Balance/Change Suggestions

[SnowBlaZeR2]

Even if the limit was just increased to more than one, I think that would help.

[HELLOBANANAPHONE]

Allow unlimited for M1A1 and ZTZ-96, maybe 2 for M1A2 and ZTZ-99, and only 1 for TUSK? TUSK can get support from Green Berets/SEALs, which can do pretty well at either knocking out stationary anti-tank (MP5-SD) or stalling vehicular offensives (treadbreak).

My primary concern with going this route is making players feel like they *have* to take one of the Big Four doctrines to have some way to deal with late-game armor spam. Knowing that you're going to face one TUSK or Abrams can be nerve-wracking in a close game, and terrifying if you're behind, and the spec ops PF-98 is still not at all cost effective. It's less so for USA, since Javelins and Stryker/LAV ATGMs are so effective, and Bradley TOW missiles are excellent panic weapons.

[South]

Allow unlimited for M1A1 and ZTZ-96, maybe 2 for M1A2 and ZTZ-99, and only 1 for TUSK? TUSK can get support from Green Berets/SEALs, which can do pretty well at either knocking out stationary anti-tank (MP5-SD) or stalling vehicular offensives (treadbreak).

My primary concern with going this route is making players feel like they *have* to take one of the Big Four doctrines to have some way to deal with late-game armor spam. Knowing that you're going to face one TUSK or Abrams can be nerve-wracking in a close game, and terrifying if you're behind, and the spec ops PF-98 is still not at all cost effective. It's less so for USA, since Javelins and Stryker/LAV ATGMs are so effective, and Bradley TOW missiles are excellent panic weapons.

In fact, ZTZ-96A is a 2nd-Gen MBT upgraged to 3rd-Gen standard, but M1A1 is a totally 3rd-Gen MBT. ZTZ-96 is not comparable to M1A1.

[HELLOBANANAPHONE]

What generations the MBTs are is less important to me than how their stats match up in the general metagame. I'm not at all certain what the match-up between the ZTZ-96 and the various versions of the Abrams is like, but the ZTZ-96 can also be paired with the doctrinal tank destroyer which can potentially be a pretty nasty combination against any Abrams if the ZTZ can stay between the enemy anti-tank and the tank destroyers. In contrast, the M1A1 and M1A2 don't have any real doctrinal anti-tank support, but if they have the fuel to get to tier 3 they can get a significant number of ATGM vehicles in support.

That being said, I haven't played any of those four doctrines, so my input on the matter is relatively limited.

[I_am_a_Spoon]

True I guess. Air Superiority might be able to hold its own, but Asymmetrical Warfare would seem a bit lacking in comparison I think.

[HELLOBANANAPHONE]

Even if Air Superiority can hold its own, it can only hold its own on a non-doctrinal basis. With the A-10 delay increased it's much harder to hit tanks, and the Carl Gustav is not exactly a stellar weapon. The Air Superiority force will basically have to become an army of Javelin teams and ATGMs, with SMAW/AT4/TOW missile support unless the U.S. player manages to keep the Chinese player from even getting to the point where they can start fielding multiple doctrinal tanks.

On the flip side, if multiple Abrams (of any type) are allowed, the usefulness of the Type 59D's ATGM shot becomes basically nothing. It has a 4-second wind-up time, takes 3(!) shots to kill a humvee, and prevents firing the main gun while it's winding up. Finishing off one unkillable vet 3 defensive Abrams, it's useful. Tangling with two? You'll never get the chance to use it unless you can field something like 7 Type 59Ds (I'm assuming one Abrams can only win against 3 Type 59Ds after the nerfs).

[South]

Even if Air Superiority can hold its own, it can only hold its own on a non-doctrinal basis. With the A-10 delay increased it's much harder to hit tanks, and the Carl Gustav is not exactly a stellar weapon. The Air Superiority force will basically have to become an army of Javelin teams and ATGMs, with SMAW/AT4/TOW missile support unless the U.S. player manages to keep the Chinese player from even getting to the point where they can start fielding multiple doctrinal tanks.

On the flip side, if multiple Abrams (of any type) are allowed, the usefulness of the Type 59D's ATGM shot becomes basically nothing. It has a 4-second wind-up time, takes 3(!) shots to kill a humvee, and prevents firing the main gun while it's winding up. Finishing off one unkillable vet 3 defensive Abrams, it's useful. Tangling with two? You'll never get the chance to use it unless you can field something like 7 Type 59Ds (I'm assuming one Abrams can only win against 3 Type 59Ds after the nerfs).

Someone here tried to use 6 Type 59D to deal with one Abrams, and he failed.

[HELLOBANANAPHONE]

That was me, it was 5 Type 59Ds. It's what prompted the balance changes to the M1A2 and TUSK variants of the Abrams, so it's why I assume I can probably beat an Abrams with 4 Type 59Ds now.

[I_am_a_Spoon]

Even if Air Superiority can hold its own, it can only hold its own on a non-doctrinal basis. With the A-10 delay increased it's much harder to hit tanks, and the Carl Gustav is not exactly a stellar weapon. The Air Superiority force will basically have to become an army of Javelin teams and ATGMs, with SMAW/AT4/TOW missile support unless the U.S. player manages to keep the Chinese player from even getting to the point where they can start fielding multiple doctrinal tanks.

The right-hand side of the tree is designed to reflect this. Not only are vehicles produced 50% faster, but the player can alternatively decide to convert fuel to munitions as well if they plan on utilising AT abilities (anything from AT4s/TOWs to A10s/Apaches) and upgrading Stryker ICVs. The MAAWS is effective enough against vehicles IMO.

On the flip side, if multiple Abrams (of any type) are allowed, the usefulness of the Type 59D's ATGM shot becomes basically nothing. It has a 4-second wind-up time, takes 3(!) shots to kill a humvee, and prevents firing the main gun while it's winding up.

It was originally going to be more powerful, but DB asked that it have similar damage and modifiers to the T59's main gun.

The considerable aim time is to prevent the T59D getting off two shots in a split-second.

[HELLOBANANAPHONE]

Some comments based off this series vs. Firesparks.

Firesparks suggested MARSOC are too powerful. He's probably right (see games 1 and 2).
Suggest mine deployment for Militia be a tier 1 tech costing about as much as Sticky Bombs to delay instant mine-spam (80 munitions, 25 fuel).

Other potential changes:

PLA Anti-tank reshuffling:
[Give Militia access to a PF-89 disposable rocket launcher (35 or 40 munitions to use), unlocked upon building tier 2 or tier 3, or bundled with the Mine tech;
If Militia mines are a research tech, give them a chance (75% or less?) to cause a damaged engine crit on humvees at least, and maybe strykers/LAVs/AAVPs (50% or less?);
Move the AT gun to tier 2 and reduce its manpower cost slightly;
Allow Asymmetric Warfare "Camouflage" ability to unlock cloaking the AT gun while in cover.
Remove Tank Hunters squad and replace Full Mobilization molotov cocktail ability with unlocking Militia being able to purchase RPGs;
Move molotov cocktail ability to Asymmetric Warfare and combine with the Demo Charges ability;
Give Asymmetric SpecOps ability to purchase a PF-98 package of two launchers for 125 munitions (perhaps also give them a Treadbreak or similar ability with this considering the cost of the squad);
Add ZBD-05 105mm as a separate build option in Tier 3, but still allow the 30mm chaingun upgrade to the 105mm cannon on the regular ZBD for munitions (like how USA can build either regular Stryker and upgrade to Mobile Gun System using munitions, or can simply purchase the MGS straight from the tier 2 building);

This would give each doctrine a different upgrade to their militia, with better anti-infantry rifles from Future, better anti-vehicle from Full Mob, and grenades from Asymmetric. In terms of anti-vehicle/anti-tank, that means Future will have the best defensive anti-tank with anti-tank mines and the PF-98 tripod, Full Mob will have the best offensive (pursuit) anti-tank with the RPGs and tank destroyer, and Asymmetric will be able to ambush tanks with cloaked AT gun and potential SpecOps treadbreak.]

Thoughts?