Blitzkrieg Mod Forum

Hello. The topic of doctrine reworks have been talked about for a long time, but nothing has really made it to recent patches. Doctrine reworks are huge game-meta changers and will definitely twist the BK mod in ways people can't predict. That being said, before implementing doctrine reworks, I think it's important for the community to voice their opinion on the reworks.

I've created a survey for everyone to fill out to help guide and design future reworks with some structure (as opposed to just a wall of text of ideas on the forum with no clear topic). You can't access it directly, I'll have to provide you a link. If you PM me or steam message me I will give you the link and well as something resembling an ID code. Anyone can ask for the survey, I won't deny that to you. The reason why I am distributing it this way is to make it so when you fill it out you really put thought into it (you only get to fill it out once). I don't want to read through a spamful amount of ideas that already exist on the forum. Think about your rework idea all the way through and then submit. This is also to avoid trolls and spammers from flooding the survey. If you want to give your ID for another person to fill out the survey, sure go for it. But I will only count 1 instance of the ID, so multiple people can't fill it out under multiple IDs. If someone else wants to fill out the survey, just tell them to message me and i'll provide it, no matter who they are.

I'll probably make the survey open for anyone to click freely later, but for now it's easier to manage responses when the submissions are controlled.

Questions on the survey are below:

Doctrine Rework Survey
The answers for these questions will be used to help guide doctrine reworks and balances.

* Required
What is the 6 digit interview code given to you? *

How often do you play BK mod?

Which doctrine do you want to be surveyed on? NOTE: You can only choose 1 to talk about, so choose wisely!! *

On a scale of 1 (poor) - 10 (strong) how well does the doctrine currently perform in game?

Please, explain your answer.
How often do you play your doctrine chosen for this survey?

What is the doctrine's greatest strengths?

What is the doctrine's greatest weakness? How do you counter the doctrine?

What is currently missing that needs to be added in the doctrine to make it more fun/competitive?

What currently needs to be removed from the doctrine to make it more fun/competitive?

If you had a teammate, which doctrine would you want your teammate to go? *

If you had to write a guide to your doctrine, what would you say?

If you had to pick how all doctrines are designed, would you have them all balanced for 1v1's (well-rounded) or balanced for teamplay required (specialized)? You can find more on this discussion here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2223

If you had to label the focus of the doctrine as it is currently, how would you label it?
Infantry focused
Armor focused
Support focused (artillery, airstrikes, emplacements, etc...)

If you had to choose one option for the future version of the doctrine, which focus would you choose?
Infantry focused
Armor focused
Support focused (artillery, airstrikes, emplacements, etc...)

What is the best unit or ability in the doctrine?

Why is it the best unit or ability?

What is the worst unit or ability in the doctrine?

Why is it the worst unit or ability?

If you were to introduce a new unit or ability into the doctrine, what would it be? Please be as descriptive as possible: where would it go, how much would it costs, what would it be good at, what would it be bad at, would it have any limits, etc. IMPORTANT NOTE: We can't promise new units to the mod, especially if it crosses the line in honoring artists' works. This questions is going to be used as data to understand what players want as well as identify potential gaps in the game.

How would you describe a perfect future for the doctrine?

Tell us anything else you want about the doctrine



Other questions for balance discussions
The answers in this section will be read to supplement other balance decisions.

What is your typical first-five minutes of the game build order?
If you play CW, do you normally use the Cromwell or Sherman V or neither?
Cromwell
Sherman V
Neither

Why do you use the tank you chose above over the other?
On a scale of 1-10, is the mod currently balanced in favor of Axis (1) or Allies (10)?

How often do you use flamethrowers and flamethrower tanks?

Please, explain your answer above

Is there any unit that you think is over priced?

Is there any unit that you think is under priced?

+1

I would like a code to take the survey

> On a scale of 1 (poor) - 10 (strong) how well does the doctrine currently perform in game?

Real life is more complicated than we are able to imagine : the answer to this question is not unqualified.

I play PE Tank destroyer.

With high resources, I'd give it a 10.

With standard resources, I'd give it a 3.

(With HR, you get a 20mm cannon vehicle from the second building. You have it faster than everyone else, and it dominates the battlefield utterly and so you capture tons of points, until the Brits get Stuarts out, and you never build the tank factory, just the TD factory, so you get all the armour you'll ever need or want early and cheaply from the third building. With SR, you struggle the whole time, or I do at any rate , because you can't get to that 20mm vehicle especially early and outside of that you're very fuel dependent and so tend to lack umph.)

I might be pretty busy the next few days/weeks so I won't be able to respond quickly to people who want to fill out the survey.

You all can submit surveys if you like, feel free to submit multiple times if you want to say more about different doctrines. Please don't spam though, those responses will quickly be deleted.
https://goo.gl/forms/Exr3ifAqlK7ibC662

I haven't gotten a chance to read all of them thoroughly yet, read a few of them and theyre great. I've given the responses link to the devs and i know they've been reading them too. When I get a chance to read more, I'll probably pay more attention to those with codes but don't let that discourage you from voicing your opinions. Feel free to put your name or something in the code section of the survey, or dont put anything if you want to stay anonymous, whatever you want.

I also realized I should provide a little more context about the "balanced for 1v1 or teamplay" question. I updated the survey with this to explain better:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G7_ndh ... sp=sharing

HI GUYS!

hi waffle

As I read through the answers in the survey it seems to me that many people misunderstood the question "If you had to pick how all doctrines are designed, would you have them all balanced for 1v1's (well-rounded) or balanced for teamplay required (specialized)?"

Ballanced for 1v1 means "every doctrine has means to deal with everything" in sense "every doctrine has some reliable way to deal with emplacements, infantry and tanks".

Ballanced for Team play (specilized) means that doctrines would have "weak spots" so for example some doctrine would have indirect fire limited to mortars only, or only to some light arty such as pack howitzer or LeiG18.

Example: Infantry doctrine currently has nothing to reliably counter heavier tanks - mostly you can only send arty on the tank and hope it will get hit. This means the doctrine is "specilized" and "ballanced for team play" - if you face heavy tank, you need to rely on team member (team play) to provide some units to counter the heavy tank more effectively than you can.

If the doctrine was changed to "ballanced for 1v1", it means that it would get something to counter the tanks on its own, e.g. it could get M36B1. This way it would get a unit with a 90mm gun so Infantry doctrine would be able to deal with heavy tanks without the help of team mates or without relying too much on RNG (kills with arty or lucky shots from camoed M10). At the same time it would only get access to the B1 version so it wouldn't be able to camo the Jackson and so it would need to make a bit more effort to take down heavy tanks with it than Armor doctrine which can also use M36 with camo (and prepare ambushes) or Pershings (which has better armor).

So it would get a unit that is capable of destroying heavy tanks but compared to Armor doctrine or CW. the ways of countering the tanks would be limited.

TL;DR version:
"Ballanced for 1v1" does NOT mean that the game would become strictly oriented to 1v1 games. Doctrines would get units/abilities to be less dependant on team mates.

"Ballanced for Team play" means that doctrines have weak spots and these weak spots need to be cover by your team mate(s).

MarKr wrote:"Ballanced for Team play" means that doctrines have weak spots and these weak spots need to be cover by your team mate(s).

i have question.
arent doctrines already like this now? exception of luftwaffe. but what other doctrines the developers think need rework like luftwaffe? i think only luftwaffe is exaggerated. some people say because of the panther. or because of the hetzer. but i think there is no other axis doctrine like luftwaffe.
so why all the doctrines need rework? i did not join the survey. i know many players like tiger and warhawks maybe submitted their opinion.
but i dont have much ideas because i think doctrines now dont need big rework.

Good question. According to the survey a few others that might need to be looked at are terror, defense, tank hunter, airborne, raf, and infantry. Additionally, core changes of any doctrine will create really complex balance shifts, so when one doc is changed at its core, other docs needed to be looked at to make sure balance doesn’t slide too far.

For example (and this is ONLY and example not an actual rework that will happen), if luft loses the panther then is it really necessary that all CW docs require an Achilles or Firefly? The community seems like it’s in agreement that the panther doesn’t belong in luft, but will they know the impacts? Patches have been made for years and people always feel like “it’s almost balanced” but clearly it’s never balanced.

Sorry I’m still working on gathering the survey results and then I gotta show it to devs and then I will give you guys more info about what happened.

Quick question, does anyone want their survey results to be public? You can stay anonymous. The results aren’t meant to be secret but are hidden only so that players can feel like they can say whatever they want without being judged or attacked by a giant wall of text.

ok. like i said i did not join the survey because i dont have many ideas. but here are few ideas......

i think the problem with axis is they have everything everywhere. look at terror doctrine and blitzkrieg doctrine. almost have same things. but in different themes.

but allies have "churchills" doctrine. americans have "tanks" doctrine. doctrines like this offer all variants of churchills. and all variants of shermans/pershing.

you cant see pershing in 2 american doctrines.
and you cant see churchills in 2 british doctrines.
only 1 doctrine offer them.

so why should blitzkrieg and terror have tigers and panthers at the same time?

why not make blitzkrieg doctrine the axis "panthers" doctrine and terror to become the axis "tigers" doctrine???

i mean blitzkrieg doctrine should lose all tigers.
it should have all panthers. D & A & G.

and terror should have all tigers.
H & E & ACE
in addition to the king tiger.

that is my approach.

Sounds ridiculous, but Axis just seem to have every corner covered..... I do not know how to rework the docs and am glad KWOK is making a strong attempt at this idea, but late game AXIS has has heavy tanks, artillery, and strong infantry. It is almost like League of Legends at the 15 minute mark.

Hello!
OBS, DEVELOPERS, THIS IS A MUST READ:

Many things are good as they are, but alot has to be fixed.
Me and many others I've talked with on BK think that the ALLIES are too overpowered in many ways, and I this MUST be fixed for the update.
I will go in to details on what is wrong with the currect version and what has to be done.

TANKS:

I know that EVERY tank has a 5-15% chance of penetrating any tank at max range, and that's how it is and should be, but here is some fix that need to be done...

Percings vs Nashorns:
First of. Percing is TOO overpowered.
For example, I played a game were a normal Percing-tank survived 2 Nashorn-shot, shots that just bounced of the Percing. In my opinion, a Nashorn-tank should penetrate ALL allies-tanks in the game. The one idea with Nashorns is that they can do just that and that their weakness is that they can be easily destroyed in return if allies have more tanks coming.
Right now, Nashorn is useless to produce because you can never be sure if the shot bounces of allies tanks or not. This is rediculous considerate the cost and function of the tank.

Percings vs JagdPanther:
The percent chance to penetrate a JagdPanther should be much lower fora Percing.
Percing should ONLY be able to hurt JagdPanther A LITTLE BIT if they shoot JagdPanther from BEHIND, not KILL THE WHOLE TANK IN ONE SHOT FROM FRONT allmost every time which a Percing can do right now. THAT IS RETARDED and it MUST be fixed.
JagdPanther cost 170 feul and 900 manpower withupgraded Tank-Hunter doctrine and should be one of the axis most heavier tanks, you as an axis-player shouldn't be scared that it will be shot down by ONE normal-Percing shot when facing each other from front.
Allies ways to destroy that tank is to either have Super-Percing, Anti-tank infantry that shoots from behind or planes, not one single normal Percing.

No allies AT should be able to penetrate the Jagdpanther in front, or a King-Tiger. Even a ordenary Tiger should be hard to kill with heavy AT.
Super-Percing is the only tank that should be able to confront these tanks upfront.
Strong allies-AT should be able to penetrate the Jagdpanter in the back maybe, but that is the point though, that they sneak behind to counter it's attack, and that is why you have the Jackssons abillities of speed for example.
Developers SHOULD understand this.

Hetzers and Panzers should allways be better tank-hunters than ordenary Shermans:
Just make sure that is the case. The weakness for the axis is that these tanks are less good at killing infantry than Shermans are.
DO NOT make Shermans and Hetzers equal, that also makes Allies overpowered and it's boring to play.

Marder I:

Marder I should be stronger both in shooting and on surviving. Right now that tank is useless even to face Shermans. Shermans are superior to Marder I. NOT balanced.

IN GENERAL, all allies tanks should be somehow inferior to axis tanks, that should be a general thing. Allies will have other abilities that will balance things out, such as cheaper units, more massproduction etc.

INFANTRY:

I like how PanzerGranadiers are right now, keep them that way. What you should do however is to make SturmGevärs (StG) a bit better in close battle for the axis.
RIght now the allies infantry is ALLWAYS better in close battle and Axis is distant. That shouldn't be a rule.
Commando Sten SMG Squad for example ALLWAYS win in close battle, and sure I want to keep them really good at close-battle, but axis should also have a choice to be extremly good in close battle if axis upgrade to StG.
Make the axis infantry stronger and better, but allies a little more cheap so they can massproduce a little more, but die more easy too. That is how you keep a good balance and a more fun and dynamic game!

SAS Commandos are TOO overpowered, they can survive 3 explosive shots from a Panzer IV Ausf, that is insane. They shouldn't have that abillity to survive so much.

MG42:
It's good as it is, keep it that way.


Arty:

The hummels should do more damage considering how much it cost to make them, the long way to get them and how much it cost to use their shots.
When someone uses upgrades hummels it should be 3 times stronger than Hotsckiss-shots, it should just be the ultimate destroyer for any axis player that chose Scored Earth doctrine.
Right now, Hummel is useless. It is not that much more destructive than Wespe 105mm SP Artillery, so it's stupid to make them as how they fuction right now, it shouldn't be like that. Hummels should be something everyone fears, since the struggle to get them is so hard and long anyway.
If you use like 110 ammo for useing hummel shooting, EXPENSIVE as it is, slow as it is, vulnerable as it is, LONG TIME TO UNLOCK as it does, it also SHOULD do ALOT of damage, not allmost the same as the wespe. Right now, it shots like 5 shots, and it doesn't damage that much. It's frickin retarded

Right now the allies have superior-arty. The brits for example can arty anything with planes and tanks very accurate anywhere they want and move around mobile so it's allmost impossible to shoot back at them, and axis can only respond with wespe basicly, it's very unbalanced.

Mortar:
When axis decide to make a Mortar-bunker, which takes LONG time to build and alot of resources to make, it shouldn't be easy to destroy for allies as it is right now.
Right now, allies can use their arty or have some infantry coming and throwin in some bombs in to it, and it will be destroyed very easy.
The whole point of having a Mortar-BUNKER is to irritate the allies and ockupy a large territory. It should be very hard for them to destroy it. I would say 10 times harder than it is right now. Just bring the "health" of the bunker up 10 times more, otherwise it's a useless thing to build.

A good player knows today that a mortar-bunker is retarded to build since it's easy to destroy for the allies and it cost too much, so it's better to just have some 120mm s.GrW 42 Heavy Mortar Teams moving around. The point of builing a Mortar-Bunker is to have it THERE at ONE place to occupy a certain area and make it hard for the allies to retake that area specificly.
If allies can just bomb it 2-3 times with arty from a Churchill, or throw in some bombs in to it, then that's the point?

Armoured Cars:
Sd.Kfz. 222 Armored Car (20mm KwK) should kill allies-infantray a little more effectivly. Right now it's too slow and doesn't fill it's purpose.
Allies armoured cars are good as they are, keep them that way.


Those are the main thing to think about, and I hope you developers take this to heart. I have played BK for over 7 years and I love this mod.

i can smell so much bias everywhere.

WaffleWerfer wrote:Sounds ridiculous, but Axis just seem to have every corner covered.....

allied bias.

PanzerFather wrote:Me and many others I've talked with on BK think that the ALLIES are too overpowered in many ways

axis bias.


@WaffleWerfer
to have "every corner covered" you mean their doctrines are better because they are more well rounded?
this is only true when you look on theory. but when you play with good players. you will understand that it's not about to have every corner covered. because only 1 corner can be enough to make you win if this 1 corner just does what it should........


@PanzerFather
i disagree with everything you said.
except marder1 and hummel. only.
and you speak about sas? they are over_priced not over_powered. their load_out need to change and they should cost less.

PanzerFather wrote:Hello!
OBS, DEVELOPERS, THIS IS A MUST READ:

If you say so.

TANKS:

Percings vs Nashorns:
First of. Percing is TOO overpowered.
For example, I played a game were a normal Percing-tank survived 2 Nashorn-shot, shots that just bounced of the Percing. In my opinion, a Nashorn-tank should penetrate ALL allies-tanks in the game. The one idea with Nashorns is that they can do just that and that their weakness is that they can be easily destroyed in return if allies have more tanks coming.
Right now, Nashorn is useless to produce because you can never be sure if the shot bounces of allies tanks or not. This is rediculous considerate the cost and function of the tank.

There seems to be some sort of bug.
The pak 43 from Nashorn has less pen power vs pershing than the pak 43 from Jagdpanther etc.
In return the Nashorn doesnt lose any accuracy over distance... weird stuff.

However, Nashorn is brutally effective, esspecially from ambush. Basically guranteed pen (even more so with AP) against all targets and like 80 range from ambush as well as high rof. I am always going for nashorns in SE late games. You will be pretty save against whatever tank the eenemie throws at you.

Percings vs JagdPanther:
Percing should ONLY be able to hurt JagdPanther A LITTLE BIT if they shoot JagdPanther from BEHIND, not KILL THE WHOLE TANK IN ONE SHOT FROM FRONT which a Percing can do right now. THAT IS RETARDED and it MUST be fixed.
JagdPanther cost 170 feul and 900 manpower withupgraded Tank-Hunter doctrine and should be one of the axis most heavier tanks, you as an axis-player shouldn't be scared that it will be shot down by ONE normal-Percing shot when facing each other from front.
Allies ways to destroy that tank is to either have Super-Percing, Anti-tank infantry that shoots from behind or planes, not one single normal Percing.

Bullshit, just Bulshit. The Jagdpanther was actually a heavier medium Tank (45 tons compared to late e8 38 tons shermans) but not a "most heavier tank".... its a well balanced tank hunter on medium tank design.

Panther has 800 HP, Jagdpanter has 1000, as if it is a tiger.... and with Zimmerit the damage drops down by 25%. The 90 mm max damage is 800, when zimmerit is up it drops to 600. So even with max damage triggered you need 3 pen hits to kill it.

And who says what "should" be "only" possible? You? When your tank gets penned it can blow up right away, no matter what tank you gonna drive.
In game the 90 mm can only do so by triggering that "lucky shot"..... 1 vs 1 a Jagdpanther should beat a Pershing, let alone its superior gun range. Put Jagdpanther into ambush and not even a SP can scare it.

No allies AT should be able to penetrate the Jagdpanther in front, or a King-Tiger. Even a ordenary Tiger should be hard to kill with heavy AT.
Super-Percing is the only tank that should be able to confront these tanks upfront.
Strong allies-AT should be able to penetrate the Jagdpanter in the back maybe, but that is the point though, that they sneak behind to counter it's attack, and that is why you have the Jackssons abillities of speed for example.
Developers SHOULD understand this.

I see, you are well educated by german Propaganda. Nazi steel can never be penetrated by allied material.... i understand..... Jeez... NUTS. Tiger I could be penetrated by 17 pdr guns, 76 mm with HVAP, 90 mm....... in which world do you live?

And you know what? Stuff like KT or elephants are almost impossible to be penetrated by allied guns. Only 90 mm with HVAP and ambush bonus have a reasonable chance to pen them.
What else you want?

In War something thats good for now is obsolete one or two years later. Axis started with tanks equiped with 20 mm guns, at the end of war it was at best considered a light reconassaince tank... even armored cars like greyhound had better armament than german Tank I and II from 1939.

And in the Air? At the beginning there were still biplanes flying like henschel dive bombers.... at the end of war a single US P-47 thunderbolt fighter plane could carry a a bombload heavier than that of dive bombers and even heavier than that of japanese twin engined bombers of 1939/1939.
If anything makes stuff obsolet very fast, its War.

Hetzers and Panzers should allways be better tank-hunters than ordenary Shermans:
Just make sure that is the case. The weakness for the axis is that these tanks are less good at killing infantry than Shermans are.
DO NOT make Shermans and Hetzers equal, that also makes Allies overpowered and it's boring to play.

They are.... at least ive never seen a sherman in BK that could ambush. So what are you talking about? Both carried guns of similiar power.

Marder I:

Marder I should be stronger both in shooting and on surviving. Right now that tank is useless even to face Shermans. Shermans are superior to Marder I. NOT balanced.

The point of such light TD´s.... or better gun carriages, is not to go head on vs tanks. They are designed to ambush them or to shoot from prepared positions and then retreat before enemie can return fire. They are cheap defensive tools.

IN GENERAL, all allies tanks should be somehow inferior to axis tanks, that should be a general thing. Allies will have other abilities that will balance things out, such as cheaper units, more massproduction etc.

thx again for the propaganda. Perhaps you attach a propganda video next time that shows how immortal axis soldiers are and how unbreakable their equipment is.

INFANTRY:

I like how PanzerGranadiers are right now, keep them that way. What you should do however is to make SturmGevärs (StG) a bit better in close battle for the axis.
RIght now the allies infantry is ALLWAYS better in close battle and Axis is distant. That shouldn't be a rule.
Commando Sten SMG Squad for example ALLWAYS win in close battle, and sure I want to keep them really good at close-battle, but axis should also have a choice to be extremly good in close battle if axis upgrade to StG.

The STG shreds you before you get into close range and shreds what remains when you are in close range. Close range doesnt help shit when you get shred from range unless you can make use of buildings etc.

go and play version 4.6 and 4.7. There you can shred allied conscript forces all day long with your superior axis force.

Thing is: Quality beats quantity when it gets too extreme.... why? Well, less micro, less losses, more kills and thus more veterancy. At some point the veterancy advantage becomes so severe that no mass production on earth can help you out....

We changed it for good reasons.



rambos exists on both sides of BK...

Arty:

The hummels should do more damage considering how much it cost to make them, the long way to get them and how much it cost to use their shots.
When someone uses upgrades hummels it should be 3 times stronger than Hotsckiss-shots, it should just be the ultimate destroyer for any axis player that chose Scored Earth doctrine.
Right now, Hummel is useless. It is not that much more destructive than Wespe 105mm SP Artillery, so it's stupid to make them as how they fuction right now, it shouldn't be like that. Hummels should be something everyone fears, since the struggle to get them is so hard and long anyway.
If you use like 110 ammo for useing hummel shooting, EXPENSIVE as it is, slow as it is, vulnerable as it is, LONG TIME TO UNLOCK as it does, it also SHOULD do ALOT of damage, not allmost the same as the wespe. Right now, it shots like 5 shots, and it doesn't damage that much. It's frickin retarded

Right now the allies have superior-arty. The brits for example can arty anything with planes and tanks very accurate anywhere they want and move around mobile so it's allmost impossible to shoot back at them, and axis can only respond with wespe basicly, it's very unbalanced.

The Hummel is the most powerfull arty unit you can get. The damage can be almost twice as high than that of a 105.

Its true that the lowest possible damage is really set too close to the 105, but the possible max damage is almost twice as much.

Mortar:
When axis decide to make a Mortar-bunker, which takes LONG time to build and alot of resources to make, it shouldn't be easy to destroy for allies as it is right now.
Right now, allies can use their arty or have some infantry coming and throwin in some bombs in to it, and it will be destroyed very easy.
The whole point of having a Mortar-BUNKER is to irritate the allies and ockupy a large territory. It should be very hard for them to destroy it. I would say 10 times harder than it is right now. Just bring the "health" of the bunker up 10 times more, otherwise it's a useless thing to build.

A good player knows today that a mortar-bunker is retarded to build since it's easy to destroy for the allies and it cost too much, so it's better to just have some 120mm s.GrW 42 Heavy Mortar Teams moving around. The point of builing a Mortar-Bunker is to have it THERE at ONE place to occupy a certain area and make it hard for the allies to retake that area specificly.
If allies can just bomb it 2-3 times with arty from a Churchill, or throw in some bombs in to it, then that's the point?

these satchels (bombs) are designed to knock out bunkers, nothing else. When you allow bunker buster infantry to get too close to your bunker, well, not my fault. But it withstand a lot of arty and other stuff. Dont use it as first line defense but rather than a forward HQ.

The only problem i have with it is that the builder unit and every inf on PE side costs much and thus its hard to get a bunker next to other expensive stuff. And one arty shell might kill the builder squad and you need another 300+ mp to restart construction.

Armoured Cars:
Sd.Kfz. 222 Armored Car (20mm KwK) should kill allies-infantray a little more effectivly. Right now it's too slow and doesn't fill it's purpose.
Allies armoured cars are good as they are, keep them that way.

they kill inf very well.

Sorry for a off-topic but

XDD

Lmaooooooooooooooooo panzerfather is big troll, brain retarded man (no insult)

BK MODS PLEASE READ:

I've been playing for many years but registered an account for this topic. I love BK mod and consider it one of the best RTS games ever made. I have studied the detailed stats, health, armor etc. of every unit in the game (in the downloadable program where you can go into the individual unit stats), and written specific build-orders for maps and resource situations.

I've made have dozens of excel-sheets with cost analysis of every doctrine and unit combination, and tested them out over tons of games to find which combinations are more cost-effective. Unlike many who go on their gut-feeling, I've sat down and calculated the potential power and safety of each build, and how versatile it is (switching from inf to tank to arty, etc.)
Brits: I have a 75% positive win-rate in pvp with this faction.. It pains me to write this, because I enjoy trashing people with Royal Artillery, but game balance comes before my personal enjoyment. It's far too strong. Artillery combined with cheap paradrop for vision, with the Bren MMG early game, is absolutely fucking crazy. I massacre axis infantry and bombard any position they have, by the time they get tanks, mine are better. By loading high-explosive artillery into the AT-halftrack, you get an early game mobile artillery/AT combination super cheap. With the axis alternative - the hotchkiss - nerfed, and rightfully so, this is beyond fucking crazy. The infantry is fine, until you get to the later levels where they are virtually unmatched by any axis infantry. Finally, the Cromwell Mk. IV with flank speed is FAR too versatile and strong, and the same can be said of the M10 tank destroyer. These are obvious balancing issues, but by all means keep it as it is, it saves me from having to develop more builds with Brits.

PE:My main issue with axis is that some doctrines and some doctrine upgrades are blatantly a lot less effective than others. Like, it's not even close.. More on that later.

I wholeheartedly agree that the pershing is too powerful. Once I get it, I feel invulnerable compared to getting even the Tiger. But it's not necessarily the penetration or the accuracy, though they are ridiculous, it's the overall versatility. It essentially has no weaknesses compared to other tanks at that price, and because of the excellent vision capabilities of the US - with regular riflemen able to beat elite axis infantry for a fraction of the cost - you can easily pop in and take out axis tanks before they can advance. Several other units on both factions are clearly less cost-effective than their alternatives, but yes Nashorn and Marder sucks now, which is why I never play with this faction. Sure, you can imagine single scenarios where they're useful, but statistically that's not how it plays out. Most of the time you pay an astronomic price for a slow, weak glass cannon that can't even take down Pershings anymore. THIS NEEDS TO BE FIXED. Axis tanks meant to take down allied heavy tanks are virtually useless, and it's a problem.

I hope you look at these issues and fix them, though it's not a big deal for me as a power games (I just play whatever is stronger, and right now it's Brits), but I can totally see casual gamers quitting over these issues. I don't think this tiny community can afford people quitting. PS: Dude, upgrading the .50 cal to penetrate tanks because "it's realistic". This makes me extremely worried about the future of this game. If it were realistic, it wouldn't be driving like a fucking Lamborgini Diablo over a swamp, hitting some dude's eyeball with an early .50 cal. Get serious..

Thank you for reading my post. Me and a friend as tried the game with different units now and recorded it with cam-recorder. It shows that I am right.
You will see.

Sinekyre wrote:BK MODS PLEASE READ:

I've been playing for many years but registered an account for this topic. I love BK mod and consider it one of the best RTS games ever made. My background is as a semi-pro RTS player of 20+ years. I was among the top-10 solo players in Europe in Starcraft and WC3, and though they are different games, the balancing principles are the similar, while not the same. I have studied the detailed stats, health, armor etc. of every unit in the game (in the downloadable program where you can go into the individual unit stats), and written specific build-orders for maps and resource situations.

I've made have dozens of excel-sheets with cost analysis of every doctrine and unit combination, and tested them out over tons of games to find which combinations are more cost-effective. Unlike many who go on their gut-feeling, I've sat down and calculated the potential power and safety of each build, and how versatile it is (switching from inf to tank to arty, etc.)

BK.png

Brits: I have a 75% positive win-rate in pvp with this faction.. It pains me to write this, because I enjoy trashing people with Royal Artillery, but game balance comes before my personal enjoyment. It's far too strong. Artillery combined with cheap paradrop for vision, with the Bren MMG early game, is absolutely fucking crazy. I massacre axis infantry and bombard any position they have, by the time they get tanks, mine are better. By loading high-explosive artillery into the AT-halftrack, you get an early game mobile artillery/AT combination super cheap. With the axis alternative - the hotchkiss - nerfed, and rightfully so, this is beyond fucking crazy. The infantry is fine, until you get to the later levels where they are virtually unmatched by any axis infantry. Finally, the Cromwell Mk. IV with flank speed is FAR too versatile and strong, and the same can be said of the M10 tank destroyer. These are obvious balancing issues, but by all means keep it as it is, it saves me from having to develop more builds with Brits.

PE: I have been getting Hotchkiss ASAP every time I play axis for a long time. It was completely broken, and I'm glad you nerfed it, though I enjoyed being one of the few people who abused this. My main issue with axis is that some doctrines and some doctrine upgrades are blatantly a lot less effective than others. Like, it's not even close.. More on that later.

As far as what PanzerFather wrote. I wholeheartedly agree that the pershing is too powerful. Once I get it, I feel invulnerable compared to getting even the Tiger. But it's not necessarily the penetration or the accuracy, though they are ridiculous, it's the overall versatility. It essentially has no weaknesses compared to other tanks at that price, and because of the excellent vision capabilities of the US - with regular riflemen able to beat elite axis infantry for a fraction of the cost - you can easily pop in and take out axis tanks before they can advance. Several other units on both factions are clearly less cost-effective than their alternatives, but yes Nashorn and Marder sucks now, which is why I never play with this faction. Sure, you can imagine single scenarios where they're useful, but statistically that's not how it plays out. Most of the time you pay an astronomic price for a slow, weak glass cannon that can't even take down Pershings anymore. THIS NEEDS TO BE FIXED. Axis tanks meant to take down allied heavy tanks are virtually useless, and it's a problem.

I'll post more about the uselessness of certain doctrinal upgrades, but a short summary is that Luftwaffe and Defense doctrines, while good, are CLEARLY worse than the allied doctrines, who all have better versatility (arty/tank/inf). I'll go into comparisons to clearly show this later, especially the uselessness of the defense doctrine, despite recent changes.

I hope you look at these issues and fix them, though it's not a big deal for me as a power games (I just play whatever is stronger, and right now it's Brits), but I can totally see casual gamers quitting over these issues. I don't think this tiny community can afford people quitting. PS: Dude, upgrading the .50 cal to penetrate tanks because "it's realistic". This makes me extremely worried about the future of this game. If it were realistic, it wouldn't be driving like a fucking Lamborgini Diablo over a swamp, hitting some dude's eyeball with an early .50 cal. Get serious..

This is highly interesting. Thank you for your contribution and welcome to our forum.
On the side note, have we had a pleasure to play vs each other already?

@Sinekyre: Welcome to BK and thx for the post.

Still i am wondering about this list you made. Thats far from any build order ive seen in pvp games. Having like 20 units as SE... cant remember ive ever did that.

One thing you should note is that if axis teams focus on less but effective units, like each docs brings their most effective units out instead everybody throwing something in from their mulitrole docs, each one has less units and thus less upkeep. I have had games in which for example TH doc focuses on getting hetzers and IV/70 but nothing more expensive, Bk doc on Tank IV J spam as screen and and exploiting units (taking high losses but well), and then like luft or something purely going inf... each player having like 4-5 combat units on the field and highly mobile and flexible.

But most axis players have isane long build orders, build up big armies that eat up popcap just to get bombed by RA docs and then going into attrition against US docs in late game.... everybody wants his own AT gun, his own arty, his own inf, his own panthers.... his own anti air or whatever and thus axis ending up in each player trying to get big "all can do" armies that get bombed and eat upkeep (ressources).

I am not even sure if you calculated all the upkeep stuff into your calculation... but as for me playing axis: Less is more... i often dont spend time wasting res into defensive shit when i am terror or BK doc... one 50 mm AT gun and thats it, everything else is mobile stuff that can do offensive and defensive job.


Also the cal 50 got changed not just for "realistic reasons" but also for balance reasons as well as for faction diversity and in short: it sucked before..... it had half the accuracy and not even half the rof of an top mount MG34 (it just looks like an 42). Furthermore, since cal 50 can be considered to be some sort of allied eqivalent to the 20 mm axis guns and serving the same purpose as multirole large calibre automatic weapon, i dont see why the 20 mm should be as it was but cal 50 not.

Its also an iconic weapon. The HMG42 has 25% accuracy boost vs suppressed inf and we left it bc its an "iconic weapon"...
The cal 50 is also iconic in many ways.

So the realism argument was just one reason.


@Panzerfather:

Nashorn pen vs Pershing from max range and ambush: 91,25%%. Meanwhile a Jagdpanther which has the same gun fitted has 109,5%.


I am not sure what happend to your Nashorn and to be honest i´ve never even seen it bouncing of from an SP when using AP rounds.

Sinekyre wrote:I wholeheartedly agree that the pershing is too powerful. Once I get it, I feel invulnerable compared to getting even the Tiger. But it's not necessarily the penetration or the accuracy, though they are ridiculous, it's the overall versatility.

pershing is meant to be counter of tigers and panthers. so i think it is fine.

what is not fine.....is tigers and pershings are available at the same time. tigers should always arrive sooner. both from gameplay and realistic point of view.

I recommend do not listen for the PanzerFather at all, through PVP games I found him very toxic and only playing as Axis (favour for PE).
It comes through lobby with kicking players, whom he just don't like to insulting players, just because he didn't make a move how PzFather wanted to.

Nashorn is great weapon for killing top tier allied tanks like last Churchill with flamethrower or SP (of course from the ambush only). If it not supposed to fight without camo bonus, since even a 75mm shermans can one-shot it for obvious reasons.

And I still do not understand, why you think that Pershing is more superior than Tiger. It is located in only single doctrine and do not have a top MG42, unlike the Tiger E, with the abilities like long-shot, inf shock and smoke cover (with all that Tiger and Pershing considered to be in one tier). I could compare it to a Panther D, but I don't really sure about his stats.

Me and a Friend tried a 1v1 where we tested units, we recorded it and it will soon be realised on youtube.

My claim is that allies are superior to axis, and it shouldn't be that way. Here is the sum of everything.

ALLIES ARMOURED CARS ARE EXTREMLY SUPERIOR TO AXIS:

The Sd.Kfz. 222 Armored Car (20mm KwK) which is supposed to be "Highly effective" as one of the developers claim in the forum against allies infantry-units is total inferior to allies M3-T48 Gun Motor Carriage (57mm AT) and M8 Armored Car - 330 MP/30 Fuel.
3 American infantry units will survive the Sd.Kfz. 222 Armored Car (20mm KwK) with just shooting back at it with bullets.
3 upgraded PanzerGranaders will NOT survive a M8 Armored Car or any Armoured Cars from the Americans.
We have the testing recorded.


ALLIES TANKS ARE SUPERIOR TO AXIS TANKS IN GENERAL:

Hetzers are useless, any Sherman can shoot them down.

JagdPanther vs M26 Pershing:
JagdPanther can OFTEN be shot down by a single shot from a M26 Pershing. In general, when M26 Pershing face an Jagdpanther, the M26 Pershing wins, IF not the Jagdpanther had some lucky chances. We tried around 5 times facing them against each other, JagdPanther won 1 time out of 5.
M26 Pershing cost- 830 MP/150 Fuel, Jagdpanther cost 1000 MP/180 Fuel, when upgraded it cost 900 MP/160 Fuel.
Pershing is cheaper and stronger than a Jagdpanther. AGAIN, it shouldn't be like that.
OBS, everything is recorded and tested.

Jagdpanzer IV/70(A) (Sd.Kfz. 162/1) is the only real good axis-tank, but Percings often beat them.


ALLIES INFANTRY IS SUPERIOR TO AXIS:

When facing Panzergrenadiers that cost 325 MP with upgraded rifles VS Riflemen that cost 255 MP WITHOUT any upgrades at all, both in medium-cover, both in heavy cover and both in the open, the units are about EQUAL.
They are equal, yet it cost more resources for the axis to produce their infantry, which gives allies an upperhand and in total makes allies superior.

The supposed "super-infantry" of axis:
Waffen SS infantry die just about as easy as any other Panzergrenadiers-infantry unit, but Waffen SS have more fire-power and the sniper-abillity, that's about it. 2 or 3 American riflemen in medium-cover and heavy cover can bring down the Waffen SS in heavy cover, which makes Waffen nothing special really and a waste of resources to build.
I don't even need to go in to Stormtroopers, they are about the same.

FjR 5 Fallschirmjaegers is the only infantry of axis that is pretty good in general, but SAS Commandos are FAR more superior and can survive 3 explosive shots from a Panzer IV Ausf. E (Sd.Kfz.161) while the FjR 5 Fallschirmjaegers would need to retreat at ONE explosive shot from a Sherman.
This again makes allies superior.

What I can see is that the MG42 HMG Squad of axis is the only unit that is clearly superior to allies, but that's about it.




There is much more to say, we will test the Britts very soon, I'll update you with more.

Mr. FeministDonut wrote:I recommend do not listen for the PanzerFather at all, through PVP games I found him very toxic and only playing as Axis (favour for PE).
It comes through lobby with kicking players, whom he just don't like to insulting players, just because he didn't make a move how PzFather wanted to.

Nashorn is great weapon for killing top tier allied tanks like last Churchill with flamethrower or SP (of course from the ambush only). If it not supposed to fight without camo bonus, since even a 75mm shermans can one-shot it for obvious reasons.

And I still do not understand, why you think that Pershing is more superior than Tiger. It is located in only single doctrine and do not have a top MG42, unlike the Tiger E, with the abilities like long-shot, inf shock and smoke cover (with all that Tiger and Pershing considered to be in one tier). I could compare it to a Panther D, but I don't really sure about his stats.

Well, that's not true. I scream at people to GREEN UP to make them wake up from their slow zombie-bubble, but that's about the limit of toxicity I have.
I do that, because other players have very little patience, and they want everyone to be fast,
but I don't kick people frequently.
ONLY if they are obviously sabbotaging the game etc.
I never kick people without any good reason.
People often come to my games because they are solid and good and I get things done, I don't wait for 2 hours in hope that other people green when they feel like it, I write to them in private to "GREEN UP" so that we can start.
If you have a problem with that you shoudln't join my game, instead you should host your own game, not coming in here and saying to the developers to not listen to my talk about balancing the axis and allies, that's immature.