4.9.9 Patch Preview

If there is something new, it will be posted here.
KornBlatt
Posts: 17
Joined: 16 Mar 2017, 23:34

Re: 4.9.9 Patch Preview

Postby KornBlatt » 27 Jul 2017, 05:42

Mhmmm. Okay.

User avatar
Kr0noZ
Global Moderator
Posts: 242
Joined: 26 Nov 2014, 06:20
Location: Germany

Re: 4.9.9 Patch Preview

Postby Kr0noZ » 27 Jul 2017, 07:19

Wow guys, seriously? That escalated quickly ^^

Tiger1996 wrote:Look who speaks now! Play another, and sustain the chatter. Though it's honestly not a surprise how you try to insert ur nose in here right now, as you are obviously now trying to exploit my disagreement with Panzerblitz1 to your own favor.. just to enforce yourself somewhere where you don't really belong or even care to belong. I still didn't forget your trash conversation with Panzerblitz1 himself recently, not long ago. When you tried to twist every single statement, although being very simple and clear, just so that it would seem like if you are a smart-ass of some sort. Don't play it with me...
And btw; it was Panzerblitz1 himself who called you smart-ass before, not me even.

That's not really a civil way to talk to each other! I'm not going to "moderate" this for now, but if you keep this up other mods won't be lenient. This is not the tone we should be using here. Consider yourself warned!

Panzerblitz1 wrote:...with you its always the same music, Monsieur don't want changes, and feel its BS, you just don't even played the game yet, no you didn't!, but still, a little caprice is in good order from Monsieur Tiger, but hey Tiger, we do the game, not you, ok? you're not satisfied? uninstall bk and stop breaking our ballZ.

Also not exactly what I consider proper tone here... I expect better from you!

On Topic:
Only Panthers made that fast were the early production in 1943 without speed limiters. They added those only a few months after because the Panther could not deal with such a speed and stay working.

This is actually valid. So if your main concern is fighting Panthers with Shermans (which didn't really work that well anyhow), you should listen to this. Maybe we could reduce Panther speeds a little instead of bringing the Sherman speeds way up.

Other than that,
After looking up these information... Then I have to say that I am strictly against the speed changes of Shermans on the change-log. Reasons vary, but obviously.. all the Sherman speeds are set to be historically accurate at the moment. Maybe except the Canadian 76 Shermans from RE doc. They should have max speed of 4.2 like the Beute 76 Sherman and the 76W Sherman... Not to mention that these changes would make all Shermans way much faster than IVH or IVJ on the other hand.
Which is bad for gameplay and balance, and also not realistic or historical.

I agree here, that was researched in depth before implementation. If balance dictates faster shermans I still wouldn't bump them up that much;
And the reason why Shermans aren't stellar performers in Armor Doc isn't because they're slower, it's because people just assume that Axis-Style tank blob assaults work, which isn't the case for US - those basic infantry guys you have in armor are there for a reason, I recommend using them in some combined arms fashion and suddenly it's a lot less useless.
"Normal people belive... if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Engineers believe... if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet."
- Scott Adams

User avatar
sgtToni95
Posts: 502
Joined: 04 May 2016, 09:50
Location: Italy

Re: 4.9.9 Patch Preview

Postby sgtToni95 » 27 Jul 2017, 09:18

Hi all,
as always, thanks devs for keeping the work going. :)
I've been away for few days and i missed few discussions (fortunately maybe) and big changes seem to be coming along with this patch.

MarKr wrote:- Axis 37mm and 50mm PaKs should now one-shot Dingo and Bren Carrier


I know i've been pointed out as Brits biased, that's probably why i'm the only one not completely agreeing on this one :) . I agree with 50mm pak oneshotting Dingo and Bren carrier, tho i'm not really sure about the 37mm AT:
Only T1 vehicles currently dying in oneshot from T1 ATs are jeeps and swimms, which only cost MP and have not such a huge impact in delaying phases progression. Dingo and Bren carrier may be considered as PE scout cars for the time they see the battlefield, and for the fact they cost some fuel too, delaying second truck and Recce.

I know not everything is meant to be the same, but i think, even if not completely realistic, 37mm 2-shotting the mentioned vehicles could make a little more sense balance wise: it usually breaks engine or damages badly enough the vehicle so it won't have the chance to run, but i think leaving the option for inf to rush the pak and save the vehicle from T1 AT is pretty fair. To make more people understand my point of view, imagine 37mm AT gun oneshotting scoutcars of PE doc which, iirc, cost even less mp than both Bren and Dingo and can't be damaged by normal weapons the same way.

MarKr wrote:- Demolition charges now take longer to plant (19-25 seconds from 5-8)
- Demolition charges should now destroy any building next to which you plant the charge in one explosion (applies to US Engineers, AB engineers *update, WM Pios, Storm demo squad, CW Sappers(+RE sappers), Commandos, Sturm pios, Luft Pios)


Good to hear, just one question: what does the planting time depend on? I read 19-25, so does it depend on the unit making it? On the selected target?

MarKr wrote:- All Axis tank hunters which used to have Ambush near bushes but "static position" in other place now have only Ambush but it has same activation conditions as tank destroyers of Allies (in other words, Axis can ambush in same way as allies can)


Finally, this was so annoying sometimes!

- Significantly increased damage output dealt by Axis 28mm, 37mm and 50mm AT guns vs CW HQ trucks in mobile mode (when the truck is "deployed" the damage remains the same as it was before; change made to prevent crush abuse from CW players in early game) *update[/color]


I only saw one player doing this so far, not sure this was really needed, it's more about players fairness.


- Calliope jeep moved from Airborne doctrine to Infantry doctrine


Love this, together with removed MAIN arty from RAF and Luft.

- Unified speeds of Shermans M4, Cr.............................................Armor doc changes.................................


I was trying Armor doc lately, after all theese "useless armor" topics, to find some different way to make it work before SP, invest your ammo during whole game, and make Inf more efficient and I wanted to give some attention to M20 command vehicle, which i found with "targetting" ability can give your infantry that little boost which allows it to deal with same tier opponents.

I even used Assault ability, combined with targetting ability (please tell me its actual name i hate using this :D ), and i killed a tiger with 2 E8s (only once, so maybe that was just luck) without losing them, killed several Jpz4/70 in 1v1 engagements with E8s. It's pretty micro-intense, and sometimes having more than just one command vehicle could have made it easier to flank and work on more than 1 place, but i think it's very rewarding.

I didn't try defensive and recon abilities due to lack of time, but that was on my to-do-list. Just i've never liked using tanks and never really played this doc, but i didn't find it so pointless, and now it seems you found a different way, which is liked by the most, so i guess i'm just late, and it will make surely it easier and more funny, nvm ;)


- Added smoke shells to Commandos Mortar team


Wanted to ask why it wasn't there since a long time, just i kept forgetting it, nice one!


- Mass production now also lowers the price of Panzer IV J to 380MP 30F


I didn't really see any positive response to this one, and i must agree with them: you say if they had a smaller price difference, people would of course pick H version, but i think it's comparable to 76mm Sherman which nobody uses due to E8 being just little step above. I think such a small price difference would be considered more meaningful if games were played on maps with lower resources income, but it's not the case.
In my opinion in this case "we don't want to make units underused" might be leading you the wrong way banace wise, and, i know it's not a good method to evalutate, but the fact that even Tiger says it's too much, should be taken into account. I think the current price as reduced would be just fine.


- Stuka patrol should now target exclusively emplacements and trenches occupied by infantry (so no longer attacks road blocks/sandbags/OPs/barbed wires etc.)


Will it still target triage centers right?

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 393
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: 4.9.9 Patch Preview

Postby Jalis » 27 Jul 2017, 09:44

sgtToni95 wrote:Will it still target triage centers right?


hmmm. Watch your back if you dont win the war (justice strike loosers only).

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3656
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 4.9.9 Patch Preview

Postby Tiger1996 » 27 Jul 2017, 10:00

Kr0noZ wrote:This is actually valid. So if your main concern is fighting Panthers with Shermans (which didn't really work that well anyhow), you should listen to this. Maybe we could reduce Panther speeds a little instead of bringing the Sherman speeds way up.

Yes, and I never said that I am against adjusting the speed of Panthers.. as I even suggested this idea by myself earlier...
Tiger1996 wrote:
Kwok wrote:fast engines but slow turret rotation does not make for a fun game. So something to consider I think is not to speed up shermans but slow down panthers.

This, I also have to agree... I had this idea in mind too. Panther's speed could be significantly reduced.. and then the flank speed could be probably moved from the Tiger1 where it makes little sense to the Panther where it makes more sense, still at vet 1.

So, by pointing out this fact; KornBlatt did not come up with anything relevant.
I wouldn't mind to see the speed of the Panther D reduced from currently 4.6 to be probably same as 76W Sherman for example.. which is 4.2 or something. But increasing the speed of ALL Shermans including the 76W to 4.6 is honestly a terrible decision... Specifically the speed of the HE M4 Sherman, as it shouldn't be faster than 3.8 anyhow. Neither should the Easy8 become faster than it is already at a speed of 4.6 currently... So, generally I am fine about tweaking the speed of some Panther tank variants instead of insanely increasing the speed of ALL Shermans like if it was we are running a fest down here.


The reason why I am so concerned and so touchy when it comes to be about changing vehicle speeds, is because I consider it a big deal.. the speed of a particular tank is vital for its overall combat effectiveness. It's such a very sensitive matter... I even consider the Cromwell tank to be more useful than most other mid game early Axis tanks, only because of the speed.. 6.4 basic speed in addition to flank speed ability! Who could catch that???!!! Not to speak about the Comet and other Allied tanks.

Lastly, I would like to apologize to you if I have been a bit too harsh.. but I don't like how some people try to briefly infiltrate heated discussions at some certain points just to achieve or enforce some of their own goals... While not really aiming at the actual point of the discussion rather than to hunt down a specific person. Such people were never really interested in the discussions from the beginning anyway.
But I am actually sad to see how Panzerblitz1 reacted to my point of view after I illustrated the exact speeds of different vehicles in the game using Crosix.. when he came with sentences like "it will happen, even if u don't like it or not" as I really believe he could have been a lot more kind and more constructive than this. And he is not someone I disrespect... I only said my viewpoint.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2225
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 4.9.9 Patch Preview

Postby MarKr » 27 Jul 2017, 10:12

This is getting ridiculous...at first Tiger starts his ususal "I'm concerned with..." posts about speeds of Shermans, then, few posts later, he says he is for changing speeds in some "middle way" or slowing down Panthers and then he opens a program, looks at numbers, remembers that speeds were set to be "historically accurate" and all of sudden he is strictly against it again because he presumes Xali wanted something.
I always say that gameplay comes first, historical accuracy second and for a good reason. Game engine does not allow to set max reverse speed, max speed is the only value you can set and it applies no matter if the vehicle is going forward or backward - here already "historicaly accurate" argument fails because reverse speed was way slower on most tanks than forward speed. In reality Panther would never be able to reverse and outrun shermans who drive towards it - according to my information Panther's reverse speed was whooping 3.5 km/h. But in the game it reverses at full 46 km/h but obviously you have no problem with this from historical point of view and the fact that you can just keep reversing, outrun shermans, keep facing your frontal armor towards them so they keep bouncing off and pick them off one by one from distance...that is totally OK, because Panther costs more etc. (so what? In reality Panthers cost more than Shermans and in this situation Panther would be lost to Shermans...so...historical accuracy?)
And since you say how Xali wanted this or that...Armor doc describtion clearly says that you will be able to swarm opponent with waves of Shermans, in tech tree you have several unlocks dedicated to Shermans only and Xali made 90mm guns weak as hell and they were not really an option against stronger Axis units. My assumption is that Xali actually wanted this flaniking tactics to be used but it is a game and when you somewhere set realistic values and somewhere not, what will you get? Realistical engagement ranges of tanks in WW2 were way longer than "60" (value in game) so here we are not historically accurate while speeds of tanks should have "accurate" values and at the same time reverse speeds are complete bullshit but yeah, let's ignore that because we want historical accuracy, only except for the case where we don't.
So don't try bring historical accuracy as your main argument. You want historical accuracy where Axis had severe shortage of fuel (so let's say 0.3 modifier on fuel income for WM and PE)? What about engine breaks of Tiger tanks? We could make them randomly take engine damage whenever they move...This "selective desire for historical accuracy" is ridiculous to be honest, we have a game here and gameplay takes first place over historical accuracy.
Image

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3656
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 4.9.9 Patch Preview

Postby Tiger1996 » 27 Jul 2017, 10:30

Historical accuracy was never my main argument, but actually used by Panzerblitz1 and not me. As he said somewhere that Shermans would get more historical/realistic speeds like in WW2. Didn't he? But these changes only make it less historical, not the opposite! And when I pointed out at the old times when Xalibur was still here, I didn't claim that this should stay as it is just because he wanted to.. as I only wanted to point out the fact that the historical speeds were already earlier introduced to this mod back then when Xali was still here... And even Panzerblitz1 made videos about it himself too! So I just wanted to remind him.

So, I totally understand that realism comes 2nd and gameplay comes 1st. But even from a gameplay point of view... It's not logical if u would say that the IVH/J need to be faster just so they could be able to flank Pershing tanks. Claiming that otherwise they would be easily killed from distance by the Pershing, I wonder if this is a sane logic to you??!! Furthermore; I already know that it's not possible to adjust the reverse speed for tanks in this game.. however, that's already why I agreed to tweak the speed of Panthers instead of insanely increasing the speed of ALL Shermans. These changes would only make IVH/J too slow when compared to Shermans... Keeping in mind that Shermans are already faster at the moment! As there is no need for them to become even faster than they are already. So, I am speaking in terms of both gameplay (1st) and also realism (2nd) these changes are harmful both ways.

Edit:
Regarding the speed of Panthers, I wanted to add... Panther G is most expensive.. so I think this one should keep its current speed.
Keeping in mind also, that Panthers in reality were much cheaper than in the game.. basically Panthers would cost same as the Firefly if this game was historically accurate, just saying. Both the Panther.D and A on the other hand can have less speed, but I would be careful with the Ausf.A in particular because it's still not much cheaper. And at the same time, all Shermans should definitely keep their current speeds in my humble opinion.. without any changes. And I know that Croc Sherman has a speed of 5.2 but no one said it's a problem at all... It's just a flame tank. The flame Hetzer also has flank speed iirc!

User avatar
Redgaarden
Posts: 322
Joined: 16 Jan 2015, 03:58

Re: 4.9.9 Patch Preview

Postby Redgaarden » 27 Jul 2017, 11:56

So, I totally understand that realism comes 2nd and gameplay comes 1st. But even from a gameplay point of view... It's not logical if u would say that the IVH/J need to be faster just so they could be able to flank Pershing tanks. Claiming that otherwise they would be easily killed from distance by the Pershing, I wonder if this is a sane logic to you??!!


The pzIV doesn't get any defence modifers so it alwasy get one hit killed by pershing. And it has worse ap shells for taking down armored targets compared to Shermans makes it a terrible flanker. Flanking in this mod doesn't mean gettting rear shots. It mostly means putting yourself and the target in a situation where no one can retreat. So even if you flanekd a pershing with 3-5 pzIV they would still all die. And also about the speed of M4A3 75mm is perfectly accurate since it could also be outfitted with the latest engine that the easy eight used which could probablly make it even faster than the heavier variant.
And also for the sherman vs pziv engament. Pz4 has better ap rounds to kill shermans and higher reload speed and more armour. Which favours pz 3/4 times.

And the Panther was only and example. It also has to flank the other heavier tanks too.
Rifles are not for fighting. They are for building!

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3656
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 4.9.9 Patch Preview

Postby Tiger1996 » 27 Jul 2017, 12:18

And also about the speed of M4A3 75mm is perfectly accurate since it could also be outfitted with the latest engine that the easy eight used which could probablly make it even faster than the heavier variant.

Good idea actually! This remind me of the M36 Jackson engine upgrade which is required to access the flank speed ability... Adding similar engine upgrade to HE M4 Shermans in order to increase the basic speed from 3.8 to 4.4 or something, honestly doesn't sound like a bad idea at all. But this engine upgrade would have to be quite expensive, just to avoid seeing this already effective HE Sherman being able to wipe out inf and then quickly escaping with only little chances to hunt it down.

The pzIV doesn't get any defence modifers so it alwasy get one hit killed by pershing. And it has worse ap shells for taking down armored targets compared to Shermans makes it a terrible flanker. Flanking in this mod doesn't mean gettting rear shots. It mostly means putting yourself and the target in a situation where no one can retreat. So even if you flanekd a pershing with 3-5 pzIV they would still all die.

Yup, and this also makes the 76 Shermans against the Tiger more reliable than IVH/J against Pershing btw... I have seen Shermans upgraded with sandbags and over-repaired surviving a couple of hits by Tiger tanks!

And also for the sherman vs pziv engament. Pz4 has better ap rounds to kill shermans and higher reload speed and more armour. Which favours pz 3/4 times.

Correct, but keep in mind though that Shermans are already faster than any IV.H/J in return ;) And the penetration difference is very slight. Also, the 76 guns were recently given less reload time.. right now they have similar rate of fire as PzIVs.

User avatar
Medic Truck
Posts: 69
Joined: 15 Jun 2017, 19:31
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal

Re: 4.9.9 Patch Preview

Postby Medic Truck » 27 Jul 2017, 12:28

MarKr wrote: In reality Panther would never be able to reverse and outrun shermans who drive towards it - according to my information Panther's reverse speed was whooping 3.5 km/h. But in the game it reverses at full 46 km/h but obviously you have no problem with this from historical point of view and the fact that you can just keep reversing, outrun shermans, keep facing your frontal armor towards them so they keep bouncing off and pick them off one by one from distance...that is totally OK, because Panther costs more etc.

So don't try bring historical accuracy as your main argument. You want historical accuracy where Axis had severe shortage of fuel (so let's say 0.3 modifier on fuel income for WM and PE)? What about engine breaks of Tiger tanks? We could make them randomly take engine damage whenever they move...This "selective desire for historical accuracy" is ridiculous to be honest, we have a game here and gameplay takes first place over historical accuracy.


Very good arguments. Nobody cares for the randomly charging Shermans getting picked up by simple PAK 50 mm and surely by the bigger AT guns. There is a lot of gameplay elements which work together.

I love Panzer IVs nicer armor than Shermans. Great gun too. But, they weren't made to run around to outflank tanks. Nice head to head engagements were there deal. So, all one has to do with Axis is to place the front armor while reversing if in difficult situation.

The argument that Panzer IVs are slow in rushing the Pershings and hence Shermans can't outrun Panthers is moot because Pershing is a doc specific tank. And Panthers are there in both Blitz and Terror too.

I think all this change in doc is doing is trying to encourage folks to consider Shermans to lead in front supported by later heavy arrivals to add up the charge. Without good infantry and artillery, the tank commanders still need to be very careful against the Axis quality powerhouse.

Before commenting any further on this topic, I will rather wait for the replays of players playing different docs. I love watching those. And the impact and newer synergies will be seen.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2833
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 4.9.9 Patch Preview

Postby Warhawks97 » 27 Jul 2017, 12:41

Panzerblitz1 wrote:No 38km/h isn't accurate at all!



http://www.wwiivehicles.com/united-stat ... m-tank.asp


It is. The M4 had many different engines giving it speeds from 38 to 42. 105 had 40 approx

For the game they can be upped to 4.0 easily.

The M4A1 series was the worst so far with 38-39 kph. Besides calli there is no A1 series in game. Those had a speed of 35 kph similiar like jumbos.

A2 were fast with up to 48 kph but they are not in game.

M4A3 were fast up 42 kph. About the E8 i am unsure. Varrying from source to source with 42 to 48 kph. I think offroad they are faster than other shermans.


The weight of shermans was between 32 tons and 37 tons for easy eight. The E8 was so heavy due to the increased armor protection. The main frontal armor plate for the turret was increased from 51 to 91 mm and the sides from 51 to 64 mm. Hull front got also stronger in armor thickness.




So i do think that xali did a quite good job trying to set all tanks in a good relation.



The main surprising things for me are actually the Ostwind high top speed of 5 (like a m10) with poor accleration. I would make him just as the Tank IV´s with maybe slightly better accleration.

Regarding Panther i would check its accleration rather thank max speed. I would say that this is the actual problem regadring that cartoonish. Also the decleration and the switch from forward to reverse.


the new change would make the e8 just as fast as an m10 actually.


Panzerblitz1 wrote: Panzer IV has better armor in game and better range guns.


If this is the reason for giving the sherman higher speeds you could just as well make some adjustments for tank IV guns vs shermans or Sherman vs Tank IV.

As i said, the main issue i see here is the extrem accleration of the Panther and Jagdpanther (And tigers maybe). Idk if this is somehow historical but 3 for Jagdpanther seems a way off for me when comparing to all the others.


Regarding Panthers historcial speed. Only the D model had a speed of 54-55 kph (in game would be 5.5). Later they got reduced to save the engine down to apporx 46 kph.


Pls, just as last beg. Try to solve "armor issues" not so much with large speed changes. More step by step. Like M4 sherman from 3.8 to 4.0. E e8 to 4.7 and not jumping to 5.
Rather check some broken accleration stats (Panthers, Tiger, Ostiwnd) or real broken speeds (Ostwind).
But dont mess up the armor speeds like that. pls pls pls. Dont make too large jumps arround.
Last edited by Warhawks97 on 27 Jul 2017, 12:55, edited 3 times in total.

JimQwilleran
Posts: 1107
Joined: 07 Jan 2015, 15:05

Re: 4.9.9 Patch Preview

Postby JimQwilleran » 27 Jul 2017, 12:47

Rip axis

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2833
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 4.9.9 Patch Preview

Postby Warhawks97 » 27 Jul 2017, 13:00

sgtToni95 wrote:

MarKr wrote:- Axis 37mm and 50mm PaKs should now one-shot Dingo and Bren Carrier


I know i've been pointed out as Brits biased, that's probably why i'm the only one not completely agreeing on this one :) . I agree with 50mm pak oneshotting Dingo and Bren carrier, tho i'm not really sure about the 37mm AT:
Only T1 vehicles currently dying in oneshot from T1 ATs are jeeps and swimms, which only cost MP and have not such a huge impact in delaying phases progression. Dingo and Bren carrier may be considered as PE scout cars for the time they see the battlefield, and for the fact they cost some fuel too, delaying second truck and Recce.

I know not everything is meant to be the same, but i think, even if not completely realistic, 37mm 2-shotting the mentioned vehicles could make a little more sense balance wise: it usually breaks engine or damages badly enough the vehicle so it won't have the chance to run, but i think leaving the option for inf to rush the pak and save the vehicle from T1 AT is pretty fair. To make more people understand my point of view, imagine 37mm AT gun oneshotting scoutcars of PE doc which, iirc, cost even less mp than both Bren and Dingo and can't be damaged by normal weapons the same way.



Sounds reasonable. Agreed here.

- Mass production now also lowers the price of Panzer IV J to 380MP 30F


I didn't really see any positive response to this one, and i must agree with them: you say if they had a smaller price difference, people would of course pick H version, but i think it's comparable to 76mm Sherman which nobody uses due to E8 being just little step above. I think such a small price difference would be considered more meaningful if games were played on maps with lower resources income, but it's not the case.
In my opinion in this case "we don't want to make units underused" might be leading you the wrong way banace wise, and, i know it's not a good
method to evalutate, but the fact that even Tiger says it's too much, should be taken into account. I think the current price as reduced would be just fine.



Yes. I am also a huge BK doc lover. And using Tank IV´s in this doc for almost a century already.



sgtToni95 wrote:I was trying Armor doc lately, after all theese "useless armor" topics, to find some different way to make it work before SP, invest your ammo during whole game, and make Inf more efficient and I wanted to give some attention to M20 command vehicle, which i found with "targetting" ability can give your infantry that little boost which allows it to deal with same tier opponents.

I even used Assault ability, combined with targetting ability (please tell me its actual name i hate using this :D ), and i killed a tiger with 2 E8s (only once, so maybe that was just luck) without losing them, killed several Jpz4/70 in 1v1 engagements with E8s. It's pretty micro-intense, and sometimes having more than just one command vehicle could have made it easier to flank and work on more than 1 place, but i think it's very rewarding.

I didn't try defensive and recon abilities due to lack of time, but that was on my to-do-list. Just i've never liked using tanks and never really played this doc, but i didn't find it so pointless, and now it seems you found a different way, which is liked by the most, so i guess i'm just late, and it will make surely it easier and more funny, nvm ;)


All M20 in armor doc have this marking target ability. Not only the command one.
The attack boost gives 25% increased penetration and 50% increased accuracy. The units affected by it have to stay in a circle of 40 range arround the Command vehicle.

The recon mode gives sight and range boost. 10 sight and range. But makes little sense for shermans i would say when facing armor because you wont pen them anyways. Meanwhile that gives the SP a massive boost.


MarKr wrote:This is getting ridiculous...at first Tiger starts his ususal "I'm concerned with..." posts about speeds of Shermans, then, few posts later, he says he is for changing speeds in some "middle way" or slowing down Panthers and then he opens a program, looks at numbers, remembers that speeds were set to be "historically accurate" and all of sudden he is strictly against it again because he presumes Xali wanted something.
I always say that gameplay comes first, historical accuracy second and for a good reason. Game engine does not allow to set max reverse speed, max speed is the only value you can set and it applies no matter if the vehicle is going forward or backward - here already "historicaly accurate" argument fails because reverse speed was way slower on most tanks than forward speed. In reality Panther would never be able to reverse and outrun shermans who drive towards it - according to my information Panther's reverse speed was whooping 3.5 km/h. But in the game it reverses at full 46 km/h but obviously you have no problem with this from historical point of view and the fact that you can just keep reversing, outrun shermans, keep facing your frontal armor towards them so they keep bouncing off and pick them off one by one from distance...that is totally OK, because Panther costs more etc. (so what? In reality Panthers cost more than Shermans and in this situation Panther would be lost to Shermans...so...historical accuracy?)
And since you say how Xali wanted this or that...Armor doc describtion clearly says that you will be able to swarm opponent with waves of Shermans, in tech tree you have several unlocks dedicated to Shermans only and Xali made 90mm guns weak as hell and they were not really an option against stronger Axis units. My assumption is that Xali actually wanted this flaniking tactics to be used but it is a game and when you somewhere set realistic values and somewhere not, what will you get? Realistical engagement ranges of tanks in WW2 were way longer than "60" (value in game) so here we are not historically accurate while speeds of tanks should have "accurate" values and at the same time reverse speeds are complete bullshit but yeah, let's ignore that because we want historical accuracy, only except for the case where we don't.
So don't try bring historical accuracy as your main argument. You want historical accuracy where Axis had severe shortage of fuel (so let's say 0.3 modifier on fuel income for WM and PE)? What about engine breaks of Tiger tanks? We could make them randomly take engine damage whenever they move...This "selective desire for historical accuracy" is ridiculous to be honest, we have a game here and gameplay takes first place over historical accuracy.


Tiger is right when he says that cromwell is pretty vital simply because of the speed. I am not against changes at all. But dont make too large jumps.

I wouldnt mind Having Panther at 4.2 speed. But e8 with 5 speed would look more like a "armored race car". It almost catches even the M10.
Instead i would be glad to see the e8 with better armor protection. Esspecially when it comes to the medium AT guns.

What is really fixable is the broken Ostwind and the accleration of several of the heavy "cats". Esspecially Jagdpanther.
Also the e8 can have a an accleration of 2 so that the cats wont have the upper hand when it comes to those forward backward maneuvers.

besides that sandbags also reduce exactly these acclerations already.



@Kronoz: Nice to have you active in forum :)

User avatar
Sukin-kot (SVT)
Posts: 854
Joined: 09 Dec 2014, 08:36
Location: Ekaterinburg, Russia

Re: 4.9.9 Patch Preview

Postby Sukin-kot (SVT) » 27 Jul 2017, 13:44

JimQwilleran wrote:Rip axis

Weren't they dead last 14 months?

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2225
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 4.9.9 Patch Preview

Postby MarKr » 27 Jul 2017, 13:52

Tiger1996 wrote:So, I totally understand that realism comes 2nd and gameplay comes 1st. But even from a gameplay point of view... It's not logical if u would say that the IVH/J need to be faster just so they could be able to flank Pershing tanks. Claiming that otherwise they would be easily killed from distance by the Pershing, I wonder if this is a sane logic to you??!!
Even if I skip the sarcasm in your final question I have to say it is different situation. As I already said, I think you cannot object against this, in general Axis tanks have better armor and guns than tanks of same tier of Allies. This means that Axis can afford to go head-on-head in 1v1 and the chance of wining is in their favor. This is why even now PIVs are slower than Shermans. In 1v1 PIV only needs to keep facing the Sherman and reverse, this way it keeps its advantage. Sherman to get some advantage needs to get to the side where it has chance to score rear hit and deal damage more reliably. This obviously means that Shermans need speed to even the chances in the game. Also reversing with vehicle is easier for micro than pulling off some flanking attempt which again makes gameplay for Axis easier (at least in this). But now the difference - PIVs are rarely used once the heavier stuff is available, simply because by that time Allies can bring up some stronger stuff too and PIVs would die quickly to these stronger guns, so you build something that can withstand a hit from stronger guns. For Inf/AB Sherman is the strongest tank you can get (while all Axis docs have something stronger) and for Armor doc we would like to make Shermans core units while the Pershings/Jacksons only support units - that is what the current changes should do, make Shermans in groups viable throughout the game. How can you keep them viable throughout the game when single Panther can simply outrun them in reverse mode? This is why currently players rush for Jacksons/Pershings/SP - because even if you build a diverse group of Shermans, you cannot beat Panther with them unless the opponent drives in reverse into some obstacle which slows the Panther down...so players go for more viable options with which they don't need to flank and have chance frontally, we want to change that. But I already said - if people think it would be better to make Panthers a bit slower while unifying the Sherman speed to 4.2 then fine, it will have the same effect. I just thought that people will cry like crazy if we touch Panthers...look at illa :D

Tiger1996 wrote:that's already why I agreed to tweak the speed of Panthers instead of insanely increasing the speed of ALL Shermans.
Can you stop with these exagerated expressions? Cromwells have speed of 6.4 and 4.6 is "insane" for M4?


Tiger1996 wrote:Keeping in mind that Shermans are already faster at the moment!
I already said why.

Tiger1996 wrote:Panther G is most expensive.. so I think this one should keep its current speed.
So what? In 1v1 Panther G wins vs Sherman hands down. The speed change will only have some effect if the Shermans are in groups and I dare to say that if you go 2v1 the Panther has still good chance of winning. When you go 3v1 then the chance get more in favor of Shermans but at this point Shermans already cost 1500MP 210F (after price reduction 1095MP 156F) while Panther G costs 890MP 155F. Given the fact that coordinating 3 units in flanking maneuver is more micro-heavy than reversing with 1 unit, I don't see a problem here.
Tiger1996 wrote:And I know that Croc Sherman has a speed of 5.2 but no one said it's a problem at all... It's just a flame tank. The flame Hetzer also has flank speed iirc!
Again...so? BASIC speed of Croc Sherman is 5.2, basic speed of flame hetzer is 4.2 the fact it can go faster for short time is result of paying ammo for usage of an ability. Comparing basic values of any unit to values of similar unit boosted by abilities makes no sense.
Image

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2833
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 4.9.9 Patch Preview

Postby Warhawks97 » 27 Jul 2017, 14:14

Ok.


Have you gusy read about the accleration thing which i consider as the main reason for that quick forth and reverse.


4.2 for shermans (and croc), 4.6 for e8, 3.5 for jumbos, 3.8 for calli.
Boost accleration for them and its fine here.

Panther to max 4.4 (or 4.2), fix acceleration for the cats (not higher than 2), fix broken otwind (super speed but poor accleration... balance that better and make them more like the normal Tank IV´s with bit better acceleration maybe) and i think we can go home all satisified.

The top speed wont help when acceleration and braking gives you no advantage. For e8 that change would mean "rush or die" while Panther would still have a huge edge in these very critical acceleration and brake moments. These forward backward skiping things.

User avatar
Shanks
Posts: 399
Joined: 22 Nov 2016, 22:02

Re: 4.9.9 Patch Preview

Postby Shanks » 27 Jul 2017, 16:04

Hi all
The only thing I do not like about the changes are three things: 1-cromwel 95 mm removed from RAF ---- 2-Jeep calli removed from airb ---- 3- Panzer IV "J" 380 MP and 30 fuel, maybe it would Better: 390 MP and 40 of fuel. The rest of the changes we could try them, it would be great to see the results, before discussing so much, for nothing

@Tiger:Do not cry anymore for the SP, please, it's not the big deal
@Sukin:Respect to terror and the cromwel, I agree with you. The cromwel 95mm should remain where it is and terror should have back to the KNIGHT'S CROSS, I think the allies have the ability to stop them now
Anyway this looks fun (I'm just thinking, I do not have the absolute truth)

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3656
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 4.9.9 Patch Preview

Postby Tiger1996 » 27 Jul 2017, 18:10

First, I have to thank Warhawks for his commitment.. he addressed a lot of valid points, even though I might have few reservations on some of what he said. But overall, the majority of what he said is valid...

MarKr wrote:But I already said - if people think it would be better to make Panthers a bit slower while unifying the Sherman speed to 4.2 then fine, it will have the same effect. I just thought that people will cry like crazy if we touch Panthers...look at illa :D

Wait, do you think that Nami and Sukin said this just because we talk about touching the speed of Panthers? Then I am sorry, but if u really think that this is the whole problem.. then you must be unaware of what's actually happening. As it's definitely not the case...

Nami already said the reasons why he thinks so when he published the topic "General discussion on the recent balance" and he said even more recently with his conversation with Hawks on that other topic called "Anti tank gun and veterancy" even to the point where he almost insulted Hawks (which is unfortunate tho) because of how miserable the Axis gameplay in general had actually become, which is a fact itself... As I agree with Nami regarding this matter to some extent. Of which is something I already expressed btw throughout the "General discussion on the recent balance" topic. Even though I would highly criticize the way of which illa has managed to speak with Hawks recently, because in fact... Hawks only said his viewpoint. Which isn't exactly biased to any side. Just that they probably don't clearly understand his actual point in the proper way. And I have played with Hawks several games recently, so glad to see he is back.

But anyways...

MarKr wrote:Even if I skip the sarcasm in your final question I have to say it is different situation. As I already said, I think you cannot object against this, in general Axis tanks have better armor and guns than tanks of same tier of Allies. This means that Axis can afford to go head-on-head in 1v1 and the chance of wining is in their favor. This is why even now PIVs are slower than Shermans. In 1v1 PIV only needs to keep facing the Sherman and reverse, this way it keeps its advantage. Sherman to get some advantage needs to get to the side where it has chance to score rear hit and deal damage more reliably. This obviously means that Shermans need speed to even the chances in the game. Also reversing with vehicle is easier for micro than pulling off some flanking attempt which again makes gameplay for Axis easier (at least in this). But now the difference - PIVs are rarely used once the heavier stuff is available, simply because by that time Allies can bring up some stronger stuff too and PIVs would die quickly to these stronger guns, so you build something that can withstand a hit from stronger guns. For Inf/AB Sherman is the strongest tank you can get (while all Axis docs have something stronger) and for Armor doc we would like to make Shermans core units while the Pershings/Jacksons only support units - that is what the current changes should do, make Shermans in groups viable throughout the game. How can you keep them viable throughout the game when single Panther can simply outrun them in reverse mode? This is why currently players rush for Jacksons/Pershings/SP - because even if you build a diverse group of Shermans, you cannot beat Panther with them unless the opponent drives in reverse into some obstacle which slows the Panther down...so players go for more viable options with which they don't need to flank and have chance frontally, we want to change that.

I am afraid you are massively mistaking. I probably can't tell you how WRONG it is to believe that Axis tanks are better than Allied ones in this mod... It's nothing but a myth. You need to realize that Axis tanks in this mod are in fact not any better. Probably worse actually. And less cost effective. Except at some extreme 1v1 situations, which often doesn't happen. What makes Axis playable at all, is not actually their "better" tanks but rather their rocket arty spam and abilities. It's sad, but this is the truth. Without abilities, Axis are unplayable. Take a look at the Comet for example... Compare it with Panther D or Terror doc Tiger, the Comet is doubtlessly better in every possible aspect. Flank speed by default which lasts active for too long, allowing the Comet to drive insanely fast for a very long time.. as well as good Armor and great cannon. Being cheaper too! And available about the same time.

Compare the Pershing with Tigers, after recently buffing the 90mm guns and increasing the price of Tiger tanks... Pershing wins any day.. unless the Tiger is veteran, as it's the only chance to compete with the Pershing or the Jackson using the superior abilities of the Tiger tank. Or not to speak about the Firefly and Achilles, being available in every CW doc. Firefly out-ranging all Axis tanks with an extreme high rate of fire. Achilles being as good as Jacksons, but with a cheaper cost. And the King Tigers being a waste of resources. As it's usually an easy target to enemy airplanes.. keeping in mind that WH has no planes at all, therefore more tanks. Which isn't really an advantage but rather the only way to stay alive.

And I didn't complain how already IVH/J are currently slower than Shermans btw.. but I complain how you are going to make Shermans even faster than they already are. Excluding the M4 HE Sherman of course. But for some reason now you want to allow grouped Shermans to be more capable of escaping Axis heavy tanks which are already much slower. You also want to allow Shermans to compete with Panthers and Tigers.. like if you are completely not aware about the existence of Jacksons, Pershing and the Super Pershing in particular. Armor doc can NOT have super heavy tanks with massive armor as well as extremely fast medium tanks at the same time... Shermans are already decent against IVH/J and it's currently balanced, somewhat at least. As I have seen IVH/J bouncing off 76 Shermans and 76 Shermans bouncing off IVH/J the other way around. But now your speed changes are only making it worse for Axis. And btw, sandbags together with over-repair are more effective combat wise than skirts. Sandbags allow the Shermans to withstand many hits from big guns, while IVH/J are easily one-shotted most of the time... And now you want to make the Easy8 as fast as the M10 Wolverine for god's sake. And harder to catch for slower tanks such as the Tiger. Except with flank speed. Even tho some players here already stated how they were able to knock out Tiger1 frontally using only 2 Easy8s. If you increase the speed of the Easy8, Axis tanks would have to run after those Shermans in order to hopefully catch them, exposing their flank. When suddenly a tank destroyer appears from god knows where and eventually knocking out the expensive Axis tank with ease.
And btw, I think the 81mm mortar is the only true advantage of Blitz doc when it goes against Armor doc in 1v1, other than that Armor doc definitely has better tanks. And inf can't do shit after 2s aim time and improving HE rounds. Even the Hellcat can wipe out StormTroops, as I said this somewhere else before.. going for StormTroops against Armor doc is now considered suicidal.

MarKr wrote:Can you stop with these exagerated expressions? Cromwells have speed of 6.4 and 4.6 is "insane" for M4?

So there is no exaggeration here. Yes, 4.6 is considered insane speed for M4 Sherman which is already toooo effective against inf...
Not to mention again that after sandbag upgrades or over-repair, it's able to withstand many Shreck hits. You are changing it from 3.8 to 4.6 which is considered a HUGE buff to the mobility of this tank. You shouldn't forget the 2s aim time of handheld AT weapons. M4 Sherman costs only 30 fuel and 300 MP which is cheaper than many half-tracks, and don't tell me that some PzIVs such as the IVJ is going to be cheaper as well, because I already told you that this price reduction for the IVJ would be also nonsense.

MarKr wrote:So what? In 1v1 Panther G wins vs Sherman hands down. The speed change will only have some effect if the Shermans are in groups and I dare to say that if you go 2v1 the Panther has still good chance of winning. When you go 3v1 then the chance get more in favor of Shermans but at this point Shermans already cost 1500MP 210F (after price reduction 1095MP 156F) while Panther G costs 890MP 155F. Given the fact that coordinating 3 units in flanking maneuver is more micro-heavy than reversing with 1 unit, I don't see a problem here.

Panther G requires 7 CPs, 155 fuel and 890 MP as well as production upgrade. Sherman Easy8 requires only 1 CP and some upgrades... And no, it's not a different situation with IVH/J against Pershing. 3 IVH would cost as much, if not more! And 76 Shermans are already more reliable against heavy Axis tanks than IVH/J against heavy Allied tanks on the other hand. Somebody wants to kill a Panther? Easy. Why not to just get a Jackson, a Pershing (which are both earlier available than Panther G btw) or even a SP? You can't buff 76 Shermans any further as long as those powerful heavy Allied tanks exist in the game.

I really don't understand how suddenly Allied tanks became too slow to the point that they need urgent speed buff somehow!! Seriously, WTF. The majority of Allied tanks have flank speed ability as a default ability...

MarKr wrote:Again...so? BASIC speed of Croc Sherman is 5.2, basic speed of flame hetzer is 4.2 the fact it can go faster for short time is result of paying ammo for usage of an ability. Comparing basic values of any unit to values of similar unit boosted by abilities makes no sense.

I think you forgot flame Hetzer can also ambush. And I am comparing the speed of both tanks in general... Hetzer isn't slower when you consider the existence of the flank speed ability which requires no veterancy to use. Using ur logic, would u say that the Hellcat is faster than the Cromwell for example?? Noway. Even though Hellcat has a speed of 8 and Cromwell has a speed of 6.4, yet, you must not forget that Cromwell has flank speed ability which is usable anytime. I would say that Cromwell and Hellcat almost have equal speeds, or maybe the Cromwell is even faster.

Now to what I believe should happen regarding the vehicle speeds, there are some options:
- First option of all, the current speed of Sherman tanks should not be touched at all, or in other words... I don't mind mind if you would unify the speed of all Shermans to 4.2 as basic speed like u suggested. Except the M4 HE Sherman though. As I agree with Hawks here; M4 HE Sherman should not be any faster than a value of 4.0 anyhow, even 3.8 currently sounds reasonable if I might say.. and the Easy8 max speed should never really exceed 4.6 at all. Remaining as it is currently, specifically if you would manage to lower the speed of Panthers. As I surely agree to decrease the speed of Panthers, though I am not really sure if touching the acceleration speed of Panthers or any other bigger cats would be a good thing or not... But I agree with Hawks about tweaking the top speed and the acceleration speed of the OstWind.
However, I am honestly not sure how exactly the speed of Panthers could be reduced tho... Historically, the D version should be the fastest as Hawks pointed out. But let's ignore realism here.. maybe you could decrease the speed of Panther.D to around 4.2 and Panther.A to around 4.4 or something. But again; Panther G speed should stay as it is at 4.6. Otherwise you would have to consider lowering its price. It's not only most expensive, but also requires more command points than any other Panthers. Even some Allied tanks of the same tier are available earlier. Speaking about Jackson and Pershing!

- Other option could be to lower the speed of ALL Panther significantly to 4.0 while again not touching the speed of Shermans.
Nonetheless, in return.. you could remove the flank speed ONLY from the Terror doc Tiger, Blitz doc Tiger would still have it. Then you could give the flank speed ONLY to the Panther G at veterancy level 1, other Panthers won't have it. But in return, you would allow the accurate long range shot ability ONLY to the Terror doc Tiger at veterancy level 1 instead of currently veterancy level 2, other Tigers would keep it on vet.2 on the other hand... This was just another option, but it's your call at the end.
I have said more than enough... Don't think I have to explain my opinion any further.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2225
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 4.9.9 Patch Preview

Postby MarKr » 27 Jul 2017, 18:46

Again dodging what I said by bringing up other questions and pointing at situations that were not in question in the first place. Our history proves that we never move from this point because we will keep talking for another 5 pages and come to no conclusion. This is where I stop.
Image

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2833
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 4.9.9 Patch Preview

Postby Warhawks97 » 27 Jul 2017, 18:55

MarKr wrote:Again dodging what I said by bringing up other questions and pointing at situations that were not in question in the first place. Our history proves that we never move from this point because we will keep talking for another 5 pages and come to no conclusion. This is where I stop.



Could you also give a short reply to what i suggested. accleration and stuff?

The Ostwind is often considered as slow and combersome although its speed is almost that of an M10. Problem is the accleration.

Same will be for sherman, esspecially sandbaged. The top speed wont help if you take much longer to reach it. Instead of turning the e8 into Ferrari with an accleration of an Trabi (old car from the communist eastern germany) i would prefer a better balance here.

So pls. Not historcial trash talk now:

m4s to 4.2 unified, e8 4.6, jumbo 3.5 and calli 3.8..... tune accleration.

Panther to 4.2- 4.4.... tune accleration of the cats and the tactics you envisioned here for armor doc would definately turn out better than simply maxing out speed of shermans to such extend.

And i am honestly not convienced that e8 with a speed of M10´s would make the mod looking any better. I am getting many pictures of vcoh style which worked exactly this way (with M10 in particular) and i dont think it would look great.

I would get much more a feeling of playing with T34 that rush in an swarm arround their victims. But not really like playing an US armored force to be honest.


Also.... who has faster turret traverse? Panther or Sherman? Such things can also be cruical when it comes to flanking tactics.... same goes for traverse speeds. The Panther had (historically now) slower turret traverse speed.

This are often more crucial factors for tactical movments and flanking as the pure top speed of a vehicle.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3656
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 4.9.9 Patch Preview

Postby Tiger1996 » 27 Jul 2017, 19:33

MarKr wrote:Our history proves that we never move from this point because we will keep talking for another 5 pages and come to no conclusion.

Not exactly true btw.. we often had disagreements of such a kind, usually we didn't agree... Yes. But I can safely say that there are still a lot of occasions where we also agreed at some points. So I suppose our history isn't so catastrophic in this regard :D
However, I was not looking forward to argue further anyway.. because like I said; I only provided my viewpoint and that's enough.

Warhawks97 wrote:The Ostwind is often considered as slow and combersome although its speed is almost that of an M10. Problem is the accleration.

Agreed once again... Ostwind has a speed of 5 but acceleration of just 1.2 as it would be nice to lower the speed to 4.0 but increase the acceleration to 2.0 or something.

Warhawks97 wrote:m4s to 4.2 unified, e8 4.6, jumbo 3.5 and calli 3.8..... tune accleration.

Yes, fine with me... Easy8 speed as it is. And all other Shermans (including Croc) can be 4.2, even tho I think Croc Sherman could even stay at 5.2 without any problems, but regardless.. the 105 Sherman should keep same speed as Calli Sherman btw... And well, M4 HE can be 4.2 as well.. although I said a couple of times that it shouldn't be more than 4.0 anyhow.. but whatever.

Warhawks97 wrote:Panther to 4.2- 4.4.... tune accleration of the cats and the tactics you envisioned here for armor doc would definately turn out better than simply maxing out speed of shermans to such extend.

This is where it might be a little tricky though, you see... As you said earlier, Panther.D (historically) should be the fastest.. but well, let's ignore realism. Tho, I honestly think that Panther G should keep at 4.6 or not less than 4.4 otherwise such an expensive tank would be worthless... But how do u want to tune the acceleration here? From 2.5 to 2 or what? But.. wouldn't it seem a bit strange how the Panther accelerates as fast as the Tiger1 tank? Hmm...

Warhawks97 wrote:Also.... who has faster turret traverse? Panther or Sherman? Such things can also be cruical when it comes to flanking tactics.... same goes for traverse speeds. The Panther had (historically now) slower turret traverse speed.

I think they are actually equal in the game. Excluding the Panther.D for sure. But maybe Shermans have slightly faster turrets... Or perhaps the opposite.. the difference is hardly noticeable anyway and I believe won't make much difference to the gameplay. Let's not start even more discussions about turret rotation speeds tho, or I mean let's first settle out discussions on actual tank speeds :P

Warhawks97 wrote:And i am honestly not convienced that e8 with a speed of M10´s would make the mod looking any better. I am getting many pictures of vcoh style which worked exactly this way (with M10 in particular) and i dont think it would look great.

I would get much more a feeling of playing with T34 that rush in an swarm arround their victims. But not really like playing an US armored force to be honest.

Fully agreed.

Lastly though, I would like to bring back some points which might have been lost throughout the discussion;
Tiger1996 wrote:
- Lowered the cost of LMG42 upgrade to 85 ammo (from 100) *update

What about Assault PzGrenadiers and SS squad from Haupt Officer btw?!
LMG42 upgrade price should be also reduced the same way to 85 ammo accordingly.

And:
Tiger1996 wrote:- Also, on the 4.9.6 patch... MarKr told us that the speed of the M36 B1 Jackson is reduced to 4.3 but apparently it's still 4.8 :?:
Or am I wrong maybe?

That's all.

KornBlatt
Posts: 17
Joined: 16 Mar 2017, 23:34

Re: 4.9.9 Patch Preview

Postby KornBlatt » 27 Jul 2017, 19:41

Tiger1996 wrote:So, by pointing out this fact; KornBlatt did not come up with anything relevant.

You pick numbers from World of Tanks and War Thunder when it suits you as your source of information. You really want those numbers? Where are you clamoring for Panthers in CoH to have a 10 second reload rate?
and shermans with 6 second reload as it is in those games? Now you will say it is a different game and it does not apply. You can go buy some more golden ammo if you like those gam

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3656
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 4.9.9 Patch Preview

Postby Tiger1996 » 27 Jul 2017, 19:50

Again, historical accuracy was never my main argument for the game. I only used historical sources when I had to correct some facts!
So, everybody knows that Bk is mainly aimed at gameplay in the first place rather than realism which only comes in the 2nd place.
If this game would be historically accurate, then I am afraid it wouldn't be existing at all. Since it's just a game, and not reality...

User avatar
Shanks
Posts: 399
Joined: 22 Nov 2016, 22:02

Re: 4.9.9 Patch Preview

Postby Shanks » 27 Jul 2017, 20:26

I do not think it's good to make some shermans faster, it's a bad idea, it would be crazy indeed, but because they talk so much about Comet and SP, and they say, allied tanks are better overall .... WTF ... . It seems like they are EJE fan fanatics! Stop joking or joking @ tiger, the AXIS tanks are better, a good example would be TH, or did you never see it in action ?
Try flanking the narshon, for example, with the comet, little friend, and you can do the comparison in price also, if you want. Or maybe you want to win the game with a click? Everything has its advantage and disadvantage

User avatar
sgtToni95
Posts: 502
Joined: 04 May 2016, 09:50
Location: Italy

Re: 4.9.9 Patch Preview

Postby sgtToni95 » 27 Jul 2017, 20:26

Tiger1996 wrote: Even tho some players here already stated how they were able to knock out Tiger1 frontally using only 2 Easy8s.


Just to be clear, what "some players stated" was:

sgtToni95 wrote:I even used Assault ability, combined with targetting ability (please tell me its actual name i hate using this :D ), and i killed a tiger with 2 E8s (only once, so maybe that was just luck) without losing them, killed several Jpz4/70 in 1v1 engagements with E8s. It's pretty micro-intense, and sometimes having more than just one command vehicle could have made it easier to flank and work on more than 1 place, but i think it's very rewarding.


So it was not only 2 E8s rushing frontally, and i said it happened once, which i would not consider such a reliable statistic sample. So don't exagerate please.

Btw i quite agree with Nami: Hawks suggested intriguing changes out of nowhere, but he stopped playing for a while, and he didn't try everything in the mod as it is now (i told him many changes that has occurred during his absence which he didn't know about), so i'd take carefully all suggestions, expecially when they implicate such big changes.
I really really like how he's suggesting to make Armor doctrine tech tree re-designed to have some logic in branches, but i'd take more carefully all changes concerning units' stats, since i saw armor doctrine already performing pretty decently as it is now.

And i'd add that i've seen players that brought up "shit Armor" topics playing, and i might find few reasons why they don't like such a doctrine as it is now: it simply doesn't fit their playstyle.

After this said, would you devs mind answering those few points/questions i brought up in my previous post in this topic (expecially that on 37mm AT gun)?


Return to “Announcements”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests