Overperforming Garands

[Warhawks97]

Does nobody understand that issues?

I would say so, or maybe it is more like that only you see that thing as a problem and only because you saw some numbers in corsix. I already told you - the ranges have been like this for years, everyone is used to this setup and it does not matter if they perceive the "long distance" differently than how it is defined in corsix. What is in corsix named as "long" might as well be called "range_3" or whatever. I just don't see any problem that the "biggest range" makes the most of the overall range, nobody had a problem with it until now.

Just bc its used to it doesnt mean its right to stick on vcoh stuff. And i keep saying this for years and pointed at it in many occassions. Iwhen you have just one range value you can ajdust it sucks. And the entire game and 99% of all weapons are more or less using just one value for 90% of their combats. Ranges below grenade range are rather rare, short and dominated by full auto weapons. But everything above this range is technically only one range->distant.

There are just a few units with proper range brackets and thats all AT guns, Hetzer and Jagdpanzer IV guns, Panther, Tiger, and all units with 88L/71 guns (though there are differences as well).

And because of that mess the 88 from KT for example is better than those of Jagdpanther/elephant, the Hetzer gun better than jagdpanzer IV/48 gun simply bc the chances to score for example a mid or long range penetration modifier over long or distant modifier are higher

But yeah, stuck to your vcoh shit were units had just 35-40 range and technically no distant range. Keep up the myth of the possibility of "point blank shots" or "close range flanking maneuvers" that actually doesnt exist bc unless you dont drive so close that you could throw a nade from one tank to the other or unless they put their barrels into each other vision slots, there is almost no chance to actually score a "mid range shot". So all that myths of "get close bullshit" is so hilarious. That only exists for sub machine guns.


It had to get changed ages ago already, once BK was made but devs were just to lazy at that time and made it only for a handfull units. And wasnt it this new dev team that fixed a lot of that bullshit? Like the 7 sec reloads on 57 mm AT guns and rangers with copy/pase weapon stats of rifle squads? We all were "used to it" as well, so why did we change that and not this?

[Krieger Blitzer]

Well, I don't have much to say concerning this topic.. however; I'd just like to say that I still believe it's better to keep all current values as they are.
There is no need to change the Garand or the Kar98 and in return the price for Riflemen squads could be higher, something around 285 MP and 245 after reduction in infantry doctrine... just my opinion.

[drivebyhobo]

If everyone gets these changes it will turn the balance upside down, I don't think it is needed.

I predicted this. You've picked the easy answer of beating the Garand with the nerf bat until its FUBAR.

It's a very ugly solution, but such is the apparent necessity when one side has a battle rifle and the other an obsolete rifle. I mean just think of it, this is a rifle whose design (through it's very close descendants) is currently serving the US military in active contemporary conflicts specifically for the purpose of medium range combat. And yet here we are moving it back because of the shocking revelation that a WW2 service rifle should outperform a WW1 service rifle.

also it's important for the sake of players (both experienced and newbie) that what devs say is how something is designed, it is true in reality. how many times have new players read the caption for units, expect a result, find it's not true, then complained only to have an experienced player say the truth of the unit. it's frustrating and not helpful to keeping games alive.

The most important expectation to new players is that BK mod fulfills the realism premise advertised. They don't generally don't decide to scrutinize patchlogs for the reasons behind every developer decision.

When the feeling of the game does not tally with the common understanding of WW2 equipment, they are less inclined to play Blitzkrieg because there is less reason to do so. After all, there are many different RTS games to serve different niches. Potential players unconcerned with the setting of the game, will quickly move onto other games that offer fast automated matchmaking and balance unconstrained by realism considerations (since they have completely fictional settings).

[MenciusMoldbug]

You know, adding more range brackets could fix well up to 80% of the problems in BK.

Even just adding one more range bracket to this ridiculous Henschels weapon, which currently has set long and distant to both have 125-75(fixed in the beta patch) be their ranges; I honestly think there should be a 5th range bracket here because of how far this thing can shoot. Some weapons wouldn't have to be so ridiculous at range because there is no way to set that firing at the furthest range possible should give you some accuracy/penetration penalties without screwing them over at closer distances. Instead we have to balance it with like 1 value when there really should be 2.

+ Range brackets already look pretty funny when you take a closer inspection. M10 Guns have range brackets of 55/40/25/10 while Hetzer has 60/50/25/15 and etc.

[Warhawks97]

I suspect it is the main reason why the Riflemen perform better than intended. If everyone gets these changes it will turn the balance upside down, I don't think it is needed.

No and yes. If you speak about max range combat, then no. bc the ranges above 50 arent affected by that.
If a combat takes place at a range of lets say 38, then perhaps yes bc Garand uses long range value, K98 distant range (But shouldnt be since german rifles dont make a difference between long and distant range or between 25 range and 60 range. They use all the same copy and paste values.

If everyone gets these changes it will turn the balance upside down, I don't think it is needed.

I predicted this. You've picked the easy answer of beating the Garand with the nerf bat until its FUBAR.

It's a very ugly solution, but such is the apparent necessity when one side has a battle rifle and the other an obsolete rifle. I mean just think of it, this is a rifle whose design (through it's very close descendants) is currently serving the US military in active contemporary conflicts specifically for the purpose of medium range combat. And yet here we are moving it back because of the shocking revelation that a WW2 service rifle should outperform a WW1 service rifle.

Thinking same.

also it's important for the sake of players (both experienced and newbie) that what devs say is how something is designed, it is true in reality. how many times have new players read the caption for units, expect a result, find it's not true, then complained only to have an experienced player say the truth of the unit. it's frustrating and not helpful to keeping games alive.

The most important expectation to new players is that BK mod fulfills the realism premise advertised. They don't generally don't decide to scrutinize patchlogs for the reasons behind every developer decision.

When the feeling of the game does not tally with the common understanding of WW2 equipment, they are less inclined to play Blitzkrieg because there is less reason to do so. After all, there are many different RTS games to serve different niches. Potential players unconcerned with the setting of the game, will quickly move onto other games that offer fast automated matchmaking and balance unconstrained by realism considerations (since they have completely fictional settings).[/quote]

Likely yes. Most BK players havent been here in the forum and never even heard of it nor did they go through patch notes.




But to get back to the range brackets. What exactly would speak against making the range scale going at least 15/30/40/60 instead of 15/25/35/60?
It would simply suck if garands would get beaten easily in combat ranges in excess of 35 range while getting killed by nades and machine pistols as soon as they hit the 25 range mark? What would be the point of semi automatic Garands (again)?

I mean why not even testing it and in the long term changing all weapons range brackets (besides that it sucks that Tank IV gun is a way weaker than a comparable hetzer gun just bc its pen power drops significantly faster)

You know, adding more range brackets could fix well up to 80% of the problems in BK.

Even just adding one more range bracket to this ridiculous Henschels weapon, which currently has set long and distant to both have 125-75(fixed in the beta patch) be their ranges; I honestly think there should be a 5th range bracket here because of how far this thing can shoot. Some weapons wouldn't have to be so ridiculous at range because there is no way to set that firing at the furthest range possible should give you some accuracy/penetration penalties without screwing them over at closer distances. Instead we have to balance it with like 1 value when there really should be 2.

+ Range brackets already look pretty funny when you take a closer inspection. M10 Guns have range brackets of 55/40/25/10 while Hetzer has 60/50/25/15 and etc.

Thats what i am saying but nobody wants to understand.

Hetzer btw. is very special. The Jagdpanzer IV/48 (housing same gun) has 15/30/45/55. Tank IV has it as shitty as 76 guns.

So while tank IV´s and most medium tank guns pull out their worst pen value, distant range, hetzer still uses Long range pen values which are considerable better.

Top mounted MG´s are the funniest of all. Just take a look. They are like laser weapons that dont care about bullet drops etc. Their performance vs targets at 60 range is the same as against targets at 21 one range. So driving closer or getting closer doesnt makes it more effective/more lethal.
Same for Schwimmwagens MG. Many drive closer to increase its damage output. But if they dont drive closer than 24 range, it doesnt change anything.
It doesnt matter if you shoot from 60 range or 25 range? The performance keeps actually the same.


In a match vs Erich and another guy last night this perhaps contributed to the destruction of almost a dozens Jumbos with Hetzers. So There is an impact in this game due to such tiny facts. Most people call it luck/bad luck, i call it error in the system.


So thats the big myth of BK. You dont benefit from getting closer unless you go extremely close. And tell me how many drive their M10´s close on enemie tanks hoping for a better pen chance or wait for their ambush shot to fire from closer distances. Would any of them really do that anymore if they would know that it doesnt work since they have no chance trigger a mid range shot? I dont think so.
So the gameplay and unit usage of many players is based on false believes that ends up in huge disappointments and tactial errors since they dont get any benefit from closing in.
Now try to tell otherwise and that this isnt the real nonsense of BK.

[MEFISTO]

And here is the problem. What long range are you talking about? That what you feel in game? The range corsix says?

Making Volks better at "long" range in terms corsix uses means that Volks are better from 25-60 range. Because 25-35 range is "long" range and 35-60 is distant range. If Volks will be superior from 25 range and higher, then we are at the exact same situation we had in 4.xx

35-60 range. Maybe change distant range to 40-60 and make 25-39 the long range.

Wald

Sounds fair. I would divide every 15 range for most weapons. But it doesnt have to. At least this seems a lot more fair.


Up to 30 range i would make Garands holding an advantage. From 30-40 or 45 both would have good chances to win and the Garand still dangerous. Perhaps Garand a bit better to compensate for higher reinforce costs and getting closer is naturally connected with higher risks of losing men during advance as well as retreat (60-40 win rate for Garand). From 40 or 45 to 60 range the K98 could hold the advantage when both sides met under equal conditions. Most likely that can be done by lowering Garands accuracy a bit further at this max range or increased cooldown multiplier at that distant (60-40 win rate for K98 or 65-35).

Does that sounds more fair to everyone and does that fit into the understanding of mid ranges, max ranges and the the issue that Garands beat K98 at max range which was the reason for the topic and the main complain from Mefisto?

?....... If you watch the test replay about RM and Volks they were not upgrade with NOTHING, and RM were superior in 90% or more at longest range.

[MarKr]

I predicted this. You've picked the easy answer of beating the Garand with the nerf bat until its FUBAR.

Can you, please, give me the quote where I say that Garands should be nerfed back to being total crap? I seriously doubt you can, if nothing else I said at least 3 times that the Garand would get just some minor nerf on longer ranges.

And actually with your quote of my post... You say that I want to nerf the Garands to become useless but I just said there that if Garands overperform because of the different brackets, and IF all the guns get the same brackets as Hawks requests, then it will buff ALL guns and thus the Garand will be crap again. So what do you want, really? Buff all guns to have same range brackets as current Garand and then, once Garand is back to average, or perhaps even under-average, buff the Garand again so that is once more better than all the newly buffed rifles?

It's a very ugly solution, but such is the apparent necessity when one side has a battle rifle and the other an obsolete rifle. I mean just think of it, this is a rifle whose design (through it's very close descendants) is currently serving the US military in active contemporary conflicts specifically for the purpose of medium range combat. And yet here we are moving it back because of the shocking revelation that a WW2 service rifle should outperform a WW1 service rifle.

Another person argumenting with "selective realism" a.k.a "make things as reaslistic as possible, but only the up sides of units, never mind the down sides". Realistic behavior of units consists of both positive and negative side of every unit, if you only want to implement the positives but neglect the negatives, you are no closer to realism than you were before. I am NOT talking just about these rifles but the game in general - you cannot request realistic behavior of one unit or gun and keep the other units without implementing their realistic positives and negatives.

You know, adding more range brackets could fix well up to 80% of the problems in BK.

The engine works with these pre-set brackets and I really doubt it is possible to simply add another range bracket. And how would it fix "80% of BK problems"? You just said that Henschels are fixed in beta and it was done without adding any new range bracket so why would it be needed for any other fixes?

[MenciusMoldbug]

You know, adding more range brackets could fix well up to 80% of the problems in BK.

The engine works with these pre-set brackets and I really doubt it is possible to simply add another range bracket. And how would it fix "80% of BK problems"? You just said that Henschels are fixed in beta and it was done without adding any new range bracket so why would it be needed for any other fixes?

I remember someone talking about in COH 2 that you could add more brackets if you wanted to whatever ranges needed but if its only set to 4 in COH and that's just an engine problem then I can understand it can't really be changed.

By the way, my real problem with Henschels was their target tables vs Heavy Tanks actually. Accuracy nerfs to henschels are small things because the target table has set the gun to have 2x accuracy modifiers vs Pershing and Churchill. So 70% at max range becomes 140%. So if the plane is on the flight path and has not been shot down Churchill and Pershing are 100% guaranteed to die. Which are the only problems for Luft because Hetzer can ambush/firing position every other tank.

Even then, I did a test game in the beta patch. Saw 3 tanks, Sherman, 76 Sherman, and Stuart in close proximity to each other. Call in Henschels all 3 tanks are dead from 2 plane strafes, and the third plane strafe kills another 76 sherman far outside the circle because of its flight path. 200 Munitions and US player is down 1200+ MP and 200+ Fuel. Munitions well spent. Even using it for a single tank like a Jumbo is a good trade. I once assumed that Sherman Smoke(which still costs 50 munitions to use for each tank I think?) could be a good counter as Armor Doctrine to Henschels but the accuracy values are still way too high for how fast they fire so it's pointless and you gotta start running out of the circle as fast as you can if you want to survive(and even then hope the plane isn't heading towards you). Sometimes I call in the henschel on the British HQ truck when I have vision on independent tanks in other far away locations so I can watch them be destroyed while the henschesl are technically heading towards where the british HQ is. Only thing I would change though is to remove these accuracy buffs on a few tanks because Henschel already has guaranteed peneteration chances on everything.

[Warhawks97]

Can you, please, give me the quote where I say that Garands should be nerfed back to being total crap? I seriously doubt you can, if nothing else I said at least 3 times that the Garand would get just some minor nerf on longer ranges.

And actually with your quote of my post... You say that I want to nerf the Garands to become useless but I just said there that if Garands overperform because of the different brackets, and IF all the guns get the same brackets as Hawks requests, then it will buff ALL guns and thus the Garand will be crap again. So what do you want, really? Buff all guns to have same range brackets as current Garand and then, once Garand is back to average, or perhaps even under-average, buff the Garand again so that is once more better than all the newly buffed rifles?

I am not sure if you really understand or if you ever checked it.

Ok. Currently K98 (and Garand supposed to be) uses 15/25/35/48 range brackets. However in terms of stats it makes no difference between long and distant range. Thus the K98 behaves against targets 25 range away the same as against targets 60 range away. The Allied rifles usually drop in terms of performance at any of these ranges thus from 35 onwards they drop again in terms of performance (logically and makes sense).

So if K98 would become stronger slightly at the distances from 25-30, sure. Mid range values always differ from long range values in BK mod. However, it wouldnt make a difference for K98 whether long range ends at 35 or 40 range, it will use the same stats bc Long and Distant range are for axis rifles the same.

But not for Garand since it drops down at any of these ranges. Thus having long range ending at 35 or 40 or even 45 range would be significant. By doing so you can much easier make the Garand a bit worse at so called max range players like to talk about without harming its middle range values since mid/long range (the two middle ranges) would go from 15-40 and not 15-35 with medium range ending at grenade range already.

You know, adding more range brackets could fix well up to 80% of the problems in BK.

The engine works with these pre-set brackets and I really doubt it is possible to simply add another range bracket. And how would it fix "80% of BK problems"? You just said that Henschels are fixed in beta and it was done without adding any new range bracket so why would it be needed for any other fixes?

Its obvious. As i already mentiond many many weapons dont make a difference whether a range is 20-25 range away or 60. Thats bc so called mid range ends at 20-25 range while the weapon uses quite often the very same values (accuracy, reload, cooldown) for long and distant range.
Thus this talking about "shoot from closer ranges to increase the weapons effectivness doesnt work since, as menicus mentioned, only one value is responsible for more than 50% of the total range. I led the example of schwimmwagens and jeeps and axis top mounts here.

Also in terms of penetration and so called "shoot from close range" advices barely work effectively in Bk bc we have again no real close range combat. How often do you see tanks so close to each other that they would be in grenade range? Almost never. Thus its technically never happening that we make mid range shots.

And players become victims to the myth of "close range shots" which actually doesnt exist due to strange range brackets.

Isnt it obvious? Perhaps you can try to make it visually for yourself.

Like take a schwimmwagen in the center and make circles arround it for all distances based on the range brackets. And then use different colours for different weapon lethality. You realize that the colour does not change for the most part and keeps the very same.

It would be easily doable to make such circles since alli nade range is the end of Rifles close range bracket and Axis nade range the end of medium range. From there till max range the efficiency for many weapons just dont change and keeps the same. Would be nice if you could make such a visual work as you do sometimes for other topics. Perhaps you will see what we are talking about.

Tanks short range btw ends even sooner as Rifles short range.


Translated for the Garands:
Instead of nerfing it at ranges from 35-60 you could nerf it down at ranges from 40-60 or 45-60. That way the max range efficiency would be solved without hurting the rifle too much.

If we make it for k98 it then would benefit from the mid range increase between 25-30 range but wouldnt do so much to garands as Garands stats beats K98 at mid range values. And having long range ending at 35 or 40 range wouldnt change anything for K98 since it uses the same stats for long and distant range.

I remember someone talking about in COH 2 that you could add more brackets if you wanted to whatever ranges needed but if its only set to 4 in COH and that's just an engine problem then I can understand it can't really be changed.

I am not sure about adding a fifth range bracket that but might be so. However you can adjust at least the four existing range brackets so that they are better distributed.

henschels in this regard could be fixed. Long and distant range dont have to be the same.
Atm its 50/75/125/125. It could be made for example 50/75/100/125. Or whatever you wish... or 40/60/80/125 in order to adjust accuracy values properly.

[MarKr]

Only thing I would change though is to remove these accuracy buffs on a few tanks because Henschel already has guaranteed peneteration chances on everything.

Yes, this will be changed. I forgot to change the doubled accuracy values in TTs, it is an oversight.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Hmm, so Henschels are going to change again? Well, I was actually going to give my feedback about Henschels as I just had the chance to test them.
Nonetheless; since that they will be changed again.. then they will need to be tested again :p So never-mind about them for now...

[Walderschmidt]

Markr, I think your solution will be enough for rifles. Warhawks is just talking in circles.

Wald

[mofetagalactica]

I like the solution that hawks gave, so i don't think hes talking in circles but talking from the ignorance is talking in circles.

Figree

[The New BK Champion]

I think he is talking in circles but at least this topic moved on a bit and markr promised to find a good solution without overnerfing, so I am optimistic now.

[Warhawks97]

I just think most dont even understand what i am talking about so they prefer ignorance.

Talking in short words: We are using basically one Value for the entire combat range. So that talks about "mid-max range tweaks" are nonsense since the game handels pretty much everything as one.

Everything beyong Axis grenade range is handeld basically as one range. So i dont get how to "tweak max range" when "max range" means basically every range above sub-machine gun range.


And i would be very happy if the devs have the courage to clearly say that "waiting for enemies to get closer" or to "shoot from mid range" in order to increase pen chance is impossible bc that would mean to wait untill the enemie tank has got into grenade already in order to trigger a mid range shot.

Lots of new players wouldnt risk to close in in order to boost the damage if they would know that unless they drive into grenade range it doesnt makes a difference and they could just as well fire from max range without any change in performance.


But they are not even willing to say this by their own and prefer to keep talking about that "shoot from closer distances" nonsense to new players.

But alright. Lets keep blind on both eyes and ignorance to errors in the system. Thats what humanity can do the best. Closing simply all eyes.

Markr, I think your solution will be enough for rifles. Warhawks is just talking in circles.

Wald

he didnt even offer one. Just sayed that he changes max range values a bit....*cough* excuse me, all values since max range means every range.

he woudlnt have even found that "mistake" if i hadnt hinted him. Hoe doesnt have to change the current Garand range brackets, just tuning down the max range cooldown/accuracy in order to have wished results to nerf the Garand at max range. Instead he reverts range brackets so that max range is also mid range and then nerfing max range which means he nerfs the Garand even down to mid range combats.

So lets assume i wouldnt have give that hint he would have changed probably distant range accuracy or cooldown modifier. And i am sure most would have been satisifed with a Garand nerfed at ranges in excess of 45. So i would give it a try by keeping current range brackets and nerf simply distant range cooldown and/or accuracy and see how it works. If its not enough he still could revert whatever he wants.
But he dont even want to give it a try if these new range brackets he gave to Garand might work better.

When i might compare Tank IV with Hetzer who use same gun and stats but different range brackets i would say that hetzer works better. So why shouldnt it work for garand as well? Just give it a try markr, pls. For the next beta just tune distant range accuracy or cooldown modifier but keep the range brackets at first. pls.

[MarKr]

Dude, maybe you're right and I don't understand (because, you know, devs don't understand) but it is that you just came across this mistake and out of sudden it is needed to change every fricking gun in the game according to this model? Why to have the range brackets changed by about +5 here and there? I don't think it is needed. You say that people "fall for the myth that fighting at close range is better", what myth? When you get closer, cannons DO have stronger penetration and firearms DO get more accurate. At least I haven't noticed anyone complaininng that upgrading SMGs is pointless because there is no noticeable difference. And so what, that tanks can rarely use the "short" range? If you get as close as you can get, you still get better penetration than when you shoot from maximum possible distance. If there is some bracket range inconsistency between tanks (you mentioned PIV and Hetzer) then it will be fixed too. It IS possible that some differences exist and I am unaware of them because it was not me who made the files and I don't spend my free time going through hundreds of lines of each of the files just to check if maybe something isn't off in them. These things are solved when they pop up. And what the heck is suddenly up with your perception of ranges? For years you have talked about the ranges without any confusion and suddenly you start asking if people mean "close range by their perception or by the corsix range classification"? Close range is still the same as it has been for years, "long range" is still the same as it has been for years (except for the Garand), but suddenly people mean something else when they speak about ranges?
I haven't checked all the guns but you keep saying that Kar98 has same stats for the the las two range brackets and that changing the brackets (for all guns?) would help balance the Garands... so 1 gun (which in terms of files means 3 files) acts differently and so the solution is to change like 200 weapon files (don't know exact number I did not count them) instead of...I don't know...changing the 3 files that have no differentiation between two of their 4 range brackets?

I'm done debating this thing.

[The New BK Champion]

Dude, maybe you're right and I don't understand (because, you know, devs don't understand) but it is that you just came across this mistake and out of sudden it is needed to change every fricking gun in the game according to this model? Why to have the range brackets changed by about +5 here and there? I don't think it is needed. You say that people "fall for the myth that fighting at close range is better", what myth? When you get closer, cannons DO have stronger penetration and firearms DO get more accurate. At least I haven't noticed anyone complaininng that upgrading SMGs is pointless because there is no noticeable difference. And so what, that tanks can rarely use the "short" range? If you get as close as you can get, you still get better penetration than when you shoot from maximum possible distance. If there is some bracket range inconsistency between tanks (you mentioned PIV and Hetzer) then it will be fixed too. It IS possible that some differences exist and I am unaware of them because it was not me who made the files and I don't spend my free time going through hundreds of lines of each of the files just to check if maybe something isn't off in them. These things are solved when they pop up. And what the heck is suddenly up with your perception of ranges? For years you have talked about the ranges without any confusion and suddenly you start asking if people mean "close range by their perception or by the corsix range classification"? Close range is still the same as it has been for years, "long range" is still the same as it has been for years (except for the Garand), but suddenly people mean something else when they speak about ranges?
I haven't checked all the guns but you keep saying that Kar98 has same stats for the the las two range brackets and that changing the brackets (for all guns?) would help balance the Garands... so 1 gun (which in terms of files means 3 files) acts differently and so the solution is to change like 200 weapon files (don't know exact number I did not count them) instead of...I don't know...changing the 3 files that have no differentiation between two of their 4 range brackets?

I'm done debating this thing.

+1 #metoo

[mofetagalactica]

So every weapon works as max range when passing the range of axis grenades? And after passing the range of this one its "middle" and close range all together?

There is any point to get closer if you don't get inside axis range grenade?

[MarKr]

So every weapon works as max range when passing the range of axis grenades? And after passing the range of this one its "middle" and close range all together?

No, not every gun.
Most guns have it like this:

Quick work so it looks shitty, but good enough for demostration

Where each circle represents one of the ranges, which are in the corsix named "close" (red; range 15), "medium" (orange; 25), "long" (yellow-ish; 35), "distant" (inner blue; 48), "max" (outer blue; 60). Each color represents where different stats apply - going from middle to the edge, the accuracy drops, cooldown (delay between shots) is bigger, reload times are usually shorter. This example would apply to Enfields, Ranger Garand, Riflemen Garand (but atm this gun has different sizes of those the circles), M1 Carbines, SMGs, BARs etc.

However Kar98s, G43, Schwim/Bike MGs (possibly a few more vehicle MGs too) have the stats like this:

So while other guns have different stats between the "yellow-ish" zone and "blue" zone, these two rifles have the same stats from the "yellow-ish" zone all the way to the to max zone. That's why I said in my previous post that it if some change is needed then it would make more sense to change these few odd ones to work like the rest of the guns, rather than changing all guns to some completely different setup.

There is any point to get closer if you don't get inside axis range grenade?

The range of Axis grenades is "30" so the "circle" of the Axis grenade range would go in the middle of the "yellow-ish" zone in the first picture. This means that you can be outside the Axis grenade range to get better accuracy if you have Enfield/BAR/SMG/ Garand etc. with Kar98 and G43 it does not make any difference because you only get different stats once the target is in the orange or red zone.

[kwok]

Someone asked me some questions about accuracy and penetration in general. It doesn't 100% apply here, but i might as well share what I made for my own mod and get some corrections.

It's a really basic calculator. Some of the other tabs don't really apply to BK because I'm trying to figure out how morale works. But the first tab that I relabeled to "calculator" was a starting place for me. This does apply to BK. It essentially calculates the probability of a unit being hit/penetrated at various ranges. Note, this works completely differently in CoH2 let alone my mod, so I never built it with the complexity needed to fully make it worthwhile in BK. Feel free to dick around and test your own values.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

[Warhawks97]

I have to correct myself.

Axis grenade range is 30 range. Alli grenade range is 25.

that means that everything that is withing Axis grenade range is already long range.

means when an Axis can throw a grenade at your tank or inf you know that your tank/inf is already using long range penetration modifier. This means there is no bonus when you get closer. No accuracy boost, no pen boost, no cooldown boost... simply no boost.

So it doesnt matter if you let your tank shoot from closer distances or not, it will in 90% of your cases trigger distant range shot. So it makes no sense to "close in". It only matters when you are already within grenade range.


And its not an issue out of the sudden. Just nobody every read when i mentioned it.
I said it when we talked about 88 gun accuracy (btw, the Tiger 88 will soon have much better accuracy than King Tigers 88), when we talked about top mounts....

I told to many players already that are learing BK. I told them that you wont gain anything unless your goal is to get as close as grenade range.


And no, not all guns are broken.

In terms of tanks i think the KT is the only correct tank. Here the brackets are 20/30/50/60. So it does have a realistic chance to trigger close range shots or even mid range.


Also AT guns arent broken so far. Most have 15/30/45/55.
Tiger and Panther, Jagdpanther have it that way as well.

I think if there should be a realistic chance for tanks to make close range hits, it would need to be at least 15-20 range to be count as close range. Mid and long range would have to be from 20-50 and the last 10 range (or 20, depending on tank) would need to count as so called distant range or max range.

Then there are units taken one to one from vanilla coh. Like top mounts.
The jeep is funny as well. Here medium range ends at 15 range already. Thats less than alli grenade range. Long and Distant are both the same which means no matter if you are 15 range or 60 range away, the jeep keeps the same.
Schwimmwagen has short range up to 12 range and medium range at 24.

All range brackets are messed up, even within same guns. Tank IV doesnt gain much from closing in. When churchills got buffed in terms of armor Tank IV´s and stuff received a pen buff at "short range" by 25%. Bad thing is in order to use that you have to get as close as 10 range. Remember, Alli grenade range is 20!.
So devs have wasted lots of time in order to add 25% pen boost at close range for Tank IV and stug guns but you cant use it. This is just hilarious.
They waste time for something but forgot to make it actually working but and now dont even want to fix it.


And i dont want to change all weapons. Sub machine guns like thompson have 10/20/35/45 range. Seems fair. Those could even be 10/20/30/40. Rifles and lmgs could have 15/30/40-45/60.

Tank guns could be like 15-20/35/50/60.

Smaller vehicles could keep as they are perhaps as those can get closer much easier. Staghound for example has 10/25/40/55. Perhaps it could be 15/30/45/60. Like rifles and lmgs.


If you think its a lot of work? Its not as much as you think. Believe me.


Edit:
Thx markr, and now perhaps do the same for tanks.

But distant and max range is one and the same. So you can actually make the outer blue circles as basically one huge that dominates 40% of the entire cirlce. So from 35 range onwards 60 it uses one and the same value and thats distant.

So people can see how close a tank has to get in order to trigger mid range pen.
And perhaps make a line for the minimum range of tanks. You will see how absurd unrealistic is to make a short range shot or even a mid range shot.
Issue here again: Everything beyond this 25 range uses simply same accuracy drop (long/distant). Its like saying hitting a target 1 km away is as easy as hitting one that is 400 meter away. Most tank gunners would disagree.


but thx so much markr. I hope more will understand the problems. All i want is a better distribution of what is close, mid, long and distant range. Bc atm the game is all about distant range. And those who dominate here will dominate most of the game bc distant range is everything in BK. Distant range is life.

I don't think it is needed. You say that people "fall for the myth that fighting at close range is better", what myth? When you get closer, cannons DO have stronger penetration and firearms DO get more accurate. At least I haven't noticed anyone complaininng that upgrading SMGs is pointless because there is no noticeable difference. And so what, that tanks can rarely use the "short" range? If you get as close as you can get, you still get better penetration than when you shoot from maximum possible distance.

As long as you stay outside Axis grenade range you dont get buffs. Bc from Max and distant range (which is the same) towards grenade range nothing boosts your Pen/accuracy whatever.

Dont you see that?

If there is some bracket range inconsistency between tanks (you mentioned PIV and Hetzer) then it will be fixed too. It IS possible that some differences exist and I am unaware of them because it was not me who made the files and I don't spend my free time going through hundreds of lines of each of the files just to check if maybe something isn't off in them. These things are solved when they pop up. And what the heck is suddenly up with your perception of ranges?

Yes, but then use Hetzer/Tiger/Panther/Jagdpanter/Jagdpanzer IV/AT gun as orientation and not Tank IV/sherman etc.

One half is ok, the other is not. So dont break them all.

For years you have talked about the ranges without any confusion and suddenly you start asking if people mean "close range by their perception or by the corsix range classification"? Close range is still the same as it has been for years, "long range" is still the same as it has been for years (except for the Garand), but suddenly people mean something else when they speak about ranges?

Ehm, sorry?
I at least talked about a dozens of times in the past 1-2 years about that issue but i just mentioned it together with other stuff.

I mean i really did that dozens of times. Even when we had the discussion about Garands for the first time.

I haven't checked all the guns but you keep saying that Kar98 has same stats for the the las two range brackets and that changing the brackets (for all guns?) would help balance the Garands... so 1 gun (which in terms of files means 3 files) acts differently and so the solution is to change like 200 weapon files (don't know exact number I did not count them) instead of...I don't know...changing the 3 files that have no differentiation between two of their 4 range brackets?

No, you dont get what i mean.
I dont care whether K98 or guns use the same accuracy/cooldown/reload etc modifier for long and distant range in the first place (thats something that can be tuned step by step in the long run). I mean it would be more logical to have a continues drop, sure, but my main complain is that Distant range alone makes up for about 40% of the total weapon range (sometimes even more) while short, mid and long range have to share the other 59%.
I mean why should one value decide about the effectivness over 40% of weapons range while you have 3 to adjust the other 60%. For everything beyond axis grenade range to max range we do use only one value!

So yes, sub machine guns are different because at these distances (0-25) weapons do get huge performance boosts. Thats what i meant that in relation to BK only the firing range has increased without adjusting the range brackets. Only a handfull units which i mentioned got the right range brackets.

Someone asked me some questions about accuracy and penetration in general. It doesn't 100% apply here, but i might as well share what I made for my own mod and get some corrections.

It's a really basic calculator. Some of the other tabs don't really apply to BK because I'm trying to figure out how morale works. But the first tab that I relabeled to "calculator" was a starting place for me. This does apply to BK. It essentially calculates the probability of a unit being hit/penetrated at various ranges. Note, this works completely differently in CoH2 let alone my mod, so I never built it with the complexity needed to fully make it worthwhile in BK. Feel free to dick around and test your own values.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

Interesint but perhaps you missed one range bracket? You gave min range which is minimum range at which a target can be engaged and a max one that tells you the range the weapon can fire.

But then you have only short, mid and long range. I tried to use 15/25/35/48 range brackets like current rifles have it and tried shooting a target at 55 range. It told me #NUM in results.

So you would need to add the distant range bracket or am i wrong? So we enter the min and max fire range and then the four brackets between them?
Would be aswesome if you could do that.

Edit: Kwok just updated it. So we got all range brackets. Thx so much.

[kwok]

Note:
I DONT KNOW IF THE CALCULATOR IS EXACTLY HOW IT WORKS. I can't find formulas in the vcoh scar files. i'm guessing how the calculations work based on a whole bunch of assumptions and things i gathered while working in corsix and coh2 tools. it might even be much simpler than what i've set up.

[drivebyhobo]

So what do you want, really?

All I want is for the Garand to have a fair representation and to not be treated like an ugly stepchild. At the very least, it should be recognizeable ingame that the US has a factional strength of a superb semi automatic rifle for its service rifle.

The currently in game solution satisfies that constraint, although I will say that it is not the only solution in the solution set. But apparently you consider it to be a mistake because the Garand is outperforming a WW1 rifle.

Buff all guns to have same range brackets as current Garand and then, once Garand is back to average, or perhaps even under-average, buff the Garand again so that is once more better than all the newly buffed rifles?

I didn't say anything in my post about Warhawk's range bracket overhaul proposal. I was silent on it because you know the scope of the necessary work involved for unit changes best. It sounded like it would a good improvement that could add a degree of nuance. Is it really necessary to rigidly keep the range brackets for small arms the same?

Speaking of other rifles, I think the Garand should be benchmarked against the unscoped G43 as its equal not a WW1 rifle. When you have such a statistical gulf between rifles that are in reality approximate equals, it sticks out just as much as if you gimped the MG42 into being "Hitler's Handsaw" instead of "Hitler's Buzzsaw" because it compares favorably to the Vickers MG.

Another person argumenting with "selective realism" a.k.a "make things as reaslistic as possible, but only the up sides of units, never mind the down sides". Realistic behavior of units consists of both positive and negative side of every unit, if you only want to implement the positives but neglect the negatives, you are no closer to realism than you were before. I am NOT talking just about these rifles but the game in general - you cannot request realistic behavior of one unit or gun and keep the other units without implementing their realistic positives and negatives.

What downsides have I ignored? I'm aware that minding the overall effects on other units requires a delicate hand, but it is entirely worth it to have a good representation of such an iconic weapon. Especially since its effectiveness inhibited development of replacements for the M1919 Browning LMG and BAR, thus leading to very beautiful (for an RTS) factional differences.

[MarKr]

All I want is for the Garand to have a fair representation and to not be treated like an ugly stepchild. At the very least, it should be recognizeable ingame that the US has a factional strength of a superb semi automatic rifle for its service rifle.

I still don't see where I said it wouldn't be like that, and still even less I can see where I "picked the easy answer of beating the Garand with the nerf bat until its FUBAR.".

But apparently you consider it to be a mistake because the Garand is outperforming a WW1 rifle.

I would say that I consider it a mistake that the Garand outperforms WW1 at every possible range. I am not questioning the Garand's accuracy, it was very accurate rifle. But after the rework the Riflemen shoot fast at the cost of low accuracy, it is meant to represent sort of "fire supperiority" tactic - if they shoot about twice as fast as the WW1 rifle, they simply cannot beat it with accuracy at ranges where accuracy matters.

Is it really necessary to rigidly keep the range brackets for small arms the same?

It is not necessary per say, but I might just as well ask if it is necessary to change them. If Warhawks didn't post those wllas of text with numbers, making it sound like a problem of utmost importance, would you even say that there is some "huge problem" with the current setup? I dare to say you wouldn't...nobody has had a problem with it for years. And this brings me to the other part - Garand now performs a lot better than other rifles because of the changed brackets. Even if just rifles get this rework, it means that these guns will become a lot stronger too, that means that infantry will start dying faster which in turn will mean another wave of balancing. We've done a lot smaller changes, presuming the impact will be minimal, and in the end these smaller things (sometimes even in terms of one unit) shifted the balance a lot. So is it really needed to go through all that when for years nobody has had a problem with the current system?

Speaking of other rifles, I think the Garand should be benchmarked against the unscoped G43 as its equal not a WW1 rifle.

Here you are pitching historical realism against gameplay. G43 is in the game superior to Garand because it is an upgrade while Garands are stock weapons, what more available to the basic infantry units. If you make them comparable, then you will either make G43 upgrade useless because who would pay ammo to upgrade a squad with rifles with the stats of basic-infantry rifles? Or you will give to Garands the stats of G43 and then the Riflemen will maw down everything in the early game.

What downsides have I ignored? I'm aware that minding the overall effects on other units requires a delicate hand, but it is entirely worth it to have a good representation of such an iconic weapon. Especially since its effectiveness inhibited development of replacements for the M1919 Browning LMG and BAR, thus leading to very beautiful (for an RTS) factional differences.

Return to what I said in the last sentence:

I am NOT talking just about these rifles but the game in general - you cannot request realistic behavior of one unit or gun and keep the other units without implementing their realistic positives and negatives.

So yes, I know that Garands had very little negatives but my point was that if you demand some change on the pretence of "it will be more realistic", then this realistic approach needs to be applied to all units and guns because otherwise you don't get a "realistic" but rather a "parallel reality" where everything has as realistic as possible positives but nothing has as realistic as possible negatives and in that case, how closer to reality are you really getting? If you want realism then Shermans would need to be much better because despite the popular belief, they were not such crap as many people think, PIVs would need to be a lot worse than they are depicted in the game, big cats would need to have a range of at least 150 because in reality the Tigers, Panthers KTs etc. had the biggest advantage in their ability to outrange enemy's effective fire range, not to mention that many of the Axis tanks were maintanence nightmare, ofter breaking due to engine failure, not getting hit, then the matter of costs - back then one Sherman cost about 1/3 of one Tiger (so Tiger would be about 1350MP 160F), KT cost almost 7x more than a Sherman (so it would be around 3150Mp 385F) etc. All these things were part of the realistic features of units. So asking for realistic features of something, purely for sake of realism, while not asking the same for other units simply undermines the realism argument in the first place. And if you say that these changes would not make the game fun, then you are after fun, not realism and then the gameplay is above realism.

[Warhawks97]

It is not necessary per say, but I might just as well ask if it is necessary to change them. If Warhawks didn't post those wllas of text with numbers, making it sound like a problem of utmost importance, would you even say that there is some "huge problem" with the current setup? I dare to say you wouldn't...nobody has had a problem with it for years. And this brings me to the other part - Garand now performs a lot better than other rifles because of the changed brackets. Even if just rifles get this rework, it means that these guns will become a lot stronger too, that means that infantry will start dying faster which in turn will mean another wave of balancing. We've done a lot smaller changes, presuming the impact will be minimal, and in the end these smaller things (sometimes even in terms of one unit) shifted the balance a lot. So is it really needed to go through all that when for years nobody has had a problem with the current system?

depends. The range change wouldnt make it worse, just a better and more logical. It doesnt makes inf combat more deadly per se. Like max range lethality could get even lowered that way while keeping the lethality at mid ranges at the level we got right now.

If you have every 15 range one new bracket you can go, from long to short range, step by step up in terms of effectiveness. Right now weapons just behave the same, no matter how far targets are away, but then, suddenly at 25 range, everything changes and the death comes over everybody.

So you have much better controle about the lethality and decide at which range combats should take longer and at which they become more and more deadly.

Allis rifles behave stupid bc the brackets are bad scaled. As said, one value decides about how good or bad a weapon is for almost 50% of the total range.

Axis are just weird bc they dont drop/increase in performance anymore, no matter whether the target is 25 or 60 range away. If you play a couple of games you will see that. For the most part or actually all parts of rifle combat axis rifles just stay the same.

The most easiest test could be done with schwimm. It mid range ends at 24 range almost like rifles and from then on it keeps the same. You can stay at range or get closer, it doesnt kill better. But if you step over that 24 range mark it shreds very good. If you step closer than 12 range it doesnt bother about cover.


So range brackets are not the reason of all the trouble we have with garands here. I asure you, if you keep current Garand rifles range brackets and simply tune down the distant range accuracy/cooldown (increasing cooldown here) things would already help a lot. And as said, Axis rifles wont get better/worse from that change bc as long as they use the same stats for long and distant range nothing would change in their effectivness, no matter if long range ends at 35 or 45 range here as long as long and distant range uses the same stats.

So i think you mistakenly see the mistake in the false file. Tune down current distant range accuracy and increase slightly the cooldown at distant range and things will be fine. I am 90% sure about that.

But ok, i think i said more than enough here so i will keep it at this point.