First large scale pvp experience of the latest versions (5.1.3)

Talk about CoH1 or BKMOD1 in general.
User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2985
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

First large scale pvp experience of the latest versions (5.1.3)

Postby Warhawks97 » 15 Dec 2017, 15:39

As many of my old mates came back to BK mod the past week since they have left in 2014/15, we managed to play up to 8 games in a row last evening/night. 2 vs 2´s, 3 vs 3´s, 4 vs 4 with randoms, against each other and each other with randoms in each team.

This is some sort of conclusions following the many games we played and our/my impressions.

At first, huge thx to the devs and all the nice changes they did so far. However, not all of my mates liked them as much as i do it. One of them for example loves to play with infantry and he got annyoed a bit buy hendheld AT weapons behaviour. But he never really learned to build more buildings than those were you get infantry and weapon crews.

Ok. I am listing down points that i think are great/not great and things that happen.

The played maps were goodwood revised, graves bridges, road to caen, Valkensward and another of the new 2 vs 2 maps. And road to cherbourgh revised, la fiere revised.


1. Who guessed, yes, the tank IV and sherman thing. In all games i easily managed to throw many tank IV´s (J) on my enemies. Sometimes three at once. In average, i lost i think 5 tank IV´s in a game but i always had a new one up when the first died (when i wanted). The only hard counter to that was RE doc with churchills and 57 mm/17 pdr´s. The US literally always got overruned by them. They didnt entirely finish the enemie, but they always almost did and threw the enemies far back, no matter how many Bazooka inf they threw at me. I didnt even use spotters in many occassions and just pushed forward.

Also, M10 wolverine ambush never killed any tank IV outright. The first shot always went through my tank IV, but never killed it. After that the second shot bounced always or my tank IV shot, failed, M10 shot second time and bounced and had to retreat at first.

I also had a couple of encounters to 76 shermans and they never managed to kill a tank IV. When i made the first shot, it was sure i will win, even when the second bounced off from 76 sherman. When the 76 oppened fire first and bounced, the Tank IV also won under gurantee. On top of that, ive oneshoted several 76 shermans. When i used AP on my tank IV, i also killed them outright or left them badly crippled. When the sherman opened fire and penetrated first shot, i still managed somehow to be the winner of the battle.
Basically, i lost Tank IV J´s only to M10/M18 and Pershing. Any other US tank failed badly.


2. The Light starting vehicles, and esspecially the jeep, seem to be more powerfull and durable than ever before. The jeep down at half HP was attacked by my full HP schwimm. Still, the jeep managed to almost kill my schwimm which had to retreat. Idk what you did, but that is again some sort of "light starting tank" rather than reconassaince vehicle.

2.1 The schwimm was my most successfull mid game unit which destroyed defenses, no tank could do. The enemie had a ranger squad with lmg, two sniper, recon and a M10. I rushed in my schwimm, killed recon and both snipers. The rangers did not much and were distracted a bit by my incoming volks. The M10 failed all the time to hit the schwimm which escaped saftey after that rush with little HP left (vet 2).
What i wanted to say is, that extensive schwimmwagen production and aggressive use can completely interrup enemies gameplay and standing light arms so well, that you can easily hunt the snipers. The real and more or less only counters to that is to always have M16/M15A1 or light AT gun arround. Since brits usually have recce and boys up, they struggle less (but they also use less often recons and snipers so it doesnt matter).

3. The Rifle squads feel very different. They really shoot faster which is great to have it working as a semi rifle. However, they didnt really kill much. Once, an angry rifle squad got my volks in a bad position. I just heard all the shots. Still, my four volks quite easily managed to increase the distance and to take cover to fight back.
The rifle nade also did little. Idk how many times i was under attack by those. But in all games i lost exactly one Volks soldier to it and a Puma light vehicle was damaged. I am not sure if we really improved them with the rifle nade changes and that they cant take any further weapon.

4. The aim time of the AT guns is just awesome. I mean, i saw vehicles i never saw before. And vehicles largely increased the dynamic. Sometimes, when i created havoc behind enemie lines with 20 mm puma (killing inf, halftracks etc), a british daimler did the same behind our lines. It was an extremly forth and back. Lots of fun. And thats over 30 mins long. Mines now also have a very good use in order to prevent this. Also anti vehicles vehicle such as 50 mm puma or halftracks with anti vehicle guns have found a good use now. I really saw them in use now. The first time ever, such as PE 75 mm halftrack.

5. The stuart. I saw a few in game but meh...A very slight cost decrease could perhaps really help this vehicle. Wheeled vehicles like greyhound, Staghound and sdkfz 234 doing much better for same or cheaper cost. They also have sometimes more firepower (better gun) or top mounted weapons.

6. Boys AT. Its still a weird unit. At the one hand, i managed to attack them with Puma directly and winning the fight with few HP left.
But also their damage in a hit is huge. I would still love them more with less damage per hit but with increased rate of fire when vehicles close in. When i killed them with puma, i drove right in front of them to bring my 20 mm to maximum efficiency.

7. Idk what you did to AA guns, but it feels very good. Planes get shot down but also not all. Double Ostwind was still a powerfull defense, but not a gurantee. Bofors and AA tanks could also not always prevent henshel and stuka attacks. Thumbs up here.

8. The comet is great. In a game (were i sadly crashed out as my inet was gone for 5 minutes) this unit entirely changed the course of the battle and caused us to lose the battle.
The Comet is i would say the best counter to axis Tank IV J spam, as it did there. The reason is simple: You get enough of them and the mobility is good enough to be right where its needed. I tried to break with tank IV´s anywhere on the map. So comets were the only tank quick enough and powerfull enough to meet and destroy them effectively. Shermans lacked firepower and the Pershing couldnt be everywhere quick enough were i launched a tank IV/Puma attack.
So, massive thumbs up here as well.

9. RE emplacement crew. In one game, i tried to overcome a 17 pdr and bofors enplacement. I fired smoke on them first and then attacked with volks and storms. Using assault ability and schreck. The 17 pdr pit ate 5 nades and crew wasnt dead. The Bofors ate two or three (one storm, one or two volks nades) but with the same result. That was a decisive blow to us. I expanded all ammo i had (over 100) with no effect. Thus i didnt get the fuel point i wanted to get and couldnt capture the bofros gun and 17 pdr. If it would have worked, the victory would have been ours.

10. The churchills have bounced extremly many schrecks. In fact, Gebirgs and Volks were the only scoring inf squads so far. Regiment 5 and AT squad couldnt destroy an exposed 95 mm churchill despite repeated shots. Maybe just very bad luck. idk.

11. The 50 mm AT gun is the best AT gun in the game. It combines good cost, short aim time, very good fire power, reload speed, powerfull abilitie(s), and mobility. Also good accuracy against tanks and vehicles. Light AT kills vehicles, but no tanks, Heavy kills tanks but is vulnerable to vehicles (accuracy and aim time). Technically, the 50 mm has no negative attributes so far. Its afterall capable to knock out even the heaviest due to the rocket shot ability. On top of that, medium AT guns have the highest accuracy against enemie AT guns. So i managed to use them as aggressive tank support in the offense. It has the speed to follow the movments, destroys enemie AT guns (what i did a few times) and prevents most flanking attempts or closing in attempts by allied tanks.

12. The cooldown for ammo switch on Perma HE tanks is too high. Its what? over 1 min? I am not expecting to change all 10 seconds.... but also not to wait 1-2 mins. I countered a vehicle attack with my Ostwind using AP. After that nothing came and for an endless time i couldnt get back into anti air mode. Arround 30 seconds would be largely enough. During attack our defensive gameplay, it would prevent you from destryoing combined enemie arms alone. But That i am standing there long after the enemie attack has ended is just.... I mean 2 mins later you might orchestrate your own attack at the other end of the map and you ostwind is still standing there and maybe forgottten to be put back into AA mode.

13. Get rid of that "Hit and run ability" on Achilles and wolverine. srsly.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3790
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: First large scale pvp experience of the latest versions (5.1.3)

Postby Tiger1996 » 15 Dec 2017, 16:10

Nice feedback.

1) Pz4.J shouldn't be too cheap (already said that I personally never agreed to reduce its price further after mass production in Blitz doc, I also just mentioned this on my most recent post in the 5.1.3 patch topic) and I actually think Pz4.J should cost same as the one in Tank Hunter doctrine before the mass production unlock. So, you would pay 3 CPs to unlock Pz4.J for 550 MP/60 Fuel and after 2 more CP for mass production, u would have it for 410 MP/45 Fuel again.

However, reload time of 76 Shermans can't go down in my opinion.. otherwise u would be able to easily overrun Tiger1 tanks.. because three 76 Shermans are enough to kill Tiger1 frontally, while on the other hand 3 Panzer4.H would do nothing against a Pershing. Although the Pz4.H is more expensive than the 76 Shermans (basic cost) and also despite that the Pershing is less expensive than the Tiger tank!

2) Nothing is wrong with Jeep or Schwimwagen, I think.

3) Rifle-nades are now fine to me, so does Riflemen Squads too.

4) Also feel the same about the current aim time of AT guns, I like it too.

5) Stuart should maybe have more range with HE rounds.. same as Tetrarch.

6) Boys are fine too.

7) Yes, I also like how AA generally behave now.

8) Glad you like the new Comet same as I do ;)

9) The crew of the 17pdr empalcements are very weird, yes.. I can remember once they didn't even die after 3 bundle grenades, that's 150 ammo already.. but meh.

10) Churhcills are more or less fine to me.

11) Axis 50mm AT gun, well.. maybe the 100 ammo rocket ability should be removed from this AT gun (PE one don't have it anyway) and in return the ability could be given to the Blitz doc 37mm half-track, which is available to only 1 doctrine... PE have it for the 37mm half-track too which are available to all PE docs, so it should be fine.

12) Huge cool-down time on HE rounds because you don't pay anything to switch! I think it's ok.

13) Yes, I would say either remove hit and run tactics from Achilles or HE rounds... M10 Wolverine can keep the hit and run tactics ability though!
Also, limit Achilles to 3 or 2 only.. and Comets should be unlimited.

Tor
Posts: 192
Joined: 24 Feb 2015, 22:19
Location: Saint-Peterburg

Re: First large scale pvp experience of the latest versions (5.1.3)

Postby Tor » 15 Dec 2017, 19:33

Deleting 50mm rocket ability its a huge gamechanger.
How counter 2vs2 Tank doc+AIR doc without rocket ability?
SP+75 HE Sherman+command car you can have at the 30-35th minute, unstopable combo, 1 sherman enough to stop everything with legs, SP bad only vs KT and JT.
Always need rush 8.8? and wait miracle with grile? its a long story.
KT don't work, its die after first air strike, and KT comes litle later, JT good yes.
And this mean DEF+TH or Luft+TH always than you see double USA?!
I have game there i kill 3 wilberwind one by one with 1 usa air patrol in martainvile map, i think most times luftwaffe air patrol not fly out from behind the map if enemy put 3 Quad 50 in same line.
Much better if you just rise cost, even 150-200 okay, but deleting, just move your 2 tanks and GG witout fear.
Even jagdpanther bad, 2vs2 maps not so big, just add recon to SP, Sherman and command car combo.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3790
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: First large scale pvp experience of the latest versions (5.1.3)

Postby Tiger1996 » 16 Dec 2017, 20:40

Hmm, not really.
I mean, the 50mm pak of PE doesn't have such an ability.. yet it is just fine! Remember that 50mm pak is after all a very cheap unit.. also, both 6pdr and 57mm AT guns don't have such a deadly tool on the other hand.

Keep in mind as well.. that according to my suggestion, the ability would be given to the WH 37mm half-track just like PE 37mm half-track too, and the ability is working well with the PE half-track. So it should very useful too with the WH 37mm half-track in Blitz doc... Other doctrines such as Terror and Defensive already have way much more effective ways to deal with SP so it will not be a problem at all if they would not have access to such ability anymore...

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 432
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: First large scale pvp experience of the latest versions (5.1.3)

Postby Jalis » 17 Dec 2017, 19:28

-Point 1 both for warhawk and Tiger1996.

It is obvious Sherman, at least the M4a3 76 is not what it would ; for historical reason, if bk still want claim to be realistic, and because it is the high end true tank for 2 of 3 USA faction. It cant stand in front of a panther and there is no problem with that, but in front of a PIV, even a H. Be serious.

Now Bk had be coded like that, understand tainted with nationalism. So I go to Tiger1996 who reduced its defence line to the balance (claim that BK was unbiased toward axis and realistic was anyway undefendable). If we understand Tiger1996 point of view ; to not change anything because at this time balance is good at pvp, and on the other hand Markr who thing If we start a to up something it will be a domino effect, there is little margin.


reload prb with Sherman. If Sherman reload time cant go down, can PIV reload time go up ?

I m usually not too inclined to such details since my relation with bk is paradoxal.

One of the main allies problem at bk is target table, but also penetration which had been systematically used to nerf US guns. If first mistake was from relic with the 90 mm, it had been apply to bk for the 76 mm too. For what I know target table and penetration had been calculated from tariff data. (perhaps Warhawk remember it I gave the link, now broken some years ago).
However for US, and iirc also the uk 6pdr, ammo shell chose was systematically the worst possible, and not the usual ammo used in 1944. For the UK 6 pdr iirc the calculation was made from a plain ap shell no more in production after november 1942.

Roughly that means penetration by range for the US 76 mm wouldnt be, based on M62 shell ; 1 / 0.91 / 0.8 /0.7 and not 1/ 0.84 / 0.67 /0.54
That means value rather close form the german ones. Point the same is true for the m3 90 mm who suffer weird penetration value on range.

- Point 11 the mighty pak 38. A gun who wasnt able to do the job against 1941 tank, the earliest T34, and suddenly at bk become a wunderwaffe in 1944 with only change ... it wouldnt had anymore PZGR 40 because production of such shells halted in july 1942 upon Adolf Hitler direct order. It was to save precious wolfram.
Here my experience after I get this gun its real value. It is a dilemna as german ; what to do when you feel medium tank are incoming ; the pak 38 available asap but unreliable ? a marder (or similar pakwagen) reliable against Sherman, but more vulnerable more costly and more difficult to camo ? a pak 40 reliable but horriblly slow.

It is simple, the cheated Pak 38 is imo a shame for any players, because it imply no strategic nor tactical choice. What is the game interrest when you have a thing cumulating only advantages ?

- Christmas gift ; anti tank grenade / bombs ; PE vs US.

tiger1996 can you look at PE AT grenade, Range, cost to unlock and use and damage, then compare it to the sticky bomb ?

Then look how it was at Vcoh. After that I spare you to give any feelback. I think you are enough smart to know the true, and deny bk is biased in only in fear this argumentation be used to change a game who fit you at this time.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3790
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: First large scale pvp experience of the latest versions (5.1.3)

Postby Tiger1996 » 17 Dec 2017, 23:55

Jalis wrote:reload prb with Sherman. If Sherman reload time cant go down, can PIV reload time go up ?

I think yes.. at least balance wise. However... the basic price for Pz4.H and Pz4.j will no longer have to be more expensive than Shermans, so the basic cost of Pz4.H for example would be reduced from 80 fuel to about 55 fuel. And eventually it would be cheaper after mass production too.

Nonetheless, I already suggested something better...
Given the fact that currently Pz.4.J in Blitz doc cost 410 MP / 45 Fuel and then only about 350 MP / 35 Fuel after mass production, as it was made too cheap like this on version 5.0.0 not too long ago.. and I never really liked this change.

So, I suggested above that the cost of Pz4.J should be as expensive as in TH doctrine, becoming about 500 MP / 60 fuel and then once again 410 MP / 45 Fuel after mass production...
This will be better than tweaking reload time in my opinion, I mean that tweaking the price of Panzer4 would be fair enough.

Jalis wrote:tiger1996 can you look at PE AT grenade, Range, cost to unlock and use and damage, then compare it to the sticky bomb ?

No, i don't need to.. because sticky bombs are available for many more US infantry units. ALL Airborne squads as well as Rangers and also, Riflemen (they can cost only 175 MP on inf doctrine and Rangers can only cost 315 MP in same doc) while the PE AT grenade is on the other hand more limited and available to more expensive infantry units, which are much more difficult to spam.

Regarding the Pak38, based on gameplay experience... I say that it's not as deadly as you think.. a single Sherman can still easily overrun the 50mm Pak without any problems. The only OP thing about this gun, is the 100 ammo rocket ability for WH, which I have already suggested that it should be removed.
=================
Now, and after first responding all your important points. I then have to react the following off-topic points, so please listen to me carefully...

Jalis wrote:I m usually not too inclined to such details since my relation with bk is paradoxal.

Excuse me then, but if you are not too inclined, and if you don't play PvP anyways.. then why do you bother coming here at all? This topic is obviously aimed at the PvP community as we generally discuss here about the game balance in terms of PvP gameplay, which means that you should actually have no interest on such a topic in the first place.. in fact, just to say this, perhaps as an exaggratted example though.. but really; even if we convince the devs to make the King Tiger being as fast as the jeep for PvP balance concerns, then this should still not bother you at all.

Therefore, with that being said...
Jalis wrote:Now Bk had be coded like that, understand tainted with nationalism. So I go to Tiger1996 who reduced its defence line to the balance (claim that BK was unbiased toward axis and realistic was anyway undefendable). If we understand Tiger1996 point of view ; to not change anything because at this time balance is good at pvp, and on the other hand Markr who thing If we start a to up something it will be a domino effect, there is little margin.

Then I have to ask you to please stop bothering us with your anti-Nazi stuff, specifically as long as you don't care about PvP in the first place.. because no body here cares if Bk was biased or not... Since it's just a game after all. If you still choose to ignore this fact.. then I am sorry sir, but I can't help you. Currently i can tell you however, that the game is fairly balanced for both sides in terms of PvP with just a very few bugs or flaws that are still to be fixed or tweaked on both sides. And as always, balance comes first.. but at the same time realism is often not completely ignored for sure, at least as much as possible.. so realism comes 2nd.

Thanks for reading...

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 432
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: First large scale pvp experience of the latest versions (5.1.3)

Postby Jalis » 18 Dec 2017, 00:47

First you have not the power nor the right to say me what I can say, Why I say it and where I can say it.

And What, It is you who say me in an other post, Warhawk opend this one If I had something to say. :roll:

Warhawk* , then you succeeded to turn bk in a pvp mod, just by constant presence and lobbying, so I can speak when I want to defend an other idea. If protesting on cheating / distortion undergrounded with nationalism, bother you, it is your problem, but it will not make me silent. Probably even the inverse.

* not a reproach ; he have a passion, defended it and won.

Nationalism is not nazism ; Nasser was an arab nationalist, if I follow your idea he was a nazi ?

Sticky bomb vs at grenade is blatant cheat, Damage were equal at vcoh, It turn in 1 to 2.5 at vcoh. Even the basic unit you have at start have it.
Rarity is senseless argument, will a king tiger being cheaper because it is rare, or owned by a single faction ? + grenade are not free to use.

If US infantry is cheaper than PE one, it is simply because it is a strongest infantry ; That means PE infantry have more change to survive approaching an ennmey tank than a US infantry. (not to say US have to get much more close to launch a sticky).

Balance it usually same cost same effect.

... just like that, is possible you were aware for sticky bombs vs at grenade and you said nothing ?

When I say I m not too inclined to such things, It means I not inclined to give direct hints path to help. It dont means I m not inclined to give my opinion.

However I will suggest something ; instead to systematically down US units when it is obviously they have been unfairly coded, Raise the price and give them value it deserve. M4a3 with churchill armour for exemple ;)

Aside that For pvp balance I trust you. I m not concerned anyway, and my wish is not to broke, nor to give an advantage to a faction or an other.

Seeing bullshit such as PIV E with better armour that a crowmell for no reason at all is an other matter.

It seems lot of people at bk forum on steam are not aware it is a pvp only, and like you say all none pvp players bother the TRUE BK COMMUNITY. Perhaps is ti time you say all these guys the mod is not for them and they can go to EAW instead. And dont dodge this last one.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3790
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: First large scale pvp experience of the latest versions (5.1.3)

Postby Tiger1996 » 18 Dec 2017, 01:49

Jalis wrote:First you have not the power nor the right to say me what I can say, Why I say it and where I can say it.

And What, It is you who say me in an other post, Warhawk opend this one If I had something to say. :roll:

Warhawk* , then you succeeded to turn bk in a pvp mod, just by constant presence and lobbying, so I can speak when I want to defend an other idea. If protesting on cheating / distortion undergrounded with nationalism, bother you, it is your problem, but it will not make me silent. Probably even the inverse.

I never managed to tell you about what or where you should say or not say.. but you said that you are not too inclined to pvp and actually you even just said it again:
Jalis wrote:Aside that For pvp balance I trust you. I m not concerned anyway, and my wish is not to broke, nor to give an advantage to a faction or an other.

And as a result I asked you in my previous post saying "why should you bother coming here at all then?" As I have not even tried to suppress your will to speak or say your opinion anyhow.

And it's true that I told you before that u may come here to this topic to discuss the other subjects, but i also said that only IF you are interested in PvP talk, which you say yourself that you are not interested in...

Most importantly though, there are some forum guidelines here that I can't break, neither you or anybody else could... However, despite you already aware about this, yet.. u still keep talking about how u think this mod was originally about nationalism, Nazism or whatever agenda. Not just that, but you also went further off-topic with this particular statement...
Jalis wrote:Nationalism is not nazism ; Nasser was an arab nationalist, if I follow your idea he was a nazi ?

It is true I do not have the power to moderate this, but I "could" now call those who have the power to do so.

Jalis wrote:when I say I m not too inclined to such things, It means I not inclined to give direct hints path to help. It dont means I m not inclined to give my opinion.

So, you are of course free to talk and tell your opinion about the game.. but not free to go off-topic and speak about the Mod's agenda or whatnot.

Jalis wrote:Seeing bullshit such as PIV E with better armour that a crowmell for no reason at all is an other matter.

Really man??
Sir, you never knew that the Cromwell is MUCH faster and also has flank speed ability or what??!! This doesn't seem like a valid reason to you at all?? Hell, this is why I say that you can't judge any balance concerns unless you have some PvP experience otherwise you would only tell nothing but mostly nonsense.
And this already makes me actually not willing to respond any of your rest balance points anymore... Since they are not any different from this one, sorry.

Jalis wrote:It seems lot of people at bk forum on steam are not aware it is a pvp only, and like you say all none pvp players bother the TRUE BK COMMUNITY. Perhaps is ti time you say all these guys the mod is not for them and they can go to EAW instead. And dont dodge this last one.

Yes, ever since Wolf took the lead.. and BK Mod is no longer supporting PvE community. The devs also said it a hundred times, now Bk Mod is for PvP and only for this.

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 432
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: First large scale pvp experience of the latest versions (5.1.3)

Postby Jalis » 18 Dec 2017, 03:10

Fact mod have been cheated due to nationalism tendencies is something everybody know, dev first, because of course They have see data like me, And I can even say it is not needed to use corsix to see it.

Some have even said ; cheated like a russian game, but dont repeat it :lol:

And dont say me you are still not able to make difference between nationalism and nazism I gave you a an exemple, I though the best you can understand.

Off topic ; I m not off topic, I replied on 2 points ; 1 and 11. Simply because I made experimemtation on this.
One is the problem between PIV and Sherman. It is perfectly possible to have Sherman better and more costly than PIV. And I m sure it would cause no problem, sumply because every german faction have a better tank or TD or assault gun. So even you wish preserve german of top dog it is not a threat.

About Sherman ; having shit for cheap would have been something understandable if spam tactic would have work, but it seems not.

What appear at the end of Warhawk point 1 is Sherman, top tank for 2 US faction is unable to take advandage PIV F/J/H, basic tank for axis faction.

Pak 38 is on the same way, but like said it force to make choice, when at this time all is easy.

For the almost dozen other points warhawk spoke about, I have nothing valuable to say in the context, and I said nothing.


--Really man??
Sir, you never knew that the Cromwell is MUCH faster and also has flank speed ability or what??!! .


Seeing bullshit such as PIV E with better armour that a crowmell (both unable to move because track are destroyed) is something that can only lead to protestations. ok ?

Speed is armour ? it was a british naval doctrine that finally appear to be catastrophic during Jutland battle in 1916 (here you can say I m a bit off topic, but you ve show me the way ;) )

IIRC point 1 ; problem between PIV and Sherman was the first problem I reported at bk forum, and it was a long time ago ; just to say I understand what Warhawk speak about, this problem is as old as bk itself ... of course bk created this problem. It did not exist at Vcoh (nor sticky vs at grenade)

Now bk forum is on a private server, right ? Just propose ; all people who dont play pvp have to leave, or even can read but cant write, and you will not see me anymore, if you succeed.

.. and BK Mod is no longer supporting PvE community.


Perhaps with infantry only exception which is not played at pvp. Anyway for what I can read at steam lot perhaps a clarification is necessary.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3790
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: First large scale pvp experience of the latest versions (5.1.3)

Postby Tiger1996 » 18 Dec 2017, 03:40

Jalis wrote:Fact mod have been cheated due to nationalism tendencies is something everybody know

AGAIN? OMG.

So, you have no interest in PvP as you even said yourself many times, yet.. u still come here to this topic which has title of "Large scale PvP experience" just to keep repeating your "BK is cheated for nationalist agenda" bullshit??!!
And what makes it even worse.. is you also claim that you are not off-topic!

Jalis wrote:I m not off topic

Oh, right...

Well, I'm sorry sir. Nothing personal, but I am afraid I might have to report that... Although I really don't want to.

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 432
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: First large scale pvp experience of the latest versions (5.1.3)

Postby Jalis » 18 Dec 2017, 04:28

I m not off topic is mainly about Pak 38 and Sherman VS PIV.

Cheated because of nationalism tendencies Is the reason Why these units cause trouble. As an explanation is not so off topic.

Now in a game with historical context if you cant understand such distortion will always be source of contestation I dont know how to explain it you. I presume you simply dont want.

Just try to imagine war thunder with a tiger not able to beat an early T34 because of lack of armour and gun punch. But the tiger is tier 3.3 like the t34. So balance is ok. What would be the reaction in your opinion ?

To finish ; such cheat will always be a recurrent problem. Each time you will said units are not cheated, I will say your wrong, until it became false, because corrected, or you stop to claim bullshit, or you succeed to gain a ban to no more hear something you dont accept.

It is always hard to keep peace when suspicion is around. It is especially true for pvp, because when player loose it is never because of him, but because game is not well balanced or cheated ect ...

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3790
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: First large scale pvp experience of the latest versions (5.1.3)

Postby Tiger1996 » 18 Dec 2017, 07:17

Jalis wrote:Just try to imagine war thunder with a tiger not able to beat an early T34 because of lack of armour and gun punch. But the tiger is tier 3.3 like the t34. So balance is ok. What would be the reaction in your opinion ?

Already replied to such a point, when I said:
Tiger1996 wrote:in fact, just to say this, perhaps as an exaggerated example though.. but really; even if we convince the devs to make the King Tiger being as fast as the jeep for PvP balance concerns, then this should still not bother you at all.

As long as u say that u have no interest in PvP for sure.

Also btw...
Jalis wrote:Anyway for what I can read at steam lot perhaps a clarification is necessary.

Untitled(0).jpg
Bk is now PvP focused

No, I don't think any further clarifications regarding this matter are necessary on the Steam store page more than what is already mentioned.

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 432
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: First large scale pvp experience of the latest versions (5.1.3)

Postby Jalis » 18 Dec 2017, 08:50

I havr nothing important to say about your last post.

just a little precision to add.

- I dont play pvp at coh, dont means I dont in other games.

- it seems for lot of people didnt read this like you do too. Or perhaps you understand focus as exclusive and they dont.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2985
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: First large scale pvp experience of the latest versions (5.1.3)

Postby Warhawks97 » 18 Dec 2017, 12:56

Tiger1996 wrote:I think yes.. at least balance wise. However... the basic price for Pz4.H and Pz4.j will no longer have to be more expensive than Shermans, so the basic cost of Pz4.H for example would be reduced from 80 fuel to about 55 fuel. And eventually it would be cheaper after mass production too.



Ah. Nice. Open for some compromise. Well. 55 basic fuel would be exaggerated since A 76 basic cost ist 55 (which is fine for its current performence, but not when the 76 would be similiar to Tank IV in terms of for example medium AT gun resistance).

Hence, meeting somewhere in the middle in terms of cost (lowered tank Iv cost, perhaps increased sherman costs here and there) would be possible. As i said, there is nothing like a holly book that says that US must always be the cheapest and axis the expensive one.

As we can see, rangers now cost more than heavy assault grens and there is no balance issue so far. Just to mention an example.


Nonetheless, I already suggested something better...
Given the fact that currently Pz.4.J in Blitz doc cost 410 MP / 45 Fuel and then only about 350 MP / 35 Fuel after mass production, as it was made too cheap like this on version 5.0.0 not too long ago.. and I never really liked this change.

So, I suggested above that the cost of Pz4.J should be as expensive as in TH doctrine, becoming about 500 MP / 60 fuel and then once again 410 MP / 45 Fuel after mass production...
This will be better than tweaking reload time in my opinion, I mean that tweaking the price of Panzer4 would be fair enough.


It costs 380/30 after mass prod upgrade. 410 and 45 was a fair price. I would also make this price to be the only price for Tank IV J. In Bk doc as before (3 CP to unlock to get it for this cost) and in TH doc also 410/45.

And BK has a problem with reload speeds.

I mean here are just a few examples:

Tank IV: 4.5 to 5.5 seconds
Sherman 76: 7 Seconds

Axis 50 mm: 4 to 5 seconds
US 57 mm: 5 to 5.5 seconds

Jagdpanther (but also Elephant): 4.5 to 5.5 seconds


Alone the fact that The axis Tank Crews at Vet 0 reload as fast (even faster) as a max veted sherman 76 crew is just a horrible mistake. And there is no need nor an excuse in terms of balance to be like that. If the cost would have to go down for axis to meet higher reload speeds and balance, fine, or vise versa for allies, i am fine too.

But this is something that i like to blaim as "unneccessary quality" or "unneccessary quantity".
And again, the example with rangers shows us that it doesnt have to be like that.

In this case, the 76 gun is not just the worst in terms of penetration and damage (esspecially since US AP shells do not increase the damage unlike axis or CW) in their class (axis 75 mm and 17 pdr, perhaps also panther gun) but also the worst in terms of reload speeds.

That often results in losing a 1 vs 1 against a tank IV, even when you made the first shot and the first penetation shot against a Panzer IV.

And when both use AP rounds, the situation gets even worse. Your pen chance vs Tank IV goes up to approx 76%, but your max damage isnt enough to oneshot the tank IV, even when you tigger the max damage.

Tank IV´s AP shells will very likely pen shermans to almost under gurantee (96% chance). On top of that, you just have to trigger slightly above the average damage (100x5 is average, necessary is 105x5) of the gun and its enough to oneshot the sherman without any need of triggering the "lucky shot thing) due to the axis AP shell damage boos (25% boost).


As a result, even when you play superior with a sherman, like making the first shot or general initiating the battle, the Tank IV has very good chance to get out as the winner. And what i saw in the past few days extensive playing with BK doc, this is exactly what has happened.

And the Tank IV is, as jalis said, not the highest tier tank unlike it is for 2 out of 3 US doc.

And at the very top of all that, the argumentation that AB and inf doc are focused on infantry and hendheld AT´s and stuff is also wrong.
Since Hendheld AT weapons and AT guns have lost lots of its power due to aim time, friendly armor support (or mobile guns) have become mandatory. The buddies that came back after approx 3-5 years absence, made all this experience. And this is the new reality for allis, but also for axis.
For this reason, you see a lot more tank support used by axis. Ive seen dozens of Panther D´s, many many Stugs (used esspecially by terror players in mid games), also Jagdpanzers from def doc and PE in general. But also fireflies.

All these things can go up front, rely on armor (exception with firefly) and support friendy inf in combating enemie armor and anti infantry tanks with capable guns (Pen, rate of fire)

US has so far nothing similiar. In games i played (ive send them to markr privately), infantry armies got smashed entirely by a tank that was backed by little infantry support and ranged weapons. HE rounds and Hendheld aim times have changed the gameplay entirely and enforced the need of armor support. When infantry rushes in, you can easily take your time to fire an HE round, killing many bazooka men, and then drive backwards to largely reduce the accuracy of those.

I am not saying we should change it back to what it was before, just that US lacks good friendly armor support for their infantry to battle the most common axis tanks head on like tank IV´s or stugs and also being able to absorb some fire.

You cant always expect a jackson, comet, firefly or pershing just because one or two Tank IV´s blocking the path of your AB´s and infantry units (or at least costing you lots of units)


Getting back to the point, reload speeds need some sort of rethinking. The AT guns are fine now (just mentioned them to get an understanding and relation about which dimensions we are talking here), just Tank IV´s and Jagdpanthers etc reload too quick, shermans too slow. I would like to meet somewhere in the middle.

Like 5-6 seconds for tank IV´s, 5.5-6 for 76 shermans.

Tanks equiped with the most massive guns at least 6 seconds. Often, their stat or ambush modes already reduce the reload times.

To get a feeling here: Jackson, Pershing, Panthers, Jagdpanzer IV/A or IV/70 (Panther gun) have a 7 second reload time.

Stugs have 7 seconds. Idk why they are so much worse than Tank IV´s.



No, i don't need to.. because sticky bombs are available for many more US infantry units. ALL Airborne squads as well as Rangers and also, Riflemen (they can cost only 175 MP on inf doctrine and Rangers can only cost 315 MP in same doc) while the PE AT grenade is on the other hand more limited and available to more expensive infantry units, which are much more difficult to spam.


190 or 195 for rifles and 345 for rangers :roll:

Thats afterall more expenvie than standard PE grens (just saying.... you could throw simply many of these grens against armor if you want to kill all armor with AT nades)

Stickies are too costly with 25 ammo for what they do.

You can also compare Volks molotov coctail for 15 ammo and what it does. Just to get a feeling of price efficiency.

Regarding the Pak38, based on gameplay experience... I say that it's not as deadly as you think.. a single Sherman can still easily overrun the 50mm Pak without any problems. The only OP thing about this gun, is the 100 ammo rocket ability for WH, which I have already suggested that it should be removed.



Nope. A buddy of mine who used to play only inf and luft doc became a quite formidable armor player. Or better: A sherman player (Most "good" armor players still use lots of pershings).

I played a few games against him and he did very well. In 2 vs 2 and 3 vs 3 he always won against me and others.
However, in latest games i (and my teammates) were just defending a very small part of the map (I think it was martainville). In total, we got 4-5 50 mm AT guns covered by a few grens, and vehicles with mgs or 20 mm. We made his sherman tanks actually usless.
He is actually one of the tricky guys, using flame tanks and stuff or making sneaky Hellcat attacks behind your lines, using every weak spot on your side to cause trouble. But the 50 mm as first defense totally denied it. Those killed at least a half dozens of shermans or forcing their retreat.

At best, a 76 mm sherman can overcome a uncamoued 50 mm, but not a camoued one. But a basic one will never pass an ambushed (and barely an uncamoued) 50 mm.

We would have seen it. In a similiar game at wolfheze, he killed all my mates infantry when they tried to make frontal rushes. Then we just started to spam out 50 mm AT guns.


Edit: Note for the 50 mm AT debatte:

I just watched a replay from last night. I saw a hetzer bouncing off from my M10. Didnt know its possible but it made be questioning how good M10 armor is. I mean the chance for a sherman to bounce a Tank IV shell is very low, so when M10 also does it, the armor must be as good as shermans armor or perhaphs better.

Checking corsix and what i see is quite... impressive to say at best.

The Hetzer pens the M10 at max range (no boosts) with a chance of 94,99%.
The basic sherman with 84,98%

But now the real fun part. The 50 mm pens sherman with a chance of 56,6175% at max range. The M10 with 62,995%.

So we can say that the M10, supposed to have less than 40 mm slopped armor and staying in the second line and preventing enemie tanks from rushing through, and absolutely not to take any gun fire whatsoever, is literally as effective in terms of armor protection as the M4 sherman, supposed to have 53 mm armor slopped (hull) and to support infantry units at the front.
How should that be possible when even the lightest AT gun can kill shermans as if they are light protected "Tanks" or rather Gun carriages. Perhaps we should remove the name "Tank" from sherman and call them from now on "75 mm infantry support gun carriages". That would fit much better and cause less confusion.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3790
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: First large scale pvp experience of the latest versions (5.1.3)

Postby Tiger1996 » 18 Dec 2017, 18:10

Warhawks97 wrote:Ah. Nice. Open for some compromise. Well. 55 basic fuel would be exaggerated since A 76 basic cost ist 55 (which is fine for its current performence, but not when the 76 would be similiar to Tank IV in terms of for example medium AT gun resistance).

Hence, meeting somewhere in the middle in terms of cost (lowered tank Iv cost, perhaps increased sherman costs here and there) would be possible. As i said, there is nothing like a holly book that says that US must always be the cheapest and axis the expensive one.

As we can see, rangers now cost more than heavy assault grens and there is no balance issue so far. Just to mention an example.

My point was that it would have to be cheaper then, 55 fuel was just an imaginary.
Though, more price thinking might be definitely required if such a change ever happens...

Warhawks97 wrote:It costs 380/30 after mass prod upgrade. 410 and 45 was a fair price. I would also make this price to be the only price for Tank IV J. In Bk doc as before (3 CP to unlock to get it for this cost) and in TH doc also 410/45.

And BK has a problem with reload speeds.

I mean here are just a few examples:

Tank IV: 4.5 to 5.5 seconds
Sherman 76: 7 Seconds

Axis 50 mm: 4 to 5 seconds
US 57 mm: 5 to 5.5 seconds

Jagdpanther (but also Elephant): 4.5 to 5.5 seconds


Alone the fact that The axis Tank Crews at Vet 0 reload as fast (even faster) as a max veted sherman 76 crew is just a horrible mistake. And there is no need nor an excuse in terms of balance to be like that. If the cost would have to go down for axis to meet higher reload speeds and balance, fine, or vise versa for allies, i am fine too.

What exactly Pz4.J does currently cost in Blitz doc wouldn't differ too much, as I just meant that it's too cheap now for sure... However, the price of 410MP/45F is the cost of the mass produced Ausf.J as I personally think that it should have a price of 500MP/60F for 3 CPs before the mass production is unlocked, then it can get cheaper to 410MP/45F since I don't really get why it should ever be mass produced by default in Blitz doc or somehow become even cheaper after mass production when it's already available for a mass produced cost.

4.5 and 5.5 seconds is currently fair for their price, I mean Pz4.H costs 80 fuel so where is the problem? Mass production for IV.H in Blitz doctrine would need 5 CPs which isn't too few. However, as I already stated.. this quick reload time might be unfair for the current price of the Pz4.J of course but that's why I already suggest that it shouldn't be too cheap like this anymore.

Also, there is a very significant reason that 76 Shermans should never reload more quickly... I have also pointed this out already, but looks like you have not payed much attention to it. Don't u know the fact that the 76 Sherman is much more capable of frontally penetrating a heavy tank such as the Tiger1 while the Pz4.H in comparison is much less capable of penetrating a heavy tank such as the Pershing on the other hand?? Although the Pz4.H basic price is higher than the 76 Sherman and also despite that the Pershing is cheaper than the Tiger1 tank?

This means that using Pz4.H in higher numbers would be much less of an advantage when u go up against some Allied tanks which are heavily armored. While on the other hand the 76 Sherman in high numbers would definitely perform better against heavier Axis tanks.

So, the 76 is more about better penetration against heavier tanks.. cheaper to obtain but therefore more reload time.
Axis 75mm L/48 is on the other hand more about quick firing, less penetration against heavier tanks.. usually more expensive to obtain, but therefore less reload time.
Where is the problem then??
Warhawks97 wrote:That often results in losing a 1 vs 1 against a tank IV, even when you made the first shot and the first penetation shot against a Panzer IV.

Ah, so the problem is that the Pz4.H this way have better advantages when it goes against Shermans head to head?
Well, this isn't really an issue because every Allied doctrine have TDs anyway. You can hold the line with a couple of M10s (use superior abilities such as hit and run tactics, which I have never suggested that it should be removed from the M10 Wolverine but only from Achilles) until u get either a fine group of Shermans or a Pershing.

Nonetheless, I don't mind reducing the reload time of the US 57mm AT gun to be same as the 50mm Pak while also removing the 100 ammo rocket ability from the 50mm Pak as well and then giving it to the Blitz doc 37mm half-track. However, the US 57mm AT gun half-track should be excluded from this reload time buff.

As for the JagdPanther and Elephant reload times, it's absolutely fine... Elephant is currently crap anyway in most PvP games as u may already know and needs more range! I would agree to increase the reload time for this tank but only if it would have more range. And the JagdPanther is EXTREMELY expensive. Yet, a single Hellcat could do a similar job for MUCH less cost.. in fact, the Hellcat can kill the JagdPanther by flanking it in a 1v1 specifically if the JagdPanther would miss the 1st shot or something.

Warhawks97 wrote:I am not saying we should change it back to what it was before, just that US lacks good friendly armor support for their infantry to battle the most common axis tanks head on like tank IV´s or stugs and also being able to absorb some fire.

You have watched my Comet video, right? I believe you did. Though, did you notice how my Airborne mate actually used five 76 Shermans in addition to his Airborne squads combined with airstrikes and also Hellcat all with succession?
He also got the highest score with decent kills/losses ratio, so I am wondering what u mean with "US lacking decent armor support" as this doesn't seem valid to me at any possible aspect honestly.

Warhawks97 wrote:Stickies are too costly with 25 ammo for what they do.

Personally, if u want my opinion... I wouldn't really mind lowering price of stickies.. even though I don't really think it's necessary, but whatever.

Warhawks97 wrote:Perhaps we should remove the name "Tank" from sherman and call them from now on "75 mm infantry support gun carriages". That would fit much better and cause less confusion.

Shermans are always more durable late game with tons of sandbags and constant over-repairing though...

User avatar
Vega1707
Global Moderator
Posts: 24
Joined: 28 Nov 2014, 18:05

Re: First large scale pvp experience of the latest versions (5.1.3)

Postby Vega1707 » 18 Dec 2017, 22:34

Someone who isn't interested in PvP should be a bit more careful about what they say and I also know it is very difficult tp compare PvE and PvP so be aware of that.
Please stay civilised in the discussion and don't focus on personal things. Instead try finding common ground for a exchanging different oppinions.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2985
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: First large scale pvp experience of the latest versions (5.1.3)

Postby Warhawks97 » 18 Dec 2017, 22:34

Tiger1996 wrote:
4.5 and 5.5 seconds is currently fair for their price, I mean Pz4.H costs 80 fuel so where is the problem? Mass production for IV.H in Blitz doctrine would need 5 CPs which isn't too few. However, as I already stated.. this quick reload time might be unfair for the current price of the Pz4.J of course but that's why I already suggest that it shouldn't be too cheap like this anymore.


That it is a tank that shoots as fast as many vehicles with much smaller guns and as fast as mediukm AT´s, even faster.

On top of that, why the Tank IV´s have to cost this much. Havent you get the core of all that? Why tank IV´s must be more expensive and better? Who ever said it?


Also, there is a very significant reason that 76 Shermans should never reload more quickly... I have also pointed this out already, but looks like you have not payed much attention to it. Don't u know the fact that the 76 Sherman is much more capable of frontally penetrating a heavy tank such as the Tiger1 while the Pz4.H in comparison is much less capable of penetrating a heavy tank such as the Pershing on the other hand?? Although the Pz4.H basic price is higher than the 76 Sherman and also despite that the Pershing is cheaper than the Tiger1 tank?


Sandbags are doctrinal :roll:

They also cost damn much. At that time, axis are in their transition phase anyways.

This means that using Pz4.H in higher numbers would be much less of an advantage when u go up against some Allied tanks which are heavily armored. While on the other hand the 76 Sherman in high numbers would definitely perform better against heavier Axis tanks.


Who builds a Tank IV when enemie gets pershings? You go for bigger guns anyway.
On US side the 76 is the maxium you can get. As axis you always can go for the bigger shit. On top, killing a tiger in a normal duel is absolutely based on the mood of the RNG god.


So, the 76 is more about better penetration against heavier tanks.. cheaper to obtain but therefore more reload time.
Axis 75mm L/48 is on the other hand more about quick firing, less penetration against heavier tanks.. usually more expensive to obtain, but therefore less reload time.


Which sounds perhaps good in theory. I had a talk today with figree but also a few others.
Allied do not fear the big axis tanks. For those they have planes, arty, special guns or whatever.
The real threat is an axis team that goes for Tank IV´s and hetzers/Jagdpanzer IV and arty support and medium priced infantry.
And here you cant throw arty and planes all the time against them.
On top, Tiger is the only tank that is more or less reliable killable with 76 shermans. But they dont need to do that or just rarely. So the main duty of shermans is to battle medium tanks that are blocking the path for your units, not killing heavies. Which are mostly not killable anyways.



Ah, so the problem is that the Pz4.H this way have better advantages when it goes against Shermans head to head?
Well, this isn't really an issue because every Allied doctrine have TDs anyway. You can hold the line with a couple of M10s (use superior abilities such as hit and run tactics, which I have never suggested that it should be removed from the M10 Wolverine but only from Achilles) until u get either a fine group of Shermans or a Pershing.


TD´s. Have you ever send them into combat just like that. Its a massive risk and still you bounce (or even fail perhaps).
They are not supposed to support the push of friendly units like battle tanks do it.

Nonetheless, I don't mind reducing the reload time of the US 57mm AT gun to be same as the 50mm Pak while also removing the 100 ammo rocket ability from the 50mm Pak as well and then giving it to the Blitz doc 37mm half-track. However, the US 57mm AT gun half-track should be excluded from this reload time buff.

Why? There is no problem atm. I said i just mentioned this to get a feeling. Not to change something here.

As for the JagdPanther and Elephant reload times, it's absolutely fine... Elephant is currently crap anyway in most PvP games as u may already know and needs more range! I would agree to increase the reload time for this tank but only if it would have more range. And the JagdPanther is EXTREMELY expensive. Yet, a single Hellcat could do a similar job for MUCH less cost.. in fact, the Hellcat can kill the JagdPanther by flanking it in a 1v1 specifically if the JagdPanther would miss the 1st shot or something.


And again:
Jagdpanther is my fav example of that "cheated" unnecessary quality for axis.
Why it has 1000 HP instead of 800 like panther
Why can it fire smoke shell for free?
Why has it an arty resiatance of 35% instead of 25 which most axis have?
Why this reload speed?
Why two ambushed shots for that beast?


So, again, uneccessary quality and unecessary high cost.

800 HP, normal axis arty resiatance (Zimmerit reduces it again anyway by 25%), 7 sec reload like the Panther has btw, one ambushed shot and perhaps 70 standard range instead of 65.

Where would be the problem in trade for slightly dropped cost)



You have watched my Comet video, right? I believe you did. Though, did you notice how my Airborne mate actually used five 76 Shermans in addition to his Airborne squads combined with airstrikes and also Hellcat all with succession?


This is teamplay.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3790
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: First large scale pvp experience of the latest versions (5.1.3)

Postby Tiger1996 » 19 Dec 2017, 11:44

Well, I don't want to waste my time or even your time Hawks... I mean; if we keep discussing like this, it might never end ^^
So, I am going to throw probably my last post here to sum it all up ;) Hopefully we can reach some kind of an agreement too.

Though, I first have to say that every time I think that the balance in Bk Mod has finally reached to a stable point.. u suddenly come up with your "overhaul" suggestions that are more about changing a lot of game-play aspects rather than just correcting a certain flaw. I mean, here you are talking about the 76 Shermans in particular, even despite that the 76 Shermans (and specifically Armor doc) were already improved in the past several times. If you don't remember... That was when the "supply yard crusade" took place, not to mention both US 76mm as well as Axis 75mm L48 TT values had been also more or less standardized at some point, allowing earlier Calliope was also something that you called for.. and it happened. Most recently earlier Armor doc arty barrage unlock, on and on. I am not saying these were bad changes.. not at all. Nevertheless, I thought those changes were finally enough! Surprisingly though, you still keep coming with more and more somehow.
I mean, seriously.. when I started coming to the Bk forums years ago back then, you were always talking about 76 Shermans.. and now, years later... You are still speaking about the 76 Shermans!!!! :D

And I wouldn't be surprised if u would soon also suggest once again for 75 Jumbo, combat engineers and 105 Sherman all to be moved from inf doc to Armor doc the other way around.. in fact, these changes are nothing I am against. However, I also don't think that they are necessary.. because the way how the whole thing is working currently, is not bad either. Keeping in mind also that people here seem to be not in favor of "overhaul" changes in the first place. I mean, look what happened after tweaking Comets.. there are a few people who still more or less believe that Comets are now sort of worthless. So, from what I can see.. you can't really "re-work" everything in the mod for no significant reason or only for the sake of just having some kind of a different taste.. specifically when things are already working fine and are not really in need of any adjustments.


Regardless though, from my own humble point of view... I do believe that currently 76 Shermans are more than fine.. if anything need to be done however, then it's just the following few points:

- Narrower cone of fire for the JagdPanther, in return +5 basic range (from 65 to 70) and then I can agree on reload time increase to 7 seconds.
However, I don't think any HP or price adjustments are necessary...

- Elephant reload time increase to 7 seconds, removal of stationary position ability.. in return Accurate Long Shot ability (not Veteran Shot ability) should be added for a price of 100 ammo and 100 range, no veterancy would be required.. and basic range from 65 to 70 as well.

- WH Pak38 (50mm) should no longer have 100 ammo rocket ability, in return the ability would be given to the 37mm half-track in Blitz doc.

- Either the hit and run tactics ability should be removed from Achilles, or the HE rounds. It should also be limited to 3 or 2 only...

- Comets become unlimited.

- Pz.IV.J should cost 500MP/60F in Blitz doctrine for 3 CPs (instead of currently 410MP/45F), and then after 2 more CPs for mass production.. it becomes cheaper again to 410MP/45F instead of 380MP/30F currently.. without any reload time adjustments here, and 76 reload time also untouched for sure, given the reasons I've earlier illustrated.. which are:
Tiger1996 wrote:Also, there is a very significant reason that 76 Shermans should never reload more quickly... I have also pointed this out already, but looks like you have not payed much attention to it. Don't u know the fact that the 76 Sherman is much more capable of frontally penetrating a heavy tank such as the Tiger1 while the Pz4.H in comparison is much less capable of penetrating a heavy tank such as the Pershing on the other hand?? Although the Pz4.H basic price is higher than the 76 Sherman and also despite that the Pershing is cheaper than the Tiger1 tank?

This means that using Pz4.H in higher numbers would be much less of an advantage when u go up against some Allied tanks which are heavily armored. While on the other hand the 76 Sherman in high numbers would definitely perform better against heavier Axis tanks.


So, that's why I am suggesting here that Pz4s should always be more expensive due to their higher rate of fire which is clearly an advantage against 76 Shermans.. and as a consequence the Pz4.J according to the suggestion should never be too cheap at 380MP/30F anymore.

And just to clarify, based on this suggestion.. this way the player for 2 CP will have the option to deploy IVH for 550MP/80F or IVJ for 3 CP costing 500MP/60F and then after total 5 CP he can get IVH for 450MP/55F or IVJ for 410MP/45F when mass production is unlocked.

- Sticky bombs probably should become cheaper...


That's it from my side.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2985
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: First large scale pvp experience of the latest versions (5.1.3)

Postby Warhawks97 » 19 Dec 2017, 14:55

Well. I have currently no reason to complain about the total balance. Just the kind of frustration when playing smart with shermans and still going to lose certain tank to tank engagments. Like when you play better, flanking up or making the first shot on a tank IV for example and still being the loser.

I just love how we changed Rangers and rifles. How we got a little bit away from that pure quantity playing of US.
And i keep going for the 76 sherman issue as long as it takes to be solved.

The sherman has to get better armor protection, esspecially when it comes to 50 mm AT guns. Removing the rocket shot is in so far a bad idea as that would even enforce allied gameplay to go for the heaviest stuff they can get -knowing that this will be more effective to overcome light defenses- instead of using the combined arms gameplay. Keep the rockets, they have nothing to do with the issue of the shermans.

And yes, at cost perhaps of higher cost for shermans. I just want to break that certain -wrong- principle which says "axis counterparts must be better and more expensive".

Regarding the Tank IV J. I dont see any reason why it shall cost 500/60 at default. And also not why the tank shall become cheaper after mass production. Its already the mass production version of the Tank IV. 410/45 at default, unlocked in BK doc after 3 CP´s in total. Having that at this cost after 5 CP would make it usless so far. The timing would be messed up.

On top, when it goes along with proposed sherman changes - which are a way better protection against 50 mm Guns of pak 38 and Puma, 5-6 sec reload speed, slightly improved pen vs mediums such as these tank IV´s and all that in trade off for slightly increased cost (at least for the basic and 76)- a cost for the J above 420 MP and 50 fuel would literally send this tank into BK retirment.


An no, i am not asking (anymore) for the 105 to be in armor doc. Its not necessary. The Jumbo would, however, be a nice picture to be seen in the armor doc. I am quite disappointed how easily it gets penetrated sometimes. Marder and Hetzer seem to kill them more or less like normal shermans when shooting from ambush.

Regarding the Elephant and other tanks reload times i am not suggesting to increase the reload speed to 7 seconds. That tank had two loaders and the tank already has enough drawbacks. 5-6 seconds here would be absolutely enough. The Jagdpanther is a different thing as it combines armor, HP, mobility, firepower and the ability to ambush and fire smoke as well as a decent veterancy ability. Here, 7 sec reload and 70 range would fit better rather than being a "Rock in the water" the breaks wave after wave.


But you know what. If the sherman armor, its reload speed and the question of where the basic jumbo should be is solved, i will have little reasons to open up any further massive topic :)

Its so far the last "big thing" on my agenda.



Oh, before i forget: In a game i had last night, my mate fielded Pershings and Pershing ace. The Ace got killed by a Hetzer in two shots. Later, the normal Pershing got penetrated by a Marder that has crossed the path of the Pershing. No AP, no ambush or anything. Just fired and penetrated. The Pershings havent bounced a single shot fired from guns that are same or similiar stats wise to Tank IV´s.
So the argument "76 can kill Tigers, Axis 75 mm L/48 can not" is just wrong. It needs two M18 to kill a Tiger? It takes one Hetzer to kill a Pershing ace.

Alright then. End it up here. We got our points. Perhaps we are going to see more opinions (Hopefully). I had several talks in steam about it. Wonder if any comes to forum to speak out.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3790
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: First large scale pvp experience of the latest versions (5.1.3)

Postby Tiger1996 » 19 Dec 2017, 17:15

Hold on, I actually do have just few more things to say about ur last post ^^
a cost for the J above 420 MP and 50 fuel would literally send this tank into BK retirment.

Hmm, but now it costs more than this in TH doc (550MP/60F) and it's still selected from the customize army menu by a lot of players instead of the IVH so I think your statement here is a bit exaggerated actually!

I am quite disappointed how easily it gets penetrated sometimes. Marder and Hetzer seem to kill them more or less like normal shermans when shooting from ambush.

Me too, but I think the disappointment is still equally shared after all also for the Axis players when their super expensive tanks are sometimes killed with 1 shot by such cheap units like the Hellcat for example. As this kind of disappointment is not just for the Allied players when their jumbo is killed or penetrated by cheap units like the Hetzer, although a disappointment in this case shouldn't be too much anyway since that the Sherman jumbo isn't even a super expensive tank.

my mate fielded Pershings and Pershing ace. The Ace got killed by a Hetzer in two shots. Later, the normal Pershing got penetrated by a Marder that has crossed the path of the Pershing. No AP, no ambush or anything. Just fired and penetrated. The Pershings havent bounced a single shot fired from guns that are same or similiar stats wise to Tank IV´s.
So the argument "76 can kill Tigers, Axis 75 mm L/48 can not" is just wrong. It needs two M18 to kill a Tiger? It takes one Hetzer to kill a Pershing ace.

Lastly, I think it takes 1 Hellcat to kill a Tiger. Regardless though, last night I also saw Panther.D got instantly killed after getting penetrated twice by 57mm US AT gun.. this was also recorded and I might probably upload the scene. However, my point here is that crazy things can happen for both sides, this doesn't mean however that 57mm is reliable against Panther.D for sure! Neither does this mean that the 75mm L48 cannons vs Pershing are as reliable as 76 cannons against Tiger tanks just because the L48 happened to penetrate effectively at some point...

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2985
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: First large scale pvp experience of the latest versions (5.1.3)

Postby Warhawks97 » 19 Dec 2017, 18:44

Well. The J would cost the same 410/45 in BK (3 CP) as well as in th doc (2) CP. Thats what i actually (wanted) to say.


And the argument that the 76 sherman shouldnt reload faster as just bc it can penetrate Tigers while the axis 75 L/48 cant pen the pershing is also wrong.
tested it, saw it in the game with the marder example and corsix says the same. The 75 mm does manage to score penetrations on pershings every few shots. Sure, in PvP most (including me) wouldnt go for even more Tank Iv´s to stop a pershing. I mean why when other tools are available for slightly higher cost.

The same goes for allies against tigers. Why should they spam even more shermans. There are Jacksons, Bomb runs, usefull inf, off map arty or pershing or simply put ambushes across the map. Thing is, both sides have can have the RNG god on their side and kill a tiger with a 76 gun or a pershing with a 75 L/48.


Here the exact values:

76 gun vs Tiger penetration at max range: 22,14% Damage max: 600 (average 500) (Tiger HP: 1100)
With special AP rounds: 34,1% Damage max: 600 (average 500)



Axis 75 mm L/48 vs Pershing penetration at max range: 20% Damage max: 600 (average 500) (Pershing HP: 1000)
With special AP rounds: 26,6% Damage max: 750 (average 625)



There is nothing wrong about it. I just want to falsify the argument, that 76 cant get a better reload speed bc of its chance to pen and kill tigers. Its not true. Even when the pen chance is slightly higher for the sherman, the Tank Iv will need less often to penetrate with AP rounds in order to kill a pershing. Adding the reload speed advantage to it and we can say that a pair of Tank IV J will have a better chance to kill a Pershing as two e8 would kill a tiger or chances would at least be equal.
Sure, other doctrinal stuff needs to be taken into acc such as overrep and so on. But this here is just to falsify one argument.
Both, the J and 76 sherman are not supposed to be an counter to the opponents Tiger/Pershing. If they meet each other on the battlefield, then less likely by purpose of the owner of the J/e8. Penetrating the enemie is then just luck and random and does not work as an argument why the reload speed for shermans cant be upped to met the tank IV´s.


So, if tank IV´s might get cheaper in average, and normal and 76 shermans slightly up in cost for a better reload and better protection (against 50 mm at least), there wouldnt be any real argument left why shermans wouldnt be able to reload faster as they do now.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3790
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: First large scale pvp experience of the latest versions (5.1.3)

Postby Tiger1996 » 19 Dec 2017, 21:45

Hawks.. my dear friend, if this can be considered as not a significant penetration difference...
Here the exact values:

76 gun vs Tiger penetration at max range: 22,14% Damage max: 600 (average 500) (Tiger HP: 1100)
With special AP rounds: 34,1% Damage max: 600 (average 500)



Axis 75 mm L/48 vs Pershing penetration at max range: 20% Damage max: 600 (average 500) (Pershing HP: 1000)
With special AP rounds: 26,6% Damage max: 750 (average 625)

Well, the same way then:
I mean here are just a few examples:

Tank IV: 4.5 to 5.5 seconds
Sherman 76: 7 Seconds

This would be also considered as insignificant reload time difference...

And now that's really the end of the dialogue.

Mr. FeministDonut
Posts: 175
Joined: 13 Aug 2015, 21:05

Re: First large scale pvp experience of the latest versions (5.1.3)

Postby Mr. FeministDonut » 19 Dec 2017, 22:17

Tiger1996 wrote:Hawks.. my dear friend, if this can be considered as not a significant penetration difference...
Here the exact values:

76 gun vs Tiger penetration at max range: 22,14% Damage max: 600 (average 500) (Tiger HP: 1100)
With special AP rounds: 34,1% Damage max: 600 (average 500)



Axis 75 mm L/48 vs Pershing penetration at max range: 20% Damage max: 600 (average 500) (Pershing HP: 1000)
With special AP rounds: 26,6% Damage max: 750 (average 625)

Well, the same way then:
I mean here are just a few examples:

Tank IV: 4.5 to 5.5 seconds
Sherman 76: 7 Seconds

This would be also considered as insignificant reload time difference...

And now that's really the end of the dialogue.

I don't understand, what is wrong with that? Even 4 shermans making waste 300 ammo just to try luck against tiger with 30% probably pen actually making worth it? Nah. Definetely not the end of the dialogue.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3790
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: First large scale pvp experience of the latest versions (5.1.3)

Postby Tiger1996 » 19 Dec 2017, 22:30

I don't understand, what is wrong with that? Even 4 shermans making waste 300 ammo just to try luck against tiger with 30% probably pen actually making worth it? Nah. Definetely not the end of the dialogue.

You know what, I also don't understand... Pz4 just reload 1.5 second faster.. what's wrong with that too? :shock:
So if 34% penetration chance vs Tiger1 is considered not a big deal compared to 26% penetration chance vs Pershing, then how come 5.5 second reload speed is suddenly considered a big deal on the other hand when compared to 7 seconds reload time??!! :o

Gents, what happened to your sense of logic here? :?

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2985
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: First large scale pvp experience of the latest versions (5.1.3)

Postby Warhawks97 » 20 Dec 2017, 01:39

Tiger1996 wrote:You know what, I also don't understand... Pz4 just reload 1.5 second faster.. what's wrong with that too? :shock:
So if 34% penetration chance vs Tiger1 is considered not a big deal compared to 26% penetration chance vs Pershing, then how come 5.5 second reload speed is suddenly considered a big deal on the other hand when compared to 7 seconds reload time??!! :o


Lol. I just falsified your argument that there was "Sherman reload speed cant go up. Two of them can already kill a tiger, Panzer IV cant do that".

This was your defense against reload speed increase for shermans.

And you dont consider 1.5 second as a big deal? Srsly?:D

Also its at least 1.5 second faster, it can also be 2.5 seconds faster. There are lightyears between them.

Just take an example when both penetrated each other first, then bounce and then penetrate. It takes 15 seconds to complete it for tank IV approx. And 21 for the sherman. So the tank IV can make four shots in a time a sherman 76 makes just three.

Now imagine a battle where both bounce twice (for example fully sandbagged e8 vs a Tank IV J, which will probabl never really happen as the sandbagged e8 coming much later) from each other. The tank IV would have to bounce one more time so that an e8 can get his chance.

This combined with penetration in favour of tank IV´s and higher damage when axis use AP....


It is a big deal. In war, even a half second decides between death and victory.


Get this sentence pls: "We are not afraid of Tiger Tanks, we are afraid of tank IV´s and Hetzers". (When using shermans)

This is what people who frequently play armor doc with shermans told me or which we agreed to in exchange of our discussions.

The sherman spam, or whatever you call it, does not fail because of Tigers. It fails bc of Stugs, Tank IV´s and Hetzers that are literally spammed like shermans, jsut a bit earlier. You just cant throw planes and arty against all of them.

If you play US armor against a player of similiar skill, and when he goes straight for stug (IV) and then Tank IV J´s you will get overruned, even when you get the one or other M10 hidden here and there. At this point the shermans have to be able to stand their ground, even carry the battle into the enemie territory. How shall that be possible when they barely survive on their own soil?


I think you have got everything wrong right now (in the quoted part).
Last edited by Warhawks97 on 20 Dec 2017, 23:51, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “General - CoH1 / BKMOD1”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest