Blitzkrieg Mod Forum

drivebyhobo wrote:

Relying on more aggressive flanking is just not a panacea. Successful flanking attacks require you to have timing, situational awareness and quick micromanagement skills. Having to rely on several tanks multiplies the chance that something will go wrong when you're trying to sync up the flank attack.

This is the case for US armor and shermans. Those really have to "flank" which means having chances to hit the rear or being very close.

The comet is far from this extrem. You dont have to get literally behind him with comet. You get into fire range, shoot and get out of range.

The advantage is that you have guranteed penetration against most axis medium tanks (shermans are far from that or any US tank except jacks/persh. But one is fragile and has low HP, the other has no flanking ability) and reliable against panthers and tiger.

So you dont have to be so aggressive.

When any tiger or panther is attacking, you can easily attacking them whenever you want.


Just make sure the enemie wont have tons of 50 mm AT guns behind them.

mofetagalactica wrote:So, what about making usa 76' at's and shermans deadly for tigers and panthers and give them more armor ? Since hey if a comet can suddently become a comet, why a sherman couldn't become a sherman?

+1

MarKr wrote:Because Comet is in a single doctrine while 76mm guns are on AT teams (in every US doc), emplacement, Hellcats (in every US doc), 76(W) Sherman (every US doc + RE doc + SE doc) and also Jumbo in Armor doc. Then the nitpicks (I know it is hard to believe but there REALLY are people who are willing to nitpick every little change and try to turn it into a reason for changin everything else even remotely connected; but of course I'm not pointing my finger on anyone) would ask why the 76mm gun suddenly has better performance vs Tigers while still being relatively crappy vs PIVs and demand a change there too, which, if it happens, will require rebalancing the Sherman prices across the entire mod, with the increased efficiency the prices would go up and people will cry that Shermans are too expensive and cannot take a slap without exploding which will further call for Sherman durability adjustments which will further call for prices revisions, at the same time PIVs will become less effective vs medium tanks and also more susseptible to Allied medium tanks so a price change would be needed there too because their current higher price would no longer be justified. Along with all this people will cry also about high price of Tigers which suddenly become easily destructible with a crappy unit which is available in 4 Allied doctrines in unlimited numbers, then some other nitpicks will come and say that if the Sherman 76mm gun is changed to penetrate Tigers according to reality, then Tigers should get their real advantage too - better attack range. So we will increase basic attack range of Tigers in order to be somewhat useable too. Then people will start crying why Tigers have better attack range when units with better guns that also had attack range advantage over allied guns (75mm L70 (panther guns), 88mm L43 (KT guns)) remained the same - again they are right, so increase the range of all of these units too (at this point we are already talking about chaging stuff in about 80 files). Now KTs/Nashorns and all these strong guns can snipe your tanks from a range where your Shermans cannot even see them, great. Now add to it that despite our repeated recommendations many players still play on small maps so these units will be able to shoot from base all the way to enemy base...I could go on, but I guess you get the idea.

Come on:

1. The 76 shermans are only used by armor doc bc in all others they are not worthy their cost. They cant stand 50 mm paks, cant kill inf so decently and and cantl overcome any axis tank except the stubby tank IV´s.
2. A slight cost increase (i mean the 76 sherman already had costs of 460 MP. But due to its performence it dropped to 430 MP) in return for better anti medium tank performence would not hurt. A Tank IV F2 cost 430/50 and can kill the 76 sherman.
3. And in which holly bible is it written that a Tank IV J cant be cheaper than a 76 sherman in some cases?

I mean as a suggestion in this matter the cost could be like that for the units:

76 sherman: 460/60 (365/50 armor doc). E8 is with 500/70 quite well (390/55 armor doc). The Tank IV J (BK doc, unlocked with tank IV unlock+ increased prod speed) 410/45, the H 530/75 (450/60 but in total 5 CP required to get it this cheap). The J in TH doc 450/60 (but needs just two CP) and H like in BK doc.

I mean no need to make it exactly like this but its not that the 76 sherman had already been more expensive. Just instead boosting it to be worth the cost, it simply got dropped.


How exactly would this hurt the balance so badly? We are not talking about changes on panther or whatever. There is no talk about changes on tigers and so on.

Hawks, I think you haven't actually played since a very long time... Have you paused playing again? I thought you actually came back to the game like 2 months ago as we even had some games together.. but then u played for only a few weeks, and now you stopped playing again? I mean last night I had many 3v3 games when the guys actually wanted to invite you several times but every time you were in a "skirmish" and so I'm just wondering!
I think you are never seen on the lobby by anyone anymore. So what's the matter?

I am saying this for a reason, and I really mean nothing in a bad manner.. but the reason is that sometimes I honestly feel like your words are still a bit "out-dated" and often inspired by "your memories" of how the game "used to look like" rather than how the game is actually represented now.

Anyway...

Warhawks97 wrote:1. The 76 shermans are only used by armor doc bc in all others they are not worthy their cost. They cant stand 50 mm paks, cant kill inf so decently and and cantl overcome any axis tank except the stubby tank IV´s.

I massively disagree with this statement. 76 Shermans in other doctrines (I mean excluding Armor doc) are still waaaay better than Panzer.4.F2 (the one with long barrel 75mm, but no top MG gunner or any skirts) and not just good only against "stubby" Panzer4 or whatever.
76 Shermans also don't cost much at all.. and they are for sure better than Pz.4.F2 at every possible aspect, generally better mobility and they have top MG gunner with suppression ability, they can also stand very well against Stug, with fair chances for both sides.. unless the Stug is immobilized though... At this point Stug can't fight back.

And btw, they can stand 50mm Paks too.. they bounce off not too rarely. Hell, I told you before that I even saw Pak40 and other 75mm Axis tanks (such as Pz4 F2, J and H including Stug) sometimes frequently bouncing off 76 Shermans at max range. Of course without sandbags or anything...

So hold on a minute.. how is the 76 Sherman currently "bad" or not "real" etc??? Damn, sometimes two 76 Shermans can already be a threat or at least not an easy target to the Tiger1 tank. Have you never seen a Tiger1 getting knocked out with only 2 Shermans or what?? Well, I HAVE.

Pz4.H is MUCH LESS dangerous against the Pershing on the other hand... Yet, costs more.. but no one complains!

Warhawks97 wrote:3. And in which holly bible is it written that a Tank IV J cant be cheaper than a 76 sherman in some cases?

None. TH doctrine has Pz4.H for 80 fuel and Ausf.j for 70 fuel. This is more expensive than any Sherman tank you can get...

Also, by the way... Keep in mind that Pz4.H and J are actually doctrinal specific tanks, only Blitz and TH docs have them.. unlike the 76 Sherman which is available for all US docs and also some other doctrines as MarKr previously mentioned.

in my opinion the 76 Shermans are already good for their price against ALL variants of Panzer4 right now, they don't need any improvements.

================================================

Back to Comets, I just wanted to add... Now in order to bring 3 Comet you need 180 fuel (1 Tiger tank only cost 10 fuel less) and in the past you needed 300 fuel in order to get 3 Comets. So, I think the devs just made it very right.. as they have literally decreased from the Comet's price what is EXACTLY worth the armor protection they have reduced.

And btw, few hours ago I had a very decent 3v3 game with balanced teams and good players... Mofeta was in my team and I played RE doctrine, also used many Comets.. the game was fun and in my opinion a CLEAR proof that Comets are not worthless anyhow, gotta have to upload that game soon.


There is 1 problem though... I know I have probably explained this many times now, but I feel like I have still not explained it well enough.. so I will give it another try, in a more understandable way.

Currently in RE doctrine:
Firefly = long range + high rate of fire + HE rounds + 4 CP (not too late available) + most expensive + unlimited + available to all docs.

Comet = very high speed + HE rounds + 6 CP (latest available) + cheapest + currently limited to 3 only.

Now, the Achilles...
= even longer range than Firefly (hit and run tactics ability range = 80) + HE rounds + only 2 CP (available most early) + cheaper than Firefly + very high speed + all doctrines have it + unlimited.

I think this sums it up!
So the Achilles obviously need some restrictions here, that's why I suggested limiting Achilles at maybe 2 or 3 only, in addition to removing HE rounds.. in return, Comets should be unlimited.

Tiger1996 wrote:

Warhawks97 wrote:1. The 76 shermans are only used by armor doc bc in all others they are not worthy their cost. They cant stand 50 mm paks, cant kill inf so decently and and cantl overcome any axis tank except the stubby tank IV´s.

I massively disagree with this statement. 76 Shermans in other doctrines (I mean excluding Armor doc) are still waaaay better than Panzer.4.F2 (the one with long barrel 75mm, but no top MG gunner or any skirts) and not just good only against "stubby" Panzer4 or whatever.

You are massively wrong. I suggest You rework your mathematics. If you have some problem with it, I can make the calculation for you.

Roughly a m4a376 is equal to the pIV f2. So Warhawk is true, Sherman cant overcome any PIV long barrel. It can hopes a draw. That also means equal is not ... still waaaay better.

it is even not usefull to explain how ludicrous is it a f2 with 50 mm frontal armour and a slightly inferior gun can be as efficent as a Sherman 76 with 90 mm armour.

It is simple a PIV F2 or a Sherman 76 have better chance to pen a Cromwell with 64 mm armour than a PIV f2 with 50 mm. But forget it. It is not like if BK was supposed to be a realistic mod.

Man, with all due respect to you in person.. but if you play PvP (I know u ever don't, and probably never will) u will then realize for a fact that Panzer4 F2 is probably the most underused/useless unit in the entire game without any doubt, and nothing even comes close... It's actually not worth even 10 fuel, HELL, even a motor-bike might be a better investment.. believe me, I'm also aware about these numbers you are telling about, or you think I don't? Of course I do. However, I didn't speak about the numbers. I speak about general usefulness/effectiveness in PvP games!
And I can tell you with absolute confidence that the 76 Sherman is generally WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better than Panzer4.F2 FOR SURE.

Also by the way, Warhawks is one of those players who also has A LOT of PvP experience.. perhaps even more than I do. Nonetheless, ever since Bk Mod version 4.8.8 and he plays just too rarely.. in fact, probably never at all. So, I just want him NOT to stick with his past memories of the game...

First part deleted-edited due to probable misunderstood of primary poster remark

The discussion was not about who use or who not use a unit.

Like I see things, I would say if piv PIV F2 have a problem it is probably inside its own faction. Probably If I had a pvp game I would invest, for example 20 more MP, and buy an hetzer instead (it is just an exemple). Allies have not this kind of choice ? It dont make Sherman 76 superior to PIV F2.

In summary, the point was ; Sherman 76 is far waaaay better than the PIV F2. Not really I m sorry. They have even about the same cost. If you really think the Sherman 76 so superior to the PIV F2, be honnest and ask ;

1 ) up the sheman 76 cost or
2) reduce the PIV F2 cost.

It is a simple matter of balance no ? Be honnest, you will ask for that ?


If you tells me instead Sherman 76 is far more used than PIV F2, I believe you.

I m not looking for a quarrel, so dont upset

... I even spare you with any other remarks about realism.

Tiger, did play recently. All my mates from my first clan came back literally the last 5 days (they all saw it on steam and the memories brought them back). And right my first game as BK doc was a rush win. We also played internal pvp´s and same picture. I overruned any US defense with Puma and Tank IV J, putting three in production at a time. Holding line with 2 volks, sniper, at gun and mortar (mate had bike as rear cover). Later puma and waiting and waiting..... 900 MP spared, fuel early upgraded and then Puma in first (US heavy AT usually fails to hit Puma in the move) and Tank IV J follows, one HE and heavy AT was dead. On top of that, Tank IV easily stands a 76 shots.

I faced several 75 and 76 shermans and even when they made the first shot and penetration, i won as the second from 76 bounces or simply because my Tank IV J shoots faster.

With AP rounds (axis get 25% damage boost) i oneshoted two 76 shermans in a row. I bounced in total 2 shots and one of theirs actually penetrated.

Also you can spare ammo on the Tank IV J for skirts and AP upgrade and instead use it for Blitzkrieg ability. In a fight vs a 75 mm and 76 mm sherman the 76 bounced off, the 75 mm funnily penetrated. But i shot twice as fast as those and killed em both without taking any further damage.

We are looking to play more often. We have all been away from BK for like two years and more. But we decided to get back to BK. And as i said, the first few games were really impressive. I mean overruning two US 76 mm AT guns just with a single Puma and Tank IV J. AT guns first shot failed, pumas revealed them, Tank IV then bounced a shot and took damage by second. But one AT crew was killed by Puma, the second by Tank IV J HE shot. Aggressively closing in.

On top of all that, we started the game as a 2 vs 3. One mate was afk the first 4 mins. We knew that and still started in order to give the enemie Team (consisting only of US) an advantage.

The only funny thing was, that the Geschützwagen (def doc) bounced three times in a row from 76 sherman while my 50 mm penetrated in the same time frame three times and causing 2 crits).

So the 50 mm is afterall the wonder weapon against any allied armor except the most special one.


The 76 sherman is crap for its standard cost. Thats the bottom line while the new cheap Tank IV J rocking the mid stage. In fact, i started spamming with old cost of 420 MP(build two for that cost) while three more came for even a cheaper cost.

The second bottom line is: US can be overruned from early to mid stage (exactly in the moment when the first tanks popping out) which is the most vulnerable US stage. Just hold the line as WH, upgrade the fuel points, keep your army small (preventing the upkeep) and smash them with Tank IV´s and Puma type vehicles. Speed, Speed, Speed and DPS is what matters vs US, not Single expensive tanks in the late game.


btw: Did you know that the Tank IV F2 (PE i think) can fire smoke for just 10 ammo? So its not that useless anymore, esspecially thx to working HE rounds now. And its gun again is very reliable against any allied tank except again the heaviest.

And regarding my point three, you didnt get it right? I asked Why tank IV´s must be better (armor, penetration, reload speed) than a sherman.
Just why? Is it part of that "axis must be quality, allis quantity" philosophy? That axis do have expensive deadly elite units and tanks is ok, but why it must apply to any of their units?

That the F2 isnt used often is that its rather a doctrinal problem. For terror it makes little sense going for armor this early. And as PE, the Hetzer is always the better choice, also bc the building where you get it is a way more expensive than the Panzerjägerkommando building.


Regarding the comet, i am absolutely agreeing so far.


@Markr: To your question about how effective rifles are. I saw in a replay that my volks Behind green cover were under fire for over one min from US HMG and two rifle squads (all behind green cover). I killed two rifles at a loss of three volks (but i was largely outnumbered. My Volks held so long untill i had HQ upgraded, mortar deployed and second building up. The rifles couldnt close in due to friendly 37 mm AT behind them and a smart placed motorbike of my mate hidden behind a house but able to counter any closing in attempt.

So in the generally ranged combats (closing in in early game is dangerous when vehicles are arround or 37 mm AT guns) the Volks keep the upper hand. At least they hold easily the line in good cover long enough to get mortars.

I will try humour this this.

Tiger said PIV F2 is a shit that dont worth 10 fuels. I look at PIV F2 then the Sherman 76 ... they are so comparable it seems twins. Conclusions Sherman 76 is a shit. logic.

German player go at the restaurant and say.
- " he man, what have you for me today?"
-" a PIV F2, Sir "
Wtf said the german player. " I dont want it. I have lot of money today, give me a nashorn instead"
- yes sir, immediately sir.

US player go at the restaurant and say.
- " he man what have you for me today?"
-" a plate of shit, Sir " (Sherman 76)
Wtf said the US player. " I dont want it. I have amazing amount of money today, What can you give me instead ?"
- the man at the restaurant replied ; " you have amazing amount of money ? you are lucky, I have amazing amount of shit. I can propose you double ration of shit."

It is like that Tiger1996 is right, yes probably you will see Sherman 76 field at bk but not PIV F2.

However fact is ; if I have a Sherman 76 whatever I play pvp or compstomp and I m urged to cross an area guarded by a PIV f2, I know my Sherman 76 is not sooo superior. Stat just say it is 50/50 and I can only rely on RNG GOD, but certainly not an any superiority.

What makes me really sad is such german bias wasn't not necessary. In matter of real tank only armour doc have better choice.

if BK was a realistic game scaling would be PIV F2 > PIV J > PIV H > m4a376 > panther - tiger > tiger II.

really this tank is in the middle where was the difficult to find a balance ? Give me a single reason to downgrade the m4a376 to the level of an old 1942 tank (F2) that really have half of the m4a376 armour, an slightly inferior gun, not to say the m4a376 is half heavier but anyway have a better hp/weight ratio. It is an obvious bias/cheat.

I presume if the tiger tank was reduced to a Sherman armour and the 88 to an USA 76 mm performance, even Warhawk would leave the game.

It is just sad, because BK have an enormous potential, but is plagued to the bones with ludicrous bias.

Even more sad ; can it really change ? I m not sure. Rebalance the game to correct value is a titanic work (and I well placed to know it). Last aside code work, rebalance game for pvp woud cause a stormshit, simply because a part of the player will howl to the moon against any change that dont fit them or change their confortable habits.

Jalis wrote:
Tiger said PIV F2 is a shit that dont worth 10 fuels. I look at PIV F2 then the Sherman 76 ... they are so comparable it seems twins. Conclusions Sherman 76 is a shit. logic.

Well. The F2 looks like a twin to e8.
E8 pens F2 with 67,5%, the F2 the e8 with 65,846%.

However, the Tank IV reloads 4.5-5.5 seconds, the e8 7 seconds. So in a direct engagment of F2 vs e8, the odds are more likely on F2 sides.
against the 76 sherman thats even more the case.
And any axis doc has either f2 or H/J available except def doc.

And i wonder why comparing the 76 sherman with stugs so often. The stug is a 0 CP tank with a cost of vehicles. US does not even have anything similiar to that.

I presume if the tiger tank was reduced to a Sherman armour and the 88 to an USA 76 mm performance, even Warhawk would leave the game.

yes

If someone want nerf (delay) stug, before that nerf annoying 57mm ultra range cannon with wheels.

Tiger1996 wrote:And btw, few hours ago I had a very decent 3v3 game with balanced teams and good players... Mofeta was in my team and I played RE doctrine, also used many Comets.. the game was fun and in my opinion a CLEAR proof that Comets are not worthless anyhow, gotta have to upload that game soon.

I think this sums it up!
So the Achilles obviously need some restrictions here, that's why I suggested limiting Achilles at maybe 2 or 3 only, in addition to removing HE rounds.. in return, Comets should be unlimited.

I remember that game, but i also remember that comets didn't made anything exceptional since they got stuck in different places when u tried to micromanage them and flank on the otherhand i saw more fireflies being used and doing more than comets. I already played 2 games with RE and i gotta say that is weird that those "17p cannons" from commets still need 2 shoots to put down a pz4 and pz4 can easily penetrate you too :j

@Hawks
Well, then I hope to see you play more often.. and I guess you already know that I actually never agreed about further reducing the price of Pz4.J in Blitz doctrine at version 4.9.9 or version 5.0.0 after the mass production unlock. Nevertheless, I still have to disagree with a lot of your points.. but anyways, let's plz keep this topic focused on the Comet tank for now.. maybe later we could speak more about 76 Shermans on other new topics.

Warhawks97 wrote:Regarding the comet, i am absolutely agreeing so far.

After all though; I am glad to hear that we agree together regarding what I previously stated about the Comet, Achilles and Firefly.

Jalis wrote:German player go at the restaurant and say.
- " he man, what have you for me today?"
-" a PIV F2, Sir "
Wtf said the german player. " I dont want it. I have lot of money today, give me a nashorn instead"
- yes sir, immediately sir.

US player go at the restaurant and say.
- " he man what have you for me today?"
-" a plate of shit, Sir " (Sherman 76)
Wtf said the US player. " I dont want it. I have amazing amount of money today, What can you give me instead ?"
- the man at the restaurant replied ; " you have amazing amount of money ? you are lucky, I have amazing amount of shit. I can propose you double ration of shit."

Hellcat is even cheaper than Nashorn, available in all US doctrines and in my opinion.. more cost effective than Nashorn.

Look sir, after all we have very different point of view when it comes to be about discussing units in the game... I know you might have a lot of history and ww2 knowledge.. but you lack PvP experience (this is not an offence btw) and in my opinion, ww2 knowledge isn't enough to determine how units are supposed to behave in the game.. but in order to do that, both ww2 knowledge as well as current PvP experience are required, but actually it's fine for some people such as the devs to overcome the "current PvP experience" and replace it with "awareness of what's being changed" and so far they are very aware of what they have changed over the years as they keep tracking feedback from various players continuously too.

And no, Bk Mod is obviously not biased towards Axis or any other side... Gameplay wise, things can just go wrong for both sides.. as it's just a game!

Tor wrote:If someone want nerf (delay) stug, before that nerf annoying 57mm ultra range cannon with wheels.

You mean the range of the 57mm AT gun US/CW half-track? If yes, then you just made a good point!

mofetagalactica wrote:I remember that game, but i also remember that comets didn't made anything exceptional since they got stuck in different places when u tried to micromanage them and flank on the otherhand i saw more fireflies being used and doing more than comets. I already played 2 games with RE and i gotta say that is weird that those "17p cannons" from commets still need 2 shoots to put down a pz4 and pz4 can easily penetrate you too :j

Well, that's our game right there.. finally managed to upload it.
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2478

Comets definitely did something exceptional. They can drive too fast and flank the opponent tanks quite easily, which means you can flank ambushed tank hunters more sufficiently, Fireflys can't do that!

However, just as I clarified before about the Achilles... It might need some restrictions because currently it is capable of accomplishing the job of the Firefly (long range) as well as the job of the Comet (mobility) both at the same time somehow.

And oh yes, by the way.. it's probably worth to notify that our Airborne mate used many 76 Shermans during that game.

Tiger1996 wrote:
Hellcat is even cheaper than Nashorn, available in all US doctrines and in my opinion.. more cost effective than Nashorn.

You know it is just an exemple, I could have write panther instead, but it is interesting you focus on a details to dodge the real parabol content.


Bias ; I dont remember to have ever ask for a unit nerf. I m even not directly concerned now. You are right on a point ; only a pvp player can code a mod for pvp.

All of that to say, a game can be at the same time balanced and biased. Remove/tuned bias would result to rebalance the game. It is bk problem.
It is also why I think there is few chance bk ever really change.

I still convinced that BK would have been more appealling without all these distortions. Strongest units are german (I say strongest not best). There was no interest to take a medium unit like the M4a3-76 to make it a weak one, especially it would add been almost the high-end tank for 2 US doctrine on 3. This is my opinion for pvp, and at least I dont need massive pvp experience for this particular point. Roughly it makes the game poorest just to promote the idea ; all that is german can only be superior. I just hope you will believe at the end a pak 38 or a PIV H was massivly superior to a 6 pdr or a M4A3-76


For solo / multicoop players, I can say original bk reach its goal. Most players win the war as axis. From my own experience I know it is possible for this kind of game to have at the same time a more interesting and rich game.

Jalis wrote:You know it is just an exemple, I could have write panther instead, but it is interesting you focus on a details to dodge the real parabol content.

I only want to say that I did not dodge anything btw, just I am not really willing to distract the main discussion point here (Comet) with other side subjects that are pretty much going everywhere. Hawks also recently created another "feedback" topic as you might have already noticed though, where he addressed those different matters about the game more precisely.. and I have also provided my point of view regarding that, primarily based on game balance of course.

Tiger1996 wrote: just I am not really willing to distract the main discussion point here (Comet)

Subject is not comet. Subject is pacth.

Patch is something intented to correct bugs, irregularities, bias ect ... And there is a lot at bk.

Hey, guys just a quick question but in the future patches/updates will there be any new models or abilities added?? I was just playing Europe at war mod the other day and had some great abilities and vehicles etc but just not as good as gameplay as bk mod.

What kind of things were you thinking? I'm curious.

Jalis wrote:

Tiger1996 wrote:
Hellcat is even cheaper than Nashorn, available in all US doctrines and in my opinion.. more cost effective than Nashorn.

You know it is just an exemple, I could have write panther instead, but it is interesting you focus on a details to dodge the real parabol content.


Bias ; I dont remember to have ever ask for a unit nerf. I m even not directly concerned now. You are right on a point ; only a pvp player can code a mod for pvp.

All of that to say, a game can be at the same time balanced and biased. Remove/tuned bias would result to rebalance the game. It is bk problem.
It is also why I think there is few chance bk ever really change.

I still convinced that BK would have been more appealling without all these distortions. Strongest units are german (I say strongest not best). There was no interest to take a medium unit like the M4a3-76 to make it a weak one, especially it would add been almost the high-end tank for 2 US doctrine on 3. This is my opinion for pvp, and at least I dont need massive pvp experience for this particular point. Roughly it makes the game poorest just to promote the idea ; all that is german can only be superior. I just hope you will believe at the end a pak 38 or a PIV H was massivly superior to a 6 pdr or a M4A3-76


For solo / multicoop players, I can say original bk reach its goal. Most players win the war as axis. From my own experience I know it is possible for this kind of game to have at the same time a more interesting and rich game.

> win as axis lol u should do 1v1 against brits

1v1 against Brits is the easiest matchup. The faction literally has the same build order every game.

kwok wrote:1v1 against Brits is the easiest matchup. The faction literally has the same build order every game.

its not like im not aware of that but gameplay is depondable as u can have the same build order but different postioning etc...

even if u are aware of enemy will bring its about the usage of units after all

Frost wrote:

kwok wrote:1v1 against Brits is the easiest matchup. The faction literally has the same build order every game.

its not like im not aware of that but gameplay is depondable as u can have the same build order but different postioning etc...

even if u are aware of enemy will bring its about the usage of units after all

Here's a question: what unit does the brits have within the first 2 minutes of the game to directly counter the MG42?

Here's a question: what unit does the brits have within the first 2 minutes of the game to directly counter the MG42?

I would say either Dingo or Bren Carrier could actually sometimes finish the game in just the first few minutes when used correctly.
Your opponent will not have enough ammo to activate AP rounds for his MG team in standard resources games...
So, once the CW player successfully manages to escape from the AT gun.. then it's pretty much a "GG" so far!

Tiger1996 wrote:

Here's a question: what unit does the brits have within the first 2 minutes of the game to directly counter the MG42?

I would say either Dingo or Bren Carrier could actually sometimes finish the game in just the first few minutes when used correctly.
Your opponent will not have enough ammo to activate AP rounds for his MG team in standard resources games...
So, once the CW player successfully manages to escape from the AT gun.. then it's pretty much a "GG" so far!

After 20 fuel in? I don't really that counts as 2 min in. A pak comes out easily before a dingo/bren can.

Well, in a standard resources game scenario... I think Dingo or Bren Carrier are both available the exact same time as MG42 teams, let's imagine that the WH/PE player would construct his first building then he deploys the MG team as his 2nd unit.. meanwhile the CW player would deploy a lieutenant (instead of the first building) and then immediately deploys a Bren Carrier or a Dingo also as his 2nd unit.
Though, it might be just a few seconds later available as the fuel may not be enough for both the Lieutenant and the Bren Carrier in the row, as the CW player might probably need to wait for addition 5 more fuel or something, but that's hardly half a minute more which is insignificant.. keeping in mind that the MG team also takes a lot of time to deploy anyway!

So, it's pretty balanced after all... There is simply a counter to everything! It's a matter of who is more skilled to overrun the opponent's counter tools.
Luck also interferes as it occupies a significant role sometimes.. for example the AT gun can just keeping missing the Dingo! However, the luck factor definitely won't always have a direct impact on the overall outcome.. though, bottom line is:
CW does not lack anything early game, even if their build order is always the same.

what. you're joking right?

You can have an mg42 AND pak gun out within 1:05 of a game (even earlier if you click fast enough).
You can't get a dingo until maybe 2:45ish earliest (maybe faster if you click fast enough).
JUST FOR MORE COMPARISON an LT can come out earliest around 0:55 seconds into a game, meaning the MG and pak is out only 10 seconds later and only have to face an officer and engineers on the field until CW can field another unit which will take maybe at least another 50 seconds.
You as an experienced player and avid forum poster should know that 30s increments in the early game is a LONG time. Try stalling for even 15 seconds in the early game and probability of winning shifts drastically.
This early game CW dynamic is NOT balanced for 1v1. But that's okay because it's not meant to be. But, pfft... to argue that there is potentially "balance after all"... not quite. The skill difference needed for a CW player to beat an axis player is HUGE.

The skill difference needed for a CW player to beat an axis player is HUGE.

I would like to stand away from such unneeded exaggerations.
Personally, I really don't think that the CW player lacks anything in 1vs1 games scenario... Even if the CW player is on a bit of disadvantage which is just about half a minute during the very early stage of the game, yet.. the CW player would still gain back his full advantages as soon as the Recce arrives, in fact.. it might be the Axis player who would become in a serious trouble at this point, specifically when keeping in mind the new aim time system of AT tools in general... So, I would say that there is really nothing to argue about here rather than just to appreciate the fact that we both simply have a very different point of view, apparently.