Doctrine Structuring

[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

[UnLimiTeD]

To make it clear before you read:
This thread is not there to make suggestions, I'm not meaning to bore the devs, and I'm not interested in oppinions about how unimportant this is.
The poll is based on pure interest.

Question: what kind of doctrine structures do you prefer;
The ones where every tree has something of everything :
Standardinfantry:

Elite Infantry:
Rangers Lead the Way
Battle Know-how
Allied Grit
Stacked
General Infantry:
Defensive Operations
Core Beliefs
Brothers in Arms
Tank Reapers
Command Strength:
Offensive Operations
Mass Production
Enlistment Surge
Cohesion
Artillery Warfare:
On-Map Artillery
Off-Map Artillery
Artillery Fortification
Artillery Expertise


Or more something were each tree is focussed on something, be it troops, specific effects, or tactics.

For exsample:

Imaginative Infantry: 

Cheap Troops:
Offensive Operations
Brothers in Arms
Enlistment Surge
Stacked
Support Weapons:
Defensive Operations
Battle Know-how
Mass Production
Tank Reapers
Strong Infantry:
Rangers Lead the Way
Core Beliefs
Allied Grit
Cohesion
Artillery Warfare:
On-Map Artillery
Off-Map Artillery
Artillery Fortification
Artillery Expertise

Not considering strength of coices.
You could also switch offense.op with mass production and reorder.

And, not mentioning their effectiveness, do you like more the axis or allies way of doctrine structuring;
 Allies build companies around doctrines,
 Axis build companies around T4s.

Sometimes Axis companies may be build around units, true, but then you just focus on abilities for that unit, just like the allies.

POLL:
Edited 2nd poll option to reflect the thread. Will still count the already given votes.
This is about trees, not doctrines overall, that is the second question I got no poll on right now.

[TodlichPanther2]

there should be differentiation on "doctrines" and "company's"
to my understanding a doctrine is how something is done, thus it should be effects, a company is the composition of a force, thus to me it should be all about units.

[jackmccrack]

I like trees focusing around specific effects.

[UnLimiTeD]

there should be differentiation on "doctrines" and "company's"
to my understanding a doctrine is how something is done, thus it should be effects, a company is the composition of a force, thus to me it should be all about units.

Well, if you look at allies, doctrines make companies.
Infantry, Airborne, Armor.
2 of them actually focus on unit types.

[They Call Me SpitFire]

I really don't like the Ally Infantry Company it doesn't match the quality of the axis doctrines.

[Eleven]

Allied don't build companies around T4s? Ever seen Tank Reapers, or Dual Rocket Racks, or Stacked?

[Unkn0wn]

I hate doctrine trees/abilities that are completely focussed on making a single unit OP. :/
(The old Ranger tree for instance or AT reapers, etc)

[Silver1Wolf2]

My companies are structured around speed, firepower and numbers, the balance is quite hard to achieve and yes I have yet to field test my current configurations but I am quite confident that even so they will fair quite well (I always prefer small battlegroups of well trained, well armed troops to conscripts aimed in a general direction).

[UnLimiTeD]

Allied don't build companies around T4s? Ever seen Tank Reapers, or Dual Rocket Racks, or Stacked?

Actually, your right.
I can't build a company around stacked, cos I only get more of what I would buy anyways, but Tank Reapers is true.
For dual rocket racks, you already build your company around the T3, the T4 is just the final focus.
But yeah, theres also the possibility going for the repairtree and such.

Problem is these T4s focus on a single unit, for axis I can go heavy support, german steel, and such, bringing me advantages for groups of units.

[BradAnderson]

man i wish we could get a picture of the old ranger tree it was so OP allied grit 20% more ranger health i think stacked 60% off ranger upgrades and at this time ranger upgrades were cheaper and more effective and zooks were purchaseable

[UnLimiTeD]

http://forums.europeinruins.com/index.php/topic,1469.0.html

[BradAxis]

lol OP

[TodlichPanther]

I hate doctrine trees/abilities that are completely focussed on making a single unit OP. :/
(The old Ranger tree for instance or AT reapers, etc)

i feel oppositely to this, i really wish axis had one like that.

[Unkn0wn]

Imagine a whole tree devoted to the King Tiger, or multiple abilities buffing only KCH  .
It's incredibly poor game design imo with a negative impact on gameplay & balance imo.

[Apex]

Imagine a whole tree devoted to the King Tiger, or multiple abilities buffing only KCH  .

JAAA

[CommanderNewbie]

JAAA

Quiet, you.  *swats*  Back to your corner.

[TodlichPanther]

a whole tree dedicated to panthers, with extra range, and damage.

teir1
improved shells ( tank can buy ap rounds )
tier2
improved barrels
tier3
conviction  3 uses
tier4
heat rounds
if i could only have this tree, and it only worked on panthers, id get it lol. would teh pwnzors.
make tank reapers look like a joke.

[CommanderNewbie]

a whole tree dedicated to panthers, with extra range, and damage.

teir1
improved shells ( tank can buy ap rounds )
tier2
improved barrels
tier3
conviction  3 uses
tier4
heat rounds
if i could only have this tree, and it only worked on panthers, id get it lol. would teh pwnzors.
make tank reapers look like a joke.

STAB STAB STAB

[Apex]

Quiet, you.  *swats*  Back to your corner.

I need more toothpicks to scratch out all your troopers body parts from between my tracks.