Further Vehicle/Tank Price Decompression

[CGarr]

Overall Suggestion: Decompress vehicle prices as described below, to allow for more prolific use of all vehicle types and incentivize smarter investment. Adjust MP costs according to given fuel price tiering.

1- Light vehicles with guns smaller than 50mm: 10-25 fuel
2- Light tanks / Glass cannon medium TD's / Vehicles with big guns (57mm HT, 50mm Puma, 75mm US/CW HT, Pak40 HT, Pak40 puma): 30-40 fuel
3- Medium tanks / Armored medium TD's (Hetzer, Jpz4/48, Jpz4/70, Comet) / Glass cannon heavy TD's (Jackson, Nashorn, Achilles): 60-85 fuel
4- Beefy mediums / Anemic heavies / Heavier TD's (76 jumbo, Jagdpanther, Panther, Mk7 churchill): 90-120 fuel
5- Heavies with big ass guns (Tiger 1, Pershings) 140 Fuel
6- Superheavies (Elefant, King Tiger, Jagdtiger) 160 Fuel

Reasoning:

1- Much greater availability for light vehicles, less incentive to use only emplacements because you will be at greater risk of being rushed while getting initial defenses down. Greater reliance on light tanks and light AT vehicles, which is good because AT field guns are arguably less fun to use.
2- Greater availability because you are saving quite a large amount of resources by getting a light tank or glass cannon TD over a medium tank, enough to buy another light vehicle.
3- Same reasoning as 2 but for the next tiers.
4- See tier 3 reasoning.
5- See tier 3 reasoning.
6- See tier 3 reasoning.

==================== Expanded Reasoning, if you agree with the suggestion feel free to skip on reading this section. =========================

Players being able to afford more light vehicles available to support their inf would be good for the game, and incentivize against campy playstyles, especially if some specialist AT vehicles had enough offensive capabilities to be a threat to medium tanks. In the other thread about WSC unlocks, MarKr mentioned something about phosphorous shell availability possibly making heavy tanks less 'viable', which would be a good point if the availability of said heavies was set in stone. It isn't though, and there are other RTS games where heavy vehicles like this can be acquired extremely early (SD2 phase A king tigers and IS2's, C&C3 mammoth/avatar rushes, etc...). Players like these giant, flashy tanks because they are just fun to watch in action and they dominate tank vs tank battles, I think most would be willing to accept slight inconveniences in the form of abilities like WP shells, stuns, and even mobility crits, if their big beastly tanks only cost like 165 fuel max and they only need to kill a couple shermans to break even (per the medium tank price increase I suggested above).

If I have to spend 60-85 fuel on my medium tanks, I'd be a lot more careful with them and would welcome cheap light vehicles or difficult-to-kill heavies with open arms. As their name entails, mediums would be a happy medium between the ~150-165 fuel you spend on a heavy and the 10-25 you spend on a light vehicle. Light tanks would also have their rightful place, as price decompression would allow them to be substantially cheaper than mediums but still significantly more pricey than light vehicles. Their armament could be buffed accordingly if needed, so that we no longer have such pathetic excuses for 'tanks' as the hotchkiss, stuart, and chaffee rolling around.

Instead of trying to maintain some dumb early stage of the game where no armor of any kind is present, we should work on fixing the balance between AT inf and tanks. These units should be able to punish eachother hard for bad positioning, not coddled with HE nerfs and the maintaining of shitty weapon AT stats. Steel Division does it right, and consequently, even having the biggest, baddest tanks available early on isn't a big deal in that game, because they still die pretty much instantly if they are positioned stupidly. BK players should take something out of their book and stop pushing their tanks in without scouting the area or at least accept that doing so is super risky. The same can be said about inf, don't run headfirst into a tank and expect to win if it is shooting at you, there is a reason it costs a lot more than your cheap ass inf.

The HE nerf was dumb, and AT inf weapons not being buffed to be guaranteed counters to armor is dumb considering how risky using them generally is. Both sides of that engagement should be able to wipe eachother in seconds, or at least suppress/disable eachother, without having to worry about some bullshit RNG chance that their shot will bounce off the ass of a tank or miss a group of 6 guys from like 20 M away with HE that has a conservative kill radius of 30M.

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

I understand that this is a large overhaul, but I'd wager that there'd be far less complaints about tank balance and less opposition to nerfs or buffs wherever necessary, if they even are necessary after this change. Also, good reason for the HE nerf to be reverted, as HE tank gunners apparently kill bottle of liquor before every other shot. I still have no idea how one would manage to miss with HE unless they had a stroke or the tank was moving and hit a big bump. If inf vs tank combat is such an issue, nerf tank turning and turret rotation speeds or make inf AT weapons less garbage.

I doubt this will be implemented due to the massive amount of work required relative to how much time a mod dev team can reasonably afford to invest into a mod, but it's easier to just point back to this post every time discussion about how tanks or vehicles are overpriced or overpowered/underpowered, as it answers most of those complaints.

[Warhawks97]

When setting prices you should keep in mind the fuel upkeep tanks pay as well. So even if a tank costs just 45 fuel compared to a lets say 30 fuel vehicle, the fuel cost on the tank sides grows second.

With prices like these two medium tanks would eat your stored fuel, leaving no room for additional TD´s while also cutting your further income by a lot.

Medium tanks are not that wrong right now. 60 fuel or 65 for a Tank IV H is quite a lot in my opinion (when considering CP cost ofc).


Things that i would make different however, as you suggested actually, is the fuel cost of some beefy mediums, heavies and super heavies. I would be on-board with Panthers costing no moare than 120 fuel and super heavies 160 instead of 200 and more. But they should have a fair upkeep to pay.

[Consti255]

I´d be okay with this

[CGarr]

When setting prices you should keep in mind the fuel upkeep tanks pay as well. So even if a tank costs just 45 fuel compared to a lets say 30 fuel vehicle, the fuel cost on the tank sides grows second.

With prices like these two medium tanks would eat your stored fuel, leaving no room for additional TD´s while also cutting your further income by a lot.

Medium tanks are not that wrong right now. 60 fuel or 65 for a Tank IV H is quite a lot in my opinion (when considering CP cost ofc).


Things that i would make different however, as you suggested actually, is the fuel cost of some beefy mediums, heavies and super heavies. I would be on-board with Panthers costing no moare than 120 fuel and super heavies 160 instead of 200 and more. But they should have a fair upkeep to pay.

Is upkeep cost derived from the initial fuel cost or is it a separate value? If it is separate, this wouldn't be an issue.

Medium cost is apparently an issue considering people have been complaining about how tanks stomp on inf or how Shermans can kill KT's despite being like 1/6th the cost. This change addresses that and makes tanks more significant investments than they are currently while also cutting down on the difference in cost between mediums and superheavies. Doing so effectively allows all tanks to be buffed in their offensive performance, meaning less infuriating situations where poor RNG leads you to lose a medium to a AT squad despite them just walking up to you frontally.

The HE nerf can be reverted, and it'd even be fair for the coax MG's and roof MG's to deal out some serious damage or suppression, since you're only going to be able to afford a few tanks. Each individual tank could be justifiably buffed to have a far greater impact on the battlefield, so that no tank feels underpowered, or even 'useless', the way some currently do. TD's, even the glass cannon ones like marders and M10's, would have a far more noticeable impact without any change to their stats, just by virtue of being able to kill mediums, as losing a medium tank would be a lot more impactful. In this way, inf-focused docs could finally be on a level playing field without having access to strong tanks themselves, as they would only need to kill a few tanks to make a massive dent on the enemy's field presence. Currently, if you lose a medium tank, it is not hard to just wait around for another since they cost so little, meaning there is little time for the opposing player to exploit your weakness. Additionally, vehicles cost so much currently that they can't really be used to punish someone's loss late game.

[Warhawks97]

That a KT dies just like that to a sherman is rare. As you could see, even when the base is already under siege, a KT can easily take out 5 tanks within a minute including pershings.

The KT, unless unlucky to arty or planes, pays itself off usually faster than a normal Tiger does.
I had a game two days ago where a KT was oneshoted by an armor doc Jumbo sherman. But my KT killed 2 Pershings and a Jacks on its own later in the game.




Your general idea sounds good. Basically thats what i did when i made my own modding experiment with BK 4 years ago. High fuel cost but the coaxial MG was basically as deadly or more deadly than the top mount since it is more stable and uses the actual gunsight from the main gun. And thats how vanilla coh and coh 2 does. But high cost per tank means less on the field. And i do like the scale of tank battles in BK sometimes. Like having 3 tanks and TD fielded at once.


Generally i would say yes. Like shermans and stugs costing 50 fuel instead of 40. But the max end being 65-70 fuel. The Tank IV H with 65 fuel and basic e8 with its 70 fuel cost before mass production feel rather expensive, so that should be the limit for mediums fuel cost.

Tank IV J, F2, shermans, Stugs, they all are indeed really cheap in terms of fuel.

[Warhawks97]

Oh, well, went through these topcis and after some thinking these ideas here have my full support.

I think the general goal could be to increase fuel cost on tanks and putting them into the categories you brought up. In return we might think about droppong Mp cost here and there so that armor is not just a thing for heavy armor docs but for a broader mass of doctrines which stockpile fuel for the most part anyways. Just they wont have access to special boosts/upgrades etc.

As said in the other topic, would be cool when the fuel cost on tanks could be fixed, while also setting a MP cap depending on category. Like i said getting fuel costs of mediums below 500 MP (eg Panzer IV H, Firefly).

[CGarr]

Oh, well, went through these topcis and after some thinking these ideas here have my full support.

I think the general goal could be to increase fuel cost on tanks and putting them into the categories you brought up. In return we might think about droppong Mp cost here and there so that armor is not just a thing for heavy armor docs but for a broader mass of doctrines which stockpile fuel for the most part anyways. Just they wont have access to special boosts/upgrades etc.

As said in the other topic, would be cool when the fuel cost on tanks could be fixed, while also setting a MP cap depending on category. Like i said getting fuel costs of mediums below 500 MP (eg Panzer IV H, Firefly).

Hungover so I don't have much to add, but agreed.

[MarKr]

As for the original post - the whole part about "HE should wreck infantry and AT should wreck tanks without stupid RNG" is literally asking for removing the RNG components when these units attack each other. However, the RNG component is what the a large portion of this game intentionally revolves around. Quite a lot of people complain about "sure kill" abilities already and as much as I can understand that watching your AT squad miss a close shot from the rear of a tank can lead to an urge to Alt+F4 out of the game, these misses/rear bounce offs are not somethig that happens in majority of cases and even if, expecting the possibility of a bad RNG should be included in players' planning.

I would also not compare BK/CoH to SD2 that much because SD2 has many aspects different or downright better - e.g. the vision and camo system, map sizes and gun ranges are much better and work way better together, while in BK people still prefer playing on tiny maps, camo is reserved to certain units, ranges are extremely scaled down* ...all of this makes rushing with AT infantry way easier in BK while also taking the biggest advantage of tanks (range) away from them. My point is that even if SD2 "does something right", it might work "right" within the general setup of the game and therefore even if we implement it for BK as accurately as possible, it still may not work right in BK.


*this btw also means that what seems as "40m away" in the game would correspond to what?...300-500m in reality? Therefore even when the spacing between soldiers in a squad seems small, the spacing it "represents" would be much bigger...the engine simply doesn't allow for a proper distance representation.

As for the PIV H poll topic:

IMO, all medium tanks should be extremely strong against inf (with HE tanks being the most cost efficient in terms of muni), while also being a large investment and having terrible vision range (even when stationary) to prevent them from being self sufficient. Medium tanks in general should be the strongest frontline units in your roster in terms of raw firepower against inf, while requiring the most support. Even the less specialized mediums should shred inf, HE tanks should just do it without having to spend muni every shot.

This is problematic on many levels. Realistically, yes, a box of thick metal with a big ass cannon and several MGs should pose a serious threat to infantry. However, we have several tiers of infantry. If medium tanks become a hard infantry counter, then it means that even elite infantry (Commandos, Fallshirms, Storms, Rangers...) should die easily when facing these tanks. If that happens, then doctrines, whose main strenght and top-tier units are infantry, will be hard-countered by units that are not even the top-tier units of opponent's doctrine (as PIV is hardly the top tank in any Axis doctrine) which will put infantry-based docs into disadvantage and any tank-based doc into an advantage position. Also, in this suggestion tanks should have minimum vision and so they would need infantry to provide that vision. At the same time, the tanks would be a deadly anti-infantry units and so anyone, who would get off the first HE shot at the infantry squad that provides vision to a tank, would effectively win that engagement. Even if you had more infantry squads around, the "tank battles" would always be about who wipes the "vision-providers" first as then the tanks would have to retreat.
This would, most likely, lead to people just having a spotter hidden near tanks because it would be harder to "HE-one-shot" those. Wouldn't this all lead to more camping simply because these spotter units cannot spot properly outside of camo (and camo is static), while any combat infantry would almost instantly die to a single HE shot, thus losing vision on offense, thus having blind tanks thus no offense is happening? Maybe I'm over-thinking this but from past experience, most players try to play it safe and when they feel they might lose units (even if relatively cheap), they rather try to arty the crap out of the opponent than risk losing the unit.

If you also wanted to buff the MGs on tanks against infantry to prevent infantry rushing to tanks frontally in open space just to shoot a rocket in its face and retreat, then there is the issue of keeping the same performance on the same guns no matter what the gun is mounted on (there are very few exceptions to this rule but still...). Since these coaxial/hull MGs are often installed on light vehicles, it would also buff these light vehicles vs infantry.

With that being said, unsupported army should be extremely vulnerable to flanking. Right now, that just isn't the case.

Here I would still say that the flanking is from a large part dependant on map size and I've already said what the problem with that is.

This is a medium tank issue, not a Pz4 issue. We can keep doing these band-aid changes until the cows come home, or we can just do a proper revision of medium tank costs and possibly revert some of the recent nerfs.

This might be right but at the same time I am pretty sure that a "proper revision of medium tank costs" would require a revision of the entire (or at least the majority of) vehicle gameplay, including moving units around, thus changing unlock trees and who knows what else. So, another big overhaul which is something that would take a lot of time not just to do but also to fine-tune the balance.

BTW: it's just my personal opinion. I don't know what the other devs think of this.

[Warhawks97]

As for the original post - the whole part about "HE should wreck infantry and AT should wreck tanks without stupid RNG" is literally asking for removing the RNG components when these units attack each other. However, the RNG component is what the a large portion of this game intentionally revolves around. Quite a lot of people complain about "sure kill" abilities already and as much as I can understand that watching your AT squad miss a close shot from the rear of a tank can lead to an urge to Alt+F4 out of the game, these misses/rear bounce offs are not somethig that happens in majority of cases and even if, expecting the possibility of a bad RNG should be included in players' planning.

I do agree with that statment. RNG is an important factor just as it is in a real war. And soldiers there also miss close range due to being nervous/under fire/pressured etc. Humans are no Robots.
For that reason i dont like guranteed abilities either. To those belong stuff like tread-breaker, acurate shooting of 37 mm HT etc. Everything that sets a value to "guranteed". For that reason i also dont like single shot HE which also consume lots of ammo. On the one Hand people complain about "Eeverything´s oneshot". On the other hand they complain about "why did this ability fail in a cruical moment" if you have it not "guranteed-one-shot"
.

all of this makes rushing with AT infantry way easier in BK while also taking the biggest advantage of tanks (range) away from them.

This is why i agree with CGarr when he said medium tanks could be better workhorses and effective vs inf as well. Having only a tiny space between HE gun range+ costly single shot and Handheld AT weapons creates two problems:
1. HE must hit and always whipe a squad, else there is no point using it since the enemie will still get a shot off on your tank.
2. If the inf gets into range and fires its weapons they have to be effective, else the mgs and HE kills your guys on the retreat while having achieved nothing.

Either way, one-side is going to be happy, the other is going to be pissed because we are living in the extremes in a world of "Gurantees".

*this btw also means that what seems as "40m away" in the game would correspond to what?...300-500m in reality? Therefore even when the spacing between soldiers in a squad seems small, the spacing it "represents" would be much bigger...the engine simply doesn't allow for a proper distance representation.

I am aware of this, but still, could allied formations receive a bit more spreading? This shoulder on shoulder walking makes them die instantly to any mortar and HE round. I find axis inf in late game more suitable thx to their spacing.

As for the PIV H poll topic:
This is problematic on many levels. Realistically, yes, a box of thick metal with a big ass cannon and several MGs should pose a serious threat to infantry. However, we have several tiers of infantry. If medium tanks become a hard infantry counter, then it means that even elite infantry (Commandos, Fallshirms, Storms, Rangers...) should die easily when facing these tanks. If that happens, then doctrines, whose main strenght and top-tier units are infantry, will be hard-countered by units that are not even the top-tier units of opponent's doctrine (as PIV is hardly the top tank in any Axis doctrine) which will put infantry-based docs into disadvantage and any tank-based doc into an advantage position. Also, in this suggestion tanks should have minimum vision and so they would need infantry to provide that vision. At the same time, the tanks would be a deadly anti-infantry units and so anyone, who would get off the first HE shot at the infantry squad that provides vision to a tank, would effectively win that engagement. Even if you had more infantry squads around, the "tank battles" would always be about who wipes the "vision-providers" first as then the tanks would have to retreat.
This would, most likely, lead to people just having a spotter hidden near tanks because it would be harder to "HE-one-shot" those. Wouldn't this all lead to more camping simply because these spotter units cannot spot properly outside of camo (and camo is static), while any combat infantry would almost instantly die to a single HE shot, thus losing vision on offense, thus having blind tanks thus no offense is happening? Maybe I'm over-thinking this but from past experience, most players try to play it safe and when they feel they might lose units (even if relatively cheap), they rather try to arty the crap out of the opponent than risk losing the unit.

Thats the result of what we get with low combat distances, costly single shot HE and the harsh and thick drawn line between "infantry doctrine" and Tank doctrine". BK has a problem that when a doc is supposed to inf orientated, it is not only orientated, but literally forced to use only this one type. Admittedly, axis docs are less harsh in distinguishing between "armor" and "inf docs" in general. For me inf or tank orientated docs doesnt mean to only use this, just that the doc has a bigger emphasis on one of these.
The other thing that becomes apparent is the tank gun range, esspecially HE and the fact that you can use HE only once in a while. That easily translate into "HE must hit and kill" or its not worth it. Remember when HE on tanks always failed to hit when it was aimed on the ground and not on the unit? Nobody even upgraded HE rounds and purely relying on lucky AP shot hits and deadly top mounted MG´s. Now we have the opposite situation. Make HE an RNG shot and no one would ever even try using it. Or make it one-shot-hit-kill and no one uses inf. BK to this point never has found a middle ground of HE effectivness because the short ranges and HE cost doesnt allow a middle ground. Tank vs inf warfare is too often decided in one second which is the one where the gun fires its HE round. Only beefy tanks get a chance to fight a second time.

If you also wanted to buff the MGs on tanks against infantry to prevent infantry rushing to tanks frontally in open space just to shoot a rocket in its face and retreat, then there is the issue of keeping the same performance on the same guns no matter what the gun is mounted on (there are very few exceptions to this rule but still...). Since these coaxial/hull MGs are often installed on light vehicles, it would also buff these light vehicles vs infantry.

Here I would still say that the flanking is from a large part dependant on map size and I've already said what the problem with that is.

This might be right but at the same time I am pretty sure that a "proper revision of medium tank costs" would require a revision of the entire (or at least the majority of) vehicle gameplay, including moving units around, thus changing unlock trees and who knows what else. So, another big overhaul which is something that would take a lot of time not just to do but also to fine-tune the balance.

BTW: it's just my personal opinion. I don't know what the other devs think of this.

this is true. But in the medium turn i dont see any way arround. As i said, BK has no option to put HE rounds and medium tanks on a middle ground. They either have to whipe the inf instantly with their only, expensive, short ranged HE shot or they get killed by the inf.


So my goal for the long term would be:
1. Increase medium tank fuel cost and decrease their MP cost. Pretty much every other coh and coh mod got this done and it works. This way "Tank orientated" docs would not spam medium tanks out like the factory having "Tank squitters". Shermans in armor doc and F2+F1 or J in TS doc being the prime example. Its just silly how you can spam the shit there. Use of tanks would require more carefull planning when you would lose 60+ fuel each time. On the other hand, infantry orientated docs would have it easier to field a medium tank from time to time.
The real advantage of "Tank orientated doctrines" would be that they use a larger variety of tanks and vehicles, more support abilities, veterancy, upgrades on tanks etc etc rather than being braindead tank spammers. RE doc is a prime example of what it means to be "tank orientated". If TS doc hadnt this spam capabilties, this one would be more balanced as well.

2. Increase gun ranges of tanks as long as they dont move while giving them proper accuracy drops over that said distance and a proper scatter when using HE. This way they would be able to rain down fire from larger distances at the cost of accuracy drops. Tanks could engage inf from a larger distance but low accuracy and scatter would not allow an instant squad whipe.

3. HE changes: HE mode swap, no ammo cost for HE use, higher scatter, fixed AoE, nice and gradual drop of accuracy (along with range increase, see point 2). That way the first HE shot wont take out an inf squad. It just increases changes to kill models or doing some harm. At the same time HE fail shot wouldnt result in immediate death of the tank since it fires from a distance.

4. All Tank pintle mounts being an upgrade for a cost of 75 ammo. Increases sight range of the tank as well as giving it better tools to fight off flanking attempts.

5. Tanks during the move have short vision and pretty short gun ranges. Tanks on the move without spotters would be super vulnerable and easily to be sneaked up.

6. coax MG´s being like normal MGs or lmgs with good accuracy and stuff. Range will be 60 like all small arms.



Medium tanks in this sense would become workhorses of any army and overall less arcade situations between inf and tanks. You can use it to break defenses with propper support assets and use it as mobile gun platform. If you engage from larger distances (lets say 75) the base accuracy would be like 0.5 or 0.6, depending on tank type. So you can rain some HE down range but dont expect insta squad whipes in every shot and dont let inf come close. Right now you have to let inf dangerously close and bet that the HE is fired first and kills the guy with the Handheld AT in its hand before releasing some projectiles.



A short word to light tanks: They are currenrly also expensive but often enough draw some insane squad whipes as well. They should be cheap with medicore HE rounds.

[MEFISTO]

This proposal is going to make the game even more boring to play. Paying a lot for a medium tank? Spamming infantry like StarCraft? Meh. This is what is going to happen, nobody is going to use medium tanks to save that fuel for a heavy tank, that any airstrike can destroy with one click.
Also make a medium tank like a godlike sounds like MEH.

[idliketoplaybetter]

I would really want to like this idea but I can't, nor I can imagine what's gonna happen to MP bank and MP upkeep after the Fuel standartisation of such kind.

No idea how making Medium tanks more expensive and also stronger, would help to intensify matches.

@MarkR - "Wouldn't this all lead to more camping simply because these spotter units cannot spot properly outside of camo (and camo is static), while any combat infantry would almost instantly die to a single HE shot, thus losing vision on offense, thus having blind tanks thus no offense is happening?"

Exactly -^

I'd say, we end up with constant 1k+ manpower, with no use aside of OP fuel point half the game rounds, and people just Tiering up for Vet Tiger offmap calls/Super pershing.

Having 1 tank is no funnier than seeing a spam of mediums. imo.

There is a slight disbalance in how M4 75mm HE can be rushed and distress battlefield.
If possible, just make HE shells suppress more than squish targets one hit. Shorter .50cal suppression ability would help too for everyone.

or, for the memes, ALRS for all tanks and Shreks for the stormsquads. So we could have fun crawling party with ambushes and Mancing on 1clicks.
Geeeeeeeee.

Heck, allied vehicles damage and everything were upscaled fairly to axis tanks now - Prices for the axis left mostly untouched though, reduce it a little, not higher for all.
BK doc is popular not only cause it is the best and most reliable way to deny mapcontrol early in every way, but also it has most standart units availability, I believe, + u have easy to use non-CP maultier with 1way CP tree into offmap unit.

[Warhawks97]

This proposal is going to make the game even more boring to play. Paying a lot for a medium tank? Spamming infantry like StarCraft? Meh. This is what is going to happen, nobody is going to use medium tanks to save that fuel for a heavy tank, that any airstrike can destroy with one click.
Also make a medium tank like a godlike sounds like MEH.

and i dont see how its fun to get medium tanks at lower costs that many vehicles. 30-35 fuel for tank is a joke. Even stuarts, tetrarchs and stuff cost somtimes more.

Also i wouldnt have any issue paying 60-70 for a medium tank when i spare MP which i can use to buy proper support units. Coming back to the panzer IV H issue: The main reason i stay way from it is the fact that the MP bleed is so high, that i cant afford support inf or recons or arty etc. Like when i play TS doc i never got the H. Its better for me to spam F2 for 360 MP along with a cheap inf squad or a kettenkrad than to get one panzer IV being on its own. Even the J with its 410 MP cost is better since i get a krad on top of it.


Playing AB or inf doc means to have excess 350 fuel reserve anyways all the time. Same for Luft doc for the most part. Brits? Their Tanks cost 60+ fuel accross the board and nobody seems to bother much. Sherman being the only exception but brits sit on tons of fuel anyways, even with RE doc, so where is the problem?

And airstrikes? Dude, ever heard of AA? If you pay less for a Panzer IV H, its easier to buy AA cover. One big reason i struggle to get AA as PE TS doc or even def doc is the insane MP cost i got to pay everywhere. Always 500 MP. How to afford a 300 MP Opel blitz? or a 500 MP Möbelwagen?

[MEFISTO]

This proposal is going to make the game even more boring to play. Paying a lot for a medium tank? Spamming infantry like StarCraft? Meh. This is what is going to happen, nobody is going to use medium tanks to save that fuel for a heavy tank, that any airstrike can destroy with one click.
Also make a medium tank like a godlike sounds like MEH.

and i dont see how its fun to get medium tanks at lower costs that many vehicles. 30-35 fuel for tank is a joke. Even stuarts, tetrarchs and stuff cost somtimes more.

Also i wouldnt have any issue paying 60-70 for a medium tank when i spare MP which i can use to buy proper support units. Coming back to the panzer IV H issue: The main reason i stay way from it is the fact that the MP bleed is so high, that i cant afford support inf or recons or arty etc. Like when i play TS doc i never got the H. Its better for me to spam F2 for 360 MP along with a cheap inf squad or a kettenkrad than to get one panzer IV being on its own. Even the J with its 410 MP cost is better since i get a krad on top of it.


Playing AB or inf doc means to have excess 350 fuel reserve anyways all the time. Same for Luft doc for the most part. Brits? Their Tanks cost 60+ fuel accross the board and nobody seems to bother much. Sherman being the only exception but brits sit on tons of fuel anyways, even with RE doc, so where is the problem?

And airstrikes? Dude, ever heard of AA? If you pay less for a Panzer IV H, its easier to buy AA cover. One big reason i struggle to get AA as PE TS doc or even def doc is the insane MP cost i got to pay everywhere. Always 500 MP. How to afford a 300 MP Opel blitz? or a 500 MP Möbelwagen?

Yes I know what is an AA unit for sure and their range also. Do you know anything about AA range? I bet you can’t have an AA unit stick to you KT ass or SP ass all the time, because even if you fill up your side of the map with BS like a groundhog you still have to move to the enemies lines.
If you increase medium tank price some doctrines will be severely hit because not all Doctrines have elite infantry.

[idliketoplaybetter]

[quote

One big reason i struggle to get AA as PE TS doc or even def doc is the insane MP cost i got to pay everywhere. Always 500 MP. How to afford a 300 MP Opel blitz? or a 500 MP Möbelwagen?

Maybe there is a reason to rework the prices for AA in this case?
Why nobody's willing to discuss that?
Instead of making slow pace extreme standard unit build orders.

May that be a part of medium tank usage problem too? Conceptually speaking sure.

[Krieger Blitzer]

This might be right but at the same time I am pretty sure that a "proper revision of medium tank costs" would require a revision of the entire (or at least the majority of) vehicle gameplay, including moving units around, thus changing unlock trees and who knows what else. So, another big overhaul which is something that would take a lot of time not just to do but also to fine-tune the balance.

BTW: it's just my personal opinion. I don't know what the other devs think of this.

Totally agreed.

It's not worth it in my opinion as well.. the current state is fine alrdy.

[MEFISTO]

This might be right but at the same time I am pretty sure that a "proper revision of medium tank costs" would require a revision of the entire (or at least the majority of) vehicle gameplay, including moving units around, thus changing unlock trees and who knows what else. So, another big overhaul which is something that would take a lot of time not just to do but also to fine-tune the balance.

BTW: it's just my personal opinion. I don't know what the other devs think of this.

Totally agreed.

It's not worth it in my opinion as well.. the current state is fine alrdy.

I was just asking for a bit of a price reduction, PIV H price is insanely high in terms of MP and fuel. I bet you don’t see that many PIV H on the battlefield when playing BK doctrine. Even if price drop a bit you know almost 98% of the players rush the panther instead of going for the mass production to make panzer IV H cheaper. I don’t really see any problem with make PIV H a bit cheaper.

[kwok]

BTW: it's just my personal opinion. I don't know what the other devs think of this.

I'll concede and say that I do think that the general idea is a more balanced version of the mod but I think it would backfire in terms of encouraged playstyle. I think it would cause even more camping which has, admittedly, gotten worse since the doctrine reworks. This is because a combo of the rate of fuel income on popular maps and availability of artillery gives little incentive to attack. Major buffs to inf in the latest patches were made to counter this behavior.

A key factor in considering this change is the culture of players. A lot of players really love their tanks, even today we get a lot of push back on why late tier tanks come so late. You don't have to look far to find players, especially the majority who play simple lane maps, who just dig trenches and wait for late game spams. By making mediums like moving fortresses against infantry will slow down the game even more.

On the flip side for the really good players, it will make the game a lot more snowbally to the point where late game tanks may never arrive. It would make losing tanks even more punishing and harder to recover. In a game of RNG, we can't make costs too high otherwise games will be won of coin flips.

My counter proposal would be not to increase the fuel cost of tanks but lessen the costs (fuel/mp) of the early tiers. I know this was discussed before but maybe it's worth discussing again?

BTW don't know what the other devs feel about my counter propose....

[CGarr]

I'm starting school again and moving this/next week, so I might take a while to get full responses written out. I see your concerns, but I think we can address those by brainstorming more on how to counterbalance the cost increases.

One idea I had a while back that I think I wrote a bit about here was to make medium tanks suppression platforms (using both HE and MGs) instead of outright inf killers, so that the inf still play a key role in any offensive or defensive. Elite inf would still be useful as they are currently, as most of them have a way of negating suppression, but you wouldn't be losing tanks to some dirt cheap basic AT inf that just ran at your tank from the front because you missed an HE shot. Medium tanks would act as a massive force multiplier for your infantry rather than as underwhelming rambo style 1-unit armies.

Yes, currently suppression is already available for a lot of tanks, but it is an active ability that costs a substantial amount of muni. You have to dump a significant amount of resources into every single engagement on top of the investment costs of the units you're using. Another issue with this is that you might not have time to react and activate the ability if inf just sprints at you head-on while you're looking away. Having them passively suppress allows you to focus on the micro of your inf, and on the wider map as a whole, thus placing more emphasis on combined arms (which should be the focus for any tank doc).

Also, yes, the game would get snowbally for good players and the big tanks probably wouldn't be built as often, but is that a bad thing? The big tanks are where a lot of the issues reside for balance of tank vs tank and balance between docs. Even with that being said, I'm 100% sure players would still be able to get heavies out in team games, and we can look to CoH2 as an example of how heavies not being a common sight in 1v1's isn't exactly something strange.

If we really want heavies to be reasonably buildable even in 1v1's (something I myself would be in support of), we should focus on making it so that they don't completely outclass mediums in every way, as currently the only real downside to building a heavy over a non-specialist medium is cost. Heavies could be made unlockable way earlier in the game if they had more downsides, a good example would be a reduction to their mobility so that they are more vulnerable to infantry, especially in places where they can't take advantage of their gun range or their MG's.

I concede that this is a massive overhaul to tank design (along with some smaller changes to doctrine design), but I think it would reward both inf and tank doc players a lot more than the current system. Tank doc players could be more aggressive without worrying about cartoonish frontal AT inf charges on top of the proper ambushes they already have to worry about. Inf doc players would still have massive advantages when using inf against tanks, especially if the heavies get the mobility nerfs I suggested. Heavies could hit the field a lot earlier, thus allowing people to use the units that they love so dearly without having to sit through some massive campfest for 40 mins.

[MarKr]

I am aware of this, but still, could allied formations receive a bit more spreading? This shoulder on shoulder walking makes them die instantly to any mortar and HE round. I find axis inf in late game more suitable thx to their spacing.

Probably possible. I would have to check how it works with cover because if it is some global setting then "more spread out" would mean better surival chances in open ground but less likely to fit an entire squad in cover. But I think formations work separately for different types of cover...Will check it.

Thats the result of what we get with low combat distances, costly single shot HE and the harsh and thick drawn line between "infantry doctrine" and Tank doctrine". BK has a problem that when a doc is supposed to inf orientated, it is not only orientated, but literally forced to use only this one type. Admittedly, axis docs are less harsh in distinguishing between "armor" and "inf docs" in general. For me inf or tank orientated docs doesnt mean to only use this, just that the doc has a bigger emphasis on one of these.

Exactly - "for you". The focus of doctrines (and their reliance on certain unit types) is a design choice. We're not gonna change it just because a few people would like to have it differently.

BK to this point never has found a middle ground of HE effectivness because the short ranges and HE cost doesnt allow a middle ground.

I'd say the middle ground has been found. First of all - HE shots can miss. Second, the HE is set in such a way that a hit doesn't always mean a full squad wipe because there is a chance for infantry in the AoE to not take any damage (based on their distance to the center of the explosion) + the damage scales down in the AoE from the center to edges. Therefore a hit doesn't always result in full squad wipes. It can happen often when infantry is clustered together (e.g. the while squad is taking cover in a crater or other tight spot) but when on the move with proper spacing, the chance for a single HE shot to wipe a full 6 men squad isn't all that good. Speaking of which:

But in the medium turn i dont see any way arround. As i said, BK has no option to put HE rounds and medium tanks on a middle ground. They either have to whipe the inf instantly with their only, expensive, short ranged HE shot or they get killed by the inf.

As I already said - they don't always wipe an entire squad but if there is an AT squad rushing in, shouldn't your supportive infantry take care of them? If the tank takes the HE shot, it is likely to kill at least one of the 4 soldiers, in order to fire the AT weapon the squad needs to stand still. If you have a combat squad of 6 soldiers coverring the tank (you should have at least 2 but still..), then I don't think the squad can survive the bullet storm coming from the combat squad while standing still in an open ground. Even more so if you advance your squad to them.

So my goal for the long term would be:
1. Increase medium tank fuel cost and decrease their MP cost. Pretty much every other coh and coh mod got this done and it works. This way "Tank orientated" docs would not spam medium tanks out like the factory having "Tank squitters". Shermans in armor doc and F2+F1 or J in TS doc being the prime example. Its just silly how you can spam the shit there. Use of tanks would require more carefull planning when you would lose 60+ fuel each time. On the other hand, infantry orientated docs would have it easier to field a medium tank from time to time.
The real advantage of "Tank orientated doctrines" would be that they use a larger variety of tanks and vehicles, more support abilities, veterancy, upgrades on tanks etc etc rather than being braindead tank spammers. RE doc is a prime example of what it means to be "tank orientated". If TS doc hadnt this spam capabilties, this one would be more balanced as well.

2. Increase gun ranges of tanks as long as they dont move while giving them proper accuracy drops over that said distance and a proper scatter when using HE. This way they would be able to rain down fire from larger distances at the cost of accuracy drops. Tanks could engage inf from a larger distance but low accuracy and scatter would not allow an instant squad whipe.

3. HE changes: HE mode swap, no ammo cost for HE use, higher scatter, fixed AoE, nice and gradual drop of accuracy (along with range increase, see point 2). That way the first HE shot wont take out an inf squad. It just increases changes to kill models or doing some harm. At the same time HE fail shot wouldnt result in immediate death of the tank since it fires from a distance.

4. All Tank pintle mounts being an upgrade for a cost of 75 ammo. Increases sight range of the tank as well as giving it better tools to fight off flanking attempts.

5. Tanks during the move have short vision and pretty short gun ranges. Tanks on the move without spotters would be super vulnerable and easily to be sneaked up.

6. coax MG´s being like normal MGs or lmgs with good accuracy and stuff. Range will be 60 like all small arms.

Strongly against this.
1) Just because other mods do it and you like it, doesn't mean we have to do it too. Especially when I said that reliance on specific units is by design.

2) I sort of expect here the same whining as we've seen recently with "small mortars" - everyone will shoot HE at max range and then complain how the ability is "a total shit because it never EVER hits anything".

3) Absolutely no. This would just make more units obsolete over time. A 76mm Sherman would become literally a direct upgrade to 75mm because it would be better at fighting tanks but also very decent at fighting infantry (due to perma HE mode). The 76mm HE shot is less potent than the one of 75mm but people would just go with the 76mm Shermans because the shots would no longer be paid per shot so it wouldn't matter how many of them you would need to fire. It is again a design decision to have tanks that are primarily "anti-infantry" and others are primarily "anti-tank", it is also intentional that they have some capabilities in their non-primary functions (75 Sherman can switch to "AP", stubby PIVs have that "HEAT" shot, 76 Shermans have single-shot HE etc.) but those are intended as deterents or secondary ways of protection.

4) Again, not a big fan. The vision limit was intended to make the tanks less self-sufficient and more dependent on infantry support. This would counter the intention of the change. Also, .50cals are more potent than the MGs on top of Axis tanks. It is again a design choice to have the .50cals as upgrades while Axis having top MGs pre-stalled.

5) The only one I don't have a problem with.

6) Strongly against as coaxials are the same guns as hull MGs. So the tanks would act as a squad with two LMGs (or two MG squads in the worse scenario). Same guns are used on light tanks and light vehicles but also on heavy tanks so it would seriously buff pretty much all vehicles and tanks, making infantry-based play styles seriously disadvantaged.

[Consti255]

Is it overall possible in terms of HE changes to change infantry formations ?
Like giving them 2 possibilitys to engage or move.
More Spread or "loose" formation to spread out from each other, this would make the Sqaud harder to hit from HE, arty and other stuff, while decreasing their overall accuracy since weapons are far away from the target you attacking (comes to play when SMGs could get their range decreased, Kwok was thinking about that change and i really liked it). See it like a more defensiv formation that comes with a overall damage loss.

the other formation would be a more grouped one, more firepower since the units are closer to each other (and to the leader for the realsim factor) , as well operate way better in urban areas, since you dont have this 1by1 corner moveing and the enemy wins the engagement when only one MP is holding that corner. More risky, but more damage output.

This change could open up for more HE tweaks and freedom, aswell as infantry tank combat and counter formations against heavy arty spam on ceartain locations and unintended blobbing.

[Consti255]

Aswell, how about heavier pin down effects by HE shots?
That shots pin down harder, but not as consistent as MGs. Talking about a 4-5 seconds pin down? Is this even possible in terms of recieved supression ?
So the tank does not need to oneshot, while also needs to hit the target remotely close to pin down.
Elites would be usefull with fire up and stuff, but keep in mind fire up makes ur units easier targets.

In exchange i would like to see Hawks and Markrs agreement on shorter vision ranges and gun ranges for tanks overall.

[Warhawks97]

2) I sort of expect here the same whining as we've seen recently with "small mortars" - everyone will shoot HE at max range and then complain how the ability is "a total shit because it never EVER hits anything".

3) Absolutely no. This would just make more units obsolete over time. A 76mm Sherman would become literally a direct upgrade to 75mm because it would be better at fighting tanks but also very decent at fighting infantry (due to perma HE mode). The 76mm HE shot is less potent than the one of 75mm but people would just go with the 76mm Shermans because the shots would no longer be paid per shot so it wouldn't matter how many of them you would need to fire. It is again a design decision to have tanks that are primarily "anti-infantry" and others are primarily "anti-tank", it is also intentional that they have some capabilities in their non-primary functions (75 Sherman can switch to "AP", stubby PIVs have that "HEAT" shot, 76 Shermans have single-shot HE etc.) but those are intended as deterents or secondary ways of protection.

4) Again, not a big fan. The vision limit was intended to make the tanks less self-sufficient and more dependent on infantry support. This would counter the intention of the change. Also, .50cals are more potent than the MGs on top of Axis tanks. It is again a design choice to have the .50cals as upgrades while Axis having top MGs pre-stalled.

6) Strongly against as coaxials are the same guns as hull MGs. So the tanks would act as a squad with two LMGs (or two MG squads in the worse scenario). Same guns are used on light tanks and light vehicles but also on heavy tanks so it would seriously buff pretty much all vehicles and tanks, making infantry-based play styles seriously disadvantaged.

2. I think people in BK never really got used to low accuracy at ranges except for sub-machine-guns. Every other type of weapon has decent accuracy at any range. At least enough to targets with 2 out of 3 shots fired. And thats true for basically all weapons in the game with the only exception being sub-machine-guns. I often said that i would be down for distant combat with low accuracy working as some sort of skirmish fighting/distraction/harrassing. Engagments in BK are often times super short and deadly accurate and 90% of the gun exchange is meant purely to kill. The latest example is the "HMG Kill mode" where the MG doesnt seem to suppress anything at all but unleashing a pure stream of deadly accurate bullets which was, sorry to say it this way, latest bullshit. I loved it when the HMG42 lost its 25% accuracy boost vs suppressed inf so that its main goal was to suppress large infantry formations instead of doing full squad whipes in a second at max range. My general approach to BK warfare would be that you can either slowly battle down your enemie with massed and superior firepower from a distance or, if you want quick tactical eliminations, get close to get quick kills.

But weapons in general remain super accurate even at the farthest distances and usually dont even suffer from targets that are in motion unless they have some special armor types (like AB inf or vehicles)



3. First of all, most of the tanks in ww2 fired a hell lot more HE shells than AP. Only very early in the war factions distinguished in anti inf and anti tank tanks. Shermans, no matter which type, was always intended as multiole tank. The 75 mm had better anti inf capabilties due to a more powerfull HE load, but it was no meant to be only anti inf. Later in the war axis came back to this pure anti tank idea with their jagdpanzers but even those were often actually used or labled as "Sturmgeschütze". In BK all HE is super deadly for the most part unless you hit a an obstacle or slight hill. But otherwhise HE is accurate and deadly as fuck at any range (but dangerously short ranged by nature). So i would at first remove the thinking of calling some tanks "anti tank tanks" because unless they are dedicated TD´s (and even those often filled a normal infantry support role) they are multipurpose tanks.

Instead i would give those units which are really strictly in an HE role like short barrled Tank IV, Scott, Stuh and so on just different characteristics. Like being able to loop shells over hedgerows or being generally more potent against inf in Trenches since they "loop" the shells into them due to their trajectory.
So instead of distinguish anti tank and anti inf tanks based on "single vs perma HE" i would distinguish tanks in:
1. Multirole Tanks that can swap between AP and HE with good range and accuracy
2. Anti inf Tanks and assault guns that have slower moving HE shells with a high trajectory but super helpfull to dercrew emplacments or killing entranched inf and stuff. Also being perhaps able to loop shells over obstacles to hit emplacments.
3. And finally TD´s that mainly fight enemiy tanks, have access to more powerfull AP rounds like HVAP and APCR rounds by default when unlocked in the Tec Tree or as upgrade if the unit is a default TD and able to fire HE if upgraded for extra ammo cost.


4/6. I think having anti pintle mount by default while having to buy HE rounds for extra cost is just wrong. The tanks main weapon is the gun and their integrated machine guns in the turret and/or Hull. If you manage to spot targets early enough, you turn your tank so that all your weapons fire in this direction and unleash a hailstorm of bullets and HE shells that would quickly pin down infantry. But if you move uncarefully with a slow sight range on the move you are in danger of quickly getting flanked and killed by inf since you cant turn hull and gun fast enough into position to counter it. A Pintle mount meanwhile would be an extra to get a bit more situational awarness and quicker reaction to flanking move that would come at a cost.

Overall i would say the following:
Tanks being able to swap between HE and AP but with a swap duration of several seconds, low visibility on the move, expensive pintle mounts, long gun range but with lower accuracy at these extended ranges are less scarry to infantry than an arcade tank with good sight ranges, default pintle MG´s that enable the tank to engage several targets at the same time and highly accurate, short range single HE shots for which you have to pay each time but that can be fired in between two AP rounds.

Is it overall possible in terms of HE changes to change infantry formations ?
Like giving them 2 possibilitys to engage or move.
More Spread or "loose" formation to spread out from each other, this would make the Sqaud harder to hit from HE, arty and other stuff, while decreasing their overall accuracy since weapons are far away from the target you attacking (comes to play when SMGs could get their range decreased, Kwok was thinking about that change and i really liked it). See it like a more defensiv formation that comes with a overall damage loss.

the other formation would be a more grouped one, more firepower since the units are closer to each other (and to the leader for the realsim factor) , as well operate way better in urban areas, since you dont have this 1by1 corner moveing and the enemy wins the engagement when only one MP is holding that corner. More risky, but more damage output.

This change could open up for more HE tweaks and freedom, aswell as infantry tank combat and counter formations against heavy arty spam on ceartain locations and unintended bloobing.

Aswell, how about heavier pin down effects by HE shots?
That shots pin down harder, but not as consistent as MGs. Talking about a 4-5 seconds pin down? Is this even possible in terms of recieved supression ?
So the tank does not need to oneshot, while also needs to hit the target remotely close to pin down.
Elites would be usefull with fire up and stuff, but keep in mind fire up makes ur units easier targets.

In exchange i would like to see Hawks and Markrs agreement on shorter vision ranges and gun ranges for tanks overall.

Having infantry units walk in close or wide formation would be cool. Like when i play rome total war i can order wide formation when they get shot by artillery and fighting elephant as to prevent too many losses from a single hit. Thats kind of a cool thing.