is alright as it is, it just needs a couple of key changes. HE Rounds being redesigned to say... 25% splash increase on the standard shell? That way, the Pershing rounds are more likely to take out an extra man in a squad, or be even more likely to gib an entire squad that is silly enough to clump together. That would remove the ability to consistently lolwutpwn infantry squads consistently in one hit, but still have a noticable effect. Anti Armour capability would be unaffected, and the anti infantry capability of the Pershing would be "Peaked" without being utterly ridiculous.

Or, a complete redesign of that doctrine route could be in order, and have a new idea placed. I know the bottom T4 could use something a little more interesting, as it's overshadowed by alternatives.

Either way, subtlety rather than blatantly abilities is what I'd much prefer to see.

[BigDick]

I really think armor would benefit from a tree dedicated to light vehicles. As it is now you have buffs in all three T4s that help everything to an extent. It would be nice if one tree was all about buffing your LVs, and then maybe one to pershing and shermans,

what you suggest is in other words "make more spam companies"

the intention to have multiple buff in a doctrine ability is to get rid of the thinking "i have to get the maximum of this unit because all my doctrine stuff buffs it"

and actually there are several buffs for light armor in the armor doctrine

double t3 onboard mechanics and next gen vehicles is pretty good if you use many m8
you have several buffs for your M8 that make them more surviveable and better in the role as harassment unit

even urbarn survival T4 with the 50 hp more and no 100% of damage engine because of a mortar can help your m8

[puddin]

OK call me crazy... But a n entire tree dedicated to LVs would be glorious but totally stupid and if i see it implimented i shall quit forever....  While some may rejoce it would be the end to all that is holy and somewhat balenced. 

You want an entire tree to buff one set of units?  Like all the sudden M8's would not get nerfed for WVERyone because of that and price increases would ensure and bullshit would be complained of.... 

There are already a tone of light vehicle buffs but they are spread out...  Find your best combination and work it fro there....

[Hicks58]

Agh, time to let loose one of my Armour trade secrets...

If anybody remembers that I ran an 18 M8 spam company once or twice, I did so with the HVAP doctrine.

Why?

HVAP affects M8 mines to a curiously powerful degree.

You can either go HVAP and turn your M8's into potent little suckers, or go USK and have them become hardy little sods. Can't have the best of both worlds though - closest to that would be going dual T3's to repair on the move.

[TheIcelandicManiac]

Man i remember those M8s, damm they were annoying when there were Mines Everywhere but atleast now i have mines on my ketts so i can do the same to you. 

[Groundfire]

The object of all the doctrines under Bob's design was to allow for many different options and company builds with many different units. Hicks' 18 M8 company the the product of him taking a key feature of his T4 and basing his company around that instead of having the tree dictate the company.

The way that all 8 of the doctrines we have are supposed to work is that there's an "Offensive Tree", "Defensive Tree", and "Maneuverability Tree," with Dual T3s functioning as multiple side options offering the equivilant of 3 extra T4 paths in addition to the normal T4s.

If there is a staple type of unit for that doctrine, then it shall dictate the aim of the T4s somewhat. (Armor coy will not recieve a T4 dedicated to infantry)

Since you are picking all T1s and 2/3 of the T2s anyways, they do not really matter. The specialization exists within the T3s and T4s. There is no "I am Blitzkreig, therefore there must be a tree dedicated to tanks".

There is the offensive tree, which may or may not contain buffs for the tiger. The same thing can be said for every other tree to allow the player maximum options and customizability, without stacking buffs onto a particular unit which forces spam and cookie cutter companies to a much higher degree.

Thats the long and short of the Doctrine design. I should really type up a document for public viewing as we currently do not have one and I think that it would alieviate some misconceptions about the doctrins and the way they were made.


Ps. on another note, HE rounds (the actual rounds) are getting a make over this upcomming patch.

[TheIcelandicManiac]

Ps. on another note, HE rounds (the actual rounds) are getting a make over this upcomming patch.

Any idea when it will come?

[RikiRude]

The posts were def quite informative and that makes a lot of sense. Seeing it and now knowing the intentions makes it make much more sense. Maybe I ought to try the duel T3s for a LV spam company. Or maybe I should of gone HVAP rounds instead. I think I may have become too used to having a T2 that gave all vehicles/tanks +10% penetration which made me feel some what more flexible.

[Groundfire]

Any idea when it will come?

Should be very soon. We are teaching Firesparks to use the patching tools and scripts so we do not need EIRRmod online to make a patch.

[TheIcelandicManiac]

Should be very soon. We are teaching Firesparks to use the patching tools and scripts so we do not need EIRRmod online to make a patch.

Ok thanks for answering