Profile of aerafield

Jump back to quoted post6 Jun 2019, 04:16 AMNaOCl

The Close Air Support Doctrine is fundamentally a good idea. Thematically having a doctrine based around the Ju-87 is really cool and reads like it would be interesting to play. Although this is not the case in execution. It has some neat skill based abilities which allow for:

• Support of Infantry
  
• Light anti-tank
  
• Fuel/Muni generation
  
• A way to neuralize a point/team weapons
  
  

The problems with the doctrine make it so that it is impossible to use effectively, even near a map edge. The main use seems to be to provide allies with fuel/munitions to gain a tech advantage whilst neglecting most of the other abilities.

Some of the problems include:

• The implied synergy between abilities is almost non-existent
  
• Almost all abilities are too hard to effectively land
  
• the abilities cost more than they accomplish (in most cases)
  
• For the munition cost, similar abilities provide far more effect.
  
  

It would be good to change this doctrine to allow it to see usage and viability in 1v1/2v2 settings, without becoming op.

Proposed changes include:

• Give mg strafe more damage
  
• Allow anti-tank strafe to stun or blind or engine damage
  
• Stuka bomb should do more damage to heavy tanks
  
  

What do you think?

Jump back to quoted post6 Jun 2019, 22:15 PMSander93

I have no idea why Hamburg needs to have those canals that throw any flanking possibilities out the window. The routes and the space is there, but there's nowhere to cross. I guess the lower ranked players just like to sit at a bridge/chokepoint or throw units at it. Perhaps it's The Scheldt syndrome.

Jump back to quoted post6 Jun 2019, 15:26 PMShadowLinkX37

Invised a post for defamation and a follow up post.

Jump back to quoted post2 Jun 2019, 10:44 AMdasheepeh

don't forget the massive annoyance that nearby owned inf units retreat once the officer model dies