Pershing ?

Why would you disable M36? Pershing shares same gun with Jackson, so I belive it should be more like Panther than IS2/Tiger is terms of AI, so nothing easier than killing it with infantry, not tanks.

What's more, we already have superior combination - IS2 + Jackson (not to mention superior combination from Axis)

But that combination is controlled by 2 separate players and only available in team games, not the same player.

If a pershing commander disabled crews. there is no reason to use it.

There's no reason to use a Tiger or IS-2 then, because they don't have crews.

I also cannot see what's wrong with crew getting out. I mean, Pershing as a heavy shouldnt be able to that, but why Shermans' crews cannot?

This Doctrine looks like it would do nothing more than punish players for choosing it. How is a straight nerf even a doctrinal ability? LMAO

A commander that disables a faction feature isn't a commander worth using. period.

USF was designed with Crews and M36's because they had no Heavy Tank. In my opinion, to add a Heavy Tank, they would need to disable those features which made up for their lack of one. Also, the M36 was originally doctrinal, which meant it wasn't planned to be used with any potential Heavy Tanks in the first place.

USF was designed with Crews and M36's because they had no Heavy Tank. In my opinion, to add a Heavy Tank, they would need to disable those features which made up for their lack of one. Also, the M36 was originally doctrinal, which meant it wasn't planned to be used with any potential Heavy Tanks in the first place.

The thing is that you can't gimp a base army for merely selecting a doctrine. OKW was designed to have no generalist medium armor, but elite armor gives them p4's with no penalty.

Removing vehicle crews from all USF armor would restrict players from using said doctrine, even if they didn't build the Pershing ever. Light armor and vehicle crews are an essential part of the USF early game, and removing crews from them will do nothing more than nerf the faction as a whole with this commander.

Also, the M36 isn't some god gun or anything. In terms of DPS, it is the worst TD. If a player techs, builds a jackson, then builds a pershing, it would be no different that an IS2 supported by an su85.

It makes more sense to simply restrict the pershing itself from having a crew.

The thing is that you can't gimp a base army for merely selecting a doctrine. OKW was designed to have no generalist medium armor, but elite armor gives them p4's with no penalty.

No, OKW with designed to have a resource penalty. So this would be like if there's a "Supply Doctrine" that gave them full resources and caches, without penalizing them in any other area to compensate.

Your comparing not having a heavy tank (unit) to a resource penalty. (Attribute)

Your comparing not having a heavy tank (unit) to a resource penalty. (Attribute)

That's the way the armies were designed, USF was designed to lack a Heavy Tank, and OKW was designed with a resource penalty in mind.

No, OKW with designed to have a resource penalty. So this would be like if there's a "Supply Doctrine" that gave them full resources and caches, without penalizing them in any other area to compensate.

You are confusing faction design with faction mission statement.

Faction mission statement for USF (summarized ): A versatile army with many generalist units capable of fulfilling multiple roles. Relies on mobility to break defensive lines.

Faction statement for OKW (summarized ): A specialist army that relies on veterancy. The okw rely on veteran soldiers to compensate for their resource disadvantages.

The faction design is what you are thinking about in terms of medium armor and heavy armor. Faction design has been changed many times before, like by giving ostheer a TD (stugg) and the soviets a tech NDA. Faction design changes always follow the mission statement, and the USF mission statement never said anything about a lack of Heavy units.

(If someone can track down the original mission statements for USF and OKW that would be swell. Couldn't find the exact wording.)

That's the way the armies were designed, USF was designed to lack a Heavy Tank, and OKW was designed with a resource penalty in mind.

Apples and oranges though.

USF lack heavy tank, OKW lacks mediums.

USF has crews, OKW has vet 5.

OKW has reduced munitions and fuel income, USF has (essentially) reduced MP income.

If there's a Pershing Doctrine, I hope they have it disable Vehicle Crews and M36's.

Breakthrough Armour Company:
Battle Ready (crews may not exit their vehicles for any reason)
Assault Engineers (make up for disabled crews)
Aerial Recon (P-47 recon plane lingers over an area)
M10 Wolverine (make up for disabled M36)
T26E3 Heavy Tank (the keystone of the commander)

Now look, it's not that I'd be entirely opposed to a Pershing doctrine that disables vehicle crews. The problem is the way you phrased it, in that this hypothetical doctrine has an "ability" which does nothing but disable crews.

If it was something like "Battle Ready: Crews may not exit their vehicles but automatically bail out upon death," or "Battle Ready: Crews may not exit their vehicles but REs are built with vet 2," then I could see it. The Battle Ready you have here isn't even an ability. It does nothing but hurt the user. These commanders only have five spots, and lots of times the difference between a good or bad commander is how many of those five slots are useful. Many people won't use a commander at all if even one of its abilities is poor. Nobody is going to pick a commander where one of those very limited five abilities is not only useless, but actually hurts the user too.

Besides that, although I understand why we absolutely cannot allow the Pershing to have a crew, I'd really be wary of using any commander that disabled vehicle crews, especially with nothing given in return. A major part of good USF play is shuffling your crews around and bailing them out to preserve vet. I often take my M20 crew out as soon as its done, replacing it with REs, and then later on replacing it with a major if I don't have an ambulance. Rifles can also be vetted faster by putting them in vehicles, and whenever I successfully save a vehicle's crew I can use them in combat later. They work great as AT troops, have excellent repair utility, and of course it's useful just having another squad on the field for map presence.

I can remember one match where I had a vehicle crew that went through three different vehicles. They came in on an AA truck, bailed out of that just in time, then got their hands on a Sherman, bailed out of that when they hit a mine in front of an AT gun, and finally took the helm of a Jackson which they used to take out multiple Tigers. Stories like that are one of the things I really love about CoH, how each battle tells a story (written in the burning carcasses of crashed planes of course), and that's another reason I'd like to avoid the total removal of crews, even just for a single commander.

But that combination is controlled by 2 separate players and only available in team games, not the same player.


USF was designed with Crews and M36's because they had no Heavy Tank. In my opinion, to add a Heavy Tank, they would need to disable those features which made up for their lack of one. Also, the M36 was originally doctrinal, which meant it wasn't planned to be used with any potential Heavy Tanks in the first place.

1. IS2+SU85 and King Tiger+JPIV are controlled by 1 player and I belive they are superior to Pershing+Jackson.

PzWefer was in T3 but for long long time we have it in T4. Point is, if something was planned it does not mean that it will be implemented.

OKW was designed with resources penalty. But in exchange, they have vet 5, resoursec conversion, non-doc King Tiger and forward bases able to hold sector by itself, not to mention free repairs, free healing, cheap tech, cheap upgrades etc.

USF were designed without heavy tank. In exchange they have tanks' crews. I belive OKW's advatanges are way greater than crew, which is used only to repairs tanks - what RE could do easily because of low HP. Tho I cannot see how crew can be considered as a something extra because there is no heavy. OKW has penalty but you can lock down sector or transfer resources to nullify it somehow. How USF is supposed to nullify lack of heavy?

And the most important thing, USF do nt have anything expcet Jackson to inflict damage in late game. I sad that few pages ago. All factions have plenty units with penetration 200+ yet USF have only M36.

__

About doctrine you have posted, well you assume that at some point player will always call for Pershing which is wrong assumption. In the end you might avoid Pershing but you still cannot use M36 or crew. It would way more better if this "battle ready" was part of M26 call in so the crews are disabled only when M26 hits the field, not before (tho I still think they should not).

So if I did not use Pershing, this doctrine would not provide me any advatange.

You are confusing faction design with faction mission statement.

Faction mission statement for USF (summarized ): A versatile army with many generalist units capable of fulfilling multiple roles. Relies on mobility to break defensive lines.

Faction statement for OKW (summarized ): A specialist army that relies on veterancy. The okw rely on veteran soldiers to compensate for their resource disadvantages.

The faction design is what you are thinking about in terms of medium armor and heavy armor. Faction design has been changed many times before, like by giving ostheer a TD (stugg) and the soviets a tech NDA. Faction design changes always follow the mission statement, and the USF mission statement never said anything about a lack of Heavy units.

(If someone can track down the original mission statements for USF and OKW that would be swell. Couldn't find the exact wording.)

http://www.coh2.org/news/18161/us-forces-army-preview

It does state that they were not advantaged with heavy tanks. But ultimately this argument is a non-sequitor, the implication being that it's somehow violating a sacred principle laid down by the gods of olympus. In reality, every doctrine has a series of advantages and disadvantages, and they can make the Pershing balanced by the rest of the doctrine being merely mediocre or "ok" at best. This doesn't "destroy" the American factions design, the fact that they lack heavies is more incidental, as with the OKW lacking medium tanks. You could change that without actually wrecking anything. Whereas if you had some doctrine that gave OKW full fuel income, that would have major consequences and basically ruin the balance of the faction since the timings, tech structure and so on are all based around this being reduced.

Also pretty funny since through patching they did experiment with changing the values for munitions income, didn't they have full muni income for one patch? Lol. None of this stuff is set in stone.

The point is to design a doctrine that won't become the de-facto mandatory USF doctrine. Having a Pershing alone makes the doctrine more attractive than it's counterparts to most players. If it's too useful, you'll see Pershings every game. Talk about stale metagames...

The point is to design a doctrine that won't become the de-facto mandatory USF doctrine. Having a Pershing alone makes the doctrine more attractive than it's counterparts to most players. If it's too useful, you'll see Pershings every game. Talk about stale metagames...

Not everyone is a fan of big tanks. As long as the Pershing is tied to tech and thus not ridiculously economic, it should be fine.

I know I'll take a Priest over a Pershing any day.

The point is to design a doctrine that won't become the de-facto mandatory USF doctrine. Having a Pershing alone makes the doctrine more attractive than it's counterparts to most players. If it's too useful, you'll see Pershings every game. Talk about stale metagames...

Eh, in team games maybe. But right now all we see is Inf, Airborne, and sometimes Rifle. In big team games we hardly see USF at all, but when we do see it, it's only AB and Inf, usually AB for the strafe. By choosing a Pershing, you're giving up the fantastic 1919 upgrades for riflemen, you're giving up the Priest for heavy arty, you're giving up the versatile and powerful airborne squad, you're giving up the amazing p47 strafe. It's impossible to comment on how viable the commander is until we get one, it could easily be overall worse than AB, even if the Pershing tank itself was very good. Particularly since it would be limited to 1 thanks to recent patches.

At least Pershing meta would be a change from the stale current one. And if there's a Pershing doctrine, and a Calliope doctrine, that would be two new ones that we might actually see in team games. Imagine having 4 viable USF doctrines

The point is to design a doctrine that won't become the de-facto mandatory USF doctrine. Having a Pershing alone makes the doctrine more attractive than it's counterparts to most players. If it's too useful, you'll see Pershings every game. Talk about stale metagames...

Well, I remember when people were saying that we will see E8 every single game, but we don't

It will be far away from mandatory.

No elite infantry.
No Rifles upgrades
No P47
No off map

Doctrine you have posted is really, really bad. I mean, disabling crew without Pershing on field, it's like lowering income to 85% with elite troops and if Tiger Ace hits the field, to 25%.

We see CAS everygame.

You know why I like OKW? because no matter which doctrine they pick up, there is always King Tiger, so they are not bounded to doctrine. I would like to try Pershing as unlockable after all officers.

And like above, right now it's Airborne/Infantry/Rifle. Would be great to get new doctrine which is not pudding like Recon or the one with WC51.

Well, I remember when people were saying that we will see E8 every single game, but we don't

To be fair, I did see them every game until they got price nerfed

if you remove USF from disembarking out of a vehicle. then remove Sturm pio fast repair speed. besides that feature is more of a risk if you caught out of ur tanks

if you remove USF from disembarking out of a vehicle. then remove Sturm pio fast repair speed. besides that feature is more of a risk if you caught out of ur tanks

c´mon without fast repairs your KT would take a few minutes to gain 100% hp from repairs

The point is to design a doctrine that won't become the de-facto mandatory USF doctrine. Having a Pershing alone makes the doctrine more attractive than it's counterparts to most players. If it's too useful, you'll see Pershings every game. Talk about stale metagames...

Sure. but you do know that USF only has Airborne that scales late game. and before u say go captain for AT dont ever bother its useless. Im not allied fan boy. but to me Germany had more Tiger 1s than any other tank in WW2 Kappa

Relic has to make more than one commander with the Perishing since the Tiger has so many options

Sure. but you do know that USF only has Airborne that scales late game. and before u say go captain for AT dont ever bother its useless. Im not allied fan boy. but to me Germany had more Tiger 1s than any other tank in WW2 Kappa

Relic has to make more than one commander with the Perishing since the Tiger has so many options

I think one will be enaught
And he will need to bediocre at best.
Just think about USA
it is having biggest early - mid game potencial (riflemen , fast m 20 , fast sherman) , whermacht can´t fight them cost effectively without mg´s that can be flanked in 1 vs 1
And this USA snowball will end into pershing so german player will be having REALLY hard time to go back to game with 1 tiger vs pershing+ sherman + m20 mines due ostheer is almost always having less map than USA if they are at same tactical level


And we dont want to give USA 6 pershing doctrines , all super useful , then we will be having pershing airborne , pershing dome engineers , pershing riflemen flamers pershing browling m1918 etc


NOPE
1 pershing doctrine will be enaught and it must sacrifice some early game power (no airborne , no assault engineer and no unique riflemen upgrades) to get late game power in form of pershing.

In all technicality both pershing and calliope were both confirmed before the Alpha even started.

I'm not following the scene anymore