Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1656
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby kwok » 15 Jan 2019, 22:58

First of all, no amount of matches will provide objective results.
Second of all, it doesn’t even matter what I think about luft because if the majority agree on something then it is more likely that the majority is right. Even if the majority is not right, it is how the game is evolved and the intent is to be fun for the majority. Even though I disagree with this as a philosophy, this has generally been how most patch decisions were made.

Our (at least from my perspective) 1v1s will be based on fun and learning/teaching on both sides, not to find “results”. We can play as many 1v1s as we want.

User avatar
Shanks
Posts: 675
Joined: 22 Nov 2016, 22:02

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Shanks » 15 Jan 2019, 23:13

there is a big difference between being objective or being subjective, and here the most important thing is to be objective to have a quality game and at the same time fun, listen to the "majority" (you have to take into account if that "majority", are veteran pvp players), is not very objective many times, is what I truly believe

@hawks...inf doc can also have camouflaged infantry, observers (who can uncloak a vampire for example), TD camouflaged, and even better 105 mm to disrupt all your camp plan, I do not see the superiority of luft here
Last edited by Shanks on 15 Jan 2019, 23:29, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3511
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Warhawks97 » 15 Jan 2019, 23:26

Vampire detects units far earlier on the minimap as any recon can reveal it.

And if you dont know where your enemie is, no arty helps you.

User avatar
Shanks
Posts: 675
Joined: 22 Nov 2016, 22:02

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Shanks » 15 Jan 2019, 23:32

it is not not difficult to reveal camouflaged units, there are other alternatives to reveal units, such as a "bait", or a very crazy massive attack with smoke screen

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3511
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Warhawks97 » 15 Jan 2019, 23:40

Shanks wrote:it is not not difficult to reveal camouflaged units, there are other alternatives to reveal units, such as a "bait", or a very crazy massive attack with smoke screen


which you can all see coming on the map miles away... then you move your defense back and there can be sd2 in front of it... those you want to detect sd get shred by gebis, those you make this massive assault find themselves in mine fields and prepared enemie ambushes.

User avatar
Shanks
Posts: 675
Joined: 22 Nov 2016, 22:02

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Shanks » 15 Jan 2019, 23:47

show me this in a pvp pro, until you show it to me they are just words, the facts are better than the words in this case, and I talk to you about facts, about my experience in pvp and I can not say the same about you, almost I never saw you play in a hard pvp

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2793
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby MarKr » 16 Jan 2019, 00:06

Shanks wrote:there is a big difference between being objective or being subjective
Well, obviously...their definitions are the direct opposites.
Shanks wrote:the most important thing is to be objective to have a quality game and at the same time fun, listen to the "majority" is not very objective many times, is what I truly believe
This is the hard part - you say "what I believe" - this means your subjective opinion. Is your subjective opinion worth more than a subjective opinion of any other person? To you, your opinion has pronbably more weight than an opinion of another person (and this is normal for most people) but if you try to look at it OBJECTIVELY then opinion of every person must have the same weight. Are subjective opinions of several "pro pvp players" to be considered "objectively true"? No, because their opinions are still based on their subjective points of views (e.g. what strategy they subjectively consider to be the best, what gameplay they subjectively favor etc.) and what is subjectively "the best" for one player is not necessarily "the best" for someone else. So in the end the "lesser evil" is to go with what the majority asks for. Even if we personally disagree with the majority, it is still our subjective point of view which probably isn't universally true.

We have some vision of what we want the BK to be and if the opinion of majority goes directly against this vision, we might simply say a strict "no" to that but if the opinion of majority does not conflict with the general vision and at the same time the decision is about something we are not sure about, then we tend to go with what the majority wishes to go for.
Image

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3511
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Warhawks97 » 16 Jan 2019, 00:09

Shanks wrote:show me this in a pvp pro, until you show it to me they are just words, the facts are better than the words in this case, and I talk to you about facts, about my experience in pvp and I can not say the same about you, almost I never saw you play in a hard pvp


every smart and good luft player gets a vampire. Ive played vs teams with double luft and in replay i saw they had up to three vampires... they kept us blind, dropped sd2 on our ambushed spotters and stuff like that....

most effectively is go to for gebis, then sd2 and hetzer... these three things at first for a proper nasty defense

User avatar
Shanks
Posts: 675
Joined: 22 Nov 2016, 22:02

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Shanks » 16 Jan 2019, 00:45

MarKr wrote:. So in the end the "lesser evil" is to go with what the majority asks for. Even if we personally disagree with the majority, it is still our subjective point of view which probably isn't universally true.

We have some vision of what we want the BK to be and if the opinion of majority goes directly against this vision, we might simply say a strict "no" to that but if the opinion of majority does not conflict with the general vision and at the same time the decision is about something we are not sure about, then we tend to go with what the majority wishes to go for.


It seems that you did not understand me, being more accurate I mean that the opinion of veteran players is more valuable than those of new players, for example, you can not compare panzerlehr with a new player from bk, or henny etc, obviously the opinions of them will not be of the same quality as that of a new player, a new player is more subjective and could be the majority in the forum, the old players who are professionals at the same time, would be objective and we could discuss a matter a lot. better, due to our experiences in pvp, the new player would be subjective because he would only speak of an impression he had on a unit, without taking into account the strengths and weaknesses of it due to his inexperience ....... and Yes, I think I can write better arguments than a new bk player, but I'm not the only one

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3511
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Warhawks97 » 16 Jan 2019, 01:09

Shanks wrote:
MarKr wrote:. So in the end the "lesser evil" is to go with what the majority asks for. Even if we personally disagree with the majority, it is still our subjective point of view which probably isn't universally true.

We have some vision of what we want the BK to be and if the opinion of majority goes directly against this vision, we might simply say a strict "no" to that but if the opinion of majority does not conflict with the general vision and at the same time the decision is about something we are not sure about, then we tend to go with what the majority wishes to go for.


It seems that you did not understand me, being more accurate I mean that the opinion of veteran players is more valuable than those of new players, for example, you can not compare panzerlehr with a new player from bk, or henny etc, obviously the opinions of them will not be of the same quality as that of a new player, a new player is more subjective and could be the majority in the forum, the old players who are professionals at the same time, would be objective and we could discuss a matter a lot. better, due to our experiences in pvp, the new player would be subjective because he would only speak of an impression he had on a unit, without taking into account the strengths and weaknesses of it due to his inexperience ....... and Yes, I think I can write better arguments than a new bk player, but I'm not the only one



But many veterans in particular have developed their own meta. New players bring new ideas and get used to new stuff earlier.
What you say is like saying old people do everything better just bc they are old.... but many of them dont even know how to use a smart phone properly or have no idea what internet is or how it works.

User avatar
Shanks
Posts: 675
Joined: 22 Nov 2016, 22:02

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Shanks » 16 Jan 2019, 02:09

Do you think it's smart to give an opinion about a unit you barely know? ... It's the same as an old man who does not know how to use the Internet come here and wants to teach you how use the internet ...... this is about experience, giving new ideas is not the problem, balancing the units is the problem, and that's where a new player can not say much, this is not a monopoly only for old players..... but they should keep in mind what I write, not it's as simple as kwok says, it depends on the "majority" ... it certainly depends on the "majority", but it should depend on the acceptance of the "majority" of good and professional players....In short, what I wanted to say is that, for example, a good chess player could guide you to play better chess, but a new chess player who is just beginning to play could not do the same, it's not about being old or not, it is about the "experience that a person has on the subject of the debate in particular", if you do not know about astronomy you can not discuss astronomy with another person, if you do not know about mathematics, you can not discuss mathematics with another person, in fact, you can, but it would be useless, it would not lead you to anything until you basically understand what it's all about

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 414
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Viper » 16 Jan 2019, 02:22

it is the old devoted players who keep attracting new comers to join this community of 13 years old game, period.

User avatar
Death_Kitty
Posts: 63
Joined: 15 Apr 2017, 18:20

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Death_Kitty » 16 Jan 2019, 07:24

And its those same old players who will beatdown on the new players and drive them right out. BK mod is the same old faces, over and over. There is a reason for that. A lot of this old guard have gotten used to this meta, and learned how to counter stuff, balance be dammed, and as such, a sort of "racism" has formed. Its very similar to what happens to old RTS games like Starcraft or RA2: the old guard is loathe to see their strats invalidated and have to innovate, so they oppose any sort of change. what i mean by "racism" is that certain players are very devoted to a certain race. In SC that is zerg, toss' and terran. Here its the 4 we all know. Obviously, players have tied their "fun" to playing a certain race, side or even doc.

I have a habit when I play video games: I play the race perceived to be the weakest. Back when I joined, that was US, easy. It still is, I would say. So I came, and tries US, hard as I could. With predictable results (this was before the new team, so I had the joy of playing against some of the greatest "wher-a-boo's" of our time.) I left after that. Never really came back. BK mod was advertised as a hardcore realistic and fun experience. To me it was none of those things. It still isn't. For most of you here, that is not true, and I respect that, believe me.

I found Wikinger, and started playing that, guided through learning my first doc by a player who quite literally forced me to learn it. That was how committed that veteran was to getting me on board. Now I've become one of wikinger's more senior players, though no where near the best. And I catch myself sometimes being disconnected from some of the newer voices in our discord.

Its something I have to care about, helping people, giving advice were I can, writing up their feedback and arguing their points on the actual forums. I dunno. maybe that makes me an arrogant, patronizing, "fill in the blank here". But I don't care. What matters is not opposing change because its change. I've lost faith in this communities ability to do that. Not in every one of you, but in enough. And its why I don't think ill every really get back into this mod, which is a shame; there is a lot of good work here, real high quality stuff. A huge improvement over vcoh for sure.

I don't think a major rework can really happen for this reason. To many people will oppose. so the majority has agreed that Luft is OP. K, what now? Do we remove the panther, and hit falls with the nerf bat a couple times? because that's not what I see working. It still does not remove anything meaningful from the luft toolbox. It does not change the fact that luft can spot and destroy any target without even breaking camo. I mean, three camoed shots from a hetzer before it reveals?! How is this still around? What chance to units like AT guns and Marder's have to be used when you have that option. I don't trust the rework to be effective. I don't trust that it won't be watered down before its implemented. Not to mention that a vocal minority will oppose the reforms every step of the way.

I recognize that my perspective is biased. ofc it is. But i can look at my home mod (Wik), and say: yes. US armor is too strong. CW armor is broken OP. Luft in wikinger is probably German's weakest doc rn. OKW's Early game needs to be buffed. My favorite doc by far is US armor. Just like it is here. I'm primarily a US player. But I can humor players, listen to their concerns, and remain open minded, and often that convince me of changes I opposed from the beginning. But here... perhaps its because I'm looking at this mod from the point of view of another one. But what I see is a faction with quantity over quality stuff (US, not CW), going up against a faction that has the tools to counter all of it with units that stupidly efficient, and people not even seeing a problem. It irritates me.

TL;DR I've lost faith in balance here. Or maybe i'm just used to another mod. I don't know. You lot can treat this as a goodbye letter is you want. Ill miss the lot of you. Kwok, hawk, markr, shanks, even viper. Thanks for your help, and for the good times. I wish you all the best, and Ill be keeping an eye from outside now.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1656
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby kwok » 16 Jan 2019, 08:13

This is where the line becomes difficult though, there is no criteria on who is a good player. There are no "professional players" because no one is being paid to play this game, otherwise it'd be easy to identify who to listen to. There is only "pro" in the slang term that means "good player" which is hard to decide.

I could say that you are not a good player shanks. But how can I prove that? How can I prove that anyone is a good or bad player? Based on amount of games played? Some players have hundreds and thousands of games played that was accumulated over many years, but they would be called "bad players" by some of you on this forum.
Should it be based on win/loss ratio? If so, then I am probably the worst player because my win/loss ratio is terrible but I feel like my thoughts are generally respected as a player.

Alternatively, we can start a bidding system, auction for balance changes and the highest bidder to pay the devs will have their changes put in. Start a patreon page and raise over 400,000 USD every year and the devs can go full time to make changes exactly how contributors want.



As you can see, all options listed above are absolutely impossible or unethical. That being said IN MY OPINION (subjectively only, not the truth of how changes are actually done), the best way to propose a change is to argue it with explanation and votes, not with games. Don't list the reasons why you should be listened to or why others shouldn't be listened to. list the reasons why something should be changed. Warhawks maybe doesn't play as much anymore (I actually don't know because I haven't even been playing) but he writes with the scope of the game mechanics and logic which makes it easier to listen to (NOT because he is a good player). This is also the argument for "armchair developing" that was so criticized in another post. Armchair developing is probably THE MOST FAIR way of developing because it focuses on the realm of the possible rather than popular in game, while leaving enough unknown that a dev MUST depend on the community rather than the internal biases of the dev.

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 414
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Viper » 16 Jan 2019, 08:33

Death_Kitty wrote:I recognize that my perspective is biased. ofc it is.

on the previous pages......i called PanzerFather for axis bias when it clearly was. generally i hate bias. for any side. and when reading your post. i was about to call on you for allied bias. as well. but you admitted that yourself. also, many players agree for panther to be removed from luftwaffe. but not everyone agree that german paratroopers or hetzers should change.

when i said "it is the old players who bring new comers to this game" i was very specific and added the word "devoted" because of course not every old player is really devoted. and not every old player is good at the game. some of the old players dont do anything more useful to the community. except from complaining all the time. so that part is true.

knowing bk mod is a 13 years old game. it is the opinion of the "devoted" old players that should be taken into account. not exclusively. but at least more seriously. because without them. the game will have no soul at this old age. and the community would quickly fade away.

MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 144
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby MenciusMoldbug » 16 Jan 2019, 09:19

The Hetzer to me has always been one of those 'broken' and abusable tanks you get as PE. I never really mentioned it all that much because everything in PE costs so much that you usually get 1 hetzer for every 2-3 tanks/vehicles an allied player gets.

Reason I find TH the best doctrine in the game is because if resource limits were not a problem, there's a lot of tiny abuses that snowball together to make it overtly too strong. Low detection radius' on their TD's means infantry have to get right next to them to spot them; in the meantime a PE player can spam mark target on whatever is approaching his tank and mark target buffs stack as well. So double mark target is 40% more accuracy against that one unit. I have gotten armored cars (non-reward) with 60+ inf kills roaming around with broken flank speed/overdrive never getting caught by anything because I stack mark target buffs on enemy infantry and they get absolutely shredded.

Camouflaged units also work in a really weird way in that some shots that are meant to hit them don't because they are 'invisible.' COH 2 had the same problem with their own OKW JP4 as far as I remember before they patched it and the same problem persists here regarding all camouflaged units. You can test this pretty easily by ambushing a Hetzer and then shooting PIATs with attack ground where it's ambushed. I have seen these PIATs do no damage, not even give the hint of 'penetrating' or 'deflecting' on the target rather than just hitting the ground or some weird stuff going on that is hard to describe without actually seeing it yourself. Weapons with mass AOE damage circles work out ok against ambushed stuff but everything that does not have those huge AOE circles get real iffy vs cloaked stuff.

Zimmerit I have mentioned elsewhere so no point repeating here. The other two things to keep in mind is ofc the the number of ambush shots the Hetzer gets, which is the highest ambush shot numbers for any TD in the game. No idea why the reward JP4 gets 2 and costs more if it's about survivability bonus. Because the Hetzer is technically more survivable by having more ambush shots to work with. You can also abuse multiple ambush shot modifiers by shoot twice or once and waiting a bit to let the number 'reset' to fire again and not be revealed at all, maybe ever.

Hetzer is also using broken gun ranges that ups its penetration values far beyond what they should be. It's gun penetration is mostly 10% higher than the reward JP4 on range distances because of how they are numbered. This snowballs with it's triple ambush shot and AP rounds to pretty much counter all tanks in the game barring the Pershing. Even the Pershing can get knocked out if Hetzer gets lucky with its ambush shots because usually it only needs one or two shots to lucky-immobilize it. Then it can just wait for the ambush modifiers to 'reset' and fire again.

Thinking about it, I liked Warhawks idea of having low member squads instead of having big ones because the big ones don't work with stuff like the infantry halftrack PE gets. PE infantry halftracks are meant to carry 1-2 squads that is 3 or 4 members strong because that's how many of firing slots they get when they are inside the halftrack. As long as you get hugely expensive squads; combo-ing them with the infantry halftrack is not going to work out because the risk of losing them is too great. I didn't like PE squads being 7 members strong late-game either because they are way too spaced out in some occasions and in others blob too hardcore in maps with weird obstacle placements.

I would also ask for a further sniper rework based on higher aim times and changing their camouflage stuff to match this because I still feel snipers are a bit broken when they come in numbers. like over 4+ snipers on the map with an M20 vehicle running around scouting for pesky spotters and the like. Makes the game a bit too frustrating and stressful because there's no real 'easy-way' to counter a sniper other than getting a lucky artillery hit or strafing them to death. Using other snipers is also pretty RNG depending on enemy sniper vet level and what cover they are behind; as I've seen my sniper miss an enemy's one like 9 times before he finally hit him behind a wall. A sniper rework would also be needed if PE squads were to be transformed into lower numbers/cheaper in cost because of how easy it is for snipers to kill squads out-right by themselves (especially with the rapid sniping ability). The problem would be of course is how many people are used to big elite squads of PE and don't want that changed. Because I seriously believe this is what hampers PE the most from being too weak or too strong.
Last edited by MenciusMoldbug on 16 Jan 2019, 09:36, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2793
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby MarKr » 16 Jan 2019, 09:34

Shanks wrote:It seems that you did not understand me, being more accurate I mean that the opinion of veteran players is more valuable than those of new players, for example, you can not compare panzerlehr with a new player from bk, or henny etc
I understand what you mean and I would agree that making a balance requests after playing 10 games most likely isn't going to reflect reality very accurately but you have to agree that what Warhawks said is also true. A new player who's been playing the game for several weeks can have very valid opinion which is unlikely to be "spoileld" by some long-time meta. "Veteran players" have their plays styles and rarely will tell you that some change is a good idea, if this change harms their playstyle - an excelent example would be how Tiger flipped out when we announced that "Storms spawning from empty emplacements" will no longer work. I dare to say that objectively this was a good thing to change, for Tiger it was a huge hit for his meta in BK doc becacuse he used this thing to deal with emplacements which could otherwise be a tough nut for BK doc. Is he a "veteran player"? Yes. Was his point of objective? No.

Another example would be the fuss around Hetzer. Many Axis players (even veterans) were strictly against removing the flank speed or touching anything about the unit at all. If you think about the unit - it has very solid gun, for its low price it has quite good armor, it has semi-effective top MG for anti-infantry protection, it can fire three shots from camo and it also had a good mobility with the FS. This unit was so popular because there were no serious downsides to using it - objectively speaking, is any cheap unit with no serious downsides a good idea? No, it isn't. If there are no serious downsides, then the downside should at least be a high cost. So the people who were strictly against nerfing Hetzer were not very objective, their opinions were strongly subjectively influenced by their learned meta and their unwillingness to try to find a new meta.

New players don't have this approach because they did not have time to stick with some meta for years.

So I would say it is more about how strong the supportive argument is. People with very little experience will usually say that something is too strong/weak but the arguments they give to support that opinion can usually be easily proved to be wrong. If the arguments are solid, it does not matter how long you've been playing.
Image

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 414
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Viper » 16 Jan 2019, 09:44

Even the Pershing can get knocked out if Hetzer gets lucky with its ambush shots because usually it only needs one or two shots to lucky-immobilize it.

what is wrong about this if hellcat, wolverine, and achilles can do the same vs tigers? in my opinion achilles is still the best td in the game. flank speed. high explosive. and capable gun which can penetrate any axis tank. reason hetzer and other axis tds have low detection radius is because they dont have flank speed to run away when detected. or flank the enemy because they have no turret. or defend themselves against infantry. because they have no high explosive......

about the hetzer penetration. in this bk 516 version. i think hetzer gun has the lowest penetration chance in the game vs jumbo shermans. maybe as much low as 37mm guns.

MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 144
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby MenciusMoldbug » 16 Jan 2019, 09:52

Allied TD's are simpler because they get revealed after a single shot with the damage not being high enough to kill any of the heavy or even medium tanks with the first penetrating hit (if it even penetrates). So you get return fire on them very easily. Never seen an M10 kill my Jagdpanther with one shot (usually all the 5% insta-kill crit chances happen to me when stuff is shooting me without ambush).

About the gun penetration ranges, I was talking about this:

Hetzer.png
Hetzer.png (3.67 KiB) Viewed 387 times


Compare it to Panther gun ranges. You will see Hetzer reaches its different range zone modifiers better from a farther range:

Panther.png
Panther.png (4.59 KiB) Viewed 387 times


Here's the M10 ranges for a better comparison between TD's:

M10.png
M10.png (3.7 KiB) Viewed 382 times

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 414
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Viper » 16 Jan 2019, 10:04

axis tds need low detection range and 2 or 3 ambush shots because of the downsides i mentioned.....
1.no flank speed, means harder to escape when detected.
2.no high explosive, means cant harm infantry.
3.no turret, means flanking the enemy is not possible.
4.most axis tds are very expensive. except the hetzer.

about the range table. i think it was made this way because hetzer max range is higher, when ambushed.

MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 144
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby MenciusMoldbug » 16 Jan 2019, 10:16

Thing is the Hetzer is using better gun ranges than it's reward counterpart. So the reward version which costs more should have the same gun ranges but it doesn't; it's using the same ranges as an M10. I remember thinking back then that the 1 MP upkeep for the Hetzer was an intended design. But then I realized it was a misplaced decimal number because the reward JP4 version had the same numbers in upkeep except it was missing a single 0 digit which made the MP upkeep far higher than a Hetzer before it was patched.

Imo, TD's with better ambush bonuses are much better than whatever other gimmicks they get. Once the holes in an axis line are 'plugged' flank speed doesn't matter other than suiciding vehicles into hidden pak 50mms. But it's strange for stuff like the Jackson and M10 not to have more ambush shots because they don't get anything to fight infantry; not even co-axil or top MG's like the Hetzer or other Axis TD's get. Technically you don't even have a turret when you are working with the M10. Most of the time you are facing the tank where you want the gun to shoot because otherwise it takes ages for it to turn towards your intended target. Stuff like no turret TD's are actually better here because they automatically turn the body to your intended target and some have much better rotation rates than a M10 does (the difference in rotation between a Jagdpanther vs M10 is 32 vs 38).

I would still say that having stuff like a detection radius on a Jagdpanther that is 8 (I thought it was 10 but it was actually lower than a Hetzer lol) is extremely broken. For an infantry model that is not a spotter, the guy has to be touching (or hit is head on) the front barrel of the gun to 'spot' the unit. Otherwise it's completely mysterious to him even 12 meters away what that thing in front of him is.

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 414
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Viper » 16 Jan 2019, 10:37

jackson and wolverine cant harm infantry. but they have flank speed. and turrets. wolverine turret is very slow. so flanking is not good idea. but escaping is great. jackson can do both. escaping and flanking. because fast turret. axis tds have all the 4 downsides altogether. and if you are immobilized. you will never shoot back.

from realistic point of view. 8 detection radius is funny of course. but the jagdpanther costs 1000mp and 180 fuel for 6cp. or 900mp and 160 fuel for 8cp. that is also funny. because in reality the jagdpanther was not more expensive than a tiger or a pershing.

so. from gameplay point of view. i dont see any problems with axis tds being too strong or too weak currently.

but im curious how you say tank hunter is best doctrine in the game. i thought everyone was saying luftwaffe is the best doctrine now.

to be honest. i dont understand this approach how everyone suddenly want to change everything in game. why turn the game upside down so quickly? it makes me feel many people in this community have lost their mind. bk mod is 13 years old game.......13 years and only now all doctrines and abilities need to change???? it is very big risk with relatively small community you have now. many players might not like this approach.

MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 144
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby MenciusMoldbug » 16 Jan 2019, 11:26

If it was luftwaffe vs tank hunter for me I would give luftwaffe 3 or 4 less points than tank hunter. Luftwaffe is very fun to play but I don't see what it does better that a good build order vs any doctrine as tank hunter cannot do. You don't need the luftwaffe infantry, the vampire isn't too important if you have kettenkrads/spotting scope TD's watching all approaches (I like tank awareness much better as well since it spots invisible tanks), and the panther is not any better than the cheaper TD's get you as TH; Which you can combo with anti-infantry stuff you get outside the doctrine. TH can be made to support your team mates or go brawl with whatever doctrines the allies take because the non-doctrine units are very fun to use in any situation. To me it is the most fun doctrine to play with PE, and I consider SE the weakest because all their artillery is too expensive and doesn't give back enough for what it does. In SE's case I would like to drop the cost of firing the big nebelwerfers because I think they jumped a bit too much on munitions and are now unsustainable to use.

Usually I want to suggest stuff that makes BK not have too much in-direct methods guiding how the meta goes. To a new guy, having the Hetzer be at its most viable when it's ambushed seems confusing. Because they think it's a TD and it should just go up front to face enemy tanks. But they don't know at that moment it's meant to be used from ambush to kill things and so they easily lose units that way. A similar problem with PE is that a lot of things you are meant to do is indirectly told to you. Such as keeping all your squads alive because rebuilding them is really, really expensive. To those who aren't as good as managing PE, losing their early squads handi-caps them a lot and the game ends in 10 or 15 minutes even before they can build any tanks at all because the allies have taken all the important resource points. So I suggest stuff that doesn't require people to check inside the game files to know what range is a unit most effective at, or how close I have to be to detect units. You can balance these nerfs with adjusting costs and other buffs, so it's not like it's a one-way screwdriver making stuff only worse. I'm still surprised sometimes how I find things that I thought were supposed to be in a sort of pattern, but it didn't turn out that way at all even though I've been checking the game files for times longer than I should. I still surprise people by telling them that HE shermans having 100% accuracy at all ranges. While other tanks usually have more 'sane' values such as 75% accuracy at the farther ranges but with bigger AOE blasts. But you can't really know this stuff with out going really deep into BK to figure it out. Otherwise you are sometimes left with blaming RNG for certain things happening when it might not have been RNG at all but the number generator giving you digits between the min and max.

I don't think anyone even knew back then you could have commandos become permanently invisible while shooting at stuff indefinitely. Not that I remember anyone saying anything about that at all. It got patched a long while ago and no one even made a word about it after it was gone. Seemed like I was the only one who had tested it and was using it in games. While even in-games no one would say anything about how the commandos would never be revealed even when they were shooting Germans a few feet away. I guess they just thought of it as a normal thing in BK. It's this kind of indirect stuff I bring up here just in case I am right that the stuff was not really applied correctly. Which is hard to see clearly without actually abusing it everywhere you go and hoping someone else notices it and brings it up for you on the forums. If everything is working as intended, then there's not much for me to say. I think BK right now is tilted towards allies due to the early and mid game but everything else after that seems 'ok' if everything is working as it should.

User avatar
Shanks
Posts: 675
Joined: 22 Nov 2016, 22:02

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Shanks » 16 Jan 2019, 11:45

1- The best TD of the whole game is the Achilles mainly for being in the three doctrines of the British, followed by the comet and then the hellcat, mainly for the tremendous damage they do and the mobility they have, they are really fast, no TD of the axis can perform similar movements, not to mention the fixed turrets that make them more vulnerable

2- Luft is not OP, and if the panther bothers you so much they can eliminate it from that doctrine, but the hetzer must stay there, definitely

3-The only thing that is OP in TH doc is the damn hoctkiss, they should have left it as it was in version 5.1.4

4-the sniper is crap, it should be limited to one unit and lose the capacity of fast fire

5-Raf should have the Cromwell 95 mm, or a plane with a load of 1000kg

6-inf doc should have an AT of 90 mm

7-airb doc should be the only doctrine capable of creating hellcat

8-the paratroopers of Raf should be enabled in 4 CP

9-After the SP is destroyed, you should be able to call the AS pershing

These are some thoughts that I have about the game now

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 414
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Viper » 16 Jan 2019, 12:00

agree with all points. except 6 and 7.
but let me add:
churchill mkvii should be possible to deploy.
tigers should be earlier available.
riflemen anti tank grenade really need fix.
25p need fix.


Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests