Inspiring for perfection!

[Krieger Blitzer]

Again?

It's just a "slight" ammo price to be added, in exchange of even more MP to be gained on the other hand!

Anyways.. plz let's close this subject for now...

[Warhawks97]

But as far as I would know.. u really never lack MP as Inf doc ^^ Or just rarely I mean... So 285-265\10 after the reduction instead of 300\15 would be really fine for such powerful squads!

sure? when you get bombed out then you have neither more res nor more units.

[MarKr]

Plz don't push me into being furious while replying u in a bad way.

Now explain me how I push you into anything? By pointing at the contadictory stuff in your posts? I haven't written your posts...

I re posted the point regarding the AT guns price changes of which he replied saying "not decided yet" on it!!
And then I 'again' posted the AT teams price changes by modifying them a bit, because I believe both subjects are still firmly connected.

Again, why? Wolf wrote:

AT Team price won't change

That clearly means no price changes for AT teams, yet you immediately suggest another price change.

First, u suddenly stated that this topic should be LOCKED... In such a rude way for no reasons..

Yes, because the debate was going nowhere and would solve nothing and I suggested to lock the topic on page 7, now we're on page 11 and the debate has really not moved anywhere. And you say that I suggested it for no reason, well the forum guidelines clearly state:

5. Do not drag threads offtopic.Threads may be locked if you drag them offtopic. You may be banned from the thread, and have your posts deleted. The moderators are not here to clean up threads though so do not expect offtopic posts to just be deleted, and the thread left open. You are responsible for your posts, so if you get thread locked due to offtopic posts, it is your fault and no one elses. Offtopic posts that derail a thread ( provide fodder for others to post offtopic ), will most likely be deleted straight away.

this topic went offtopic quite a few times.

Sorry man, but the last few posts went like:
Tiger: I would like to see in game this, this, this and this because (reason 1,2,3).
Some forum member: Not really, because (reasons).
Tiger: LOL, no. What I said makes sense because (same reasions 1,2,3,)
Wolf: No. (gives reasons)
Tiger: Why not? (ignoring all the reasons given), repeats his reasons again.
Some other forum member: Well, maybe but keep in mind that very often that is not the case because (gives reasons).
Tiger: What? No. (gives example of what once happened to him)
Some other forum member: Yeah, but my experience is (describes experience).
Tiger: No, that never happens. (gives video)
Some other forum member: Video proves nothing.
Some other forum member: There are flaws in the video.
Wolf: Also questions the weight of the video.
Tiger: But the video shows exactely what happens in the game!
Some other forum member: No it doesn't (gives reason)
Some other forum member: No it doesn't because (gives another reasons)
Tiger: But the video shows exactely what happens in the game!
(some more arguing about the video)
Wolf: AT team prices won't be changed, AT guns maybe.
Tiger: Maybe the AT team prices could be changed like this (gives suggestions for changes)
POST ENDS WITH "IT'S UP TO YOU"
MarKr: AT teams prices were swept off the table
Tiger: I wasnt talking to you, I was talk
Wolf: AT teams prices are swept off the table
Tiger: Why the fuck is it off the table?!

This is simplified but it is pretty much what happened here in last few pages. You simply want some changes that have no real reason or need and when you hear "no", you simply don't listen and keep talking about what you want. Sorry, but this reminds me conversations with my 6 years old cousin.

[Butterkeks]

THANK YOU MARKR!

Well nothing more to add actually.
Just one thing, Tiger:
I couldn't stand you even before our game, mostly because of your way to " discuss " which Markr just showed perfectly.
When nearly everyone in this Forum tells you that your ideas are bad, including Wolf, maybe you should just accept it.
Adding amo costs to AT squads would leave you defenseless against enemy tanks once you don't have any ammo points left.
But whatever, you still will come up with this demand in your next post.
maybe someone will find the time to tell you a hundreth time why its BS.

And a big thank you to you Wolf for always trying to balance this mod and not looking for " realism " ( which mostly means to buff Axis tanks and not changing anything on allied side like the ultimative mass production etc).

[Redgaarden]

Just deleted all other posts? I think this is all we need. (Just Trying to be funny)

[Krieger Blitzer]

Now explain me how I push you into anything? By pointing at the contadictory stuff in your posts? I haven't written your posts...

I think the right thing would be if we talk privately regarding this. But since u let it go publicly.. then I don't mind! Let's do it...

This is simplified but it is pretty much what happened here in last few pages. You simply want some changes that have no real reason or need and when you hear "no", you simply don't listen and keep talking about what you want.

That clearly means no price changes for AT teams, yet you immediately suggest another price change.

I re posted the suggestions considering this, because he replied saying "undecided" while I believe both ideas were firmly connected! If one part is undecided.. then the other is also the same to me...

Yes, because the debate was going nowhere and would solve nothing and I suggested to lock the topic on page 7, now we're on page 11 and the debate has really not moved anywhere. And you say that I suggested it for no reason, well the forum guidelines clearly state:

5. Do not drag threads offtopic.Threads may be locked if you drag them offtopic. You may be banned from the thread, and have your posts deleted. The moderators are not here to clean up threads though so do not expect offtopic posts to just be deleted, and the thread left open. You are responsible for your posts, so if you get thread locked due to offtopic posts, it is your fault and no one elses. Offtopic posts that derail a thread ( provide fodder for others to post offtopic ), will most likely be deleted straight away.

this topic went offtopic quite a few times.

If u have later continued my recent discussion with Wolf about it which is now ended for sure.. u wouldn't have said this mess! Observe it once again to know the difference between my arguments with u and him. When he said "Anyways, I said all what I wanted now..." I also appreciated and then quickly replied saying "Alright, whatever.. I said all what I wanted as well" in a try to close the subject completely as it's surely his own decision at the end.

Yet atm u r coming back to re open it once again in such a pure 'off-topic' personal speech of which 'according to ur logic' should be really banned!!!
U claimed that the debate was going off topic since the page number 6 or 7 and that it should have been then locked while I believe it wasn't.. which is something u r absolutely not even meant with! Wolf could have said or hinted about that... Not u!! Or what do u consider urself is?!

U have not to forget too that this topic was published mainly for the good of BkMod1 btw.

However that it's true that the topic went off for several times.. but u know how?! It was accurately when people like Keks for example; kept coming here to this thread from time to time ONLY to just have his insults on a certain member.. who is me! Without even giving or saying a single word regarding any of the hot represented suggestions most of the times!! While personalizing the subjects for sure.
So I guess u had to type this part to someone like him... Not to me!

Sorry man, but the last few posts went like:
Tiger: I would like to see in game this, this, this and this because (reason 1,2,3).
Some forum member: Not really, because (reasons).
Tiger: LOL, no. What I said makes sense because (same reasions 1,2,3,)
Wolf: No. (gives reasons)
Tiger: Why not? (ignoring all the reasons given), repeats his reasons again.
Some other forum member: Well, maybe but keep in mind that very often that is not the case because (gives reasons).
Tiger: What? No. (gives example of what once happened to him)
Some other forum member: Yeah, but my experience is (describes experience).
Tiger: No, that never happens. (gives video)
Some other forum member: Video proves nothing.
Some other forum member: There are flaws in the video.
Wolf: Also questions the weight of the video.
Tiger: But the video shows exactely what happens in the game!
Some other forum member: No it doesn't (gives reason)
Some other forum member: No it doesn't because (gives another reasons)
Tiger: But the video shows exactely what happens in the game!
(some more arguing about the video)
Wolf: AT team prices won't be changed, AT guns maybe.
Tiger: Maybe the AT team prices could be changed like this (gives suggestions for changes)
POST ENDS WITH "IT'S UP TO YOU"
MarKr: AT teams prices were swept off the table
Tiger: I wasnt talking to you, I was talk
Wolf: AT teams prices are swept off the table
Tiger: Why the fuck is it off the table?!

SO I believe u really don't have to re-type the conversation by or with ur own imagination desires of it! As that it's already obvious down there for anyone who would ever like to see it.

Sorry, but this reminds me conversations with my 6 years old cousin.

Plz watch out what u saying dear MarKr.

[JimQwilleran]

Guys, just leave him alone, let him talk...

[DaŇjeL_SK]

11 pages ? Seriosly ? ... noone except tiger nad hawks will ever read it all.... nice work guys... and did u do somethin constructive ? ... did u get somewhere ? .... I don't think so.... GJ

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

About flaks and 107mm mortars: just limit them to 2 only without any other changes.

[Warhawks97]

About flaks and 107mm mortars: just limit them to 2 only without any other changes.

really? more limits one units? Also such changes maintains the unit strenght on small maps but highly decreasing it on large maps. Two 88 or two 107 can be more than a matchwinner at angovile, duclair, rails and metals or so.... but on larger maps again these two units would then just sit on two area of the map but cant be used as a long term strategy to win a game.

Just no to even more limits.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Oh ya Hawks; btw... Regarding the def/arty balance once again.. it's doesn't seem to be that bad currently as it is represented! But I admit it's requiring some tunes to be honest, as that this could be managed once again not through removing the limits of which had been created recently on most of the arty pieces and units. But by just weakening the defensive capabilities on the other hand from now on!!

However that I am not with setting any more limitations.. except with Bunkers to be available ONLY for both the Def and SE docs. Yet on the other hand less HP for 107mm mortar emplacements as already mentioned or suggested before.

And the same way I believe that there should be no limitations on 88s, I think it's not a good solution.. just the flaming salvo shells to be added for the Sherman105 in order to decrease the pressure on the CW Priests a bit... Again as already showed or mentioned previously several times!

[Warhawks97]

Oh ya Hawks; btw... Regarding the def/arty balance once again.. it's doesn't seem to be that bad currently as it is represented! But I admit it's requiring some tunes to be honest, as that this could be managed once again not through removing the limits of which had been created recently on most of the arty pieces and units. But by just weakening the defensive capabilities on the other hand from now on!!

I am thinking same. Thats why more expensive paks, cheaper vehicles, changed 88 (taking normal damage and normal range) would then make others than only priest and flames shells effective. Games could be won by pure tactical movments.

Camping in general would become less appealing.

Panther G in TH doc instead Nashorn also aims in this direction.

[Krieger Blitzer]

wowowowowo. From where comes such kind of horrible ideas???!!! o.O Simply noway.
Again;
NO to less 88s range, NO to Panther Gs for the TH doc!! Not because the Gs are stronger as I believe they are just like all the other terrible Panthers.. they are just more like fragile 76 Sherman tanks without any good abilities even atm... Later they shall receive the accurate long shot for 45 ammo at Vet lvl 2 as I once suggested hopefully!

[Warhawks97]

Fragile?:D I am not sure if you mean that in a serious way or if it is a joke oO. Most will hate you for that sentence probably. The Panher G is far away from being is "fragile as a sherman". The G has also btw the best gunisght available in game.

And again: 88 unemplaced has more range than emplaced. Tell me one reason why it should keep that way. Why to pay more for emplaced when unemplaced is just as durable with even more range? I tell you that is simply remaining vcoh crap.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Panthers surely weren't fragile in real life.. but sadly in this mod they aren't really satisfying or just bad currently... Absolutely no good abilities!! Could be killed with one hit from ambushed Hellcats usually. And even normal 76mm AT guns can soak up all their health once they do penetrate somehow... A Tiger does have a quite awesome collection of abilities on the other hand. Even more health..

However that as suggested, the so called accurate long shot should be available for Panthers instead of this rapid shooting ability. Tigers should receive the ability earlier as mentioned before already!
Anyways...

The emplaced 88 does have much more HP than the other un-emplaced version!!! It also can't be totally destroyed with a single flaming salvo nor with only 2 gun shells or 2 Zooka rocket hits o.O

[Warhawks97]

Panthers surely weren't fragile in real life.. but sadly in this mod they aren't really satisfying or just bad currently... Absolutely no good abilities!! Could be killed with one hit from ambushed Hellcats usually. And even normal 76mm AT guns can soak up all their health once they do penetrate somehow... A Tiger does have a quite awesome collection of abilities on the other hand. Even more health..

However that as suggested, the so called accurate long shot should be available for Panthers instead of this rapid shooting ability. Tigers should receive the ability earlier as mentioned before already!
Anyways...

The emplaced 88 does have much more HP than the other un-emplaced version!!! It also can't be totally destroyed with a single flaming salvo nor with only 2 gun shells or 2 Zooka rocket hits o.O

Panthers armor is a way better as tiger armor. esspecially G. Go ahead and ask players. Illa is rushing his G´s stright to enemie base throught paks etc. Ask others if they are "weak". Just yesterday i had to convince players that the G is not an OP unit (i am not telling names, but its not rare that i must keep convicning several players that the G is not OP).


Does anyone use emplaced 88? Only those who dont know how much better unemplaced is. I would guess emplaced 88 has 450 HP (unemplaced 325). I also guess that emplacments receive 50% of the damage from arty, the unemplaced 88 just 25% (all other naked weapons receive 100% damage from the arty when beinghit directly). So the fact that unemplaced 88 has higher damage reduction by being also harder to hit than emplaced (smaller target) the unemplaced is always preferable. It may takes more damage from tank shells and zooks but srsly.... which unit survives a run against an 88 (when this is also covered by few units arround).

[Krieger Blitzer]

Panther G is OP??!! Much better armored than the Tiger in BK??!!!! o.O I doubt..
Hmm... Ya! That's true.. even if u remember that video, the Panther G with a mounted top turret MG gunner could survive 3 (3 bounced) penetrating upgraded Zookas frontally being 10% health WITHOUT having a damaged engine or a main gun Very big achievement! At least u can drive backward safely now
While the Tiger... NO! Both the 2 testing times.. it couldn't survive the same upgraded 4 (2 bounced) penetrating Zookas frontally being also 10% health without causing a wrecked engine or a destroyed main gun on the other hand

BIG DIFFERENCE, u know!!!


YET:-
I can't deny that in Bk mod.. Panthers do have a slightly better gun and a slightly better frontal armor than Tigers as well, just like in reality... However that they do also have less HP cause of weaker sides and generally smaller size etc.
Which is something that maybe leads to the same result at the end btw!!! Logic one too.

I AM NOT SAYING PANTHERS IN BK ARE WEAK, JUST TRYING TO PROVE THAT THEY ARE NOWAY OP.
So whenever u succeed penetrating them; usually they will be almost gone due to less HP than of Tigers.

Don't try to convince me that they are OP. Never dare to even start... Or I will be then flooding some really bad videos regarding this ^^

[Krieger Blitzer]

HEY! HEY! HEY! GUYS, listen to me btw;

The Inf doc AT capabilities are obviously based mainly on those AT teams... Why?! They are based ONLY on a frontal rush tactic.. again why???!!!

I have got a simple idea to solve this!!
AGAIN no 3rd Zooka upgrade.. M10 as default for all docs... AND the Hellcats to be added FOR INF DOC BEING IN THE M10 unlock item...

DONE ^_^

[Warhawks97]

HEY! HEY! HEY! GUYS, listen to me btw;

The Inf doc AT capabilities are obviously based mainly on those AT teams... Why?! They are based ONLY on a frontal rush tactic.. again why???!!!

I have got a simple idea to solve this!!
AGAIN no 3rd Zooka upgrade.. M10 as default for all docs... AND the Hellcats to be added FOR INF DOC BEING IN THE M10 unlock item...

DONE ^_^

+ from my side

[Wolf]

- from mine.

M18 will not be in all US doctrines, deal with it.

[Krieger Blitzer]

deal with it.

Nice...

Huh,

Even when they lose the 3rd Zooka?!
Why?!?!

Wolverine isn't a decent tank of which anyhow deserves to be unlocked with CPs.. u know.

[Wolf]

They WILL NOT lose 3rd bazooka! Why do we have to repeat it over and over again?

[Krieger Blitzer]

At first, it was about withdrawing the 3rd Zooka for nothing to be gained on the other hand.

Now it's different.. we are just wondering why even should the Inf doc AT capabilities to be mainly sticking on such pure frontal rushing units?! Why not for them to lose the 3rd Zooka but this time for something to be there on the other hand as a good replacement... Hellcats for example!!!


Too sad how u denied it that quick :\ Probably even without thinking!

[Wolf]

You don't have to rush with them, and they are in fact more effective when not rushing.
Anyways, Inf doctrine is and will be mainly about infantry, and I am almost 100% sure, that adding additional TD would shift that a lot into tank AT instead. Especially if 3rd zook would not be there.
And maybe it would even be a bit OP in the end, especially after price reduction, where you would have M18 + 2 at squads (even with 2 zooks), so you would then want AT prices to go up, on which I would tell you no again.
So no to third zook removal, no to m18. Repeating that again.

[Krieger Blitzer]

As u wish it Wolf, as u wish it... I am honestly.. tired!