Mobile Defense Doctrine
Posts: 3032 | Subs: 3
Comparing the timing from Ostheer and OKW puma, it seems like placing it in Ostheer t2 seems to be better I guess? Just straight up putting it into t2 would be probably slightly OP, so what about making it a T2 with sidetech for ~100mp/15 fuel like AEC? Or T2 requirement on top of 3-4 CPs.
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
I was stuck at lv13 with Ostheer for a long time and looked for a new doctrine to build around. I gave Mobile defense an try (this was all before the May patch when Ostheer was on life support) and saw mixed results.
Counterattack tactics needs to be removed. Ostheer is the most munitions starved faction in the game early on and there’s none to spare for decap speed.
Panzer tactician is amazing as always.
The Puma is stuck in a bad spot. Battlephase two comes too late and there’s no point getting the Puma, since with a bit more fuel you can get a T3 tanks. Either deploy it earlier or give T2 a sidetech to unlock the Puma, like the Soviets get for T3 7man conscripts where you pay more to get them earlier.
Osttruppen come way too late. I get the flavour where you sustain losses and want units to plug gaps, but a 0CP single Osttruppen squad would vastly improve the doctrine, especially recently with how early you can get Panzergrenadiers.
The command panzer IV is indeed good. I’d keep it as it is.
My suggestions for this doctrine would be:
0CP Osttruppen squad
2CP Panzer tactician
2CP Breakthrough Equipment
5CP Puma (at T2 and requiring either BP2 of unlocks with 150mp/20 fuel sidetech)
9CP Command Panzer IV
Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4
Being able to skip all teching and get both a good AT vehicle and a fantastic AI vehicle was what put this doctrine over the line.
With the CP4 tied into teching the puma is balanced with forcing you to get locked into this doctrine for a good AT answer to allied light vehicles.
Remove the battlephase requirement from puma, it just comes too late. Leave it in T2 so it has to go through a build time and can't be shat out as a panic call-in, but give it a 5CP requirement like it used to have so it doesn't come too early. It doesn't need to be sidetech, the "cost" is locking into a doctrine.
Posts: 4474
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
The puma was never the issue, it was the call in CP4.
Personally I do agree with this, and even though I think the Puma at T2 (with a build time and maybe with a 4-5 CP hybrid system) would likely not be overpowered, I do think it has a very high risk of making MobiDef hardcore meta again simply because the Puma is so much more reliable at countering Allied light vehicles than Ostheer's other options. And I'm not sure if we'd want that to return. People got sick of MobiDef being picked 9/10 games.
Posts: 3032 | Subs: 3
And I'm not sure if we'd want that to return. People got sick of MobiDef being picked 9/10 games.
That was one of my concerns as well, but why are some allies factions allowed to do call-in strats with Greyhound and Valentine so easily for the reason "there is no good place for them in any of the tech structure" (which is true), but then the Ostheer Puma has such steep requirements. Unlike with the 2 other mentioned call-ins there is a place to put it behind tech. But Battlephase 2... the same requirement of StugE and CP4 does not seem right
Posts: 1954
The puma was never the issue, it was the call in CP4.
Being able to skip all teching and get both a good AT vehicle and a fantastic AI vehicle was what put this doctrine over the line.
With the CP4 tied into teching the puma is balanced with forcing you to get locked into this doctrine for a good AT answer to allied light vehicles.
Remove the battlephase requirement from puma, it just comes too late. Leave it in T2 so it has to go through a build time and can't be shat out as a panic call-in, but give it a 5CP requirement like it used to have so it doesn't come too early. It doesn't need to be sidetech, the "cost" is locking into a doctrine.
I haven't played a lot of 1v1's, but what used to be nice was that I could just build T1 + T2 and use call-ins. It was like playing Soviets back then. Since you have to get BP2 anyway, the Puma doesn't arrive much earlier than a Stug, and the newly improved Ostwind isn't too bad compared to the CP4. Now it seems like you're not only NOT getting a panic Puma, you're losing access to Tigers/MHT's/etc.
It is strange that it builds from the Light Mechanized building but requires Battlephase 2. Dropping the BP2 requirement and setting the build time probably equalizes the timing with the OKW puma.
The Osttruppen should be 0 cp and single squads. At 3 cp it should be something like Relief Infantry, except that Relief Infantry is worthless currently.
Posts: 3032 | Subs: 3
The Osttruppen should be 0 cp and single squads. At 3 cp it should be something like Relief Infantry, except that Relief Infantry is worthless currently.
Wouldnt it be quite useful at 3cp if the chance for lmg42 was 100% on both squads? Right now it's only 25%. And I dont think we need a third 0cp osttruppen commander
Posts: 1890 | Subs: 1
Posts: 857 | Subs: 2
The Puma is causing a real dilemma: We dont want the PAnic Puma meta back (because the doctrine is the only one which gives you Puma access) but Aerafield is of course also right in showing that the unit and the whole doctrine is in a really bad state.
I personally would prefer a radical solution: Replace the Puma but give the doctrine a really strong unit back. Additionally the Osttruppen reserve should be replaced.
I think the 250 from German infantry would be a great fit, and this could be the chance to give the wehrmacht its own elite inf call-in.
Doctrine could look like this then:
- Passiv SdKfz250 or CP2 250 with Pgrens
- Passiv CommandoPz4
- 0CP Counter Offensive Tactic
- 2CP Panzer Tactician
- 2CP Wehrmacht Falls
Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2
A lot of people would like to see an Ost KT and I think this would be the best doctrine to put it in as it fits the theme perfectly.
Plus maybe replace the Osttruppen reserves with the regular osttruppen call in or a special squad that can merge, maybe repair and have an upgrade to Panzerbusche 39s since they won't be able to build trenches and sandbags so they'll need more utility.
Posts: 1614 | Subs: 3
- Turn Osttruppen Reserves into something useful like AT-rifle Osttruppen.
- Let Counterattack Tactics decap quicker instead of cap quicker (it's called counterattack amirite).
If Puma timing gets changed though, I think it should just be buildable from T2 at 5 CP's.
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
The Puma is causing a real dilemma: We dont want the PAnic Puma meta back (because the doctrine is the only one which gives you Puma access) but Aerafield is of course also right in showing that the unit and the whole doctrine is in a really bad state.
I personally would prefer a radical solution: Replace the Puma but give the doctrine a really strong unit back. Additionally the Osttruppen reserve should be replaced.
I think the 250 from German infantry would be a great fit, and this could be the chance to give the wehrmacht its own elite inf call-in.
Doctrine could look like this then:
- Passiv SdKfz250 or CP2 250 with Pgrens
- Passiv CommandoPz4
- 0CP Counter Offensive Tactic
- 2CP Panzer Tactician
- 2CP Wehrmacht Falls
If you wanna give Falls to the Ostheer, which imo would be a good fit, it needs to be through either the Luftwaffe Support or Close Air Support doctrines.
Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4
Personally I do agree with this, and even though I think the Puma at T2 (with a build time and maybe with a 4-5 CP hybrid system) would likely not be overpowered, I do think it has a very high risk of making MobiDef hardcore meta again simply because the Puma is so much more reliable at countering Allied light vehicles than Ostheer's other options. And I'm not sure if we'd want that to return. People got sick of MobiDef being picked 9/10 games.
I don't think making a doctrine useful is a good reason to leave it... not useful?
It should be a goal to make as many doctrines viable as possible, right now it is just not worth using ever.
The game is in a much better state than it was 2 years ago. Ostheer has been dealing with allied light vehicles fine without the puma all this time. Making the Puma relevant again just opens up another viable commander, it isn't 100% necessary right now to rely on the puma. I'd expect mobile defense to be popular again after this, but not any more than the other meta commanders right now. Don't let past memories of this doctrine taint your thoughts. You said it yourself, it wouldn't be too strong.
Posts: 3032 | Subs: 3
I don't think making a doctrine useful is a good reason to leave it... not useful?
It should be a goal to make as many doctrines viable as possible, right now it is just not worth using ever.
The game is in a much better state than it was 2 years ago. Ostheer has been dealing with allied light vehicles fine without the puma all this time. Making the Puma relevant again just opens up another viable commander, it isn't 100% necessary right now to rely on the puma. I'd expect mobile defense to be popular again after this, but not any more than the other meta commanders right now. Don't let past memories of this doctrine taint your thoughts. You said it yourself, it wouldn't be too strong.
+1
Posts: 1954
Wouldnt it be quite useful at 3cp if the chance for lmg42 was 100% on both squads? Right now it's only 25%. And I dont think we need a third 0cp osttruppen commander
Getting both of them with LMG42's would make it worthwhile.
I wouldn't replace the Puma in this doctrine like some people are suggesting. The Puma is in a league of its own with vision, speed, good AT, and decent survivability.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
These 2 units should simply not be in the same commander.
Then both of them could be re-balanced.
Both units could become build-able from HQ like Panzer j with the Puma requiring requiring BP2 or T2 and the CPzIV requiring PB3 or T3 or CP restrictions.
Posts: 3032 | Subs: 3
Both Puma and CP4 where nerfed to oblivion because of this commander.
These 2 units should simply not be in the same commander.
Then both of them could be re-balanced.
Both units could become build-able from HQ like Panzer j with the Puma requiring requiring BP2 or T2 and the CPzIV requiring PB3 or T3 or CP restrictions.
as Tobis already mentioned, the real issue of the old doctrine was being able to skip t3 and t4 just by getting some pumas to shutdown the light vehicles, followed by a very fast command p4 to finish the game. This isnt possible anymore with CP4 requiring t3. If people would just spam pumas again they have 0 tanks and extremely delayed tech
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
as Tobis already mentioned, the real issue of the old doctrine was being able to skip t3 and t4 just by getting some pumas to shutdown the light vehicles, followed by a very fast command p4 to finish the game. This isnt possible anymore with CP4 requiring t3. If people would just spam pumas again they have 0 tanks and extremely delayed tech
This is commander design issue/consistency and not a balance issue. Having Puma (build-able in t2), CPzIV (call-in) and Panzer J (build able from HQ) all having different ways of becoming available makes little sense and confuses things for no good reason.
Having to built T2 to get access to an doctrinal vehicle make little sense, is rather unique and
very restrictive.
All 3 units can become build able from HQ and have different tech requirement. That will make them more consistent while increasing built diversity at same time.
When it comes to the commander design I had pointed out that no tech call-in with good AT and good AI should not be available in the same commander a long time ago.
Actually in order to fix commander one should set some rules and redesign many commanders.
Posts: 818
I think build time is good to give players who rush light vehicles time to use them before insta callins end them after selecting the doctrine.
I also made a whole thread on this like last month with a whole rework idea (It includes a 250 HT) MOBILE DEFENSE since when are osttruppen mobile
Still good to keep bringing this up though I think it would be neat to have some strats that arent tiger though that thing is the meta now.
Livestreams
11 | |||||
18 | |||||
8 | |||||
2 | |||||
2 | |||||
1 | |||||
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.589215.733+4
- 4.1101614.642+2
- 5.305114.728+1
- 6.916405.693-2
- 7.271108.715+22
- 8.721440.621+3
- 9.1041674.607-2
- 10.17146.788+1
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
8 posts in the last week
40 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, Durddcdy23
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM