5.1.4 preview

[mofetagalactica]

@mark you already said that you're not gonna buff the small arms rof so.. what if a sherman pens KT ? Obviously the KT will not die 'cause of 1 pen shot it has a lot HP even like that, if somebodys manages to kill a KT with 4-5 shermans i would say that he's really really really really lucky. Also why are you thinking that this will only buff allies? Axis can also do a lot with this by getting close by the forgotten 50mm pumas againts a pershing,churchills, etc. God u can even add more light tanks to WH after the "reworked axis docs or wathever".Im sugesting something like this because i wanna see less rock kills scisors style, with a few more options and tactics so units dosn't get forgotten as the game advance throught his "phases".

@kronoz yes, it worth to search a place where you can have a decent amount of pen chances from closer/rear. Unless you wanna still playing the "oh enemy get big tank urgh durgh lets make a bigger one then! or... lets just use this click to kill hability in that tank URGHHHHH YESS"

[MarKr]

I hate to look pessimistic but you see such change way easier than it is. OK, let's say that we make it the way you want. Prices of Axis units (especially the heavy ones) were set a long time ago when Axis heavy tanks could anihilate many tanks fielded by Allies and Allies had no real tank-counter to them. These changes would help more Allies than Axis because Axis will keep their high penetration, better accuracy etc. but Allies will be able to field more units which will also be more effective vs Axis stuff. This means that the prices of Axis heavy units will need to go down because if they stay as they are, then nobody would build them if you can destroy them with 3 - 4 Shermans (which are available in every US doctrine). This is another problem because in the past Shermans were simply the crappiest-crap-medium tank you could find. If they get buffed to the point where they can destroy Axis heavy units reliably (even if in groups) then every US doctrine will have effective way to counter Axis heavies with own tanks. However the doctrines are intentionally made in a way that they deal with heavy tanks by abilities - Infantry doctrine with offmap arty, AB with airstrikes, Armor with own tanks. If you make all US doctrines able to counter Axis tanks with own tanks, you will need to nerf the abilities that were given to them to counter the heavy tanks because suddenly you have other options.
Also if heavy tanks in general become counterable by medium tank spam then what is the point of building the heavy tanks? If every player on Allies side knows that a counter to Tiger/Panther/KT is 3-4 76mm Shermans (or lesser number of Fireflies) and at the same time you know that even if you lose 2 tanks, you are still doing better resource-wise, then why would any Axis player build heavy tanks? Currently they are used for their ability to work independatly or with minimal support. With this change they will need a lot more support, either in form of infantry or medium tanks which in the end will be more expensive than simply build medium tanks only.

[mofetagalactica]

I hate to look pessimistic but you see such change way easier than it is. OK, let's say that we make it the way you want. Prices of Axis units (especially the heavy ones) were set a long time ago when Axis heavy tanks could anihilate many tanks fielded by Allies and Allies had no real tank-counter to them. These changes would help more Allies than Axis because Axis will keep their high penetration, better accuracy etc. but Allies will be able to field more units which will also be more effective vs Axis stuff. This means that the prices of Axis heavy units will need to go down because if they stay as they are, then nobody would build them if you can destroy them with 3 - 4 Shermans (which are available in every US doctrine). This is another problem because in the past Shermans were simply the crappiest-crap-medium tank you could find. If they get buffed to the point where they can destroy Axis heavy units reliably (even if in groups) then every US doctrine will have effective way to counter Axis heavies with own tanks. However the doctrines are intentionally made in a way that they deal with heavy tanks by abilities - Infantry doctrine with offmap arty, AB with airstrikes, Armor with own tanks. If you make all US doctrines able to counter Axis tanks with own tanks, you will need to nerf the abilities that were given to them to counter the heavy tanks because suddenly you have other options.
Also if heavy tanks in general become counterable by medium tank spam then what is the point of building the heavy tanks? If every player on Allies side knows that a counter to Tiger/Panther/KT is 3-4 76mm Shermans (or lesser number of Fireflies) and at the same time you know that even if you lose 2 tanks, you are still doing better resource-wise, then why would any Axis player build heavy tanks? Currently they are used for their ability to work independatly or with minimal support. With this change they will need a lot more support, either in form of infantry or medium tanks which in the end will be more expensive than simply build medium tanks only.

¿In what scenario are you putting those "heavy axis" are you telling me that 3-4 shermans will simply run forward towards a big cat without being blown one by one? (Allies using their numbers in advantage to have chances to destroy a panther? wait wasn't that what we were suppose to do all this years when shermans are still shit but we can do a lot?)
¿Are you also telling me that its more expensive to get 4 shermans than 1 panther and wich one you think it will be easier to micro? Just click backwards with the panther (remember that panthers are really accurate while moving too) wow while it blows shermans from far ?
¿Do you remember that Shermans are expensive if you're not armor?


If you micro fail with your heavy tank you need to be punished more than it is right now, pessimistic will only leave you with forgotten and unused light-medium tanks, making the game boring and plain, it is just logic give more options for everyone to adapt to their own tactics. Jezz you can even try doing something with lots of the axis 20mm hf's and armored cars adding like idk, more pen when they're close or at the back of a sherman, idk dude just open your mind a little and give more tactics and options for both sides.

[Krieger Blitzer]

¿In what scenario are you putting those "heavy axis" are you telling me that 3-4 shermans will simply run forward towards a big cat without being blown one by one? (Allies using their numbers in advantage to have chances to destroy a panther? wait wasn't that what we were suppose to do all this years when shermans are still shit but we can do a lot?)
¿Are you also telling me that its more expensive to get 4 shermans than 1 panther and wich one you think it will be easier to micro? Just click backwards with the panther (remember that panthers are really accurate while moving too) wow while it blows shermans from far ?
¿Do you remember that Shermans are expensive if you're not armor?


If you micro fail with your heavy tank you need to be punished more than it is right now, pessimistic will only leave you with forgotten and unused light-medium tanks, making the game boring and plain, it is just logic give more options for everyone to adapt to their own tactics. Jezz you can even try doing something with lots of the axis 20mm hf's and armored cars adding like idk, more pen when they're close or at the back of a sherman, idk dude just open your mind a little and give more tactics and options for both sides.

yo, I think MarKr already explained pretty well how achieving such a thing wouldn't be as easy due to some game engine limitations.. and I think it's currently still rewarding enough if you flank any heavy tanks from the rear, maybe with few exceptions; as I stated that 76 guns could probably be a little more effective against JT rear. And the stubby 75mm guns could be a little bit more effective against Pershing tanks as well, but that's it.

[|7th|Nighthawk]

@Markr: I understand the issues here, especially the engine limitations, but I would still argue that a unit that can only be dealt with with off map abilities, especially unreliable ones like planes and arty (105mm shells sometimes seem to bounce on JT) is bad game design. What if one were to up penetration to something only slightly better than Tiger II and in return give it more HP so that random frontal hits won't cripple it too hard? I don't want to punish someone for using a heavy tank but I would like to see someone punished if his heavy tank is singled out and out flanked by several tanks at once. At the moment you can absolutely forget that unless you're US armor doc (and i don't know how good the 90mm are because I never use them) or happen to have around six Achilles on your hand, preferably spamming APDS.

@Tiger: Yes, for gameplay purposes it would probably not be too bad to punish out flanked Pershings but since the L/24 has that abysmal penetration that barely manages to penetrate the Pershing rear armour at 100m without HEAT, I'd make it a rather low penetration chance.
Slightly off topic: Does the 75mm KwK HT have an APCR option? Did I see that correctly? If yes, how much penetration does it gain by that?

[MarKr]

¿In what scenario are you putting those "heavy axis" are you telling me that 3-4 shermans will simply run forward towards a big cat without being blown one by one?

What scenarios are there?

The one where you stupidly "stop" your 4 Shermans to shoot at heavy (let's say KT) once you see it. It would depend on the initial positioning but let's say they are like this:

From these positions Sherman 1, 2 and 4 can score penetrative shot. Number 3 cannot. Now, the requests here are to put reload on KT to about 10 seconds, while Shermans between 4 and 5, even if go with the variant that puts Shermans in less advantage and count with 5 seconds reload times - in the start of the attack KT fires one shot (most likely kills one of the Shermans), Shermans fire 3 shots (or 4 depending on if the Sherman gets a shot out before getting killed by KT). Let's count again with the variant that favors Shermans less and let's say that only 3 tanks managed to fire. From the calculation above each of these 3 shots has 36% chance to penetrate, so on average one of them will go through. Sherman 76 deals to KTs between 400 and 600 damage. Let's again assume that Shermans are unlucky and get the lower damage roll of 400. KTs have 1250 (Henschel) or 1200 (Porsche) HP. The penetrative shot would take away 1/3 of KTs HP + (since it is a rear hit) it has 30% chance to damage engine and 10% chance to destroy the engine. Let's again assume Shermans were unlucky and the shot did not mess the engine. Now before the KT can shoot again, Shermans fire once more (due to shorter reload). The entire situation repeats - 3 shots by Shermans, statistically 1 will penetrate dealing 400 damage + chance to crit (this time it is 30% engine damage and 25% engine destroyed). KT fires, kills one Sherman. remaining 2 Shermans have now together 4 shots before KT shoots again, statistically one of those 4 shots will go through and kill the KT.

The result would then be that Axis player lost KT (so resource-wise he lost 1200MP 200F), while Allies lost 2 Shermans 76 (so resource-wise 900MP 110F (760MP 90F if you are Armor doc) - with the new prices). Yes, the cost for 4 Shermans is 1800MP 220F (which is more than the KT) but at the end Allies player has 2 tanks left to use and Axis player has nothing.

And that was the scenario where we counted with the possibilities of minimal penetrations, minimal damage rolls and Shermans getting killed before they can take a shot. (OK, there could be a worse scenario where Allies get extremely unlucky and no shots penetrate, true. But if you want to use that as an argument then you need to consider the other extreme situation when Allies get extremely lucky and all shots go through - both are extreme situations and same unlikely). Now imagine that more shots than the average number penetrate, or that Shermans get very good damage roll - then 2 shots kill KT.

OK, that was scenario where Shermans stay at place, then you can have a scenario where Shermans move. Player can either select them all and simply click behind KT in which case they would more likely get close to each other and the situation would look like this:

Which puts Shermans into disadvantage because this position gives way less chance to hit the rear part. Let's assume that the player would not voluntarily choose this tactics.

Then we have the scenario where you actually micro the tanks and move them in a way that they swarm the enemy:

This gives you way better chance to hit the rear part of the tank, especially for tanks 1 and 4.

(Allies using their numbers in advantage to have chances to destroy a panther? wait wasn't that what we were suppose to do all this years when shermans are still shit but we can do a lot?)

Yes, but this change would significantly increase the chance for allies while having no drawbacks. Yes, it would give chance to Axis armor vs Allies heavies but these heavy units of Allies are in 2 doctrines and the number of units is limited to SP, Pershing (PAce), Croc Churchill, while for Axis it is Tigers (early/late/ace), Panthers (D/A/G), KTs, Elephant, JP, JT...and these are placed in 5 out of 6 Axis doctrines. So this change would help more allies than Axis.

¿Are you also telling me that its more expensive to get 4 shermans than 1 panther and wich one you think it will be easier to micro? Just click backwards with the panther (remember that panthers are really accurate while moving too) wow while it blows shermans from far ?
¿Do you remember that Shermans are expensive if you're not armor?

As I said - it is about the outcome, for 4 Shermans you pay more than for KT, but would be very likely to kill the KT and have some tanks alive for more fighting so you would lose only part of your investment, while Axis player would lose the entire investment.

If you micro fail with your heavy tank you need to be punished more than it is right now, pessimistic will only leave you with forgotten and unused light-medium tanks, making the game boring and plain, it is just logic give more options for everyone to adapt to their own tactics. Jezz you can even try doing something with lots of the axis 20mm hf's and armored cars adding like idk, more pen when they're close or at the back of a sherman

And won't your way leave heavy tanks forgotten because it will be alway better to build mediums? That's what I am afraid of - that it will only shift the "medium tanks are useless" to "heavy tanks are useless", if so then we only change one group of useless units for another.

idk dude just open your mind a little and give more tactics and options for both sides.

(apart from this idea giving "more options and tactics" to allies than Axis; explained above) Easy for you to say, you're not risking anything. You're not risking that you spend hours on reworking this and in return only get shitload of "omg omg omg, this mod is fucked now, good job!", "don't be allies fan boys and make the game balanced!"

[Mr. FeministDonut]

Hi MarkKr, when patch will be ready? I'm really want to like to see the changes for bright future of BK special souce.

[Redgaarden]

I'm just saying. If a King tiger comes revering into the battlefiled it should be punished a little bit. Not it takes zero damage from 4 shot in the rear from a cloaked 76mm anti tank gun and then decides to shoot he anti tank gun and one hit killing it. And realistically. Less than 25% of the tank is front armor compared to treating Half of the tank as front armor. It's not very fair for King tiger to have more rear armor than pershing has front. And reload faster than a sherman, one hit kill most tanks, really strong abilities, high healthpoll that increases alot by veterancy and tank commader. King tiger should definetly be nerfed in some regard.

Fx
1. Weaker rear armor.
2. Slower Rate of fire
3. I like this one better than nr2. Lower damage so it doesn't one hit kill mediums.
4. Weaker veterancy so it doesn't scale too much, fx remove health bonus on vet 4.
5. This one is kinda stupid but it's an example, remove its capability to have tank commander.

The result would then be that Axis player lost KT (so resource-wise he lost 1200MP 200F), while Allies lost 2 Shermans 76 (so resource-wise 900MP 110F (760MP 90F if you are Armor doc) - with the new prices). Yes, the cost for 4 Shermans is 1800MP 220F (which is more than the KT) but at the end Allies player has 2 tanks left to use and Axis player has nothing.

Yes if Allied is going to spend 1800 manpower on tanks that can Assault and has an anti tank gun equipped and spends over 300 munitions buffing these tanks. They should destroy the heavy tank that costs 1200 manpower and 100 munitions that has no backup whatsoever. The axis still has 600 manpower in its store, and if they decied to use those 600 manpower on a pz4, it would pretty much kill all the allied tank trying to destory the King tiger.

Then we have the scenario where you actually micro the tanks and move them in a way that they swarm the enemy:
This gives you way better chance to hit the rear part of the tank, especially for tanks 1 and 4.

That is the thing with having a wide front with alot of guns. There will always be someone who can shoot the rear armor on the opposite side. It's basic tank combat 101.

And we must not forget to nerf the SP in the same way as KT

EDIT: And that was the american tank destroyer philosphy. Alot of guns with speed rushing the enemy.

P.S.S. Looking forward to the next update

[Krieger Blitzer]

KT is the most expensive unit in the game, and dies to pretty much everything by the time it appears.. also, the SP is anything but useless.
If really the SP is useless, like you said in another post somewhere else; then I don't know what I'd call the KT as.. maybe as "utter useless" then?

I really don't get this talking here about "heavy tanks over-performing" at all...
As it has nearly always been the complete opposite actually, heavy tanks are most of the times too expensive for nothing! And of course medium tanks are supposed to blow up by 1 hit from heavy tanks, although it's not always the case.. unfortunately.

Hi MarkKr, when patch will be ready? I'm really want to like to see the changes for bright future of BK special souce.

Things will need to be tested in a beta release first, I think.

[Redgaarden]

They are useless in normal combat situations. But are way overperforming in other more special scenarios.

Heavy tanks should be situational instead of No-brainers. It's keep spamming them intil the enemy can't click to kill them. Or get a lucky one hit kill. Since people are extremly careful with their tanks that it's almost impossilbe to kill them without luck.

And I think if heavy tanks should one hit kill mediums and have super tough rear armor. Atleast they could do is die in one hit in return. There has to be some kind of equalizer that isn't in the form of 155mm artillery, 250kg bombs, 76mm rockets or long barreled 90mm.

KT is the most expensive unit in the game,

And it takes 1 minute to replace it after it dies. Not a very big loss. I would say Elephant and Jagdtiger to be more expensive.

Also, the SP is anything but useless. If really the SP is useless, like you said in another post somewhere else; then I don't know what I'd call the KT as.. maybe as "utter useless" then?

SP is just as useful as KT and often dies just as fast as KT. And even if you say that SP won you the game, it was just because it was a coinflip engagement where you were lucky enough to get bounced and pen him.

[Krieger Blitzer]

SP serves the role of a "game changer" unit in Bk Mod as it can actually rescue the player from an obvious defeat and turn the tide into a major victory. This does not happen once, but rather frequently the case... Whereas the KT on the other hand is only serving the role of a "game finisher" unit, as it can only ensure your victory in a game that you are already winning, but unlike the Super Pershing simply the KT current position in Terror doc; does not allow it being a game changer in any possible way... Even if the player succeeds to score many kills with it sometimes, yet.. it can not lead him to victory if he was not already winning before it arrives.

[kwok]

IMO I hate the SP and KT as “game changers” and think they’re terrible units. I never get them nor am I afraid of them. I was just telling nighthawks how the JT can be pretty much ignored and is a waste of resources. I fear the panther so much more.

Airstriking a KT is always worth it. It’s slow enough that it can be killed with off map. SP is only good at anti tank, so it’s easily rushed by schrecks or LOL artillery.... (an age where arty is literally the best counter against tanks. Okay bigger fuckin maps people).

Killing the panther is almost always a hard decision on a macro and micro level

[ShadowIchigo]

IMO I hate the SP and KT as “game changers” and think they’re terrible units. I never get them nor am I afraid of them. I was just telling nighthawks how the JT can be pretty much ignored and is a waste of resources. I fear the panther so much more.

Airstriking a KT is always worth it. It’s slow enough that it can be killed with off map. SP is only good at anti tank, so it’s easily rushed by schrecks or LOL artillery.... (an age where arty is literally the best counter against tanks. Okay bigger fuckin maps people).

Killing the panther is almost always a hard decision on a macro and micro level

AMEN PAPI, AMEN!

[ShadowIchigo]

bring back 95mm cromwell arty to raf yay!! ;]

serious question: When the achilles moves and shoots, is it intentionally meant to shoot blanks? or is this something overlooked?

p.s. sorry for double post

[kwok]

It’s a combo of attributes and animation. The animation will kick off, the delivery of the attack is delayed to accommodate the animation, if the target moves out of the range specified for the attack (by range I mean both range and firing arc) then the attack is cancelled. But the animation starts already. I think the larger cause is a unit moving out of the firing arc of the Achilles, so a solution is widening the arc just slightly, but it might look a little jank if widened too much.

[Warhawks97]

I am sharing redgaarden points. Not much to add except that i would rather keep the chance to oneshot shermans with 88 guns bc they simply could. Its some kind of "signature". And what else shall the most powerfull guns do. What bugs more that any axis (and cw tank) becomes a one-shoter with AP rounds. And Tank commanders should be available for all tanks or removed. But not allowing it for a few and for others not.

But i kept laughing. This all is just bullshit. Like in game when you kill a tank bigger than a tank IV by arty or planes you get lots of hates and cryouts. Now i am getting said that i am supposed to act like this, even when a KT would go into combat with its rear pointed towards my guns.

Then i hear that the balance is "1 heavy vs 4 mediums" which is utter bullshit as red said. Just bc´s axis spares the 600 MP to make sure to rebuild a KT instead providing propper support for the KT we are supposed to lose or get a draw at best even when spend 1800 MP or more?


And planes and arty shall be spared? Really? When you sit in a late game (not duclair) you see more panthers as you can use off maps. The 3 vs 3 from tiger at reversed vs two terror proved it. There are even bigger maps where you can easily build a new panther every 1,5 mins.

Also AB shall use bombers, inf long tom.....Why Luftwaffe then has Panther when it has henschel and 88? Why Terror has ST when it has Panther and KT?
Why Def doc has these ultra 280 mm off map which is best and easiest click to kill in the entire game with actually gurnateed kill chance and pretty much no escape time except when using flank speed perhaps when this doc has tons of brutal tank busting tools?
Perhaps release a guide for "How to use US". "Warning, dont use your Bomber or Long Tom on anything else but King Tiger and Panther. Otherwise get fucked".

Oh man, that gets even more funny. I have to take it with lots of Humor and a smile. Just bad that nobody told me that years ago. it could have spared me lots of frustration and time.

And nobody is asking to have the KT being killed stuarts or 75 mm shermans when getting flanked. To be a "Heavy tank" shall not mean to be unpenetrationable. It means that you can stand most enemie guns with your frontal armor and being resistant to flank and rear shots that are coming from lighter guns, not to go into battle in reverse gear.

I also wonder that it seems to be a big deal when a sherman 76 would pen KT´s rear from closer ranges with a chance higher than 25% but any stubby Tank IV can pen a jumbos rear with 100% chance from any distance.

And some values are simply broken. Stubby tank IV vs pershing rear or 76 vs JT rear without getting rewared at all when aiming their rears.

And who requested to have shermans with 5 seconds vs KT with 10 sec? I admit 5 sec would be very balance breaking (despite tank IV´s having that advantage for years). We are realistically talking about 6 sec for mediums with long 75mm tank IV gun and 76 sherman and max 9 sec for stuff like KT as long as gun ranges keep as they are. The 10-12 secs were thought to be used when JP and KT etc would get +5 basic range.
So the gap is rather 3 seconds, not 5.

And perhaps we shouldnt have the intention to have some "lone acting units" and trying to "balance it" that this single one shall take on various others. It just causes "the extrems". And even if these KT things are supposed to act alone, i never got any of them unless i could make sure to afford at least the minimum ammount of support. And a 50 mm AT gun or AT squad or Puma doesnt cost the world right? So if you go 1800 MP vs 1800 MP then the heavy comes out clearly as a winner.

You made some scenarios. But i think even 4 shermans wouldnt beat a KT. You wouldnt hit the rear often enough+ the KT would try to keep out of range as long as possible. Also, in case shermans win (or whatever medium) it doesnt get much more dangerous. So at best you would get a new heavy out, take out the max vet enemie at first and odds are equal again. Take out all 4 mediums with one heavy and you get a real beast... In the next engagment the reload speeds would be more equal, kill from very long range or use a double/tripple shot ability.
Untill a group of mediums is rebuild, the heavy stays there, vet 4 or 3 with many brutal abilties and support. So the first battle must be won by 4 mediums or you gonna need 8 of them.

[mofetagalactica]

SP serves the role of a "game changer" unit in Bk Mod as it can actually rescue the player from an obvious defeat and turn the tide into a major victory. This does not happen once, but rather frequently the case... Whereas the KT on the other hand is only serving the role of a "game finisher" unit, as it can only ensure your victory in a game that you are already winning, but unlike the Super Pershing simply the KT current position in Terror doc; does not allow it being a game changer in any possible way... Even if the player succeeds to score many kills with it sometimes, yet.. it can not lead him to victory if he was not already winning before it arrives.

Are you saying all this just because you had this game vs ler and wurf? And you where luckily enought that they didn't pick or had any click to kill habilities to get rid of you SP and instead had to fight front to front vs a KT and paks ( in a tight map) ?

I guess that in your logic your only option had to be 105mm howizter from your friend or having luck fighting 50/50 chance's with your sp againts kt ?

mmmm wow such amount of tactics.

[kwok]

I also agree with red and warhawks

[Krieger Blitzer]

Are you saying all this just because you had this game vs ler and wurf? And you where luckily enought that they didn't pick or had any click to kill habilities to get rid of you SP and instead had to fight front to front vs a KT and paks ( in a tight map) ?

Well, the answer is in the same text you have quoted, when I said;

This does not happen once, but rather frequently the case...

As it's not like that game was the only time to see this exact same scenario happening! There are countless games for SP achieving the same outcome.
While I rarely see the KT being any useful on the other hand... Rarely though, not never. I think the reason is because the KT currently in Terror doc is more or less an outsider; as it does not have any impact really, and btw I have also been saying the same for a very long time.. not recently. My point is that King Tiger in Terror doctrine has very little value most of the times, you can witness vet.4 SP a lot of times.. but you can't really see a vet.4 KT in any serious PvP games, except maybe once in years... Elefant is even worse, last time I saw this unit scoring just vet.1 was probably 3 years ago...

[kwok]

I disagree with tiger on this point. The KT is both shadow and walder’s favorite piece of terror and I’ve had them carry through the late game with the tank as a flag ship unit.

[MarKr]

OK, you guys just convinced me. Next patch will bring everything you asked for - mofeta will get the reload times he wants and penetration of heavies by weak light tanks + crapload of axis light tanks that nobody will use, hawks will get HIS reload times too + penetration changes + range changes he wants, Tiger will get the 75 range on the units he asked for but penetration will remain as it is because it is OK as it is on the other hand anyway, Shadow will get his 95mm Cromwell back for RAF...this way everyone will be happy! Everyone will praise me for implementing everybody's ideas while nobody will talk trash at devs because others players will be to blame for turning the game upside down and ruining it for everyone but themselves. Win-win situation!

[mofetagalactica]

OK, you guys just convinced me. Next patch will bring everything you asked for - mofeta will get the reload times he wants and penetration of heavies by weak light tanks + crapload of axis light tanks that nobody will use, hawks will get HIS reload times too + penetration changes + range changes he wants, Tiger will get the 75 range on the units he asked for but penetration will remain as it is because it is OK as it is on the other hand anyway, Shadow will get his 95mm Cromwell back for RAF...this way everyone will be happy! Everyone will praise me for implementing everybody's ideas while nobody will talk trash at devs because others players will be to blame for turning the game upside down and ruining it for everyone but themselves. Win-win situation!

Don't be dumb about it, and dont accept everything i said before, i took some things that you said about the reload times and i can agree on it. What i wanna see its your idea mixed with mine in a level that can be possible. The only point where i was kinda worried about your opinion was about the heaviest tanks having a faster reload than medium tanks (wich is really dumb when they already have such advantages vs them actually) but about it the reload times, after taking what u said before, something like this

Like light tanks shooting 1 to 1,5 faster than mediums, and mediums shooting 1 to 1,5 faster than heavy tanks.

Also about Pen's, Neither be dumb about it, off course i dont want to see a 37 penetrating a panther,tiger,kt,heaviers, but from a decent caliber they should pen, the performance of stubby's pz4's and 50mm pumas will also get stronger with this. Stubby pz4's where used a lot irl and their performance pretty much sucks and get forgotten after the second phase of the game.

How good will be to finally have some chances to destroy shermans (after the upcoming buff to them that was announced) with stubby pz4's , 50mm's pumas flanking and/or getting close to also kill churchills (i think pumas are good at avoiding incoming shoots because of type armor, so im not sure). On the other side we will see maybe more chaffe's/stuarts having chances againts stugs if played intelligently for example.

Light and medium tanks will be more used than rushing into the heaviest leaving forgotten a lots of units behind, and having the heaviest for special momments and not being treated as your main unit.

[Redgaarden]

Stubby pz4's where used a lot irl and their performance pretty much sucks and get forgotten after the second phase of the game.

Didn't they all get retrofitted with new guns? But what did they then use the old guns for? It's not like the guns themselves went out of date, but the tank definetly did quite fast.
The only stubby pz4 that is worth it is the pz4 F1. That thing is a real killer, never seen such infantry killing before. And it can easily take 2 zook shots when it has zimmerzeit. That thing is a real beast.

OK, you guys just convinced me. Next patch will bring everything you asked for - mofeta will get the reload times he wants and penetration of heavies by weak light tanks + crapload of axis light tanks that nobody will use, hawks will get HIS reload times too + penetration changes + range changes he wants, Tiger will get the 75 range on the units he asked for but penetration will remain as it is because it is OK as it is on the other hand anyway, Shadow will get his 95mm Cromwell back for RAF...this way everyone will be happy! Everyone will praise me for implementing everybody's ideas while nobody will talk trash at devs because others players will be to blame for turning the game upside down and ruining it for everyone but themselves. Win-win situation!

Please no 95mm Cromwell. Atleast not for free. And we were jut complaing about Heavy tanks having a lot of advantages that are kinda dubius, no need to add one more to the mix like extra range. And ignore the light tank part, I have no idea what the fuck he means. And about the reload, it's just that we want them to kill us less fast to help us from a lot of frustration, like give them boys accuracy or whatever.

[Warhawks97]

Markr, i think you do believe that Heavy-medium is balanced in some ways. i would say its not bc obviously the heavies holds pretty much all advantages.
Elephants, KT´s, SP, Jagdpanther do actually never die in tank to tank engagments vs medium tanks only. Basic Tiger and Pershing are the only heavies so far which you can engage carefully with 3 medium tanks. 2 are possible but thats not a sane decision but rather a desparte decision (like you cant get away anyway or know your tanks will die). But only when the tiger has no vet steps.

Heavies die usually to multiple causes hitting them at once. But apparently were supposed to destroy them with planes and arty which basically turned out to be the "fun killer" for many players blaming us as arty abuser and saying shit "all you can is arty".... well.... what shall i do when i cant pen your tank at all.

That concept of heavies being self-relying unit and trying to balance it this way is quite dump. Nothing personal and it didnt grow on the current dev team. It was supposed like that right with the beginning of BK. But for a strategy game such thinking is almost a death sentence. Strategy and tactics mean to use units together, no matter if light inf, elite inf, light tank, heavy tank etc.

The point is: In current tank engagments Heavies are literally no brainers. Sure they are very attractive to off maps and other powerfull "click to kill stuff". Just for the gameplay its not very wise and good to add one very certain counter to a doctrine against a very specific enemie unit. That throws the idea of unit controle and unit managment as well as unit combination off the board. And thats the core of strategy games.

Furthermore it doesnt makes much sense to me that many arty abilties are apparently "reserved" to kill tanks rather than defenenses. I think the main duty of artillery is to crack heavy defenses and resistance rather as to be some kind of tank killer. Arty got used against tanks but mostly caused damage on them. Most tanks at that time got destroyed or at least disabled beyond repairs by tanks and gunfire and with a huge gap followed by arty/plane causes. In BK we have arty as main tank killer tool. And there are many many many players that hate nothing more than losing tanks (esspecially expensive tanks) to artillery. Perhaps there would be less complains when these guys would lose their tanks due to bad moves, fail of providing them with sufficient support or simply by getting outmaneuvered by the enemie medium tanks..

Perhaps you can try to kill a KT or jagdpanther or elephant with 4 shermans when all are allowed to move (or using stat mode like elephant).
And then you can try 4 mediums vs 1 heavy+one support unit to have the same cost investment. Perhaps use a Tank IV/stug/Hetzer or plain 50 mm AT.
The Tank to Tank balance doesnt make it necessary to have mediums shooting slower than heavies i would say.
And as mofeta said: Every unit for a purpose and not no-brainers or simple "pay to win" conditions.

Stubby pz4's where used a lot irl and their performance pretty much sucks and get forgotten after the second phase of the game.

Didn't they all get retrofitted with new guns? But what did they then use the old guns for? It's not like the guns themselves went out of date, but the tank definetly did quite fast.
The only stubby pz4 that is worth it is the pz4 F1. That thing is a real killer, never seen such infantry killing before. And it can easily take 2 zook shots when it has zimmerzeit. That thing is a real beast.

Most tank IV´s had long barrels. The production of short barreld tank IV´s from39-42 was very small compared to long barrled 42-45 production. E and F short barrled combined made up just 677 tanks (with D version 925) compared to 1927 F2/G versions with long barrel and 5484 H/J versions.

Please no 95mm Cromwell. Atleast not for free. And we were jut complaing about Heavy tanks having a lot of advantages that are kinda dubius, no need to add one more to the mix like extra range. And ignore the light tank part, I have no idea what the fuck he means. And about the reload, it's just that we want them to kill us less fast to help us from a lot of frustration, like give them boys accuracy or whatever.

Pretty much this. About light tanks idk what exactly he means. The Tank II was redesignated to reconassaince tank in 41 and was out of commission in 42. It is basically worse than a Puma vehicle.
The only tank i can think of are tank III´s. But practically (as the current tank III in game) it would share the Tank IV´s armor (target table) and acting like the current stubby Tank IV´s (Historically tank III and Tank IV swapped roles when the 50 mm on tank III became insufficieny and further gun upgrade impossible. So the III switched to anti inf role with short 75 mm and the IV to anti tank role with long 75 mm).
But till 44 all Tank III´s have been destroyed (in 44 the last 120 got destroyed) and the very last tanks became training or reconassaince vehicles.

[JimQwilleran]

OK, you guys just convinced me. Next patch will bring everything you asked for - mofeta will get the reload times he wants and penetration of heavies by weak light tanks + crapload of axis light tanks that nobody will use, hawks will get HIS reload times too + penetration changes + range changes he wants, Tiger will get the 75 range on the units he asked for but penetration will remain as it is because it is OK as it is on the other hand anyway, Shadow will get his 95mm Cromwell back for RAF...this way everyone will be happy! Everyone will praise me for implementing everybody's ideas while nobody will talk trash at devs because others players will be to blame for turning the game upside down and ruining it for everyone but themselves. Win-win situation!

Prima aprilis fools