Tank Hunter tactics change

Explain KV-1 in conscript support tactics then.

Or anti tank overwatch in NKVD RIFLE doctrine.

Sometimes abilities that function and have a purpose are better then slamming whatever you feel should go for the doctrine.

Easy.

KV1 plays into the original heavy "breakthrough" tank concept where a heavily armoured and slow tank is used in conjunction with infantry units to break through an enemy defensive line. In game terms, the KV1 is slow but resilient and has powerful mgs to be next to infantry, withstand AT fire and deal with MGs head on that try to delay the infantry advance. This "supports" conscripts. Conscripts also get ppsh smgs for this head on assault role, as well as repair kits for very fast repairs on the KV1 to keep the offensive going.

The anti tank overwatch ability makes perfect sense since the NKVD was not part of the army but a political branch of sorts. This makes way more sense in the context that instead of relying on their own AT like a normal Anti tank regiment would, they can quickly commission army assets for their own goals, which is translated in game as a muni ability to commission and "summon" anti tank assets from neighbouring anti tank regiments to support the NKVD commander.

You need both. An ability needs to make sense in the doctrine, like artillery in joint ops, shock troops in shock army, Guard rifles in Guard motor, and needs to be useful both in the commander context and what he gives you, as well as in general gameplay terms.

In my opinion and to loop this back to the original post, the ML20 doesn't fit the doctrine at all because it doesn't synergize with the concept or the other abilities. To that end, I proposed the T34/85 because they were an improved version of the T34/76 meant to be able to fight heavier German tanks, are still mobile to fit the aggressive "hunter" them, have good anti tank capabilities and prop up the commander's late game which is severely lacking atm since the T34/76 has no armour and little health.

The only thing diving it would be the dive bomb considering amount of axis commanders with offmaps and recon noone would be driving a tank to destroy ML-20 directly in first place

There's not a single OKW Commander with recon AND howitzer deletion. One or the other but not both

CAS, Lutwafffe supply, and Jaeger armor are the 3 on Ost iirc, and the first 2 of those are pretty much useless cmdrs

There's not a single OKW Commander with recon AND howitzer deletion. One or the other but not both

CAS, Lutwafffe supply, and Jaeger armor are the 3 on Ost iirc, and the first 2 of those are pretty much useless cmdrs

And team games do not exist at all?

Even in 1v1 you're better off building your own howitzer or use werfer or stuka to nuke ML-20.

Ambushing tanks who supposed drive into enemy base to destroy ML-20 is retarded by design, thats not happening unless you're playing against AI or you already lost the game (which is likely scenario if you locked this doctrine and built ML-20)

Even in 1v1 you're better off building your own howitzer or use werfer or stuka to nuke ML-20.

Wtf are you talking about? Neither of those can come even close to killing a howitzer. They can maybe decrew to reset the Vet, but I can just recrew it....

And just to have a chance at de-crewing it, you have to drive a 160hp vehicle very far forward. That's a pretty terrible idea for very little payoff

Ambushing tanks who supposed drive into enemy base to destroy ML-20 is retarded by design, thats not happening unless you're playing against AI or you already lost the game (which is likely scenario if you locked this doctrine and built ML-20)

You do realize Relic specifically made it so you can target the howitzer itself with tanks right? So your tank will target the weapon and actually destroy it, unlike the two suggestions you gave which are worthless

Wtf are you talking about? Neither of those can come even close to killing a howitzer. They can maybe decrew to reset the Vet, but I can just recrew it....



You do realize Relic specifically made it so you can target the howitzer itself with tanks right? So your tank will target the weapon and actually destroy it, unlike the two suggestions you gave which are worthless

Show me high level matches with ML-20 built in first place, then try finding one where ML-20 was destroyed by tanks directly as opposed by offmaps or artillery (assuming match wasnt already over by that point)

All I'm seeing is hilarious theorycrafting BS from you

Show me high level matches with ML-20 built in first place, then try finding one where ML-20 was destroyed by tanks directly as opposed by offmaps or artillery (assuming match wasnt already over by that point)

All I'm seeing is hilarious theorycrafting BS from you

.......

And team games do not exist at all?

Even in 1v1 you're better off building your own howitzer or use werfer or stuka to nuke ML-20.

Are you talking about team games or high level 1v1s? Make up your mind

You yourself literally just suggested building a howitzer in 1v1.......

........



Are you talking about team games or high level 1v1s? Make up your mind

You yourself literally just suggested building a howitzer in 1v1.......

I didnt suggest anything, I was talking about retarded design of "diving after ML-20 with tanks" you're defending here. It's irrelevant whether its 1v1 or team game as commander is useless in both anyway.

It's irrelevant whether its 1v1 or team game as commander is useless in both anyway.

That's your opinion, you're entitled to it

It's also your opinion that rocket arty can counter howitzers. And somehow you accuse me of theorycrafting lol, they can't even come close to being a reliable counter

That's your opinion, you're entitled to it

It's also your opinion that rocket arty can counter howitzers. And somehow you accuse me of theorycrafting lol, they can't even come close to being a reliable counter

As opposed to tanks? Yes, offmaps and artillery is far reliable counter to howitzers.

As for my opinion, that commander is nowhere to be seen as noone plays it, if thats my opinion it seems to be shared by overwhelming majority of player base.

Perhaps if they seen your 2000 IQ suggestions about going after ML-20 with tanks directly they might have changed their opinions and doctrine would've instantly became meta.

As opposed to tanks? Yes, offmaps and artillery is far reliable counter to howitzers.

No no no, don't move the goalposts. I was referring to your choice of werfer and stuka, which cannot come close to killing a howy

As for my opinion, that commander is nowhere to be seen as noone plays it, if thats my opinion it seems to be shared by overwhelming majority of player base.

You can literally see VonIvan using tank hunter tactics in multiple games in The latest highlight video

Perhaps if they seen your 2000 IQ suggestions about going after ML-20 with tanks directly they might changed their opinions and doctrine would've instantly became meta.

Its not my fault you don't know how to pull it off. Just gotta time the dive right. It only takes 3 shots, so you just have to distract them elsewhere. My partner and i do it plenty in 2v2

No no no, don't move the goalposts. I was referring to your choice of werfer and stuka, which cannot come close to killing a howy



You can literally see VonIvan using tank hunter tactics in multiple games in The latest highlight video



Its not my fault you don't know how to pull it off. Just gotta time the dive right. It only takes 3 shots, so you just have to distract them elsewhere. My partner and i do it plenty in 2v2

Just because doctrine itself is useless does not mean you cant outplay your opponent without it. If someone picks Partysans or Tank hunters and wins it's probably because they were better than opponent regardless of doctrine choice.

If someone want "bait" - B4 the better choice than ML-20, it have ability shoot to tanks, while light AT mines will help to immobilize armor for it.

Just because doctrine itself is useless does not mean you cant outplay your opponent without it. If someone picks Partysans or Tank hunters and wins it's probably because they were better than opponent regardless of doctrine choice.

You'll go round-and-round all day with the theory crafters on this. If you try playing some actual games with Tank Hunters you will discover:

Even players with ranking of 1500 usually screen their tanks with infantry when they push.
Lots of them buy minesweepers.
Infantry of any type reveal PTRS cons easily.
Players can recognize the PTRS symbol. Even those 1500 rank players will kite the PTRS cons long enough to hit them with a shell or two, wipe 2-4 models, and force a retreat.
Tigers wipe PTRS cons easily.
PTRS cons have such terrible AI that they can't protect damaged tanks from Gren squads that are trying to finish off the tank. Players will literally walk right through the squad and not worry about it. Even PGrens with shreks wipe PTRS cons easily.
The 180 muni PTAB bombing run is slow, doesn't wipe anything, and does significantly less damage than the 200 muni general bombing run. (Sky insists that it is great and hasn't changed, and will use the lack of anything in the patch notes as "proof" that he's correct. Now go to Youtube and watch the videos of it wiping 3-4 squads or a Tiger and try to convince yourself that it's never been nerfed.)
The regular snare from cons has longer range and works better than the AT grenades. The AT grenades are mostly just usable in an ambush. Their range needs to go up.

I tried Tank Hunters in some 2v2's last night. It went much worse than when I tried it in some 4v4's as the players were better. I was able to ambush some light vehicles in the early part of games with PTRS cons. I nearly got a Sturmtiger, doing a lot of damage with the AT grenades but lost a SU85 and T34 trying to finish it. Once players lose a vehicle to an ambush it becomes almost impossible to make another ambush. That reduces Tank Hunters to a gimmick that's good only for about 10 minutes of a game. After that, everything in the doctrine is a downgrade from either Mechanized Support or Guard Rifle Combined.

You'll go round-and-round all day with the theory crafters on this.

It's not theory. I've used it in games to great success. I'm sorry you haven't, but stop accusing me of lying.

I'm not the one who has made up patchnote changes that didn't happen and I'm not the one who trashed the Commander before they ever even tried it. That was you