Current state of Doctrine balance

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • See but that’s a game thing, irl that’s not how it worked. The game is realistically depicting how these 4 factions balanced. It’s not too but of a deal, you can still easily win as one, no one doctrine is THAT much more overpowered than another. The game doesn’t need to be fully balanced, it already is balanced enough; the player can win no matter what as long as they are good.

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • I don't think the Game should be realistic, yeah it should be inspirated by history but not be as realistic possible.

      Anyway i ve seen players avoid some doctrines or just keep playing one specific doctrines because how dictate their playstyle rather than try to adapt, for me all factions should keep their identity but should make them more well rounded.
      "Si crees que esto tendrá un final feliz, es que no has estado prestando atención"

    • If they are all “balanced” then what is the point of them? They are all good enough to win as. It’s on these players for being to scared to branch out. You can win as any. This is more realistic AND more fun. I joined this game for a somewhat realistic ww2 game, not something that is rather cringe and just uses the aesthetic.

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • I'm also agreeing on the doctrines being balanced enough.They have their benefits and non benefits.And I also think it's the player playing the game that will determine how good the doctrine is.
      There's players that can play all doctrines and some can only play one or two,tough love.Because Joe Soap can play Allies but can't play Axis or Comintern for example now it needs to change and be more balanced? maybe then they must have maps where struggling players can choose any doctrine with any country.If Joe Soap want to play Germany with Allies,then change that game option setup but leave the doctrines as they are.

    • Danieliyoverde123 wrote:

      I don't think the Game should be realistic, yeah it should be inspirated by history but not be as realistic possible.

      Anyway i ve seen players avoid some doctrines or just keep playing one specific doctrines because how dictate their playstyle rather than try to adapt, for me all factions should keep their identity but should make them more well rounded.
      Well thats the base of the issue and our disagreement. We want it to be realistic and encourage realistic strategies and allow for real ones to be used whereas you want it to be fair and ballance. The problem is that its less nuanced and therefore less fun if its ballance. It also removes a lot of the strategies between different countries as they are all basically the same.
      The Swedish Piers Morgan

    • The 1.0 version were all country equal and that doesnt stop the Game To make ppl use diferent units, the problem was the artillery+tactical bomber meta, this was more of a balance issue and could be solved just nerfing those units, the Game was still fun so there is no excuses of all countries equal is boring, managing a war is actually boring

      Now i don't Say we should take away the characteristics of a faction, but less i should kill them before it's too late and more ill should rethink My army and adapt my gameplay. it's not like white or black right now but find the perfect grey.

      Also the balance It's not a problem, honestly the balance right now it's ok but if i would choose in wich direction to move, it would be this one.
      "Si crees que esto tendrá un final feliz, es que no has estado prestando atención"

    • Well I remember playing 1.0, and I left the game after getting somewhat bored for a reason… this system as also added for a reason. Why go back to having everything be the same? I like how Germany for example has an advantage on day one. Commie Poland can catch up and even crush them on day one if they are good enough, but still is bette off waiting. Making things balanced may as well be you saying you want doctrines removed. What’s the point then? It’s nearly perfect right now, in a Goldilocks zone. Moving to either extreme would make things worse.

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • Danieliyoverde123 wrote:

      No, thats not what i want to say but i'll not going to explain any further because maybe i'm not good enought to comunicate in english or You simple don't understand.
      We perfectly understand what you saying, just we disagree with you. What me and Carking are trying to say is that we believe that if one removes the doctrines, then all games will be the same. Like I said earlier, the nuance makes the game more interesting. I can't compare it directly as I haven't played 1.0 but Carking has and he is saying the same thing.
      The Swedish Piers Morgan

    • freezy wrote:

      So I thought to myself, why not start a thread to discuss some things? :)

      How do you feel about the current Doctrine balance in the game? What would be your Doctrine ranking, and why?

      Bonus question: Do you think that the recent addition of Nuclear fallout buffed Allies, due to them having access to Nukes earlier?
      The doctrines are fine as it is, it's balanced enough.
      The new addition of Nuclear Fallout maybe buff Allies a little bit, only because having access early to Nukes but due to the new nuclear fallout damage dynamics it changes the tactics and strategy.Before it was nuke and take,now it's nuke and wait.Players will have to plan carefully how they want to conduct their nuclear campaign.

      Danieliyoverde123 wrote:

      No, thats not what i want to say but i'll not going to explain any further because maybe i'm not good enought to comunicate in english or You simple don't understand.
      Please do continue to explain because I would like to point out the following:
      1)You say the game should not be realistic but be inspired by history but not be as realistic possible...?
      2)You say the balance of doctrines is right now but you want to take a direction to change it...?
      3) Factions/Doctrines should keep their identity but you want to make them more well rounded (explain more in detail please, because once you start changing and fiddling with it,it will loose it's identity)
      4)For example you suggested to make Allies and Comintern not to be strong late game but also early game like Axis to make the game more balanced every stage...?
      5) For Allies and Comintern you want to reduce upkeep bonus, make them produce units faster to fit their theme?what theme? they are Allies and Comintern...theme, identity, characteristics it's all the same,change that and you change everything...
      6)If the doctrines have become a problem,if players can't play with the different doctrines,if Bytro wants to balance the doctrines more (how and why I don't know)...get rid of the bloody doctrines for the love of breakfast!!! don't bother with it.Let all four doctrines have the same strength air force,land units and navy then...

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Vanrendo: I took out the last paragraph,it was too aggressive and unnecessary towards @Danieliyoverde123 ().

    • Vanrendo wrote:



      Last of all,sorry I'm going to be a bit of a dry farts ...
      @Danieliyoverde123 you are a Call of War forum Moderator don't you come and worm yourself into a thread,drop your opinion and tell us that you will stop explaining because you're afraid your English is not good enough or we don't understand you...If you know your english is not good, don't hang around on an English server, save yourself the trouble and we understand you perfectly clear but please explain what direction you want to take by changing doctrines that you think is right now?
      Sorry but i am playing this Game for almost 9 years soo in can make a opinión of the Game, sure i'm a moderator of the spanish chat and forum but that doesnt invalidate me to Say My opinion in the EN server, if developer go around the ES server surely i Will leave My opinion there.

      Now what i want to Say it's something related to others rts balances where in certain situation a faction could be feel very opresive while very vulnerable in other situations, make them more well rounded doesnt take away their bonuses or change their playstyle but make them less opresive in the specific situation in exchange of being less vulnerable in the others. In aoe2 the old indian civilization comes to My mind, eventually the civ was almost rework but everyone in the community liked the changes.

      I proposed some changes as an example that Will not change too much of the Game and the same time Will fit the theme of the doctrines. But in any case i always Say that the current balance It's ok and doesnt need a change but if some changes Will be added should be in that direction.

      Now this is a forum after all, a place of discussion about certain topics, a place where You leave your opinión, if i stop wrote it's simple because i don't want to make me a trouble, it's not that important what ill try to Say anyway

      I'm really sorry if i sound rude
      "Si crees que esto tendrá un final feliz, es que no has estado prestando atención"

    • No you were not rude @Danieliyoverde123 ,thank you for feedback I appreciate it.As for being a 9 year member/player, respect :thumbup: .I myself have barely started,I must apologize then LoL.
      I hear what you say about the "oppressive" part but then again every faction/doctrine is an oppressor.And no map have been specifically designed for a certain doctrine.Multiple maps have been won with multiple doctrines.I have won a CON map with Turkey -Comintern, I've seen USA -Allies won a CON map and Germany-Axis.I have won a particular coalition victory where we were Comintern/Allies lvls 57&34 vs Allies/Axis lvls 101&74.
      I also still strongly believe that it's the player that will determine how good the doctrine is.
      The doctrines are fine as it is.
      Please don't stop posting on the forum,you have every right as a moderator.

    • Well for the years I’ve been playing I can say that the game has (mostly…) managed to improve itself over time. This system has managed to be balanced while also giving certain play styles an advantage. The whole point of Blitzkrieg and Japanese strategies were to strike hard and fast since allied industry would crush up and kill them. Most games gave a victor decided in the mid game where they are balanced anyway, and a better player is infinitely more important. There is no point in these changes because it’s already nearly as good as it could get, if anything commie needs a buff.

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • I think the current balance of doctrines is good, each have areas of strength and weakness. I learned to play the game with comintern, so that has a special place in my heart. However I've lately became a fan or playing air a little heavier in the late game and commies really struggle there. Also since September when the AWC started, I've been pretty much exclusively playing AvA games. Prior to that,100 player maps were my favorite. I would rank my preference based on the type of game considering AvA is very different from 100 player.

      AvA:
      comintern
      axis
      allied

      my rationale for this ranking
      Comintern is probably the most valuable for AvA. They start weak with their damage nerf, but the peace periods allow you time to overcome this before the shooting starts and their low cost units allows you to build up. The new three day across the board peace period favors commies with the reduced cost. Axis is good as the higher strength allows their starting units to be more valuable and they make great air superiority players in this format. Allies don't really shine in this format as their benefits of the reduced production time and discounts on research and upgrading don't really have time to pay off.

      100 player
      Pan Asian
      allied and comintern are about equal
      axis

      Pan Asian is my favorite by far. Their doctrine bonuses are heavy on early game units and their terrain bonuses and increased speed and view range benefit those, like myself, with greater screentime. Allied are good in the late game as their doctrine bonuses excel in the longer game format. Comintern are good in this format as well and probably well balanced in all stages of the game, except day one. They are a little vulnerable to early game expansion until they've had time to build up. Axis are my least favorite. Everything is more expensive and I find that challenging to deal with despite their increased power. I'm well known for my dislike of axis.

      Longest game I've ever had went 18 days, so I've never built a nuke or seen them used. I have no opinion on the fallout.

      Also, I'm very grateful the railroad guns were balanced. Simply put, they were ridiculously unbalanced.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by 6thDragon ().

    • It might be my inexperience, but I have the impression that Allies is the worst doctrine. It is clear that Axis and PA are strong at the start and Comintern and Allies later on. However, Comintern has buffs for early game units, including ranged units so has a clear strategy in the early game to survive. Allies has buffs for mid to late game units, so is very vulnerable early game (and not much fun to play imho). The best unit for allies is probably tacs, but more experienced players will neutralize that buff.

    • I wouldn’t say allies are the worst overall, but they probably have a steeper learning curve than other doctrines. Although, oddly enough they do have the worst navy. Commies get their economic advantages right away, but allies don’t realize them until mid game so managing economy is harder than for commies. Allies do get a slight advantage early with their doctrine bonuses for reduced research and production times, it does allow them to build offensive units quicker than other doctrines.

      Air in general does have a steeper learning curve compared to other types of combat. The mechanics are more difficult to learn but do benefit highly active players disproportionately.

    • Thank you for saying the part that’s been nagging the back of my head for a while, Allied navy sucks and that’s really strange. IRL the US and UK always maintained fleets stronger than Japan, even before they were struck and at their lowest point. As the war dragged on America had better overall ships and routinely destroyed the Japanese fleet while taking fewer casualties. I know Japan had the Battleship focus while America used Carriers (the latter was also far more successful, but I’d argue that making battleships as useless as they were IRL is unfair) but Allied fleets are just so much worse. I think they need some sort of boost specifically.

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • Carking the 6th wrote:

      Thank you for saying the part that’s been nagging the back of my head for a while, Allied navy sucks and that’s really strange. IRL the US and UK always maintained fleets stronger than Japan, even before they were struck and at their lowest point. As the war dragged on America had better overall ships and routinely destroyed the Japanese fleet while taking fewer casualties. I know Japan had the Battleship focus while America used Carriers (the latter was also far more successful, but I’d argue that making battleships as useless as they were IRL is unfair) but Allied fleets are just so much worse. I think they need some sort of boost specifically.
      My alliance mates have always chuckled at that. Yes, British and American navies have enjoyed naval superiority for centuries by the time of WWII but have the worst navy in the game. The only way to argue otherwise would be possibly late game when the allies reduced research and upgrading costs have caught up allowing them to field more advanced ships.

      That would be most only suggestion for rebalancing, but I’m not sure specifically what to change. Allies do need better navy.