Re: 4.9.9 Patch Preview
Posted: 27 Jul 2017, 05:42
Mhmmm. Okay.
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.
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.
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.
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.
MarKr wrote:- Axis 37mm and 50mm PaKs should now one-shot Dingo and Bren Carrier
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)
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)
- 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]
- Calliope jeep moved from Airborne doctrine to Infantry doctrine
- Unified speeds of Shermans M4, Cr.............................................Armor doc changes.................................
- Added smoke shells to Commandos Mortar team
- Mass production now also lowers the price of Panzer IV J to 380MP 30F
- Stuka patrol should now target exclusively emplacements and trenches occupied by infantry (so no longer attacks road blocks/sandbags/OPs/barbed wires etc.)
sgtToni95 wrote:Will it still target triage centers right?
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.
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, 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??!!
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.
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 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.
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.
Panzerblitz1 wrote:No 38km/h isn't accurate at all!
Panzerblitz1 wrote: Panzer IV has better armor in game and better range guns.
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.
- 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.
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 ), 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
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.
JimQwilleran wrote:Rip axis
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 illaTiger1996 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??!!
Can you stop with these exagerated expressions? Cromwells have speed of 6.4 and 4.6 is "insane" for M4?Tiger1996 wrote:that's already why I agreed to tweak the speed of Panthers instead of insanely increasing the speed of ALL Shermans.
I already said why.Tiger1996 wrote:Keeping in mind that Shermans are already faster at the moment!
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:Panther G is most expensive.. so I think this one should keep its current speed.
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.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!
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
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.
MarKr wrote:Can you stop with these exagerated expressions? Cromwells have speed of 6.4 and 4.6 is "insane" for M4?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Warhawks97 wrote:The Ostwind is often considered as slow and combersome although its speed is almost that of an M10. Problem is the accleration.
Warhawks97 wrote:m4s to 4.2 unified, e8 4.6, jumbo 3.5 and calli 3.8..... tune accleration.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Tiger1996 wrote:So, by pointing out this fact; KornBlatt did not come up with anything relevant.
Tiger1996 wrote: Even tho some players here already stated how they were able to knock out Tiger1 frontally using only 2 Easy8s.
sgtToni95 wrote:I even used Assault ability, combined with targetting ability (please tell me its actual name i hate using this ), 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.