Tank Round Upgrades

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 4077
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Tank Round Upgrades

Post by Warhawks97 »

Should Tank rounds cost only once when being purchased instead of buying for the upgrade and later for each shot?

I like it how most Tanks with perma HE do pay once for their rounds and after that can use HE for free.

Why not making it the same way for all tanks and ammo types.

I would suggest:

AP rounds for Tanks:
75 - 100 ammo to upgrade.

HE rounds:
50 - 75 ammo.

AP rounds for TD:
50-75 ammo.

That way buying ammo -in particular AP rounds for normal Tanks- would cost more but in return less the more often you use AP rounds with this tank. Deciding whether to buy rounds like AP would be a long term decision rather than buying all tanks all rounds and use them everywhere when it fits. If the tanks gets lost before seing and action the ammo would be wasted. But in return, when picking your tank wisley and use it wisley a player could save quite a lot of ammo.

Its just a thought i had coz i like how current HE tanks work.
Last edited by Warhawks97 on 07 Jul 2020, 15:01, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Posts: 419
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Make Tank Round Upgrades

Post by CGarr »

Completely on board with having AP cost 0 muni once you've payed the initial cost. I think the higher costs for AP (tanks=100 muni, TD=75 muni) would be ideal, for the following reasons:

It would be beneficial to the player using the upgrade, as they would pay less muni over time than with the current set up if they keep their tanks alive. It would also be beneficial to the opposing player, as they would have a greater opportunity to bleed out their opponent's muni since each upgraded tank destroyed is a much larger muni investment down the drain. It would also make cheap medium tank spam more difficult in the long run (as it should be), as the IRL weaknesses of going that route would be a bit more present in this (currently, it generally doesn't have any big downsides other than slightly increase micro tax, as AP upgrades are cheap enough to throw on every tank).

I think it would also make medium vs heavy engagements easier to balance and would actually favor using mediums/TD's for a bit rather than immediate rushes to heavies. If someone ignores building mediums to get a heavy as early as possible, they are going to have a harder time outright killing the enemy's mediums and TD's before then, meaning that player's AP armed tanks wont need replacement and they'll instead be able to field a few more with AP at the same time. This means the heavy is also going to be less effective when it hits the field, as there are multiple tanks with AP on the field rather than just one or two, and all of those tanks can freely activate AP when needed, assuming the cooldown is over. If you just take this part into account, the change sounds like a nerf to heavy gameplay, but lets take another scenario in which the player who intends to get heavies out decides to get a medium tank or two beforehand so they can actively try to engage the enemy's mediums, or better yet a TD to just bait the enemy mediums into. Those mediums now have to be replaced, meaning the player who wants heavies can limit or even outright deny the enemy access to AP, depending on how long they spend bleeding their opponent's muni. This would make their heavy much more effective than it would've been in the first scenario, as the opponent might not be have access to a tank that can even pen it's armor if they lost enough of their tanks. 4 dead upgraded mediums and they're pretty much screwed, any less and they'll only have one or 2 good shots at killing this thing offensively before they have to go on hard defense.

Considering how 50 cals are locked behind 2 paywalls now and how the other HE tanks are kinda trash without their HE, it doesn't make sense for HE to be something hard to acquire for these tanks. If anything, their non-HE rounds should be the upgrades, not HE itself. The current system made sense when 50 cals were behind a paywall (sherman was good enough without it and the other tanks were balanced with sherman), but with the doctrine reworks, this system could be reworked into something more intuitive. Currently, these tanks spawn in a pretty useless state when they are first built, which is an issue with this that I've often run into while introducing new players to BK. They'll hear that these tanks are good at killing infantry, so they'll build one and immediately send it into battle thinking it'll kill infantry and just watch it get creamed because it only killed like one guy with the default shell. Having HE be the default would make it much easier for these new players coming over from vanilla or other mods/games, as the tank would perform as intended right out of production. It would also let people be more aggressive with these tanks, which is fair as they are generally pretty easy to kill. There are literally no downsides to this system; bleeding an opponent of muni would still be viable with the AP cost change and the tanks affected by the HE change wouldn't be OP as they'd be even easier to counter.

Another point that should be brought up when considering these changes is that it would open up an opportunity for AP performance can be improved where it is needed. An example of this is the basic sherman; as agreed upon by both players with biases for either faction (allies and axis) in this thread ( viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3702 ), the basic sherman's non-HE shells are generally considered hot garbage, and struggle to pen even in situations where they should. If the HE change I just suggested is put in place, then AP would no longer be the default and could instead cost muni. This means that the basic sherman would do its job perfectly fine stock, but if the player wishes to invest a significant amount of muni (75-100), what was previously solely purposed with engaging inf could now be used for fighting medium tanks with reasonable effectiveness. Since the AP would cost so much muni, it could be buffed to actually be useful rather than the pitiful 6mm BB that it is now. The same could be said for AP on other guns like the 76mm, the british 75mm, and the german 50/75mm's, even though these guns aren't underperforming to the same degree. Since most "special" AP shells were generally just standard solid shot with a cap for better ballistics, a range increase while AP is activated would also make sense on the cases of the last 3 guns I just named. For those that might argue that this is a change that favors allied tanks, think about how much range 50mm Pumas and Marders would have if they had an range increase from AP stacked with their stationary position. These tanks would go from being merely being worthwhile on a heavily situational basis to being a valuable core unit that are worth the fuel that you are investing in them rather than the other available options.

Lastly, it would affect yet another set of issues in that thread regarding TD's. AP would now cost a ton of muni to equip on each M10, M18, or other TD, and would a costly upgrade investment for something relatively fragile and thus risky to invest in. This means that while these tanks themselves are cheap and easily spammable (an issue commonly complained about by both allied and axis players as being obnoxious as hell to deal with), spamming them in a state where they are capable of contending with heavies would not be possible. This would open up an opportunity to make the M10, M18, hetzer, and jpz48 all available for 0 CP, another issue that countless players including myself have been bitching about. Hell, even the community nutcases on the BK discord (Apollo, PanzerFather, etc) would probably be happy with this.

As far as timing for this change, just get the doctrine reworks out so people actually play them and stop bitching since those who are likely to whine about axis stuff being underpowered would be satisfied with the Beta's current slightly axis-favored state and those who complain about allies being weak like myself and Hawks are generally patient or they would've stopped playing BK a while ago.

I am willing to beg or do anything to get this change through, more-so than anything I've posted about. It would make bringing new players on so much easier, and it would make the game so less campy (for those who wish to be aggressive, defensive play wouldn't be affected to nearly the same degree) within the first 40 mins, meaning a lot less games would just devolve into static arty-parties since they could be decisively won a lot quicker. That's not to say that long games wouldn't be a thing anymore or that slow/defensive playstyles would be neglected, it would just present more options for aggressive playstyles, which are currently lackluster in terms of effectiveness by comparison unless there is a massive skill gap.

User avatar
Posts: 4077
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Tank Round Upgrades

Post by Warhawks97 »

Thanks CGarr. I think in future i will just bring up an idea and you make the argument for them. Perhaps i hire you in future for writing my arguments bc you are basically taking things out of my head and write them down more clearly. You can express things so well.

I had that stuff in mind but when my first post gets too big, barely anyone will read it so i try to keep the first post rather short.

But you made me thinking about it and i extended my thoughts that i present now.

What i had in thought and why i proposed it:

Tank rounds are for me quite literally nothing else than Infantry weapon upgrades that improves their combat effectivness.

However, for infantry a player can easily spend 50-200 ammo into a single squad. Grens with lmg, G43 and schreck makes you pay arround 200 MP. Buying three squads with full upgrades makes you pay an entire ammo stock.

Same when you use storms with full STG and schrecks.

Meanwhile i can throw ammo at every tank i want. 50 ammo in total isnt a big deal. If an inf squad dies, i may lost the 100-200 ammo. But if a tank dies right away i just lost 50 ammo. I dont see what it should be like that.

Thus i would make tanks similiar to inf. You can decide to send in tanks with less upgrades and thus less combat effectivness in exchange for spared cost. Or you pay a good ammount of of your res into your tank but in return you can get a real bad ass tank. Just like with your infanty.

Problems solved:

TD´s too xcheap, too good:
It would, as CGarr noted, take away a good ammount of issues like TD´s being too cheap and too deadly for heavy tanks.
It wont be possible anymore to hide a bunch of stugs and M10´s and other stuff all loaded with AP for cheap cost.
Or worse: Ambush tanks as well as inf with cheap AP and HE.

It would also make it easier to implement 0 CP M10´s without creating too big balance issues or creating "useless big tanks".

Weak 76 guns:
The default effectivness of 76 guns against medium tanks could be buffed by a significant ammount without turning them into cheap jack of all trade units.

Tanks shooting infantry:
Tanks wouldnt shoot at infantry anymore unless HE is loaded.

How it would be applied:

The upgrade:
All tanks would have as standard rounds their APCBC rounds (standard AP). HE and special AP (HVAP, APCR) would cost additional res.

Upgrade cost:
The cost for the upgrade would be quite similiar as it is for inf upgrades. The deadlier the more it costs.

Light units and Tanks and german light AT gun:

This includes units like axis 37 mm AT gun/HT, Stuart etc.
25-35 ammo.

Medium tanks:

Standard special AP (HVAP; APCR)
100 ammo

Standard HE:
70 ammo

Heavy Tanks with bigger guns:
Since they get a bigger bang for their bucks and are usually not thrown out in masses, following costs would apply.

150 ammo

90 ammo

Tank Destroyer/AT guns:
Since their main task is to fight tanks, they will be able to buy AP for slightly cheaper cost.
However, HE´s will either cost more or require a special unlock before

Normal TD:
M10/18, JP IV/48 etc.

75 ammo

90 ammo

If it requires special unlocks (eg a WSC unlock that enables upgrading TD with HE´s or tec requirments)
70 ammo

Heavy TD:
Jackson, Nashorn, JP etc.

100 ammo

Jagdtiger: 125-150 ammo

German Stubby units would be an exception since their only role is to fire HE. Their AP and HEAT can be upgraded, but the AP would be cheap and poor in performance, barely worth getting.
Their role would be more like that of a scott. Its some sort of "Stuh light" intended to lop HE into trenches and defenses.

That inlcudes Tank IV E, F1, Tank III N as well as the Puma with the 75 mm Stubby and the HT´s with 75 mm Stubby.
Those units would only have HEAT as upgrades.

How would the new system work in combat:

Tanks will be able to switch freely between HE and AP rounds. No additional cost, no more Timer. Just swap them.
You think thats OP? Think about it. A Normal Medium Tank would pay 170 ammo just for having all the ammo. If it gets further upgrades (eg cal 50) you go up to 200 ammo. In worst case you end up losing the tank without firing a shot. So i think it will be fair when such an investment would make you use ammo for free, even when the Tank is a Tiger or Pershing.

Special AP:
Timed as usual i would say.

The bigger the gun the bigger the cooldown when switching ammo. Partly for balance reason (imagine a big tank switching every sec between shots), gameplay reason (makes light units in particular more appealing as those would be able to switch faster. Lastly for realism: Handling small rounds in a turret is a lot easier than big ones.

Light units:
10-15 seconds

15-25 seconds

30-40 seconds

Super Heavy:
45-55 seconds

Additional Ammo:

US shermans and Hellcat would be able to upgrade white Phosphorus rounds once unlocked in WSC to blind enemie tanks.
Once unlocked in WSC, the round can be upgraded for 35 ammo used in single targeted shots.

Ultimately it would be possible to spend 240 ammo into a single sherman. Its then up to the player which utility he wants to have and to use.

Changes on units:

75 mm Sherman:
The role of this tank is in my opinion wrong in this game when we made this one being a pure anti inf unit.
Its default gun stats would be buffed against German Stubby Tank IV units and F2. However, its HE performance would be better than those of its bigger 76 mm sherman.
It would also not have access to special AP rounds because it never had something like HVAP.

So it would become a better all-rounder but still more suited against soft targets in the long run.


Stug III would be treated like a normal medium Tank. For Stug IV the TD cost would be applied.

Not sure if it sould be treated like a TD or Tank.

76 sherman:
Buffed standard peformance vs mediums. White Phosphorus added for additional cost. In total 4 upgrades (i know thats possible as i saw with the 101st squad).

The 76 sherman would become the master of tactics i would say. Unable to go head on against most of german TD´s and bigger tanks but having a large tool of abilties if upgraded.

The Scott would perhaps become a default unit in the US arsenal. Similiar to german Stubbies Perhaps.

Doctrinal Implifications:
The Tank support doc could have an unlock that makes them buy the ammo cheaper.
Or perhaps an unlock that gives AP to TD´s and HE´s to battle tanks.

User avatar
Posts: 419
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Tank Round Upgrades

Post by CGarr »

I agree on everything in your reply except shermans having AP by default. As much as I like trying to make things like the scott into alternative core units rather than just supports, I'd much rather have a medium with cheap HE as an option than be limited to just the scott. Shermans are the direct equivalent to the german stubby 75mm tanks, with the only difference being slightly better performance against armor (which is balanced out by access to HEAT on the german tanks). Both should start with HE and have their AP options be the upgrade. For the sherman, it would be the standard AP which performs as you described. For the german tanks, it would be HEAT. Personally I feel that HEAT should also get a buff, as while it does really good damage, you're pretty much screwed if the tank you were firing it at wasn't already damaged. I think it should have a higher chance for main gun crits if that is possible (to simulate hitting the ammo racks or gun mantlet).

Other than that I agree with your points, my response was mainly just to add support.

Post Reply