It is currently Mon Mar 27, 2017 1:37 pm



Welcome
Welcome to Victoria 2 multiplayer forum.


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Discussion on Doctrines
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 9:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:10 am
Posts: 67
So based on previous experience and the last session it's clear for future games we need a doctrine rework as Superior Firepower is a no Brainer, except under a few circumstances where Grand Battle Plan works acceptable. So with this thread I hope that we can discuss solutions that we all find acceptable such that all trees are viable.

I will be posting update suggestions for Mass Assault and Mobile Warfare at some point soon. I hope that people will provide their two cents on the following criteria:

1. Whether you are OK with using said change in a competitive game.
2. Whether you think the change actually make the doctrine viable.
3. Whether you think, some or all of the changes make the doctrine too strong.
4. Whether you think, some or all of the changes break the spirit of the doctrine.

Now I should also note my tweaks try to do the following:

1. Make it viable
2. Keep the spirit of the doctrine; otherwise we might as well just use a single doctrine.
3. Make the changes thematic to what the actual doctrine unlock name and description imply. Mostly just a personal preference and consistency action though.

I can post Mass Assault tweak tomorrow, and Mobile Warfare by Sunday at the latest.

Also I encourage people to spit ball here, I am happy to tweak differently if it satisfies the above criteria better. I am also perfectly willing to do any and all the molding required to do these. (Legitimately it would take like 10 minutes or so given my designs)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Discussion on Doctrines
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 6:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:10 am
Posts: 67
Mass Assault suggestion

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k2q ... sp=sharing

http://www.hoi4wiki.com/Land_doctrine#Mobile_Warfare

Edit: The top link is to my suggestion and the bottom link is to the default tree format.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Discussion on Doctrines
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 10:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 9:54 pm
Posts: 68
While the Mass Assault changes are good, it still doesn't look good enough compared to superior firepower. I think it should probably buff leg infantry slightly more, unless you're planning on outright nerfing superior firepower. Also, the left side of Mass Assault tree looks far superior to the right side. While the 5% recruitable pop is nice most majors will not need this, especially ones that would consider using Mass Assault.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Discussion on Doctrines
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 11:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:10 am
Posts: 67
Sothar wrote:
While the Mass Assault changes are good, it still doesn't look good enough compared to superior firepower. I think it should probably buff leg infantry slightly more, unless you're planning on outright nerfing superior firepower. Also, the left side of Mass Assault tree looks far superior to the right side. While the 5% recruitable pop is nice most majors will not need this, especially ones that would consider using Mass Assault.


The Left Side is designed to be better in most circumstances, that was the vanilla design intent and I haven't changed it. However, it can be incredible strong if used properly, as the combination of huge recovery rate increase and combat width decrease allows you to have crazy heavy org density and division recycling.

That being said it could need a buff, I'm afraid It might get over buffed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Discussion on Doctrines
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2017 6:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 6:03 pm
Posts: 19
Rather than trying to buff multiple doctrines, it would probably be much easier just to nerf superior firepower. It might also have the effect of making doctrines slightly less important, but that wouldn't really be a huge change. I am worried that if we get into buffing the other doctrines, we could make completing your doctrine even more important (which causes problems when some countries have more doctrine research focuses than others) and make armies just too strong.

Also regarding your suggestion for improving mass assault, I would still be using superior firepower 90% of the time even with those changes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Discussion on Doctrines
PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 3:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:10 am
Posts: 67
After thinking on it a bit, it does look like providing a nerf (either soft or hard) to Superior Firepower will be the best action. With that I have two suggestions that I would like to hear input on:

1. Soft Nerf: Add an event that fires for anyone who has researched Superior Firepower (MTTH of 1 day or hour if possible) that adds a national spirit: Excessive Ammo use causing +5% production cost on Infantry equipment, ATG, Artillery, tanks, AA, SPG, TD, SPAA.

2. Semi hard nerf: Same event as described above and reduce integrated supports soft attack by 10% (each by 5%).

3. Hard Nerf: Add a flat +10% supply consumption to Superior Firepower and reduce the Soft Attack gained on Integrated support path by a total of 10% (5% each).

a) Supply consumption/Production cost is thematic "expend bullets not lives!" mentality would require more supplys/ammo
b) Integrated Support is almost always better than dispersed support atm so it actually needs a nerf anyhow. You need 5 dispersed support line artillery to equal the soft attack gain that a single integrated support support artillery provides, and if you use Support arty + support rocket artillery it is actually impossible in a realistic division. (You need >~12 artillery pieces, and a 4 inf 12 art division is unsustainable). If you went support arty + support rocket arty + engineer its impossible for dispersed support to equal as your division has ~1 org then (basically pure line artillery).


Any of these would further be combined with a restrained buff on Mass Assault as it will still be the inferior to all other doctrines baring a few niche scenarios. (Likely +4% reinforcement chance +10% entrenchment speed, potentially something more, but unlikely. Let me know if you think a stronger buff is needed for it.)

Notes:
To me a soft nerf is a nerf that makes something more difficult to do without reducing its power, whereas a hard nerf is something that makes something less effective to do.

likewise a soft buff makes something easier to do without increasing its power, whereas a hard buff makes something more powerful.

EDit:

Id like input on if you think 1, or 2 is a better change /and/ if the change would realistically effect your doctrine decision making. If you have suggestions feel free to share.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Discussion on Doctrines
PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 6:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 9:54 pm
Posts: 68
Otto von Saxony wrote:
After thinking on it a bit, it does look like providing a nerf (either soft or hard) to Superior Firepower will be the best action. With that I have two suggestions that I would like to hear input on:

1. Soft Nerf: Add an event that fires for anyone who has researched Superior Firepower (MTTH of 1 day or hour if possible) that adds a national spirit: Excessive Ammo use causing +5% production cost on Infantry equipment, ATG, Artillery, tanks, AA, SPG, TD, SPAA.

2. Semi hard nerf: Same event as described above and reduce integrated supports soft attack by 10% (each by 5%).

3. Hard Nerf: Add a flat +10% supply consumption to Superior Firepower and reduce the Soft Attack gained on Integrated support path by a total of 10% (5% each).


I think the best nerf you could actually apply is drop the first research of Superior Firepower to 10% soft attack, and then maybe do the integrated support nerf as well. Soft attack is king in the meta ATM. Maybe increased hardness on motorized or drastically reduced cost of mechanized would shift the meta up to where hard attack actually matters.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Discussion on Doctrines
PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 6:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:10 am
Posts: 67
Sothar wrote:
Otto von Saxony wrote:
After thinking on it a bit, it does look like providing a nerf (either soft or hard) to Superior Firepower will be the best action. With that I have two suggestions that I would like to hear input on:

1. Soft Nerf: Add an event that fires for anyone who has researched Superior Firepower (MTTH of 1 day or hour if possible) that adds a national spirit: Excessive Ammo use causing +5% production cost on Infantry equipment, ATG, Artillery, tanks, AA, SPG, TD, SPAA.

2. Semi hard nerf: Same event as described above and reduce integrated supports soft attack by 10% (each by 5%).

3. Hard Nerf: Add a flat +10% supply consumption to Superior Firepower and reduce the Soft Attack gained on Integrated support path by a total of 10% (5% each).


I think the best nerf you could actually apply is drop the first research of Superior Firepower to 10% soft attack, and then maybe do the integrated support nerf as well. Soft attack is king in the meta ATM. Maybe increased hardness on motorized or drastically reduced cost of mechanized would shift the meta up to where hard attack actually matters.


In regards to drastically reducing the cost of Mechanized my mod has -5 IC cost per model or something similar atm. That may possibly be too steep, but, that would require testing against Humans as you can beat the AI using vanilla infantry and no doctrines so...

Edit:
Though that being said you need 78% hardness for SPA to be less cost efficient than TD so


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Discussion on Doctrines
PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 8:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 6:03 pm
Posts: 19
Otto von Saxony wrote:
After thinking on it a bit, it does look like providing a nerf (either soft or hard) to Superior Firepower will be the best action. With that I have two suggestions that I would like to hear input on:

1. Soft Nerf: Add an event that fires for anyone who has researched Superior Firepower (MTTH of 1 day or hour if possible) that adds a national spirit: Excessive Ammo use causing +5% production cost on Infantry equipment, ATG, Artillery, tanks, AA, SPG, TD, SPAA.

2. Semi hard nerf: Same event as described above and reduce integrated supports soft attack by 10% (each by 5%).

3. Hard Nerf: Add a flat +10% supply consumption to Superior Firepower and reduce the Soft Attack gained on Integrated support path by a total of 10% (5% each).

Any of these would further be combined with a restrained buff on Mass Assault as it will still be the inferior to all other doctrines baring a few niche scenarios. (Likely +4% reinforcement chance +10% entrenchment speed, potentially something more, but unlikely. Let me know if you think a stronger buff is needed for it.)

EDit:

Id like input on if you think 1, or 2 is a better change /and/ if the change would realistically effect your doctrine decision making. If you have suggestions feel free to share.



We should also consider nerfing Shock and Awe (bottom right tech) since 10% soft and hard attack on all units is just insane especially when the shock and awe section of Superior Firepower already provides several very good bonuses. Even if we reduce the soft attack bonuses from SF, it is still a very good and viable doctrine without being too overpowered. The semi-hard nerf may be enough to accomplish this with the shock and awe nerf.

Also I don't think your Mass Assault buff is strong enough. Even as the Soviet Union I probably would not use it unless I was expecting a very early war. I would rather use Mobile Warfare or Grand Battleplan (assuming Superior Firepower is nerfed sufficiently).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Discussion on Doctrines
PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2017 1:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:10 am
Posts: 67
Yodoodles wrote:
Otto von Saxony wrote:
After thinking on it a bit, it does look like providing a nerf (either soft or hard) to Superior Firepower will be the best action. With that I have two suggestions that I would like to hear input on:

1. Soft Nerf: Add an event that fires for anyone who has researched Superior Firepower (MTTH of 1 day or hour if possible) that adds a national spirit: Excessive Ammo use causing +5% production cost on Infantry equipment, ATG, Artillery, tanks, AA, SPG, TD, SPAA.

2. Semi hard nerf: Same event as described above and reduce integrated supports soft attack by 10% (each by 5%).

3. Hard Nerf: Add a flat +10% supply consumption to Superior Firepower and reduce the Soft Attack gained on Integrated support path by a total of 10% (5% each).

Any of these would further be combined with a restrained buff on Mass Assault as it will still be the inferior to all other doctrines baring a few niche scenarios. (Likely +4% reinforcement chance +10% entrenchment speed, potentially something more, but unlikely. Let me know if you think a stronger buff is needed for it.)

EDit:

Id like input on if you think 1, or 2 is a better change /and/ if the change would realistically effect your doctrine decision making. If you have suggestions feel free to share.



We should also consider nerfing Shock and Awe (bottom right tech) since 10% soft and hard attack on all units is just insane especially when the shock and awe section of Superior Firepower already provides several very good bonuses. Even if we reduce the soft attack bonuses from SF, it is still a very good and viable doctrine without being too overpowered. The semi-hard nerf may be enough to accomplish this with the shock and awe nerf.

Also I don't think your Mass Assault buff is strong enough. Even as the Soviet Union I probably would not use it unless I was expecting a very early war. I would rather use Mobile Warfare or Grand Battleplan (assuming Superior Firepower is nerfed sufficiently).


Would you think either my original proposals would be sufficient?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
suspicion-preferred