Blitzkrieg Mod Forum

Posted: **14 May 2016, 23:53**

1. PE jeep (schwimmwagen?), can repair, cap points, repair itself, mark targets. cost 250.
USA jeep can nothing. cost 240.

2. SS Flaschminjagers vs other infantry.
I have situation where 3 squads of infiltration rangers (thompsons) under light cower were killed by one charging to close range flashminjagers team.
These FG42 guns are overpowered. I think it was much weaker than BAR at long range, and at close range thompson should eat this. but in this game?

even squad of SS flashminjagers(550 cost) vs 82 airborne (550cost) or elite usa paras (800 cost), or SAS, well SS always win.

3. german AT granade vs "sticky bomb" and gamon.
2 germans AT granades kill every tank (maybe pershing can hold 3-4). it often damage engine. cost 20 ammo

gamon - that is just weak. it just doesnt work. 4-5 for PZ4? and cost of it. wat?

sticky bomb do nothing but break tracks. against light armored vehicles also doesnt do much. it schould be cheaper. 5-10 ammo.

4. HE throwing bomb (USA) vs taped granade (germans).
cost the same, but bomb has 4,5s delay (this make it useless), granade 1s, always kill whole building.

5. ability of WH pioniers of saving ammo from wrecks.

6. 150mm arty (PE and WH) and no at allies.

7. scout car of PE - its just too fast. only thing you can do is built counter car (jeep with 0.50 or recoiless rifle), hope you have rangers with bazooka. it holds 2 hits from 37mm gun. its enough to flank gun.

8. panther PE cost the same as M36 jackson. but does it the same? jackson doesnt have MG, have open top. mostly panther defeat m36.

9. M26 superpershing vs jagtiger or ferdinand, even jagpanther
we know what happens 1v1.
you need to be skilled to kill these, even with m26e1-1 (m26e4).
M26e1-1 gun with apcrs has 300mm of penetration. its more than have jagtiger and its armor is just flat. ferdinand have 200mm and also flat.
m26e1-1 have spaced armor at front and that shuld make him untouchable for panzerschrecks (and all holo charge missles).
and try to harm tiger with bazooka at front. we know it isnt possible and its true that pzschreck has 200mm of pen, but it doesnt matter against spaced armor (also sandbags).

10. calliope that shots m9 bazookas (holo charge) is ineffective against tanks, but nevelwerfers HE are tank killers.
and cost of nevels - 300 and 50 ammo per one use? its better than arty. you have 6 rockets in 3 secs, doing much more damage than arty in 10s.
and nevels are portable, 105mms not.

11. can you imagine how to camouflage this huge jagpanther? its huuuuuuge tank.

12. usa doesnt have portable 120mm mortal. and its stationary version sucks. its expensive and useless, one incedniary mortal round and my 120 is dead, 2 rounds and it disappear.

13. pz4 against jumbo. its impossible for this gun, even with apcrs to penetrate front of jumbo. (110mm sloped armor at main plate, 180mm in turret, 150mm at sides and back of turret, 80mm at sides of tank). it have much better armor than tiger1.
i is said that only gun that could pen jumbo was long 88.

sorry if i made ortographical mistakes. im not "national speaker".

Posted: **15 May 2016, 00:52**

milekh wrote:1. PE jeep (schwimmwagen?), can repair, cap points, repair itself, mark targets. cost 250.
USA jeep can nothing. cost 240.

US jeep has more hp.

milekh wrote:2. SS Flaschminjagers vs other infantry.
I have situation where 3 squads of infiltration rangers (thompsons) under light cower were killed by one charging to close range flashminjagers team.

There can be only 2 squads of infiltration rangers

. In game much depends on factors that many tend to forget: veteracy, global upgrades etc. If you send 3 squads of fresh rangers vs upgraded and veted falshmir, u gonna lose.

milekh wrote:I think it was much weaker than BAR at long range, and at close range thompson should eat this. but in this game?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw3eKWvDGqQ

milekh wrote:even squad of SS flashminjagers(550 cost) vs 82 airborne (550cost) or elite usa paras (800 cost), or SAS, well SS always win.

It "always" depends on how you use them. You can only say "those units are easier to use", they are not necessarily better.

milekh wrote:3. german AT granade vs "sticky bomb" and gamon.

PE has poor anti-tank capabilities when we talk about inf. Their tank hunters have only 1 shreck. That is why they have that good grenade.
Gammon's job is to immobilize vehicles or destroy engine, so you can finish enemy off with arty/planes. Also they are very destructive against infantry.

milekh wrote:2 germans AT granades kill every tank (maybe pershing can hold 3-4). it often damage engine. cost 20 ammo

Overly exaggerated. That grenade has very long cool down, it's almost impossible to throw 2 grenades at the same tank with one squad.

milekh wrote:4. HE throwing bomb (USA) vs taped granade (germans).
cost the same, but bomb has 4,5s delay (this make it useless), granade 1s, always kill whole building.

Satchel charge is suppose to kill "the building itself", by the way killing the soldiers inside. You are comparing wrong weapons here.

milekh wrote:5. ability of WH pioniers of saving ammo from wrecks.

How is that a problem? US can build tank traps in all docs. Brits can field mortar pit before any other faction can build their mortars, Axis have barely no units that can booby trap buildings and points (except SE).

milekh wrote: 150mm arty (PE and WH) and no at allies.

Long Tom call in arty. Also there can be only 1 such arty piece for def doc (single shots) and 2 for SE (quite expensive). Arty doc can have 9 other arty units instead, Inf doc 5 + 107mm mortars. They have smaller caliber, but they win by greater numbers.

milekh wrote:7. scout car of PE - its just too fast. only thing you can do is built counter car (jeep with 0.50 or recoiless rifle), hope you have rangers with bazooka. it holds 2 hits from 37mm gun. its enough to flank gun.

That is why u build 2 guns.

milekh wrote: panther PE cost the same as M36 jackson. but does it the same? jackson doesnt have MG, have open top. mostly panther defeat m36.

Open top is only a matter of graphics

. The reason why M36 is weaker in 1vs1 fight with panther is US philosophy of war. You win with numbers and fire support. 1 panther vs 2 M36 would be much harder for panther to win.
Now if you say "but the price for both units is the same, why do u I have to build 2 M36 for 1 panther" remember, you have 5 supplies upgrades at the supply yard.
No mg, because it is a "tank destroyer"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_destroyer

milekh wrote:10. calliope that shots m9 bazookas (holo charge) is ineffective against tanks, but nevelwerfers HE are tank killers.
and cost of nevels - 300 and 50 ammo per one use? its better than arty. you have 6 rockets in 3 secs, doing much more damage than arty in 10s.
and nevels are portable, 105mms not.

Wrong. Calliope shoots M8, 110mm rockets, while Bazooka's rocket was 60mm. Also M8 rockets were filled with HE materials, not "holo charge", it would be senseless to use them that way. I know that most of rockets looks quite familiar to each other

.
Nebels are warning you with sound, if you are not fast enough to run, you die. Also 60% of 105mm arty units in game are portable (not really for inf doc to be honest - can be compensated with call ins). They have longer range and higher damage output.

milekh wrote:11. can you imagine how to camouflage this huge jagpanther? its huuuuuuge tank.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_MXu96taKq-Y/TFRBnFm8bQI/AAAAAAAAPU8/BAc3C7I7CC8/s1600/Jagdpanther+54.png
Sorry, couldn't find anything better.
Now can you imagine spotting this thing among bushes or trees on the distance of 2 kilometers?

milekh wrote:12. usa doesnt have portable 120mm mortal. and its stationary version sucks. its expensive and useless, one incedniary mortal round and my 120 is dead, 2 rounds and it disappear.

WH also doesn't have portable 120 mortar. Even stationary...
1 incendiary mortar and any emplacement is dead. Axis or Allies.

milekh wrote:13. pz4 against jumbo. its impossible for this gun, even with apcrs to penetrate front of jumbo. (110mm sloped armor at main plate, 180mm in turret, 150mm at sides and back of turret, 80mm at sides of tank). it have much better armor than tiger1.

This one is true.

milekh wrote:i is said that only gun that could pen jumbo was long 88.

Also panther's 75mm gun, and bigger guns than 88.

Posted: **15 May 2016, 14:18**

this trird squad was with cal.030. but ok, my bad.
well i didnst see that jeep has more hp. haybe mg42/34 is better gun, i dont know. 1v1 they are the same.
at arty: PE can have: 2 wespe, one (or two?) hummes, 4x 105 stationary.

SS flashminjagers are just too cheap. they can disable points, make mines, have pzschreck etc. they defeat 1v1 every squad. even cal.030 squad is not enough for them, best us paras with sniper arent enough, they are just to good.

panther has 185mm pen at 100m. so it is low propability to pen turret. also main plate is about 170-180mm effective armor in horizontal.
but apcrs are about 250mm. ok.

but then sherman with apcr 220mm of pen at apcrs should kill tiger at every range. even standard AT has 150mm of pen, 130mm at atbc.

Posted: **15 May 2016, 15:57**

milekh wrote:1. PE jeep (schwimmwagen?), can repair, cap points, repair itself, mark targets. cost 250.
USA jeep can nothing. cost 240.

faction design i would say. You can be glad you havent seen the jeep in the past. There its MG was much worse as now. Basically not better than that in vcoh version.

2. SS Flaschminjagers vs other infantry.
I have situation where 3 squads of infiltration rangers (thompsons) under light cower were killed by one charging to close range flashminjagers team.
These FG42 guns are overpowered. I think it was much weaker than BAR at long range, and at close range thompson should eat this. but in this game?

You cant beat axis fallis with own inf. And if then only AB or RAF commandos with superior vets. Put hauptsturmführer with luft inf and they smash everything. Use snipers (the only true counter) mines and HE tanks.

even squad of SS flashminjagers(550 cost) vs 82 airborne (550cost) or elite usa paras (800 cost), or SAS, well SS always win.

We know that.

3. german AT granade vs "sticky bomb" and gamon.
2 germans AT granades kill every tank (maybe pershing can hold 3-4). it often damage engine. cost 20 ammo

gamon - that is just weak. it just doesnt work. 4-5 for PZ4? and cost of it. wat?[
sticky bomb do nothing but break tracks. against light armored vehicles also doesnt do much. it schould be cheaper. 5-10 ammo.

I mentioned that many times. However even if it "only" destroyes tracks it can be game deciding when doing it on a KT or whatever. But generally the cost ratio isnt fair as sticky does often enough nothing and using them is almost suicide as the inf runs into the tank rather than throwing the sticky and thus die.

4. HE throwing bomb (USA) vs taped granade (germans).
cost the same, but bomb has 4,5s delay (this make it useless), granade 1s, always kill whole building.

The axis grenade bundle is indeed "better". Can be used very well against inf and normal grenade. The allied bomb (satchel) is better against buildings though.

5. ability of WH pioniers of saving ammo from wrecks.

vcoh thing i would say. There allied had more res for upgrading points and their BARs got purchased. Axis had kind of less map domination and better defense and every weapon upgrade was costing ammo. So its a vcoh faction design remnant.

6. 150mm arty (PE and WH) and no at allies.

We lack good models of heavy allied arty i would say.

7. scout car of PE - its just too fast. only thing you can do is built counter car (jeep with 0.50 or recoiless rifle), hope you have rangers with bazooka. it holds 2 hits from 37mm gun. its enough to flank gun.

hehe. Had been worse some time ago. Now Boys AT can stop them at least better as they did once.

8. panther PE cost the same as M36 jackson. but does it the same? jackson doesnt have MG, have open top. mostly panther defeat m36.

Panther is simply badass and its nothing wrong about it. The Jacks cost are indeed nasty and had been discussed many many times already. And this are only the "obvious" things and makes the cost questionable. I could give some more details but i wont as the situation for jacks got improved already (yes, in past it was even worse).

9. M26 superpershing vs jagtiger or ferdinand, even jagpanther
we know what happens 1v1.
you need to be skilled to kill these, even with m26e1-1 (m26e4).
M26e1-1 gun with apcrs has 300mm of penetration. its more than have jagtiger and its armor is just flat. ferdinand have 200mm and also flat.
m26e1-1 have spaced armor at front and that shuld make him untouchable for panzerschrecks (and all holo charge missles).
and try to harm tiger with bazooka at front. we know it isnt possible and its true that pzschreck has 200mm of pen, but it doesnt matter against spaced armor (also sandbags).

Engine limitations i would say. Skirts and and sandbags got originally mounted on tanks in order to provide protection against infantry AT weapons using hollow charge weapons. But in game they boost the general armor of the tanks (the first sandbag upgrade increases HP and not armor^^).

I know from vcoh that skirts so far provide only better protection against zooks and stickies. Idk why old BK devs thought that skirts shall boost the general armor protection.

And pls dont open the SP thing. pls. The forum got filled with that tank (even the old forum).

10. calliope that shots m9 bazookas (holo charge) is ineffective against tanks, but nevelwerfers HE are tank killers.
and cost of nevels - 300 and 50 ammo per one use? its better than arty. you have 6 rockets in 3 secs, doing much more damage than arty in 10s.
and nevels are portable, 105mms not.

wasnt it the 114 mm missile that also got sometimes used by airplanes. idk but hasnt there been multiple types of warheads. Or rather, had those rockets even a warhead? I remember that ive once read that they had no HE filler or something.

11. can you imagine how to camouflage this huge jagpanther? its huuuuuuge tank.

Long time ago i wanted to change the Jagpanther. Firstly due to its size, its original role and to make it more appealing for offensives. ATM all use it as "1000 MP AT gun" with 2 ambuhed shots and 70 range (from ambush) that ensures to kill any tank coming into range.

I asked for 70 range at default in exchange for just 1 ambush shot instead of two. So i guess it wont change.

12. usa doesnt have portable 120mm mortal. and its stationary version sucks. its expensive and useless, one incedniary mortal round and my 120 is dead, 2 rounds and it disappear.

Funny, got blamed as OP many times. Probably because it was one of the few weapons that could successfully beat axis rambo infantry (though only when suppored by friendly inf etc). So it got nerfed (HP nerf).

13. pz4 against jumbo. its impossible for this gun, even with apcrs to penetrate front of jumbo. (110mm sloped armor at main plate, 180mm in turret, 150mm at sides and back of turret, 80mm at sides of tank). it have much better armor than tiger1.
i is said that only gun that could pen jumbo was long 88.

Got also discussed. Havent checked the current values of axis guns against jumbos so i cant tell the "hard facts".
And well, 88 is not just 88. The 88mm L/56 from tiger and stationary 88 had not such an impressive pen. Just at the time they came out allied tanks had thin and bad armor while all other axis guns (short 75 mm etc) had been much weaker. Compared to late war guns of axis and allis the 88 looked rather weak in terms of pen (compared to 17 pdr and panther long 75 mm or even US 76 mm). However the gun was capable to defeat all but the heaviest allied armor (to which actually belongs the jumbo). Also the 88 made a good use of the overmatching factor. However the axis also improved the 88 and developed the longer 88 mm L/71 used by KT, jagdpanther, Nashorn, elephant and as AT gun. That gun was the ultimate badass 88.

But more funny is/was (idk current BK version): The Tiger had a better pen against Pershing as the Panther has. And the tiger with basic rounds pens the Persh much better as persh does with basic AP rounds against tiger. Even when Persh had special AP and tiger not the pen chance was just a bit in pershings favour. Thats something that once made me laughing every damn night.

But recently lots of guns (mainly the axis) got adjusted. Many of the same guns (eg Panzer IV gun and stug gun) had still completely different stats in terms of pen and even damage. And not just slight differences.

@Illa: "NO Mg´s because it was a TD"? Havent you seen the pictures of M10´s carrying cal 50 and cal 30 on top or two cal 30?

Posted: **15 May 2016, 19:39**

Warhawks97 wrote:@Illa: "NO Mg´s because it was a TD"? Havent you seen the pictures of M10´s carrying cal 50 and cal 30 on top or two cal 30?

Sure, but those were mostly "self defense" mg's. Would you tell me that tank destroyers were first line storm vehicles with mg's meant to suppress enemy

? If they ever had an mg, it was only to give it at least slightest antipersonnel protection. So, in comparison with panther, it's almost nothing

.

Posted: **16 May 2016, 02:36**

JimQwilleran wrote: Sure, but those were mostly "self defense" mg's. Would you tell me that tank destroyers were first line storm vehicles with mg's meant to suppress enemy ? If they ever had an mg, it was only to give it at least slightest antipersonnel protection. So, in comparison with panther, it's almost nothing .

The allied (or US at least) faced so few axis tanks that even the TD´s got used in infantry support. The US TD´s fired more HE rounds at the end of the 44/45 campaign as they fired AP rounds.

So yeah, Just because its a TD it doesnt mean they cant fill normal armor support role. Axis also used the jagdpanzer IV as "assault guns" ("Sturmgeschütze") from time to time.

Posted: **16 May 2016, 07:08**

Warhawks97 wrote:The allied (or US at least) faced so few axis tanks that even the TD´s got used in infantry support. The US TD´s fired more HE rounds at the end of the 44/45 campaign as they fired AP rounds.

Firstly, can you tell me how did you get such information?

Secondly; theoretically we fight in Normandy where at the beginning tanks ratio was 2:1 for allies. It's not so few I suppose.

Warhawks97 wrote:So yeah, Just because its a TD it doesnt mean they cant fill normal armor support role. Axis also used the jagdpanzer IV as "assault guns" ("Sturmgeschütze") from time to time.

Of course. You can also use strategic bomber to fight off other bombers, but isn't it better to use fighters? You can throw frag grenades at tanks or try to cut them with sabers. Standard M10 Wolverine could carry 54 pieces of ammo. Sherman M4A2 could carry 90. Now there is a question: do we want more or less a realistic game, or do we want a game about 1 hero sherman killing entire enemy division "because it might have been possible"?

Posted: **16 May 2016, 16:34**

2. SS Flaschminjagers vs other infantry.
I have situation where 3 squads of infiltration rangers (thompsons) under light cower were killed by one charging to close range flashminjagers team.
These FG42 guns are overpowered. I think it was much weaker than BAR at long range, and at close range thompson should eat this. but in this game?

It's not the FG42 guns that are OP, its the def upgrade they get, it pretty much makes them immortals/rambos/KCHs

Same for SAS, these also have offensive upgrade besides defensive

Warhawks97 wrote:You cant beat axis fallis with own inf. And if then only AB or RAF commandos with superior vets. Put hauptsturmführer with luft inf and they smash everything. Use snipers (the only true counter) mines and HE tanks.

I don't think only snipers, mines and HE shells should be the counter for HUMANS. For Christ sake, why not just make them like the other infantry but with better guns, better accuracy, more abilities since they are HUMANS too like the other infantry not immortals that need 100 bullets to kill.

Posted: **16 May 2016, 23:24**

Jagdpanther wrote:
2. SS Flaschminjagers vs other infantry.
I have situation where 3 squads of infiltration rangers (thompsons) under light cower were killed by one charging to close range flashminjagers team.
These FG42 guns are overpowered. I think it was much weaker than BAR at long range, and at close range thompson should eat this. but in this game?

I also experienced the similar situation, 18 rifles mostly smgs vs 6 FG42 and the second wins???? What kind of math is this?

It's not the FG42 guns that are OP, its the def upgrade they get, it pretty much makes them immortals/rambos/KCHs

Same for SAS, these also have offensive upgrade besides defensive

Warhawks97 wrote:You cant beat axis fallis with own inf. And if then only AB or RAF commandos with superior vets. Put hauptsturmführer with luft inf and they smash everything. Use snipers (the only true counter) mines and HE tanks.

I don't think only snipers, mines and HE shells should be the counter for HUMANS. For Christ sake, why not just make them like the other infantry but with better guns, better accuracy, more abilities but that die as fast as the rest since they are HUMANS too not immortals that need 100 bullets to kill.

Posted: **16 May 2016, 23:54**

Yep, can't believe I'm saying this but I agree with JP in that the falljs power isn't coming from the gun but their infinite HP, just like KCH. Which, some people like and some people don't. Apparently, creating a diversion for the fallsj to attack from medium to close range was too difficult for axis players to do, so fallsj can now live forever and run around shooting silly without consequence like the KCH back then and the commandos now. This might be good or bad, depending if you're into that sort of mindless style of "tactics".

Posted: **16 May 2016, 23:57**

kwok wrote:Yep, can't believe I'm saying this but I agree with JP

Why do you say " can't believe I'm saying this". Do i really have such a bad history of retarded posts?

Posted: **17 May 2016, 01:00**

Haha, no absolutely not dude. Relax, it's just that i normally disagree with your opinions which is totally fine, that's the point of balancing discussion forums, to disagree.
But haha this just goes to show that the bk community is normally "default to toxic" when I absolutely did not intend to be offensive in anyway.

I mean I'm not going to pretend I'm some paladin... I've been pretty toxic before... I lost control. But I've zero beef with you JP. Hope you feel the same.

Posted: **17 May 2016, 01:07**

im not toxic, donno why you think that

maybe for girls, i dont know why they ignore me :cry:

Posted: **17 May 2016, 01:25**

Haha, ah maybe I wasn't clear. I do not think you are toxic, I do not think your posts are in anyway bad.
I said "can't believe I'm saying this" before because I normally disagree with your thoughts, but that does not make you bad in any way.

Posted: **17 May 2016, 09:22**

Creating a new version of KCH was not intended. If they are really such a problem with the defensive upgrade we can tune them down somehow...to begin with, the defensive upgrade could apply only when they don't move...because, you know...using defensive bonuses while in offense is kinda off

Posted: **17 May 2016, 12:22**

Jagdpanther wrote:Same for SAS, these also have offensive upgrade besides defensive

yes it's impossible to suppress this unit with hmg42s after the upgrades
not sure why ! someone should really check the bonuses they receive

Posted: **17 May 2016, 15:34**

another thing is upgrades for rangers and granadiers:
thompson vs stg44 - ok its about the same, maybe stg is better at long range but i can stand it. cost the same.
browning cal.30 vs mg42/34? 75ammo vs 100ammo. cal 30 is not too good, axis portable mg just eat us infantry in few secs.
bazooka vs pzschreck - bazooka - bazooka cant pen every ger tank, it cant pen jagpz70, pz5, pz6, jagpanther etc.
pzschreck can pen m26e1-1.

king tiger vs superpershing:
kingtiger mostly wins.
armor:
kingtiger: 150mm main plate + slop. turret 100mm front (H version), 150mm (P version).
superpershing: 110mm + 40mm plate + space + slop. turret: 110mm + 40mm plate + huge space (that sort of space also make APBC shells less effective cause of possibility of explosion after breaking first plate, also it can make missle change direction or twist and turn, hitting second plate not with its "sharp" part).
guns: long 90mm was a bit better than kwk43 (300mm with apcr us, 260mm with axis apcr), standard APBC about the same.
also this "veterans shot" at kwk43 tanks are just wtf its like "insta kill" at very long range.

And panters and tigers mostly killed 5 shermans, but when pershings arrived it was 5 pz5/6 destroyed per one pershing.
I dont think it was caused by that much "better" of pershing, but of german habit for easy target like m4a1 75mm tanks.

and hiding/camouflaging should be just like in 4.9.3 - when unit is observated (in sight of enemy unit) it cant camouflage, or enemy will see your camoudlage.
now it is just like: i was shoting jagpanther, but it dissapeared in front of my tank (medium range).

and now: panther side armor mostly can bounce M10 wolverine hit from side at close range.
it is 40mm armor. it is quite the same as sherman has at its side (37mm).

AND MAN YOU MUST SEE WHAT I FOUND:
NEED FOR SPEED: HETZER XD man. this hetzer has about 25km/h on road (10km/h in terrain) (with the strongest end-war engine about 42 on road, but only 15km/h in terrain) WTF is "full speed"? scherman m4a1 (first version) was faster in terrain than this. m4a2 was much faster, m4a3e8 was one of the fastest tanks in terrain. but it doesnt have "full speed". wtf is that XD

Posted: **17 May 2016, 16:02**

MarKr wrote:Creating a new version of KCH was not intended. If they are really such a problem with the defensive upgrade we can tune them down somehow...to begin with, the defensive upgrade could apply only when they don't move...because, you know...using defensive bonuses while in offense is kinda off

good point.

milekh wrote:
AND MAN YOU MUST SEE WHAT I FOUND:
NEED FOR SPEED: HETZER XD man. this hetzer has about 25km/h on road (10km/h in terrain) (with the strongest end-war engine about 42 on road, but only 15km/h in terrain) WTF is "full speed"? scherman m4a1 (first version) was faster in terrain than this. m4a2 was much faster, m4a3e8 was one of the fastest tanks in terrain. but it doesnt have "full speed". wtf is that XD

well, that"full speed" thing i rather strange in that game and more a "game feature" than realistic stuff. Why has comet flank speed for example? it was actually just sligthly faster than a Panther (the Panther D was actually just as fast as a comet). Why have some vehicles this ability and others that could also have it does not?

Why has M18 flank speed not as ability (talking about button to activbate it manually) while being the fastest "tank" (as far as we can call it tank with just 18 mm armor) of ww2?

Regarding to the hetzer i would say it doesnt really need that ability. Its main job (in reality as well as in game) is to fire from ambushes.

Posted: **17 May 2016, 16:17**

MarKr wrote:Creating a new version of KCH was not intended. If they are really such a problem with the defensive upgrade we can tune them down somehow...to begin with, the defensive upgrade could apply only when they don't move...because, you know...using defensive bonuses while in offense is kinda off

- Reg5 soldiers now have a different "armor type" which makes them harder to hit while moving
- Reg5 receive after Vet unlock in CT defensive bonuses

they've been buffed in the last patch...do you really want to nerf them again? Before the last update they were almost useless compared to other elite infantry such as gebirgs and waffen. I think that they are fine now...don't forget that the RAF's offensive and defensive upgrades are applied on both SAS and commandos. Fallschirms are offensive infantry so I think that they need a def upgrade while they are moving

Posted: **17 May 2016, 16:58**

so increase their cost.
for 550 human power you recive terminator parachuters with panzerschreck and fg42, can disable points have many granades etc.
SS are also "overhumans", but they cost 800, not 550 with paradrop and bazooka. gebirgs are olso "O.P." but not that much as flaschs.

SAS arent that much "OP". they are killable. and cost 800.

flaschs was useless? now 82 airborne is useless. infiltration rangers are useless. red berets are useless. cqb team is useless. these teams have serious lack of HP, even in compare to normal "cheap" infantry.

rangers and 82 airborne are offensive infantry so maybe buff them?

I also find out that german infantry can run into front of MG nested in buiding and throw granade before mg start shoting.
maybe it cost 25 ammo not 15, but still its impossible to throw a granade into window from 50 meters. even from 20 meters it would be hard, and normal MG have effective range up to 1000m, 0.50 about 3000m.
german "stickgranade" have too much range, maybe it should be nerfed just for buildings? or whatever, make them 15 ammo and just like us granades.

Posted: **17 May 2016, 17:32**

Ok, ok, could kindly stop complaining about everything?

milekh wrote:flaschs was useless? now 82 airborne is useless. infiltration rangers are useless. red berets are useless. cqb team is useless. these teams have serious lack of HP, even in compare to normal "cheap" infantry.

This is not an idea or question, this is crying. I don't think that those units suck.

Don't imagine too much with such "nerf that! nerf that too! Buff that!" ramble.

nashorn251 wrote:they've been buffed in the last patch...do you really want to nerf them again? Before the last update they were almost useless compared to other elite infantry such as gebirgs and waffen. I think that they are fine now...don't forget that the RAF's offensive and defensive upgrades are applied on both SAS and commandos. Fallschirms are offensive infantry so I think that they need a def upgrade while they are moving

Yea, I am also against touching fallshmir again.

milekh wrote:guns: long 90mm was a bit better than kwk43 (300mm with apcr us, 260mm with axis apcr), standard APBC about the same.
also this "veterans shot" at kwk43 tanks are just wtf its like "insta kill" at very long range.

Where the hell do everybody get that 300 mm of penetration? Can you show us some source? I can only find standard shell's pen is 170 mm, top 258 mm (minimal range, apcr). And it's barely enough to penetrate King Tiger front armour... at minimal range.
It's ok that King tiger wins vs SP, it's how it should be.

milekh wrote:and hiding/camouflaging should be just like in 4.9.3 - when unit is observated (in sight of enemy unit) it cant camouflage, or enemy will see your camoudlage.
now it is just like: i was shoting jagpanther, but it dissapeared in front of my tank (medium range).

It wasn't changed, it always worked like that -_-.

milekh wrote:and now: panther side armor mostly can bounce M10 wolverine hit from side at close range.
it is 40mm armor. it is quite the same as sherman has at its side (37mm).

For the hundredth time, game engine doesn't know "side armor", it's only front and rear. Even if you see tank hitting side armor, it's counted either as front or rear hit.

milekh wrote:NEED FOR SPEED: HETZER XD man. this hetzer has about 25km/h on road (10km/h in terrain) (with the strongest end-war engine about 42 on road, but only 15km/h in terrain) WTF is "full speed"? scherman m4a1 (first version) was faster in terrain than this. m4a2 was much faster, m4a3e8 was one of the fastest tanks in terrain. but it doesnt have "full speed". wtf is that XD

Holy shit. I will tell you something more ridiculous! Listen! The time it takes to build tiger tank here is just a few minutes!!!!! Omg, in reality it was months!!!

milekh wrote:rangers and 82 airborne are offensive infantry so maybe buff them?

Almost everything that allies got has been buffed, and that axis had has been nerfed in last few patches.

milekh wrote:I also find out that german infantry can run into front of MG nested in buiding and throw granade before mg start shoting.
maybe it cost 25 ammo not 15, but still its impossible to throw a granade into window from 50 meters. even from 20 meters it would be hard, and normal MG have effective range up to 1000m, 0.50 about 3000m.
german "stickgranade" have too much range, maybe it should be nerfed just for buildings? or whatever, make them 15 ammo and just like us granades.

Who told you it's 50 meters? I say it's 15 meters at the top. Prove me I am wrong now. Or try to prove you are right.

Posted: **17 May 2016, 17:48**

milekh wrote:even squad of SS flashminjagers(550 cost) vs 82 airborne (550cost) or elite usa paras (800 cost), or SAS, well SS always win.

milekh wrote:so increase their cost.
for 550 human power you recive terminator parachuters with panzerschreck and fg42, can disable points have many granades etc.
SS are also "overhumans", but they cost 800, not 550 with paradrop and bazooka. gebirgs are olso "O.P." but not that much as flaschs.

SAS arent that much "OP". they are killable. and cost 800.

flaschs was useless? now 82 airborne is useless. infiltration rangers are useless. red berets are useless. cqb team is useless. these teams have serious lack of HP, even in compare to normal "cheap" infantry.

rangers and 82 airborne are offensive infantry so maybe buff them?

please correct your information.
82nd cost is 475 not 550.
elite usa hq paras cost is 680 not 800.
both have fire-up ability as default too.
sas cost is 650 not 800 and after the upgrades they are super humans for sure.
cqb is useless ?? come on!

Posted: **17 May 2016, 18:18**

sorry, i was taking these 4.9.3.

but still flash 550mp kill elite usa 680mp.
82 vs flashs are without a chance.

cqb vs granadiers with double stg44 at close range and cqb loses.
and also cqb isnt good at attacking through fields. it has really few HP and get killed rapidly.

Posted: **17 May 2016, 18:36**

milekh wrote:but still flash 550mp kill elite usa 680mp.
82 vs flashs are without a chance.

Not true.

milekh wrote:cqb vs granadiers with double stg44 at close range and cqb loses.
and also cqb isnt good at attacking through fields. it has really few HP and get killed rapidly.

Yes, they are not good at attacking thorough fields, because they are not meant to do so. CBQ has hp of standard rifles, they are meant to be weak, because on the other hand they can appear in any building, camouflage and booby trap. They are more sabotage than front line unit.

Posted: **17 May 2016, 18:54**

Cqc literally stands for close quarters combat, in case you didn't know. So not being able to attack over fields would directly be against their intention.

82nd are equipped similarly to cqc with other roles. They are a bit tougher, but that doesn't make them long range field chargers. If anything, no infantry is intended to be field chargers cuz that would reward poor strategic thought (cough vcoh cough). Can't fight in 1944 like you would in 1700s.

Blitzkrieg Mod Forum

axis units vs allies units

axis units vs allies units

Re: axis units vs allies units

Re: axis units vs allies units

Re: axis units vs allies units

Re: axis units vs allies units

Re: axis units vs allies units

Re: axis units vs allies units

Re: axis units vs allies units

Re: axis units vs allies units

Re: axis units vs allies units

Re: axis units vs allies units

Re: axis units vs allies units

Re: axis units vs allies units

Re: axis units vs allies units

Re: axis units vs allies units

Re: axis units vs allies units

Re: axis units vs allies units

Re: axis units vs allies units

Re: axis units vs allies units

Re: axis units vs allies units

Re: axis units vs allies units

Re: axis units vs allies units

Re: axis units vs allies units

Re: axis units vs allies units

Re: axis units vs allies units