Comprehensive balance thoughts: Doctrines/Companies

[DrunkenOne]

Aight, I'm bored and waiting to booze, so I'm typing out some thoughts. This thread is about balance for competitive 1v1 ranked matches between skilled players. I've played over 100 ranked matches in beta and about 150 in retail, and am ranked in the top 10 for axis currently. I am not going to be able to propose changes for every problem, so do not expect that. I am simply going to state what I, as a top player, find imbalanced.

Allied:

I find that, for allies, Infantry is nearly worthless. Rangers as we all know are in need of a buff. Howis don't come into play in a competitive 1v1. Riflemen being able to build mines is nice but not great. Fast deployment is decent. Offmap arty is decent, might cost a bit much. Combat group is random enough to suck sometimes and rule sometimes, so we will call it decent.

Airborne is fine overall and is perhaps the most balanced of all doctrines, althought the supply drop might need a longer cooldown.

Armor is terribly overpowered. The left tree alone makes it the best doctrine in the game for either side. Raid, at 2 CPs, is tied with zeal for the best ability for its cost. The calliope remains the most overpowered unit in the game. The pershing is also another fantastic unit which is easilly on par with the tiger due to its ability to quickly become vet. The right side abilities are great as well, with fast deployment, repair, and the ridiculous allied war machine. Anyone claiming armor is balanced is an allied fanboy, sorry.

Axis:
Blitz: Pretty worthless. While for some reason some people say its overpowered (read the 5+ page thread by boomstar), I find it completely worthless in a competitive 1v1 and have personally never used it in a non-team game. Assault ability is great. MP blitz, while good, also costs TWO HUNDRED munitions. This fact alone proves it cannot possibly be overpowered. Blitzkrieg is also a great ability, but comes WAY too late. MP blitz and blitzkrieg should be switch IMO. The left side is terrible until tigers. Storms are one of the worst units in the game, for cost. 400 mp for a unit that dies to a rifle squad. The stuh is absolutely terrible seeing how it comes into play midgame when armor is already appearing, and it is worthless against armor.

Defensive: Decent. 280 rocket barrage was nerfed in retail and cost more CP, making defensive no longer my personal doctrine of choice. Defensive arty is still a great and possibly gamechanging ability. Early warning is also good. The left side is very weak though. For the fatherland seems underpowered, can only be used on your territory, and still costs munitions. I would change it so that it becomes like zeal, a passive bonus, which works anywhere on your territory without an activation cost. The MG emplacements on buildings is perhaps the most worthless ability in the game, as if the enemy has a bunch of units in your base you have most likely already lost. 88s are good but not great.

Terror: The best axis doctrine. Zeal is AMAZING for 1 CP and probably overpowered. Inspired assault is also fantastic. Propaganda even after the nerf remains a gamechanging ability. The tiger ace is of course godly, and the v2 is a great (if incredibly expensive) base killer. The only real problem with terror is firestorm, which is, in a word, terrible in comparison to other offmap artillery. It costs 200, has a ridiculously long "deployment" time which allows the enemy to retreat, and on top of that, doesn't even do good damage. Its near useless in combat vs decent opponents as they will simply move their forces. The only real use for firestorm that I have found is in suciding a jeep or AC into the allied base and then firestorming it when he has multiple infantry units in there. Do not expect it to do any damage vs tanks.

Expect another thread about units and abilities, but now its booze time.

[FatalTheRabbit]

I wouldn't call offmap combat group decent what so ever. 800 manpower should not be a roll of the die. In some cases it's probably unfair, and in others it will get you killed. A very poorly designed ability. It needs maximums and minimums on the units so you don't get less than 1 M10, more than 1 mortar, more than 2 mgs, and more than 2 M8s.

I also find blitz a major liability, and would definitely like to see blitzkreig swapped with manpower blitz(PLEASE CONSIDER THIS RELIC). That is an ideal solution for blitz. I would also like the Stuhs accuacy increased. It's a highly specialized unit, and it only kills as well as the sherman when it hits, which seems like a rare thing, and it's 3cp(5cp total including storm requisite)! It can actually be lame sometimes if those tigers do manage to show up(they need to cost some fuel like all off map armor), but really that's quite a rarity. Blitz is also crippled by the sherman, because it's storms have a rough time with that ultimate anti-infantry cannon.

For the fatherland is pretty sad. I've only used it a few times, but I've never been able to actually tell that it's making a difference. Munitions better spent elsewhere. The 88 could use a bit of a durability increase, and fortify the perimeter is so limited in it's scope that's it's totally useless. It ought to enhance bunkers somehow(adding an mg porthole on the top that can be manned, better durability, range, just something).


Firestorm needs the deployment shortened badly. I never use this except when I've already won, and I want something to look at.

[irR4tiOn4L]

Agreed on all points.

[Victrix Legio]

Might as well tow the line and post my thoughts in an orderly format:

Allies:

1. Infantry: In a game that is as focused on reaching and producing vehicles as COH is right now, I don't think the Infantry tree is ever going to be more than a middling choice at best. The early appeal of Infantry should be the Defensive Ops ability, but with things being so fast paced and offense almost always being the best option, hunkering down with your primary infantry to build a defensive line that's just going to be bombarded or driven over in a couple minutes doesn't strike me as being a particularly intelligent course of action. Rangers... well everything's that I could say about them has been said countless times before in other threads, so I'll just leave it at that. Offmap Combat Group, like Fatal said, is not well designed due to its random nature; random in strategy games is bad, especially when it comes to expected output of resource investment. OCG needs to be standardized at least somewhat if it's going to be a useful ability.

Decreased Deployment Time for infantry isn't all that great because the primary restricting factor in early game production has always been resources, not time; not sure what to do with that one. 105s are good but you'll never see them in a 1v1. Artillery Barrage is solid, no complaints there.

2. Airborne: The Airborne Tree, in my opinion, is good. Not whiz-bang fantastic like Armor, but not crap like Infantry, either. Paratroopers are decent flanking units, but I think they should be a bit more lethal with RRs against armor and be able to reinforce more cheaply when next to a HT or HQ. AT Gun Drop is superb and well worth the CPs; no problem there. Supply Drop is good, but I think it's good mainly for the wrong reasons; Supply Drop always seems to be used for the munitions and fuel that come along with it, with the mortar and MG largely seeming to be an afterthought. Not much you could probably do about this unless you reduce late game vehicle spam, though, so I'll say no more about that right now.

Airborne Recon's alright, nothing really wrong with it. Both Strafing Run and Bombing Run, though, are far too inconsistent. When 250 munitions are paid for a Bombing Run only to have the plane just decide to not drop the bombs this time around, you've got a problem, and the same goes for the 150 munitions spent on the Strafing Run only to have it hit the wrong target or not fire at all.

3. Armor: I have to agree with Drunken, Armor is overpowered, no ifs, ands, or buts. Raid all but removes the purpose of infantry even existing in the late game, though I don't actually think the ability itself is problematic. Calliope is the single biggest reason why armor is overpowered in 1v1s, and something has to be done to it to make using it as a replacement for all other forms of armor unfeasible or at least extremely inefficient. Pershing's good, though perhaps a bit too good after it gets a couple veterancy ranks.

Armor's Decreased Deployment Time is better than the one for Infantry since tanks are the unit of choice in the late game; don't really have a problem with it specifically. Auto Repair is good but pretty expensive, so I think it's pretty well balanced. Allied War Machine is a travesty right now; I can see where they were going with this back in beta when Shermans were dying left and right to everything, but they don't need this now, no matter which way you want to look at it. If nothing else, the cost for War Machine needs to be jacked up.

I'll post my thoughts on the Axis in a while.

[irR4tiOn4L]

Mostly agree with your comments, except where you say infantry will always be pointless in this type of game.

My prognosis is simply that you reach tanks TOO FAST in this game, an have no chance to enjoy using infantry, and then light vehicles.

IMHO, this progression should have been slowed so you got a taste of each as it popped up, before being able to use all of them in a combined arms manner.


Furthermore, infantry is quite relevant in this game, with only a few niggling faults holding it back - like Shermans killing them too much, fiddly micromanagement in outfitting each squad of grenadiers with Mgs and rockets, and antitank guns withstanding infantry assaults too easily while killing them too easily, though there are other problems of course. This makes infantry frustrating to use, and thus you prefer to use tanks.

[Timeless]

I think MG emplacements should apply to Observation Posts, then it would be more worth it. Don't forget, though, you also get the ability to reinforce at any forward bunker with this ability. Still, it's rather weak and I don't understand what Relic was thinking with the MG emplacements only on your base buildings. For the Fatherland is way too costly for what you get. 75 ammo? Was someone smoking blunts?

Firestorm is a joke - I'd really like to know why it was gimped to its current version. Firestorm doesn't even have the power to take out a building now. Give me a break. Are these things tested before they're changed? Who is going to spend 200 MP just to see pretty red smoke?


Blitz, well sometimes it's useful to blitz your MP, especially with certain specific strats, but most of the time, it's silly and detrimental to your economy. It's pretty sad that I often only even choose this doctrine for the Assault grenade ability and because I get bored of using the same doctrine all the time.

Basically, Terror is so good, we might as well have only one doctrine.

[Victrix Legio]

@irR4tiOn4L
Didn't say they were pointless; they have their uses, but making them your main focus right now is a recipe for disaster against a player of equal skill in 1v1s. In order for infantry to remain a viable offensive force, as opposed to just a supporting force, in the late game changes will have to be made, changes that I'm not entirely certain a majority of players would favor seeing coming to pass. I'll admit right now that my interest has always been in the infantry game and that I've always thought that vehicles should be support, not the other way around. Even if this game does become balanced in the most basic sense of the word somewhere down the line, if infantry's value is not increased I will consider it to be a gameplay failure, no matter each side's overall chances of victory.

[irR4tiOn4L]

Victrix, i used the wrong word there. What i mean to say is that infantry should be 'relevant' even when tanks are around - no matter whether tanks or infantry are in the support role, it should be worthwhile to have infantry with your tanks, rather than just another tank. Right now, im not so sure of this - is 2 shermans and some infantry better than 3 shermans and no infantry?

This role of infantry in the late game is frustrated by their excessive vulnerability to certain things (like shermans and at guns), and their very poor manageability in other areas (such as having to equip every unit of grenadiers with 75mu worth of panzerfausts - what makes them 'grenadiers' before then?). This makes it more frustrating to create and equip a unit with the basic stuff it needs to survive late game then it should be, making them more of a pain to use than a useful addition.


Seperate from this is my belief that the early game should be extended and there should be three distinct 'eras' that last a decent amount of time - small scale infantry and small car/bike skirmishes, armored halftracks and cars supported by infantry going for strategic locations, and then a more full out combined arms war.

To this end, i think it would be better if Command points accrued at half their current rate, and if the tech tree was somehow more spaced out in terms of time.

[stopgap]

i find that the issue of whether you want infantry by the time you have tanks to be almost pointless, with allies, you should have at least a squad or two surviving by the time you reach tanks, if this is the case they often have veteran, and become a force to be reckoned with. However i dont hard tech to tanks, so my playstyle may differ from yours.

[Victrix Legio]

...is 2 shermans and some infantry better than 3 shermans and no infantry?

Not in the sense that in most situations it would be wiser to spend your resources on the former rather than the latter if you were at the end of tech tree, and quite frankly I don't think it ever will be unless at least one of three things happens:

1. Vehicles in general are made more expensive than they are now (think like by at least 50% across the board). Not in favor of this.

2. Properly equipped infantry (Rangers, Stormtroopers, Grenadiers, and Airborne) are made cost effective counters to tanks. This means that FOR COST, those infantry, if properly utilized, have to be able to beat unsupported tanks. This entails either improving infantry AT weaponry across the board, which I am in favor of OR turning to Option #1, which, again, I don't like.

3. Institution of a Rock Paper Scissors system. Just the thought of something like that in a game like this makes my skin crawl; definitely not in favor of this.

IMHO, just extending the tech tree is not the best way to solve the issues we're looking at right now because it doesn't really solve the fundamental problem, that being that vehicles are the most cost effective units in the game for virtually every imaginable task. Sure, you'll delay tank spam or possibly even eliminate it from 1v1s altogether if you stretch the tech tree out enough, but you're probably just going to see light vehicle spam appear in its place. That, and in team games (I know, I know) tank spam is still going to be the endgame because, no matter how long it takes to get to them or what hoops one has to jump through to build them, they're still going to be the most efficient units in the game.

Sorry for derailing the thread OP, I'll get back to the topic with my next post.

[Alcorr]

I agree with fatal and drunken and vitrix on all mentioned points for the most part.

However, blitz is not as weak as everyone makes it out to be. The manpower blitz is really more powerful than most people give it credit. If you use the sudden increase in manpower wisely, it can be a game winner hands down.

However, fatal, I see NO reason why there should be a place switching in the tech tree between the manpower blitz and blitzkreig ability.

Generally, in 1v1s, I actually get a chance to use the second ability on the right side when playing blitz, but often times not the third.

After saying that, I think that the blitz doctrine tree is poorly organized.

On one side, the left side, its useless until the tiger + storm squad call in.

On the other side, assault is an awesome ability, and so is manpower blitz (as i just said) but I think that blitzkrieg always comes in so late that in 1v1 games, its almost never used. Thats why I don't want its place switched with manpower blitz.

I hear people always hail the stormtroopers, calling them the best infantry in the game, and they are very good, but for 400 mp in a 1v1? Id rather buy a stug or AC or an ostwind.

The problem with axis 1v1 infantry situation is that volks are the answer for everything. Stormtroopers are terribly cost inefficient compared to volks with mp40s.

As we all know, tier 2 is basically always skipped in 1v1s unless its a really long game then people go back and build the krieg barracks, so grenadiers are out of the question as well.

O and I can't believe this hasn't been mentioned before, but the StuH is really bad imo. Its accuracy just seems much worse than the regular stug.

Just my 2 cents.

[Sephlock]

As far as I can tell, the Stuh is supposed to be a support piece, taking out buildings and infantry, allowing your Stormtroopers to... storm, I guess. I suppose a stealthy ambush could be arranged, with the Stuh as the main attention getter.

Not the most wonderful of plans, I'll grant you, but... *shrug*, hey I didn't program the thing.

Granted, it would be a more effective support piece if it could actually HIT the aforementioned buildings and infantry, but hey, maybe they come from the same stock as the bazooka-toting rangers ;).


Also, one thing thats worth noting: I understand that 1v1 is an important aspect of the game, but there ARE people who prefer 2v2, or 3v3, or *gasp* 4v4.

I realize that its unreasonable to excuse the current state of certain units by saying "well, in multiplayer they serve X role or perform Y function", but at the same time, don't you think its kinda unfair to discuss everything in relation to 1v1?

[ShadowKatana]

2. Properly equipped infantry (Rangers, Stormtroopers, Grenadiers, and Airborne) are made cost effective counters to tanks. This means that FOR COST, those infantry, if properly utilized, have to be able to beat unsupported tanks. This entails either improving infantry AT weaponry across the board, which I am in favor of OR turning to Option #1, which, again, I don't like.

I'd prefer either increasing their effectiveness, or decreasing their cost (maybe 320-350 mp each?)

[n0z3k1ll3r]

I wouldn't agree on the stormtroopers being useless. They're not a primary combat unit, they should be using their stealth and bundle grenade to clear MGs and the like. The Shrecks are actually quite decent too using hit and run stealth tactics.

Also I find the ability to reinforce near bunkers for defensive to be extremely effective in certain circumstances. Most obviously, having infantry stationed around a medic bunker. Dying units can be both reinforced and harvested by the medics for free new units. Not bad.

[irR4tiOn4L]

Actually Vitrix, i think were on the same page, but in different dialects. By this i dont mean you agree with me, but that you dont appear to disagree as much as you make out. I made two points, which are relatively independent of each other.

1 - This is not an issue, just a preference, and has no bearing on #2.
I believe that infantry and vehicles would be better appreciated if you could use them for longer (right now youve got a 1-2 minute window for medium vehicles, and 10 minutes for infantry). Generally speaking, i would like to see the tech tree develop over a longer period of time, not to counteract any fundamental flaw, but to simply have the game more varied and more opportunity to use each unit. This is because i like longer games.

2 - I believe that the problem with infantry does not lie with the fact that they are 'crap' against tanks, but that using them against tanks is - first, too much micromanagement; you have to select each squad, equip them, or use their ability on a tank. Not very intuitive, its just easier to bring a tank. - and second, not cost effective.

Tanks cost a bit more than infantry but are much tougher, but i dont find this a problem. What i DO find a problem, is that in the late game it STILL takes a lot of ammunition to use the various AT abilities on the infantry. You would think that by this time they wouldnt make us pay as much for our sticky bombs anymore.

I like the role of infantry right now. In fact, i think very little should change about it. But what SHOULD change, is less micromanagement and cost for squads to be equipped and used against tanks in the late game. Who wants to pay 75 munitions and waste a whole lot of effort and time upgrading grenadiers when they are liable to die right away?

This point is abundantly clear to me ingame, as i actually prefer using Volks against tanks, rather than grenadiers - i dont have to micro each squad to equip them, and while it costs 50 to use, its more powerful and a squad of grenadiers wouldnt last long enough to make back on that 75 investment anyway.

Just make grenadiers come equipped with a panzerfaust (being grenadiers and all) by late game (somehow or other) and make us pay only for the light MG, with equivalent changes on the allied side, and infantry would be far more useful.

[Sephlock]

Just a point of clarification: The Panzerfaust is the weapon that is used in the same manner as a grenade. The Panzershrek is the weapon that the grenadiers and stormtroopers use. Personally, I agree with your suggestion (make the grenadiers start with a shrek or two, and make us pay for the light MG), but I can't help but wonder if it wouldn't lead to even more insanity with zeal + inspired assault + a grenadier with shrek.


I'm curious though- what would the "equivalent changes" be for the allied side? What do they have that is a counterpart to grenadiers? The only things I can think of are paratroopers and rangers.

Rangers start with bazookas already, they just can't hit anything with them.... upping the accuracy would be fantastic... ok, so that helps infantry company commanders....

As for Airborne... wouldn't making paratroopers start with RRs cut down on their anti infantry effectiveness? Or are the RRs servicable against infantry like the panzer-weapons are? I'm afraid I don't have much experience in this area.

In any event, it seems like making them start with RRs would be largely unnessecary in light of the Airborne company ability to airdrop AT guns.

And of course, the Armor company commander is left with.... not a whole lot, in terms of mid-to-late-game infantry to tweak.

The closest thing they have is mortar squads, which, quite frankly, are laughable as anti tank weapons in all but the most ideal (and unlikely) of circumstances.



IMHO, while grenadiers (AND stormtroopers) could certainly use the change you suggested, allies may not require much change at all- the addition of effective anti tank infantry on the axis side would prompt the allied player to use more infantry of his own- in the form of Riflemen with BARs.

Granted, that would bring forth another issue altogether- if the allied player was using the now-useful rangers and more useful paras, along with riflemen wielding BARs, what the hell is the axis commander supposed to do, aside from choke and die?

The solution: upgrade the nebelwurfer :D. Make it a killing machine instead of the joke that it currently is.

[irR4tiOn4L]

You make good points. Personally, i think its really just grenadiers, stormtroopers and rangers that are problematic, as they are too fiddly to be of any use.

As for the zealous shrek grenadier problem, this would likely change nothing, apart from maybe making this seen more often. Anyone who builds grenadiers will want to give them a shrek, so the only way my suggestion would make this worse is if more people used grenadiers. But if such a simple thing as more people using grenadiers can exarcerbate this problem, then it really has to be solved independently as a bug, doesnt it?

If i had to make a suggestion on the allied side, it would be to make the rangers more in line with grenadiers and perhaps purchasable by late game. Having to call them from off map is a pain, no less. Another idea is for the allied sticky bombs to become cheaper or even free, and to be used automatically. Depending on how it worked out ingame.

The whole idea is to reduce the fiddly micromanagement of using infantry against tanks late game, and to make it less costly to put them to use against tanks (not cheaper to build them). This is not so they dominate tanks, but to create trouble for ambushed or surrounded tanks, without having to micromanage them so they do it.

Airborne itself doesnt really have a problem, so it needs no adjustment. Paratroopers have to upgrade to rockets, true, but then they are already so versatile that this fits (unlike grenadiers or rangers, which are only good as anti-tank). Besides, with the AT drop ability, this is unnecesary and would become overpowering. Allies are supposed to have rangers as dedicated anti-tanks, and they should be changed to do their jobs.


My basic premise is that tanks and AT guns are already a handful to micro in battle, so why should you have to tell your supporting troops (after all, what else are grenadiers or rangers but anti-armor squads?) to come prepared for tanks and to open fire on them?

[Tefeari]

A lot of you have kind of hijacked DrunkenOne's thread, it was about an extremely experienced top10 player's opinion formed from his experience with the game. It wasn't meant to be a thread for everyone to post their two cents about whatever they thought was good/bad while having little or nothing to do with what DrunkenOne said. Instead we should be discussing his perspectives.

I personally found it insightful and believe it to be a well written piece of truth (for the most part).

I'm surprised that it sounds as if he believes the allied riflemen infantry spam to be ineffective, though I don’t have a TON of experience with it, from what I've seen, given the infantry commander tree, they can field an absurd amount of riflemen absurdly quickly, who can build a ridiculous amount of cover and defenses ridiculously quickly. It's an excellent strategy from what I've seen but still underused.

[DrunkenOne]

Please stay on topic and keep petty argumennts out of this.

Well tefeari, i agree (sorry i am very drunk if the speling and grammar is wrong) that riflemen is very powerful. However, the problem i that infantry is not the best tree go go when spamming riflemen. Airborne paratroopers get the same grenade upgrades as riflemen, which mean that with fire up, they can rape the living piss out of mg42s in buildings. Infantry doctrine has nothing that can compare to this.

[SmellyTerror]

I'm suprised that it sounds as if he believes the allied riflemen infantry spam to be ineffective...

Does he say that? I thought he was saying that the Infantry doctrine was ineffective. Infantry spam, on the other hand, can still be part of any Armour or Airborne opening.

Can't it?

Edit: curse my slow fingers!

[DrunkenOne]

Does he say that? I thought he was saying that the Infantry doctrine was ineffective. Infantry spam, on the other hand, can still be part of any Armour or Airborne opening.

Can't it?
exactly. This is mainly because riflespam with armor means you can spend all fuel on rifle upgrades (while getting motorpool ACs and ATs while waiting for calliopes. While riflespam with airborne means you can get grenades/bars/sitkcies while using ATs and airborne as anti tank.

[Tefeari]

DrunkenOne: That's an interesting and valid point you made. Although, I'm not sure if it's good or bad (/right or wrong) that infantry spamming is essentially as effective with the Airborn tree as it is with the Infantry tree.

Could the Ranger buff actually fix that though?

I would think that the advantages behind being able to produce riflemen more quickly coupled with the defensive building abilities could potentially outweigh the airborn advantages, but it would be very difficult from what I imagine, atm it's hard for me to errect elaborate defenses in the midst of a game even with just engineers.

[DrunkenOne]

DrunkenOne: That's an interesting and valid point you made, and I'm not sure if it's good or bad (/right or wrong) that infantry spamming is essentially as effective with the Airborn tree as it is with the Infantry tree.

Would the Ranger buff actually fix that though?

I would think that the advantages behind being able to produce them more quickly coupled with the defensive building abilities could potentially outweigh the airborn effectiveness, but it would be very difficult from what I imagine, atm it's hard for me to errect elaborate defenses in the midst of a game even with just engineers.
I dont know if a ranger buff will fix this. Its really a combination of the Armor tree being crazy overpowered and allowing allied players to concentrate completely on rifle upgrades and not even need to build a tank depot as well as the ridiculous overpoweredness of rifle upgrades in general. The problem is that people never see the big picture. Not only do allied infantry and vehicles get awesome upgrades, they also get quick veterancy (especially against a poor bastard who went blitz or tier 2 grenadiers) which just makes them even more effective against their allied equivalents with 0 upgrades needed.

Rangers need to be reduced in mp to 350,thompsons should be 75 or maybe even 50, and bazookas need a major boost. Of course, this needs to be complimented by reducing storm/grenadier upgrades to 50 and possibly giving a 5th squad member.

Also, as an add on to my 1st post, I would like to state that airborne vs any axis doctrine is very balanced, but if you put armor in its place, it becomes imbalanced.

[Turin Turambar]

Mostly agree with your comments, except where you say infantry will always be pointless in this type of game.

My prognosis is simply that you reach tanks TOO FAST in this game, an have no chance to enjoy using infantry, and then light vehicles.

IMHO, this progression should have been slowed so you got a taste of each as it popped up, before being able to use all of them in a combined arms manner.


Furthermore, infantry is quite relevant in this game, with only a few niggling faults holding it back - like Shermans killing them too much, fiddly micromanagement in outfitting each squad of grenadiers with Mgs and rockets, and antitank guns withstanding infantry assaults too easily while killing them too easily, though there are other problems of course. This makes infantry frustrating to use, and thus you prefer to use tanks.
QFT

I like to advance slowly and use each tech level. I think i am the only one who don't try to rush to tanks in this game. :P

[ZuppoX]

Left sides of defense and blitz doctrine nr.#2 need to be buffed.

ZuppoX

[DrunkenOne]

God damn calliopes ><

[ZuppoX]

/agree

[Victrix Legio]

Right, so I promised to add my thoughts on Axis. Bit belated, but...

Axis:

1. Defense: This tree is so bad right now that it's almost unsalvageable. Almost. For the Fatherland at 75 munitions is a complete joke, giving infantry a measly 30% damage reduction and a more respectable 75% suppression reduction, but only in the player's own territory. This ability either needs a small buff and to be changed into a constant ability like zeal, or it needs a large buff and to stay the way it is; not sure which is the superior option. Fortify the Perimeter is way too limited to be worth the CPs right now, and is going to require a boost in addition to some more utility. FtP should strengthen bunkers in some way, either increasing the damage they do or increasing their HP to better withstand attack. Base structure MGs need to be buffed so that they do more than just suppress, and I think implementation of some base AT defenses should be considered as well. Not enough to take down a concentrated assault of course, but just something to ward off lone tanks or ACs. The 88 is a pretty rare sight in 1v1s but I still think it needs a durability buff if nothing else. I don't think it'll ever have the level of overall usefulness that the 105 does in team games, but maybe that's ok in the grand scheme of things.

Increased LOS is good, nothing really wrong with it other than it seeming a tad lackluster in comparison to other Command Abilities. Registered Artillery is probably the only truly worthwhile ability Defense has right now in terms of availability and price. It does exactly what it's supposed to and does it rather well. 280mm Rockets seem overly expensive to me in addition to being rather incongruous with the rest of the doctrine, but I must admit that I've never been given that many opportunities to use them, so perhaps I'm off base on that.

2. Blitzkrieg, like airborne for Allies, is the middle of the road Axis doctrine. Stormtroopers suck terribly right now for cost and suffer from the same problem that Grenadiers do, which in turn is the same problem that all AT infantry have; not going to repeat myself on that issue at the moment. Nobody uses their Stg44 upgrade either, since Axis already has plenty of AI ability and the Stg44 comes at Tier 4, which is just insane. Urban Assault Force is even worse, as the StuH42 is a very poor solution in search of a problem; Axis already has excellent AI ability in the form of Pumas and acceptable AB performance in the StuGIV. Maybe if they made it into an actual mobile howitzer it'd see some use, but otherwise, I just don't see it. Armored Assault Force is good by sheer virtue of it providing a Tiger, and that's just about the only thing that stops people from skipping the left side entirely right now.

Assault is a useful ability, if rather finicky at times; no change truly required there. Manpower Blitz makes Blitzkrieg into what it is, and properly utilized I think it can be a game turner. Blitz isn't a bad ability in and of itself, but it's almost never seen due to its position on the tree and munitions cost. A decrease in cost might be in order here, not really sure.

3. Terror: I'm going to have to go with popular opinion here and state that Terror is hands down the best Axis doctrine. Inspired Assault (listed as For the Fuhrer in the files) is... well let me put some numbers in here to provide some perspective: for 50 munitions, every Axis infantryman in the game will reload twice as fast, have an 80% reduction in weapon cooldown time, and do 20% more damage. They also take 50% more damage, but still, this is a fantastic ability, probably too powerful for such a low cost. Firestorm just takes too long to get to the target; other than that, it's satisfactory. Tiger Ace is the best tank in the game, and my only actual complaint with it is that it doesn't use the Ace skin from single player; other than that, it's fine.

I think everyone here knows how much Zeal rocks, but I think I should put some numbers to it to provide a clearer picture. This is how it works: Zeal first kicks in once a squad is down to three members, at which point they all receive modifiers for damage received (95% of normal), suppression received (85% of normal), max health (+10 points), and accuracy (115% of normal). When another member dies, the two remaining squaddies receive additional modifiers that stack with the previous modifiers for damage received (total of 90.25% of normal), suppression received (total of 56.25% of normal), accuracy (total of 132.25% of normal), health regeneration (2% per second I think), and weapon cooldown (75% of normal). Finally, when only one member is left, the last set of modifiers kick in, again stacking with the previous modifiers: damage received (total of 85.74% of normal), suppression received (total of 42.19% of normal), accuracy (total of 165.31% of normal), weapon cooldown (total of 18.75% of normal), and reload time (25% of normal). Oh, and the squad's accumulated suppression drops to zero. For those of you unwilling to read all that, let me put it to you this way: when Fritz is the last guy left, he becomes Robo Hitler with quad chainguns.

Propaganda is as powerful and, in my eyes, as stupidly implemented as it ever was; I just don't like the way this ability works. V1 only really comes into its own in team games due to the incredible munitions cost, but when it hits... Don't honestly see anything wrong with it.

So that's it then. My apologies, again, for starting the hijack.

[AnatolyChekov]

infantry must become more effective (cost wise and performance) in general, especially with their anti-tank abilities.. tanks would need proper support instead of just spamming them and sending them in alone

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Zeal first kicks in once a squad is down to three membersDoes that mean that Knights Cross Holders get it the moment they're built?

[Victrix Legio]

It's sort of unclear, but I'd wager that yes, they do.

Edit: And before somebody else asks, no, there's no way this applies to snipers or probably any other kind of weapon team, for that matter, or we'd have had complaints weeks ago about super snipers killing everything in their path. For whatever reason, I can't seem to find a listing for the target type for Zeal, so I can't say for certain what units it effects and which ones it doesn't, but experience suggests that it's limited to Volks, Grens, Sturms, and KCH.

Edit2: Further examination reveals that Zeal applies only to Storms, Grens, and Volks. KCH are not affected by Zeal, and I apologize for my earlier statements as they were in error.