Why isn't BK on Steam?

Talk about CoH1 or BKMOD1 in general.
User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2516
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Why isn't BK on Steam?

Postby Warhawks97 » 01 Jun 2016, 12:37

Never seen a topic that contains soo many large posts. It took me days to get through all of them (not really but you know what i mean). I also saw my name being mentioned many times causing some irritations and maybe some missunderstanding.

Yeah, i did my little homebrew BK mod where i could do whatever i want. But my goal wasnt and isnt to create a second BK mod or anything similiar. I just shared my opinions (yeah, 2000 posts or something) and suggestions. Why should i continue repeating me and floating the forum so that nobody else has a chance to write his points?

And all i could do was to discuss my ideas and theories over and over again. I wanted to see how my (hundred) ideas work together. And the best way was to create my own testing ground. And its not just changing values and stuff. My thoughts and ideas ranged from faction design, doctrine design, more fluid gameplay instead of hours long WW1 scenario with nonstop "I simply arty the entire map, every tree and square meter". I tried to make combined arms gameplay easier instead of "2 (gren squads)+1 (panther)= My offensive and defensive army" (refering to terror doc but also luft doc).

I tried to make docs more specialized by also increasing their options to deal with certain situations.

I also tried to make every unit usefull without simply dropping their costs hoping that anyone would build that unit just because its cheap enough. Here some coaxial and Hull MG tweakes already helped. Elsewehere i improved abilties and so on.


So to get that straight why i decided made my own stuff:
- I wanted to see how all my ideas work together. And i am actually very proud of my faction designs (especially PE i would say)
- To show players what i was always suggesting in theory. Yes, i took me many many many hours. I spend month with it (+ teaching myself more and more) and many testing sessions. And after that i got a few times and error and then finding the mistake (which was sometimes frustrating when i made like 20 or more changes at once and everywhere and in one of them was an error. That was fun).
- I hoped the devs would take a look at least. Often we heared in forum " we could make it but i am scared about balance... would players like it... xalibur.... too time consuming....". So i thought i could make a "testing ground" and something on which devs could base some decisions (for example how to make jeeps etc). I did spend a lot of times with adjusting every weapons efficiency against schwimms/bikes and so on. I could have choosed the "easy way" by adding simply an "increased taken damage modifier x1.3 for jeeps as they did it in the official version which then means they take more damage from every source. But one main issue was the relation of damage that each weapon deals against vehicles with tp_jeep. So i reworked the TT of every small arms weapon.
But sadly they were not interested.
- I made it for my "sense of well-being" (or how to say it in english). Since i know that i have my own little BK mod i do feel by far less the "need" to write books here in the forum. But LMAO as much time as i spend with my mod..... i did spend more time in forum with writting before.



Few things i really like in my version:

- Easier combination of weapon crews and inf. Unlike in official BK where (especially axis) build their expensive weapon crews only in the early stage before skipping into "elite unit rambo stage" (which the game forces them to i would say) and never rebuilding a weapon crew, only recrewing till ultimo.
- Pios/engis have all hold ground button. Especially for combat sappers important but also combat engineers.
- Tank IV´s have better armor system: The E and F versions with 50 mm bonce off 76 shells frequently. But it was not really fixable as they share the same tp as the J version with 80 mm armor. So i decided to give skirts to the J at default. So the tp_Tank IV is now for those Tank IV with 50 mm armor, the tp_Tank IV_skirts for those with 80 mm armor.
- The new role of jeeps and schwimms.
- Armor and infantry. Yes, tanks coaxial and hull do kill inf but it doesnt actually seem as you might think at first. Tanks have high upkeep actually and mostly there are good counters (cheap TD´s, paks etc). Inf got often cheaper, more flexible, AT squads cheaper etc. Main inf is actually quite cheap, low upkeep and versatile. Elites have other special stuff. And as i mentioned: The inf got nice and cheap support options. Also hull MG´s have limited range so they are close range defense. The Hull MG range is 40. Players get rewared when they can maneuver the tank well turning the hull to the closest enemie inf squad. Frontal rushes get punished.



I just want to clearify my intentions and showing some stuff i did. Hope i could help.

User avatar
Jagdpanther
Posts: 213
Joined: 15 Dec 2014, 03:33
Location: Romania

Re: Why isn't BK on Steam?

Postby Jagdpanther » 01 Jun 2016, 12:57

MarKr wrote:Just immagine this situation: For realism purposes, US should have pretty much unlimited income of fuel right from the start while Axis should suffer severe penalties in this field. Tiger tanks were quite often not working due to engine breakdowns rather than combat damage - I think it would be possible to make Tigers with random engine damage while moving.
Especially these two changes would be possible to make and would be in line with realism - can you immagine the shitstorm that would follow if such changes were introduced?


I dont know why i always get misunderstood when i talk about realism, here's a post i made some time ago explaining exactly what kind of realism im talking about. viewtopic.php?f=27&t=1089#p12213

So no, no unlimited fuel for US, no sky dominance for allies, no engine breakdowns for axis, no huge maps like in the RUSE game, no 1km gun ranges, etc.
Image

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 1872
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Why isn't BK on Steam?

Postby MarKr » 01 Jun 2016, 13:35

I dont know why i always get misunderstood when i talk about realism
Because the term itself can be understood in many ways...And people often argue with stuff like "SP should be removed! It is not historically accurate/realistic!" So where do you draw the line of what is still acceptable and what is not anymore from the realistic point of view? Rhetorical question - of course everyone has the line somewhere else. It simply seems that the term "realism" is for many people more like "realism where I like it" because if someone demands "realistic" penetration values of tiger, while the argument given is "In reality it was a cool gun and tank in general and some shitty Sherman would have no chance" then they simply take one outstanding feature of some unit that the unit really had in reality while completely ignoring the downsides that the same unit also had in reality. So if someone demands some realistic feature of some unit, shouldn't it be brought realistically with positives and negatives alike (ofcourse if both is achievable with the engine)?
I'm not saying this is your case right now, but more in general why there is so wide range of reactions when it comes to the "realism" argument.
Image

User avatar
Jagdpanther
Posts: 213
Joined: 15 Dec 2014, 03:33
Location: Romania

Re: Why isn't BK on Steam?

Postby Jagdpanther » 01 Jun 2016, 14:36

MarKr wrote:
I dont know why i always get misunderstood when i talk about realism
Because the term itself can be understood in many ways...And people often argue with stuff like "SP should be removed! It is not historically accurate/realistic!" So where do you draw the line of what is still acceptable and what is not anymore from the realistic point of view? Rhetorical question - of course everyone has the line somewhere else. It simply seems that the term "realism" is for many people more like "realism where I like it" because if someone demands "realistic" penetration values of tiger, while the argument given is "In reality it was a cool gun and tank in general and some shitty Sherman would have no chance" then they simply take one outstanding feature of some unit that the unit really had in reality while completely ignoring the downsides that the same unit also had in reality. So if someone demands some realistic feature of some unit, shouldn't it be brought realistically with positives and negatives alike (ofcourse if both is achievable with the engine)?
I'm not saying this is your case right now, but more in general why there is so wide range of reactions when it comes to the "realism" argument.


Im pretty sure my line of what is still acceptable and what is not anymore from the realistic point of view is pretty down to earth/reasonable.

The realistic penetrations issue i think it got a lot of attention so far. My "line" again is more towards the esthetic/visuals category and these usually dont bring huge unfixable changes that will totally screw the balance.

Again i'll post the summary of what i consider fixes for ~90% of the unrealistic things in the game WHILE STILL REMAINING A GAME, and not becoming a RTS cardboard looking simulator like RUSE.

- Visual bugs fixed. The ones that CAN be fixed of course.
- More standardized infantry meaning less of a difference between regular and elite units, by tweaking either the HP or the armor or the aiming, whatever you think would do the job.
- No more silly schreck rushes on tanks by removing the sprint ability ONLY to the inf AT crews.
- No more prototype/experimental/just 1 unit built (SP) and REPLACE THE GAP with a bit more spam of US heavies like Pershings and Jacksons (ye i know jackson is a TD, big guns able to penetrate the german heavy armor is what im referring to when i say US heavies). So you get my point? If you remove the SP then the doc will be very weak, unbalanced. Thats's why you FILL THE GAP with more pershings and jacksons or ANY OTHER change that will balance the doc.

How would "spam" tactic work with heavies? YOu would just steamroll Axis if you were able to pop out 5 Pershings faster and cheaper than they would be able to make 2 Panthers. In general "spam tactics" means "producing lots of relatively cheap and weak units - winning by numbers, not strenght" and Pershing is the strongest tank US have so it is not really fit for spamming tactics (well, this is another example where realism and gameplay clash). Also keep in mind (and not just you - this is for most people out there who compare prices) that US have Supply Depot which gives you the chance to generate resources faster than any other faction. So even if your unit X costs more than opponent's unit Y (with comparably same performance), you are able to save resources for your unit faster than than opponent for his, in turn that makes replacing loses for you easier...You have two upgrades that increase your fuel income by +5 (so you don't need to have any fuel points and still get some fuel income) and another upgrade that lowers upkeep for all tanks by 1/3 (= again, generate fuel faster).


My reply above is the solution, i dont mean OP the armor doc by spamming 5 pershings at the same cost of 2 panthers when these 2 perform similarly, of course it would break the balance. What i suggest is balance it so that the armor doc can be balanced WITHOUT the SP, my solution to that would be to make the pershings and jacksons more affordable but of course STILL BALANCED, things like supply yard will be a factor of course.

To make the story short, remove the SP and balance the doc by buffing other units like pershings or jacks OR the supply yard upgrades to give more fuel for the armor doc so you dont have to tweak the prices of tanks. You see where im going with this? I dont stress ONLY on decreasing the prices of these 2 tanks, what i mean is balance without the SP, simple as that either by decreasing the prices of heavies or the supply yard upgrades giving more than +5 fuel for armor doc or replace the SP with the pershing Ace + a few other buffs since the Ace is weaker than the SP, OR any other changes/combinations of changes that you think it would balance the doc. THE RESULT of all this is purely to remove the SP because yea...this unit takes a big chuck from the unrealism "pie chart".

- No more force retreat ability or tiger shock, these are the kind of abilities which i consider "retarded"
- A bit more diversity in the number of squad members, not only 6v6.
- No more camouflage ability for huge tanks like M10/Hellcats in the middle of the roads

This is pretty much it, do these suggestions will make the balance unfixable? I dont believe so. So we can have the best of both worlds, balance and realism.
Image

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 1872
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Why isn't BK on Steam?

Postby MarKr » 01 Jun 2016, 15:43

- Visual bugs fixed. The ones that CAN be fixed of course.
Reasonable enough.
- More standardized infantry meaning less of a difference between regular and elite units, by tweaking either the HP or the armor or the aiming, whatever you think would do the job.
Is such case, what would be Elites good at or how would then stand out over regular infantry? If you make somehow standartized HP, armor types and weapons why should a player pay 550MP for Reg5 when for the same price he would get 3 Luft Pio squads and simply win by number? Similar with US - Engineers cost 180MP iirc - if differences between infantry are not that big then, statistically speaking, you are better off spamming Engineer squads because they are cheap as hell and would not be that much worse than more epensive units. I hope you see my point. So what would be your solution?
- No more silly schreck rushes on tanks by removing the sprint ability ONLY to the inf AT crews.
I get this point and wouldn't mind it but what about other infantry squads that simply pick up AT from the ground? A 4 men squad with two Zooks cannot use sprint but if you use AB rangers with two zooks and possible RLs from 101st that is 6 men with like 4 or more ATs capable of sprinting.
- No more prototype/experimental/just 1 unit built (SP) and REPLACE THE GAP with a bit more spam of US heavies like Pershings and Jacksons (ye i know jackson is a TD, big guns able to penetrate the german heavy armor is what im referring to when i say US heavies). So you get my point? If you remove the SP then the doc will be very weak, unbalanced. Thats's why you FILL THE GAP with more pershings and jacksons or ANY OTHER change that will balance the doc.
I don't think removing it is necesarry... Allied tanks can do quite a lot IF you support them with Command car. If Pershings and Jacks get more affordable, you will build more of them and with the bonuses from CC you can kinda outgun most Axis heavies, or well, depending on what ability of CC you use...just because people often don't use CC doesn't mean it should not be taken into account.
- No more force retreat ability or tiger shock, these are the kind of abilities which i consider "retarded"
Well, your opinion...from realistic point of view they are non-sensical. From gameplay point of view they are quite handy at times. Also if it got removed, then you would need to remove it from commanding units (WH Officer, US Ranger Captain...perhaps others, don't remember now) and for Terror doc where it is present in two command abilities - one is applicable at small area and the other sector-wide...what would replace them?
- A bit more diversity in the number of squad members, not only 6v6.
Different number of soldiers in squads would require revision of units costs...Number of soldiers has direct impact on their combat performance, more men = more weapons shooting = higher chance to hit. So squads with less men in them would be in a dissadvantage. How would you make up for it?
- No more camouflage ability for huge tanks like M10/Hellcats in the middle of the roads
Reasonable.
I'm not trying to provoke you with this post, but as a dev you simply need to think about these lose ends. You need to think this way...in order to prevent shit storms later.
Image

SteamID_razelazz
Posts: 43
Joined: 30 Jan 2015, 10:01

Re: Why isn't BK on Steam?

Postby SteamID_razelazz » 01 Jun 2016, 16:06

Warhawks97 wrote:Yeah, i did my little homebrew BK mod where i could do whatever i want.


At the risk of starting some kind of BK Civil War: The War to End All Wars (and BK discussions), is there any chance you upload this version?

Unless you really do feel this will spark a civil war that splits the playerbase, in which case you should probably most definitely take your HDD to Mt. Doom and deposit it in lava to destroy the one BK that can rule them all.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2516
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Why isn't BK on Steam?

Postby Warhawks97 » 01 Jun 2016, 16:29

SteamID_razelazz wrote:
At the risk of starting some kind of BK Civil War: The War to End All Wars (and BK discussions), is there any chance you upload this version?


Thats why i didnt make it public. Up to now just mates knew about it. And Jagpanther, well, he was the first ever who asked when i will make a version. So i thought it wouldnt be fair not to contact him as soon as i would make one (in old forum i told him that i will tell him when i made my own little version).

Thing is that more or less (or at least when i was actively playing till last year) the entire "core" of the BK community are somehow mates. (Former) clans, steam mates etc. Shit, i even celebrated new years eve in Berlin with several BK players (parts of my first clan).

Idk how it looks atm but from the old BK veteran community only sukin, MG42slo, wurf (1-2 SVT guys) and designfriemel are left that i see playing frequently. I just heared that there comes "a new generation" of players. But idk if they are good currently.

I do have a google drive folder in which you can get the file (which you then put manually into the Steam Coh Blitzkrieg mod Archives folder. It actually replaces the official BK mod file. If you have a save copy of that "BKAttribArchivePatch" file (the official and my) then you can simply switch between the versions within seconds. No installation or something. Its actually just replacing one file that is responsible for unit stats, abilities, unlocks etc.

If people are interested to take a look they then can simply ask or PM me and requesting access to my drive folder. For that i just need players google email address to invite them.

Currently there are 13 players (including me) that have access to that file.

Kwok, Sukin, Redgaarden, shadowichigo, Nami, Agent Dunham, Jagdpanther, Tiger, Bff, erich (Barnes?) and some guys of which i forgot their steam names. Two others also received (an older version of my version) via email.

Unless you really do feel this will spark a civil war that splits the playerbase, in which case you should probably most definitely take your HDD to Mt. Doom and deposit it in lava to destroy the one BK that can rule them all.


The risk is there. But atm i didnt hear about an active playing group that is playing my version. The players i listed here stopped playing BK anyways. Shadow for instance wasnt playing within the past month. Idk if he stopped because i stopped. Same with some others of which i am afraid that they stopped because i stopped and refused invites (and thus few games couldnt take place due to "missing last player" as it is not seldom that the last player is the hardest one to get as the last one must "fit in perfectly in the teambalance" and as many dont want to have a single "noob or newbie" in their teams. Even randoms are often not welcomed).


Anyway, if you are interested to take a look just pm me your gmail address.


But be aware if you (want to) test my version: Balance was not my largest concern. It was not even the reason i started with it as i think the balance isnt bad, maybe even the best ever in BK history. It was more the faction and doctrine design and (the behaviour of) certain units that bothered me.
The balance in fact is even more asymetrical i would say and simply much harder to achive. All units are usefull at any stage of the game. Its not: weapon crew stage-> vehicle stage-> arty/tank stage-> heavy tank stage while inf remains always as the "super core" with their "everything annihilating" weapon equipment as it feels to be that way soo often as i see it still (watching afterall player streams).

So my at least 220 changes mainly focused on gameplay changes, not on balance which simply cant be provided. Besides that its even more asymetrical. If i take the armor doc for example i could describe it as "ultimate" doctrine but also as usless. Its a doc that has the power to steamrole everything, but not if you have no fuel as it is largely based on that. Just to make a sample.


But still i wasnt able to make everything the way i want. The in game reward unit list is a bit "fucked up" and still have the SP as i am not skilled enough to create new doc abilties with icons. I might have been able if i would have spend the last three months with many hours a day in corsix etc as well but within the last two months i didnt change much on it as i was largely done. Last few days i made some minor changes but that was all.

So yeah, take a look if you want. But to see every change working you would have to spend a few hours (best in private pvp with mates) in game.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3200
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Why isn't BK on Steam?

Postby Tiger1996 » 01 Jun 2016, 16:50

Regarding HE shells;
MarKr wrote:The ability would target specific unit (similarly to ALRS of Tigers), which would almost certainly improve the accuracy of the shot, the only down side would be that you would be no longer able to simply shoot with the ability to a place where you suspect a camoed unit...but still I believe the pros outhweigh the cons in this.

Similar to ALRS??!! Did u mean.. similar to HEAT rounds? That would have been a better example I think!
As that this idea was mainly introduced by Seha.. here:-
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1068&p=12037#p12037
But he speaked about it only for the JT. While he said that he surely prefers timed HE system for the rest of tanks... Of which I also do.
So; if u r going to change them.. then just consider converting all of them to timed ones.
Like the 76 Jumbo!

Anyway, I can see this topic is going to a completely different direction than it should.. as u r actually discussing balance right now! While this topic is mainly about Steam greenlight as well as the future of BK on the other hand... So guys, could u plz go back to discussing this point?? I would like to know where or how exactly I would be investing the money I have for the sake of BK when I am hopefully back soon.
There has to be a clear decision whether if we will greenlight or not...

I would say that balance currently is fine.. plz concentrate only on fixing bugs and releasing new maps. Balance should be a lower priority from now on!

User avatar
Jagdpanther
Posts: 213
Joined: 15 Dec 2014, 03:33
Location: Romania

Re: Why isn't BK on Steam?

Postby Jagdpanther » 01 Jun 2016, 18:05

- More standardized infantry meaning less of a difference between regular and elite units, by tweaking either the HP or the armor or the aiming, whatever you think would do the job.
Is such case, what would be Elites good at or how would then stand out over regular infantry? If you make somehow standartized HP, armor types and weapons why should a player pay 550MP for Reg5 when for the same price he would get 3 Luft Pio squads and simply win by number? Similar with US - Engineers cost 180MP iirc - if differences between infantry are not that big then, statistically speaking, you are better off spamming Engineer squads because they are cheap as hell and would not be that much worse than more epensive units. I hope you see my point. So what would be your solution?


Not ALL of these categories (HP, armor and weapons) standardized. Of course there would be no difference between units and a spam fest of cheap inf will result.

I dont really know the difference between HP and armor so I'll tell you my solution without these technical words so i dont make any mistakes simply by not knowing what they mean.

1. All infantry should die as fast when in open ground or while moving because they all have something in common, they are all humans.

The defensive upgrade for the Fj5 should be applied only as you said while not moving (viewtopic.php?f=27&t=1089&p=12208#p12207) but ALSO when in cover, it doesnt makes sense to "die harder" just because they dont move. What it would make sense is they would die harder in cover because thru this def upgrade they "learned" how to use cover better. Same for the SAS which also have the offensive bonus, i think that upgrade should be removed entirely and be replaced with smth else. (when smth better is found of course, ATM i have no ideas)

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1111
"I have situation where 3 squads of infiltration rangers (thompsons) under light cower were killed by one charging to close range flashminjagers team."

THIS is what im trying to get rid of, no matter how better trained they are, no matter how much experience/veterancy they have, no matter how much better weapons they have, no unit should be able to wipe 3 squads (18 men) by charging in open ground while the 18 men were in cover. Even 3 engineers squads should win against 1 FJ5 charging in open ground if engineers are in cover.

So i guess its not such a big issue as i tought, only FJ5 and SAS have this unrealistic boosts.

2. Also im not sure if this is true, im not a modder but i suspect with veterancy inf also gains better armor stats, the same thing like the def for the FJ5 and SAS. Again in open ground no amount of veterancy should make infantry harder to kill. This is what i mean by standardized infantry.

This is the summary
- no defensive/harder to be killed bonus for ANY unit in open ground or while moving no matter regular or elite. In open ground/no cover or while moving numbers should count not veterancy/experience/weapons (3 engineers vs 1 FJ5 example), if engies are in cover they should win against FJ5.

You asked what would be the diff between elite and regular, well elite have better weapons and aiming (because of better training) by default plus better abilities like incendiary grenades or bundle grenades also more abilities not just better. Veterancy should only increase their aiming and be less "killable" but ONLY in cover and not give them kevlar armor upgrades.

This is pretty much what i think when i say standardized infantry so there is a benefit for elites over regular.

3. About pioneers/engineers being so squashy well i can live with that, i researched a bit about them and they were used mostly as "construction" units so i guess they are fairly represented ATM.

- No more silly schreck rushes on tanks by removing the sprint ability ONLY to the inf AT crews.
I get this point and wouldn't mind it but what about other infantry squads that simply pick up AT from the ground? A 4 men squad with two Zooks cannot use sprint but if you use AB rangers with two zooks and possible RLs from 101st that is 6 men with like 4 or more ATs capable of sprinting.


"possible" there's my answer. It will happen yea but it wont happen as spammy as it happens with the inf AT crews so if we cant eliminate then minimize is good enough.

- No more prototype/experimental/just 1 unit built (SP) and REPLACE THE GAP with a bit more spam of US heavies like Pershings and Jacksons (ye i know jackson is a TD, big guns able to penetrate the german heavy armor is what im referring to when i say US heavies). So you get my point? If you remove the SP then the doc will be very weak, unbalanced. Thats's why you FILL THE GAP with more pershings and jacksons or ANY OTHER change that will balance the doc.
I don't think removing it is necesarry... Allied tanks can do quite a lot IF you support them with Command car. If Pershings and Jacks get more affordable, you will build more of them and with the bonuses from CC you can kinda outgun most Axis heavies, or well, depending on what ability of CC you use...just because people often don't use CC doesn't mean it should not be taken into account.


Again, tweak the price/CC/supply yard/CP so the doc will be balanced and not outgun Axis heavies. You can use armor eficiently i agree if you have the skills to make the best unit/CC/supply yard upgrade cocktail but thats not the case in most games, most people rely in late game on the SP, ONE heavy tank and that's because its easier to focus on one tank than on multiple TDs/pershings plus CC. So this pretty much nullifies the "spam" doctrine of the allies, "few but heavy" tanks was the axis doctrine not the allies one so this would be the reason to remove the SP so people will use the armor doc the way allies realistically used their armor: "spam". Plus again, diversity, ATM with armor usually if the players are similarly skilled to make a balanced match the game will ultimately end up in Kraken vs Kraken (SP vs KT/Elefant/JP). And its even more "upside down", while allies should have more tanks but less powerful and axis less tanks but more powerful, most matches played with armor doc end up in AXIS HAVING MORE TANKS than allies since as i said most people choose to use the SP strategy since its easier to use and not the TDs/pershings + CC + supply yard upgrades + skill strategy.

- No more force retreat ability or tiger shock, these are the kind of abilities which i consider "retarded"
Well, your opinion...from realistic point of view they are non-sensical. From gameplay point of view they are quite handy at times. Also if it got removed, then you would need to remove it from commanding units (WH Officer, US Ranger Captain...perhaps others, don't remember now) and for Terror doc where it is present in two command abilities - one is applicable at small area and the other sector-wide...what would replace them?


For commanding units like WH Officer and US Ranger Captain you just remove them, dont need to be replaced with smth. About the 2 command abilities in terror, well until we figure out what to replace them with just remove them at least from the WH Officer and US Ranger Captain, again minimize is better than nothing if replace is not an option ATM.

- A bit more diversity in the number of squad members, not only 6v6.
Different number of soldiers in squads would require revision of units costs...Number of soldiers has direct impact on their combat performance, more men = more weapons shooting = higher chance to hit. So squads with less men in them would be in a dissadvantage. How would you make up for it?


Less men = less cost. At least for PE, make the panzer grenadiers 5 men squads and reduce their price accordingly. This change is not necessarily for balance but simply for diversity/realism, it would "look cooler" :D to see more diversified squads not just 6v6.
Image

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2516
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Why isn't BK on Steam?

Postby Warhawks97 » 01 Jun 2016, 18:36

@markr. This is what i mean. Endless discussions in theory like here:

Different number of soldiers in squads would require revision of units costs...Number of soldiers has direct impact on their combat performance, more men = more weapons shooting = higher chance to hit. So squads with less men in them would be in a dissadvantage. How would you make up for it?


Give me your gmail address, get my file and play arround/test.

Yes, less men=less cost etc. But the good thing is you can maintain elite soliders (not rambos though) without "skyrocketing" their build cost. So you can for example create a 4-5 men squad that has good weapon stats and abilties but its cost is not so super high that players wont really get anything else (like support weapon crews etc) which then results in "forced to behave like rambo".

And then elites can be afterall be used effectively. Simply as they are divided into more squads instead standard size squads = super high cost= simply overrunning everything.


So pls, grab my file, check arround. Some things might be really interesting like the hold position button on pios (even RE sappers which have already quite many abilties). Thats something many players do complain about, especially as suppressed units tend to leave their cover and being shred then.


Or things like "rangers only in inf doc and in return more capable fighting unit". You might see how it would work out.
Really. The past posts is the reason why i stopped discussing and started to do something instead. Every change or suggestion (doesnt matter how large) has billions of posts with even more "but....what if...". Sure such things need to be questioned but not a billion times and at the end nobody is ever going to see how it would (have) work(ed) out in practice. And thats actually really sad.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 1872
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Why isn't BK on Steam?

Postby MarKr » 01 Jun 2016, 20:20

@ Hawks: I wrote you a PM

@ JP: We really dragged this Offtopic. If you wish to continue discussing it, you are free to write me a PM or start a separate topic.

So back to the track: BK on Steam.

We still need the info, if anyone is interested in helping, read at the first page what we need and try to get the info, it would be a great help. Thanks.
Image

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3200
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Why isn't BK on Steam?

Postby Tiger1996 » 04 Jun 2016, 17:05

Well, so just completely forget about the greenlight thing!
There is no need for it at all, BK is famous enough. If u notice; we are getting a newly registered user to the forum up here almost every week as minimum ratio btw!
And as mentioned before, BK is more or less already existing on Steam.
I mean that yet at least, BK currently isn't totally absent on Steam anyhow...

As I have personally just had my final decision. I have already started my initial arrangements for the tournament so far...
Not insane; but I believe around 40 or perhaps even 50 Dollars will be more likely invested in total as winning prizes for the hardcore community players through this tournament.
However, just keep in mind guys that after all we r playing only for fun!
There will be YT videos too.

Literally everyone is welcome to join.
2vs2 tournament for both Afrika and BK!

Later I will come up in a seperated topic with much more details for sure.
However that until then, I still need to contact the devs further, as well as yet to keep in touch with some certain individuals when I am back.

Just very confidently...
Rest assured!

User avatar
Jagdpanther
Posts: 213
Joined: 15 Dec 2014, 03:33
Location: Romania

Re: Why isn't BK on Steam?

Postby Jagdpanther » 04 Jun 2016, 18:02

It seems you were the biggest supporter of Greenlight and now you're backing away. I'm still in support of it but i think it will be ready after the next patch, hopefully all visual bugs will be fixed (most of the high priority ones like Panther mg bug, KT turret bug and Nebel graphical bug confirmed to be fixed by Marks), even better balance (Reg5 are OP ATM and again confirmed fix by Marks), new maps, maybe new skins. We can name that 5.0 and i think we are ready to green up. I will try to get some steam info but i'm currently under a very serious health condition (planned surgery) and for a month at least i cant do anything.
Image

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3200
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Why isn't BK on Steam?

Postby Tiger1996 » 04 Jun 2016, 18:37

We have all heard about this from MarKr, that there is more likely going to be a new patch at some point.. which is a good thing so far... Even though I am not really pushing for any patches at this time!

However, I believe that this upcoming patch won't release anytime soon. As I also think that it won't change much since that currently in my opinion most of the things are pretty fine anyway! From my side, I am not really waiting a new patch at all. My biggest concern is new maps. Therefore until then; I will be clearly arranging a tournament as said.. no matters what... But I hope they will release the new mappack meanwhile before we get to start with the tournament hopefully! Keep in mind that such a thing was mainly planned for 495. I am really unsure why the new maps could be ever delayed for as soon as the next patch is out!!

After all, no worries mate.. I don't like to make u upset or anything... It would be still great if someone collects more info.. as I believe that yet I will be still able to support with the fee in order to greenlight whenever they decide this in the future.
Wish u speed recovery :)

camo_steve
Posts: 1
Joined: 25 Jun 2016, 21:21

Re: Why isn't BK on Steam?

Postby camo_steve » 25 Jun 2016, 21:50

Why would the BK team waste a large amount of time on something if it will have no significant long term impact? I assume that is the reason why its not on steam.


Return to “General - CoH1 / BKMOD1”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests