Assault Guards into more doctrines!

thompson upgrade for assault guard is so awesome

I hope the bazooka upgrade(airborn version) will also be added

by the way, I looked for a few doctrines for which assault guards would be added


advanced warfare tactics

merge conscript ppsh41 and repair kit -> conscript support kit

The assault guard will be able to revive this doctrine's identity more




tank hunter tactics

merge PMD6 mine and ambush tactics -> Tank hunter ambush tactics

The problem of this doctrine is "lack of AI " and "conscript PTRS is not strong"

If the assault guard is added, it can be used as an AI infantry (thompson guard) or to supplement the AT ability of a poor conscript ptrs (bazooka guard).

thompson upgrade for assault guard is so awesome

I hope the bazooka upgrade(airborn version) will also be added

by the way, I looked for a few doctrines for which assault guards would be added


advanced warfare tactics

merge conscript ppsh41 and repair kit -> conscript support kit

The assault guard will be able to revive this doctrine's identity more




tank hunter tactics

merge PMD6 mine and ambush tactics -> Tank hunter ambush tactics

The problem of this doctrine is "lack of AI " and "conscript PTRS is not strong"

If the assault guard is added, it can be used as an AI infantry (thompson guard) or to supplement the AT ability of a poor conscript ptrs (bazooka guard).

So ppsh now gives hit the dirt, PPsh and repair?

Keep the damned halftrack and make the guards inside even better. The HT bundle would prevent spam and the power of the Ass Guards would make the single investment worth it. Thompsons already probably accomplish this to an extent, but maybe reducing their RA to at least regular Guard levels and replacing their Vet 1 Trip Flares with something moderately useful would be good.

No, the combination of HT and infantry is a terrible design. If you need HT go and build HT. People in the Assault Guard need infantry, and notice this is much worse and less varied than Paratroopers and Rangers. If you leave AG in the current mode, it's just a huge stupid design that no fraction has: 51 0mp and 30 fuel for not the best infantry and HT that most players need only as an M17 AA. I need two squads of 1020 mp and 60 fuel and two dubious HT. Suppose I lost one unit and I want them to still be two, I will spend 1530 mp and 90 fuel and three dubious HT. Excuse me, but such a design can only support the mentally retarded.

So ppsh now gives hit the dirt, PPsh and repair?

No, only in this doctrine

The M3 would be unique to the commander and would allow the bundle to be cheaper and arrive earlier. Having a stock unit appearing in doctrinal bundle makes little sense unless it allow you building skipping and that is not the case here.

Thompson Guards are quite strong and their availability should be limited. The other option is stop coming in a bundle and become CP3.

im still not seeing how you can make elite infantry that cant be obtained without a fuel cost worth it. not sure how i feel about 3 cp but if it means they dont have a fuel cost i figure thats alright...

I realise that some people would like to buy a bunch of these infantry and charge around, but I really think that would be worse design that what we have at the moment. You've got to look at the rest of the doctrine to see its viability.

The dshks enable you to lock down the map very effectively. In combination with the quadmount, you have very effective 'crowd control', which makes sniper play easier and more rewarding. On top of that you have assault guards who have serious shock value at 3 CP since another unit can be added to the M5 (such as a minesweeper, a flamer engie or a ptrs penal). When the get to vet 2 they can 1v1 pretty much any axis unit.

On current patch, the Guards are trash. Play the balance patch and test stuff out. I really enjoy the flavour of this commander at the moment since it enables some of my favourite Soviet units and playstyles.

On a related note - Quadmount halftracks are going to get even more useful on patch due to the rebalancing of OKW commanders and the buffs to the Breakthrough Doctrine Sturm Offizier. Even buffed maxims won't be up to the job of pushing back Breakthrough blobs, since the offizier just forces them to retreat. The quadmount shuts down those plays very nicely (just watch out for long-range raketens).

I realise that some people would like to buy a bunch of these infantry and charge around, but I really think that would be worse design that what we have at the moment. You've got to look at the rest of the doctrine to see its viability.

The dshks enable you to lock down the map very effectively. In combination with the quadmount, you have very effective 'crowd control', which makes sniper play easier and more rewarding. On top of that you have assault guards who have serious shock value at 3 CP since another unit can be added to the M5 (such as a minesweeper, a flamer engie or a ptrs penal). When the get to vet 2 they can 1v1 pretty much any axis unit.

On current patch, the Guards are trash. Play the balance patch and test stuff out. I really enjoy the flavour of this commander at the moment since it enables some of my favourite Soviet units and playstyles.

Once again, if you need an HT, buy it separately, enough to justify the stupid design, because all the elite infantry require fuel, right? Let's add fuel for the Paratroopers and Fallschirmjäger. After all, the plane that dubbed them requires a lot of fuel, and you do not want their spam to be?

I realise that some people would like to buy a bunch of these infantry and charge around, but I really think that would be worse design that what we have at the moment. You've got to look at the rest of the doctrine to see its viability.

The dshks enable you to lock down the map very effectively. In combination with the quadmount, you have very effective 'crowd control', which makes sniper play easier and more rewarding. On top of that you have assault guards who have serious shock value at 3 CP since another unit can be added to the M5 (such as a minesweeper, a flamer engie or a ptrs penal). When the get to vet 2 they can 1v1 pretty much any axis unit.

On current patch, the Guards are trash. Play the balance patch and test stuff out. I really enjoy the flavour of this commander at the moment since it enables some of my favourite Soviet units and playstyles.

Hundreds of manpower into mgs, snipers, likley penals and then delaying armour for a halftrack bundle for 1 squad? I hope you are wiping every enemy squad from the start of the game else you are going to be so out numbered you won't have the map control for anything but the halftrack.

They should come in the Assault M3 from USF's mechanized. That would give Soviets a doctrinal option to heal on the front (it can drop med kits). It would also be more unique than just a halftrack you can get from T3 anyway.

A slight cost decrease would be in order, because the Assault M3 doesn't scale exceptionally when unable to put Zooks in it and when compared to the M5 quad. I was thinking 490-ish manpower and 30 fuel.

I'm glad you mentioned the fuel cost. Of course another key aspect of synergy with this doctrine is the muni -to-fuel drops. You don't have much else to spend muni on, so after you get the halftrack bundle you can usually get at least two of these done before you get your first M4 sherman at roughly the same timing as a fast T34.

The call-in nature of the halftrack means it comes at a much more useful timing and that you are able to delay the manpower cost of T3 until later.

There are lots of things to spend your manpower on for sure. It's why I don't go pure penals - usually 2 cons and 2 penals into sniper works best. The tradeoff to the high upfront manpower costs for the supporting units are that you don't bleed as much and you can secure map control even against superior line (blob) infantry.

What are the benefits of this playstyle?

- Force your opponent to invest in early at (for the halftrack) and indirect fire (for the dshks), reducing their direct anti-infantry ability and delaying their tech.

- Prevent your opponent from blobbing to victory by abusing sturm offizier or through sheer numbers.

- Present a very scary timing for opponents trying to secure map control with bunkers/snipers/mgs/light vehicle by charging them with a CP3 halftrack that can be outfitted to 1-shot any of these.

- Get a medium armour advantage by popping out a M4C Sherman at a fast-T34 timing. Your 2nd, 3rd and 4th tank/tank destroyer/artillery piece will also arrive faster than your opponent.

Seems good to me!

I'm glad you mentioned the fuel cost. Of course another key aspect of synergy with this doctrine is the muni -to-fuel drops. You don't have much else to spend muni on, so after you get the halftrack bundle you can usually get at least two of these done before you get your first M4 sherman at roughly the same timing as a fast T34.

The call-in nature of the halftrack means it comes at a much more useful timing and that you are able to delay the manpower cost of T3 until later.

There are lots of things to spend your manpower on for sure. It's why I don't go pure penals - usually 2 cons and 2 penals into sniper works best. The tradeoff to the high upfront manpower costs for the supporting units are that you don't bleed as much and you can secure map control even against superior line (blob) infantry.

What are the benefits of this playstyle?

- Force your opponent to invest in early at (for the halftrack) and indirect fire (for the dshks), reducing their direct anti-infantry ability and delaying their tech.

- Prevent your opponent from blobbing to victory by abusing sturm offizier or through sheer numbers.

- Present a very scary timing for opponents trying to secure map control with bunkers/snipers/mgs/light vehicle by charging them with a CP3 halftrack that can be outfitted to 1-shot any of these.

- Get a medium armour advantage by popping out a M4C Sherman at a fast-T34 timing. Your 2nd, 3rd and 4th tank/tank destroyer/artillery piece will also arrive faster than your opponent.

Seems good to me!

Well, yeah, if you are able to do that, and most of the players don't.
And about doctrines: it depends on what exact difference they will have from the Lend Lease doc., and if they won't have any, then yeah, that's a question.