The New BK Champion wrote:
Warhawks97 wrote:4. Riflemen cost much more than Volks. If they should get nerfed i want riflemens to be cheaper and less costly in upkeep. Fix it
Riflemen - 255, Volks - 265
Seriously do we even play the same game? I have a feeling you can see only what you want to see every time you post about anything. And almost everytime I am trying to convince you to play vs me, so we could recreate your scenarios and things you are so sure about, either you don't want to play, or those scenarios simply don't happen.
And how often did i say that upkeep
and reinforce cost
do also play a role. Field both units and after one minute on the field Volks have saved more MP bc they cost like 6 or 7 MP less upkeep. Both losing lets say 5 men and Volks saved another 15 MP. That repeated and in 5 mins you saved like 100 MP if not more. Additionally you spare 125 MP when tecing into t2.
recons and snipers cost 8 Mp less for WH as well.
I wonder if you have ever understand what "cost" actually mean. When tank Iv costs for example just 2 fuel per min compared to 5 of a sherman, the tank IV is still cheaper even though it cost perhaps 5 more fuel to build.
In the long run Upkeep matters most and here WH has the very upper hand within the first 20 mins untill supply yard got upgraded which again has to make itself cost effective first.
You won't convince me that now Volks are better than Rifles, because I have more games played with updated garands than you have played in whole czech era of BK mod, darling. I know what I am saying.
Ive been playing more games with updated garands as in the past 2 years combined perhaps when i left bc of huge mess. My current win/loss ratio for WH and US is the same i would say and playing both sides feels equally hard unlike in older versions. So when i think current balance is fine and playing both sides is a challange, why do i want it to be changed again? I dont want to finish of games in 20 min Blitzkrieg rushes again just bc Rifles cant do shit. For the first time ever i do consider Rifle squads as a thread facing them. And that just feels great.
You may seem to be an objective scientist who analyses the game and try to make it more balanced. But the mod has changed. On the other hand your way of thinking hasn't since old Xalibur times.
Not sure what thinking you mean, anyway, Just as its a fact that Garand became a usefull weapon after years of uslesness is just a nice feeling. I just dont like weapons and units that have no point of being build (and we still have some of them). And that WH pays far less upkeep, reinforce cost, starts with more fuel, gets heavy mortar faster and that Puma is a powerfull unit is simply objective. You can see it in game and also corsix.
Thing also is that BK still uses old or even vcoh range brackets. What does it mean? A Rifle has 60 range. But if you tweak so called "max range" or in corsix labeld as "distant" range, you do tweak everything above 25 range. Why? bc current range classification of most rifles and also guns are like that:
0-15 (short), 15-25 ( medium range. Axis grenade range to get a feeling), 25-35 (long), 35-48 (diastant), 48-60 (not classified thus counted distant range as well).
Now markr changed it for testing purposes. For Garand its now 0-15, 15-30, 30-45, 45-60. That means we now could lower Garands efficiency at 45-60 range like increasing cooldown slightly as i suggested and which seems to be the main reason of current Garand performance. But from 45-0 range it would be afterall a vaulable weapon (and not becoming deadly when axis can already throw a grenade at you).
Thing is is shall get revert back so that everything from 35 to 60 range is simply distant range. Thus changing distant range values would already affect ranges that are for players still considered mid range combat.
Dont get me wrong now, its not just garand related but also all other weapons are effected. We currently dont have any effective means to balance mid to long range combat bc in corsix short and medium ranges ending already very early. So all we can do is to use the sledgehammer and changing distant range values and thus pretty much changing mid range combat as well.
And since most keep saying that US "shall only be good at mid range" Its either not possible bc then they would also be good at range or we accept that they are only good at ranges at which axis can throw grenades already or shooting panzerfaust.
Thats the actual dilemma. And thats the problem when people say (nerf max range only) they would nerf a weapon at ranges considered still mid range. If the Current Garand range bracket keeps (15/30/45/60) then yes, we could tweak it down a bit from 45-60 range onwards, the "max range". Using old brackets we would just turn it more or less into a "semi automatic machine pistol" as it used to be prior to the changes.