USA early game against PE

[elpiojoxp]

Hello everybody, I will just go to the bone. Actually, USA dont have any way to counter PE cars in early game, If you go and build 1 AT gun, most of the times its not enought to hold the line against PE cars, AT gun misses shoots, scout car flank them easily even if the car is shooted, it need 2-4 shoots to explode, so, most of the times, the scout car, just run over the AT gun and it killed it. And if you go for 2 AT guns, you increase your chances to deal with cars, but, if the PE player decide to build first the Infantry Building, you are done, game over. Im talking to PVP games, against average and good players, not compstomp players. So this is my proposal:

1) Give something efficient to deal with PE early cars, maybe rangers available for build from the begining (with only the infantry building), or, increase AT gun rotation speed and accuracy, give some bazooka shoot for riflemans for munition cost (like volks Panzerfaust), or make rifleman riflegranade available for all USA doctrines.

OR

2) Make the PE cars building available to build, ONLY after infantry building.

And pls, dont start saing nobrain things like: "play brits", or "play infantry" or something like that. Because as it is now, if you have same skill players, USA vs PE, USA have almost zero chances to win, because game ends just in the first 2-3 minutes. Every faction should have something to deal for the early units.

Best regards

[Krieger Blitzer]

High res games:
Barracks >>> WCS >>> Mortar Pool >>> Riflemen >>> AT Team with Zookas, right away!

Low res games:
2 AT guns - or Armor doc with RL Jeeps, or play "with Brit team-mate" for support of AT rifle boys.

I think USA doesn't need better counter against PE scout cars. WH also suffers against Recce, so it's rather balanced...

[kwok]

I understand that PE vehicles in the early game add variety to openings, which I'm all for. But I see where elpiojo is coming from, it is too punishing to lose to a vehicle opening based on RNG. If an AT gun misses, it's pretty much a guaranteed dominance for the PE early game. It doesn't make for a fun/good game to have it turn over so easily so early in the game. I think this is the reason why I asked for the vehicle speed reductions hoping for AT guns to at least get a shot or two in before getting completely flanked, compared to the previous where vehicles can literally move so fast and blitz past the full view of an AT gun without the AT gun even get a shot off.

Could we adjust the vehicle speeds for cars slightly more so that early game AT guns can get at least those 2-3 shots off to face vehicle blitzes? This way a well positioned AT gun would actually be a hard counter to vehicles rather than an RNG based deterrent. Otherwise like elpiojo mentioned, it's a nasty game of rock paper scissors with RNG playing a huge factor for a USA/PE match up.

@Tiger, I think you missed the point about what elpio was saying in that a 2 AT gun start isn't a fair opening. Because then the PE infantry overrun pretty hard and US loses almost all capping power/map dominance with low mobility. I agree high resources is a better option... I've been saying this forever... but if players including yourself keep pushing for standard res games then it really is just rock paper scissors with a more punishing loss for allies if they don't choose the right opening.

[elpiojoxp]

High res games:
Barracks >>> WCS >>> Mortar Pool >>> Riflemen >>> AT Team with Zookas, right away!

Low res games:
2 AT guns - or Armor doc with RL Jeeps, or play "with Brit team-mate" for support of AT rifle boys.

I think USA doesn't need better counter against PE scout cars. WH also suffers against Recce, so it's rather balanced...

1) Your whole argumentation its about to "choose a certain doct", "you need Brit team-mate", etc. As I said, EVERY single faction MUST have somehing effective to counter EARLY units not to mention FIRST unit builded like scout car.

2)Reece its not abailable to build from the beggining.

3) Even volks can deal with reecce, they have Panzerfaust and ATgranades, available in 3 doctrines. That DONT hapend in USA vs PE game.

4) Most of the games are standard resc, not high resc.

5) and 2 AT guns its not a guarantee, you are not able to capture points, cant fight against inf, and in some maps, with many houses, bushes, etc, cars can flank ever 2 at guns.

Its a fact, as it is now, USA have nothing effective to counter PE cars in early/beggining game

Regards

[MEFISTO]

High res games:
Barracks >>> WCS >>> Mortar Pool >>> Riflemen >>> AT Team with Zookas, right away!

Low res games:
2 AT guns - or Armor doc with RL Jeeps, or play "with Brit team-mate" for support of AT rifle boys.

I think USA doesn't need better counter against PE scout cars. WH also suffers against Recce, so it's rather balanced...

I played a game few minutes ago! my 37mm hit 2 times(no kill)mess 3 times miss and finally the last shoot kill the car! so I need 6 shoots WTF

[Krieger Blitzer]

1) Your whole argumentation its about to "choose a certain doct", "you need Brit team-mate", etc. As I said, EVERY single faction MUST have somehing effective to counter EARLY units not to mention FIRST unit builded like scout car.

2)Reece its not abailable to build from the beggining.

3) Even volks can deal with reecce, they have Panzerfaust and ATgranades, available in 3 doctrines. That DONT hapend in USA vs PE game.

4) Most of the games are standard resc, not high resc.

5) and 2 AT guns its not a guarantee, you are not able to capture points, cant fight against inf, and in some maps, with many houses, bushes, etc, cars can flank ever 2 at guns.

1) just the same way how WH needs PE support with 28mm cars in order to deal with Recce, or a certain doc (Def doc) for 28mm half-tracks.

2) Recce is available at the VERY beginning, maybe only 1 min later than scout cars.. but it's still too early available.

3) You can't catch a Recce with PanzerFaust.. unless the opponent player wants to suicide by driving too close, which never happens.
And the Riflemen squads also have AT rifle grenades, which can kill scout cars.. not very effective, but it's also an option.

4) Games can still be high or low res, depending on your wish.

5) 2 AT guns are usually enough.. if your opponent rush for Scout Cars, he also won't have a lot of infantry units, usually it's 2 Scout cars and a PzGrenadier squad. For the US, it's 2 AT guns and a Riflemen squad... For me it seems really balanced.

in case US needs to counter Scout Cars better, then WH would also have to counter Recce better.

[kwok]

I disagree with almost everything tiger just said except that WH needs a better counter to recce, hence why i asked for that fuel bump a couple patches back.

2 sct cars and a pgren is significantly beter than 2 at guns and rifles. sct cars can kill any early game US opposing units at every range while the AT guns only have hope against inf at short range, and that's an RNG play. sct cars can cap and have exceptional mobility relative to AT guns. sct cars can convert to resource secure points to the late game while 37mm at guns become obsolete by mid game. It is by far NOT a balanced composition. Which isn't necessarily WRONG but I definitely see why mefisto and elpiojo take issue with it... the early game is absolutely not balanced and has never been.

[Warhawks97]

@Tiger:

So when i pick armor, PE surely goes luft or TH= GG, just later.
Two scout car and grens are much better than rifles and two AT gun. You have much better mobility and cap speed, thus Res domination thus game domination. You can also attack one AT gun by two cars when US attempts to cover two sectors. If he has two AT guns packed together backing each other then PE can cap 80% of the map meanwhile.

And Recce comes significantly later. The 50 mm can oneshot recce more often as a 37 mm oneshots a scout car (i never seen it ever btw). I usually managed to get my 20 mm Puma out in time and shortly after the 50 mm. The recce cant kill Puma, the Puma has chances to kill it with 3 pen hits of 20 mm canon. So at least you cant get overruned that easily as two scout car would overrun US early on. Also AT rifle squad comes in Beta, so you got your options vs recces.

AT Grenade was supposed to be a help, but ammount of ammo for upgrade and shot doesnt really help. If you want to fire over obstacle, you hit the obstacle, you fail often and in the open the car will just dodge, drive away and then hunt you down. idk what can be done here, just mentioning it bc elpio mentioned them.
Possible things that could be done:

1. Scout cars cant cap right away. Logistic company upgrade required or Inf battallion required or a special unlock/upgrade which perhaps requires a certain tier as well.... idk. That takes away that cap advantage a bit. Two AT guns can be idle as long as no battle goes on, scout cars have a value even in peace early on.
2. Making scout car more vulnerable to cal 50 shots. Its a 10 mm armor vehicle. Bren carrier and stuff get killed by two hits of 20 mm, why the cal 50 cant be the US multirole weapon? That way a cal 50 jeep or the armored jeep can be a pretty good tool to destroy or counter these things and making a comeback without requiring a Motorpool
3. AT squad comes with WSC like it was once?

[MarKr]

4) Most of the games are standard resc, not high resc.

We keep saying to players for as long as I can remember that BK should be played with High Resources setup (also on big maps). The fact that players ignore the recommended settings is not really problem of the mod. It is like buying a Ferrari, against all recommendation trying to drive it at full speed on some field dirt roald and then complaining to the seller that the car is broken...

2. Making scout car more vulnerable to cal 50 shots. Its a 10 mm armor vehicle. Bren carrier and stuff get killed by two hits of 20 mm, why the cal 50 cant be the US multirole weapon? That way a cal 50 jeep or the armored jeep can be a pretty good tool to destroy or counter these things and making a comeback without requiring a Motorpool

I see a problem with this in the fact that US have the .50cal mounted on almost everything - Jeeps, Armored cars (M20, M8), Halftracks (M3, M16, M15A1, Mortar) and also on tanks. If we make just some of them stronger, then people start asking why some are stronger while others are not when it is the same gun. Also it would not be "make SC more vulnerable to .50cal shots" but rather "make lightly armored vehicles more vulnerable to .50cal shots" so it would also mean HTs. And since many early game US mechanized units have .50cal and pretty much all early Axis mechanized units would die easier to .50cals, wouldn't that be a massive nerf for Axis early game in general?

[Warhawks97]

Markr, that particular vehicle uses a different TT.

I didnt talk about Puma (Sdkfz 234 which has 30 mm frontal armor) and the other wheeled one with 20 mm canon from PE which also got 30 mm frontal armor.
This scout car is the 221 version with 14,5 mm armor. Later German scout cars like the 222 (the one with 20 mm) and Puma had armor frontally up to 30 mm (or more).

So it would not be a great thing to have just the 221 being vulnerable to cal 50´s but not the main battle verions.
Despite that we do have different cal 50. The CW cal 50 on recce has twice the accuracy of all or most US vehicle mounted cal 50 (for whatever reason). Thats why recce is a way more deadly in this regard.


And just btw.: The cal 50´s are utter shit in most situations to be honest. It performs extremely poor and is little effective even vs inf, esspecially late game.
I think 90% of the players would pay 50 ammo for each cal 50 if it would actually kill something. Test it yourself in game or make a calculation in corsix. The results will be the same. The damage within the first seconds of combat (and actually the only really important moment of all battle) is approx half that of a top mounted MG34. Despite suffering less penalties vs inf in cover, the MG34 largely outclasses the cal 50 still with twice the basic accuracy and much higher rof than the cal 50.


So what if shermans, Hellcat and the Greyhound would pay 50 ammo for each cal 50? I think that would sound fair if the cal 50 in turn would be more usefull. The M20 and jeeps would get them right away, just as the axis scout car have the 20 mm right away. The Greyhound skirts would perhaps need to be payed in MP (25 MP) since the ammo investment of skirts and cal 50 would be as high as 100 ammo.

Perhaps its worth to think about it.

[kwok]

4) Most of the games are standard resc, not high resc.

We keep saying to players for as long as I can remember that BK should be played with High Resources setup (also on big maps). The fact that players ignore the recommended settings is not really problem of the mod. It is like buying a Ferrari, against all recommendation trying to drive it at full speed on some field dirt roald and then complaining to the seller that the car is broken...

But Markr can you REALLY blame them when the option is available and it’s literally labeled standard? Even more so when you get annoying formula players who get themselves off winning some gimmicky early game meta exploit and then parade around calling themselves “pro” and prostletizing standard res is the way to play? That’s like saying Bk isn’t made for 1v1 s yet you literally have 1v1 maps labeled Bk mod tip. That’s like buying a ferarri that can shift into 3rd gear but the manufacturers saying “oh you shouldn’t go into 3rd gear, just skip it or stay at 2.” Why give the option and name it as a recommended setting when in actuality it’s not recommended. Because now you have tons of self righteous players saying that this particular Ferrari is supposed to remain in 3rd gear.

[Krieger Blitzer]

50.cal is already effective against scout cars.. try attacking any Axis half-track or Scout Car with US M20 Command Car or Recce, Scout Cars will die.
Specifically if the Recce would use "Mark Target" ability, Scout Cars can actually die faster than soldiers at this point.

======================================================================================================

High resources exist, and low resources also exist.. the player knows which one is recommended, but it's up for each player to choose what he wants.

Looking at MarKr's example... Ferrari has tiers, you can't remove the tiers. It's recommended for this car to be used on paved roads, but you can't prevent anyone from using it on off-roads as well, it's their choice.

Similarly, CoH has 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 game types... 1v1 is not recommended for BK Mod, but you can't remove it.. and you shouldn't.
Players are up to choose playing 1v1 or not, and mostly btw; 1v1 is an option only sometimes when not enough players are online.
There are only THREE 1v1 maps with a "BK MOD TIP" stamp, which indicates that those maps are totally bug-free and 100% playable...
1v1 is part of CoH, you can choose not to play these 1v1 maps in PvP, or use them just for testing.. or to do whatever you want!
However, a SUPER FINE map won't be excluded just because it's not big enough... All options are available, and people can choose.

[Jalis]

50.cal is already effective against scout cars

It is far from what it should be. BK made effort to update mg 42 to historical value, but not so much on the cal .50.

[Krieger Blitzer]

With the so called "Mark Target" ability, I think it's actually OP.

Without the ability... Well, not as it should be.. but still effective! it kills any half-track, specifically at close range.
And there are a lot of other things in the game (on both sides) that doesn't behave as it should anyway.. reason is game balance.

[kwok]

Similarly, CoH has 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 game types... 1v1 is not recommended for BK Mod, but you can't remove it.. and you shouldn't.
Players are up to choose playing 1v1 or not, and mostly btw; 1v1 is an option only sometimes when not enough players are online.
There are only THREE 1v1 maps with a "BK MOD TIP" stamp, which indicates that those maps are totally bug-free and 100% playable...
1v1 is part of CoH, you can choose not to play these 1v1 maps in PvP, or use them just for testing.. or to do whatever you want!
However, a SUPER FINE map won't be excluded just because it's not big enough... All options are available, and people can choose.

There can be options, sure. But I think there should be a clear single message from the BK team on what is recommended and what isn't. There can be a low resource option, but then it shouldn't be called "standard". There can be 1v1 maps, but it shouldn't be labeled "mod tip". It's literally saying one thing in place, but saying something else in a different place. I'm not saying to take away options but it isn't fair to blame players on interpreting intention in one way and NOT taking the latest message that the devs posted on the forums. A lot of people don't read the forums.

[MarKr]

I was already thinking about naming the current "standard res." as "Low res." and current "high res." and "standard res." but I thought it wouldn't have much effect anyway, and I told you how it is about the maps...also the "latest message" has been around for how long? Year and a half? It is not like it has been said somewhere once and never mentioned again.

[Warhawks97]

50.cal is already effective against scout cars.. try attacking any Axis half-track or Scout Car with US M20 Command Car or Recce, Scout Cars will die.
Specifically if the Recce would use "Mark Target" ability, Scout Cars can actually die faster than soldiers at this point.

Well, you need to get close, so it can run away nicely. Its nothing compared to the 20 mm.
Just to give you a feeling:
The 20 mm (Puma in this case, the other single barreled 20 mm are even more brutal) hits with 50% accuracy at max range against a not moving greyhound (less when it moves). The basic damage of 25-30 gets increased by 2.5 (for whatever reason) when hiting greyhound or armored vehicles. It fires approx 10 rounds per burst and reloads after every thrid burst and pens with approx 68% chance. And the greyhound is the best US armored vehicle. The 20 mm also kills tetrarch in a burst and other light armored vehicle.

The cal 50 has an accuracy of 10% max range (less when enemie vehicle moves), its damage of 20-30 gets lowered by 0.75 modifier and fires 12-18 rounds per burst (cooldown is similiar) and has a 60% pen chance the sdkfz 222.

Against halftracks, sdkfz 222 it has a 10% pen chance and vs Puma 1% pen chance.

So the 20 mm kills any armored car and even light tanks like stuart, the cal 50% is just good enough to deal some damage to the lightest armored vehicle in axis arsenal.
There are worlds between this weapons. No doubt, the 20 mm was playing in an even higher class than the cal 50 and was axis favoured multirole weapon, but the cal 50 is really broken shit.

I mean what i would ask for is to have the cal 50 with a rof of 8 instead of 6 rounds per second, 70% pen vs sdkfz 221, 25% vs 222, 35% vs skdfz 250/251 (Halftracks) and 10% vs sdkfz 234 (Puma types).
The accuracy could go up to 0.15 max range so that it actually hits something (i mean the top mounted MG34´s have more than twice the rof but also twice the accuracy of an cal50 while the average damage is 22,5 for Mg34 compared to 25 for cal 50 (the cal 50 howevergets 25% damage boost vs inf which makes it 31,25 per bullet but that doesnt makes up for having half the rof and half accuracy.

The shermans and Hellcats could really have their cal 50´s as an upgrade for 50 ammo.
We could call this a faction feature.

Also one jeep cal 50 is broken. It shares damage and accuracy of an Schwimmwagens Mg34 but has the low rof of a cal 50 (which btw is extremely low in BK as well. While Top mounted Mg34 (idk why game calls them 42 and why they have 42 skin) share the realistic rof (15 rps) the cal 50 does not (it has 6 instead of 8).


And Mark target is again Armor doc only btw. So my enemie gonna choose TH anyway. And due to the low accuracy of the M20 cal 50 compared to mRecces (its half the accuracy) the mark target is not a boost but rather "mini compensation".

[MarKr]

There is still the thing that in BK the top MGs are set to be additional anti-infantry protection, which works for Axis but you would change the .50cal to additional anti-vehicle killing power. If you consider that US has .50cal on many vehicles (transport trucks can have them, some jeep versions, HTs - M3, M16, M15A1, mortar, armored cars - Greyhound, M20, Command car, and tanks) it would significantly buff the strength of US vs entire Axis side in early game.

Wouldn't it force the Axis to play more with infantry when pretty much any of their lightly armored units could be shredded to bits by most of US vehicles? Wouldn't it force Axis to rush for medium tanks as fast as possible? If the .50cals are turned into a payed upgrade, wouldn't it be unfair to Allies that they need to pay for additional firepower while Axis units come to field with installed upgrades that add anti-infantry killing power?

[Krieger Blitzer]

Not to mention this way that if 50.cal is buffed to a realistic value, then the 50.cal Airborne jeep (bulletproof) would be able to kill any MG Scout Cars with total ease.. and Scout Cars won't be able to do anything in return... And that would be super messed up for sure, specifically in terms of balance.

[Warhawks97]

There is still the thing that in BK the top MGs are set to be additional anti-infantry protection.

You cant call the current cal 50 as "protection" vs inf. If it would do that at least, that would be great. Allieds have to support their tanks and stuff with specialized anti inf vehicles like AA tanks, M16 and Scott and HE shermans anyway. So why not making something new with cal 50 when it doesnt really offer anti inf protection currently anyway or at least no crucial one. As i said, i would pay already if it would do at least this.

which works for Axis but you would change the .50cal to additional anti-vehicle killing power. If you consider that US has .50cal on many vehicles (transport trucks can have them, some jeep versions, HTs - M3, M16, M15A1, mortar, armored cars - Greyhound, M20, Command car, and tanks) it would significantly buff the strength of US vs entire Axis side in early game.

I said it could be better, not an american version of 20 mm canon like that shreds in a burst any vehicle. The only real vehicle that has to be scared would be the 221 scout car which in late game is far back securing points. The Puma would take minor damage (as much as current halftracks) and in every engagment between a cal 50 armed scout unit and a axis 20 mm armed scout car the 20 mm would clearly win afterall. The Mortar HT barely gets its chance to fire on vehicles and sruff and if so then its one with 20 mm canon or bigger that shreds the mortar anyway.

Quads are currently treated differently anyway. Neither the cal 50 nor the 20 mm quad is a real quad but rather a improved HMG unit. So there wouldnt be any change at first and if so then also for the axis quad 20 mm as well.

Wouldn't it force the Axis to play more with infantry when pretty much any of their lightly armored units could be shredded to bits by most of US vehicles? Wouldn't it force Axis to rush for medium tanks as fast as possible?

No, no medium tank can offer the mobility. Scout vehicles scout, flank weapon crews, provide fast firesupport, make hit and runs. In this matter both sides vehicle balance wouldnt that much changed simply bc all combat vehicles from axis have 20 mm, 28 mm, 37 mm or 75 mm weapons which clearly beat any allied cal 50 equiped scouting vehicles at range anway like M8 Greyhound and M20.
And as said, the only unit getting "shred" would be only the 221 scout car so far. Besides that i think that AT rifles are a bigger reason to choose tanks over vehicle.


Besides that this scenario is basically happening, just the other way arround. Just bc 20 mm and bigger guns on axis vehicles clearly outgun units like M20 and even light tanks like tetrarch, daimler car and stuart, it didnt made US and CW players rush for medium tanks and skip M20 or daimler scout cars/Tetrarch. So why should a slightly better cal 50 that at best would just harm standard axis vehicles suddenly cause axis to skip their halftracks and vehicles when it isnt the case the other way arround. It would be some sort of nice asymetical balance. E.G. axis vehicles have the firepower to knock out even stuart tanks and shermans in a shot or two, stuart tanks lacks this firewpower but in return stuart does not need to fear MG´s while axis vehicles with larger guns get them as a trade off for being vulnerable to the cal 50´s.... and between all that the 20 mm canons which would likely lose vs stuart armor and their 37 mm gun but winning the fight 1 vs 1 against cal 50 equiped scout cars.

If the .50cals are turned into a payed upgrade, wouldn't it be unfair to Allies that they need to pay for additional firepower while Axis units come to field with installed upgrades that add anti-infantry killing power?

And current shermans top mount cal 50 isnt a real protection and shermans need huge support of AA tanks and scotts anyway. Paying 50 ammo to have one cal 50 on one sherman that would do some damage and being a unique alrounder weapon is at the end the same as having 3 shermans with 3 peashooter cal 50´s. And if you have managed to secure enough ammo, well then all your shermans have cal 50´s. Big firepower but a big investment per tank when fully upgrading them. Axis buying skirts in all docs and boosting defense, shermans boost offense by purchasing cal 50 multirole weapon. Thats faction variety. If they dont have the firepower and lacking big guns, this cal 50 could a nice add to enable shermans causing some havoc during raids within enemie support units once you managed to pass their main units. Perhaps you spare the AP shots and add only HE and cal 50 to achieve maximum anti inf/vehicle firepower, perfectly suited when you try to avoid the main axis combat units and causing havoc quickly elsewhere among their support units like Rocket arty halftracks, SPG arty units and all these light armored stuff (Wespe/Marder would also belong to them).

Also just a few axis tanks have mounted MG34 at default. Perhaps the most used one but therefore not in such huge numbers with one single exception which there is the Tank IV H/J sometimes from BK doc. But they arent as fearfull as they used to for US so i wouldnt see much of an unfairness. CW tanks have to survive entirely without top mounts and they arent blamed bad. I think its less an issue for US to add an M16 or rifle squad to a 76 sherman as it is for CW to add an AA tank or inf squad to an firefly.


Edit: I want deeper into that cal 50 thing an i found weird things. Like the cal 50´s have the same or even worse pen and damage vs Halftracks and light armored vehicles than the top mounted MG34´s. The MG34 can pen a greyhound better and deals more damage per bullet as the cal 50 pens the Puma. VS haltrack the Mg34 has higher damage and same pen values as cal 50.

Markr, can you confirm that as well?
@Tiger: I would like to test that. I had this suspicion but never had the chance to make my top mounted MG34 shooting on a halftrack.


It also seems that the top mounted MG34 is the better AA as well. Do i oversee something?

[kwok]

I was already thinking about naming the current "standard res." as "Low res." and current "high res." and "standard res." but I thought it wouldn't have much effect anyway, and I told you how it is about the maps...also the "latest message" has been around for how long? Year and a half? It is not like it has been said somewhere once and never mentioned again.

Even if it has been said repeatedly by devs on the forum for years, clearly the message isn't getting out because when I bring it up to players in lobby they blatantly say i'm wrong. So much I have to literally say "I'm not just saying it, the devs say so". They just respond how stupid it is. "3v3 on 4v4 map is bullshit". People don't come to forums even if theyve been playing for years. It took me nearly 2 years to join the forum since i started playing bk. At the end of the day, the most direct line of message to the players is through the game itself. A PR person can post on this forum as much as possible, even direct message players as much as possible, but those efforts would be greatly undermined if the game itself said somethign entirely contradictory.

[drivebyhobo]

Not to mention this way that if 50.cal is buffed to a realistic value, then the 50.cal Airborne jeep (bulletproof) would be able to kill any MG Scout Cars with total ease.. and Scout Cars won't be able to do anything in return... And that would be super messed up for sure, specifically in terms of balance.

The unit description of the Airborne Jeep explicitly states that its purpose is to easily kill scouts cars.

This jeep is equipped with extra armor plating and a .50 caliber M2 heavy machine gun. It can easily defeat similar enemy scout vehicles.

If you consider that US has .50cal on many vehicles

For very good reason. In reality, it has many favorable attributes like accuracy as well as effectiveness against light vehicles and low flying aircraft. It’s high muzzle velocity/accuracy made it suitable for American snipers in the Vietnam War to use it against extreme long range targets. Indeed, the 50 cal is not only the standard HMG of the modern US military but was also adopted by the modern militaries of Germany, the UK and many more.

So shouldn't such an omnipresent weapon have a better representation?

BK mod should be played with High Resources setup

If it's the case that standard resources don't matter, then why is the team so enamored with the Light AT squad? It's a tier zero unit and in its previous PzB incarnation became quickly obsolete (outside of a few exploits) in High Resource games. There have also been tweaks in recent patches to units that are obsolete in high resource games such as the Bren Carrier "Wasp". Why go through the effort of updating units that don't matter to the "intended" experience?

.50cal on many vehicles (transport trucks can have them

Incidentally, that is a broken costly upgrade requiring a Motor Pool if you only have US allies, but available from the start if you have a British ally.

Wouldn't it force Axis to rush for medium tanks as fast as possible?

Considering that the Light AT squad is sniping M8s with heavy damage from long distances, no?

If the .50cals are turned into a payed upgrade, wouldn't it be unfair to Allies that they need to pay for additional firepower while Axis units come to field with installed upgrades that add anti-infantry killing power?

I would hope that if that particular 50 cal change was made, that the armored doctrine command tree upgrade for free/pre installed ammo upgrade would also include 50 cal mods to maintain the current alleviation of micro overhead.

But Markr can you REALLY blame them when the option is available and it’s literally labeled standard? Even more so when you get annoying formula players who get themselves off winning some gimmicky early game meta exploit and then parade around calling themselves “pro” and prostletizing standard res is the way to play?

There are and have been plenty of gimmicky early game meta exploits in high resources. Who are you kidding?

Even if it has been said repeatedly by devs on the forum for years, clearly the message isn't getting out because when I bring it up to players in lobby they blatantly say i'm wrong.

Before you get so self righteous kwok, the official developer line on the old forums was standard resources was the way to play for many years. That was why it was codified into the launcher as recommended.

In fact, high resources was mainly the favorite of those who wanted to skip to the end game as fast as possible. Before the Tiger Ace Callin had requirements, it was very common to see Tiger Aces appearing around the 20 minute mark of high resource games. And no, there was no super pershing spam from the US side, because there was no Super Pershing.

It really is ridiculous to hear high resources as being the antidote to bad map design. If a map is designed such that winning a single area with the first encounter wins you the game, then it is a poorly designed map in both standard and high resources. A high resources crutch in that situation does not change that you will need your opponent to make a very exploitable mistake to turn it around.

[MarKr]

So shouldn't such an omnipresent weapon have a better representation?

Maybe yes, but it depends on what you mean by "better presentation". If we give it all the attributes it realistically had then all vehicles armed with it will be significantly more deadly vs vehicles, infantry and planes, which would mean rebalancing pretty much everything in the mod. So some buff could be possible but I don't think we can make it "realistic".

If it's the case that standard resources don't matter, then why is the team so enamored with the Light AT squad? It's a tier zero unit and in its previous PzB incarnation became quickly obsolete (outside of a few exploits) in High Resource games. There have also been tweaks in recent patches to units that are obsolete in high resource games such as the Bren Carrier "Wasp". Why go through the effort of updating units that don't matter to the "intended" experience?

Just because the game starts with more resources it does not mean you skip all the early game and jump directly to medium tanks. The early units still play role. Light AT team was possible to implement and had a chance to mix up the early game meta which can be good. Wasp from my point of view simply does not fit the game. It has limited range, before it gets to range something usually kills it before it can do anything, its speed is not helping either...I thought it would be good to give it something to turn it more useful (and I still think that some underused units should get some attention to make them more useful) but now I think Wasp cannot be made useful without making it OP or giving it some attributes which would be unrealistic and thus shit-talked by the community. So yeah, Wasp changes was an attempt to make underused unit more useful which did not work out.

Incidentally, that is a broken costly upgrade requiring a Motor Pool if you only have US allies, but available from the start if you have a British ally.

Yes, I know...I sort of knew that someone would catch on this and point at its non-existent usage...We can rework it and make it...idk...cheaper, available to more doctrines or change the requirements but I kinda doubt it would lead to people starting using the upgrade. The trucks die too fast to anything that can shoot bullets and the .50cal on top will not help it much to survive. Also..you just asked why we work on changes for things that have very little usage potential

Considering that the Light AT squad is sniping M8s with heavy damage from long distances, no?

Considering that the current set up of GrB squad is not final and based on beta feedback will be tuned in its power, maybe yes?

I would hope that if that particular 50 cal change was made, that the armored doctrine command tree upgrade for free/pre installed ammo upgrade would also include 50 cal mods to maintain the current alleviation of micro overhead.

The unlock already saves you tons of ammo that you would normally need to pay for the upgrades - especially on M4s where the HE upgrade costs 90 ammo. Giving the top MGs for free along with the ammo upgrades with an unlock that only costs 1CP on its own? You at least still need to pay for using the AP ammo abilities and switching the HE mode has some cooldown but the MGs are more or less passive thing (unless you use the suppression ability). I think the unlock would either need to cost more CP (but then from where to take the CP?) or it should maximally reduce the cost of the MG upgrade but not give it completely free.

There are and have been plenty of gimmicky early game meta exploits in high resources. Who are you kidding?

If you report them, we can try to fix them...

[Krieger Blitzer]

i found weird things. Like the cal 50´s have the same or even worse pen and damage vs Halftracks and light armored vehicles than the top mounted MG34´s. The MG34 can pen a greyhound better and deals more damage per bullet as the cal 50 pens the Puma. VS haltrack the Mg34 has higher damage and same pen values as cal 50.

Markr, can you confirm that as well?
@Tiger: I would like to test that. I had this suspicion but never had the chance to make my top mounted MG34 shooting on a halftrack.


It also seems that the top mounted MG34 is the better AA as well. Do i oversee something?

There must be something wrong with your discoveries for sure, the mounted MG34 does not even scratch any vehicles.

The unit description of the Airborne Jeep explicitly states that its purpose is to easily kill scouts cars.

Descriptions aren't holy.
Most of them in Bk Mod need correction anyway.
Realistically speaking, if you are in that jeep.. you will not survive MG shooting at you, specifically from the sides and rear. The armor plate will protect you a bit, but definitely won't make you totally immune to bullets like it is in the game, so if 50.cal need to be more realistic.. then I guess Dingo and AB 50.cal jeep would also have to be more realistic as they shouldn't be bulletproof anymore then, maybe more HP compared to regular jeeps but that's it.

[Shanks]

i found weird things. Like the cal 50´s have the same or even worse pen and damage vs Halftracks and light armored vehicles than the top mounted MG34´s. The MG34 can pen a greyhound better and deals more damage per bullet as the cal 50 pens the Puma. VS haltrack the Mg34 has higher damage and same pen values as cal 50.

Markr, can you confirm that as well?
@Tiger: I would like to test that. I had this suspicion but never had the chance to make my top mounted MG34 shooting on a halftrack.


It also seems that the top mounted MG34 is the better AA as well. Do i oversee something?

There must be something wrong with your discoveries for sure, the mounted MG34 does not even scratch any vehicles.

The unit description of the Airborne Jeep explicitly states that its purpose is to easily kill scouts cars.

Descriptions aren't holy.
Most of them in Bk Mod need correction anyway.
Realistically speaking, if you are in that jeep.. you will not survive MG shooting at you, specifically from the sides and rear. The armor plate will protect you a bit, but definitely won't make you totally immune to bullets like it is in the game, so if 50.cal need to be more realistic.. then I guess Dingo and AB 50.cal jeep would also have to be more realistic as they shouldn't be bulletproof anymore then, maybe more HP compared to regular jeeps but that's it.

I totally agree, in addition, it is not necessary to lower the speed of the scout, at this moment the game is played cooperatively, in short, you need the British at the beginning of the game in "standard" resources, and in "advanced" resources , you will not have problems vs scout cars, so, I THINK it is not necessary to modify anything ....

@elpiojo, you should play more pvp, before doing a post like this here, is what I think, the scout car it's not a problem!

Note: start playing vs pro player, and you'll see that he will change his mind, the scout car, is a double-edged sword!