BETA UPDATE

Talk about CoH1 or BKMOD1 in general.
Post Reply
User avatar
Krieger Blitzer
Posts: 4334
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, living in Qatar.
Contact:

BETA UPDATE

Post by Krieger Blitzer »

Got some feedback on the beta update, seems great so far.. except i noticed few issues:
- Tweaked AT guns (mobile and emplaced) so that they no longer have unintended penetration drop in certain situations
- Changed rec.pen. modifier on Sherman E8 to 0.8 (from 0.82)
One of these 2 is broken... My 75mm AT gun emplacement bounced off more than 11 times !! against a regular 76 Sherman (Ai opponent).

Also:
- AI should now use HE shots against infantry and buildings (switching between HE and AP for units with HE mode is still wonky)

i think this has broken the A.i a little bit.. now they sometimes just dance in their place (back and forward) with their tanks.
As i noticed some weird A.i behavior i never witnessed before.. but still need further testing though.

in addition, just 1 thing i think you forgot, this:
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=4238
Faust damage vs MK7 Churchill.

Gotta test more tomorrow.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 3542
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: BETA UPDATE

Post by MarKr »

I'll check the penetration.

Tanks in my AI test games worked sort of fine, to be honest. They sometimes do the "back and forward" movement as you said but (I think) that is more because the AI is trying to find some targets and because the auto-targetting for many units has been disabled, they cannot find any or as your units move the AI keeps evaluating what the nearest target is. So that feels more like the general auto-targetting issue.

But when enemy AI tanks got close to my emplacements or base, they used the HE shots repeatedly, yesterday I even saw an Ostwind to switch to HE when it close to my infantry which is something that was never happening before. I cannot say for sure if you or anyone seems something off, let me know.

EDIT:
I just had a test game against AI and my 75mm emplacement destroyed four 76mm Shermans, one of them was E8. It fired about 8 shots (most at long range) and only one bounced :?
Image

User avatar
Krieger Blitzer
Posts: 4334
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, living in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: BETA UPDATE

Post by Krieger Blitzer »

MarKr wrote:
07 Apr 2021, 12:58
EDIT:
I just had a test game against AI and my 75mm emplacement destroyed four 76mm Shermans, one of them was E8. It fired about 8 shots (most at long range) and only one bounced :?
just tested this and few other things with MEFISTO and i can confirm that this patch is currently in a good standing and can go live.. of course unless other bugs were reported to you that i don't know of.

Great patch btw, i think u will finally get some long break after releasing this... it sets Bk Mod on a very good state, probably won't need any other updates for years. So, just good job!

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 4535
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: BETA UPDATE

Post by Warhawks97 »

Krieger Blitzer wrote:
08 Apr 2021, 05:16


Great patch btw, i think u will finally get some long break after releasing this... it sets Bk Mod on a very good state, probably won't need any other updates for years. So, just good job!
Nah, i dont think so. I still would like to see some changes for gun accuracy stats and range brackets which make no sense at all currently.

There are two examples of guns doing it much better than the majority of other guns:
The Jagdpanzer IV/70 series. Their guns have accuracy stats of 1/1/0.9/0.85 and range brackets are 15/30/45/55.

Panthers use the same range brackets but have 1.2/1/0.9/0.9 accuracy.



But the majority of guns still have accuracy stats of 1/1/0.75/0.75 and brackets set to 10/25/40/55, including even the 90 mm jackson guns.
Jagdpanther and KT´s also have the shitty long range accuracy but better range brackets.
17 pdrs have better accuracy than KT etc but worse range brackets than those.

I think guns of tanks from Panzer IV H and 76 shermans onwards should be set to 1.2/1/0.9/0.8. with brackets set to 15/30/45/60. Slight differences for smaller and bigger guns can be from then onwards.

But the current system does not follow any principle, no logic, nothing. No one really ever cared about it despite the fact that tank gameplay and tank to tank warefare is a pretty importan part of BK and it should not be left in a broken state as it is now with random accuracy and random range brackets.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 3542
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: BETA UPDATE

Post by MarKr »

Warhawks97 wrote:
08 Apr 2021, 11:06
No one really ever cared about it despite the fact that tank gameplay and tank to tank warefare is a pretty importan part of BK and it should not be left in a broken state as it is now with random accuracy and random range brackets.
Maybe no one really cared because the system works as it is? Is it really going to make a noticeable difference if Shermans get at max range 85% instead of 75%. People will always remember better the missed shots and will always tell you that their tanks "miss all the time" or that they "miss more often than they hit" or they get "sniped through smoke all the time".

It really feels like you want it changed because you saw the numbers in corsix and you think it would make more sense to set it in a different way but for a player who never dabbled in corsix the situation before and after the change would feel pretty much the same and since that is the case, is there even a reason to change all the files if most people won't see the difference anyway?
Image

User avatar
Sukin-kot (SVT)
Posts: 943
Joined: 09 Dec 2014, 08:36
Location: Ekaterinburg, Russia

Re: BETA UPDATE

Post by Sukin-kot (SVT) »

Great update indeed!

Though, it is disappointing that AB didn't get any love and going to remain a Sherman + Strafe Run doctrine :(

Consti255
Posts: 177
Joined: 06 Jan 2021, 16:12
Location: Germany

Re: BETA UPDATE

Post by Consti255 »

Sukin-kot (SVT) wrote:
08 Apr 2021, 14:19
Great update indeed!

Though, it is disappointing that AB didn't get any love and going to remain a Sherman + Strafe Run doctrine :(
agreed.
I would love to see some AB changes. :)

Anyway GREAT Update!!
Nerf Mencius

User avatar
Krieger Blitzer
Posts: 4334
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, living in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: BETA UPDATE

Post by Krieger Blitzer »

Warhawks97 wrote:
08 Apr 2021, 11:06


Nah, i dont think so. I still would like to see some changes for gun accuracy stats and range brackets which make no sense at all currently.

There are two examples of guns doing it much better than the majority of other guns:
The Jagdpanzer IV/70 series. Their guns have accuracy stats of 1/1/0.9/0.85 and range brackets are 15/30/45/55.

Panthers use the same range brackets but have 1.2/1/0.9/0.9 accuracy.



But the majority of guns still have accuracy stats of 1/1/0.75/0.75 and brackets set to 10/25/40/55, including even the 90 mm jackson guns.
Jagdpanther and KT´s also have the shitty long range accuracy but better range brackets.
17 pdrs have better accuracy than KT etc but worse range brackets than those.

I think guns of tanks from Panzer IV H and 76 shermans onwards should be set to 1.2/1/0.9/0.8. with brackets set to 15/30/45/60. Slight differences for smaller and bigger guns can be from then onwards.

But the current system does not follow any principle, no logic, nothing. No one really ever cared about it despite the fact that tank gameplay and tank to tank warefare is a pretty importan part of BK and it should not be left in a broken state as it is now with random accuracy and random range brackets.
I know what you are talking about.. but it's not that much of a priority and won't make much difference really, as MarKr pointed out.

@Sukin
Airborne is great bro, unlimited Hellcat + good affordable inf + snipers + mines + airstrikes (AA is fine now, not OP or too weak) + supply drops.. works great with RE team-mate or Armor doc in combination. Although i still wouldn't mind a jackson or 76 jumbo for AB doc in the future (if that's what u mean by "some AB changes") but again.. not a high priority after all, and everything works nice atm.

I am personally 100% satisfied by the current state of Bk Mod after this patch.. 13 years old game breathing fresh air.
Cheers everyone!!

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 4535
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: BETA UPDATE

Post by Warhawks97 »

Krieger Blitzer wrote:
08 Apr 2021, 16:01




I know what you are talking about.. but it's not that much of a priority and won't make much difference really, as MarKr pointed out.



It is. Its funny how Penetration values, damage and HP of units is always a big part of a unit discussion, but stuff like accuracy, which many consider simply as bad RNG, is left out. But its not bad RNG, its well calculated Garabage In every other game accuracy is part of every damage calculation, unit effectivness and cost, just not in BK.

I tell you it is a big issue when a tank like jacks or pershing fails with every fourth shot against a target as big as a Panther or Tiger which are staying just 40 range away.

Also:
- Changed the stats of US 76mm AT gun vs:
-- JPIV L48: penetration to 56% (from 75%)
-- JPIV L70: penetration to 21% (from 50%)
-- StuG: penetration to 75% (from 85%)
-- StuG with skirts: penetration to 70% (from 80%)
-- Hetzer: penetration to 54% (from 75%)
(given values are for maximum range; the values got pretty much reverted back to their previous state)
Funny that 90 mm guns and 17 pdr are excluded from that change. So we have basically 17 pdr and 90 mm guns that cant hit the target and then 76 mm guns that can hit the target but have hard times to actually penetrate it.
What kind of logic is this?
I mean, wtf BS is this?


Or why is a Ostwind easier to hit than a Tiger tank?



I agree that this patch brought many good changes. But the accuracy of guns is still an issue. Its generally not considered in unit cost but is still a major factor for wins and losses.


Tank guns accuracy and range brackets should be a top priority issue, not completly left out and considered as "oh, RNG was just bad".

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 2327
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: BETA UPDATE

Post by kwok »

If it was april fools day I would've made a post that said "we are making a radical change to BK mod to make it more like starcraft by setting all accuracy tables to 1. This should simplify a lot of calculations and unit expecations, thus achieving perfect balance." and the biggest irony of it is that people will KNOW it's an april fools joke and will still want that change to be real.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 4535
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: BETA UPDATE

Post by Warhawks97 »

kwok wrote:
08 Apr 2021, 20:27
If it was april fools day I would've made a post that said "we are making a radical change to BK mod to make it more like starcraft by setting all accuracy tables to 1. This should simplify a lot of calculations and unit expecations, thus achieving perfect balance." and the biggest irony of it is that people will KNOW it's an april fools joke and will still want that change to be real.

omg. No, no one wants a Nashorn which has exact these stats and never misses. No one asks for this. But the randomly set accuracy stats are just broken. Every game pays attention to this, just BK doesnt care...

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 2327
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: BETA UPDATE

Post by kwok »

Warhawks97 wrote:
08 Apr 2021, 20:36
kwok wrote:
08 Apr 2021, 20:27
If it was april fools day I would've made a post that said "we are making a radical change to BK mod to make it more like starcraft by setting all accuracy tables to 1. This should simplify a lot of calculations and unit expecations, thus achieving perfect balance." and the biggest irony of it is that people will KNOW it's an april fools joke and will still want that change to be real.

omg. No, no one wants a Nashorn which has exact these stats and never misses. No one asks for this. But the randomly set accuracy stats are just broken. Every game pays attention to this, just BK doesnt care...
Nah man. You dont even know how often I've been asked to make things absolute. People will say things like "TIGER SHOULD ALWAYS PENETRATE SHERMAN" and "SHERMAN SHOULD NOT PENETRATE TIGER" and "MISSES ARE SUCH BULLSHIT, RNG FUCKS THIS GAME UP".

When you say BK doesn't care, you're takling about a difference of 10% of misses at max range across a bunch of units which will either have barely any noticeable impact or major impact. When you say BK doesn't care, it's more like we aren't going to kill ourselves over every decimal in corsix when there are much bigger things to tackle. For example, movement modifiers, proper maps for the scale of the game, and a bunch of other backlogged items that matter so much more than 5-10% changes across 50 units that always "may or may not" have huge ramifications on balance. warhawks, to be frank the suggestions you always offer are always way too risky to incorporate for things that most players don't see as major issues. your suggestions always cut across soooo many base units as opposed to "tweaks". but to say that if something is NOT changed is causing the majority of problems in the game and complain so hard about how much something like this impacts gameplay is just not how we see it. the problem is you're either right or wrong but in both cases it's extreme amount of effort to work out. High risk, High effort, Variable Reward. We just don't prioritize those when there's other Low Risk High Reward things to address.

Consti255
Posts: 177
Joined: 06 Jan 2021, 16:12
Location: Germany

Re: BETA UPDATE

Post by Consti255 »

I am cool with RNG.
All i want is a buff to the 90mm from the Jackson B1.
This thing has kinda an issue to hit Panthers.
Anything else stay as it is.
Nerf Mencius

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 4535
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: BETA UPDATE

Post by Warhawks97 »

Consti255 wrote:
08 Apr 2021, 22:37
I am cool with RNG.
All i want is a buff to the 90mm from the Jackson B1.
This thing has kinda an issue to hit Panthers.
Anything else stay as it is.
Which accidentially has the same piss accuracy as Pershings, Jacks A and so on. Basically the majority of tanks uses the stats of this gun. Exception are 17 pdrs, M10, M18, Panther and Tiger and perhaps a few others.


For me the Jacks A is just as miserable as the Jacks B. I guess the difference is that Armor doc tanks get to the field with vet 1 and mostly having also a tank commander with vet while Jacks B is just a single tank in the entirety of the army, thus every fail shot it does makes people angry.


kwok wrote:
08 Apr 2021, 21:26
Warhawks97 wrote:
08 Apr 2021, 20:36
kwok wrote:
08 Apr 2021, 20:27
If it was april fools day I would've made a post that said "we are making a radical change to BK mod to make it more like starcraft by setting all accuracy tables to 1. This should simplify a lot of calculations and unit expecations, thus achieving perfect balance." and the biggest irony of it is that people will KNOW it's an april fools joke and will still want that change to be real.

omg. No, no one wants a Nashorn which has exact these stats and never misses. No one asks for this. But the randomly set accuracy stats are just broken. Every game pays attention to this, just BK doesnt care...
Nah man. You dont even know how often I've been asked to make things absolute. People will say things like "TIGER SHOULD ALWAYS PENETRATE SHERMAN" and "SHERMAN SHOULD NOT PENETRATE TIGER" and "MISSES ARE SUCH BULLSHIT, RNG FUCKS THIS GAME UP".

When you say BK doesn't care, you're takling about a difference of 10% of misses at max range across a bunch of units which will either have barely any noticeable impact or major impact. When you say BK doesn't care, it's more like we aren't going to kill ourselves over every decimal in corsix when there are much bigger things to tackle. For example, movement modifiers, proper maps for the scale of the game, and a bunch of other backlogged items that matter so much more than 5-10% changes across 50 units that always "may or may not" have huge ramifications on balance. warhawks, to be frank the suggestions you always offer are always way too risky to incorporate for things that most players don't see as major issues. your suggestions always cut across soooo many base units as opposed to "tweaks". but to say that if something is NOT changed is causing the majority of problems in the game and complain so hard about how much something like this impacts gameplay is just not how we see it. the problem is you're either right or wrong but in both cases it's extreme amount of effort to work out. High risk, High effort, Variable Reward. We just don't prioritize those when there's other Low Risk High Reward things to address.


It does has an impact. Like why it the normal 57 mm AT gun so much better than the HT mounted one (i literally gave up on the HT bc its performance is thousand times worse than the inf version)? Because the Range brackets are much better.

Fixing accuracy and range brackets would result far less often in shitty RNG´s. Like ive barely seen anyone really complaining about Panthers or nashorns to hit something, but many times over with other tanks of similiar role/cost.


The guns i request to be fixed in accuracy (and perhaps range brackets) are Tank IV´s, stugs, Jacksons, Pershings, Jagdpanther, King Tiger, Elephant, 76 Sherman, Hetzer, Jagdpanzer IV/48.


I dont see what kind of risk there is when a Jagdpanther would share the accuracy of a normal Tiger, or when Pershings and Jacks would at least hit stuff at the same rate as 17 pdr tanks do.

User avatar
Sukin-kot (SVT)
Posts: 943
Joined: 09 Dec 2014, 08:36
Location: Ekaterinburg, Russia

Re: BETA UPDATE

Post by Sukin-kot (SVT) »

I agree with Hawks on that one. At least 17p, 90mm and 88m should have better accuracy. Sometimes it’s ridiculous the way they miss, not long time ago I posted a replay where my British M10 missed 3 shots in a row against Panzer 4 which was showing his back. This panzer finished off a target in front of it, made 180 degrees turn, shot once destroying the engine and killed M10 with the second shot.

Such situations are cancer for the game, therefore at least the issue of big guns should be addressed. Nothing ruins your day as bad as Jackson hitting the dirt when it flanked a Panther. Especially knowing that Panther would never miss a shot in return.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 3542
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: BETA UPDATE

Post by MarKr »

Funny how you brought up an example with Achilles while this unit already has the accuracy settings higher than most tanks and it is actually very close to what Hawks suggested above.

It just proves what I said above:
MarKr wrote:
08 Apr 2021, 12:24
Is it really going to make a noticeable difference if Shermans get at max range 85% instead of 75%. People will always remember better the missed shots and will always tell you that their tanks "miss all the time" or that they "miss more often than they hit" or they get "sniped through smoke all the time".
So unless we set the accuracy to what kwok said (Star Craft style), there will always be these "it happened to me once" experiences.
Image

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 4535
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: BETA UPDATE

Post by Warhawks97 »

MarKr wrote:
09 Apr 2021, 10:30
Funny how you brought up an example with Achilles while this unit already has the accuracy settings higher than most tanks and it is actually very close to what Hawks suggested above.

It just proves what I said above:
MarKr wrote:
08 Apr 2021, 12:24
Is it really going to make a noticeable difference if Shermans get at max range 85% instead of 75%. People will always remember better the missed shots and will always tell you that their tanks "miss all the time" or that they "miss more often than they hit" or they get "sniped through smoke all the time".
So unless we set the accuracy to what kwok said (Star Craft style), there will always be these "it happened to me once" experiences.
It is not just the accuracy stats that have an impact on how accurate a gun is at any range, but also the brackets.

The 17 pdr has indeed better stats than jacks and persh. Here the main complain is the damage and penetration that is often failing to penetrate and kill a Panther even when firing from ambush. These are to most players more "noticable" when they see a couple of bounces in a row. A Miss is always regarded as bad luck (which simply isnt).

For the 17 pdr it would also be nice to have the range brackets changed from 10/25/40/55 to something like 15/30/45/60 and accuracy set to 1.2/1/0.9/0.85.

Take a look at the normal 17 pdr AT gun range brackets that are 20/40/55/70. Accuracy is 1/0.9/0.85/0.85 while pen drop at each bracket remains the same for tank and AT version.

If we now take a target as example this means that the accuracy at a target being 40 range away is 90% for the AT gun but 85% for the Tank mounted version. The penetration is even a bigger issue. While the Tank mounted version has a 0.71 long range pen modifier applied, the AT gun still uses the better medium range 0.86 modifier.
This translates into pen chances against a Panther at a distant of 40 range away of 69% for the AT gun version, but only 57% for the Tank mounted 17 pdr. And also better accuracy for the AT gun.


For the most part now i tend to use Halftracks with anti tank guns over infantry versions. My Halftrack versions ended up getting killed by the tanks with many more shots bouncing off from targets like tank IV´s and shermans. Then i saw an enemie using a 6 pdr gun and killing three of my Tank IV F2´s in a row (which i thought i could overrun) with just one shot bouncing off. Meanwhile my 57 mm HT always cheated on me (or betrayed me) even against Panzer III´s.
And when i started playing def doc more often and using both, the HT mobile pak 40 and the normal pak 40 being build by the 28 mm HT in the field, the AT gun had far less issues dealing with tanks than my HT´s did which in many cases just failed to stop a single enemie tank.
And i think the reason for these huge performance differences are the range brackets.

And all that is true for accuracy as well. I never seen anyone complaining about a Nashorn failing in a cruical moment. The reason is that it has 100% accuracy at any range. But in every single game in which people used Jacksons, there was at least one cruical moment in the game where the tank just failed despite being in a situation where it just shouldnt fail to hit a tank as large as a Tiger. And People then just rage-quiting, esspecially when two such moments happen in one game.


If the tank had a 90% or even 95% chance (or higher depending on target) to hit a target being just 40 range away and as big as a tiger, such stupid moments would just not happen this often.


You also have to take into account various other factors that can cause a snowball effect. A High base value often benefits from modifiers a lot more. Thats true for pen and accuracy. A 5% accuracy boost on a 75% base accuracy value ends up to be 78,75%. On a 90% base accuracy its 94.5%. So the higher value ends up being effectively boosted even more.


If we get back to our 17 pdr vs Panther example: When we add AP rounds for the AT gun and firefly against a Panther being 40 range away, the 17 pdr pen goes from 68,8% to 108% pen chance. The Firefly with its worse penetration modifier applied, still has only a 89% chance to pen.
If we assume the Panther is 60 range away, then the Tank mounted 17 pdrs have a 74.1% chance to penetrate while the AT gun version still has a 89% chance to penetrate.

This is just to illustrate how severe the impact of range brackets alone can be on the game.
I dont even want to start with the 76 mm AT gun. Its basically a completely different gun when compared to Tank mounted versions.


The last thing are debuffs. When adding Prop doc debuffs on Tanks whose base accuracy is just 75% the prop doc ability+ Tiger debuffs can result in situations where half of all shots fired from a jacks will fail to hit the Tiger. Even when those will get a base 90% accuracy at range, the debuffs will still have a decent impact on it, but the chances to still hit something at least would be greatly better.


Another thing are accuracy stats of certain AT guns. Like why has the 17 pdr a 85% chance to hit a target even at max range, but pak 40 and 76 mm AT gun are as low as 65%. Even when mounted on Halftracks and Geschützwagen which already have worse range brackets than the normal AT version, the accuracy is simply piss poor with 65% at distant range.
That may have caused me to almost lose a game when my opponent drove his 76 sherman against perfectly placed and hidden pak 40 which failed to hit and then got subsequently killed by the Sherman. My mates had to rush help in order to close the breach as soon after more shermans arrived to exploit the leak caused by shitty accuracy stats.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 3542
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: BETA UPDATE

Post by MarKr »

It might surprise you but I understand how ranges, range brackets, penetration, damage and all that stuff works and I still think you're stretching it into a much bigger problem than it is.
Anyway, my point was that Achilles has better accuracy than most tanks and still we got this example of how shit the Achilles is because it "once missed 3x in a row" - notice how Sukin didn't say a word about damage or penetration, only "accuracy should be higher because my Achilles once missed 3 shots in a row". If we don't make all stuff 100% accurate at all ranges, we'll always have people who will keep bringing these "it once happened" scenarios as examples of how poor accuracy some units have in general.
Image

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 4535
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: BETA UPDATE

Post by Warhawks97 »

MarKr wrote:
09 Apr 2021, 15:44
It might surprise you but I understand how ranges, range brackets, penetration, damage and all that stuff works and I still think you're stretching it into a much bigger problem than it is.
Anyway, my point was that Achilles has better accuracy than most tanks and still we got this example of how shit the Achilles is because it "once missed 3x in a row" - notice how Sukin didn't say a word about damage or penetration, only "accuracy should be higher because my Achilles once missed 3 shots in a row". If we don't make all stuff 100% accurate at all ranges, we'll always have people who will keep bringing these "it once happened" scenarios as examples of how poor accuracy some units have in general.

Still, the likelihood that such BS occurs would be significantly lower.
Apparently it was no problem for you back then to change Tiger from 1/1/0.75/0.75 to 1/1/0.9/0.9 when people complained about many misses.
The same for US TDs with 76 mm guns which at least got 1/1/0.9/0.8 which definitely helped and ammounts of complains dropped. Now is the Jacks the issue. Heavy armor tanks usually get at least a second chance to fire, units like jacks do not.



On top of that, and idk if you read it, the normal 57 mm behaves a lot better than those mounted on HT´s. I usually only used the HT for mobility reasons, but now, unless i have to counter lots of enemie vehicles, i am going to stick with the AT gun because the better range brackets result in more stable results.


Regarding the 17 pdr, as you talked about it, these guns together with the 90 mm should have 0.9 and long and 0.85 at distant ranged, along with range brackets being changed to 15/30/45/60 (at least, if not better). They have all a rather long reload (like Firefly) and we should try to keep the accuracy as high as possible and that every meter you get closer increases the chances to hit the target.



I dont understand how it is so difficult to understand that the ammount of ridiculous miss shots directly correlates with the guns accuracy. Sure, misses wont disappear unless we set things to 100%, but it would at least decrease the ammount of fails.
And i am also curious why you allow it to a few units to hit literally perfectly with every shot, like Panthers, Tigers and Nashorn, while other units like Jagdpanther, Jackson or Pershings are not allowed to be as reliable as the first three i mentioned. Dont tell me now that this has balance reasons. There is no point to have sniper panthers but sloppy pershings and jagdpanthers.

Post Reply