Possible Armor doctrine design (Could use Markrs Help)

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
User avatar
Redgaarden
Posts: 231
Joined: 16 Jan 2015, 03:58

Re: Possible Armor doctrine design (Could use Markrs Help)

Postby Redgaarden » 26 Jul 2017, 13:33

Vehicle speeds... Hmm, this is such a controversial topic in BK Mod. But did anyone recently complain about any tank being too slow or too fast??!! As far as I am concerned; No! Therefore I believe that there is really no need to touch the speed of any vehicles. Speeds in BK Mod currently might not be absolutely accurate.. but rather "OK" at the end of the day.


I have to complain that jagdpantehr reverse speed is faster than sherman forward speed. But I think people have already told me that the max acceleration is the same backwards and forwards. So to answer your question. Yes people actually have started a disscussion about the speed of tanks.
Rifles are not for fighting. They are for building!

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1251
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: Possible Armor doctrine design (Could use Markrs Help)

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 26 Jul 2017, 14:55

Tiger1996 wrote:I just saw the new speed changes for Sherman tanks, not bad... But changing the speed of Panthers would be rather questionable.. for the reasons mentioned above.


Panther speed are untouched, and will stay untouched, who said that Panther speed will be changed? we are talking about Shermans here.
Image

User avatar
Panzer-Lehr-Division
Posts: 380
Joined: 12 Dec 2014, 14:03

Re: Possible Armor doctrine design (Could use Markrs Help)

Postby Panzer-Lehr-Division » 26 Jul 2017, 15:05

Panzerblitz1 wrote:
Tiger1996 wrote:I just saw the new speed changes for Sherman tanks, not bad... But changing the speed of Panthers would be rather questionable.. for the reasons mentioned above.


Panther speed are untouched, and will stay untouched, who said that Panther speed will be changed? we are talking about Shermans here.
Actually ypu wrote it at almost end of page 1. lol.
SunZiom: but true is you`re only one man which i know who really know how play PE

kwok
Posts: 1022
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Possible Armor doctrine design (Could use Markrs Help)

Postby kwok » 26 Jul 2017, 18:15

Tiger1996 wrote:However, if u just want to speak about vehicle speeds.. just for the sake of discussing... Then first u have to admit the fact that few things seem so strange. For example; both the Terror and Blitz docs Tiger tanks have flank speed ability.. allowing them to be faster than Panthers somehow. Even though I was actually able to reach a speed of 42 km/h with my Tiger1 in War Thunder, and this is the maximum speed of the Tiger tank according to Wikipedia as well. But given the fact that Panthers can reach up to a speed of 55 km per hour on the other hand, then wouldn't Panthers also deserve flank speed ability?? The same question can also apply to Easy8 btw.

So, as you can see.. changing the current vehicle speeds would only result in more controversial topics.


I think the last thing people want are historically accurate speeds. The intent of role and gameplay vision should dictate speeds instead of historical stats. Matching relativity AND intent during the historical times makes a stronger game than matching stats. I like the changes proposed by devs to match the tank's relative speeds so that intent of tactics are actually viable.

User avatar
DolphinsAreGaySharks
Posts: 40
Joined: 09 Jun 2015, 19:11

Re: Possible Armor doctrine design (Could use Markrs Help)

Postby DolphinsAreGaySharks » 26 Jul 2017, 21:44

I stopped reading at: ''SP removed''
SP is the whole purpose of existence of the armor doc! The alpha and omega!
I delete the game if you make such a rework.
Armor is fine as it is. Who the fuck started whining about it and made it such a big issue?

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2436
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Possible Armor doctrine design (Could use Markrs Help)

Postby Warhawks97 » 26 Jul 2017, 21:48

DolphinsAreGaySharks wrote:I stopped reading at: ''SP removed''
SP is the whole purpose of existence of the armor doc! The alpha and omega!


Sad enough. This is the whole story actually. An entire doctrine reduced to a single unit.
Can you imagine, there was a time before SP came as a Beta unit in 4.7.

So you rush straight for it right. Everything else is "just there" to "fill the holes in the picture".

Wow, even in vcoh the doctrine provided more as in your visions of "What US armor doc is in BK".

But calm down. Its off the table.

Oh, and it wasnt whinning. Just thought about how to add new cool stuff and options to this - most of the time- super boring "one unit doctrine".

User avatar
Panzer-Lehr-Division
Posts: 380
Joined: 12 Dec 2014, 14:03

Re: Possible Armor doctrine design (Could use Markrs Help)

Postby Panzer-Lehr-Division » 26 Jul 2017, 21:55

DolphinsAreGaySharks wrote:I stopped reading at: ''SP removed''
SP is the whole purpose of existence of the armor doc! The alpha and omega!
I delete the game if you make such a rework.
Armor is fine as it is. Who the fuck started whining about it and made it such a big issue?

Yes please, Do that
SunZiom: but true is you`re only one man which i know who really know how play PE

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2436
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Possible Armor doctrine design (Could use Markrs Help)

Postby Warhawks97 » 15 Aug 2017, 20:25

I once again want to come up with the question of relocating the mass production upgrade that its either a lone unlock or linked somehow with the faster production speed without delaying anything of the current line (from prod speed to ammo unlock).

The reason for that is that from my experience the early mass prod upgrade doesnt makes much of an difference as supply yard upgrades are required first for an effective mass production.
Also its more important to "recover" from an rather weak early and mid game is the access to special units like hellcats, calli and jumbo (in future the arty call in maybe as well).
The mass production helps to maintain mobility and to put pressure on the enemie when you managed to break out of the lock down. But a pure throwing of cheap trash is never an option to break out from an disadvantage position. It doesnt work with brits, inf doc and not even BK doc. It doesnt work in BK in general usually.

But to get access to such stuff you unlock the mass prod for shermans. But a mass prod of them actually never helps you to get out of the situation in which you quite often stuck already.

And yes, ive been once again thinking about having the 75 mm jumbo in this doctrine somehow included in the upper left to lower left column.

One idea was to put jumbo unlock for 2 or 3 CP right below the 76 upgrade and then 2 or 1 more CP towards calli sherman. (that swap bc i think calli for 3 or 4 CP would be too early for a doctrine not focused on arty)
The Jumbo unlock would unlock the 75 mm jumbo and the 76 call in. The 76 call in jumbo would at the other hand require both tank depot upgrades.

The faster production speed would be placed one slot lower. The ammo upgrade would then be in the lower left corner below the calli (the unlock line unchanged from current upcoming patch). Above the faster prod speed would be the sherman mass prod for 1 or 2 CP and requiring the faster prod speed, depending if the ammount to calli in total would be 5 or 6 CP.

Another option would also be that the mass prod would become a single standing 2 CP upgrade in lower left corner or where vehicle cap is currently and cap moved to lower left corner, both being independent lone standing unlocks.

If anyone wants to make visiual concepts of it, you can do it.


Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest