Royal Engineers Doctrine Draft Q&A

[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

[Mister Schmidt]

Okay, so through looking at the Doctrine Design Philosophy, Doctrine Specialization Requirements, and Doctrine Design Outline, I came up with these questions to ensure the draft follows all rules.

Design Philosophy

Q. Is your doctrine divided into 3x4 Passive Buffs, and 3x3 Unlocks, Offmaps, and Upgrades?

A. Yes.

Q. Are doctrine specific specializations contained only in the T3's & T4's?

A. I'm relatively confident they are.

Q. Do buffs cover a wide range of units, with non-doctrinals in T1 & T2, and doctrine specifics in T3 & T4?

A. I made sure nearly every unit in the army received some kind of buff, excluding command units as these are not really the domain of RE.

Q. Have you made sure each tree does not provide stacking buffs encouraging a particular spam?

A. Yes. This took a while to guarantee, but I'm pretty sure that no single unit is buffed more than twice, in which case both buffs should be relatively minor, along one entire tree. Spam should hopefully, excluding players who still find a way to spam, stay at a minimum.

Q. Does each tree follow the Offensive, Defensive, and Mobility/Support guideline as much as possible?

A. I think so. Obviously other people can tell me where I'm wrong but going from other implemented doctrines, as well as general themes, I'm quite confident they do.


Tree Specialization Definitions

Offensive Tree

Q. Does this tree provide plenty of damage buffs?

A. Oh yes.

Q. Does this tree provide plenty of cooldown, reload, and accuracy buffs?

A. I think it has enough.

Q. Does this tree provide suppression and/or smoke buffs?

A. Definitely does that.

Q. Does this tree buff your overall offensive capabilities to a good extent without becoming too powerful?

A. I think so, yes. I think it's a very nice tree and probably the one I'd choose due to my playstyle. The buffs it gives are plentiful, it maybe focuses on vehicles & tanks a little too much, but I think this fits the theme of the doctrine.

Defensive Tree

Q. Does this tree provide plenty of received damage buffs?

A. I think it just about has enough.

Q. Does this tree provide plenty of received accuracy and cover buffs?

A. The T2 on its own does half of that, and when combined with the rest of the tree, yes.

Q. Does this tree provide enough health and overall survivability buffs?

A. Definitely, combine T3 with top T3 to basically get a Triage, T4 also improves tanks health.

Q. Does this tree buff your overall defensive capabilities without becoming too powerful?

A. Well, I think that it is maaaaaybe a little powerful. I like the "Plant Feet" ability though, I think that would be very useful.

Mobility/Support Tree Definitions

Q. Does this tree provide any call-in timer buffs?

A. No. Mainly because I know they don't work at the moment, also because I'm not sure they're really needed.

Q. Does this tree adequately buff support weapons?

A. It maybe overbuffs them, thinking about it.

Q. Does this tree buff your ability to capture territory?

A. No. I think on this tree I focused on mobility too much, and utility not enough.

Q. Does this tree improve movement speed for any units?

A. It does for a few, yes.

Q. Does this tree buff your intel and ability improvement capabilities?

A. It buffs intel a teeny bit, I think that's enough though, but yes it definitely buffs ability improvements.

Q. Does this tree buff your overall support and maneuverability capabilities without becoming too powerful?

A. I'm relatively sure it does, I think it's balanced pretty well, hope so anyway.


Doctrine Synergy

Single Tree Synergy

Q. Does each tree buff your army to a point where it increases your overall abilities in one particular area?

A. I'm quite confident they do. I think they fulfill their roles quite nicely.

Q. Do any trees result in something becoming too powerful?

A. No, I don't think anything could really be abused from anything I've placed into the trees.

Dual Tree Synergy

Q. Is it possible to create a synergyzed company by combining any two T3's, to the point where it can rival a T4 company?

A. I feel that, after some work, they now do. The Support/Mobility Tree goes very nicely with the Offensive tree when assaulting a position, or moving up, and the Defensive Tree fits with the Support/Mobility Tree by providing a more powerful and quicker response defensive force. The Offensive and Defensive Trees were always going to be hard to combine, but I think if you plan to take a position and then fort it up, this would work quite well with that combination.


If anyone actually read that, thank you

Here is the doctrine in its near-final form, but in this thread I hope to get some more finetuning and comments on it.
Thanks.

[Mister Schmidt]

Obviously it's now awesome 

[DarkSoldierX]

built in demos into trenches.... lolwhat....

[Mister Schmidt]

Like a boss? But seriously, do you think it's okay?

[DarkSoldierX]

not really. Perhaps add in a ability to the trench called "Saftey measures" or someshit that for like 10 seconds you do like 5-10 damage per second to all enemy infantry inside it. Like a incidinary trap that you arm yourself basicly. Democharges I think is too much.

And I think the acc reducitions for weapon teams in that T3 are also way too much. Put a MG behind a wreck and you will never get hit until the wreck is broken from enemy fire.

And the disguising demo's as weapons.... IDK that might be opish because you'd be. TROLOLOLOLOLOL oooh a 17 pounder! *PEW* FAAAAAK! And on your side of things when you want to plant a demo ontop of a enemy weapon it wouldn't work because it 1. wouldnt fit ontop or 2. Enemy sees 17p and pak ontop of eachother and laughs at how fake it looks.

[Mister Schmidt]

It was Groundfires idea! And it's what, 0.3 from 0.5? I dunno, doesn't seem too bad. But then I don't know much about balancing so

And I don't think that's explained very well; by support weapons I mean MG's & Mortars. And I don't mean you could plant it ON the weapon, I mean it's a normal demo, that shows up as one of those weapons in-game.

[PonySlaystation]

No, democharges was a good idea, it will allow you to leave the trench unprotected because you know that you can destroy it. The problem is that all trenches get it for free, that's the overkill part. It would probably be enough if the ability to plant democharges in trenches was added.

[TheIcelandicManiac]

No, democharges was a good idea, it will allow you to leave the trench unprotected because you know that you can destroy it. The problem is that all trenches get it for free, that's the overkill part. It would probably be enough if the ability to plant democharges in trenches was added.

Read the other thread.
i posted about it there.

[RoyalHants]

No, democharges was a good idea, it will allow you to leave the trench unprotected because you know that you can destroy it. The problem is that all trenches get it for free, that's the overkill part. It would probably be enough if the ability to plant democharges in trenches was added.

Or a special trench type limited to 1 per squad?

[Mister Schmidt]

It should probably be limited to Sappers, and only allow a fixed number to be built, say 5.

[EliteGren]

Or replaced by booby traps. they barely have aoe.

[TheIcelandicManiac]

Or replaced by booby traps. they barely have aoe.

arent boobytraps really shitty?

[DarkSoldierX]

arent boobytraps really shitty?

Thats why its a free ability.

[TheIcelandicManiac]

Thats why its a free ability.

fair enough

[DarkSoldierX]

It was Groundfires idea! And it's what, 0.3 from 0.5? I dunno, doesn't seem too bad. But then I don't know much about balancing so

You need to say something like -10-20% recieved acc, not 0.3 to 0.5, Engine doesnt work like that. You cant change the actual cover modifier for just that unit, its not possible unless you created a new armour and then changed every single weapon to accommodate for it. You have to do acc modifier that activates in cover to be specific and its easier to judge its effectiveness on paper.

[Mister Schmidt]

Or replaced by booby traps. they barely have aoe.

Only if they don't have that stupid clicky noise with the hour long delay before they go off, and as long as they actually kill stuff in the trench..

You need to say something like -10-20% recieved acc, not 0.3 to 0.5, Engine doesnt work like that. You cant change the actual cover modifier for just that unit, its not possible unless you created a new armour and then changed every single weapon to accommodate for it. You have to do acc modifier that activates in cover to be specific and its easier to judge its effectiveness on paper.

Yes I know, that's just what I wrote, I used percentages for everything else I just like, failed there. I'll update it in a bit.

[EliteGren]

u mad

They kill anything that doesnt get out the second you hear it. MGs are doomed right away

[MittinsKittens]

They kill anything that doesnt get out the second you hear it. MGs are doomed right away

And in a game/mod where the only thing you have to do is watch units, hearing the click and getting out of buildings is going to be piss.
Amen to the MG thing though if the trap is in a building, but seeing as MGs can't get in trenches, that isn't going to work...

[Mister Schmidt]

I dont get why MG's can't be put in trenches, probably something to do with the engine, but they should really. Anyway, I changed it to boobytraps with a limited number.

[Hicks58]

It's intentional for MG's not to go in trenches, as a number of mods allow for MG's to go in them... Why it's intentional however, I'm clueless to.