Small doc balances suggestions for beta

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 449
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Small doc balances suggestions for beta

Postby mofetagalactica » 07 Oct 2019, 09:11

1-Move rocket jeep to armor doc delaying it until you get motorpool upgrade or supply yard.
2-Add a buildable 75 pack howitzer for infantry and airbone doc in the motorpool as a replacement for the missing rocket jeep (his counter-part would be 7.5 cm leichtes, maybe copy the same price or suggest a new one)
3-Get rid of the reward choice between 7.5 cm leichtes and 50mm AT have both available for WH.
4-50.cal jeep from INF doc would cost 280 MP 5 F (from only 280 MP)
5-Fix the goddamn rocket plane run of the airbone doc
6-Make the puma 50mm earlier available at battle phase (same with his reward choice).
7-Add a pz4 f/a stubby vers in the krieg barracks available to produce once you get assault phase upgrade in the hq ( for propaganda and defensive)
8- own armor table for pz4 stubby versions, pen chances againts 37mm would be 25% ( goes up with ap rounds), 38% againts 57mm, 42% againts 75mm and 60% againts 76mm.
9- price reduction for pz4 stubby versions, so it could be taken in mind as an improved puma 50mm resilent to 37mm guns but slower.
10- slighty buff to the armor of panzer 3N from blitz doc againts 57mm.
11- AP ammo hability for the 37mm stuart (as a way to have chances penning pz4 stubby versions)
12- get rid of the reward choice between chaffe and stuart make them both available to build (as also a way to deal with pz4 stubby vers)

These suggestions where made after testing that WH still suffering a lot from with the lack of possibilities of pushing between tier 2-3 compared to his counterpart. This dosn't mean that you will totally obliterate your enemies on this phase but you will have the options to try going for it as a way to make the allies and the axis player to delay getting tier 3 vehicles such as rushing for shermans and stugs.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3547
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Small doc balances suggestions for beta

Postby Warhawks97 » 07 Oct 2019, 14:11

mofetagalactica wrote:1-Move rocket jeep to armor doc delaying it until you get motorpool upgrade or supply yard.
2-Add a buildable 75 pack howitzer for infantry and airbone doc in the motorpool as a replacement for the missing rocket jeep (his counter-part would be 7.5 cm leichtes, maybe copy the same price or suggest a new one)
3-Get rid of the reward choice between 7.5 cm leichtes and 50mm AT have both available for WH.
4-50.cal jeep from INF doc would cost 280 MP 5 F (from only 280 MP)
5-Fix the goddamn rocket plane run of the airbone doc.



Agreed in all points.

As to point 2:
Armor doc: Calli jeep
Inf doc: 75 mm Howitzer on a Halftrack. The US build and used it mainly, not the british which have it
AB doc: 75 mm Pack Howitzer.

As i hope that the supply yard becomes an independent building, the motorpool upgrade should be required to obtain these units.


6-Make the puma 50mm earlier available at battle phase (same with his reward choice).


Agreed. Still i am hoping that WH gets a reworked tec and reworked buildings. The HQ upgrades can be purchased more independently. The Second building becomes hopefully a pure logistical one with HT´s and AT guns in it. The third hopefully a an assault weaponry that contains stugs, stubby tank IV´s, Tank III, Nebelwerfer and these Pumas. The second building not required to get that far.

As for the near future i can agree, but i hope that Stuart will be unlocked a bit earlier as well. Else the 50 mm Puma can dominate the vehicle stage too much.

7-Add a pz4 f/a stubby vers in the krieg barracks available to produce once you get assault phase upgrade in the hq ( for propaganda and defensive)
8- own armor table for pz4 stubby versions, pen chances againts 37mm would be 25% ( goes up with ap rounds), 38% againts 57mm, 42% againts 75mm and 60% againts 76mm.


I would add the stubby only for docs like def where they are more a defensive support. That means that Propaganda would get also the Tank III N with better armor as it would stay more often under fire during offensive support. The Stubby tank IV´s are given in docs in which they would more often act in a defensive role such as def and SE doc.

In terms of armor the Tank IV´s early versions (that also includes the F2 with long barrel) should get penetrated by 57 mm guns by roughly 50%- 60%, 75% by the 75 mm guns and with roughly 95%% chance by 76 mm guns at max range. The 76 shermans would cost one more CP in all docs.

The Tank III N would have a bit better armor. Roughly 40% penetration by 57 mm guns, 62% by 75 mm and roughly 85% by 76 mm guns.

The Tank IV H and J with their skirts would have again a bit better armor.


9- price reduction for pz4 stubby versions, so it could be taken in mind as an improved puma 50mm resilent to 37mm guns but slower.


yes for cost drop, but they cant be compared to Pumas in many ways.

10- slighty buff to the armor of panzer 3N from blitz doc againts 57mm.


As i mentioned. It would go down from 54% to 40%.
The 75 mm from shermans would go up in return from 44,394% to the suggested 62% (I have no idea why the 57 mm gun so much better in armor penetration as the 75 mm)

And the 76 mm would go from 81% to 85%.

So it would be more of a "swap". The 57 mm gets less effective a bit vs the Tank III N, while 75 mm shermans and 76 will perform better against it.




11- AP ammo hability for the 37mm stuart (as a way to have chances penning pz4 stubby versions)
12- get rid of the reward choice between chaffe and stuart make them both available to build (as also a way to deal with pz4 stubby vers)


Ok.

Walderschmidt
Posts: 242
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Re: Small doc balances suggestions for beta

Postby Walderschmidt » 07 Oct 2019, 21:12

Yes to Figree’s suggestions and yes to Warhawks’ fine tuning of them.

Wald

User avatar
Black Panther
Posts: 78
Joined: 04 May 2019, 14:54

Re: Small doc balances suggestions for beta

Postby Black Panther » 07 Oct 2019, 22:24

If 57mm won't be effective against pz3n, what it will be good for? 57mm should be good against all medium vehicles and 76mm against heavy one.
It is already performing bad against even light vehicles, can't one shot them comparing to pak38

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 449
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: Small doc balances suggestions for beta

Postby mofetagalactica » 08 Oct 2019, 00:02

Black Panther wrote:If 57mm won't be effective against pz3n, what it will be good for? 57mm should be good against all medium vehicles and 76mm against heavy one.
It is already performing bad against even light vehicles, can't one shot them comparing to pak38


30-50% dosn't mean is gonna be bad or non effective. But at least you're not gonna see every shoot peening a tank with almost 80mm armor, as for the % i would stick with the ones i proposed since 57mm weapons are used mostly on cammo (if not always) and somethimes with ap rounds so the chances scales up to almost other numbers that where proposed here.

CGarr
Posts: 49
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Small doc balances suggestions for beta

Postby CGarr » 08 Oct 2019, 01:03

Walderschmidt wrote:Yes to Figree’s suggestions and yes to Warhawks’ fine tuning of them.

Wald


Same here.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1690
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Small doc balances suggestions for beta

Postby kwok » 08 Oct 2019, 07:07

The only idea i personally am against is this one:
6-Make the puma 50mm earlier available at battle phase (same with his reward choice).


why is this necessary?

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 449
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: Small doc balances suggestions for beta

Postby mofetagalactica » 08 Oct 2019, 14:35

kwok wrote:The only idea i personally am against is this one:
6-Make the puma 50mm earlier available at battle phase (same with his reward choice).


why is this necessary?


Think of him as a more offensive vehicle with more anti tank power than the usual 20mm option, so pretty much an axis greyhound, most of the other options for fast response anti tanks tends to be slow ass halftracks without a routable turret that dosn't get to respond to enemy clown cars. I know that PE was the one usually dealing with these things with the fast scout pzb28mm car. But since the beta is focusing on more all around capabilities, then why not having the option to chose between fast movible anti tank (50mm) or anti inf (20mm). Why no one uses it in the live version? cause much everything on the AT usa arsenal (even riflemen GL) can destroy this vehicle without making any surpresive appear the enemy will have pretty much wathever thing already setup to destroy it once you produce it, as for example cammoed 57 HT's that are available from the start of the game for a pretty cheap price or just the usual 37mm, and thats why most of the current players just avoid making anti tank vehicles once you arrive to the assault phase and the panzer fabric building is not built yet.The reward choice (wich shouldn't be a reward, and just another unit available to pick) nevers thend to be deployed because of the same reason another unit that dosn't have the time the shine because you're already too close on getting stugs.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3547
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Small doc balances suggestions for beta

Postby Warhawks97 » 08 Oct 2019, 14:48

mofetagalactica wrote:
kwok wrote:The only idea i personally am against is this one:
6-Make the puma 50mm earlier available at battle phase (same with his reward choice).


why is this necessary?


Think of him as a more offensive vehicle with more anti tank power than the usual 20mm option, so pretty much an axis greyhound, most of the other options for fast response anti tanks tends to be slow ass halftracks without a routable turret that dosn't get to respond to enemy clown cars. I know that PE was the one usually dealing with these things with the fast scout pzb28mm car. But since the beta is focusing on more all around capabilities, then why not having the option to chose between fast movible anti tank (50mm) or anti inf (20mm). Why no one uses it in the live version? cause much everything on the AT usa arsenal (even riflemen GL) can destroy this vehicle without making any surpresive appear the enemy will have pretty much wathever thing already setup to destroy it once you produce it, as for example cammoed 57 HT's that are available from the start of the game for a pretty cheap price or just the usual 37mm, and thats why most of the current players just avoid making anti tank vehicles once you arrive to the assault phase and the panzer fabric building is not built yet.The reward choice (wich shouldn't be a reward, and just another unit available to pick) nevers thend to be deployed because of the same reason another unit that dosn't have the time the shine because you're already too close on getting stugs.



What clown cars do you mean? Also i struggle more with puma as with HT´s bc the Puma rotates turret slower than HT´s turn on point. So far you have either 28 mm or 37 mm HT in def/BK doc available without even the need of the first HQ upgrade. The Stuart and Puma with 50 mm/75 mm are available at the same time/tier/investment.

So i can only think of recce when you mention clown cars. That this unit has broken speed/acceleration stats is clear and probably gets fixed.
The Puma with 50 mm gun packs quite a punch combined with speed. Available after just one HQ upgrade seems to be a little bit too early. As i even mentioned, units like that one could also be easily packed into the third building along with stugs and stuff. Just in the way it was done in vcoh.


The reason its not used is not bc its bad. I think people who know its potential use it to counter recces etc. Thing is simply that most prefer the 75 mm HT bc it has better HE rounds. The Majority uses the 75 mm stubby version.
Another reason is that the 20 mm armed version is the main stay. It counters everything but stuart tanks with its 20 mm and doesnt need any sort of ammo supply like the 50 mm and 75 mm version.
One more reason might be that at this time the way to stugs isnt far away anymore and people prefer a stug as a defensive measure i would say.
Most of the time the 20 mm version and perhaps a supportive HT like the 37 mm version gets the job done. The 50 mm is only required when the enemie throws stuarts at you. But thats not that often the case. In so far you can then just as well wait a bit longer and get a stug that can also counter the first shermans more effectively.

I would rather try to put these Puma units into specific doctrines and there at a more effective place. Right now there are simply already other options that get the job already done. To be honest, the 50 mm version could find a nice place in the future PE. why? Because PE has either only very lightly armored vehicles with only one HT that mounts a stubby 75 mm gun or heavier stuff that requires CP like Hetzer. They also dont have stugs. They do have a Puma with 75 mm pak 40 but thats more a defensive unit.


I would make it like this:

WH has the 20 mm version and the 75 mm stubby. Either doctrinal or as a reward unit. One is cheaper and earlier available with multirole 20 mm, the other more expensive, later available but packs a nice punch with the stubby 75 mm and able to deal with light tanks and emplacmants and weapon crews much better (when using HE rounds). Like a quick assault support unit.

PE would have access to the 75 mm Pak 40 armed version as a pure mobile anti tank unit or 50 mm version that is more multirole capable. Here as well either doctrinal or reward.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2820
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Small doc balances suggestions for beta

Postby MarKr » 08 Oct 2019, 15:43

I am not against canceling some of the reward options but I would not cancel all of them. Some are meant to demand a choice between, e.g. durability or firepower (Jumbo vs Jackson) and having them both at the same time would present new problems or allow for unit combinations that we intentionally wanted to be impossible.
mofetagalactica wrote:(...)
The reward choice (wich shouldn't be a reward, and just another unit available to pick) nevers thend to be deployed because of the same reason (...)

You suggest to make the puma with 50mm gun and the variation with the short 75mm gun come sooner. If you can get it sooner, won't they just counter too well most of the allied early light vehicles? Maybe the 50mm would be OK because it doesn't always one-shot HTs, armored cars and light tanks (though it has a good chance to do so) but the 75mm version does (without HE ammo) - at the same time the US light vehicles have usually just 37mm guns or .50cals which don't one-shot these axis vehicles so often. So if they come earlier, won't they deny most of allied light vehicles? If they do, won't that lead to allies rushing for the medium tanks because light vehicles will be hard-countered by these units?

As a side note: Hawk's idea of redistributing the puma versions between WM/PE doesn't sound bad.
Image

MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 148
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

Re: Small doc balances suggestions for beta

Postby MenciusMoldbug » 08 Oct 2019, 16:52

mofetagalactica wrote: I know that PE was the one usually dealing with these things with the fast scout pzb28mm car.


I don't think this happens anymore with US vs PE because the 50cal on their vehicles shreds all these cars away. I've been thinking about how the 50cal buff has made most of the cars for PE kind of obsolete vs US because they have very slim chances of winning fights against stuff like the fully upgraded greyhound. Even the 50cal jeeps can give trouble to the 28mm car because it only takes 2 good bursts of damage for it to go down from them.

So I've been thinking, shouldn't the 50cal for light vehicles be delayed? From all the games I've seen it seems the US overperform and dominate not because of the new 50cal stats; but that they come too early with those stats. Shredding light vehicles with 50cal is good and realistic but these things come around 1-8 minute mark in the game and all axis can do is get light vehicles at best to counter them or inf support and AT guns. Axis only gets a 'real' chance of coming back when their tanks like p4s and stugs start coming into play otherwise they are on the backfoot when it comes to dealing with US light vehicles and those shredder 50cals.

Maybe the greyhound could get HE rounds if it's 50cal gets delayed to a later stage of the game. Don't remember if the greyhound had canister shells in real life but if it did that could also be another replacement for the delayed 50cal.

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 449
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: Small doc balances suggestions for beta

Postby mofetagalactica » 08 Oct 2019, 17:00

MarKr wrote:I am not against canceling some of the reward options but I would not cancel all of them. Some are meant to demand a choice between, e.g. durability or firepower (Jumbo vs Jackson) and having them both at the same time would present new problems or allow for unit combinations that we intentionally wanted to be impossible.
mofetagalactica wrote:(...)
The reward choice (wich shouldn't be a reward, and just another unit available to pick) nevers thend to be deployed because of the same reason (...)

You suggest to make the puma with 50mm gun and the variation with the short 75mm gun come sooner. If you can get it sooner, won't they just counter too well most of the allied early light vehicles? Maybe the 50mm would be OK because it doesn't always one-shot HTs, armored cars and light tanks (though it has a good chance to do so) but the 75mm version does (without HE ammo) - at the same time the US light vehicles have usually just 37mm guns or .50cals which don't one-shot these axis vehicles so often. So if they come earlier, won't they deny most of allied light vehicles? If they do, won't that lead to allies rushing for the medium tanks because light vehicles will be hard-countered by these units?

As a side note: Hawk's idea of redistributing the puma versions between WM/PE doesn't sound bad.


As far as i've tried the puma 50mm is completely balanced by being earlier, and to be honest haven't tried the 75mm one since its too clunky to use it well on offensives since chaffe can one shot it.

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 449
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: Small doc balances suggestions for beta

Postby mofetagalactica » 08 Oct 2019, 17:27

MenciusMoldbug wrote:So I've been thinking, shouldn't the 50cal for light vehicles be delayed? From all the games I've seen it seems the US overperform and dominate not because of the new 50cal stats; but that they come too early with those stats. Shredding light vehicles with 50cal is good and realistic but these things come around 1-8 minute mark in the game and all axis can do is get light vehicles at best to counter them or inf support and AT guns. Axis only gets a 'real' chance of coming back when their tanks like p4s and stugs start coming into play otherwise they are on the backfoot when it comes to dealing with US light vehicles and those shredder 50cals.

Maybe the greyhound could get HE rounds if it's 50cal gets delayed to a later stage of the game. Don't remember if the greyhound had canister shells in real life but if it did that could also be another replacement for the delayed 50cal.


¿You're saying that the cal.50 upgrades should be delayed or pretty much everything with a 50cal?
That would only leave you with 57mm HT and a 37mm at vehicle (greyhound) available to build and the only upgrade that you can really delay would be just greyhound lol.
¿What if we make the high caliber jeeps to have less "evasion" at receiving fire from any at's?

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3547
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Small doc balances suggestions for beta

Postby Warhawks97 » 08 Oct 2019, 19:16

MenciusMoldbug wrote:
mofetagalactica wrote: I know that PE was the one usually dealing with these things with the fast scout pzb28mm car.


I don't think this happens anymore with US vs PE because the 50cal on their vehicles shreds all these cars away. I've been thinking about how the 50cal buff has made most of the cars for PE kind of obsolete vs US because they have very slim chances of winning fights against stuff like the fully upgraded greyhound. Even the 50cal jeeps can give trouble to the 28mm car because it only takes 2 good bursts of damage for it to go down from them.

So I've been thinking, shouldn't the 50cal for light vehicles be delayed? From all the games I've seen it seems the US overperform and dominate not because of the new 50cal stats; but that they come too early with those stats. Shredding light vehicles with 50cal is good and realistic but these things come around 1-8 minute mark in the game and all axis can do is get light vehicles at best to counter them or inf support and AT guns. Axis only gets a 'real' chance of coming back when their tanks like p4s and stugs start coming into play otherwise they are on the backfoot when it comes to dealing with US light vehicles and those shredder 50cals.

Maybe the greyhound could get HE rounds if it's 50cal gets delayed to a later stage of the game. Don't remember if the greyhound had canister shells in real life but if it did that could also be another replacement for the delayed 50cal.



In the replay section of the beta was not a single instance where a cal 50 shred a vehicle in two bursts from max range. A jeep firing at a HT from max range required in average more than 5 bursts to kill it.

Also people complain about certain units with a cal 50, not the cal 50 in average. Those on tanks and stuff are no problem at all and work as intended and cost additional ammo. So nothing wrong here.

There are two reasons why cal 50 can quickly overwhelm a vehicle such as those of PE:

1. It managed to get very close. Thats true for jeeps and recce with their high speeds and acceleration. The Recce is a well know broken unit in this regard.
2. The vet bonuses on (US) vehicles grant 25% speed boost at vet 1, 25% accuracy boost at vet 2 and 25% damage boost at vet 3.
Note: This is only true for units that have the cal 50 as main weapon! Units like greyhound and those who have the cal 50 as upgrade and secondary armament do not benefit from 25% accuracy and damage boost for their cal 50. This is why it is important to fix vehicle veterancy, esspecially those who have cal 50 as main weapon, instead of using a sledghammer for all cal 50.



Also it might really be possible that the cal 50 on jeeps is an upgrade rather than building a cal 50 jeep right away.


Canister and HE on greyhound might be possible and the cal 50 upgradable once the motorpool upgrade has been purchased.

Also has anyone ever thought about dropping cost of certain PE light vehicles?

Finally, no one knows how PE is going to look like. Perhaps it might really get easier in future to combine inf and vehicles rather than only vehicles or only inf that sits in trenches bc your tactical options with one, max two squads are severely limited. I could imagine that PE can in future combine light halftracks with Panzerschreck squad or AT HT with grenadiers. And if thats the case, that you can get overruned by a well balanced mix of various vehicles and some infantry support, well performing cal 50´s as a counter to such early mix assaults might be cruical again to keep US alive.


Edit:

And if the 50 mm Puma moves to PE, it would end PE´s struggle with cal 50´s bc the Puma is more or less immun to cal 50´s (unless you turn your back towards your enemie).

Edit II:

I checked the units TT. The PE vehicle with the 28 mm uses "tp_vehicle_sdkfz_22x_light_armoured_car.lua" target type. Those get penetrated by a 70% chance by cal 50´s. The logistic version of it with its MG42 and the one with 20 mm gun uses "tp_vehicle_sdkfz_22x_light_armoured_car.lua". Those get penetrated by a 25% chance by cal 50´s. HT´s by 35%. That might be the reason why the the one with 28 mm Panzerbuchse dies so quick to cal 50´s. But that also makes me wonder why the one with MG42 has a different armor than those with the 28 mm gun.


I think the MG42 logisitc version and the 28 mm version should have the same TT with a 50-60% chance to get penetrated by cal 50. The combat version with its 20 mm canon can stay with the 25% chance.


mofetagalactica wrote:

As far as i've tried the puma 50mm is completely balanced by being earlier, and to be honest haven't tried the 75mm one since its too clunky to use it well on offensives since chaffe can one shot it.



That is a big what if scenario. You can just as well run into a 57 mm HT which is a lot more likely to happen. I would argue that 37 mm and 57 mm guns end a lot more Puma lifes than Chaffes do. Chaffe is rarley used bc it requires lots of tec, costs as much as a sherman and can die oneshot to 50 mm guns in return. So if anyone gets bothered by 75 mm Pumas, he will likely get 57 mm HT´s for 250 MP rather than a 400 MP chaffe.


And if you dont want to attack with it, you can use it in a defensive role behind your inf. It will make short job of vehicle and infantry that charges in. The 75 mm Puma is a lot more used than chaffes.


mofetagalactica wrote:
¿You're saying that the cal.50 upgrades should be delayed or pretty much everything with a 50cal?
That would only leave you with 57mm HT and a 37mm at vehicle (greyhound) available to build and the only upgrade that you can really delay would be just greyhound lol.
¿What if we make the high caliber jeeps to have less "evasion" at receiving fire from any at's?



As i said, the cal 50 isnt wrong. In max range shooting tests 4 bursts did not even take half HP of an HT and its also obvious in the beta replay section.

Issues are certain units with great mobility to close in easily as well as extrem veterancy boosts for units that use the cal 50 as its primany weapon and gaining 25% accuracy and damage boosts.

As for jeeps: What if they would finally start taking damage from small arms? Ive seen jeeps going through two full bursts of HMG42´s and have not even an engine damaged.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1690
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Small doc balances suggestions for beta

Postby kwok » 08 Oct 2019, 20:06

This is just my opinion. Basically repeating Markr's thoughts plus a little more:
The general fear I have is that as more and more vehicles become available in the early stages, the more the early game* strategies get erased. Similar to how in the past "no one would make armored cars or medium tanks" because heavy tanks were available so early and rushable, if the puma gets pushed down a tier and we make balance adjustments from there the early game will last only at the opening stage which already feels like rock paper scissors. If the issue is that mobile AT for WM is needed to handle early mobile vehicles from US, then I'd rather see the US vehicles come later than puma come earlier. Similar to how we pushed heavy tanks to come later so that units like the panzer 4, sherman 76, etc started showing up.

*By early game I mean small infantry focused/scaled strategies like combined tactics with riflemen/volks, mgs, jeeps/bikes, at guns where losses are not as punishing and players fight to establish a foothold on the map. Very little ground is gained/lost on an engagement. This is preferable to a game where you gamble on a strong unit that will either shove a player completely off the map or get a major set back in a high fuel cost unit due to a bad rock/paper/scissor choice or simple rng bad luck.



Warhawks97 wrote:
MenciusMoldbug wrote:
mofetagalactica wrote: I know that PE was the one usually dealing with these things with the fast scout pzb28mm car.


I don't think this happens anymore with US vs PE because the 50cal on their vehicles shreds all these cars away. I've been thinking about how the 50cal buff has made most of the cars for PE kind of obsolete vs US because they have very slim chances of winning fights against stuff like the fully upgraded greyhound. Even the 50cal jeeps can give trouble to the 28mm car because it only takes 2 good bursts of damage for it to go down from them.

So I've been thinking, shouldn't the 50cal for light vehicles be delayed? From all the games I've seen it seems the US overperform and dominate not because of the new 50cal stats; but that they come too early with those stats. Shredding light vehicles with 50cal is good and realistic but these things come around 1-8 minute mark in the game and all axis can do is get light vehicles at best to counter them or inf support and AT guns. Axis only gets a 'real' chance of coming back when their tanks like p4s and stugs start coming into play otherwise they are on the backfoot when it comes to dealing with US light vehicles and those shredder 50cals.

Maybe the greyhound could get HE rounds if it's 50cal gets delayed to a later stage of the game. Don't remember if the greyhound had canister shells in real life but if it did that could also be another replacement for the delayed 50cal.



In the replay section of the beta was not a single instance where a cal 50 shred a vehicle in two bursts from max range. A jeep firing at a HT from max range required in average more than 5 bursts to kill it.

Also people complain about certain units with a cal 50, not the cal 50 in average. Those on tanks and stuff are no problem at all and work as intended and cost additional ammo. So nothing wrong here.


I VERRRYYY disagree. Unfortunately, the replays I do have on the 50cal jeeps can't be shared here. I just had a couple games where in my opinoin the 50cals broke the game and decided the match within the first 5 minutes, in each of the replays US won except in cases where the 50cal jeep wasn't used extensively. Granted, my opponent disagrees that the 50cal jeep was the reason why US won all the matches and he could be right, but based on that pattern PLUS all the replays i've seen on the non-beta, i'm pretty sure the 50cals in the early game are an issue. I'll make a separate topic on this and no matter what my opinion is we still try to go with the community.
Last edited by kwok on 08 Oct 2019, 20:10, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3547
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Small doc balances suggestions for beta

Postby Warhawks97 » 08 Oct 2019, 21:40

The problem is apparently the jeep, not the cal 50 in general.

As i said, recce, jeep and M20 all have the cal 50 as main armament (Hardpoint 1 in corsix language). The veterancy buffs increase damage and accuracy by 25% for the main weapon (Hardpoint 1).

And these three units have also the highest default speed for tracked and wheeled vehicles, with M20 reaching a speed of 9. They also get a 25% speed boost at vet one and the cal 50 is for free.


Fix the veterancy, fix Recce hyper mobility and its insta acceleration and do something with the jeep... cal 50 as upgrade or taking more small arms fire, esspecially when being hit by multiple HMG bursts.


More AT rifles would just punish all other units and not just these three, allowing axis to literally skip vehicles as counter to enemie vehicles.
And nerfing the cal 50 would just hurt the shermans in the late game and the cost efficiency of the upgrade. And these are the main affected units by that change. And all that just bc two or three units who have "accidentially" also a cal 50 are the actual balance concern?


And idk if it was just bad rolls what happend in the replay, when the jeep did less than 50% damage to an HT after four full bursts, but you should make a test game shooting with cal 50 at various vehicle types from various distances. But when i calculate down the average damage per burst at max range against HT or something, the damage dealed isnt that dangerous. And the replays tell the same. It got dangerous when the cal 50 got close or with veterancy.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3900
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Small doc balances suggestions for beta

Postby Tiger1996 » 08 Oct 2019, 21:55

50.cals are fine.. the problem in my opinion is Axis early game AT capabilities; varying form being "very weak" in some docs but "decent" in others.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1690
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Small doc balances suggestions for beta

Postby kwok » 12 Oct 2019, 01:04

1-Move rocket jeep to armor doc delaying it until you get motorpool upgrade or supply yard.
2-Add a buildable 75 pack howitzer for infantry and airbone doc in the motorpool as a replacement for the missing rocket jeep (his counter-part would be 7.5 cm leichtes, maybe copy the same price or suggest a new one)


I thought about this idea more. I agree there's something brutal to the rocket jeep, it might not be best where it is right now. My issue is that it's such a strong unit, it carries use all the way to the latest stage of the game. thus, it should either be treated like a late stage unit OR get nerfed so that there are better arty options out there. Between the jeep and the calliope i will choose the jeep in the late stage. So if it goes over the armor, i fear it will overshadow the calliope sherman. It's more mobile than a sherman, at the stage the sherman is available it is effectively as durable as a sherman because of the axis AT power, it costs less than a sherman. And the rocket barrage for a sherman just lasts longer, but by the time that you start firing the enemy will have retreated out of teh area the same time if you use a jeep so it's effectively the same.

My first thoughts as a proposal would be to reduce the amount of rockets the jeep fires to something where the receiving end of the jeep barrage doesnt need to necessarily retreat out of the area. But, I didnt think much about it so i dunno.
Any proposal i would say should be taken lightly because i didnt put much effort to trying to balance it


Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Przemsznikov 23 and 30 guests