New Doctrine Batch

[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 think you guys should hold off for a bit on the doctrine drafts. We are discussing the possibility of a completely different format or docs.

I would hate to see you spend hours on something that may work in the end. ( perhaps too late? )

[Hobomancer]

The current format is very good, Far more than functional, Why fix something that isnt broken? Also tbh should have said that when this first was posted.

[tank130]

The current format is very good, Far more than functional, Why fix something that isnt broken? Also tbh should have said that when this first was posted.

We would have posted it sooner if the conversation had started sooner than this morning.

My apologies for not reading the minds of the rest of the Dev team. My apologies for not telling you that sometimes the Dev team likes to talk about new things & new ideas.

Come to think of it, perhaps I should tell the coders to just stop, do nothing and for fuck sakes stop thinking about stuff. Just walk the fuck away and stop pissing off Hobomancer.

Better yet, maybe I should just pull the plug on this thing and let it stop now. Then you would have nothing to stress about, nothing to argue your petty little bullshit about and I wouldn't have to read your snidely assed bullshit on our forums.......

Or I could just ban your ass for being such a dickhead most of the time.

[Hobomancer]

We would have posted it sooner if the conversation had started sooner than this morning.

My apologies for not reading the minds of the rest of the Dev team. My apologies for not telling you that sometimes the Dev team likes to talk about new things & new ideas.

Come to think of it, perhaps I should tell the coders to just stop, do nothing and for fuck sakes stop thinking about stuff. Just walk the fuck away and stop pissing off Hobomancer.

Better yet, maybe I should just pull the plug on this thing and let it stop now. Then you would have nothing to stress about, nothing to argue your petty little bullshit about and I wouldn't have to read your snidely assed bullshit on our forums.......

Or I could just ban your ass for being such a dickhead most of the time.

Or you could stop taking things out of context, Since yknow i wasnt berating you.

Let me rephrase myself, Maybe you should have ventured to have such a discussion before posting that you wanted new drafts for doctrines, cart before horse and all, Still not trying to stir up trouble, Just saying.

[tank130]

Or you could stop taking things out of context, Since yknow i wasnt berating you.

Let me rephrase myself, Maybe you should have ventured to have such a discussion before posting that you wanted new drafts for doctrines, cart before horse and all, Still not trying to stir up trouble, Just saying.

Let me get this straight....... You want me to think of every possible scenario in the universe that could have any affect on this mod whatsoever and make sure every member of this team discusses it first before we ask the community for input?

Are you really this fucking retarded or are you just trolling? Never mind, rhetorical question.

Let me rephrase myself: Hobomancer, shut the fuck up, fuck off, and go play OMG.




Hmmmmmm, I wonder how far this dumbass is willing to take this conversation?

[GrayWolf]

I don't want to be a dick or sth, but don't we need EIRRmod for "different" tech trees. I mean RGD and LUA is something else than coding a launcher.

Anyway, people can still upload the drafts, because even if they are "outdated", you can still take some of the ideas to the new tech trees or whatever you call it. Just keep on working people give some ideas for units or even names for the doctrines and their main abilities.

[koimn6]

I don't want to be a dick or sth, but don't we need EIRRmod for "different" tech trees.

agree, i hope doctrines have individuality, now there is too many intersection with other coys,
hope work slowly and have some tea time

[GrayWolf]

That's not what I meant. I mean if you want like 4x t3s instead of 3x t4s you have to tweak with launcher a bit. If someone can do that, I would like to see this (maybe not in this form).

[tank130]

sigh.........

Here's what is happening:

We are currently discussing the possibility of changing the way doctrines are selected. The first step to that discussion was determining what we can alter via the launcher that does not require any coding in the launcher. Let me assure you that the current dev team is intelligent enough to NOT redesign doctrines if we can't make them accessible in the launcher.

The second step was to start a discussion as to whether we want to change the design or not. The answer is yes we want to change the design. We discussed this with a number of people. If you were not included in that discussion, then be assured we did not want your opinion on that topic at this time.

There are a couple of designs being discussed and picked apart. At the end of all this discussion we may decide to change absolutely nothing, change everything, or just change some names or themes.

These discussions just started yesterday; So to go back a few posts ago, I suggest holding off on any doctrine designs until we decide what direction we are going to take.

There is nothing stopping anyone from continuing to design a new doc, but don't have a hissy fit if we say we are doing something else.

[koimn6]

sure, just saying let's do this slowly

[Shabtajus]

I think it will not be needed change launcher visualization just change values of upgrades/buffs of each tier's box and I am not the coder so i am asking you guys if it's possible to get rid of system where players are being forced to select tier1,2,3,4? Since player will get all t1's by default it's no point to have them. I feel like it would be way more interesting to have all 3 trees (like we have 'em now) with 4 tiers but each tier cost the same amount of PPS. Each tier has his own "equal" buffs given to certain units or abilities. That will make more sense and will make companies way more flexible in terms of mixing units and strategies. Instead of buying 2xt3 or single t4 you could get for example 5-6 doctrine unlocks but whatever you want. Because sometimes alongside with t4 you get something you are not a fan of taking to your company and it's waste of resources.

I know some tiers will stack together to hard and will make some things being OP but with Scotzmen and new logic you guys use for producing small patches to fix fast any sort of OP stuff it should work out in terms of long run.

[Mister Schmidt]

Yeah I will step up and apologise to you all for jumping the gun here a bit, that's on me.

I mean we may decide to continue with what I've laid out here or go another way completely, rest assured you guys will know as soon as a decision is made.

So please direct any anger or frustration towards me, not tank or anyone else.

[tank130]

That's pretty much what we are discussing. We are looking at the possibility of eliminating trees and just going individual buffs you can pick and choose.

Before we even look at how that may work, we are trying to figure out how to manipulate the launcher with no way of coding the launcher. Unless we can figure that out, any further discussion is useless.

So please, don't start discussing options and creating ideas and themes and docs and arguing whether we should do it or not. Just give us sometime to figure out our options. It is that reason we did not ask anyone for their opinions. There is no point getting your opinions if nothing can be done with them anyway.

So once again going back a few posts ago: I suggest you hold off on any doctrine work as we may be changing how that system works. We may not change it either. We are looking at options from a hard code perspective.

[GrayWolf]

I had an idea once, that there's no t1, t2, t3, t4, but 12x t2. And player can choose like 6-7 of them for company. With that you could make a lot of different companies.

[TheArea]

I had an idea once, that there's no t1, t2, t3, t4, but 12x t2. And player can choose like 6-7 of them for company. With that you could make a lot of different companies.

gl with balancing that...

[GrayWolf]

gl with balancing that...

it's actually easier to do, than you think. You just make 12x t2 for armor and each other gives something different, for example:

Armor:   1. "Sherman .50 cal +10% accuracy and +25% more suppresion. Sherman croc can buy .50 cal."
             2. Engineers and Assault engineers can sprint for 5 seconds. When sprinting they have 0.75 received accuracy (AB armor). AssEngies and Engies build stuff faster.
3. Sherman receive HVAP rounds (15/90 seconds) that give 15% more damage and 25% more pen. Pershing and TDs have them permanently.

When I think about it there should not be t2, but t3s and you choose beetwen 4-5 of them. With t2s there would be too less buffs.

[tank130]

Here's what I would like to see:
Using the current launcher layout - because we can't change it:


Availability of unlocks still based on pp's in order to keep "the grind"
No more "theme" based tiers. Just individual unlocks that you can pick and choose from however you like. As you grind and gain more pp's, more unlocks become available.

Abilities ( upgrades ) become significant and meaningful. Delete all the existing filler, generic, crap buffs.

All abilities cost a resource - Pop / Mu / Fu / Mp. In some cases the cost may be zero, but the better the ability, the higher the cost.
This will help balance the difference between a new company and an experienced company. The experienced company may have better abilities, but the new company has more resources to fight it. If we did this right, we should be able to go back to the grind based on battalion instead of faction.

Bottom section for unit unlocks. Existing off map abilities tied to a unit  ( all abilities cost a resource ) on a recharge. If you can keep your off map unit alive, you will have unlimited off maps on a significant timer.

Top section for unit abilities. Ignore the left to right flow of the current launcher configuration. We would unlock from the top so you have 4 choices unlocked at a time.
You no longer require T1 to get T2, you just have to have enough pp to unlock T2 etc.

2 abilities would be focused on units specific to the doctrine. 2 abilities would be more battalion wide. ( sort of like our current T2 abilities but better)
As the tiers unlock, the abilities don't get stronger and stronger, you just get more to choose from. Care would need to be taken with stacking abilities, but adding resource costs should give a lot of tools to balance with.

On balance: We would no longer need to balance doc abilities by trying to have multiple free abilities on completely different factions equal every tier.
For example: A Blitz T1 ability may be better than the AB T1, but the Blitz one costs more resources to balance it.


First step to all of this is get rid of the existing doctrine names and start fresh so people don't have a preconceived idea of what the doc should be - forever comparing it to what it used to be.

This is not my idea, but I like the idea of all factions having a doctrine following this design:

Infantry/Support,
Mobility/Mechanized,
Heavy Armour/Vehicles

If you choose American - Infantry/Support ( named something else of course ) Your unlock chose would include rangers.

You get the general idea by now.




 

[TheVolskinator]

I don't agree with the renaming process. I think in the case of the Allied, specifically the American, companies, that the point that for example, yes, it's an Infantry Company, but said company's infantry would be supported by highly effective crew weapons, a small group of mechanized support units, and armor attached from other units, could be made.

Airborne? Both historically, and in the mod, very effective when paired with (American) armor. Doesn't mean that AB need to get ALL the buffs, hell, we could add shit like gliderborne infantry, M22 Locusts, or other neat goodies.

The process of ripping out the old vCoH values for JUST the Allied nations seems daunting, and messing with all of the Axis ones seems silly too--yes, 'Blitz' doesn't seem blitzy in the sense of 'waw early war lightning movement', but upon closer inspection, the doctrine buffs a lot of mobility, firepower, and survivability of either infantry, tanks, or both, or allows very, VERY rapid movement when infantry and tanks are close together (see: Keep it Moving!).

I just don't see how we could re-tool Allied doctrines to fit this new approach, if I was to rename stuff, it'd be something like

Infantry Company -> Combined Arms Stratagem (infantry, arty, tonks, blablabla)
Airborne Company -> Aerial Assault Stratagem (drop shit out of the sky, from airborne, to HVAR rockets, to Schmidt's massive ass)
Armor Company -> Breakthrough Stratagem/Rapid Assault Strategem (Cuz, yunno, armor be all like 'YOLO')

[GrayWolf]

Airborne? Both historically, and in the mod, very effective when paired with (American) armor. Doesn't mean that AB need to get ALL the buffs, hell, we could add shit like gliderborne infantry, M22 Locusts, or other neat goodies.

You have chafee, which is kind of similiar, right? M22 is still cooler though :p

(Cuz, yunno, armor be all like 'YOLO')

lol