Blitzkrieg Mod Forum

In pretty much every game where i used M36 i did have some big ambush fails. Like panther presenting itself perfectly, not so far away and it would have been a perfect shot into the side. But the gunner aimed too low and hit the dirt.


I know that M10 and M18 have accuracy of 1/1/0.9/0.8 in order to prevent large ambush fails.

The M36 still has 1/1/0.75/0.75.


Also Tiger and Panther have accuracy of 1/1/0.9/0.9 and they keep sniping targets through smoke and everything. Even 17 pdr units have 0.85 accuracy even at max range. Just Pershing has 1/1/0.75/0.75 afterall and ive seen it losing cruicial battles because of such fails.


Can we pls get rid of that?
Or do i have to make a Jackson ambush fail compilation at first?

I mean, it sounds like the real question is how often SHOULD an ambush miss in general? How often SHOULD anything miss in this game? That's just a hard question to always answer.

Are you proposing to increase the accuracy of m36's to match the m10? Or maybe vice versa? Nerf the Tiger and Panther down to the levels of M36/Pershing?

i don't think Jacksons fail that often from ambush, is this post based on our last 4v4 game? Jacksons one-shotted Panthers from ambush each single time.. they only failed when they were not used from ambush.

And no nerf to Axis heavies.

Krieger Blitzer wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2021, 10:55

i don't think Jacksons fail that often from ambush, is this post based on our last 4v4 game? Jacksons one-shotted Panthers from ambush each single time.. they only failed when they were not used from ambush.

And no nerf to Axis heavies.

not only the last. It happens whenever i use this 600 MP unit and it is bloody hurtfull and sometimes game deciding.
And even from ambush i had many occassions of ugly fails.
I said in the game "Jacks fail again". I could really create a whole compilation that whenever i used it it betrayed me.





@Kwok.

If the target isnt max range away, perfectly exposed and you have such an expensive unit it should have damn high chances to hit right away. A crew wouldnt fire if it wouldnt be sure to land the first hit.


Also Tigers got tweaked bc they also had this 1/1/0.75/0.75 accuracy thing while Panthers were always Snipers.

The Nashorn has (if it hasnt got fixed) even 100% accuracy at max range. You basically never see it failing even when shooting a unit that is 80 range away.



The most reasomable accuracy stats have 17 pdrs in my opinion. I mean it would be dependend on the gun ofc but having weapons that have 100% accuracy at any range while a weapon with similiar charachteristics has just 75% accuracy even at ranges considered mid range (~30-40 range) doesnt make sense at all.

Meh, why peopple still using jacksons they're worthless without ambush (lower range/miss/easily oneshoted) and even on ambush they do tend to miss. Just stop using it, go for achilles or rush pershings instead.

You can't exactly rush pershings @ 9 CPs.Also spending another 2 CPs for cheap shermans prior to pershings is a must,so we are already @ 11 CPs and that's with zero armor doctrine artillery since the jeep version of calliope is such a joke...
In truth all the latest beta did was lower a single CP for pershing requirement,so that's 8 CPs instead of 9 (or more realistically 10 instead of 11 if you want cheap shermans).And raise pershing ace to 12 CPs (again make that 14 if you want cheap shermans) while propaganda gets tiger ace @ 7 CPs.At 13 CPs it has tiger ace,ammo for fuel swap and king tiger.And let's not forget that tigers are available @ 4 CPs while pershings need 8.Did i mention that walking stuka costs 2 CPs while calliope needs 6?But hey all axis get free nebelwerfer so you don't really need to spend those 2 CPs for stuka.

90 mm should be more accurate than 17 pounder for both realism and balance

Ah yes. Classic responses to questions...

Community: XYZ is wrong!
Dev: Okay what should XYZ be?
Community: XYZ is wrong! Also ABC is wrong!

[sarcasm] It sounds like what I get from all of this is that every gun in the game should have 100% accuracy and everything cost 1 CP. I’ll be sure to note that on the roadmap. Very helpful discussion thanks everyone. [/sarcasm]

kwok wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2021, 19:25

Ah yes. Classic responses to questions...

Community: XYZ is wrong!
Dev: Okay what should XYZ be?
Community: XYZ is wrong! Also ABC is wrong!

[sarcasm] It sounds like what I get from all of this is that every gun in the game should have 100% accuracy and everything cost 1 CP. I’ll be sure to note that on the roadmap. Very helpful discussion thanks everyone. [/sarcasm]

Give me a smiple reason why a few guns like Panther and Tiger have 1/1/0.9/0.9 and are able to snipe while driving and through smoke.
Others like Elephant, Jagdpanther, King Tiger, Pershings, Jacksons have 1/1/0.75/0.75
Others like 17 pdrs 1/1/0.85/0.85
US TD 1/1/0.9/0.8 except for jackson
And weird unit number 1 is Nashorn that has 1/1/1/1 and snipes through smoke every time.

Dude, I don't know. The point isn't what the reason for why something exists. The question is always what should it be and why. The proposer holds the burden of truth not the status quo. I can agree with you it's wrong but what next? I'm not even arguing that there shouldn't be a change. I'm literally asking what should it be changed to but we keep talking about what's "wrong" with no solutions. Just give a number that it SHOULD be and defend that number. otherwise we'll just set them to 1/1/0.751/0.751 because that's technically a buff. Or we'll set tigers and panthers to 1/1/0.899/0.899.

Regarding kwok's <<1 CP cost of everything>>,if you see no problem with propaganda's 4 vs armor's 8 CPs for tigers vs pershings or 7 vs 12 CPs for ace call in,while propaganda also gets ammo for fuel exchange for 2 CPs instead of just cheaper shermans,as well as 2 CPs walking stuka vs 6 CPs calliope (while having access to free nebelwerfer while armor has nothing) then i rest my case.

On topic i see no reason why VERY late game allied pershings should have worse accuracy than axis counterparts,same goes for expensive glass cannons as the jackson.

kwok wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2021, 19:25

Ah yes. Classic responses to questions...

Community: XYZ is wrong!
Dev: Okay what should XYZ be?
Community: XYZ is wrong! Also ABC is wrong!

[sarcasm] It sounds like what I get from all of this is that every gun in the game should have 100% accuracy and everything cost 1 CP. I’ll be sure to note that on the roadmap. Very helpful discussion thanks everyone. [/sarcasm]

Ok.

Give the M36 Jackson 1/1/.9/.8 accuracy like the M10 and M18.

Why #1:People complain enough about it loud and long enough to suggest the it’s underperforming given its cost and timing. This includes me. I believe it underperforms and that the issue is not the cost or timing but the unit’s combat performance.

Why #2: It comes out later than both M10 and M18 and is more expensive so it should be at least as accurate.

Anyone disagree with the numbers or why?

Wald

With the current 0.75 accuracy at max range the chance to hit something in smoke is 18.75% (28.12% from camo). The second range bracket is also 0.75 so the chances are the same.

With the 0.8 accuracy at max range the chance to hit something in smoke is 20% (30% from camo). With the suggested 0.9 at the second range bracket it is 22.5% (33.75% from camo).

I am not against the change but I really wonder how that 2% - 5% accuracy tweak will change it from "often failing" to "sniping everything even in smoke".

I don’t think any tank snipes any other tank, so how much or worse the Jackson would perform shooting through smoke doesn’t matter to me.

Wald

Wasn't the M36 accuracy already supposed to be changed or did that not go through? I specifically remember this:

Warhawks97 wrote: ↑

25 Jul 2020, 03:35

MarKr wrote: ↑

25 Jul 2020, 02:32

We just talked about this and came to this:
- cost lowered to 600MP 75F
- accuracy increased to 100%\100%\90%\85%
- when the 2nd Tank Depot upgrade is purchased, M36 is built with engine upgrade installed
- maybe also lower the CP from 3 to 2?

We would like to avoid any damage increase (as CGar suggested) because with standardized stats it would mean buffing damage on Pershings too and putting camo behind a paywall/vet sounds weird for a TD which has only the Sherman armor and so getting the vet might be a problem and the camo upgrade would be basically a must-have so it would be better to just add the upgrade cost to the basic cost.
The CP drop is there with a question mark because it might lead to people skipping Hellcat just to get Jakcson faster so it would be basically changing one underused unit for another one. However, if ithe CP cost gets lowered, where should the 1CP point be moved?

Opinions?

I am also against any damage increase. But as you fix the accuracy, can you fix it for pershing in the same way?

MarKr wrote: ↑

25 Jul 2020, 13:33

Warhawks97 wrote: ↑

25 Jul 2020, 03:35

But as you fix the accuracy, can you fix it for pershing in the same way?

Tanks have this accuracy settings as standard. Open-top tank destroyers have gradual drop and usally better accuracy than same weapons mounted on tanks. The change on M36 is basically putting it to standard, changing it the same way for Pershings would be un-standardizing it.

MenciusMoldbug wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2021, 00:00

Wasn't the M36 accuracy already supposed to be changed or did that not go through? I specifically remember this:

We probably forgot to implement it or decided not to in the end but my point was Hawks was mentioning here several times how Tigers and Panthers "snipe units in smoke" but "Jackson fails to hit from camo" but Jackson's accuracy from camo is already higher than that of a Panther, so I wondered how Panther with lower hit chance can be sniping and Jackson with higher hit chance be failing...

i don't see any performance issues on Jacksons or Pershing and i think they are absolutely fine.. i used them with enough success ratio. Jackson is not that expensive anymore, and Pershing can actually arrive earlier than Tigers when enough pressure is made early game with 76 Shermans.. and later with fuel upkeep upgrades; literally no one in the entire game can compete with the numbers of tanks Armor doctrine can deploy.

Stug survivability is still better than shermans (even after you invest in exclusive armor upgrades) and after you get the second one the lack of turret isn't a huge deal.The .50 cal is a huge bonus but the upgrade is so expensive that it's only viable after you have at least 3 shermans.So no i dont think there is a huge pressure from 76 shermans vs stugs.I mean stugs have top mg,armor skirts and HE shots,so it's not like they are just antitank units either.Also fuel upgrades is worse than ammo exchange for fuel swap so you can bet you will see more tigers than pershings...

Personally in late game i prefer using up armored easy 8's than pershings because they have worse survivabilty than panthers so why should i invest so much fuel in them?

Stug is available only in some docs, Pz4.H or Hetzer require 3 CPs in Panzer Support doc.. the same Pz4 late versions require 4 CPs in Blitz doc.. when on the other hand 76 Shermans are available at 2 CPs maximum (1CP in Armor) and are obtainable in all US docs.

Also, no.. the trades are inferior compared to fuel income upgrades + fuel upkeep upgrades from supply yard.. those upgrades are permanent and with little math you would realize how much of an advantage it gives US Armor doc a huge step ahead in late game that no other doc can compete or keep up with at all. Additionally, if u combine this early 76 Sherman pressure with early Cromwells (which are currently the earliest tanks in game btw, even earlier than Pak40 halftracks) then you completely sweep up your Axis opponents within the first 20 minutes of the game.. and i speak on this not out of speculation, but several games i experienced.

Krieger Blitzer wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2021, 09:34

i don't see any performance issues on Jacksons or Pershing and i think they are absolutely fine.. i used them with enough success ratio. Jackson is not that expensive anymore, and Pershing can actually arrive earlier than Tigers when enough pressure is made early game with 76 Shermans.. and later with fuel upkeep upgrades; literally no one in the entire game can compete with the numbers of tanks Armor doctrine can deploy.

cost ineffective i would say.


Thing is when you go for jacks in armor doc you wont be able to field enough shermans for other tasks. A Panther is a better Sherman and a better Jackson all in one basically and does not need to worry every tiny anti tank weapon and a pen hit isnt automatically a death sentence.

Having the Jacks at 600 MP can be very exhausting, esspecially when you calculate losses in every second engagment due to schrecks, airplanes, arty. They dont need to kill you but they force you out of your protective ambush and once the jacks is out of ambush its pretty much a dead jackson once an enemie tank shows up.

That being said, even a tiny motorbike can be its death sentence (The greatest enemie of all allied TD: Motorbike+ stug/Panzer IV)
Ofc jeeps can be just as distractive but a panther does not rely on ambush that much due to its armor and stuff.




Bottom line is, once you start going for jacksons you can quickly run out of ressources to maintain your own offense and you get pushed into the defense. You totally lose the initiative.


Pershings: Come always later. And just as a early 76 spam might gives you an lead in map controle and ressources, a Panzer IV spam and stugs do that even better bc they always come faster.
As TS doc its just 3 CP to get cheap Tank IV J´s. In order to get such cheap 76 shermans as armor doc you also need 3 CP. And the ammount of units that can just like that stop 76 shermans is much larger than the arsenal that can stop lots of early J´s and that usually requires CP as well (M10 for example). 3 CP btw is what you get when you have all the necessary buildings build to have access to this unit (roughly).
So a 76 sherman spam is far less effective in getting map controle as a J/Stug spam can do.

The Pershing itself can then be stopped pretty easily by a huge ammount of weapons. Last times a pair of pershings got stopped two stugs and a rocket arty barrage.

And the Pershing is costing as much or more as a Panther but offers far less in the end and is susceptible to many weapons than a Panther is.

@ Tiger,cheap 76mm shermans cost 3 CPs.For 2 CPs you can get stugs.If not then @ 3 or 4 CPs you get cheap late version pz4s which are obviously better armored than shermans and face way softer targets thus spamming them scales much better in late game.Try to do that with shermans in any other doctrine than armor (no easy eights,armor upgrades or mass production discount price) and see how viable in late game that is.

I agree that in the VERY long run the US fuel+manpower upkeep upgrade is better but the upfront investment is huge.I rarely buy it prior to almost total map control in 2v2 let alone 1v1.So in truth it just makes you steamroll an already beaten opponent faster and doesn't help you win 1v1 games (or even 2v2 for that matter).Plus at the end you will still end up buying worse armored units (shermans vs late pz4 or perhings vs panthers).
The fuel exchange mechanism on the other hand helps you win 1v1 (or even 2v2) games by giving you faster tech or more tanks with just half map control and sometimes even with less.Plus at the end that fuel income bonus translates into better armored units that scale better into late game as well.

I can't speak for the british+US combo since i almost never have a british ally (or opponent for that matter).Panzer Elite+Wehrmacht combo on the other hand is much more common (as opponent or ally).PE's halftracks + assault infantry gain map control way before medium armor comes in to play (BTW scout car small arms invulnerability is OP) while wehrmacht locks it down and fast techs to assault phase,then proceeds to spam stugs or late pz4s.I doubt US+british combo is as effectively offensive so early.

In any case because of inferior allied armor it isn't so unusual to loose a game in which you initially had map control.While as axis it is extremely rare to do so.Up to the point that wining a game in which you initially had lost map control is more usual...

Warhawk said <<And the Pershing is costing as much or more as a Panther but offers far less in the end and is susceptible to many weapons than a Panther is.>>I agree 100%,that is why in late game i prefer spamming up armored easy 8's instead of pershings.

Increase the scater or decrease the AOE of panther and tiger so it dosn't "miss" hit (still does damage) tanks while moving.

As for jackson:

- accuracy increased to 100%\100%\90%\85%
- faster reload
- same range than panther

@kwok

The proposer might hold the burden of truth, but a concept of developing the mod by making the players proposers and devs the judges is just wrong.
If you are truly developing this mod and not just doing a minimum maintenance (which doens't seem to be the case as you've done a complete doc rework) you need to stand behind every value set in the mod. If you don't know or can't explain why there are discrepancies between accuracy values of certain units, you need to put the revision of these values into the roadmap and not challenge the players to prove something.

Devilfish wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2021, 14:31

@kwok

The proposer might hold the burden of truth, but a concept of developing the mod by making the players proposers and devs the judges is just wrong.
If you are truly developing this mod and not just doing a minimum maintenance (which doens't seem to be the case as you've done a complete doc rework) you need to stand behind every value set in the mod. If you don't know or can't explain why there are discrepancies between accuracy values of certain units, you need to put the revision of these values into the roadmap and not challenge the players to prove something.

Split to off topic, I think it's worth discussing.
viewtopic.php?p=36507#p36507

Anyways if everyone is looking for the "simple reason it is this way" from devs, the simple reason is this: players are use to this and changing it will affect balance so needs to be carefully considered. Does that mean it can't be changed? No. It just means whenever you write a post, there are different ways you can write it. You can either be a part of the solution or you can be at the dev's mercy on the matter.

mofetagalactica wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2021, 19:53

Increase the scater or decrease the AOE of panther and tiger so it dosn't "miss" hit (still does damage) tanks while moving.

As for jackson:

- accuracy increased to 100%\100%\90%\85%
- faster reload
- same range than panther

Agreed. As for reasoning, not having consistently high accuracy on all open-top TD's seems kinda stupid when you consider the fact that they are all glass cannons and the jackson will probably not one-hit or even main gun crit it's target, meaning the jackson is dead after the first shot unless you have something else capable of quickly finishing the target off before it retaliates. It's not like you'll be able to reverse faster than a tiger or panther can slew their gun at you, especially when you have to be close because your max range is shorter than theirs. This is why I was against decreasing the CP cost of the jackson, it is going to be even harder now to push for a buff to it's performance against panthers and tigers (it currently has less range, takes more shots to kill, is less accurate, and costs a ton of muni to even be effective during any engagement with these tanks).

Anyways, why would a gunner decide to open fire when he is not confident that he will hit, especially when he is pretty much guaranteed to die if he misses? What is he doing during that long ass aim-time duration? I personally feel that tanks in this game should all have like 1.0/1.0/0.9/0.85 or better accuracy, even if it means the reload times get increased to compensate. The fact that watching your entire side collapse because the tank you invested 75+ fuel into just whiffed it's only shot even with perfect conditions often makes me want to just go play some other RTS game just so I don't have to deal with that, even if BK does everything else substantially better than that other game. I understand RNG is a part of CoH, but I feel like at a certain point it kinda makes the game worse. We already have to take big gambles with pen, so tanks being able to at least hit what they're shooting at would be nice. Uniformly high pen stats wont happen because this game is based on real armies, so people would burst into tears if their favorite big tanks got penned by a little gun.

The funny part is that realistically, pretty much everything except the super heavies could be disabled in some way frontally by a 28mm, and HE from everything 50mm or bigger was a lot more capable than portrayed in game. So technically speaking, pen could be relatively standardized and accuracy/range could be made the determining factor while still maintaining some degree of realism. Doing so would probably make armored engagements far easier to balance in the long run, although obviously the initial revamp would take a long time, so this sort of balance is just a pipe dream of mine ig. That's why I would instead say that we should have pen chances be the RNG factor, with accuracy being consistently high. Range would still be a determining factor in a lot of fights, and Axis would still often have the edge, so I don't think they'd complain too much with this style of balance.