[DBP] Royal Engineer Doctrine feedback thread

In order to receive better-quality feedback about commander changes, we will be creating individual threads for each revamped commander.

The reason for this is to draw the maximum amount of scrutiny to changed abilities so that we avoid going to the extremes of perpetuating useless commanders, or proliferating Artillery-Cover like commanders.

----

Intent of the changes

Our general intent with the Royal Engineer doctrine is to create a defensive-oriented doctrine, with good access to repair boosts (to counteract repair speed nerfs in the British faction), a breakthrough unit (AVRE).

The Commander Vehicle ability in the doctrine is intended to be the main anchoring point of the doctrine that allows power to shift from one side of the battlefield to another.

We acknowledge that the revamped Royal Engineer Doctrine enjoyability may appear to pale in comparison to the revamped Commando Doctrine. However, that is attributable to the fact that Brits lack proper aggressive commanders. No matter how tempting it is to repurpose every single British commander around aggression, there have to be some defensive-themed commanders, so that there is enough variety in available options.

Stand Fast

Our intend with the changes to the ability is to make individual emplacements more sustainable to maintain. While we appreciate that the community is not too keen to accept emplacements as a valid British army doctrine, Brits and emplacements are unfortunately intertwined with one another.

If you can come up with a thematic substitute to Stand Fast that will make sense for the doctrine, we will gladly replace the ability.

We don't consider Sapper Flamers a legitimate substitute at this point, until the core faction's innate weakness to early garrisons is resolved (e.g., WASP, mortar pit forward investment). This is because we want to decouple commander design from the fact that the core faction lacks some very basic tools.

Vehicle Repairs

The ability has been redesigned to focus repairs where they need them the most. At the same time, removing the mass-repair aspect of the ability also prevents it from overperforming when the army has reached critical mass.

Command Vehicle

This is supposed to be the mainstay of the doctrine. Players are expected to use durable and/or high-utility tanks to create aura units. Command Vehicle synergises extremely well with 6-pounders and infantry units. To a lesser extend, command vehicles can also assist in tank combat.

If the new commander feels meh and you haven't used Command Vehicle yet, that's probably why.

AVRE

This is meant to be the main breakthrough vehicle of the doctrine. Higher armour but lower HP will make the AVRE easier to maintain with repairs, while making it more vulnerable to flanks.

Changes will bring AVRE's utility up to par with the Sturmtiger, since it will now be able to dabble in a semi-AT role. Compared to the Sturmtiger, the AVRE is squishier and with a weaker attack; however it is much more mobile (turret, reloads on-the-move)

Flame mortar attack

The ability has been redesign to give Brits a more sustainable access to off-maps, which they currently lack. It's meant to be a cheap ability that the player can use to force a pak wall to relocate.

Conclusions

In order to achieve mastery with the Royal Engineer Commander, you should experiment with the new options you have for using Command Vehicle with (AEC, Cromwell, Centaur and Churchills; probably not Comets). You should train to use AVRE to threaten stationary weapon teams, as well as to make it cause enemy tank assaults to stand-off.

Stand Fast

Our intend with the changes to the ability is to make individual emplacements more sustainable to maintain. While we appreciate that the community is not too keen to accept emplacements as a valid British army doctrine, Brits and emplacements are unfortunately intertwined with one another.

If you can come up with a thematic substitute to Stand Fast that will make sense for the doctrine, we will gladly replace the ability.

We don't consider Sapper Flamers a legitimate substitute at this point, until the core faction's innate weakness to early garrisons is resolved (e.g., WASP, mortar pit forward investment). This is because we want to decouple commander design from the fact that the core faction lacks some very basic tools.

I'm debating the possibility of featuring Recovery Sappers, but as-is that ability is very weak. It would be a fairly simple solution to improve it by implementing it as a sidegrade that grants normal Sappers the ability to salvage wrecks and abandoned weapons/crews. Possibly add in a repair speed bonus as well to help counter act the repair speed nerfs; this is a doctrine all about Sappers, after all.

Overall I think the current version of the revamp is pretty good - it definitely isn't as flashy as you say but I think it can be probably be good if used in the right hands.

The flame mortars still feel kind of funky to use to me where many shells seem to land in close proximity to each other - making it a so-so area denial tool given the delay between shells that gives the opposing player more than enough time to dodge the fire- it makes the fire seem like a pointless afterthought (units either die to impact damage or dodge completely). It feels like a weird hybrid of Major Arty and Incendiary Barrage but doesn't excel in either direction of being a cheap ability to force team weapons to move or a fast-landing area denial ability than can kill by DoT. It's basically feels like a too-expensive Major Arty with pointless fire effects added.

I still like my idea of a Sapper call-in to replace Stand Fast- something like a Tank-Hunter Sapper that comes with a PIAT and can lay immobilizing or stun mines or can upgrade to be a heavy sapper without Anvil (extra repairs and defensive by nature). I think it would be interesting to have commanders that allow you to dabble in Hammer or Anvil abilities without having to fully commit yourself to that tech path anyway.

I like the direction overall. Flashy no, but pretty nice overall, especially with flame mortars and self repair. The only major issue I have is Designate Command Vehicle is strong as hell, but kinda clunky. You either have to wait until after the AEC has dealt with opposing shock vehicles to upgrade it or wait until the AVRE. I like EtherealDragon's idea of AT sappers or just AT Sections to give some punch to the doctrine and partially free up the AEC to counter vehicles.

Would replacing Stand Fast with an ability that allows engineers to build trenches, sandbags and hull down tanks work?

Would replacing Stand Fast with an ability that allows engineers to build trenches, sandbags and hull down tanks work?

I don't think so, no. I don't think Sappers building sandbags and such really adds much when you almost certainly have Tommys that do that for you already. Maybe if they were the old password protected trenches that only you could use... Hulldown is potentially interesting but given how little you see it used with OST I don't think many people would be excited for it. I think Stand Fast has much more utility but then again I value abilities that minimize your micro load and being able to remotely repair emplacements is much more useful.

Is it possible to introduce an ability that allows sappers to improve emplacments slightly more effectively when they garrison them? That could be thematic/interesting. The obvious counterplay being that it requires additional investment (the sappers themselves) and that they can take damage/casualties when garrisoned (meaning flames are ideal)

With the changes to the Command Vehicle, why is the UC still not able to be one?

Would replacing Stand Fast with an ability that allows engineers to build trenches, sandbags...

Seems a bit redundant since Tommies already do that and are readily available.

...and hull down tanks work?

Would be interesting on most units, but sweet Jesus a 75 range Firefly would be horrifying

I would not mind seeing an "elite" engineer call in such as scavenge. There was once a demolition sapper once idea'ed as well in which there is a special icon for them. There as also CoH1 Slit Trenches in the game files as well. Maybe a overpowered seeing the model is in the ground but prehaps it does not block vehicle movement because of it?

Hulldown could interesting. Whats worst than a bofors? A hull down Ostwind. Worst than that? A hull down Centaur. Perhaps also when in the hull down state a pintel mount (for the units that can) is added?

i concern that there is a reason for nerfing commander vehies buff. while axis commander has its own power to deal with enemy and can buff his allies too.

I think the changes to this commander are good, and certainly make it a decent choice now.

Great job!

Would be interesting on most units, but sweet Jesus a 75 range Firefly would be horrifying

Hull down sounds like a great idea though, would support. I think it in of itself is more than powerful enough, and would not necessitate any further folded in bonuses.

Hull down sounds like a great idea though, would support. I think it in of itself is more than powerful enough, and would not necessitate any further folded in bonuses.

Hull down sounds indeed good, don't make it to powerfull though. I dont want nightmares of 3-second squad wipes hulled down Centaurs ^^
The idea is nice though!

The recon plane from the command vehicle can simply go. Other commander lose a whole slot just for the recon plane.

The bonus of the command vehicle are way too high since the vehicle can stay in the back. It also arrives to early.

All auras should scale with the unit that provides them, forcing the player to move the unit into harms way to fully take advantage of the unit and not simply replace it if he loses it.

The recon plane from the command vehicle can simply go. Other commander lose a whole slot just for the recon plane.

The bonus of the command vehicle are way too high since the vehicle can stay in the back. It also arrives to early.

All auras should scale with the unit that provides them, forcing the player to move the unit into harms way to fully take advantage of the unit and not simply replace it if he loses it.

If the bonus is truly too much, what stats would you give to the aura?
How does the aura of the command vehicle compare to other aura units?
What is the combat capabilities of the command vehicle compared to other aura units?

If the bonus is truly too much, what stats would you give to the aura?
How does the aura of the command vehicle compare to other aura units?
What is the combat capabilities of the command vehicle compared to other aura units?

the issue is that the aura is to strong for the time frame (compared to other like PZIV and PZV).

I would suggest a 2 part system.

A number of small bonuses that are always on. These bonuses could increase with veterancy of the vehicle. That would make the player either risk his vehicle for higher bonuses or settle for less.
It would also have an impact when ones loses the vehicle.

A second part with activated bonus giving some added bonuses for a limited time with a cost.

One could even make the bonuses to work in only specific type of units like infatry/vehicles.

For instance the passive could work for infatry only and the active for vehicles only.

These changes can help better balance the command vehicles across all stages of the game.

Penalties can also be adjusted so that they are different according to the type of the vehicle used. light meduim heavy.

the issue is that the aura is to strong for the time frame (compared to other like PZIV and PZV).

I would suggest a 2 part system.

A number of small bonuses that are always on. These bonuses could increase with veterancy of the vehicle. That would make the player either risk his vehicle for higher bonuses or settle for less.
It would also have an impact when ones loses the vehicle.

A second part with activated bonus giving some added bonuses for a limited time with a cost.

One could even make the bonuses to work in only specific type of units like infatry/vehicles.

For instance the passive could work for infatry only and the active for vehicles only.

These changes can help better balance the command vehicles across all stages of the game.

Penalties can also be adjusted so that they are different according to the type of the vehicle used. light meduim heavy.

If none of this is possible, and we have to use fixed bonuses, what bonuses should, say, a command cromwell give?

If none of this is possible, and we have to use fixed bonuses, what bonuses should, say, a command cromwell give?

Hmmm then one could possible make the type of vehicles give specific bonuses to specific units.

For instance:
A Cm. Cromwell could give reduced target size to vehicles to promote flanking
A Cm FF could give penetration bonuses
A Cm Churchill could give infatry cover status so that they can fight as in cover (without the actual defensive bonuses from cover)
and so on...

One also has to keep a mind on the CP it becomes available. One could try to balance it by requiring higher CP for heavier vehicles. (a refit option might be need to become available for lighter versions of the command vehicle.)

Or one can scrap it as upgrade and make a valentine command vehicle available...

Hmmm then one could possible make the type of vehicles give specific bonuses to specific units.

For instance:
A Cm. Cromwell could give reduced target size to vehicles to promote flanking
A Cm FF could give penetration bonuses
A Cm Churchill could give infatry cover status so that they can fight as in cover (without the actual defensive bonuses from cover)
and so on...

One also has to keep a mind on the CP it becomes available. One could try to balance it by requiring higher CP for heavier vehicles. (a refit option might be need to become available for lighter versions of the command vehicle.)

Or one can scrap it as upgrade and make a valentine command vehicle available...

What are the precise bonus that you recommend that are not "too much"?

Currently the aura gives:
-20% reload
-20% cooldown
+20% accuracy