Airborne Doctrine Draft

[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

[tank130]

I have read them but it states that the offensive tree should have increased damage and the defensive tree should have increased health. I disagree.

For example if an armored car is behind my defenses then increased health is not gonna do it any good, it would benefit more from the increased damage. Now if the armored car was behind enemy lines it would benefit more from the increased health and speed rather than damage output, so that it can stay alive long enough to deal any damage.

Doctrine Design Philosophy is not open for discussion. It is unfortunate you do not agree, but your opinion does not have any influence on the Design Philosophy.

[PonySlaystation]

That's alright, my current draft is perfect.

No complaints or suggestions?

[Poppi]

OMG US needs some mortar love.
And halftrack mortar team would be beautiful.

Or have AB mortars teams move faster, but less range? Since AB mortars did have smaller mortars to be more mobile.

But think regular US mortars need a buff. They get owned.

Regardless +1 for HT mortar team.

Shoudlnt there be a RR buff as a choice?

Either case thanks for at least suggesting ideas for AB. I want to see AB doc done soon. Or at least filled in.

[PonySlaystation]

There are buffs for mortars and RRs.

[Mister Schmidt]

You say the bottom tree is mobility, yet the T1 is obviously a defensive buff. And giving an aura sprint to M8's? :/

For the T3, Fireup is -20 seconds what? Recharge?

Wire cutters for a T4 is just laughable, before it was too OP, now it's almost too weak. I disagree with the +6 population, I don't think any doctrine should get that, but nvm.

Also, as was a problem with mine originally, your T3's have no synergy at all, none that I can see anyway. Go use the Q&A I did for a template and answer the questions for your doctrine.

Overall - I think it's okay, but, it just seems so very random.

[PonySlaystation]

You say the bottom tree is mobility, yet the T1 is obviously a defensive buff. And giving an aura sprint to M8's? :/

For the T3, Fireup is -20 seconds what? Recharge?

Wire cutters for a T4 is just laughable, before it was too OP, now it's almost too weak. I disagree with the +6 population, I don't think any doctrine should get that, but nvm.

Also, as was a problem with mine originally, your T3's have no synergy at all, none that I can see anyway. Go use the Q&A I did for a template and answer the questions for your doctrine.

Overall - I think it's okay, but, it just seems so very random.

T1 do not matter what tree they are since players can buy all of them anyways.

Is there a disadvantage of having wire cutters? It's more of an extra perk.

Yes I am referring to the cooldown, shorter cooldown for abilties in other doctrines are written like that.

No synergy?
The offensive tree consists of damage output, weapon cooldown buffs and force multiplying abilities.
The defensive tree consists of cover bonuses and buffs to defensive weapons.
The mobility tree consists of vehicle and tank mobility performance and handling buffs, population buffs and ability improvement buffs.

All of that is in the Doctrine Design Philosophy.

[Mister Schmidt]

That isn't synergy. You're doing the buffs yes, but there is no synergey, all the buffs are random.

[PonySlaystation]

No they're not random, they are carefully thought out to fit different airborne playstyles and strategies.

[Demon767]

carefully thought out random buffs?

[PonySlaystation]

That isn't synergy. You're doing the buffs yes, but there is no synergey, all the buffs are random.

Are you not even gonna explain?

[lionel23]

Okay, I just went thru the doctrine and wow.... talk about some random shit there.  There is no synergy at all in the company, just random out of place buffs.  I shall illustrate what I'm talking about:

You said the following Pony:
The offensive tree consists of damage output, weapon cooldown buffs and force multiplying abilities.
The defensive tree consists of cover bonuses and buffs to defensive weapons.
The mobility tree consists of vehicle and tank mobility performance and handling buffs, population buffs and ability improvement buffs.

For the first line, T1 +20HP... that does not appear to be a damage output, weapon cooldown, or force multiplying ability.  +3 sight also doesn't meet that requirement either.

For the second line, +1 Recon run... kind of random there, should go to mobility as it's helping you keep moving and see what's out there.. don't know why you need recons DEFENSIVELY.  +1 satchel and nades... since when are nades used for defensive purposes?  And satchels?

For third line, infantry can build defenses.... for mobility?  Also, throwing 2 nades and satchels doesn't sound like a mobile thing, sounds like.. I don't know.. an assault advantage.

In terms of your unlocks, I'm afraid I'm going to have to shoot down the following:

Airborne Riflemen - Just fine as is, currently in as basically basic airborne that can't be given RRs
Airborne Rangers - Big NO.  That's what infantry is for.  It's like saying Stormtroopers should be available to all PE and Wehr companies.  You want Rangers, go INFANTRY, not AIRBORNE.
Bazooka/RR Jeep - Another big no, it was in, it's on a jeep chasis... and blows up very easily.
AT 57mm HT - NO.  This is AIRBORNE.  How the heck are they packing this thing around?  Again, this is more an infantry or armor thing for a FOOT-BASED army.  And USA is NOT PE.
Mortar HT - Same issue as above, US is NOT PE
Quad .50cal Turret - Is airborne now the new defensive company also?  No stationary weapons, again they are airdropping most of their stuff.
76mm AT gun - Why does airborne, which already has access to recoiless rifles... need a super larger and overly heavy AT?  Again, that's US Infantry.
Howitzer - While the Airborne did have a Pack howitzer, airborne do not need access to arty when they have airstrikes, which is their off-map ability as well as airborne mortars.  Airborne, again, is NOT US infantry.

Just because it would be 'cool' to add units doesn't mean they should be added.  It needs to add something relevant, either slightly plugging (but not solving) an inherent weakness or strengthening their role (ie, Slugger tanks backing up Airborne, going heavy AT but light on anti-inf, for example).

This needs a lot more work, and also to note that you are mainly buffing throughout hte doctrines just airborne and riflemen the majority of the time, with a token 'vehicle' upgrade that really isn't promoting any sort of synergy or combined arms.. I would ignore them as useless and just spam pure airborne under your company.  Why no, for example, HT dodge buffs for the M3 for mobility?  Or have the HT provide a defensive or accuracy aura when near infantry, etc.

[Poppi]

Just because it would be 'cool' to add units doesn't mean they should be added.  It needs to add something relevant, either slightly plugging (but not solving) an inherent weakness or strengthening their role (ie, Slugger tanks backing up Airborne, going heavy AT but light on anti-inf, for example).

but now we are back to realism.
AB doc armor makes sense to me. Since the AB doc is more about mobility over direct strength. Its not like he will be dropping those armor or arty units from the sky.
Why does infantry have a jumbo and armor doesnt?  Its armor yet....

Stick to AB only units may end up with a copy of commando doc.
Like i think AB units should have quicker and more mobile support teams, but that may seem like a commando doc.

But i do agree with no Airborne Rangers, Zook RR jeeps may either be to crappy or too good, and a howi is not needed.
Anything else i think is fair game.

[lionel23]

Infantry have the jumbo as it's consider an 'assault tank', and Infantry is the mainline guy that needs to assault a heaviy defended position.  Airborne could harrass/raid, and god forbid an armor player drives his tank into a fortified position with lots of AT waiting.  Also, the Jumbo has a 75mm sherman gun, not a 76mm so it's strictly only good against infantry, eats up a ton of fuel and is one of the highest pop units for US infantry, which is also running 8 pop howies and 6 pop infantry generally.

And you cannot say AB doc is more about mobility, which is a false statement in that in airborne you have THREE trees, an offensive, defensive, and mobility path (as said by the devs).  Same thing with US Infantry and US Armor.  As discussed when tank has his whole public doctrine discussion, the COMPANIES themselves are not roled into that category (ie. US Infantry is not defensive, armor is not Offensive, airborne is not mobility).  Adding on top of that, it's not prompting synergy with the company... like having a calliope for Airborne backed up by airdroppable weapon teams and troops...

On the Jumbo, again it is armor but it was used in conjunction with ground forces and in combined arms roles, such as assisting infantry in breaking a well defended position.  Same role the howie has in assisting them.  Armor is about their heavy tanks or various tank-unique unlocks such as the Pershing, T17, and appropriate escort infantry.  Would you not see a problem if airborne and infantry players can buy RRs and throw them on engineers and riflemen?  Hence a reason why airborne gets it.

Yeah realism is all fine and all, but in the confines of the game, EIRR does follow some realism.. for example no US squads have MG42s or Pak38s or Shreks or MP44s... those are axis weapons... realism much there?  RRs were used by airborne units, M9 bazookas was the standard AT weapon for infantry squads and ranger units.  Airborne units did not get issued Pershing tanks in the war, and Infantry companies historically had access to off-map fire support sections a majority of the time, while units like Patton's armor was too mobile and aggressive to carry them (though an M7 priest could logically be put with them as their 'arty', not airborne).

Anything else you want to add then?

[PonySlaystation]

Lionel,
The T1s are not part of the tree, because players will be able to buy all of them anyways. But I have moved them. The T2s can barely be considered part of a tree but I have moved them as well to fit their specialization.

The third tree is not mobility, it's mobility & utility which means improvements to abilities such as grenades.

As for unlocks, I'm afraid you have completely missed my point, did you not read what I wrote in the first post? The list is NOT about things I want to get implemented, it's things that are possible to be implemented, units that are already available.

It's possible if there is a strong majority by the devs that the Pack Howitzer or Mortar Halftrack will have a chance to be implemented but the others probably don't fit AB so well.

[lionel23]

Obviously this THREAD is called Airborne doctrine, which implies you're trying to get them added to Airborne, which isn't needed.  If you want new units for US, make a new thread, otherwise I will assume, as per this thread, that you're trying to add all this and make airborne the US Infantry/PE/Airborne/Royal Engineer company that it totally doesn't need to be.

Again, your doctrine is more of 'random, thrown together' ideas than any theme that supports a mixed-arms approach.

[PonySlaystation]

No, but if I submit a draft then I also have to include unlocks so I wanted to see what people think about the different units. Is it too much to ask that you read the first post before you post?

[PonySlaystation]

Again, your doctrine is more of 'random, thrown together' ideas than any theme that supports a mixed-arms approach.

What would you suggest then?

[Scotzmen]

Well a good starting point is looking at how American Airbourne divisions preformed during the war. What kind of campany composistions they had ETC.

Most of us all ready know that Airbourne forces wer hit hard and fast. Then melt away. Im not saying make a complete reflection. If you want look at the Defensive doctrine for werch. I feel that did a great reflection.

[lionel23]

It's  not my place to give you ideas, this is your doctrine draft, you fix it.  If I wanted to put in my own suggestions to what I want to se, then I'd just post my own draft which I pretty much have already done a long, long time ago.

Remove a lot of those superfluous unlocks, not needed and that is WAY WAY too many unlocks to even consider, while at the same time you removed existing units in EIRR.  Why yes it's always great to add 'new, cool' toys, you got to remember it's the Dev who will need to skin and add the models and make all the changes, so reuse some of what's in the game.

As I'm speaking with Jodomar on this, our idea for the overall philosophy for airborne is that it's a fast, harrassing force.  With that in mind, these ideas I would suggest as a starting place:

Focus on Light Tanks - What's wrong with the Chaffee?  Would be a decent tank, decent gun, fast and able to move in and assist with airborne troops.  Obviously will have less HP than a Sherman tank, maybe same armor or whatever in-game armor type is slightly weaker than Sherman but isn't paper thin to the point it dies in 1-2 shots from a tank like a TD.

Focus on Support Weapons/T4 Mobility Tree - The ability to paradrop units is powerful, just like commando gliders able to deliver a significant, sizeable force anywhere on the map.  Where are your airborne call-in bonuses or make it so that airborne call-ins don't scatter?  There is an idea towards your mobility tree. A T4 maybe introducing the ability to paradrop the chaffee in too.  Maybe free 'commanders' on vehicles to 'spot' further also higher up, or vehicles can decap but not cap.  Maybe throw your ambushing stuff in this too.

Defensive Tree - Should be things like less received accuracy/more accuracy.  Support weapons tearing down and setting up faster (to go with the airborne theme of them being a rapid deployment force).  Things maybe like sandbags on your vehicles to increase damage resistance or smoke launchers to screen infantry and vehicles from heavy stuff.  Increased ROF for support weapons like HMGs and mortars (shoot faster in reaction to attacks, ability to longer burst without a crippling reload for the HMG, etc).

Offensive Tree - Slight sight bonus to benefit RR units, DMG/Pen modifiers to RRs, satchel related timer bonuses to overcome defensives in an assault (never heard of anyone using a satchel to protect yourself...).  More accuracy or penetration OR dmg on vehicles.  Reload bonuses to lighter vehicle MGs or accuracy like M3 HTs and Quads, give them some real love.  Support weapons doing more dmg like AP rounds (on HMGs) or mortars.

There's some ideas there, which to me makes a lot more sense than the doctrine I'm seeing on the first page, but that is just me and again SOME ideas.  I'm not copying and pasting my draft into this, that's your job to come up with something balanced AND fun to play, not just fun and amazingly OP and crazy with no relation to how they work in a TEAM environment.

[PonySlaystation]

Remove a lot of those superfluous unlocks, not needed and that is WAY WAY too many unlocks to even consider, while at the same time you removed existing units in EIRR.  Why yes it's always great to add 'new, cool' toys, you got to remember it's the Dev who will need to skin and add the models and make all the changes, so reuse some of what's in the game.

You're doing it again, you're writing nonsense because you didn't read what other people wrote before you.

Focus on Light Tanks

I will add more LV stuff.

Focus on Support Weapons/T4 Mobility Tree - The ability to paradrop units is powerful, just like commando gliders able to deliver a significant, sizeable force anywhere on the map.  Where are your airborne call-in bonuses or make it so that airborne call-ins don't scatter?  There is an idea towards your mobility tree. A T4 maybe introducing the ability to paradrop the chaffee in too.  Maybe free 'commanders' on vehicles to 'spot' further also higher up, or vehicles can decap but not cap.  Maybe throw your ambushing stuff in this too.

None of that is possible atm, you did the same mistake again. I wrote about this issue earlier.

Defensive Tree - Should be things like less received accuracy/more accuracy.  Support weapons tearing down and setting up faster (to go with the airborne theme of them being a rapid deployment force).  Things maybe like sandbags on your vehicles to increase damage resistance or smoke launchers to screen infantry and vehicles from heavy stuff.  Increased ROF for support weapons like HMGs and mortars (shoot faster in reaction to attacks, ability to longer burst without a crippling reload for the HMG, etc).

I think camouflage is a pretty good defensive ability, I had all those things that you mention but I removed it. I'll see about adding something and moving the free AP burst to offensive tree.

Offensive Tree - Slight sight bonus to benefit RR units, DMG/Pen modifiers to RRs, satchel related timer bonuses to overcome defensives in an assault (never heard of anyone using a satchel to protect yourself...).  More accuracy or penetration OR dmg on vehicles.  Reload bonuses to lighter vehicle MGs or accuracy like M3 HTs and Quads, give them some real love.  Support weapons doing more dmg like AP rounds (on HMGs) or mortars.

As I said I will add more LV buffs and there are already things that buff RRs and accuracy for tank destroyers. I will see about satchels.