The constant perpetuating of the Ubermensch myth...

[Patrymir]

Am I the one and only person who's really tired of the German troops out performing other troops nearly ALL THE TIME!?

The standard U.S. squad should "WIPE THE FLOOR" with an equal sized Grenadier squad. Why does a Grenadier for example have more Hit Points then a American G.I.? They where "healthier"? NO! The German morale was crumbling along with their supplies at the time Allied forces started pushing through Normandy while at the same time being unable to push back the Soviets. Even if the Grenadiers would be considered more experienced then U.S. or British troops that does not mean they can shrug off more bullets and damage in general.

I can understand for example - Grenadiers having more HP then Volksgrenadiers, since the Volks where created around 1944 - the same time the sickly stomach battalions started to form. In that case - ye I get it! Sickly soldiers, with lower manpower costs and less HP. That's fine.

And yet the God damn Volks have the same amount of HP of standard American troops. Even the Rangers, the most elite American WWII soldiers, have 5 less HP then Grenadiers. WHY!? Why keep this stupid myth alive!?

It's no wonder why my infantry gets slaughtered all the time while they should be doing the slaughtering.

It's the U.S. troops that should me more costly and more combat effective as long as neither the U.S. nor Germans have ANY upgrades.

The Americans have a longer way from home, wayyyyyyyyyy longer. Which means it's more costly and time consuming to get them to the front. They have better standard weapons like the M1, which is far better then any bolt action rifle - unless you are shooting at ranges above 400 meters.

The M1 is more accurate since you keep your eyes on the sights, you don't care about the bolt. You point and shoot while constantly tracking the target. When you have to deal with the bolt it messes up your aim - because you have to re-aim and re-track the target. The M1 is simply superior and since infantry fire fights at ranges above 300 rarely occurred (due to human limitations) then it shouldn't be a problem to devastate a group of Grenadiers even at that range.

I'm speaking of this as if the engagements took place on equal footing - that means 10 Grenadiers vs 10 G.I.'s on an opened field, nowhere to hide, equal morale, similar combat experience, similar combat capabilities, but different standard issue weapons.

In such a scenario the G.I.'s win hands down. Why? Because of their volume of fire and the closer the American get to enemy the more they annihilate them.

The main strength of the U.S. should be that it starts with the very best standard infantry squad in the game. As long as the Germans don't get an MG42 with a 50 round drum magazine and other upgrades the troop fight should always go in American favor.

Yet it would DRASTICALLY change with the Grenadiers having said upgrades. For example - an MG42 would give them a big advantage. Same with StG44's and of course several Gevehr 43's.

This is exactly why I keep messing with this mod all the time. With every single update I have to unpack it and start modding this mod so that I can actually slap this stuff in to some proper order by giving allied troops and Grenadiers 60 HP, Volks 50 HP and all special forces 70 HP while at the same time adjusting weapon stats and costs. It's all starting to be a real pain in the ass. All that ubermensch crap should just die already!

[Wake]

but of course u must understand the superior training of nazi germany!!1111

and the aryan genetics alloow the AXIS infanterie to be superior to the untermensch

yes too the germany supreme technology, like k98 and mg42 masterpiece better than any sloppy make USA weapon

and the fighting spirit for vaterland!!! all germany will lay down life for protect DEUTSCHLAND und der fuhrer!!!11!!!

germany only lose because fight on 2 front at once... sad

(sarcasm)

[Warhawks97]

nice statment:)

There are some guys arround the mod that also started modding their own coz of such reasons. And as you are talking about Ubermenschen: Also there are "Superbullets"^^:
http://blitzkrieg-mod.de/board/topic/4836-rifles/

http://blitzkrieg-mod.de/board/topic/4617-m1-garand/

http://blitzkrieg-mod.de/board/topic/50 ... er-weapon/

It wasnt easy to talk about such things. Its a dangerous topic.


But i already said for BK 2 that units shouldnt be better or worse as they had actually been just in order to maintain this "quality vs quantity" BK rule. In this every german "thing" and human is better as counterparts but usually or rather should be more expensive.

[Patrymir]

Every thread like this is a dangerous topic. This entire mod is a love and hate relationship over and over again with each update.

German forces are ridiculously easy to micro manage since you need 2-3 times the U.S. or British force to actually deal with threats like Panthers and Grenadiers. Panzerkampfwagen V series tanks where excellent. Extremely well armed, cheaper to produce then Tiger I and II's, their cannon would penetrate pretty much any armor except for the Jumbo AKA Cobra King in a front to front battle (unless the Panther would have a HVAP or was at around 100m in range). Yet you can only have 1 just 1 little Jumbo holding the field all by itself before eventually getting swarmed by infantry and other vehicles. The allied stuff is mostly crap, crap crap and did I mention crap yet? And the very few "good" Allied units are short in supply. There are limits on their pop cap.

Why is there even a quality vs quantity rule in the first place? It only means the Germans get to preserve more units in the course of the battle. Suffering less losses and gathering supplies to build more quality units. Every single unit you fail to annihilate is going to come back at you with vengeance and experience. After a few promotions the Germans are just... nearly unstoppable.

At the very least some WWII accurate squad/team sizes and rifle stats would equal things out a little bit, but nope! German Super soldats are coming!

[crimax]

The arguments and thoughts you posted before are widely shareable.

The problem here is simply the infinite fight between Balancing and Realism.
In past BK MOD was more focused on Axis Quality VS Allies Quantity.

Step by step, what happened is simply what I always called the "Worse Enemy" of this mod: The smoothing between armies and doctrines.

Warhawks-97, a guy that well know game mechanics, recently asked why US has lack of resources and Wehrmacht mass produce tanks ? Is it a bit strange ? Yes it is.

Is balancing still safe ? In my opinion, excluding something always present, yes it is.

What happened is simply that the game is changed. Docs are even more similar.
An example ?
Why was introduced the Super Pershing ? Obvious answer. To have a new model and to balance the german's big cats.

Why don't improve US tanks/tank-hunters or make them more cheap? Respecting this way the Quality/Quantity formula ?
Right or Wrong, it was a decision that changed that ratio.

But I repeat, the mod is still balanced (+/- like always), what is really changed is that we are going to play more similar doctrines.

About the ratio between History and Realism. Guys, please forget it ! It is a waste of time.

[Warhawks97]

Why is there even a quality vs quantity rule in the first place? It only means the Germans get to preserve more units in the course of the battle. Suffering less losses and gathering supplies to build more quality units. Every single unit you fail to annihilate is going to come back at you with vengeance and experience. After a few promotions the Germans are just... nearly unstoppable.

Thats true. btw i found something like that for vcoh 2 as well. A guy there did a nice explanation saying the same thing. Here is the link: http://community.companyofheroes.com/fo ... me-balance

The third post. He makes a sample with KT. This quality vs Quantity stuff makes mainly sence for tanks from a historical point of view and maybe for elite inf squads against normal inf squads. But thing is that BK did spread it over every unit and in order to achieve that units got better or worse as they had actually been. For example grens that are actually basic axis infantry got made comparable to rangers and rangers made into "spamable cheap trash" and only usefull if used in masses which is the opposite of that how it had been in reality. Or Volks with mp40 comparable or even better as standard sten commandos and so on. Same for some tanks. the E8 and latest version of sherman series had 62 mm armor+ slopped which gives effective armor of 90 mm + extra plates sometimes and glacis armor of Jumbo. The Gun as good or better as axis tank IV and stug 75 mm/L48. The Tank IV itself 80 mm unslopped. Still tank IV has much better chances to win the fight. Also the 57 mm which was abit more powerfull as axis 50 mm struggles often against Tank IV´s while the weaker 50 mm has no real problems to pen the e8 with actually 90 mm armor. As result the e8 got made "cheaper" as Tank IV (but only a bit. 50 mp and 10 fuel less and after mass production 3 fuel cheaper and 85 mp. Upkeep advantage and time of availability is clearly in Tank IV´s favor. Effectivness and resistant to enemie inf is again clearly in axis favor. There the Mg42 shreds inf 2-3 times better as the cal 50 which bullet is as strong as an MG42 bullet or just slightly better. That means that when i get the first and second Tank IV H and J i can do a lot of trouble smashing all the allied inf, 57 mm paks and shermans with ease and doing powerfull attacks and pushing US often till back to their base. And those need like 10 RL shots or 6 zooks to smash my tank IV if the AT squads survive long enough. Mostly they dont kill the tank IV and get shred during retreat and my Tank IV gets vet 1. And what i get when i build and sherman easy eight for amost same cost but later? A lottery unit without clear results against axis Stugs, stubby tank IV´s or whatsoever. A single schreck squad smashes it before doing any kind of assault kills it and evry 50 m pak is a huge threat. The cal 50 are unable to stop infantry which means that i always need to build these HE shermans which eat up ressources during the game just because the Top turret cal 50 gunner are crap again.
And looking at cost there isnt so much "quantity vs quality". Inf is often about the same and volks even cheaper to reinforce as rifles, 20 mm kwk´s vs quad cal 50 or greyhound or greyhound vs Puma with 50 mm canon and axis arty is also cheaper as counterparts (leig 18 vs pack howitzer, 210 mm nebler vs calli, nebelwerfer vs calli jeep, Wespe vs Priest and arty sherman by having similiar devastating results.). And CW vehicles are the greatest usless trash in game except the 75 mm arty HT. I dont even know their names nor do i know how they look like really.

In most games the army size is very equal during the longest part of the game. Only inf doc is in late game able to get really a superior army size but for that enemie arty need to be killed during mid game and the early-mid phase need to be survived by being not pushed back into the defense.



I can play the axis most of the time with very few units. I need for early game as WE 4-6 units before my first Tank IVs are coming. At that time i´ve been easily able to field quckly Two tank IV´s in a row and those are very good against every allied tank (except pershing) but also against enemie inf. Also these 5-6 units are not restricted in their movment as i dont have to fear any insta squad kills. I can run into the fog of war and when i face opposition i have a lot of time to decide fight or retreat or which cover to take. And even when i lose a unit all my other units are able to do the job of the lost unit as well. Doesnt matter if 37 mm pak, mg42, volks... i can use all of them against almost everything allied get in the first 15 mins except sniper maybe. As US i need more units as each is very specialized in its role as anti vehicle unit, anti inf, anti HMG etc. As PE i actually need schwimmwagen, scout vehicle and grens to hold back enemie forces for a long time and thus often running at 1000 mp just when i get my third or second building. As american it might cause trouble when just one part of my army is lost. There you have to be prepared for all kinds of threats wich means that you need pak if you dont want to get rushed in 10 mins by scout vehicles, rifles as some sort of flank protection, jeep as sniper hunter and a sniper to fight enemie HMG´s and paks but when axis then do "one unit spam" it becomes problematic (For example you get just one pak and rifles+sniper expecting PE mix army and suddenly two scout cars+schwimmwagen overruning the pak and next time you get two paks and no sniper and enemie gets masses of inf. Also running into fog of war untill facing resistant is simply suicide and often ends in a loss of an entire squad. Also there is no time to decide what to do when facing enemie oppostion when no perfect cover is right next to the squad. Its only retreat or die. Means reccons are a lot more important for allied in early game as for axis.

At the very least some WWII accurate squad/team sizes and rifle stats would equal things out a little bit, but nope! German Super soldats are coming!

^^

[Patrymir]

But I repeat, the mod is still balanced (+/- like always), what is really changed is that we are going to play more similar doctrines.

About the ratio between History and Realism. Guys, please forget it ! It is a waste of time.

But there actually is no real balance. It's artificial balance as in "The player will handle it. Don't worry!". The Issue here is micro management as well as the historical realism. It's not a waste of time. It's actually fairly easy to implement. I do it all the time with infantry. It's about as close to realism as possible.

Somewhere around the rage of 300m the average hit rate with iron sights should be around 19 to 33% depending on the shooters experience, weapon and also considering that the target is moving, taking cover and shooting right back at you.

You can then proceed to create the M1 Garand's accuracy chart for common G.I.'s:

Accuracy = 0.22, 0.48, 0.69, 0.9

You can also do the same for the Karabiner 98k:

Accuracy = 0.25, 0.44, 0.64, 0.9

Since you have a semi automatic rifle going against a bolt action rifle the Karabiner will be more accurate at range, BUT the closer you get the more accurately you can track your target since you are not cycling the bolt. This also means the time to aim is also shorter at all ranges.

How fast can an M1 Garand shoot? At about 0.16 of a second. Karabiner 98k? About 0.83 of a second. Of course you also have to add the time to aim which can vary from 0.01 (target is really close and in front of you) to 1.2 seconds at long ranges.

What do you do then? For the M1 Garand you set everything like this:

Fire Aim Time = max 1.03 | min 0.97 (Delay before each shot - this excludes the first shot.)
Fire Aim Time Multiplier = 1.0, 0.8, 0.4, 0.15 (Multiplier that increases or decreases the fire aim time for different ranges.)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Post Firing Aim Time = 1.1 (The duration which weapon stays in aimed animation after battle.)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ready Aim Time = max 1.2 | min 1.0 (Delay before the first shot.)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cooldown Duration = max 0.015 | min 0.01 (Cooldown is another the delay between bursts/shots.)
Cooldown Duration Multiplier = 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0 (Multiplier that increases or decreases the cooldown time for different ranges.)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reload Duration Max 3.6 | Min 2.8
Reload Duration Multiplier 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0

That way you get a 0.15 + 0.01 (or 0.015) time between shots at minimum range - close and personal, but around 1.2 - 1.1 (1.25 - 1.15) at long ranges (a Karabiner 98k would have around 2.11 - 2.03). This would accurately show the technological superiority of the M1 Garand. Likewise the Gewehr 43 would show it's superiority over the Garand.

If you take that the one of the longest ranges of infantry engagements was around 300 meters and most took place below that range - around 200, 100 and even 80, then you should consider a certain value of the ingame Range as 300m. Let's say we will take the ingame Range of 100 as our 300 meters. We can also easily divide that number by 5. Eventually it will give us ranges of: 100(max), 80(distant), 60(long), 40(medium), 20(short) - or we can divide it by 4: 100(distant/max), 75(long), 50(medium), 25(short).

The same can be done for all other rifles and their stats can be adjusted to represent their real life effectiveness.

I also don't see how a Karabiner can do more damage then a Garand. The rounds have nearly identical killing power. The 30-06 will kill you just as quick as the 7.92mm Mauser, only the British .303 will cause less damage because it has less killing power.

But realism aside - the most pressing issue is the micro management.

When you have a 2 to 3 times more efficient force you need 2 - 3 times less the hassle and clicking that is being put on the Allied player. The larger the army the more problems you have with the force size and the more you'll need to have them retreat and reinforce. Losses on the Allied size pile up very quickly and there is absolutely no reason for that, furthermore there is no way to deal with that unless a structure would have an auto reinforce ability that you could enable. When I'm micro managing a large army that is constantly taking losses I can not possibly find the time to reinforce all the squads that where nearly decimated especially with those extremely powerful Grenadiers and panzers. There is simply too much quality on the German side.

Someone even mentioned once (on another forum) that making an auto reinforce aura is possible, but I have no idea how to do it. If something like that was implemented it would take a lot of stress and pressure off the Allied players and allow them to focus more on the battle itself. None the less - the German super soldats have to go. Even if it's just for the sake of stating that perpetuating bad myths is bad for everyone.

[V13dweller]

Get over it, this is a Game, it's not supposed to be realistic. Therefor, full realism doesn't apply.

Examples, why can a Sherman 76 penetrate a Jagdtiger? Why can a PaK-38 penetrate SP's?
You get the picture.

[Warhawks97]

But I repeat, the mod is still balanced (+/- like always), what is really changed is that we are going to play more similar doctrines.

About the ratio between History and Realism. Guys, please forget it ! It is a waste of time.

But there actually is no real balance. It's artificial balance as in "The player will handle it. Don't worry!". The Issue here is micro management as well as the historical realism. It's not a waste of time. It's actually fairly easy to implement. I do it all the time with infantry. It's about as close to realism as possible.

Somewhere around the rage of 300m the average hit rate with iron sights should be around 19 to 33% depending on the shooters experience, weapon and also considering that the target is moving, taking cover and shooting right back at you.

You can then proceed to create the M1 Garand's accuracy chart for common G.I.'s:

Accuracy = 0.22, 0.48, 0.69, 0.9

You can also do the same for the Karabiner 98k:

Accuracy = 0.25, 0.44, 0.64, 0.9

Since you have a semi automatic rifle going against a bolt action rifle the Karabiner will be more accurate at range, BUT the closer you get the more accurately you can track your target since you are not cycling the bolt. This also means the time to aim is also shorter at all ranges.

How fast can an M1 Garand shoot? At about 0.16 of a second. Karabiner 98k? About 0.83 of a second. Of course you also have to add the time to aim which can vary from 0.01 (target is really close and in front of you) to 1.2 seconds at long ranges.

What do you do then? For the M1 Garand you set everything like this:

Fire Aim Time = max 1.03 | min 0.97 (Delay before each shot - this excludes the first shot.)
Fire Aim Time Multiplier = 1.0, 0.8, 0.4, 0.15 (Multiplier that increases or decreases the fire aim time for different ranges.)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Post Firing Aim Time = 1.1 (The duration which weapon stays in aimed animation after battle.)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ready Aim Time = max 1.3 | min 1.1 (Delay before the first shot.)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cooldown Duration = max 0.015 | min 0.01 (Cooldown is another the delay between bursts/shots.)
Cooldown Duration Multiplier = 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0 (Multiplier that increases or decreases the cooldown time for different ranges.)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reload Duration Max 3.6 | Min 2.8
Reload Duration Multiplier 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0

That way you get a 0.15 + 0.01 (or 0.015) time between shots at minimum range - close and personal, but around 1.2 - 1.1 (1.25 - 1.15) at long ranges (a Karabiner 98k would have around 2.11 - 2.03). This would accurately show the technological superiority of the M1 Garand. Likewise the Gewehr 43 would show it's superiority over the Garand.

If you take that the one of the longest ranges of infantry engagements was around 300 meters and most took place below that range - around 200, 100 and even 80, then you should consider a certain value of the ingame Range as 300m. Let's say we will take the ingame Range of 100 as our 300 meters. We can also easily divide that number by 5. Eventually it will give us ranges of: 100(max), 80(distant), 60(long), 40(medium), 20(short) - or we can divide it by 4: 100(distant/max), 75(long), 50(medium), 25(short).

The same can be done for all other rifles and their stats can be adjusted to represent their real life effectiveness.

I also don't see how a Karabiner can do more damage then a Garand. The rounds have nearly identical killing power. The 30-06 will kill you just as quick as the 7.92mm Mauser, only the British .303 will cause less damage because it has less killing power.

But realism aside - the most pressing issue is the micro management.

When you have a 2 to 3 times more efficient force you need 2 - 3 times less the hassle and clicking that is being put on the Allied player. The larger the army the more problems you have with the force size and the more you'll need to have them retreat and reinforce. Losses on the Allied size pile up very quickly and there is absolutely no reason for that, furthermore there is no way to deal with that unless a structure would have an auto reinforce ability that you could enable. When I'm micro managing a large army that is constantly taking losses I can not possibly find the time to reinforce all the squads that where nearly decimated especially with those extremely powerful Grenadiers and panzers. There is simply too much quality on the German side.

Someone even mentioned once (on another forum) that making an auto reinforce aura is possible, but I have no idea how to do it. If something like that was implemented it would take a lot of stress and pressure off the Allied players and allow them to focus more on the battle itself. None the less - the German super soldats have to go. Even if it's just for the sake of stating that perpetuating bad myths is bad for everyone.

very interesting stuff. About the quality vs quanity stuff. Well i sometimes had armys as inf doc after 1-2 hour play time reaching 312+ popcap mark. And all That was neccessary to fight with Terror pushing with Tanks, arty and inf. I had several rifle squads, captain but also emplacments. I also had to controle all the time up to 3 engineers squads with minesweapers just to keep the area clean of SD2 but it sill wasnt enough + repraing stuff all the time.

When i watch some players playing inf doc they try to play it like axis. Means arround 1000 mp in reserve and mainly using rangers. Defensive stuff doesnt exist really. The problem many inf doc players then have is that when there comes one Panther or Tiger they are in huge danger and their 4 or even 6 ranger squads with zooks cant do much. The other huge part plays inf doc only cqc squads, off map arty and the very expensive infiltration ranger. They do cause trouble one or two times with cqc squads but then enemie players are prepared and fixed scout cars, AA tanks etc do prevent further "tricky cqc moves". After that the way forward with inf doc is often painfull. Having a couple of howitzers getting countered by neblers, or simply enemie arty doesnt help much. And there is no real time to have a number of inf units reinforced and rdy for an attack. Its just permanent fighting and your own inf army clashes with enemie inf and ends up in a draw. The Jumbo might be a choice but severl vet units with schrecks have easy days with jumbos.

The fingers from all the clicking do hurt sometimes, esspecially when trying to fight with rifles. I did succeed winning with rifle squads in numbers (8+ squads) against 2 luftwaffe inf squads but only with captain, rifle nades and off map arty on their Healing HT. It requires huge concentration and permanent awarenes about more than 12 combat infantry units + several other support stuff. And then reinforcing one part of the army and going back to front while the other half is permanent in combat and keep moving all the time+ using several abilties. Thats why the really largest part of infantry players simply blobb rangers (which all get pinned and shred by single Mg42 or scout vehicles fixed on location) + maybe a jumbo sherman. And thus they often fail completely when one Panther hits the filed. SD2 do alos a short job with such blobbs. A mate is sometimes trolling arround and makes some fun stuff. He wanted to finish a game with a huge inf assault consisiting of 7 ranger squads, combat engineers in masses+many rifles. He had 6 transport trucks with each 4 squad inside. Really a massive group. But even these large group failed against a single Mg42 in first attempt and later failed against a single Tank IV J. So 24 inf squads (rifles, ranger, combat engineers) simply failed against one or two axis units. At the other hand 3 gren squads and 2 AT squads from terror or def can simply rush and overrun several Tanks, HMG´s, rifles etc etc. IF this has nothing to do with super humans and super bullets then idk. 24 US inf squads as blobb killed by one normal Battletank (or at least all took heavy losses) but 5 axis inf squads for about the same cost rushing an simply through tanks and mgs as if they are pea shooters.

Fighting against Luft as inf doc can be very nasty. Really really nasty. At the other side i had a game with luftwaffe using just two units. Gebirgsjäger and Regiment 5 and i could hold back enemie commandos, aa tanks, scotts and shermans by being also under fire by arty slavos. With very good micro like hdding quickly behind a house, reinforce + sd2 drops Skilled Luftplayers (that are not simply blobbing and do hit and run with obvious attacking routes) can fight with 2 or 3 opponents for a while. AB can do the same but only when having several 101st with lmgs on the field already.



Micro with a number for tanks is the hardest as they cant simply retreat like inf. There you need to know when to stop which unit for maximum accuracy, which unit how to retreat and when facing any kind of amor also know which tank is in the best position for HVAP. Using HVAP then for the wrong may end up in a res waste as the unit dies by opposition before being able to make a shot with HVAP. Easiest way is to put simply Hellcats in ambushes everywhere (+ some HE shermans) and to wait for the enemie to drive into an ambush. Command vehicle makes all that then even more complicate and thats why most use the command car only in combination with single Jumbo or pershing instead with a group of normal sherman tanks.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

Luft have been 1 of the weakest axis docs for a long time, it exactly have only 1 game period when doc rocks (from 5 till 25 min) when you get first luft units together with flak and butterfly bombs. In late game luft player always have smallest army of all players and sometimes i even struggle with question "what i can do?" because since you convinced Wolf to increase their reinforcement cost its impossible to have more than 2 luft units in active game ( its 45 mp per man curently, lets say you have 2 Reg 5, and loosing half of squad in each platoon every minute, 45x6=270, that is nearly all mp income) so you must choose what squads you can have, either reg 5 or Gebirgs, i simply use one type on urban maps, second on open fielded. Together with all this things in late game you get the situation when you no more able to deal with inf, because by that moment Raf or Airborne have 7-8 elite inf squads, which are obvioulsy simply outnumbering your 2 luft units (or outperfoming, 101s with 5 mgs or commando Enfields after tree upgrades, both doing a short job to a regiment 5) flaks are also not a panacea, especially when veted cw arty on field, its a 5 second deal for priest to destroy flak. Panther D? - joke unit. And what mostly bugs me when playing luft its a snipers, biggest pain in the ass due to "2 squads max possible" this guys are ruining every your atack, and you really cant counter them without mates support. Finally, luft is a most useless doc in late game for axis team, the only things it can do: dropping sd2, hunting Priests and some tanks with henchel overwatch, sending recon plane for spotting targets and have 2-3 luft units which are staying defensivly, because every atack only leads to snipers feeding, what you cant afford due to their price (maybe also Wirbelwind as AA, but it happens rare, because BK and Def docs have cheaper ostwinds\mobelwagens which are more effetive). If you ask me what air doc is the worst raf\airborne\luft, ill say luft.

But finally, its a price for crazy effectivness in early mid game and its fine, i think balanced. As for SD2 which you hate so much....also extremly good in early mid game, but not doing any significant effect to a late game, when i play USA inf\air, i just running through them and insta reinforcing my troops, because always swimming in resourses, moreover, as soon as your inf gets vet 3 butterfly bomb no longer able to kill more than 2 soldiers, immobolized tanks are repaired in 3 secs by 99mp armor doc terminators or upgraded sappers.

Doc is okthough, but i have an issue about it.

How about to cut 50% (or even more) points required for vet up of gebirgs and regiment 5? Its a huge problem currently, they getting exp god damn slow in compare to alied air units (commando starts with vet.2, score 10 more kills, you have vet 3, 30 kills - vet.4, airborne even more crazy, because when you keep them near to HQ team they gaining exp extremely fast, 101s did 15 kills near hq team? - thei vet. 3 already). For vet 3 luft you need about 60 kills. And i never (never means really never) met luft vet. 5, though personally when i play raf or airborne i have veted 5 units almost in every battle (you can see it in my replays) thats why in late game there is no use for luft units (unless you didnt loose a single luft squad and they got high vet. lvl) because your alied air counter parts having 3 times more elite inf units on higher vet lvl, which breaks "quality vs quanity" idea, because your veted 1 reg. 5 cant handle veted 3 commando or airborne, so quality and quanity, both on alied side in this question. I personaly found that terror grens are much more reliable than luft units, cheaper, faster reinforcement, fire nades, you can easily have more than 3 of them and not suffer because of snipers.

@Wolf, what do you think about dropping their exp for lvling up? and slightly faster reinforcement maybe.

[Warhawks97]

Its basically topic about Ubermenschen but remember that Commandos lost also their cheap reinforcment advantage as well. the 101st is doing that what luft and commandos did and thats why i requested to slightly increase their reinforce cost as well by like + 1 which would make some difference already by 4 squads being reinforced.

But this here is mainly about Ubermenschen and uneccessary quality vs quantity issue in infantry fights. The main subject actually is why "quality german solider" has more health as comparable Allied solider from a counterpart unit as if they are "born as cheap quantity human trash". Same for bullets and rifles that actually had been similiar or where basically good quality weapons became "worse" as actually neccessary just to push "quantity vs quality even further". Thing is that many stats of soliders and Tanks got maintained during several versions although cost differences between units do not differ so much as in older BK versions. Esspecially in early-mid game where cost differences doesnt exist anymore and armies of booth sides got a similiar size this issue is more or less visible. I am not sure but i think that this is one reason why i feel always so easy going in early-mid stage when playing as axis and thats where i do my most wins as axis. Late game overall is better balanced when either AB cheaper reinforce cost or Inf doc cheap ind/ranger spam starts. At that part i feel that the game is balanced so far with booth sides doing attacks.

About luftwaffe balance i would maybe open a new topic if you have ideas. With faster vet i would be carefully. Thing is that vet 3 is the vet step that makes many inf units immortal as it often changes the infantry armor type. What about if units would simply stay with their armor type without changing it with vet 3? Just a tought.

But just as tip: Combining Luft inf with Marders, Hetzers or Wirbelwinds can be effective. Just many got used by simply blobbing them and getting rich by cheap reinforcment cost when they had been cheap. That it isnt possible to simply field and reinforce 4 elite squads all the time shows actually that the change helped. My Goal with reducing build cost by setting up their reinforce cost it that it gets easier to combine such elite inf squads with other unit without being able to spam them when keeping them alive and winning without need for unit combination.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

Well, i just heard that luft is kinda op from your side many times, just wanted to prove that its definately not. (even weak in late game, because 2 squads on vet. 1-3 VS 6 vet 3-5 squads are suck hard)
When i play AB i just trolling all this reg. 5 and gebirgs, though in good hands they are still dangerous, but slow vet receiving and high price are doing bad job.

[crimax]

Good or not, Gebirgs and Fallsch have a too much slow VET system especially when compared to other elite units. I don't argue about their basic stats values because imho, they are good.
Opposite discussion can be done for Commandos, good VET but poor stats/effectiveness.

About butterfly bombs, as I told to 97 yesterday, I can agree to change them to something like a "landing bombs" (if codeable), BUT Luft absolutely need something that helps it to hold in early/mid game !

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

Good or not, Gebirgs and Fallsch have a too much slow VET system especially when compared to other elite units. I don't argue about their basic stats values because imho, they are good.
Opposite discussion can be done for Commandos, good VET but poor stats/effectiveness.

About butterfly bombs, as I told to 97 yesterday, I can agree to change them to something like a "landing bombs" (if codeable), BUT Luft absolutely need something that helps it to hold in early/mid game !

In Spearhead mod this SD2 works exactly like landing bombs and you know......its a waste of ammo against any player who knows with what button to retreat units, because by the moment they touch the ground the area is absolutely clear, so, ill say no to any sd2 changes, maybe only delete autofire of paks and mg crews, so they will not suicide themself by shooting to a bomb which lies near them.

[crimax]

I have absolutely no idea how SD2 bombs work, I never seen them at work. I can imagine it but if they are unuseful, then I ask: Does Luft really need another nerf, WTF ?

Only if more effective SD2 bombs are codable I agree BUT, in balancing, I want a better VET for Gebirgs and Fallsch !

P.S.: When we start to talk about Brit Commandos ?

[SteamID_razelazz]

Why does a Grenadier for example have more Hit Points then a American G.I.? They where "healthier"? NO!

I know exactly how you feel. Americans were obviously getting better and more food. Therefore, they should get more health. To correspond with this increase in health, their unit models should also be changed to have bulging bellies, their movement speed should be reduced because of their healthiness, and they should be easier to hit because they present a wider, larger target. And when they die, the bodies should count as hard cover because bullets obviously cannot penetrate that much flesh.

I can understand for example - Grenadiers having more HP then Volksgrenadiers, since the Volks where created around 1944 - the same time the sickly stomach battalions started to form. In that case - ye I get it! Sickly soldiers, with lower manpower costs and less HP. That's fine.

I agree, and it would be much more realistic for Volks to get a medicine first aid ability, like snipers, so that the old folks can take their heart medications and young soldiers can get their vitamins.

The Americans have a longer way from home, wayyyyyyyyyy longer. Which means it's more costly and time consuming to get them to the front.

Yes, this has definitely been a problem for some time. I think the solution to this is to add a fuel requirement for American infantry. That way, it properly represents that American soldiers had to take a boat to get to Britain, then a ferry to get to France, then trucks to get to their sectors in Normandy. That's a lot of fuel being used, so I think 20 or 25 fuel would be appropriate.

[Wake]

I used to joke back when Knights Cross Holders were still in the game that the US should get a similar squad - The Texas Rangers:

It's 6 guys riding horses that all have lever-action rifles, revolvers, and cowboy hats. And they have a special ability called "Ride Like the Wind" that makes them immune to suppression and gives them a speed, damage, and accuracy boost.

Oh, and you know how the Knights Cross Ubermenschen could throw grenades incredibly far? The American answer for that was the US Army All-American Baseball Team. It's a squad of men who can pitch their grenades the entire length of the map, and when they get in close to the enemy, they hit them with baseball bats.

[Warhawks97]

I used to joke back when Knights Cross Holders were still in the game that the US should get a similar squad - The Texas Rangers:

It's 6 guys riding horses that all have lever-action rifles, revolvers, and cowboy hats. And they have a special ability called "Ride Like the Wind" that makes them immune to suppression and gives them a speed, damage, and accuracy boost.

Oh, and you know how the Knights Cross Ubermenschen could throw grenades incredibly far? The American answer for that was the US Army All-American Baseball Team. It's a squad of men who can pitch their grenades the entire length of the map, and when they get in close to the enemy, they hit them with baseball bats.

If knights cross wouldnt be removed now i would really support the texas rangers^^. The grenade guys remind me of the Ork squad in DoW II. Those are only there for throwing nades over very long distances^^.

[Patrymir]

Yes, this has definitely been a problem for some time. I think the solution to this is to add a fuel requirement for American infantry. That way, it properly represents that American soldiers had to take a boat to get to Britain, then a ferry to get to France, then trucks to get to their sectors in Normandy. That's a lot of fuel being used, so I think 20 or 25 fuel would be appropriate.

Don't forget that we also need to add plenty of extra manpower for some units since the Germans where quickly running out of fuel supplies. Maybe make the German troops ride in on to the field of battle on some horses like some kind of Nazi American Space Cowboys from Moon Texas.

On a more serious note:

You have to realize that I'm talking about giving most infantry units equal HP.

Since the Volks would have less HP you can create a special addition to an infantry doctrine that would allow for the increase of Volks health.

You DO realize that Volksgrenadiers had specialized loadouts that ranged from everyone being equipped with MP40's or StG44's. These where known as Sturm groups.

Now I don't know what you think, but having 9 men fully equipped with StG's would change any Allied situation drastically and very quickly for the worse - YET! That is not a standard loadout. This equipment was specifically distributed to specific groups.

The American army was the only one at that time which could supply every single soldier with a mass produced, reliable and easy to operate semi automatic battle rifle.

What I wanted to know is - if more people would be interested in equalizing the infantry fights and yes! I got the answer - I'm not the only one wanting this change.

Even the British troops have what it takes to be formidable opponents (standard loadout wise).

The Enfield has 2x the amount of rounds at the cost of 2x the reload (you get 2 stripper clips). The .303 round causes less damage as well, but the cycling on the bolt is a tiny little bit faster. Downside is - smaller round, with less killing power = slightly less accurate weapon. The heavier and faster the round the less things such as wind for example can push it off course.

[drivebyhobo]

Get over it, this is a Game, it's not supposed to be realistic. Therefor, full realism doesn't apply.

Examples, why can a Sherman 76 penetrate a Jagdtiger? Why can a PaK-38 penetrate SP's?
You get the picture.

This is a mod of game that's focused on using realism to improve gameplay and depth. If you really wanted to play games without any realism you'd be playing Rise of Nations where spearmen can beat tanks. You just don't like realism in this particular thread because you're an axis fanboy who doesn't like the idea of a more realistic garand because that wouldn't benefit you.

As for your example, the low chance that a Sherman 76 or pak-38 can penetrate frontally those tanks, is an abstraction of the fact that a tank's front is not a uniform value and all tanks have those weak spots even in the front.

I really don't understand why this always has to devolve into fanboy wars and mockery. Personally I like BK because the increased realism increases the depth and intensity of the game.