Doctrine Reworks & Unlocks Poll

[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

[EliteGren]

I think it would be cool if operation overlord was reworked into focusing on buffing infantry even more and dropping the combined arm. Although it was one of my favorite T4s.

Overlord rework is slated already

[Malgoroth]

Every doctrine needs tweaks. Only RCA needs a total rework. Silly poll tbh, but well intended I'm sure.

[Poppi]

i think poppi is saying infantry just emphasizes tactics that are already used with armor. but i think it simply comes down to how the US plays out for the most part for example you can build the same company in both infantry and armor, BAR rifles, m10s/m18s, and various support. And it comes down to whether you want hvap or triple bars.


I think it would be cool if operation overlord was reworked into focusing on buffing infantry even more and dropping the combined arm. Although it was one of my favorite T4s.

in fewer but better explained words, exactly. If bars are such an important part of inf doc, i can get pretty much the same unit and tactic plus more no matter what i choose.

Plus docs like armor give you 15-25% passive bonuses  across the board on tanks/vehicles being able to choose between damage, pen, speed, etc. That screams armor. Even added bonus of combat eng and some bonuses to LV and ATG are thrown in for  a WTF?
AB  gives you better support units (sniper,HMG, mortars), RR, and supposed agility. And people still want more from it, so i expect AB to be better over time.

[Hicks58]

Imo, Armour doctrine is great as it stands... The only problem with it is that the amount of armour that can be fielded is somewhat limited when compared to how many AT options are in abundance.

Not only that, Armour still fields the same amount of Armour as Inf and AB.

However, that's a resource problem rather than a Doctrine problem. (Yup, I'm still pushing for doctrines to have individual resource amounts...)

[AmPM]

However, that's a resource problem rather than a Doctrine problem. (Yup, I'm still pushing for doctrines to have individual resource amounts...)

+1; and a reduction in Mu across the board.

[PonySlaystation]

No, changing the resources would not be a good idea to balance Armor. It's quite obvious what they lack.

EVERY other doctrine in the game except maybe Airborne has buffs to both tanks and infantry. Armor has only buffs to tanks. You don't think that gives them a disadvantage?

[Hicks58]

No, changing the resources would not be a good idea to balance Armor. It's quite obvious what they lack.

EVERY other doctrine in the game except maybe Airborne has buffs to both tanks and infantry. Armor has only buffs to tanks. You don't think that gives them a disadvantage?

Pony, seriously, stop and take a moment to read a person's post in their entirety before you reply. It'd save you from making so many knee-jerk reactions.

I'm proposing resource changes for ALL doctrines, not just Armour. Armour is just the best example of how it'd be pretty damned cool.

[PonySlaystation]

No, I agree with you on the resources, especially for Armor. But I think if the doctrine was just fixed it wouldn't be necessary to change the resources. It's like there are higher priorities.

[Unkn0wn]

The poll would suggest that pretty much all of them need a rework

[TheVolskinator]

^Because, if you read nugs thread that started this one, its open for ANYONE to revamp ANYTHING they choose--however, nobody has copy pasted and filled in the template or done anything more then what that particular person has flogged to death in other threads already.

Name of Company Specialization: Bipods (AKA Steady Sights)
Company: Infantry
Tier: 2
Branch: Mid
Effected Units & Unit Stat Changes: Riflemen, Engineers, Marines, Rangers, MGs, Snipers. All effected units are 15% more accurate in Light Cover and 20% more accurate in Heavy, Garrison, and Trench Cover.
Description: See above Effected Units and Unit Stat Changes.
Grants a New Ability?: No.
What Will It Replace?: Nothing; a simple modification of the current Bipods unlock.

Name of Company Specialization: Allied Grit
Company: Infantry
Tier (1-4): 3.
Branch (Top/Mid/Bottom): Mid.
Effected Units & Unit Stat Changes: Riflemen, Engineers, Marines, Rangers, MGs, Snipers. All effected units move .5 faster *when fired upon*. MG pack/unpack time reduced by 1 second. Riflemen and Ranger SLs are armed with an M1 Garand. Engineers +5 range (grease guns only). Triage Center +180 HP, gains Emplacement armor. Rangers +5 HP/man.
Grants a New Ability? (Y/N): No; possibility of Riflemen gaining the Sprint ability at the expense of the +.5 speed boost when fired upon.
Description: See above.
What Will It Replace?: Nothing; changes to the Allied Grit T3.

[Hicks58]

Curious point...

Instead of going to the hassle of potentially redefining every doctrine with it's own unique resources (Or resource advantages) why not allow doctrines to modify unit prices to a reasonable degree?

For example, one of the Armour T3/4's dropping the Fuel costs of Shermans. If only the Fuel is lowered, taking more Shermans is going to cut into your ability to field infantry, so you can't do total roflspam with 8 or so Shermans.

Pool costs would also have to be looked at, or lowered as well with the doctrine choice for it to be viable.

Or is messing with unit prices in doctrines still taboo?

[skaffa]

b2b

as in bitch 2 balance

[AmPM]

Curious point...

Instead of going to the hassle of potentially redefining every doctrine with it's own unique resources (Or resource advantages) why not allow doctrines to modify unit prices to a reasonable degree?

For example, one of the Armour T3/4's dropping the Fuel costs of Shermans. If only the Fuel is lowered, taking more Shermans is going to cut into your ability to field infantry, so you can't do total roflspam with 8 or so Shermans.

Pool costs would also have to be looked at, or lowered as well with the doctrine choice for it to be viable.

Or is messing with unit prices in doctrines still taboo?

I think it's still taboo. Though most of the problems from that era came from heavy handed techniques (70% boosts to damage, 25% more HP and 15% reduced recieved pen, etc.)

[RikiRude]

No, changing the resources would not be a good idea to balance Armor. It's quite obvious what they lack.

EVERY other doctrine in the game except maybe Airborne has buffs to both tanks and infantry. Armor has only buffs to tanks. You don't think that gives them a disadvantage?

i agree with pony here, though im all for a muni drop across the board too. the thing is once we got rid of things like "T1 makes all tanks cost 10% less FU" or "T1 makes all rifles 10% less MP" it really took away from the specialization that you used to see. of course infantry was going to have tons of infantry if they were costing less. and of course you'd see more tanks and LVs from armor if they were less.

But what kind of buffs do you think would help armor pony?

[Jstek]

But what kind of buffs do you think would help armor pony?

For starters don't make White Phosphoresce offmap suck balls.  That would be a good start.  The very basic start...

[Malgoroth]

How about remove white phosphorus completely because off-maps are bullshit regardless of whether or not they suck.

Here's a better idea... Move 'Calling it in' to T2 and reduce the buff to 20/25% and add a new T3 we'll call... 'Improvised armor'... or something. Allows Shermans/M10s/M18s to purchase sandbags/logs/whatever as improvised skirts which reduce handheld AT damage and penetration by 15% (or whatever makes sense/is balanced). 

[MonthlyMayhem]

T3 we'll call... 'Improvised armor'... or something. Allows Shermans/M10s/M18s to purchase sandbags/logs/whatever as improvised skirts which reduce handheld AT damage and penetration by 15% (or whatever makes sense/is balanced). 

I like that idea for a T3, and it would def. help against panzerschrecks.

[Scotzmen]

Royal Scots Engies.

http://forums.europeinruins.com/index.php?topic=19300.0

Nothing personal Schmidt

[PonySlaystation]

off-maps are bullshit regardless of whether or not they suck.

Off-maps are needed to counter blobs. Don't want to get hit by off-maps? Try not to have your units within one square meter.

[smurfORnot]

this is what US needs