Allies are OP and need to be nerfed, and here are the reasons why.

[PanzarFather]

Allies are OP and need to be nerfed, and here are the reasons why.

In the current version, the allies are totally OP, and in the BETA version allies are rediculousy OP.

The main point of this post is to point out that allies are OVERALL stronger than axis.

Brits for example have cheaper and faster access to every type of units and more diversity than any other faction. I mean all you really have to do is look at the overall win percentages of players, where brits top the list with an insane margin, and USA is second, then axis.
And in the beta they are even stronger, despite having a statistically higher win ratio in the current version.
Brits are overpowered compared to the other factions, and axis are 20-30% weaker. Yet axis get nerfs across the board? There's some kind of subjective issue going on here.


This is what developers have done in the BETA:
-MG42 are nerfed
-Hotchkiss is nerfed from 0 to 5 OP
-Pgj 48 is nerfed from 1 to 4 OP
-Defense bunkers are nerfed to not have upgrades, this destroys defense doctrine
-Volkssturm sucks and overlap with pioneers
-Axis AA (anti-air) can't shoot down allies planes
-Axis planes cost more yet are useless, this destroys the luftwaffe doctrine
-Axis artillery in general is slower, cost more, takes longer time to get and doesn't shoot as aggressively and accurate as allies artillery
-Allies pay less for howitzer
-Allies Airborne cost less and are equal or even better than Fallskirmsjägers.
-Allies get 2x tank for same ability as axis get 1
-Allies AA IN THEIR BASE shoot down any axis planes on the map in seconds.


Jeeps are better and stronger than Schwimms.

The German MG42 is nerfed and now is as good as the American Heavy Machine Gun, yet is more expensive.
No MG kills, it just suppress a little, that's it.








In the picture above shows one MG42 behind full sandbagcovers, it's shooting 5 riflemen infantries on a open field that have NO COVER. The only thing that happens is that a few riflemen dies, the majority get suppressed and are able to crawl and throw grenades at the MG42 and win.


Let's say I put an MG42 in a house. Allies infantry get suppressed, crawl out in the open area while the MG42 is just continuously shooting at them, and then the allies infantry throws a grenade inside that house and BOOM, MG42 squad is dead. With 83nd Airborne that has a free ability to resist the suppression, the MG42 can't do ANYTHING against them, at all. They will be able to run around like supermen throw grenades and do whatever the hell they want.

You suppress some units for a little time with the MG42, but they will eventually be able to crawl and throw grenades anyway, a developer under the name Markr said that the purpose of the MG (both MG42 and American Heavy Machinegun Team) is not to kill but to suppress.



American riflemen can get an upgrade on their rifles that makes them automatic AND they also suppress axis infantries with it, it's M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) an upgrade Americans can do on their base for a low cost. The American riflemen with this upgrade are now BETTER than the MG42 since it both kills and suppress.


The German MG42 is made equal to the American Heavy Machinegun team, they both suck, yet the German MG42 cost 60 manpower more.



ONE Airborne-unit that cost 385 manpower can take down the whole axis base alone, with help of maybe 1 or 2 airplane strikes.

Allies can litterly drop spotters everywhere on the map in seconds as well. That is insane and is a good argument alone that allies are OP right there. Allies are able to see what the enemy does far beyond enemy lines which is a HUGE advantage. Spotters are A-O in this game, if you can see what the enemy player has, you know exacly what to do against him.

The Brits have a truck now that cost nothing, and it shoots artillery and penetrate Tigers.
It's a truck foks, cost nothing and can be produce in early game.

Allies can also drop a 75mm M1A1 L716 Pack Howitzer that cost 325 manpower and 25 munition, that is nothing, it's also the best artillery in the game.

Allies can get tanks and armored cars very quickly while spending a little amount of resources.



Allies can also drop a 75mm M1A1 L716 Pack Howitzer that cost 325 manpower and 25 munition, that is nothing and it is the best artillery in the game.


Allies can get tanks and armored cars faster with less resources.


If you start a game with high resources you start with 50 fuel:





Since starting with low resources is an advantage for allies because allies have jeeps they can make in very early game and get out fast with and axis has nothing to counter them with, light AT has no real chance since they are slow and clymsy, what axis bring out in early game to counter jeeps is basicly volksgranadiers. If Volks are not behind cover, jeeps shoot volksgranadiers down easy. Often, Jeeps shoots them down fast on open fields before Volksgranadiers even have a chance to run to cover anyway. With all this said: Axis are forced to start with high resources for a better balance, but yet will be overrun by armored cars from allies pretty soon.

This also means that allies can get their Shermans out very fast too in mid-early game by first dominating the map with Jeeps in the start, make armored cars just 1-2 minutes into the game, get all the good resources and then spend just 30 fuel in upgrades to get Tank Depot and then the Tank Depot itself which cost 50 fuel, that is 80 fuel which they have to gain. How long will that take? Around 2-3 minutes depending on the map and then make their first Sherman. Axis have to struggle to recover from the lose of resources and important areas on the map in early game because of the jeep-attacks, and even IF even survive the armored car-attack it will be very hard to suddenly be prepared to face off Shermans right after the jeeps.






Here you can see them both compared to each other:




Wehrmacht Quarters is 15 fuel + Escilate to Skirmish is 20 fuel then Kreig-Barracks is 15 fuel and then escalate to Assult Phase that cost 30 fuel and this all takes a long time to upgrade, and then finally Panzer Factory for 50 fuel.

130 fuel and 875 manpower in total for Wehrmacht to get the Panzer Factory up in order to produce tanks (that will also cost more).

This is the total cost of progressing through the tech-tree:



I am fine keeping these high cost for axis, and I think most axis players are fine with it, BUT then axis-units have to be better because they cost more. The advantage of allies should be that they can make MORE units faster and cheaper, but not equaliy as good.
Axis should be all about quality in general.
Allies all about quantity in general.

Right now, allies have units that are equal or even better than axis and can produce them cheaper and faster.

Airborne vs Luftwaffe tactics:



First of, axis have to upgrade their main base with this:


In order to reduce their cost, allies already have cheaper plane-abilities, no need in the upgrades for the allies.
It also requares commandpoints to be unlocked, which will take time.





Airborne plane abilllities are superior and cheaper. The picture above kind of shows how absurd the damage is with the abillities that the planes has.

Airborne have better planes, and allies AA can shoot down axis planes in a second with 95% chance of hitting the plane, while axis AA have a 5% chance at best to take down any allies planes except allies bombingplanes, then it's 0% of taking them down.
Luftwaffe planes cost more. Luftwaffe has to upgrade their base after unlocking the bombing planes in order to get it cheaper, but when used allies AA IN THEIR BASE will shoot down any axis plane on the whole map immediately. Airborne need no upgrades, they have planes cheaper from the beginning.







Both the Brittish overpowered SAS Paratroopers and 82nd Airborne Rangers have 2 bazookas without any extra costs, while most devs want to remove that ONE Panzerschreck from the Fallskirmsjägers. Yet Kwok says this:



Fallskirmsjägers are actually cheaper in this BETA version, I give the devs a point for that, that IS good, usually they cost 550 manpower.
82nd Airborne Rangers cost 475 manpower, only 75 manpower more than Fallskirmjägers and can ressist suppresson (which means they can run to any bunker, Mortar bunker, MG in a house or anything and throw a grenade or satchel charge and win).
As you can compare, the airborne rangers also have more abilities in general.

The brittish airstrikes are absurd btw.




The planes of Luftwaffe can't be used since they got shot down immediately from the AA in allies base while allies AA is superior and allies airstrikes/bombingplanes are superior. I wasn't even able to take screenshots on how it looks like when they strike except this picture above this text, yet even that one got shot down. It's a PanzerKnacker-plane, it tried to attack Shermans INVADING axis base, yet the AA of allies accross the map shot it down anyway.
The summary of this is that airborne is far superior to luftwaffe, while luftwaffe sucks and will be a waste of time to pick for any axis player.

Mortarbunker is totally useless, takes a lot of time to unlock and takes around 4-5 minutes to build, when it is finally up brits can bomb it easily in 10 seconds or get some Glider down beside it and throw some heavy bombs in it which will take out it in a second, or the airborne rangers dropped around it and throw some bombs in to it.
No good axis players will use it.


Artillery:
The only thing that a good axis player would use when it comes to artillery is the Wespe 105mm SP Artillery, but it cost 500 manpower to make and is somewhat slow to use compared to the 105mm Priest Self-Propelled Artillery for example, and it doesn't shoot that accurate. The clusterbombs are USELESS against allies infantry as well. All it does (if lucky enough to get a full hit) is to take out like 30% of the allies infantry-unit and suppress them for a while, what it SHOULD do is to take out the whole unit 100%.
Brittish artillery for example can shoot very accurately, when it starts it hits very fast, often the brittish artillery hit the same place 3-4 times as well, which is perfect to take out a Mortar-bunker or any other emplacement. While the Wespe for example has it's arty slower and spread out on it is bigger which makes it harder to take out an allies bunker or 105mm M2A1 L/22.5 Howitzer Emplacement, 17-Pounder AT Gun Emplacement or a 87.6mm QF 25 Pounder Mk II L/28 Howitzer Emplacement as an example. If lucky, the wespe will hit one shot on allies emplacement, ONCE but the rest of the artillery will be shot around it, this means that allies artillery emplacements will survive while even the Wespe that is mobile can be shot down with brittish artillery in a few seconds becacuse of how aggressive, fast and accurate the brittish artillery is.


Allies artillery, the American howtizers and everything the brittish have is totally superior to axis.



Calliope can destroy axis base with only 2 barages that cost 90 munition each barage, 180 munition in total to get an axis-base destroyed.
Do we have anythiing on axis side for 180 munition that can totally destroy an allie base? If you know any, write an answer to me under this post.

Tanks:
Axis tanks should be better, but overall they aren't when you see the whole picture.
Axis tanks cost more and are slower, and allies have heavier tanks that cost less, here are the specifics.



Pershings are better than both Tigers and Panthers. Panthers are the only tanks in the simulair price-range that have a chance to take out a Pershing.
Normal Tigers have no chance against Pershings if they face each other.



M4A3(76) W Sherman is almost equal to a VI Ausf. E Tiger "Late Version".
Sherman 76 can penetrate a Tiger E lateversion without any special munition requiered. It's true that the damage from a Tiger is greater, but with two Shermans 76, they can easily take down a Tiger.
Sherman 76 can even penetrate and do damage against a King Tiger without using any special bullets or anything.
The Sherman 76 is acctually the best tank in the whole game when you look at what it can do and what it cost.

M4A3(76) W Sherman cost 450 manpower and 55 fuel.
Tiger E lateversion SD.kfz cost 865 manpower 170 fuel. That is almost double the price.
King Tiger 1200 manpower and 200 fuel




Super-pershing is better than King Tiger, and we axis players wouldn't have a problem with it since allies can only make ONE and axis can make more King Tigers if the first one dies, but the problem is that there is no other option to take it down, devs have removed the 280mm rockets from the Defence-doctrine that was able to take out the Super-Percing, the axis planes are useless in taking down the tanks and Scored Earth artillery slow and is not accurate, there is absolutly NOTHING axis can do against the super-pershing. Maybe if we get 4 Panters surrounding it and shoot it from the back, but how realistic is that scenario?



The German Half-truck (20mm KwK) that is suppose to be "very effective against allies infantries" can drive around and keep on shooting, it only suppresses allies infantry but doesn't do much damage.
These are never going to be used by any sane axis-player to counter allies infantry.


The Pz.Kpfw IV Ausf F2 that is supposed to be good against infantry can't even shoot down ONE engineer-guy on open field with it's MG or it's cannon. Seriously.
We tested this, ONE allies engineer was running on an open field while this Pz.Kpfw IV Ausf F2 tried to hunt it down, and it failed.
This tank that supposed to be "very effective against medium armor and infantry" is totally usless against infantry in other words IF not used the upgraded explosive shot which cost 25 minution to upgrade and 25 munition to use each time, 20 seconds reload-time. Facing more than 1 allies infantry with bazookas is gg for the Pz.Kpfw IV Ausf F2.



This goes with the Panther as well, both it's cannon and the MG have a difficult time to kill allies infantries.
Allies infantries just get pinned down at best.


American can make 2 Jumbos in this BETA-version as well.

Can you see the total picture that allies tanks (including the price and everything) are BETTER than axis?

Allies are OP in EVERY SINGLE WAY.
Better tanks, better infantries, better artillery, better AT, better and faster armored cars, better AA, better planes, for low cost and can be produced faster.
From early, to mid and late-game, allies are OP.

Instead of just trashing the BETA I want to be constructive.
Here is some summary of suggestions on how it should be in order to balance this:

• Keep allies having their units cheaper in general, but then they also should be less good. The advantage of allies should be that they can spam units faster and cheaper. Axis-units in general cost more, should also be a little better.
  Two German Granadiers should be equal to about four American riflemen.

• 
  The German MG42 SHOULD be OP compared to the American Heavy Machine Gun (HMG), it should totally schred any American or brittish infantry in 2 seconds on an open field, just as the MG42 does in the current version, that IS a strengh that the Germans should have.
  Mg42 is the killer! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxDauR7REPw
  It's not like it's impossible to kill the MG42 in the current version when it is like that, allies just have to be more careful, be smart, use mortars, snipers, crawl and hide to take it out etc, or use any type of armored car or tank really.

• 
  German tanks should just be a little bit better in general and not equal to Shermans and other allies tanks in general, but ofcourse cost more (as they already do).
  When an axis player has finally made their expensive tank, even if it isn't a Tiger or Panther, but just a normal Panzer IV, Jagdpanzer 48 or Jagdpanzer 70 and put it out on the field the axis player should FEEL powerful somehow, and allies need to be more humble about how to take the tank out, not just confront it direcly with a M4 Sherman as if it was equal. There are lots of creative ways to take out stronger German tanks anyway, allies can hide their ATs, PAITs, Bazookas, take them out with planes, sticky-bombs and a whole lot of other options.

• German artillery should have more diversity, strengh and damage.
  
  
  The hummel for example, if it's going to cost as much as it does and takes a lot of commandpoints to unlock, be as clumsy as it is and not that accurate at a target, at least the shots that DO hit on allies should make an absurd amount of damage. The allied players should only hope that the clumsy hummel misses their emplacements or whatever they have there being targeted.
  
  
  The Wesbe should be the opposite, it should be more quick and accurate, but cost less and do less damage.
  
  Clusterbombs should take out most allies infantries in one hit, not do 10% damage and make them suppressed a little.
  
  
  The Mortar Bunker from the Scored Earth should be very hard to destroy, allies need in my opinion basically to install bombs on it with engineers and detonate it like 2-3 times, it should be almost impossible to destroy with arty.
  
  I suggest also that booby traps should get a little stronger as well.

• We have already talked about the AA on discord, that allies AA are too strong and need to be fixed, seems like devs understood that at least, but just need to be pointed out on this list too.
  One PanzerKnacker-plane should cost 50 munition and reload faster, like the first planes two planes need reloadtime of 5 seconds, after that, 10 seconds. Yes this is valid. In the current version the Luftwaffe can send like 8 PanzerKnacker-planes at one area and shoot down any allies tank in that area. Many planes get shot down, others miss the tank, so maybe one or two planes actually hits the allies tanks and takes out at best 3 tanks. That cost 200 munition.
  Now in BETA, it cost like 170 munition for what I can remember for ONE PanzerKnacker-plane. No, if you are going to send ONE plane, it has to be a lot cheaper, 50 munition is reasonable since it's not even sure that the plane will even take out the allied tank or survive.
  In balance to this, the airborne can get more diversity-options for their planes, more types of anti-infantry strikes. The p-47 anti-tank rockets can take out an jagdtiger very fast, I suggest it should keep the past cost because it is so powerful.
  When allies spam Shermans everywhere, a luftwaffe without any tanks should be able to counter them with fast panzerknacker-planes. One plane (50 minution) bam takes out one Sherman, and one other plane bam, (oops, misses the other Sherman) but then again 10 seconds later whoom got half of it's life. 150 munitions in total for that, but at least it was a way for the axis player to defend himself against the spam of Shermans if he didn't have tanks there.

• 
  The Stormtroopers and other types of simulair german infantries should be strong, as people expect. When one or two stormtroopers run into an allies area, the allies-players should feel a little feeling of "oh shit, they are coming", and do smart moves to confront them. Not send an equally as good riflemen squad or something and shoot the stormtroopers down like nothing.

• Bring back the 280mm rockets in defence-doctrine and the V1 from the sky in the terror-doctrine without any sturmtiger needed to shoot the V1, or "propaganda-doctrine" as devs call it in the BETA version.
  No, it is not more OP to have these abillities than the The p-47 anti-tank rockets from the airborne. If airborne can bring that powerful strikes from the sky for 200 munition, Defence and Terror-doctrine should do, in their own way. V1 will reload for a lot of time anyway, so no it wouldn't be OP, it will just hit one target very very hard and maybe be used one or two times in a ordenary match.

• 
  Tiger E Lateversion, all kinds of Tigers actually should be much more violent against everything really. It should be very good at fighting american and brittish infantries, even if bazooka-teams and PIAT Anti-Tank Squads tries to surround it, it should be a HARD time for allies. Tigers should take out most allies tanks. Only very heavy allies tanks like Pershings, SuperPershing, Pershing Ace, firefly, Jackssons, Churchills should be able to penetrate it, and AT-cannons like 17 pounder of course. Allies bombing-planes can also be used to take down these tigers.
  No Sherman should EVER be able to penetrate the Tiger (WATCH THE VIDEO)
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBp4eWqXfno
  No, you don't have to make Tigers cost more for this either than they already do, remember that everything in basebuilding and time for axis is more expensive and takes longer time. Keep the same price for the Tigers but make them better.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... =emb_title

• 
  The 20 mm Halftrack KwK should also kill alot faster, since it's "very effective against infantries".

[kwok]

Welcome to the forum.

Axis AA (anti-air) can't shoot down allies planes

Axis planes cost more yet are useless, this destroys the luftwaffe doctrine

Allies AA IN THEIR BASE shoot down any axis planes on the map in a second.

Here's the notes about the AA:

Postponed AA Changes

We know the community has talked a lot about AA imbalances and we did a poll a little while ago about the AA changes viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3536. We know a lot of it is unbalanced and the reason is not because of biases but because it's a long long history of weirdly interacting values within the mod. Markr and I spent 2 hours just testing AA table by table trying to understand how each value affects AA. For example, did you all know that the range brackets on AA make a difference? An AA gun can shoot a plane as soon as the plane enters the map (and technically even before that). Given that, what range bracket do you think the AA uses when its max range is only 60? On top of that, there are target tables and other crazy shit that goes on because blitzkrieg is full of old ideas and vcoh stats... that being said, it will be an insane effort to balance all AA against planes but make sure the changes don't impact ground-to-ground combat. We will likely not tackle this until after the doctrine reworks are done because it will deserve its own dedicated review/patch. For now, we've buffed the HP of the henschel since we know it's a really critical piece of the luft doctrine and some (but not all) allied AA have unusually high stats specifically against air... don't ask it's complicated...
- Increased Henschel plane HP to 125 (from 100)

You can find more about the AA changes here viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3536

Allies Airborne cost less and are equal or even better than Fallskirmsjägers.

-Since playing the beta, fallsjagers are now cheaper than airborne (350 mp for fallsj if i recall). we made that change like hm.... 2 patches ago?

Everything else is up for debate i guess.

[123nick]

makes sense that SP can beat KT. allies get only ONE of em, if it dies its dead for good so it should be an equal if not better option vs konig tiger. this isnt even taking into account jagd tiger, i doubt it can beat that. even realistically, its turret armor was better-280mm thick iirc, vs 185 or a pathetic, obsolete 100mm on the early turret model. makes sense pershing beats tiger too, tiger is obsolete 1942 vs modern 1945 tank. why should it win?

anyways, i feel like a lot of these engagements shown are subjective, or you only see it in one game and think every engagement will be like that. esp stuff like wasp vs priest, how do you know priest will always hit better than wespe? maybe that one time u seen it it was just a fluke, and other people it will be priest missing and wespe hitting.

[PanzarFather]

makes sense that SP can beat KT. allies get only ONE of em, if it dies its dead for good so it should be an equal if not better option vs konig tiger. this isnt even taking into account jagd tiger, i doubt it can beat that. even realistically, its turret armor was better-280mm thick iirc, vs 185 or a pathetic, obsolete 100mm on the early turret model. makes sense pershing beats tiger too, tiger is obsolete 1942 vs modern 1945 tank. why should it win?

The answer to that question is in the orginal post already.
But to answer you about the JagdTiger, it is too slow and can be shot down with allies planes easily and do nothing about it, so it won't have a chance anyways.
My point still remains, there allmost nothing axis can do if allies throws out a Super-pershing.

[Sinekyre]

I feel like simple comparisons like this are important:



Yet devs listen to individuals who complain about luftwaffe, hotchkiss and individual axis units because they get beat by them. Not even beat a lot, just they find those units annoying. You know what's annoying? Calliope artillery. It eliminates an entire screen of units and even guaranteed hurts a tiger tank, and in the beta it costs the same as a hotchkiss which does infinitely less. What the fuck is that? The light anti-tank infantry have now been removed from wehrmacht, which is still there for allies and is the best early anti-halftrack weapon you can get. It negates all axis halftracks if it's behind cover. British faction gets mortar and MG instantly without any upgrades, whereas axis needs to wait a long time and build a building to get mortars. Overall allies have access to cheaper and better units than axis, and they're now easier to play. This is getting fucking stupid

[Sinekyre]

Specific examples of things that can be done to mitigate the imbalances:

- Remove the ability for british to get the mortar bunker instantly, it should cost CP to unlock

- Increase the cost of American tech tiers, force them to use intermediary units not just go straight to shermans and 76'ers, then calliope like you see in almost every team game.

- Remove the anti-tank light infantry from allies if you're gonna remove it from axis (why give axis more halftracks when allies can pick them off from full-screen at the start of the game?).

- Drop the Sherman 76 CP where you get two tanks for 850 manpower. That's absolutely crazy and the equivalent ability for axis only gives you one.

- Volksturm infantry should either be cheaper than US infantry (195 with the new CP unlock), or as strong, not have pioneer health, accuracy and stats (you go broke reinforcing them and they panic before they can ever fire the panzerfaust).

- Calliope should shoot equivalent missiles to the Hotchkiss, because the cost is now higher for the hotchkiss since you have to build the unit with fuel, instead of it destroying an entire screen. Allies get this artillery along with the jeep artillery ever. single. game. Hiding it behind equivalent CP to a hotchkiss was not enough.

- Allied rangers are so strong in close range that nothing can beat them. Fallskirmjager on the other hand are only strong when they get CP training unlocked and lose to most allied elite infantry (yet devs were debating about nerfing these units?).

- The overall cost of getting to heavy tanks with any PE doctrine is far higher than with USA and brits. In fact the cost of going to tier 3 is higher across the board for axis compared to US.

- USA MG, Mortar, Infantry, MG Emplacement and pretty much every unit is a lot cheaper than axis equivalent. Brits can even get regular mortars and MG instantly. The first person to get mortar infantry has a huge advantage.

- Give USA airborne rangers one bazooka instead of two. Why this imbalance compared to luftwaffe? This makes much stronger against heavy tanks.

- CONCLUSION: This isn't even how games like these are balanced. You don't go in and nerf units constantly like you did with axis, until nothing they have is as effective or cheap as allies, just because that's what people complain about. A simple solution to these issues would be to give axis units a ton more abilities, and give them more diverse units ala british. We're now at a point where axis is overwhelmingly less powerful than allies, and instead of fixing it you argue with individuals over individual units. The above was merely meant to point out suggestions that would bring allies to the same level as you nerfed axis to in the beta. I don't believe in nerfing overall. You should make counter-units stronger.

You removed EVERY strong element axis had, for every faction and doctrine, and gave british MORE, yet they were already the strongest. You have zero idea what you're doing. I've rarely posted here but I'm forced to do it because you're very close to completely ruining this game for the vast majority of players. You do the original developers a huge disfavor.

[Volksgrenadiers]

Well i can agree with many of this facts that are in game...

[idliketoplaybetter]

If only we listened Nami.., this could have prevented this uprise

[yser]

I haven't try the beta yet but allies was way bteer than axis its been long very long time from blitz for me but this facts is right I agree with him

[Warhawks97]

Just one short thing about HMG´s

HMG´s are not supposed to shred entire inf squads in 2 secs as you said it "should".

HMG´s are for suppressing and the MG42 was the best weapon available for this role. Its downside was that it was hard to aim at anything specific. Thats why the MG34 was so loved in ww2 by german soldiers.

In game the HMG42 had 25% accuracy boost against suppressed inf which broke the cover system as it could literally negate light cover and even heavy cover to a too high degree.

It is therefore excellent in pinning down infantry which you can use to close in with other units or using mortars. HMG´s were for the most part for suppressing. The main source of death came from mortars during ww2.


So the MG42 does exactly that what it was supposed to be. Its just that it is quite expensive in BK to get the very basic support weapons: HMG´s and Mortars. Many times they are just build once per game due to the cost. Thats something vcoh managed better.

[Sepp(esky)]

Well documented and supported arguments. I agree.

[idliketoplaybetter]

Good post, but can I see few replays when actual words occure to be a facting issue?

I had over 20 games of beta, all sides and factions, just not PE. Tried all the new stuff when it was specifically released on every game mode (1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4)

had mixed results - sometimes I could beat with brits, sometimes I lost (I consider mixed for positive outcome).

There were conceptual things that I couldnt understand, rather from point of gameplay than poing of balance, that is to say, few things were already described as "boring". But again, mixed feelings - rather good than not.

I could write lots of things and zoom in with obvious situations over the screenshots, but Id want to see replay of fair balanced teams and game going the way you described if that is a case.

Not dissagre, just I have no clue what people above agreed on.

[Sepp(esky)]

Just one short thing about HMG´s

HMG´s are not supposed to shred entire inf squads in 2 secs as you said it "should".

HMG´s are for suppressing and the MG42 was the best weapon available for this role. Its downside was that it was hard to aim at anything specific. Thats why the MG34 was so loved in ww2 by german soldiers.

In game the HMG42 had 25% accuracy boost against suppressed inf which broke the cover system as it could literally negate light cover and even heavy cover to a too high degree.

It is therefore excellent in pinning down infantry which you can use to close in with other units or using mortars. HMG´s were for the most part for suppressing. The main source of death came from mortars during ww2.


So the MG42 does exactly that what it was supposed to be. Its just that it is quite expensive in BK to get the very basic support weapons: HMG´s and Mortars. Many times they are just build once per game due to the cost. Thats something vcoh managed better.

I don't think the mg42 needed to be messed with honestly. It only murders those who do not pay attention or use good tactics in nonbeta anyways. Thanks for the history lesson, but one does not cross open terrain or across roads with an MG42 nearby and expect to survive, real world or bk mod. What is interesting is the effect of mortar smoke between riflemen and an mg42..but yet noone does this. One because mortars for all players have a pretty short range, two because they are easily wiped in most stupid of ways. I.e. Gliders sliding into them regardless of covering units.

One of my favorite tactics is setting up an mg42 ambush by luring infantry to chase something, like a weakened infantry unit, sniper, or something that will universally make a good micro'd and aggressive player chase with infantry..hold fire until the enemy is right ontop and wipe a squad...why shouldnt such things be rewarded? Imagine walking in the open within 15 yards of an mg42 ambush and only being suppressed. Ok...nah.

It's hard to take real tactics, historical basis of such things as the GPMG (not hmg) and interesting uses of items when such cheesy nonsense as fallshirmjaegers landing behind .30 cals or gliders crashing into or behind support units is the norm.

It's a bit of a reach to bring up the effectiveness of indirect support in essence to support nerfing the mg42. It reminds me of training film talking about it's bark is worse than it's bite. Something about that argument doesn't sit well with me.

[MenciusMoldbug]

The reason no HMG (not even old MG42 with all the pre-nerf stats) can kill pinned squads crawling towards them to throw a grenade is because 90% of BK weapons are still using VCoH's pinned mechanic stats where when a unit enters pinned state it receives:

75% reduction in received damage

75% reduction in received accuracy

So a Pinned Riflemen Squad can tank an HE shell to the face with the pinned buff, so can volksgrenadiers or even volkstrumm vs sherman HE. The pinned buff 'negates' when after 10 seconds of staying pinned the squad will then receive these modifiers (as shown here: http://hq-coh.com/stats/coh-stats.com/I ... ssion.html):

Received Accuracy x 2

Received Damage x 1.5

Since I'm pretty sure BK never changed the pinned mechanic modifiers, I'm also pretty sure the thomspsons still have no weapon penalties on pinned squads because in VCoH their weapons are unaffected by suppression/pinned received accuracy/damage modifiers. I haven't looked at it too thoroughly so I might be wrong and BK really did change the pinned mechanics entirely but I don't see it in-game.

By the way, you do not give Luftwaffe enough credit where it is due. The BF109 Strafing Run is actually far superior to the Airborne Strafing Run because it doesn't require AP Rounds upgrade from the WSC to hurt light vehicles, shoots far more bullets in the targetting area than the Airborne one does, and it has a 20mm cannon which can penetrate targets like the M10 TD and do 400-600 damage with each hit. It is basically an anti-everything strafe but the game doesn't advertise it at such (back then it could even kill Jumbos but now it no longer penetrates sherman armor with the 20mm). Stuka just needs to kill anything instantly on a direct hit with its bomb (or leave it at 1 HP because of damage criticals) and I have said that before. Henschel I won't discuss until AA changes are implemented since I don't know how strong allied AA will be since a single quad halftrack or AA crusader is enough to take it down currently.

[Sinekyre]

This is one issue in a sea of problems. Stuff like this is leftovers from things the original developers implemented because axis used to have better units overall.

Then you had the current devs team take over, who didn't understand the exact mechanisms of how CP and time are important factors in balance, and nerfed axis units in a direct comparison without taking into account the added built time and cost. Both allied factions can build AA Emplacements cheaper than axis, and axis now have to pay CP to unlock the ability to build what allies get from the start of the game. The same is true for countless other units. This along with all the shadow-nerfs that have been coming along shows a pretty clear intent from the devs in one direction, and the beta is an extreme exaggeration of that.

Giving a +10% speed bonus to basic infantry for 1 CP, if they're near a halftrack, and letting them get 100 munition MG's with 3 CP, are stupid ideas when allies have access to far better infantry for less CP, time and resources. In propaganda doctrine, three CP-unlocks revolve around Volksturm infantry, when they're absolutely awful and a manpower drain over time. Filling up that many CP's around a specific basic unit that you get from your starting buildings, then have it perform like a pioneer that can't build is worse than similar infantry you can get with allies. The list goes on and on.

The most prominent issue is the shadow-nerfs that have been going on in the background, where axis units get cut on the counter-tables every patch. I'm done with this game now after being an active player for almost a decade, and I know many others who don't come here who feel the same way.

IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF GAMES BEING PLAYED YOU'RE GOING TO SEE RANGER SQUAD, 76 TANK AND CALLIOPE.

^ why is this not being addressed, if the argument was that you see the same axis-stuff in every game? Something fishy is going on here.

[kwok]

This topic has a LOT of ideas in it and it will be hard to discuss and make meaningful decisions. I'm going to lock it for now and unlock it once i create separate threads for each idea so players can discuss them individually. Should take me maybe an hour or two.


EDIT:
Allied Artillery vs Axis Artillery: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3596
Allied Tank Tiering vs Axis Tank Tiering: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3595
MG42: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3594
Volkssturm: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3322&hilit=volkssturm
Hotchkiss: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3597


I'll come back with more later. Feel free to make more topics on your own though. I'll leave this unlocked but please please please consider not putting everything here. It makes for a very disorganized work order list for devs to figure out what was decided and what was not decided on. We can't make changes if we dont know what changes to make.

[kwok]

The most prominent issue is the shadow-nerfs that have been going on in the background, where axis units get cut on the counter-tables every patch. I'm done with this game now after being an active player for almost a decade, and I know many others who don't come here who feel the same way.

One thing I want to say here. This is blatantly not true. Every change is marked in changelogs rigorously kept by a dev team member. If particular values are fishy, it's likely because they existed from a LONG time ago and weren't touched or noticed in a while. Check the announcements page here to see every change ever done: viewforum.php?f=6

[Sinekyre]

The imbalances are so many and even across the board, that it seems like TankFather is questioning the developers' insight and understanding of the game at this point, or motives, rather than individual changes that needs to be made to this or that unit. This IS a holistic view on the terrible game balance and thus a reflection on how the development team is doing. The adjustments made in the latest beta also don't make any faction more interesting, everything is just more bland and locked down a certain path, and options are limited.



...I mean, when you start to look at it, it kind of gets pathetic after a while. This was posted on the discord. It shows an example of imbalance which has been overlooked despite every axis unit being picked at with a microscope on different threads. I don't think it's so much an issue of discussing individual units as the fact that devs don't understand this game and have a microscopic view of balance changes and the wrong approach to them. The entire game needs to be tweaked to where the factions are comparable (perhaps beginning with adjusting all the units that are more expensive for axis to be either considerably better or as cheap as allied units?), but even then, how do we not end up at the same place, since the current approach to balancing has failed? This was looked at by the dev team and decided to be allright, but it gives one faction twice as many tanks as another.

[Warhawks97]

This is one issue in a sea of problems. Stuff like this is leftovers from things the original developers implemented because axis used to have better units overall.

Then you had the current devs team take over, who didn't understand the exact mechanisms of how CP and time are important factors in balance, and nerfed axis units in a direct comparison without taking into account the added built time and cost. Both allied factions can build AA Emplacements cheaper than axis, and axis now have to pay CP to unlock the ability to build what allies get from the start of the game. The same is true for countless other units. This along with all the shadow-nerfs that have been coming along shows a pretty clear intent from the devs in one direction, and the beta is an extreme exaggeration of that.

Giving a +10% speed bonus to basic infantry for 1 CP, if they're near a halftrack, and letting them get 100 munition MG's with 3 CP, are stupid ideas when allies have access to far better infantry for less CP, time and resources. In propaganda doctrine, three CP-unlocks revolve around Volksturm infantry, when they're absolutely awful and a manpower drain over time. Filling up that many CP's around a specific basic unit that you get from your starting buildings, then have it perform like a pioneer that can't build is worse than similar infantry you can get with allies. The list goes on and on.

The most prominent issue is the shadow-nerfs that have been going on in the background, where axis units get cut on the counter-tables every patch. I'm done with this game now after being an active player for almost a decade, and I know many others who don't come here who feel the same way.

IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF GAMES BEING PLAYED YOU'RE GOING TO SEE RANGER SQUAD, 76 TANK AND CALLIOPE.

^ why is this not being addressed, if the argument was that you see the same axis-stuff in every game? Something fishy is going on here.

If you play BK for almost a decade you would have noticed that axis over time got a lot cheaper. Massiv cost drops on Tank IV´s untill they got cheaper than shermans, drops in CP and MP for Tigers (while Pershings require more CP now), Grenadiers got cheaper in cost, PE inf got cheaper while in return getting buffs on their rifle stats, massiv cost drops on their elite units and so on. So it was not like they got "plain nerfed". When i started BK Tiger was 1000 MP and 180 fuel while costing more CP. Grens where at 450 MP with worse rifle stats and less upgrades. Tank IV´s where arround 100 fuel for H version and 80 for J. All their TD where more expensive.

Allied units got stronger, thats true, but thats because a decade ago they couldnt kill a shit due to poor accuracy and paper bullets and shots. But they also got way more expensive and their cheap produciton upgrades less powerfull. Your dont get rangers for 270 MP anymore.


In your Res calculation you also forgot several cost factors for the US:
1. Upkeep: Before you get the supply yard US units cost you more CP upkeep. That means that when the early/mid stage is all about spam, US can run into trouble to keep pace.
2. US Tanks cost also twice the upkeep in fuel. So during mid stage when its all about shermans and Tank IV´s, Axis can spare a lot of fuel when going into numbers while US would kill their fuel income. Even after the last supply yard upgrade that reduces fuel upkeep they still have an higher upkeep.
3. US has a ton to unlock in the WSC in order to keep competetive which axis often unlocks by tiering up. Like smoke upgrade for tanks, AP bullets for strafing planes, MP and fuel for Sandbags (but their armor still remains worse), sticky bombs, HVSS upgrade to get easy eight.
4. You forgot to list the two Tank depot upgrades needed to get access to heavier stuff. The first one costs 25 or 35 fuel. The second costs another 60 fuel.


You also forgot all the upgrades for the PE doctrine which are often essential to keep competetive in late game. Things like faster cap rate for PE is in my opinion a cruical thing or else your units are caping slower than other factions.


So it might be interesting to see if you could add all the upgrades for US (WSC and supply yard) and PE (Infantry support center) because they are essential in many ways. I guess the list you made would look quite differently suddenly.



So, after breaking that down, there is the Ranger+76 sherman+ calli combo. But thats weird because actually you wouldnt be able to get Rangers and calli in the same doc.

About the 76 sherman+ranger combo seems legit. I and probably others dont really like the fact that US gets access to 76 shermans right after 2 CP while axis spends even in their armor docs at least 4 CP for their Tank IV H.
I also dont really understand why the Tank IV H and J versions are so restricted to just two docs while they should be more the backbone of axis armored forces.

[Krieger Blitzer]

The reason no HMG (not even old MG42 with all the pre-nerf stats) can kill pinned squads crawling towards them to throw a grenade is because 90% of BK weapons are still using VCoH's pinned mechanic stats where when a unit enters pinned state it receives:

75% reduction in received damage

75% reduction in received accuracy

So a Pinned Riflemen Squad can tank an HE shell to the face with the pinned buff, so can volksgrenadiers or even volkstrumm vs sherman HE. The pinned buff 'negates' when after 10 seconds of staying pinned the squad will then receive these modifiers (as shown here: http://hq-coh.com/stats/coh-stats.com/I ... ssion.html):

Received Accuracy x 2

Received Damage x 1.5

Since I'm pretty sure BK never changed the pinned mechanic modifiers, I'm also pretty sure the thomspsons still have no weapon penalties on pinned squads because in VCoH their weapons are unaffected by suppression/pinned received accuracy/damage modifiers. I haven't looked at it too thoroughly so I might be wrong and BK really did change the pinned mechanics entirely but I don't see it in-game.

Glad to see someone else is aware about this, thought i was alone... However, i think these pinned state modifiers are actually important.. as it makes sense for the units to be harder to kill when prone to the ground. Nevertheless; i think the current modifiers could be tweaked down.

My concern is more about the "retreat modifiers" because in vCoH, retreating infantry units have certain bonuses that make them harder to kill too.
For some reason, i have a feeling that some Allied units still have these modifiers in Bk Mod, while majority of Axis units don't.. but i might be wrong.

By the way, you do not give Luftwaffe enough credit where it is due. The BF109 Strafing Run is actually far superior to the Airborne Strafing Run because it doesn't require AP Rounds upgrade from the WSC to hurt light vehicles, shoots far more bullets in the targetting area than the Airborne one does, and it has a 20mm cannon which can penetrate targets like the M10 TD and do 400-600 damage with each hit. It is basically an anti-everything strafe but the game doesn't advertise it at such (back then it could even kill Jumbos but now it no longer penetrates sherman armor with the 20mm). Stuka just needs to kill anything instantly on a direct hit with its bomb (or leave it at 1 HP because of damage criticals) and I have said that before. Henschel I won't discuss until AA changes are implemented since I don't know how strong allied AA will be since a single quad halftrack or AA crusader is enough to take it down currently.

Regarding the Stuka airstrike, ya... I made a post about it, and Kwok told me on Steam that they will look into it.
Though, i must say that i think Luft doc still needs better AT capabilities.. their AT arsenal in mid game isn't really enough against Churchills and Jumbos; Thus... i would give the PE AT squad 2 Shrecks in Luft doc, i don't even know why this was recently removed from TH doc on the new design.

============================================================

As to my personal opinion about this topic... i wouldn't say Axis are weaker, as i believe many points on this topic are far from valid.. or rather false.
Although i could still say that few other points shouldn't be ignored, but just really few. And we must appreciate the commitment for the users who took the time and devoted themselves to type down these long posts while trying to supply their arguments by attaching pictures & links, etc.

So here are some points i might agree with:

- As i agree that some Axis arty pieces, as well as generally quite a handful number of various Axis units.. are always over-priced for no real reason.
For instance, one example would be the Hummel, this unit is supposed to land deadly shells.. given its sheer cost, but it just doesn't. You pay too much for little performance, or let's say that MUCH cheaper and earlier available arty units could just achieve equal if not better results.

On the other hand, Allies have super deadly units at much cheaper prices.. also earlier available. Such as the M7 Priest which is still a nightmare in my book, very accurate.. gains veterancy much faster, also hits deadlier.. with insane abilities converting it to being almost a true sniper. Another example would be the 76 Jumbo, only 5 CPs.. costs 80 fuel and 780 MP only, it's an overall very good multi-role tank, also found in infantry doctrine which has good cheap arty, good & cheap inf as well as good & cheap emplacements.. together with nice off-map ability call-ins.

- Axis air capabilities are several steps behind, but this is already going to be addressed as previously mentioned.

- Sort to speak, the "value" of the units is what really makes a difference.. but unfortunately, most units in Bk Mod are priced according to their "stats" while sometimes even ignoring the value. That's why Allies might have higher win ratio, it's because they have cheaper units with good performance that just gets the job done. They don't need to rely on expensive "powerful" units that are either too OP if you use them properly, or only nothing but a "waste" if you fail to utilize them... One great example of this, is the Elefant and the Hellcat for example, let's have a look;

Which unit is stronger? Elefant tank.. but which unit is more valuable? Of course the Hellcat, no doubt about it... Cheaper, faster, earlier available.. and can still take down an Elefant. Most of the times, the Elefant won't be able to catch the Hellcat, despite it's ten times stronger according to "stats" but actually the "combat value" negates the "strength value" in this game.



That said.. there are also things i disagree with:

- Tiger1 tanks are just "right" in Bk Mod, very well represented.. they are more of nothing but "ordinary" units as long as Vet.0 but then as soon as veterancy levels are gained, it suddenly becomes super deadly with awesome abilities. Tigers at Vet.0 are "baby Tigers" but with veterancy, they are fearsome "adult Tigers" who are very aggressive... Tigers in the BETA are also earlier available than most of their counterparts, which contributes to the reality.. and it's a great thing to see.

- Mg42 is fine, just some Allied infantry units need to be re-worked.. for example, the SAS squad actually wins over HMG42s in the open, specifically with offensive and defensive bonuses. Thus, i believe the SAS squad needs to be less of a "Rambo" unit in very late game.. as it should become cheaper with specific objectives to fulfill, and not a "vs everything" unit anymore.

Also, i think Allies have more infantry units that can get Fire-UP ability by default compared to Axis.. so they can deny suppression and flank the MG42 team right ahead, example of this are infiltration Rangers, 82nd Airborne, CQB squad, and all kind of Commandos with "smoke" ability which works similarly to "Fire-UP" ability. Axis units on the other hand only get this with veterancy, even elite units such as Luft paratroopers and Storms need veterancy for that! Unless there is Officer who provides it.


- Defensive doctrine lost the off-map 280mm rocket barrage, but i think it was replaced by a deadly 150mm arty barrage in return, so it's fine i guess.

- Not in favor of bringing back the V1 rocket, just fix the SturmTiger damage.. and probably remove ammo upkeep from it, it only shoots every 6 minutes and each shell costs 150 ammo already.

- 1 captured Sherman isn't the same as 2 Canadian 76 Shermans call-in, you can't compare them.. because each call-in has a different philosophy.
i actually think the captured Shermans for Axis should be available in tank depot to deploy, with a limit of 1 at a time.. but the player would be able to choose whether to deploy the captured 76 Sherman, or the captured Firefly, as he desires.. so, not "random luck" call-in anymore.

Canadian 76 Shermans also need to cost fuel though, i think the idea to get rid of call-in abilities that provide free tanks has already been on the BETA schedule since the very beginning.. that's why the Blitz doc off-map support call-in was changed, and that's also why JagdTiger is no longer call-in but deploy-able from tank factory.. definitely with exception of ACE units.

- SP isn't a problem, there are many ways to counter it.

That's all my thoughts for now.

[MarKr]

that it seems like TankFather is questioning the developers' insight and understanding of the game at this point, or motives, rather than individual changes that needs to be made to this or that unit. This IS a holistic view on the terrible game balance and thus a reflection on how the development team is doing.

To be honest, I started questioning PanzerFather's insight and understanding of the game after we played a test game together. We talked over Discord during the game and PanzerFather wasn't aware that Panther gun is stronger than the gun on Panzer IV H/J - "they are both 75mm" he said. Same it was with the 88mm guns on Tiger I and Tiger II - he thought they were the same because "they are both 88mm". Only a day before he made this post he found out that they are not the same and the Panther gun is acutally stronger than the Tiger I gun and Tiger II gun is stronger than Panther gun (this is historically accurate by the way). He didin't know these basic things after playing the mod for many years and yet he somehow can give informed insights on balance and have better understanding of the game than the devs or other players who know all this stuff?

As for the "holistic" view of PanzerFather and "microscopic" view of the dev team:
If you take a look at the examples of "allies OP" in the first post, they are often taken with the "microscope view" because he takes a unit A and compares it to a unit B and ignores so many different aspects (a.k.a. "the bigger picture"). For example:

Jeeps are better and stronger than Schwimms.

Here he places a Schiwm against a Jeep, lets them shoot at each other and then says "Jeep's better". OK, so Jeep is better than Schwim in this specific scenario (the microscope view). What about the other factors? What about the fact that Jeep's purpose in the game is NOT to hunt Schwimmwagens and Schwimmwagen's purpose in the game is NOT to hunt Jeeps? These units are used usually in early game for harrasing infantry and for supporting your own infantry when it fights against enemy infantry. When fighting infantry (doing its purposed role), the Schwimwagen's MG performs better - when it finds e.g. US Riflemen out of cover, it can often kill 2 soldiers with the first burst before the squad finds cover. Jeep's .30cal has often worse results against Volksgrenadiers with no cover. But since the Schwimm's damage against infantry is a bit better, it is more fragile. Jeep's damage is lower and so the unit is a bit more durable. Where did PanzerFather mention this aspect of those units, which is seen from the bigger perspective?

Axis tanks should be better, but overall isn't when you see the whole picture.
Axis tanks cost more and are slower, and allies have heavier tanks that cost less, here is the specifics.

He speaks of it as if it was a general rule for Allies and then gives example of probably the only thing where this applies -Tiger I vs Pershing. While somehow forgetting about Panthers. Pershing is 830MP 150F, Panther D in BK doc is 680MP 110F Panther A is 770MP 140F - and these are even better at countering Pershings than Tigers.

But again, the bigger picture of things: Pershing is available in 1 doctrine.
Heavy tanks that Pershing can reliably destroy: Tiger I (Early/Late) available in Propaganda doctrine and Panzer Support doctrine.
Heavy tanks that Pershing can somewhat counter: Panthers (Panthers weren't technically classified as "heavy" but the game treats them that way). Panthers are available in BK doc (D, A and G), Luft doc (D) and Tank Support doc (D).
Units of lower tier that can destroy Pershing: Nashorn (SE), JPIV L70 (Def doc, TS doc)
Heavy tanks that Pershing cannot reliably counter: King Tigers (available in Propaganda and Tank Support docs), Elefant (Def doc), Jagdpanther (TS doc), Jagdtiger (TS doc). - they have the 88mm L71, JT has 128mm gun - all having a very good chance to penetrate the Pershing frontally at max range and capable of killing the Pershing in a single shot, Pershing cannot do this to them (or at least not reliably).
The point here is that an Allied player needs to select a specific faction and then a specific doctrine to have an access to a tank that outclasses Tigers, while units that can decently or downright reliably counter this one specific tank are present in literally ALL axis doctrines. So why is it a problem that this one specific unit can counter a Tiger I, when doctrines that have Tiger I always have something stronger in their arsenal that can easily destroy the Pershing?

Pershings are better than both Tigers and Panthers. Panthers are the only tank in the simulair price-range that have a chance to take out a Pershing.
Normal Tigers have no chance against Pershings if they face each other.

This is another misconception he presents as a fact. He again took a Tiger and a Pershing and had them shooting at each other until one unit won (Microscopic view). In real games, the units have abilities that they can use to influence the outcome. Tigers have the smoke ability which allows them to safely retreat from the Pershing (smoke will lower the Pershing's accuracy by 75% so there is a huge chance it will miss the Tiger. Tiger has the Accurate Long Range Shot (yes, it requires Vet but it isn't so hard to get vet by killing other units) which allows it to shoot at the Pershing at such a range that the Pershing cannot even see it. You can also activate the AP ammo on the Tiger to increase chances of penetrating the Pershing at this distance. So again, the bigger perspective is missing here.

M4A3(76) W Sherman is allmost equal to a VI Ausf. E Tiger "Late Version"

The only thing compared here is the cost and the fact that the Tiger got destroyed. He doesn't mention anything about the fact that micromanaging two tanks takes more skill than one. The fact that on average the first hit from Tiger I against Shermans (except for Jumbo) kills it. In his picture we can see that one of the Shermans got hit but survived with the damaged engine and 1HP left which is not what happens in most cases. I am also pretty sure that in that "test" the Tiger was standing still while the Shermans were moving closer which is not really representative of what most players would do.

Sherman 76 can even penetrate and do damage against a King Tiger without using any special bullets or anything.

This requires either a specific situation (Sherman shooting KT's rear) or huge amount of luck because the 76mm gun has only about 10% chance to penetrate KT and that is when the barrel is literally touching the KT's hull. At longer ranges it is a lot lower chance. This game is heavily affected by RNG so many things "can" happen, but he should at least say what the chances are. I mean...the Axis 37mm gun also "can" penetrate the Super Pershing (but what are the chances?).

Super-pershing is better than King Tiger, and we axis players wouldn't have a problem with it since allies can only make ONE of them and axis make more King Tigers if the first one dies, but the problem is that there is no other option to take it down, devs have removed the 280mm rockets from the Defence-doctrine that could be able to take out the Super-Percing, the axis planes useless to take down tanks and Scored Earth artillery slow and not accurate, there is absolutly NOTHING axis can do against the super-pershing. Maybe if we got 4 Panters surrounding it and shoot it from the back, but how realistic is that scenario?

Again, specifically zoomed at "KT vs SP" scenario (where btw SP is NOT a clear winner) - in the pic you can see both tanks damaged so presumably each got one penetrating shot at the other. Ignoring the fact that KTs have abilities again the ALRS + again the AP ammo option. Also the 280mm rocket barrage is in the beta present in the Propaganda doctrine (so literally the doctrine where you have KTs) and most baffling is his last sentence where he says that "you would need maybe 4 Panthers to destroy the SP" when the day before he posted that I destroyed his SP with just two Panthers (I can post the replay if you want).

Keep allies having their units cheaper in general, but then they also should be less good. The advantage of allies should be that they can spam units faster and cheaper. Axis-units in general cost more, should also be a little better.
Two German Granadiers should be equal to about four American riflemen.

In here again only zooming in on a specific performance of two specific units and their costs. The costs are off (great "insight" on the game facts by the way), in the BETA the Grenadiers cost 360MP so even the cost calculations are off because 4xRiflemen will cost 1020MP (780MP in Inf doc with unlock) while for Def doc (the only doc where they are available in the beta) will pay for the Grens 720MP.
The performance described in this situation is also questionable. He mentions the cost reduction of Rfilemen in Infantry doctrine (which is a CP unlock) but for some reason doesn't take into account any unlocks that the Def doctrine has for Grenadiers (the "bigger picture" view). Defensive doctrine has this unlock:

def bonus.jpg (3.32 KiB) Viewed 7235 times

Which gives bonuses to ALL your infantry when they are in green or yellow cover. Does he have the "insight and understanding" of what the bonuses are? Well, devs do - the soldiers with this bonus active take 15% less damage, are 20% harder to hit and 75% harder to suppress and these bonuses STACK with the bonuses from the yellow/green cover. What does it mean in praxis? If the Grenadiers stand in yellow cover (some bush, ditch, crater...) the Riflemen with their Garands will deal to them 15% less damage, but they first need to hit, right? Their chance to hit them is lowered by 60% (due to the passive bonus + yellow cover stacking) which means that the chance for a Rifleman to hit a Grenadier in the cover is 26% (and this is at POINT BLANK). Do you know what is even more ridiculous? This is just yellow cover. But Grens can build sandbags for green cover anywhere. So what happens if the Grens are in green cover? The Riflemen have a chance to hit (again, at point blank) a STUNNING 13%. If they somehow manage to hit these soldiers (that are magically dodging bullets even when they have a barel of a rifle 30 cm away from their head) they take 57.5% less damage (the damage is reduced from any source, not just bullets, also grenades, mortars, arty...). I wonder where PanzerFather's insight and understanding of the Axis abilities were when he said that 4 Riflemen are better than 2 Grenadiers.

But wait, the "allies OP" even with this, right? Have you ever tried to use this little thing:

FFL.jpg (3.12 KiB) Viewed 7235 times

Do you know what it does? It gives defensive bonuses to ALL your infantry that is in owned teritorry (blue on map) - they don't even need to be in cover. What bonuses are those? The suppression on affected soldiers is completely canceled, they are harder to re-suppress by 75%, are 20% harder to hit and take 30% less damage. It lasts for 30 seconds and costs just 45 ammo - to give these boosts to all your soldiers in any blue sector on a map. Pretty cool, right? But guess what? These bonuses stack with the passive bonuses and cover bonuses. Should I do the math again?

But wait, we're not done yet. There is the StuGIII which has an "Assault" ability. Ever wondered what THAT does? It loweres the damage taken by Grenadiers and Stormtroopers (so yes, you can use this with BK doc too) by 30% and they get suppressed 70% slower. And yes, you guessed it, it stacks with the other bonuses mentioned before.

The Stormtroopers and other types of simulair german infantries should be strong, as people expect. When one or two stormtroopers run in to an allies area, the allies-players should feel a little feeling of "oh shit, they are coming", and do smart moves to confront them. Not send an equally as good riflemen squad or something and shoot the stormtroopers down like nothing.

360MP for a unit that has more HP than any allied infantry squad (only SAS is equal but they also come a lot later), can unlock the"veterancy training" that gives then 25% damage reduction from any source (bullets, tank cannons, grenades, bombs...), the doctrine also has the StuGIII with the ability to give them the 30% damage resitance and 75% suppression resistance (again, stacks with the veterancy unlock and cover bonuses), they also have the Panther D (the cheapest of the Panthers) that has the same ability, so you can use this even later, when stronger units enter the field. You laso have the Stormtrooper Command unit that has the "Offensive" ability, that for a short time reduces damage taken by Storms by 25%, cancels all suppression on them, makes them harder to re-suppress by 80% and they also shoot 50% faster, again, all stacks. They also have passive camo from the start and shots from camo have bonuses too, all stacks.
If all these stackable bonuses don't give you the "oh shit they're coming" feeling then WHAT will? Maybe Axis should have Arnold Schwarzenegger with a minigun, grenade launcher and some "Hasta la vista" ability then?

The passive bonuses exist also in the new Propaganda doctrine - there is the Zeal which gives bonuses to a squad when they take losses. They also have the abilities to lower the combat effectiveness of enemy infantry and vehicles. So you get stronger with losses and can make enemy weaker.

Did PanzerFather know all this? If he didn't, where is his "insight and understanding" of the game? If he did, then why didn't he mention any of these buffs in his holistic view? I mean, "holistic" means that you take a look at the bigger picture, which means that you need to take into consideration what the entire doctrine has at disposal - what units, what abilities, how strong certain unit/ability combinations are. Not just "unit A vs unit B, no abilities, no support" - that is the exact opposite, the "microscopic view" that you say the devs have.

And the same "bigger picture" view should be used in cases like this too:

(...)This was posted on the discord. It shows an example of imbalance which has been overlooked despite every axis unit being picked at with a microscope on different threads. I don't think it's so much an issue of discussing individual units as the fact that devs don't understand this game and have a microscopic view of balance changes and the wrong approach to them. (...)

One thing is that in RE you always get 2x 76mm Shermans, in SE you have a random chance to get a single 76mm Sherman OR a single Firefly Sherman (again, I wonder if PanzerFather knows this).
Another thing is that saying "in this doctrine it costs this much and this doctrine it costs that much" is again a comparison of specific details without thinking about the "bigger picture". What other units and abilities does the doctrine have? Will some combinations of these units with the "callin tank" create more powerful combinations? This ability gives tanks - what other tank options the doctrines have? What and how effective options does the opponent have to counter the units you get?

I could go on like this on most of the point he made and point out how they lack some "bigger picture" perspective or knowledge of other factors such as difference in unit upkeeps etc. but I think this wall of text is long enough already.

[CGarr]

Overall this thread is kinda pointless since it's scope is insanely wide and most of the points are pretty easy to prove false or make arguments against if they were in individual threads, but since they're all dumped into one giant garbage fire of a thread, I don't think anyone aside from Tiger, MarkR, and Kwok bothered to read this wall of text, understandably (pretty sure even the ones that said they agree didn't read the full post, its just too wide of a scope to expect most people to respond in any way other than "I agree" or "this is dumb"). @PanzerFather, if you want to seriously discuss these issues and debate individual points so that they can be more easily addressed by the dev team and the rest of the community that posts on this forum, you should split your post into multiple threads for individual topics (it looks like Kwok did this for you, and people are already making a lot of much more clear and direct responses to those threads).

As for the responses, there was a couple towards the top that I agreed with (mencius and Hawks, mainly), but I think Tiger and especially MarkR summed both summed this thread up pretty well, so unless you want to try and respond to the individual threads like everyone else does, I don't think this thread is going to do much.

Lastly, @PanzerFather and all the new people that responded to this thread, welcome to the forum, its genuinely nice to see more than just the 5 or 6 people responding to every thread, as even with poorly thought out suggestions or badly formed arguments for balance changes, attention is still brought to ideas that might not commonly be talked about or addressed. The points about the lack of interesting abilities on fallschrimjagers and the disparities between the armor call-ins on SE and RE docs are good examples of this, and I might actually run with Tiger's idea on the latter in a seperate thread if he doesn't make his own. Same with the former, although I think I might need a bit more time to form my thoughts on what changes could be made that would be beneficial.

[Devilfish]

Heya,

Who believes allies are OP, watch this replay viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3599
It features both axis and allies tricks and abilities, debunking most of the statements of this thread, except specific changes in the beta.

[Stormtrooper]

There are lots of things here to talk about, but I will tell just about lufftwaffe.
Airplaine of LW cost is 170 ammunition for really just one plaine and it get's shooted before even do his mission in most cases and imagine in some tense and important moment of the game you lose 170 ammo for that or even if he do something the damage is A LOT less in the beta than in 5.1.7v.
Other side bomb patrol of AB does cost 200 ammo but surly everybody would use "10" plains for air raid than just one for 170 and not effective one also.

[Viper]

- Mg42 is fine, just some Allied infantry units need to be re-worked.. for example, the SAS squad actually wins over HMG42s in the open, specifically with offensive and defensive bonuses. Thus, i believe the SAS squad needs to be less of a "Rambo" unit in very late game.. as it should become cheaper with specific objectives to fulfill, and not a "vs everything" unit anymore.

Also, i think Allies have more infantry units that can get Fire-UP ability by default compared to Axis.. so they can deny suppression and flank the MG42 team right ahead, example of this are infiltration Rangers, 82nd Airborne, CQB squad, and all kind of Commandos with "smoke" ability which works similarly to "Fire-UP" ability. Axis units on the other hand only get this with veterancy, even elite units such as Luft paratroopers and Storms need veterancy for that! Unless there is Officer who provides it.



- 1 captured Sherman isn't the same as 2 Canadian 76 Shermans call-in, you can't compare them.. because each call-in has a different philosophy.
i actually think the captured Shermans for Axis should be available in tank depot to deploy, with a limit of 1 at a time.. but the player would be able to choose whether to deploy the captured 76 Sherman, or the captured Firefly, as he desires.. so, not "random luck" call-in anymore.

Canadian 76 Shermans also need to cost fuel though, i think the idea to get rid of call-in abilities that provide free tanks has already been on the BETA schedule since the very beginning.. that's why the Blitz doc off-map support call-in was changed, and that's also why JagdTiger is no longer call-in but deploy-able from tank factory.. definitely with exception of ACE units.

very much agree with these 2 points........only ace tanks should be called in......canadian 76 sherman should not be offmap ability.

and most elite axis infantry were removed or nerfed........axis need more infantry with heroic charge.........or nerf allied infantry.