*

Account

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 23, 2024, 08:10:13 am

Login with username, password and session length

Resources

Recent posts

[November 01, 2024, 12:46:37 pm]

[October 05, 2024, 07:29:20 am]

[September 05, 2024, 01:54:13 pm]

[July 16, 2024, 11:30:34 pm]

[June 22, 2024, 06:49:40 am]

[March 08, 2024, 12:13:38 am]

[March 08, 2024, 12:12:54 am]

[March 08, 2024, 12:09:37 am]

[December 30, 2023, 08:00:58 pm]

[February 04, 2023, 11:46:41 am]
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Allied Doctrine Names  (Read 3480 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
EliteGren Offline
EIR Veteran
Posts: 6106


« on: October 15, 2011, 07:17:54 pm »

This thread made me think about something I was going to mention long ago but I kept forgetting about it because it seemed like a minor issue..

They need to cover a larger spectrum of units.
This is absolutely needed in order to get some better doctrines in already. Better not as in overpowered, better as in more variety and options for possible doctrine bonuses.

I think the allied doctrine design is fundamentally flawed by the names they were given. As an example, Axis has Terror. This can mean anything from tanks to support weapons to infantry. And guess what? All those things are buffed massively in that doctrine. Now look at Armour. The name already bottlenecks you into armor buffs because it would seem illogical to buff something else.

It might look like something minor, but it single-handedly decides what kind of units from your unit roster it's going to buff. Honestly they should be renamed so they aren't too focused, perhaps Infantry could be something like Breakthrough Tactics, Armour Offensive Operations. It would NOT force the doctrine to only buff infantry or armour units, but rather promote a healthy mix of them because all are useful and receive buffs that are inline with the doctrines theme.

After the new name was decided, you could slowly go through the doctrines and add alot more buffs that you would otherwise not be able to add, resulting in a more exciting doctrine because you are NOT forced to build an entire company of Airborne units just because the name (and the doctrine buffs) are telling you to do so.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2011, 07:58:15 pm by EliteGren » Logged

i prefer to no u
Don't knock it til uve tried it bitchface, this isn't anything like salads version. Besides u said a semois conversion would never work, now look that's the most played map, ohgodwhy.jpg r u map lead
MorkaandBorka Offline
EIR Veteran
Posts: 1464



« Reply #1 on: October 15, 2011, 07:39:48 pm »

Nice thinking Gren, I like it.
Logged

I'm really bad  - Smokaz
Malgoroth Offline
Donator
*
Posts: 960


« Reply #2 on: October 15, 2011, 07:50:31 pm »

I think the doctrine names are fine. Being bottle-necked into tank/mechanized infantry buffs in armors case isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as the buffs are balanced and still worthwhile. Wasn't there a doctrine buff back in the day where call ins with halftracks came on field instantly regardless of call in timer? Something like that could be really powerful and a nice compliment to armors 'armor' theme. I think the problem lies in the mobility/offensive/defensive philosophy of the current doctrine design. It makes the doctrines too broad and not focused enough on a certain play style, which is what doctrines should be focused around... a certain play style.

Armor - Armor/mechanized infantry/light vehicles
Airborne - Deployment on any part of the map/map awareness/ambush
Infantry - Hordes of fuckin' infantry.

Blitz - Assault with breakthrough units like Tanks/storms
Defensive - Defenses/map awareness
Terror - Buffs/debuffs, fire, eliteness in general.

SE - More fire. Lots of fucking fire. And Hummels!
Luft - Air support, limited defensive capabilities, elite infantry (since the air support would be realistically limited and we don't want a copy of airborne)
TH - Anti tank capabilities. duh.

RE - Heavy tank support (a niche it fills nicely) and defensive positions
Mandos - Pretty much what it is right now
RCA - FUCK this stupid fucking doctrine. Fuck it right in the fucking face. The perfect example of all that's been fucked up with CoH since Opposing fucking Fronts was released. The video game Satan made manifest in the form of a BULLSHIT fag doctrine. Fuck this doctrine. Whoever thought an entire doctrine based around pig fucker artillery was a good idea should be castrated and any children he already has should be fucking sterilized. What a fucking retarded dip shit doctrine. God DAMN I fucking hate RCA.
RCS - Royal Canadian Support - Support related buffs. Support weapons, support for your allies, etc.

Doing doctrines that way doesn't mean that.. say... an infantry player can't use tanks. They still have access to shermans etc. They won't be armor shermans by any means... but they'll fill the role the infantry player intends for them to fill.
Logged
PonySlaystation Offline
EIR Veteran
Posts: 4136



« Reply #3 on: October 17, 2011, 10:42:28 am »

I agree, although it doesn't necessarily have to do with doctrine names. Armor could still be about combined arms and still be called Armor. The allied doctrine design is definitely flawed.
Logged

Sharks are not monsters Henley, they are cute, cuddly and misunderstood. They love humans. sometimes they love TOO much. They love people so much that sometimes their kisses separate people into two flailing pieces which are consumed by other sharks in a frenzy of peace and joy.
RikiRude Offline
Donator
*
Posts: 4376



« Reply #4 on: October 17, 2011, 01:41:02 pm »

RCA - FUCK this stupid fucking doctrine. Fuck it right in the fucking face. The perfect example of all that's been fucked up with CoH since Opposing fucking Fronts was released. The video game Satan made manifest in the form of a BULLSHIT fag doctrine. Fuck this doctrine. Whoever thought an entire doctrine based around pig fucker artillery was a good idea should be castrated and any children he already has should be fucking sterilized. What a fucking retarded dip shit doctrine. God DAMN I fucking hate RCA.

this had me rolling.

though i do think i agree with the OP. or maybe the names dont need to change, but buffs to other things could be made.
Logged



Quote from: Killer344
Killer344: "Repent: sory no joke i just had savage diorea"
... or a fat ass cock sucking churchill being stupid
Poppi Offline
EIR Veteran
Posts: 1080


« Reply #5 on: October 17, 2011, 02:20:32 pm »



Armor - Armor/mechanized infantry/light vehicles
Airborne - Deployment on any part of the map/map awareness/ambush
Infantry - Hordes of fuckin' infantry.


actually you can create hordes of fucking infantry on any of those docs. I really dont see Inf doc specific helping inf. Unless you get the 3 bars, but hurray only 1 upgrade really separates the doctrines. I guess b/c too much of the US depends on the bar inf. AB can have the hordes of inf drop from the sky too, and armor can have hordes of inf plus armor piercing tanks or Pershing.  I think i spammed more inf w/bars as a armor doc. And AB doc has better support inf as well, even though there is a whole section dedicated to buffing support units AB support units are still better.
Logged
Malgoroth Offline
Donator
*
Posts: 960


« Reply #6 on: October 17, 2011, 04:50:19 pm »

That's the nature of riflemen. Spam. Only infantry doctrine would give them the real substantial combat buffs along with rangers and their respective buffs. Spamming riflemen with infantry buffs would be much different than spamming riflemen with armor buffs (Which would be more call-in timer related, tank/vehicle aura style buffs).

Then there's triages which can substantially help the longevity of an infantry squad that armor doesn't have. 
Logged
shockcoil Offline
griefer & spammer
EIR Veteran
Posts: 1566



« Reply #7 on: October 17, 2011, 04:53:02 pm »

riflespam doctrine, ab riflespam doctrine and armourspam doctrine tbh
Logged

TheVolskinator Offline
Administrator / Lead Developer
*
Posts: 3012



« Reply #8 on: October 17, 2011, 04:53:27 pm »

^Which I dont like....
Logged

Quote from: tank130
I want to ensure we have a 100% decision on the process before we do the wipe.
If not, then I wipe, then someone gets something they shouldn't, then it gets abused, then the shit hits the fan and then I ban shab.

Getting EiR:R Released on Steam

Forum Rules & Guidelines
Malgoroth Offline
Donator
*
Posts: 960


« Reply #9 on: October 17, 2011, 05:04:47 pm »

Weapons cache and pool values keep you from JUST spamming infantry or armor, but it gives you wiggle room to prioritize armor/infantry/support/whatever. there's no reason you can't pick up jumbos/crocs/m10s as infantry, but they wont be armor buffed nasties. They can still do the job the infantry player intends for them to do.   
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

TinyPortal v1.0 beta 4 © Bloc
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.9 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.069 seconds with 35 queries.