5.1.4 preview

[Krieger Blitzer]

To your other stuff: yeah, i share the opinion. I was just very confused by all the talk here.

Ok, good :) Then I can take this as approval to the suggestions in the spoiler box I posted... So ya, I guess we finally have a point here.
And as MarKr already pointed out stating how he would be OK for tweaking the Firefly and JagdPanther reload times, then I think these suggestions are more or less actually happening. Let's see how this would work out! Though, I honestly wanted some changes to the SturmTiger too, but maybe let's not open a new gate of endless arguments here, apparently we have had enough for now :P

[MarKr]

The fact that three people agree on something does not mean a change will happen. As always it is up to Wolf.

[kwok]

Err... I have one more request. Can the LT glider drop be fire and forget? I know a lot of players get frustrated cuz they try to drop the glider, the green smoke drops, and then they think it's safe to move off BUT WAIT IT'S NOT! The glider never drops if a player moves the LT too quickly soon after the green smoke drop. I'm definitely not the only one who has done this on accidnet.

Well, maybe. But the glider is equivalent of FHQ of other factions and it already has an advantage because it does not require an empty building (though it used to be possible only to use it from a building). FHQs also take some time to establish so giving to CW an option to get FHQ with a single click and no delay on that is one more advantage in this field.

I see what you mean. The delay is hardly any time though, so if this is the case maybe add more time in between? In any case, delay or not would it be easy to add a timer atop the LT to let a player know when it is safe to move the LT off? Else, the nuances of dropping an FHQ glider essentially becomes a factor that a player will just "have to know" that doesn't really add any value to the game. It's like "if your nebel doesn't shoot then you have to move it a bit first" type of knowledge. It isn't HARD to manage at all, but you just gotta know the small annoyance beforehand to not be burdened by it.

[MarKr]

I can see that it is an inconvenience, rather than balance issue...I will try to find some solution for it and squeeze it into the patch too.

EDIT:
What I've been able to get so far is that the LT is immobile until the Glider comes. It seems that the glider call-in (and other "targeted" abilities) require the caster to be static, otherwise the ability cancels. Given the time pressure, I guess this could work for the time being and I may try to find some better solution in the future.

[mofetagalactica]

What about making the rear armor more weak for every tank in game also and closer range shoots way more chances to penetrate? Yes i would like to see light and mediums tanks having at least some chances to kill heavier tanks if they get really close or flak them susesfully so they don't get totally replaced by late-game units, it makes the game boring. More features like that would make the game more mixed and fun.

[|7th|Nighthawk]

I second this, especially considering that tanks like Königstiger and especially Jagdtiger bounce APCR firing Wolverines and even APDS firing Achilles in close range like it was nothing. Granted, not all the time but there seems to be an incredibly high chance to bounce even when the gun almost sticks in the rear armour.

I know the armour is only "two part". Is it 50:50 in size or does it vary on tanks? That might cause more problems maybe. Less so in Tiger II and Jagdtiger since they have 80mm on sides and rear but Panther or StuPa might suffer from that more e.g.

[Warhawks97]

That subject is very interesting though and mofeta is actually not so wrong.

For example:

The 75 mm sherman gun vs tank IV H/J with skirts has at max range a 94,128% pen chance. So you can bounce.
Against panther rear at max range its 31,8% and vs Panther G just 28,62%. and Panthers were known for their strong front armor but very weak sides and rear. Even a point blank shot (That is actually never happening in BK due to current range classification) your chance to pen is as high as 60% vs Panther.

The 76 vs Tigers rear at point blank (you have to be closer as the range of allied grenades is) you chance is 81,18 % (standard shell). At max range its 43,8372%. When i use long range values (25-40 range) its 54%.


The stubby axis 75 mm Tank IV is more weird. It has 0.1% pen vs Pershings rear at point blank (basically front and rear is the same for the stubby vs pershing). But when it comes against jumbo your chance is 100% at point blank and 78% from max range.
Considering that the Jumbo had more side armor than panther and is supposed as a breakthough tank similiar as the tiger its quite surprising that its easier to penetrate from rear and thus shots from the sides will more likely have a chance to pen if they count as rear shot (note: Jumbo had 76 mm upper side hull armor while panther had max 55 mm).

The 75 mm long barreld tank IV has guranteed pen vs jumbo against its rear from any distance using basic shots. Against Pershing it is 98,01% against the rear from max range using basic shots.

The 76 mm rear shot pen chance against King Tiger from point blank (touching the target with the barrel almost) is 25% using basic shots. Against Jagdtiger the chance to pen is as high as when hitting its front: 0.1% from point blank front and rear using basic shots.

17 pdr vs KT rear is 100% at point blank (59% from max range and rear using basic rounds) and approx 42,373% vs Jagdtigers rear at point blank and basic rounds and 25% from max range.

[|7th|Nighthawk]

Lol what, Jagdtiger is a turretless Maus? Anyway, thanks for clarifying. Saves me the waste of losing twelve M10s next time. How do you kill it without planes or arty? Bazookas seem to bounce off it as well (which makes sense since the 17pdr has low penetration chance on it as well) so you have to "outplay" it with point and click?

[Warhawks97]

Lol what, Jagdtiger is a turretless Maus? Anyway, thanks for clarifying. Saves me the waste of losing twelve M10s next time. How do you kill it without planes or arty? Bazookas seem to bounce off it as well (which makes sense since the 17pdr has low penetration chance on it as well) so you have to "outplay" it with point and click?

That is the funny part that is arround in Bk since i can remember. Such tanks (I count to those KT, JT but also "lighter" types such as jagdpanther) are very hard to kill by normal combat units. It usually cost you a lot of units. Just sometimes people are extremely stupid with these kind of tanks.

But their general firepower and armor makes them to be very though targets. So allis usually throw planes and arty at them which in turn cause all these complains like "Allis kill KT with planes and arty". Like when you play as american and there comes an JT you can perhaps stop it by throwing like 18 stickies on it (or with some luck just one). But even if it stopped there is no weapon that goes through. I had games in which i killed them literally just with stickies but it was in a game that was won anyway. It took mins to do so. So usually it ends up in immobilizing the target somehow and then finish it before it gets repaired. And thats what axis can do very good. The entire PE faction as well as def doc has very good repair capabilties.

Its in my opinion i vicious cycle. On the one hand normal weapons will barely kill it. And even if you make one of these "1%" pen shots... these tanks have a shitload of HP as well as huge damage reduction from arty due to the tt´s(approx 50%) or in case of def doc Zimmerit (all taken damage reduced by 25%).
So at the end the entire allied team throws everything they have and whats left once a KT has a damaged engine or damaged tracks. That results in "allied have so many easy click to kill beast killer abilites". They have them and need them and they use them carefully. Unlike terror doc which can throw tons of various weapons on immobilized churchills and pershings. Guns, hendheld AT´s (even volks), rocket arty or whatever.

As i said: Never ending vicious cylce.

[Krieger Blitzer]

There is something rather important to be mentioned regarding this:

What about making the rear armor more weak for every tank in game also and closer range shoots way more chances to penetrate? Yes i would like to see light and mediums tanks having at least some chances to kill heavier tanks if they get really close or flak them susesfully so they don't get totally replaced by late-game units, it makes the game boring. More features like that would make the game more mixed and fun.

Sometimes front hits are registered as rear hits. That's because they hit the rear part of the tank from the front... It has something to do about the game engine, that's simply how rear and front hits are calculated in CoH unfortunately! That's also why I don't think such an idea would be any good.
It might only result in making these tanks even more vulnerable from the front too.

[mofetagalactica]

Sometimes front hits are registered as rear hits. That's because they hit the rear part of the tank from the front... It has something to do about the game engine, that's simply how rear and front hits are calculated in CoH unfortunately! That's also why I don't think such an idea would be any good.
It might only result in making these tanks even more vulnerable from the front too.

¿When and how? ¿You mean when you shoot it from the side? (wich shoudln't be considerated a bug even if it take it as front or rear damage is still side so its ok if a few of the shoots are taken as rear damage) Or ¿when you shoot it 90° to the front? I still think that close ranges and rear hits should be way more efficient and rewarding that they are now, making more space for "lower tier" tanks able to kill "higher tier" tanks if your enemy makes a mistake like advancing without propper support or not putting his front side to the enemy simple as that, unless you still preffering tanks being anti-dumb killing machines. This can only bring way more tactics into gameplay and a different approach of tank usages like they should be. Also with the new changes to axis i really would like to see them having more light tanks availables for wh.

[Krieger Blitzer]

When and how?

As simple as this:


Though, I would be fine to increase a little bit the chances of US 76mm guns against JT from the rear, as well as Axis stubby 75mm short barrel pen chance vs Pershing tank from the rear.. but that's probably all about it.

if your enemy makes a mistake like advancing without propper support

Since a long time I have been thinking that generally tanks shouldn't have huge sight range exactly for this reason, specifically when tank commanders are inside or with scopes upgraded.. as I believe tanks in Bk Mod should have very limited view, though.. in return the basic firing range for most tanks might have to increase in order to compensate; but then again this would eventually bring us back to the reload times argumentation...

Also with the new changes to axis i really would like to see them having more light tanks availables for wh.

Yeah, me too!

[mofetagalactica]

As simple as this:

I don't see any problem with some of the hits hitting rear parts of the tank if someones turns the tank like that lol... Why would you put your tank facing like that?

[MarKr]

Some buffs to shooting rear armor of heavy tanks could be applied. However because of the damage system explained above, there will more and more cases when some vehicle with 37mm gun penetrates KT from an angle that will seem like "frontal hit" - then there would be a shitstorm here and on the Steam discussion where people will cry about "absolute bullshit of light guns penetrating heavy tanks frontally".

Realistically speaking, it would be possible to achieve that in real combat, but this is a game that does not reflect many other aspects of real-life situations. E.g. range - PaK43 could fire at up to 4 000m (accuracy at such distances is questionable but still) but also quite accurately at 2500m, 37mm could shoot accurately at about 1 800m? So the range advantage of Axis units is not really reflected here and even with proposed changes of e.g. +5 range to heavy guns it will still not reflect the real life conditions. Bigger range buffs would reflect it better but that would also create balance issues because players still preffer small maps for some reason and then these heavy units would be able to fire across half of a map or sometimes maybe from base almost to the enemy base (especially with usage of certain abilities).

[|7th|Nighthawk]

I asked that earlier but it seems to have been overlooked: What ratio does the rear to front armour have if you look at the tank from the side? Also, it would probably already help to make the guns have more pen chance when really close, even if only for 76mm+ guns. This rarely happens, granted, but if someone was that stupid to let a M10 park rind behind the Jagdtiger, I think a decent penetration chance should be in order. It's not like it will instantly blow up anyway since has tons of health in addition to it's very strong armour.
I remember in vanilla it actually displayed when the rear armour was hit. That sometimes lead to the wtf moments you described but at least you know it was the engine's fault, not some 37mm APFSDS wonder weapon that lazed through your heavy tank frontally.
Yes, scale is a big factor which is why I find it fine that 76mm guns have issues to penetrate Tigers on what looks like to be 100m IRL but the "suspension of disbelief" stops quite fast when high powered TDs struggle to penetrate another tank's rear armour, only because it's "an expensive unit". It's a bit like when AT guns not only miss a light vehicle but miss it by a huge margin, firing somewhere completely off target.

[Kr0noZ]

Armor is split 50/50. Anything in the first half is front, anything behind that counts a rear.
I'm not sure what happened to the "rear armor hit" kicker message, but I guess after it was removed alongside many other ugly UI elements way back when it was never missed enough to bring it back.

[MarKr]

It is as Tiger said. Here is an illustration from official vCoH wikipedia:

Any shot that lands on the green (front) part of Tiger counts as frontal hit. Any shot that lands on ther red (rear) part of Tiger, counts as rear hit. In the picture there are 4 Shermans - only the one directly behind the Tiger is in such position that it will always hit rear part, the other three are in such positions that hitting rear and front is possible.

[Jalis]

So the range advantage of Axis units is not really reflected here and even with proposed changes of e.g. +5 range to heavy guns it will still not reflect the real life conditions.

Real life conditions would require you balance the mod for axis always loose.

Also good gun and excellent aiming optics are not so helpful with rookies crews (most german tank crew especially after july 44).

Last if I understood correctly the news bk politic, no historical bullshit can exist at bk; because history have no importance vs pvp balance. Shortly it is not a problem a 37 mm can frontally pen a jagdtiger as long as the jagdtiger Worth its cost/usefulness ratio.
Anyway even a 37 mm would have 1 to 5 per cent chance to penetrate frontally a big cat : 1 this confrontation is probably very rare, 2 even it occurs, and even a miraculous score happens, damage cause would be rather light.

[|7th|Nighthawk]

I understand where you're coming from but I disagree to an extent. The game is based on real units so you have an expectation with regards to their performance. If a Jagdtiger gets killed by a 37mm from the front, it will absolutely contradict every expectation and at that point you could just start issuing fantasy units only. Make M1 Garands damage Pershings etc.

[kwok]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be a wehrboo fanboy, but historical shouldn't be entirely removed from argument. The METHOD of using historical values as a reasons is to argue that without it the game would break immersion as a WW2 game. The game is meant to make people feel like theyre commanding a ww2 unit, so they would hope that units would perform the way they were historically intended to capture the same decision making process that a ww2 commander would have.

But people don't get this at all. They see historical as truth and only truth, which is dumb cuz it's a game, not truth. As Jalis said, if we are going to be historical then "would require to balance the mod for axis always lose".

[Warhawks97]

The super heavy tanks wouldnt be penetrated by 37 mm guns and there is no nead to let it happen since even their rear armor was thick enough.

I simply think that tanks which had thick side armor and supposed to take shots from all directions (best example the tiger but also jumbo later or churchill tanks) would have quite decent rear armor which means that you have to worry less about enemies approaching your side. I think the tiger in this regard is very well balanced. Sure it might look stupid to that perhaps 50% of 76 shots hitting tigers rear would bounce. But how often does it happen you stay right behind them? So the rear pen chance can be used to reflect side armor or the tanks general intention.

In the current stage for example i do think that panthers are too much "Tiger like" in this matter.
The only reason the panther is acting this way is bc, as nighthawks said, "its expensive".

So if we change that in order to reflect panthers weakness better (weak side armor) then cromwells, churchills, shermans and chaffes would be able to pen its side and rear armor.
Panther might lose in efficiency but i think that Panthers are currently too much tiger like just cheaper and in many aspects better. So at the end we could make a more clear difference between Tigers and Panthers. And since Panthers dont need to be some kind of Tiger copy, they dont have to cost as much as they do now.

And even if it could happen that a chaffe or cromwell would penetrate panthers side armor by triggering a rear hit from an angel it would seem impossible the damage wouldnt be enough to oneshot the tank outright. A 75 sherman that pens a panther drains with luck half the HP of a panther.

Also as mentioned on many sides and stuff that are all about tank warfare: Things that are not supposed to happen can happen and things supposed to happen my happen not. Its not pure mathematics. Every tank has some ugly spots.


@Nighthawks: That argument "its expensive" and thus should be resistant to this and that etc.... well its as old as BC itself. But thats one of many reasons i never really liked that "super human" and "krupp stahl" vs "poor trained" soldiers and "cheap mass production" arguments. No matter how cheap one side is and how expensive the other. There needs to be a point where even "the cheap" unit scores a kill. And the enrage was always large.... "omg, how could that 600 MP inf squad die just like that" or a KT that already knocked out 11 tanks got suddenly penetrated by an ambushed 76 AT gun which resulted in an instant outrage and "impossible" cryout. I even got replays send to me by various players. But thats like 4-6 years in the past. Just saying.
Thats why i am pushing so hard to get the US away from that "bad trained, poor quality" image. In such RLS games it can be usefull to have some sort of "maximum gap" in terms of cost between participating sides/factions. That doesnt meant that we have both sides equal. Qualitiy focused gameplay vs quantity is possible. Its just a question of the relation. And original BK over did it by far. Lots has changed and shermans are the next. That way the gameplay will improve and superior gameplay more important as the "pay to win" style.

Edit: @Kwok and Nighthawks: Its both correct. But the old BK was basically a fantasy game. But at the same time 100% realism isnt possible. Let alone the ranges of guns. But we can get the feeling at least. But that didnt exist for a long time. Just take as example the KCH´s from old times.... they overrun alone 3 rifle squads and hn HMG simply by rushing over them with 6 stgs. Or The M1 Garand: Realistic expectation: Semi auto rifle with advantages over bolt action. What we had? A weapon inferior to bolt rifles in all regards. Or 76 shermans and tank IV´s. It was and still is to some extend simply fantasy.
The same goes for faction designs. Everybody with some knowlegde about ww2 knows that US military was in some aspects simply better and better equiped. Everybody would know about the fact that US only had mechanized artillery and this as the only nation in ww2. In game US is worst in this aspect. For the realistic aspect of the game it would mean that US wouldnt have any unmobile artillery and instead only off map arty and Priest/105 sherman to reflect the "100% mechanized aspect" (since we cant have trucks pulling the 105 mm howitzers).

[Jalis]

if really you want some historical basis. remember I said chance a 37 mm destroyed a big cat is low. If an Lucky pen occurs it will more like slightly damage the panzer.
In western front ptr 41 anti tank rifle were used against tiger. Aiming and destroyed the tiger optic was enough to disable the heavy tank. Blinded it was virtually out of combat, unabled to fight and forced to withdraw.

Anyway you will have to take a silly decision because coh game mecanic is weak.
-technically rear armour is not indepedent from frontal one. Rear is a multiplier of front. exemple my 37 mm can pen 64 mm. the tank I shot have 64 mm frontal armour and 32 mm rear. chance to pen I have is 1 in front (100 per 100) and 2 rear (200 per cent)

it is an ideal situation.

now my 76 mm gun shot a tank with 80 mm frontal armor : chance to pen is 120 per cent. There is still no problem.

last : my 76 mm shot a elefant with 200 mm frontal armour : chance to pen is 0 (really 0.0001 that means no chance to pen). however if I shot elefant rear armour it is only 80 mm. Can I have 120 per cent chance to pen like for previous tank ? no. You will have none and you can apply the multiplier you want none x 29653 = none.

That means if you want to penetrate a rear armour tank the gun MUST BE ABLE to pen frontal.

you have now a choice between too silly situation. a 76 mm can pen the 200 mm elefant frontal armour, or it can but if this situation it will be unable to score any hit against rear armour which is only 80 mm.

It Worth also for stuart vs panther. If you want stuart can damage a panther with a flanking or attack; it must have a chance, even minimal to score a frontal hit.

this is the basis to take a decision or make your opinion. Like said it is due to a game flaw and there is nothing you can do. No solution will be satisfying. You just have to choose the one which seems you a lesser evil.

[mofetagalactica]

It Worth also for stuart vs panther. If you want stuart can damage a panther with a flanking or attack; it must have a chance, even minimal to score a frontal hit.

this is the basis to take a decision or make your opinion. Like said it is due to a game flaw and there is nothing you can do. No solution will be satisfying. You just have to choose the one which seems you a lesser evil.

Well you can always change the penetration of big cats and medium's at closer distances so that means that if you have chances to penetrate a frontal armor with 76mm then you can susessfully buff the multiplier of the backside. Done.

[MarKr]

Well you can always change the penetration of big cats and medium's at closer distances so that means that if you have chances to penetrate a frontal armor with 76mm then you can susessfully buff the multiplier of the backside. Done.

Not done. The penetration values are set per weapon at ranges, so let's say (from close range to long range) 80%/65%/50%/40% and then these values are modified per target type. However you cannot modify each range value, the modifier is "flat", so if you place a modifier vs Panthers to x0.001 then you will have chances to penetrate (from close range to long range) 0.08%/0.065%/0.05%/0.04% and then the rear modifier applies flat over the "front" value. So even if you set the rear modifier to x4, you will still get (from close range to long range) 0.32%/0.26%/0.2%/0.16%. Sure, you can set it to some very high value to ensure the penetration from "rear hits", lets say x900 but then you'll get 72%/58.5%/45%/36% .... so you cannot simply buff penetration only at close range...aaand given the fact that people are demanding here faster reloads for smaller guns + the fact that you can score "rear hit" from front, then 36% penetration chance from front is quite high, especially if those guns shoot faster and you bring, let's say 3 of them then you can be quite sure that some of those shots will go through. I can already hear the crying "my KT got frontally penetrated by shitty Shermans!!!!!! OMG Allies OP!!! Devs only listen to allies fan boys!!!"

[Kr0noZ]

^This...
Soooooooo, it's not worth the hassle.