Should doctrinal units/upgrades be superior?

A well repeated argument every time a doctrinal unit or upgrade is nerfed or buffed by some is "well it's doctrinal so SHOULD be better than any stock option".

But is this really a consistent way the game is balanced? Should it be balanced like this? Many balance patches have looked to remove "no brainer" straight up upgrades to squads. Recently Con SVTs and Ostheer 5man have been seen as targets of this design outlook. Ostheer premium P4 or soviet T-35/85 certainly has no downsides in stats and would fall under the "no brainer" argument too no? In the case of those two premium tanks you will never see the stock option built, maybe only a few times for a VonIvan rocket truck inspection.

But contrary to this many units such as Falls vs obers (not necessarily a straight up stronger one, but a different flavor of the same unit) provide some minor choice. Likewise we have the Sherman bulldozer that provides survivability but less mobility. These doctrinal units have trade offs.

I'm curious what everybody here thinks, because there seems to be some contrasting design on just what doctrines should provide. Certainly they are a core part of the game and meta unlike vCoH.

This is not a yes or no questions. Doctrinal abilities or units simply need a reason to be used.

If the offer something that already exist it makes sense that it would be superior else none would use it.

If they offer something different it does need to superior to stock options since it could still be useful.

No they should absolutely not. They way doctrines were designed is to offer additional options to the factions, which is especially true for OST and SOV since these factions are already complete and just get more tactical choice.

If a factions relies on one or two commanders to be playable, either the commanders or the faction have been horribly designed and are not fun to play.

If doctrinal units were stronger by default, this would also mean that you have a better chance to win by default in the late game if you just aggregate sufficient doctrinal units and abuse them enough.

EDIT: Slightly off topic, but it tackles a similar issue: We have actually seen where the "fixing factions by doctrines" lead us: Nowhere. UKF got a mortar, just to get non-doc smoke in a more recent patch. SOV got SVTs for Conscripts to fix the balance issues with Cons, just to get a 7 men upgrade later and now make it more of a choice of what you want. USF has had the airborne doctrine for a long time and some builds even relied on it to get both support weapons. However, outside of this doctrine the faction was still stuffed with problems, leading to a tech rework which in turn devalued the airborne doctrine.

One can understand the game a lot better from twitch or casts, this is why you should watch or upload replays if you lose a game and wish to improve. Keep it in PM if you wish to discuss me

You aren't going to learn to drive regardless of how much time you spend on the window, watching cars.

Also, which units?
Which upgrades?
Elite infantries are specialists in certain field, they are meant and bound to be superior to cheaper stock generalists.
Weapon upgrades like SVT or PPSH or G43 are already side grades to stock options.
T34-76 vs T34-85 is LITERALLY quantity vs quality, both are effective and you pick what you need more, because neither is clearly superior choice, 85 has better stats, but 76 can be used much more risky and in greater number.

Should doctrinal things be better? Not necessarily. They should be different, that's better and cheaper. Look at the soviet for example--while you do have the t34/85 which is absolutely a better t34/76, you also have the m42 AT gun which is a "worse" zis. What's important is that they are different.

When considering the balance of these units there is a hidden opportunity cost in that it bars you from other options but frankly it's mostly irrelevant.

I like the approach of straight asking about what a doctrinal unit should be like.

I think that it depends on the faction design and its units individual balance power. By balance power I'm saying compared to the rest of the units ingame. Having the best medium tank (in general terms) but also having even better doctrinal medium tanks will lead to problems on many fronts. Some will say the stock tank is useless and others will say it's OP to have such many strong options.

Doctrinal options are to add diversity and unpredictability to the skirmish, forcing players to adapt with the units they have, rather than brute force the other player with apm. So any kind of doctrinal unit can be created, strong, weak, it doesn't matter, but being different to stock or unique amongst all factions does.

Some doctrinal units become more valuable than others, because they support the faction on the current metagame, or fill a big gap in the faction design. To have a fundamentally required doctrinal units is (by me) a design mistake. Because it's a clear sign of design corruption. Even if it's ostruppen, if the faction needs it, the metagame and the faction design altogether failed to deliver balance.

I think it would be great to discuss which are the top 5 best/ worse doctrinal units and why

StuG E cries in a corner

Scott is so much better

It would make sense for doctrinal units to be inferior to stock units from ordinary tech. They should be there as heavily specialized versions and flavour, nothing you pick because unit x is objectively stronger than unit y from stock, which is sadly usually the case

It would make sense for doctrinal units to be inferior to stock units from ordinary tech. They should be there as heavily specialized versions and flavour, nothing you pick because unit x is objectively stronger than unit y from stock, which is sadly usually the case

. Completely depends. Should the t34/85 which costs more than the 76mm despite the exact se tech costs be inferior? Why? As long as access costs are comparable to the stock unit there's no reason the stock unit. Should shocks fight as well as cons because shocks are doctrinal and cons are stock? Of course not.

My only semi agreement that comes from this would be the removal of "call ins" being replaced with built units from either appropriate techs or at the very lease t0 builds REQUIRING comparable tech.

Doctrines provide additional options, they do not necessarily need to be superior. So the G43 work differently from the LMG 42, but are not inherently superior in every way. Furthermore I firmly believe that every doctrinal unit should have a non-doctrinal soft-counter at bare minimum; but a hard-counter is preferred.

Doctrines provide additional options, they do not necessarily need to be superior. So the G43 work differently from the LMG 42, but are not inherently superior in every way. Furthermore I firmly believe that every doctrinal unit should have a non-doctrinal soft-counter at bare minimum; but a hard-counter is preferred.

Couldn't agree more. No doctrine should ever be required to fight a doctrinal unit or upgrade. In an ideal balance, imo, all stock factions should be balanced independently of doctrines and then doctrines are balanced separately afterwards and adhered to the established balance.

My spiel in which others have said.

Doctrines should be transformation, focus on an aspect, and/or provide general support. If a doctrine is viable because it fills in a gap in the roster, then their is something wrong with the faction. Ie, UKF mortar call in, Osttruppen, flamethrowers. Specialist units such as Shocks and Jaegers are generally fine seeing they are not immediately available and specific roles. Tweaks are always necessary.

Overlaps are not a good idea. Some call in infantry the most problematic I see right now is Volks\Panzerfusilier and Falls/Obers. While some doctrines do have overlap with themselves, Shock Army and Infantry company.

The biggest offender I see to a straight up upgrade is the 1919 weapon rack.

. Completely depends. Should the t34/85 which costs more than the 76mm despite the exact se tech costs be inferior? Why? As long as access costs are comparable to the stock unit there's no reason the stock unit. Should shocks fight as well as cons because shocks are doctrinal and cons are stock?

Here is where we disagree. I think that the t34/85 is a perfect example where this is done right, its a heavier specialized at version of the 76, not a straight upgrade. The shocks however are an offender, because there is no stock assault unit in soviet roster that works in a similiar fashion, and they are not flavour because of their strength

Here is where we disagree. I think that the t34/85 is a perfect example where this is done right, its a heavier specialized at version of the 76, not a straight upgrade. The shocks however are an offender, because there is no stock assault unit in soviet roster that works in a similiar fashion, and they are not flavour because of their strength

But... it literally is a straight upgrade.

76 however is better suited for risky flanks and anti infantry, while 85 is better suited to tank vs tank combat.

the real question is: should pioneers have a chance to drop their sweepers`?

If a doctrine is viable because it fills in a gap in the roster, then their is something wrong with the faction.

Nope.

Here is where we disagree. I think that the t34/85 is a perfect example where this is done right, its a heavier specialized at version of the 76, not a straight upgrade. The shocks however are an offender, because there is no stock assault unit in soviet roster that works in a similiar fashion, and they are not flavour because of their strength

....
There is no better example of a straight upgrade in the entire game. Even the ost up armored p4 could be considered an alternative because it's available even without t3 of you get t4. The 85mm is better in every way with a cost to accompany it. If it's not an upgrade nothing on the entire game is (and frankly, nothing else really IS)

....
There is no better example of a straight upgrade in the entire game. Even the ost up armored p4 could be considered an alternative because it's available even without t3 of you get t4. The 85mm is better in every way with a cost to accompany it. If it's not an upgrade nothing on the entire game is (and frankly, nothing else really IS)

This is false, the 76 has a higher firerate than the 85 thus making it stronger vs infantry, for a difference of 40 fuel. If you want to look at an actual upgrade compare SVTs to 7 men for instance, svts bring way higher dmg output and you can get them way earlier (cp1) compared to tier 4, literally a better option in every way possible while 76s are not too uncommonly a better pick than an 85.