Search found 196 matches
- 02 Mar 2021, 15:43
- Forum: Balancing & Suggestions
- Topic: Panzer IV H/J, Stug III, 76 sherman, M10
- Replies: 50
- Views: 655
Re: Panzer IV H/J, Stug III, 76 sherman, M10
I am going to make a post about Airborne I think camouflage Jackson is the one that feed well in this doctrine, has a good cannon, have camouflage and its armor is not that strong, I also think Jackson accuracy needs to be improved a bit. About Jumbo 76 we need to make a place for it in armor like b...
- 02 Mar 2021, 15:18
- Forum: Balancing & Suggestions
- Topic: Panzer IV H/J, Stug III, 76 sherman, M10
- Replies: 50
- Views: 655
Re: Panzer IV H/J, Stug III, 76 sherman, M10
I am no agree to keep putting cp cost on vital units like Moultier, it also cost fuel so it’s fine and it doesn’t come that early, the game already swallowed the jumbo 76mm and it’s hard to see a calliope in a game since axis always go for heavy, armor try to get heavy and don’t go for a 5cp calliop...
- 01 Mar 2021, 23:21
- Forum: Balancing & Suggestions
- Topic: Panzer IV H/J, Stug III, 76 sherman, M10
- Replies: 50
- Views: 655
Re: Panzer IV H/J, Stug III, 76 sherman, M10
I use the 57mm half truck a lot, it’s cheap, and you can be surprised what it can do, you can destroy stugIV and PIV if you use it well
- 01 Mar 2021, 19:03
- Forum: Balancing & Suggestions
- Topic: Panzer IV H/J, Stug III, 76 sherman, M10
- Replies: 50
- Views: 655
Re: Panzer IV H/J, Stug III, 76 sherman, M10
I think changes are good, only tweaks needs to be made, for now what I feel and my mates also suffer that is when axis rush heavy tanks as allies you will be in trouble, why?, well AA works as they should and it’s fine I am agree with that but airborne get screwed vs heavys, may be a solution could ...
- 26 Feb 2021, 21:48
- Forum: Balancing & Suggestions
- Topic: Panzer IV H/J, Stug III, 76 sherman, M10
- Replies: 50
- Views: 655
Re: Panzer IV H/J, Stug III, 76 sherman, M10
So, after having played more games as AB, inf, BK and Prop doc i want to talk about this Topic again. Its related to this one: http://forum.bkmod.net/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=4093 It is plain stupid to keep paying many CP´s for such core units. When i played AB or inf doc i always went for it. My oppon...
- 26 Feb 2021, 21:39
- Forum: Balancing & Suggestions
- Topic: Bring Back Tank Reverse Controls
- Replies: 50
- Views: 935
Re: Bring Back Tank Reverse Controls
From the last I talked to the devs, we will be reverting the tank control changes. We're also thinking about dedicating a patch to just looking specifically at vehicle movement. This means likely no balance changes for a patch and lots of iterations in the beta to make sure we get it right. We'll r...
- 26 Feb 2021, 16:16
- Forum: Balancing & Suggestions
- Topic: Bring Back Tank Reverse Controls
- Replies: 50
- Views: 935
Re: Bring Back Tank Reverse Controls
I think we just need time to get used to it TBH, give it a month and then make a poll. Bro it’s already a nightmare to make reverse with tanks now, it’s annoying to see how you lose a tank just because it doesn’t want to make reverse and try just to make a whole 180 degree turn, It happen to me mul...
- 25 Feb 2021, 15:57
- Forum: Balancing & Suggestions
- Topic: Trench suggestion
- Replies: 30
- Views: 441
Re: Trench suggestion
I don’t really like any buff for trench, camping games are so bored, also with the ammunition upkeep it’s going to be painful to play vs groundhog payers, I think trench are good as they are now. It's more not about camping, but a saving an army against campers with high amounts of artillery. https...
- 24 Feb 2021, 19:47
- Forum: Balancing & Suggestions
- Topic: Trench suggestion
- Replies: 30
- Views: 441
Re: Trench suggestion
I don’t really like any buff for trench, camping games are so bored, also with the ammunition upkeep it’s going to be painful to play vs groundhog payers, I think trench are good as they are now.
- 20 Feb 2021, 21:58
- Forum: Balancing & Suggestions
- Topic: Bring Back Tank Reverse Controls
- Replies: 50
- Views: 935
Re: Bring Back Tank Reverse Controls
Please revert change ASAP it’s a nightmare try to reverse a vehicle now, even my Cubans mates that didn’t know about this change were complaining about it during a game yesterday, I have the same horrible experience trying to reverse a Sherman multiple times, please do it ASAP.
- 20 Feb 2021, 16:01
- Forum: Matchmaking & Strategies
- Topic: [5.2.6] 1v1 - Revert the Reverse Change Now
- Replies: 2
- Views: 145
Re: [5.2.6] 1v1 - Revert the Reverse Change Now
Please revert change ASAP it’s a nightmare try to reverse a vehicle now, even my Cubans mates that didn’t know about this change were complaining about it during a game yesterday, I have the same horrible experience trying to reverse a Sherman multiple times, please do it ASAP, thank you for your ti...
- 19 Feb 2021, 17:18
- Forum: Matchmaking & Strategies
- Topic: Intense 3 vs 3. Crazy Comeback
- Replies: 2
- Views: 95
Re: Intense 3 vs 3. Crazy Comeback
I think Sherman m4 76mm and PIV shouldn’t cost CP, just in bk doctrine 1 cp in Upgrade production to unlock PIV J and H to give a chance to PIV F2 to being use, can’t remember last time I use PIVs since stugs spam is the meta. Only tank hunters with camouflage abilities should cost CP since those ar...
- 15 Feb 2021, 04:03
- Forum: Bugs
- Topic: Stormtroopers halftruck
- Replies: 2
- Views: 108
- 14 Feb 2021, 20:30
- Forum: Bugs
- Topic: Stormtroopers halftruck
- Replies: 2
- Views: 108
Stormtroopers halftruck
I don't know if it's a bug or made on prupose but I don't have access to the assault stormtroopers from the "Stormtrooper Halftrack", I woul like to have them back in that halftruck, I miss them on the battlefield, in the action. To deploy them you have to go to infantry HQ. Units available in the H...
- 14 Feb 2021, 20:15
- Forum: Bugs
- Topic: Check axis bunkers.
- Replies: 1
- Views: 74
Check axis bunkers.
For some reasons repair bunker is able to reinforce troops instead the midic bunker.
- 14 Feb 2021, 20:11
- Forum: Bugs
- Topic: [5.2.5] BETA: MGs Spawned In Bunkers Don't Work
- Replies: 4
- Views: 139
Re: [5.2.5] BETA: MGs Spawned In Bunkers Don't Work
I used it yesterday and it works perfect, it may be the map or may be they fix it already.
- 11 Feb 2021, 21:29
- Forum: Balancing & Suggestions
- Topic: Merge Panzerjaeger & Support Command for SE
- Replies: 8
- Views: 198
Re: Merge Panzerjaeger & Support Command for SE
As already mentioned, both buildings have basically a role by its name. On top of it merging both would end up in massive cost for a single building in order to compensate the Tec cost. Like 800 mp or something and 100 fuel. I prefer to have buildings less expensive but therefore more specialized t...
- 10 Feb 2021, 17:03
- Forum: Matchmaking & Strategies
- Topic: 5.2.0 1v1 Mencius OP
- Replies: 6
- Views: 268
Re: 5.2.0 1v1 Mencius OP
Indeed...this script will be applied in the next update... own_unit = _list units mencius if (player_name == "mencius") then own_unit applyNerf (HP, x0.5) own_unit applyNerf (gun_damage, x0.5) own_unit applyNerf (unit_cost, x1.25) player_skill applyNerf x0.5 exec demoralisation exit demoralisation ...
- 10 Feb 2021, 04:06
- Forum: Balancing & Suggestions
- Topic: BETA Feedback: Elefant Change (fuel cost)
- Replies: 11
- Views: 247
Re: BETA Feedback: Elefant Change (fuel cost)
What I think about this change is: Defensive doctrine already had Flack 88 emplacements + Nashorn ? I think it is going to make defensive stronger. At the otrher hand I think SE will be in problem facing heavy tanks since Elephant will cost a lot and you will lost part of that fuel trading it by amm...
- 27 Dec 2020, 20:32
- Forum: Matchmaking & Strategies
- Topic: Hardcore players.
- Replies: 5
- Views: 226
Hardcore players.
Axis:
1-Wurf ( luftwaffe)
2-Warhawks (Panzer Support)
3-Volksgranadier (Propaganda)
Allies:
1-Redgarden (RAF)
2-Sparrow (Infantry)
3-Mefisto (Airborne)
1-Wurf ( luftwaffe)
2-Warhawks (Panzer Support)
3-Volksgranadier (Propaganda)
Allies:
1-Redgarden (RAF)
2-Sparrow (Infantry)
3-Mefisto (Airborne)
- 27 Dec 2020, 00:08
- Forum: Matchmaking & Strategies
- Topic: Airborne in a Hardcore BK players game
- Replies: 8
- Views: 377
Airborne in a Hardcore BK players game
Allies:
1-Wurf (Armor)
2-Sparrow (Inf)
3-Me (Airborne)
Axis:
1-Redgaeden (Propaganda)
2-Warhaks (Panzer support)
3-Tavares ( luftwaffe)
1-Wurf (Armor)
2-Sparrow (Inf)
3-Me (Airborne)
Axis:
1-Redgaeden (Propaganda)
2-Warhaks (Panzer support)
3-Tavares ( luftwaffe)
- 28 Nov 2020, 17:55
- Forum: Balancing & Suggestions
- Topic: Put a Limit to emplacement pls. this a crap
- Replies: 28
- Views: 475
Re: Put a Limit to emplacement pls. this a crap
I just watched the game. You played BK doc, so I have just one question - where was your StuH/StuPa? Their "long range" ability has enough range to snipe enemy emplacements from a distance where the emplacements cannot shoot back and this map had enough space to use them. You had Panthers/Tigers to...
- 28 Nov 2020, 17:15
- Forum: Balancing & Suggestions
- Topic: Put a Limit to emplacement pls. this a crap
- Replies: 28
- Views: 475
Re: Put a Limit to emplacement pls. this a crap
RE and DEF are campy doctrines. As much as you don't like campy playstyle, some people like it. We will not completely remove the options for campy gameplay just because you don't like to play against it. Try to pull off this campy tactics with any other allied doctrine apart from RE - RAF doesn't ...
- 28 Nov 2020, 14:45
- Forum: Balancing & Suggestions
- Topic: Put a Limit to emplacement pls. this a crap
- Replies: 28
- Views: 475
Re: Put a Limit to emplacement pls. this a crap
So abuse of emplacements is not a problem right? See how a player spam AA or At emplacements it’s fine? So each game a RE player need 3or 4 At emplacements and an airborne player needs 4or 5 AA and still be able to spam more units right? As artillery abuse get penalized it should be nerf some how, e...
- 28 Nov 2020, 05:19
- Forum: Balancing & Suggestions
- Topic: Put a Limit to emplacement pls. this a crap
- Replies: 28
- Views: 475
Re: Put a Limit to emplacement pls. this a crap
this whole situation have a name and it is EMPLACEMENT ABUSE.