BK improvements

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
PECenturion
Posts: 5
Joined: 14 Sep 2018, 20:57

BK improvements

Postby PECenturion » 17 Oct 2018, 18:48

Hello fellow axis and alie friends.
I would like to share an idea that was mentioned on the bk discord several times and that is the ability to get pershing ace after the sp dies.
It would be nice to use an unit that is rarely used in this game (which is the case for many units) I really don't see the point why not, you would make an obsolete unit useful, it's already in the game it isn't op, tbh have never seen it in in my 150 games I have played I cinda want to xd.
I would also like to see a price reduction to obelwind, it's to pricy, costing at 550mp,maybe a 100mp reduction and a 5 fuel reduction would do fine and also vehicle held at guns likes PE puma or WH puma (idk the correct names, apologies for my ignorance) should be buffed in a way, like giving them more range, really hard to get close with them and not dying since they die in one shot but they have struggles penetrating/dealing damage to certain tanks and dus not being a real threat even thoe they are a bit pricey as well

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3071
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: BK improvements

Postby Warhawks97 » 17 Oct 2018, 19:08

PECenturion wrote:Hello fellow axis and alie friends.
I would also like to see a price reduction to obelwind, it's to pricy, costing at 550mp,maybe a 100mp reduction and a 5 fuel reduction would do fine

You mean Ostwind? isnt it 500 MP? 450 MP would seem fair. The required building gets a cost reduction so it will be easier accessable.
I would prefer a buff of the quad 20 mm AP rounds to shred vehicles better (atm signle 20 mm are better in killing vehicles) and generally being less acting as an HMG and instead more heavy calibre like.



and also vehicle held at guns likes PE puma or WH puma (idk the correct names, apologies for my ignorance) should be buffed in a way, like giving them more range, really hard to get close with them and not dying since they die in one shot but they have struggles penetrating/dealing damage to certain tanks and dus not being a real threat even thoe they are a bit pricey as well


You mean the one with 50 mm (sdkfz 234/2) and its reward unit(sdkfuz 234/3). The Stubby one isnt vs tanks but more an support gun against vehicles and light targets. Its HE is powerfull and the AP oneshots any enemie vehicle. Its one of the best vehicles in game.
The one with 50 mm is also very good. It can drop smoke, has stat mode and good penetration and damage.

The last one (Sdkfz 234/4) with pak 40 75 mm for PE is also quite good. It combines rate of fire, penetration, speed and has a stat mode to increase range.

Also these vehicle types are very hard to hit by enemie tanks due to target table modifier. When these units are moving tanks have barely a chance to hit them.

So the 234 series belongs to the best vehicles in game with speed, HP, armor (can bounce greyhound shots) and firewpower.
There are certain halftracks and light tanks that could use more love.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2461
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: BK improvements

Postby MarKr » 17 Oct 2018, 19:54

About the SP/PAce selection - the original intention was that the US does not have any tank that could go head on head against the strongest Axis tanks and so the SP is an exception. It is hands down the strongest tank tha Allies have. And because it deviates from the original intention, it is only a one time call-in. So the player needs to decide if he wants to have a one-time access to this super-strong (at least in terms of Allies) unit but knowing it will be the primary target for the oponent. Or choosing a less risky option of Pershing Ace which is weaker than SP (but still better than a standard Pershing) and knowing that if you lose the tank, you can get another one.

I can understand that for US players it would be more convenient to do it the way you ask but the point of reward units is not to be convenient.

PECenturion wrote:tbh have never seen it in in my 150 games I have played I cinda want to xd.
Then uncheck the SP in reward menu :D
Image

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 302
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: BK improvements

Postby mofetagalactica » 17 Oct 2018, 20:25

MarKr wrote:About the SP/PAce selection - the original intention was that the US does not have any tank that could go head on head against the strongest Axis tanks and so the SP is an exception. It is hands down the strongest tank tha Allies have. And because it deviates from the original intention, it is only a one time call-in. So the player needs to decide if he wants to have a one-time access to this super-strong (at least in terms of Allies) unit but knowing it will be the primary target for the oponent. Or choosing a less risky option of Pershing Ace which is weaker than SP (but still better than a standard Pershing) and knowing that if you lose the tank, you can get another one.

I can understand that for US players it would be more convenient to do it the way you ask but the point of reward units is not to be convenient.

PECenturion wrote:tbh have never seen it in in my 150 games I have played I cinda want to xd.
Then uncheck the SP in reward menu :D


Even with the SP up the Jagdpanther its the strongest tank in-game while being rebuildable, so it dosnt deviates from the original intention.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2461
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: BK improvements

Postby MarKr » 17 Oct 2018, 21:37

Axis are designed to have access to tanks that can to a certain degree work as a "one unit armies" (KT, JP, Panther G, JT...) - combining good armor, gun to kill tanks and usually also some degree of anti-infantry protection. US are not designed to work this way. However the SP is an option to play a bit more in the Axis way, but the cost is that if you lose the tank you don't get anything else. On the other hand you can play the way US are designed, choose the PAce and then you get as many of them as your MP reserve can afford. So there is a risk in choosing SP and this risk is intended. If it is changed as you request, what will be the risk?
Image

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 302
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: BK improvements

Postby mofetagalactica » 17 Oct 2018, 23:40

MarKr wrote:Axis are designed to have access to tanks that can to a certain degree work as a "one unit armies" (KT, JP, Panther G, JT...) - combining good armor, gun to kill tanks and usually also some degree of anti-infantry protection. US are not designed to work this way. However the SP is an option to play a bit more in the Axis way, but the cost is that if you lose the tank you don't get anything else. On the other hand you can play the way US are designed, choose the PAce and then you get as many of them as your MP reserve can afford. So there is a risk in choosing SP and this risk is intended. If it is changed as you request, what will be the risk?


It wouldnt change anything anyway its just something more fun and diversity to add, jagds, kt's, henschells,flaks,nashor will still blow up the SP and the PACE's coming after the SP if you manage to destroy the SP means that you have enought firepower to destroy any next income PACE or pershing i still don't know whats so special about the PACE it just feels exactly as a pershing with a little more defence againts infantry. I would love to see the stats differences between pershings and pace's.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3795
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: BK improvements

Postby Tiger1996 » 18 Oct 2018, 00:22

There is nothing bad about allowing Pershing Ace after the loss of the Super Pershing, but just don't over-nerf the Luft airstrikes too much.

User avatar
Death_Kitty
Posts: 44
Joined: 15 Apr 2017, 18:20

Re: BK improvements

Postby Death_Kitty » 20 Oct 2018, 00:11

The problem with the balancing here (with monster tanks being 1 unit armies) is that you basically need so take to the rest of the arsenal to justify them. These monster tanks have more health, damage, range, armor than any allied tank; fine, but there needs to be some trade to that.

The issue is there isn't. German infantry, especially upgraded (hello grens) is far more effective than rifles, and can make flanking axis impossible, as their AT (faust,shreck, AT gun) can keep allied tanks away, and the infantry cant get past the MG's, their light vehicles are slightly inferior to allies imo, but that phase of the game does not last long, and most of those monster tanks are cost effective against allies, even if you somehow do manage to lose them.

The problem is that it seems that axis have docs that are supremely well rounded, while US pays dearly for the option that it chooses to specialize in (AB, Inf, Armor) while in the mean time that specialization is not that good.

TL:DR If you use allied tanks, your options are:
1.) attack into big cats and slowly be bled dry by said big cat and excellent supporting units
2.) try to flank and get hung up on excellent late game German support units/infantry until said big cats re-position and flank/kill you.
Add to that how fast units can turn and accelerate in this game and it makes killing monster tanks hard even if you manage to damage one enough.

What should happen is Pz 4's need to start feeling like Pz 4's, i.e. way weaker than the sherman.
axis units need to start feeling scarce and expensive or US units need to start getting dirt cheep, especially in upgrades.
90mm cannons need to start felling strong, especially with HVAP (Pershing and Jackson gun)
allied support abilities (air, arty) should feel far more impressive and outstrip any axis counterparts.

The New BK Champion
Posts: 159
Joined: 11 Feb 2018, 22:09

Re: BK improvements

Postby The New BK Champion » 20 Oct 2018, 10:16

Death_Kitty wrote:
What should happen is Pz 4's need to start feeling like Pz 4's, i.e. way weaker than the sherman.
axis units need to start feeling scarce and expensive or US units need to start getting dirt cheep, especially in upgrades.
90mm cannons need to start felling strong, especially with HVAP (Pershing and Jackson gun)
allied support abilities (air, arty) should feel far more impressive and outstrip any axis counterparts.


90mm gun weak? Air patrol that kills anything or long tom not impressive? Oh sweet summer child.

User avatar
Shanks
Posts: 512
Joined: 22 Nov 2016, 22:02

Re: BK improvements

Postby Shanks » 20 Oct 2018, 11:04

@PEcenturion...

You mean the one with 50 mm (sdkfz 234/2) and its reward unit(sdkfuz 234/3). The Stubby one isnt vs tanks but more an support gun against vehicles and light targets. Its HE is powerfull and the AP oneshots any enemie vehicle. Its one of the best vehicles in game.
The one with 50 mm is also very good. It can drop smoke, has stat mode and good penetration and damage.

The last one (Sdkfz 234/4) with pak 40 75 mm for PE is also quite good. It combines rate of fire, penetration, speed and has a stat mode to increase range.

Also these vehicle types are very hard to hit by enemie tanks due to target table modifier. When these units are moving tanks have barely a chance to hit them. 

So the 234 series belongs to the best vehicles in game with speed, HP, armor (can bounce greyhound shots) and firewpower.
There are certain halftracks and light tanks that could use more love....true true

@Death_kitty..... from what you say, I'm almost sure you do not play pvp ... and if it was a joke, your joke was very bad man ... if you think the allies are crap, we can play a 1v1, or if you have friends a 2v2 or 3v3, I'll show you the opposite ... although there are things that can be improved, but that does not mean that the US air patrol or the 90mm, are not fearsome, it is just the opposite

User avatar
Death_Kitty
Posts: 44
Joined: 15 Apr 2017, 18:20

Re: BK improvements

Postby Death_Kitty » 20 Oct 2018, 15:30

Perhaps the 90mm and US offmap are not terrible in themselves, but the issue is that these things are on par with german counterparts. Everything else in the US arsenal isnt. the 90mm is fearsome, but its range and the vehicles it is mounted on, make it subpar. Not to mention it is armor only.

To be clear, i think cw is fine, as well as US in a team game, which allows you to circumvent some of the downsides of choosing any doc. But 1v1, i still think US is subpar, which would be ok if this was balanced around team games, but it isn't to my knowledge.

I mean, germans have better infantry, better tanks, big cats US cannot compete with, better light vehicles that hold their own even in some late game scenarios, good support options. And AT rockets everywhere.

US has... what exactly? A 90mm gun in a tank that is not cost effective? And has a bad habit of missing those nice big targets? And airstrike/longtom that costs a shedload? A doctrine structure that hamstrings you no matter what you pick? I mean the fact that the rangers, an elite unit, had to be made an all doc build is rather comical to me.

You lot are right, I have not played a 1v1 series recently, just odd games here and there. But from what I saw back when i did play, and the change logs since then... I just don't like the way this mod does US. (and the way this game does vehicle acceleration)

User avatar
Shanks
Posts: 512
Joined: 22 Nov 2016, 22:02

Re: BK improvements

Postby Shanks » 20 Oct 2018, 16:20

I see that you are still new, you should play like 200 pvp, to have a notion of the war power of the USA, or maybe less pvp ... but to say that the USA has no chance of killing a Tiger, is a big mistake, in fact, right now the tiger is crap

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3071
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: BK improvements

Postby Warhawks97 » 20 Oct 2018, 18:44

Shanks wrote:I see that you are still new, you should play like 200 pvp, to have a notion of the war power of the USA, or maybe less pvp ... but to say that the USA has no chance of killing a Tiger, is a big mistake, in fact, right now the tiger is crap


Has anyone talked about Tigers? Can we get over that Propaganda influenced debate and the idea of Tigers being "super tanks"? They werent.

And he didnt mention tigers. He talked about inf, medium tanks, weapons (esspecially upgrades) capabilities (eg he mentioned powerfull anti tank rockets everywhere) and powerfull guns that you find everywhere unlike 90 mm guns.


You failed to unerstand his critic.

The long tom is ok but costs a lot. 90 mm is ok but doctrinal and the tanks carying them are only cost effective when going vs tigers. Its the only reliable (tank) gun you got to effectively engage armor (medium as well as heavy armor) just vs lower tier units you would wish a cheaper tool to go against them (eg actually working 76 guns) which hardly exist while going against anything bigger than a tiger the 90 mm is not reliable anymore.

I agree with his critics of rangers being everywhere although should be a doctrinal elite and the fact that vehicles and medium tanks are way more cost effective on axis side. Let it be Puma vs Greyhound or sherman vs Tank IV. Thats where is main critic is aiming at, not at Tigers and underperforming 90 mm guns.

User avatar
Shanks
Posts: 512
Joined: 22 Nov 2016, 22:02

Re: BK improvements

Postby Shanks » 20 Oct 2018, 20:08

@Hawks.. he said "I mean, germans have better infantry, better tanks, big cats US cannot compete with, better light vehicles that hold their own even in some late game scenarios, good support options. And AT rockets everywhere. ", "big cats" : "tiger?"....Then he says that pershing is not profitable, etc. etc. etc. When you are sober , you can write again, ;)

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3071
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: BK improvements

Postby Warhawks97 » 20 Oct 2018, 20:36

Shanks wrote:@Hawks.. he said "I mean, germans have better infantry, better tanks, big cats US cannot compete with, better light vehicles that hold their own even in some late game scenarios, good support options. And AT rockets everywhere. ", "big cats" : "tiger?"....Then he says that pershing is not profitable, etc. etc. etc. When you are sober , you can write again, ;)


Oh, sorry, the Pershing is cost effective when it goes vs Tigers. But thats all. In a fight vs Panther the panther has the better cost efficiency, esspecially due to its higher damage (yes, with AP Panther has way more damage than pershing).


And in many other aspects (besides silly 1 vs 1 comparission) the Tiger holds an edge over Pershings i would say. Better abilties and can stand many anti tank weapons easier. I mean Pershing gets killed by 37 mm HT´s using rocket shots. Sadly Tiger didnt upload that game on yt when he lost sp and a few other pershings to this single HT.
So yeah, many times the pershing isnt profitable.


So yeah, Axis vehicles are in general more cost effective, esspecially 234 series and all these 20 mm guns that perform good as anti inf and anti vehicle weapon. Same goes for cost efficiency of 90% of the tanks with only Pershing and Tiger being more or less on a equal step but with Tiger having less weapons to fear (17 pdr and 90 mm usually). But if you look and stugs and tank IV etc you will see what he is talking about.

True, there is the asymetrical balance like US has supply yard or can have more parachute units at once on the field. But it doesnt deny his statment.

Mr. FeministDonut
Posts: 218
Joined: 13 Aug 2015, 21:05

Re: BK improvements

Postby Mr. FeministDonut » 20 Oct 2018, 22:03

Also, why 82 airborn unit is too sucking much?
Devs told us, that unit has AT capabilities, so it won't get any buffs. After AT fixes and adding aiming time, they told us, that they have a camo ability and should play by defense. What about 82nd airborne unit? With its shitty thompsons (by the way that you guys keep ignorning), it can only sprint to the enemy tanks getting a lot of casualties, while it does not have any camo and also a 45mp reinforce!

upd. Just posted a replay, where 2-3 guys of 101 unit could not score a point blank kill at German 4 vet sniper, ha-ha. m1 carbine is really shit now.

User avatar
Death_Kitty
Posts: 44
Joined: 15 Apr 2017, 18:20

Re: BK improvements

Postby Death_Kitty » 20 Oct 2018, 23:31

Warhawks97 wrote:
Shanks wrote:I see that you are still new, you should play like 200 pvp, to have a notion of the war power of the USA, or maybe less pvp ... but to say that the USA has no chance of killing a Tiger, is a big mistake, in fact, right now the tiger is crap


Has anyone talked about Tigers? Can we get over that Propaganda influenced debate and the idea of Tigers being "super tanks"? They werent.

And he didnt mention tigers. He talked about inf, medium tanks, weapons (esspecially upgrades) capabilities (eg he mentioned powerfull anti tank rockets everywhere) and powerfull guns that you find everywhere unlike 90 mm guns.


You failed to unerstand his critic.

The long tom is ok but costs a lot. 90 mm is ok but doctrinal and the tanks carying them are only cost effective when going vs tigers. Its the only reliable (tank) gun you got to effectively engage armor (medium as well as heavy armor) just vs lower tier units you would wish a cheaper tool to go against them (eg actually working 76 guns) which hardly exist while going against anything bigger than a tiger the 90 mm is not reliable anymore.

I agree with his critics of rangers being everywhere although should be a doctrinal elite and the fact that vehicles and medium tanks are way more cost effective on axis side. Let it be Puma vs Greyhound or sherman vs Tank IV. Thats where is main critic is aiming at, not at Tigers and underperforming 90 mm guns.


THIS.
Thank you for wording my critique in a much better way than i could. The 90mm, and offmap is ok but expensive, and really on par with the counterparts the germans have. And when I say big cats, i dont mean tigers. I mean King tigers, jagdtiger, jagdpanther, which US really has not could way of dealing with, and has no counterpart to (or counterpart to, no SP does not count), other than 90mm cannon, arty and airstrikes, and even then it is not cost effective. Thank you for helping me out Warhawk. I'm also going to respond to your 2nd post as well: While US does have stuff like the supply depot, that does not help at all... german stuff is just miles superior, especially in infantry. Look at assault grens: At nades (which are way to good), regular nades, MG-42, Stg, Gewer 40 and 2 abilities to pressures and kill.

At this point all the things i consider wrong with US/Axis would take 2 hours and its own thread to write out.

TL:DR : US units compared to German units:
Do less damage
Less penetration
die faster
have less armor
get less value from their upgrades
have worse doc unlocks for such a "specialized" faction
lack the cost/cost efficiency to make up for above.
Whats the point? The german bias in this mod ruins it for me.
Last edited by Death_Kitty on 20 Oct 2018, 23:35, edited 1 time in total.

Mr. FeministDonut
Posts: 218
Joined: 13 Aug 2015, 21:05

Re: BK improvements

Postby Mr. FeministDonut » 21 Oct 2018, 08:14

Death_Kitty wrote:TL:DR : US units compared to German units:
Do less damage
Less penetration
die faster
have less armor
get less value from their upgrades
have worse doc unlocks for such a "specialized" faction
lack the cost/cost efficiency to make up for above.
Whats the point? The german bias in this mod ruins it for me.

Yup. It only makes running by only few units in US arsenal in the game, while mostly others are just useless.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2461
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: BK improvements

Postby MarKr » 21 Oct 2018, 09:53

Mr. FeministDonut wrote:Yup. It only makes running by only few units in US arsenal in the game, while mostly others are just useless.
Isn't that the case for every faction? I mean, people simply go for units that have high-performance for as little effort as possible. Why people play Luft so much? Is it by any chance because of the very strong infantry that can survive relatively easily (compared to other infantry units in the game) and comes with strongest weapons in the game? Why people don't use PIV F2 that often? Isn't it because in their arsenal is usually something that can do the same for either less price (L48 HTs or Marder/Geschutzwagen) or has better chance of surviving hits (usually JPIV/StuG)? Or actually why are there so few Stubby PIVs seen (exept for F1 in TH doc)? Isn't because they are mostly anti-infantry units and Axis have a lot of more effective (and often cheaper) infantry counters ("puma" with 20mm cannon, or actually most of their infantry)? Why was it that WM players, when facing US, used to rush for Panthers and Tigers before the 90mm cannons got a buff? Wasn't it because they knew that these tanks had very little counters from the side of US no matter what doctrine so they knew they would get the job done? And isn't also the reason why after buffing the 90mm cannons, these tanks were not rushed for so often because suddenly there was a really good chance that opponent has Armor doc and so the chance of losing the Tiger/Panther was a lot higher? Wasn't it after the buff of the 90mm guns that the Armor doctrine was played a lot more often and people started to rush for Pershings? Why was that? Because suddenly they could get things done better than most other units in the arsenal. I would say that on both sides you would units that are used almost in every game and units that used very rarely or not at all (Bren carrier, M20, several types of Axis HTs are rarely seen, Gepard, already mentioned stubby PIVs, MG teams in general because people rather go for MG-mounted vehicles because of better mobility, several reward units are rarely picked etc.).

So as people spoke here about giving a Jackson to Infantry doctrine - won't that be the case too? Suddenly it will be the best AT unit you have, reliably killing PIV/JPIV and other medium stuff, also reliable counter to Panther/Tiger and with camo and AP at about 50% chance at max range to penetrate KTs, which is not god-knows-how superb but still would be the best chance you've got.

So wouldn't that just add to the "only few useful units, rest is not used"?
Image

Mr. FeministDonut
Posts: 218
Joined: 13 Aug 2015, 21:05

Re: BK improvements

Postby Mr. FeministDonut » 21 Oct 2018, 10:29

Watch my last replay, why 57mm gun can't penetrate stug and at the same time can't score a hit on puma that is lower tier vehicle, just because it has evasion bonus? No one building US 57mm gun to counter medium vehicles, because it's litterally useless, while axis can rely on that cheaper gun.
I didn't mean questions like puma and stubby Pz4, but a really things that are game-breakers.
I repeat about 82 unit that being litteraly useless or too pricely to use. They have two bazookas, but after bazooka aim time nerf, you say that they have ambush mode and must use by that, but 82nd don't have that, while other weapons we are look at - thompsons, has shitty cooldown time, making it worst SMG in the game. And you keep ignoring that question many times

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2461
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: BK improvements

Postby MarKr » 21 Oct 2018, 12:03

Mr. FeministDonut wrote:Watch my last replay, why 57mm gun can't penetrate stug and at the same time can't score a hit on puma that is lower tier vehicle, just because it has evasion bonus? No one building US 57mm gun to counter medium vehicles, because it's litterally useless, while axis can rely on that cheaper gun.

US 57mm gun:
Accuracy: 1/0.9/0.65/0.65
Accuracy vs "puma" type of vehicles: x1, when moving: 0.8
Penetration: 1.25/0.92/0.8/0.7
Pen.modifier against StuG: x0.65 (81%/59.8%/52%/45.5%)
Pen.bonus from camo: x1.25
Pen.bonus from AP ammo: x1.3
Chance to pen. PIV H: 57.9%/42.6%/37%/32.4%

Axis 50mm gun:
Accuracy: 1/0.9/0.65/0.65
Accuracy vs "greyhound" type of vehicles: x1, when moving: 0.8
Penetration: 1.25/0.9/0.85/0.75
Chance to penetrate 76mm Sherman: 65%/46.8%/44.2%/39%

The "evasion bonus" against puma-type vehicles was removed some time ago. A comparable situation (Axis mid-tied AT gun vs US armored car) has same chance to miss/hit.

A comparable situation of attacking a medium tank by these guns. As you can see, when 50mm attacks Sherman, it has a penetration advantage but it is about 7% more penetration than what 57mm has against PIV H. On the other hand the 57mm has damage of 50-90 (final damage per shot vs PIV H is 250-450) but the Axis 50mm has damage of 50-80 (250-400 vs Sherman) so the average penetration is slightly higher, but average damage is slightly lower for Axis 50mm and on top of that PIV H has 636HP while Sherman has 700. So in case of attacking medium vehicles, the guns are pretty similar in performance.

I could make a comparison of 57mm vs StuG and 50mm vs some US unit but US don't have a TD comparable StuG...M10 probably but there are some major differences, most notably the tradeoff of less armor for more mobility so it doesn't make much sense to put into comparison such different units.

But all in all, is that 7% more penetration really such a huge advantage that one can say that for Axis this gun is "reliable" but for Allies their gun is "useless"?
Image

Mr. FeministDonut
Posts: 218
Joined: 13 Aug 2015, 21:05

Re: BK improvements

Postby Mr. FeministDonut » 21 Oct 2018, 12:42

Why you didn't show the penetration bonus from pak? And yes, 7% is really matters. Even those guns are bad themselfs, they are working from camo, wolfram or ROCKET (which only axis has, could penetrate and one shot anything, except the SP, that escapes with very little amount of health)
But again you took a part of my text and ignored 82nd, why? Why is it so hard to answer about thompsons? Is it kinda pandora box you afraid of?
Check my replay please, to watch it with your own eyes. As it shows with hotchkiss rockets your numbers in corsix don't help you much, as you were asnwering with them against my post

Also, why US hospital is cost so much? 300 mp, why? They are already the most expensive faction in terms of man power, when units are taking too much man power consuption and you already need to buy for them supply yard

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2461
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: BK improvements

Postby MarKr » 21 Oct 2018, 13:30

I didn't mention it because I forgot :D, anyway, bonuses from camo have been unified so the camo bonus is the same for Axis PaK too. AP ammo on the 50mm PaK gives +33% pen. while the US gives +30% pen. both give +25% damage too.

But I suspect you didn't know the penetration difference was so little and just complained based on your "feelings" from the game, naot based on objective facts. I am not saying that the few % of extra penetration on Axis side makes absolutely no difference, it surely gives a slightly better chance to penetrate enemy armor but I seriously doubt that those few percents make a difference between "reliable" and "useless" - especially when such adjectives reffer to the overall performance and here the US gun has higher damage so it again gets closer on the overall performance level. The rocket is an ability which is available later in the game, and yes, after this ability is unlocked, the Axis gun has advantage but this was not your original point - originally you mentioned no abilities, you only spoke about "pumas evading hits" (I already said the evasion bonus was removed) and about the effectiveness against medium units.

I wouldn't say Thompson's problem is the cooldown. It is higher than other guns, true, and could be lowered but on average when you get to the effective range of the weapon, their magazines are usually empty and then you need to wait for reload which is 3.12- 3.75 seconds during which they get killed.

Mr. FeministDonut wrote:Check my replay please, to watch it with your own eyes. As it shows with hotchkiss rockets your numbers in corsix don't help you much, as you were asnwering with them against my post
I might watch it when I have time...which one is it? In the last one you uploaded (Kurland Pocket 1v1) you say "AB vs terror" and terror has no Hotchkiss...

Mr. FeministDonut wrote:Also, why US hospital is cost so much? 300 mp, why?
It provides free healing and can provide free squads - even with just one free squad the build cost of the hospital is vastly covered.
Image

Mr. FeministDonut
Posts: 218
Joined: 13 Aug 2015, 21:05

Re: BK improvements

Postby Mr. FeministDonut » 21 Oct 2018, 13:41

Thompsons are useless and it told so by whole community, because they are simply worse by same tier MP-40, making volks killings for example, rangers 101 and 82nd unit (which you ignored again!). If reload so high, maybe lowering it as well? As with 57mm, why a medium AT gun could be having such bad penetration against vehicles its supposed to counter, forcing players to not even build them? I tried to close my eyes on fears of typical pro players and built it in my last Kurland replay and it showed me again, what everyone think of it.

What I wrote about Hotchkiss, I meant that when my first feedback came, it was negative and you described me with calculations and corsix numbers, that I was wrong, I believed it, untill worker's masses came and prooved it wrong, so devs had to make a changes for that, lul.

US hospital is costs 300 mp, after nerf it needed 18 soldiers, while whole US faction is deeply affected by MP consumption of units, which need to fix time by time with the supply yard upgrades. Why basic stuff need to be so expensive, why not getting MP cost lower just by exchanging it with ammunition or fuel ammount, just like axis or PE has?

Also 101 m1 carbine's damage looks pretty weird, since in my replay 2-3 soldiers could not point blank a 4 vet sniper, but being constantly getting killed by accurate shots of him. 101nd itself looking weird without upgrades, since a typical volk squad working a pretty effective against them, making them usefull only just in flanking landing, right when you deploy them, after that - pretty useless without investments of ammunition

User avatar
Shanks
Posts: 512
Joined: 22 Nov 2016, 22:02

Re: BK improvements

Postby Shanks » 21 Oct 2018, 13:59

Mr. FeministDonut wrote:
Death_Kitty wrote:TL:DR : US units compared to German units:
Do less damage
Less penetration
die faster
have less armor
get less value from their upgrades
have worse doc unlocks for such a "specialized" faction
lack the cost/cost efficiency to make up for above.
Whats the point? The german bias in this mod ruins it for me.

Yup. It only makes running by only few units in US arsenal in the game, while mostly others are just useless.



:lol: :lol: :lol: what a good joke


Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 76 guests