Blitzkrieg Mod Forum

Now I look like an idiot for not noticing...

Warhawks97 wrote: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.

I think that what you think that I think is not what I think....I think

That is not my point. I understand what you guys want to achieve and I don't think it is a bad idea but I think that you don't realize what impact it would have outside the pure tanks combat. Currently the mod is set in certain way that somehow works together - I am not saying that it works perfectly or that everyone needs to like the way things are set but it works and there is some kind balance between things (*cough* "balance" does NOT mean historical accuracy NOR that everything makes 100% sense*cough*). Units perform on some level, their performance should be somehow reflected in cost, costs are connected to units and need to be somehow relative so that weaker stuff does not cost more than strong stuff or that strong stuff does not cost only little bit more than something weak. Also we have differences in upkeep costs which influences resource income rates for each player (you may not like the system but some diversity is not a bad thing). Then tere are abilities which based on effectiveness have some cost, also costs of units often take into account the strength of abilities etc.

From what I've learned from the time I've been dev is that giving buffs to something should always be compensated by some sort of nerf because otherwise you make units stronger and stronger and you will eventually push it to the point where units that were fine are suddenly weak and useless because you "overbuffed" some other units. It is often the case that changes to some units have unintended impact on completely different units (or not directly units but gameplay in general). This is often the case even with smaller changes and you cannot really predict the outcome. I could give examples such as Axis infantry - they used to be very strong, more expensive but could easily kill several Allies infantry squads with minimal support. Then we changed things: 1) Jeep got buff to main gun to be able to compete with Bike/Schwim; 2) HMGs of allies got buff so that they started to suppress faster; 3) HE shots on tanks started to work...none of these changes was direct nerf to Axis infantry but over time the smaller buffs of Allies add up and suddenly you start to see that the Axis infantry is not as effective as it used to be but the prices of everything are still where they were before the buffs.

I am sort of reluctant for these changes because it seems to me that none of you takes into account how much things it could fuck up. If medium tanks shoot faster and have better chance to penetrate the rear of Axis tanks (and by extention light guns will have the same vs medium tanks) then it means that the efficiency of light guns/vehicles vs medium tanks will increase, also the efficiency of medium tanks vs heavy units will increase while for the heavy units it will simply be a nerf. I haven't really seen any sort of compensation for this in any of the suggestions that I've seen here...ok, maybe the heavy units and the range buff but that doesn't seem enough to compensate for the fact that majority of the units in the game would have easier time killing them. So what would be the compensation? Lower price for heavy tanks? How much lower? They cannot be too cheap because then they would again be "no brainer" units. Or higher price for the medium stuff? Could be, but again - how much higher? If you push it too high, then the whole "get more of them for similar price" will not work and consequently the heavy units will be no brainer again.

So don't get me wrong, I like the idea but I see all these "side" issues that most of you seem to not see. I can understand that it is not your problem because you won't take the flak once the shit hits the fan but since I'm on the receiveing end, I simply am careful when it comes to bigger changes like these.

JimQwilleran wrote:Prima aprilis fools

I didn't really want mediums stronger but heavies weaker. Sure it's the Medium guns that get stronger, but that reflect the Heavies Armor. And from your statement, I would guess making mediums fire faster is out of the question and makes sense to me.

From what I've learned from the time I've been dev is that giving buffs to something should always be compensated by some sort of nerf because otherwise you make units stronger and stronger and you will eventually push it to the point where units that were fine are suddenly weak and useless because you "overbuffed"

Then the opposite should be true and nerfing some units make other units stronger Joking aside, We can all see that nerfing heavies is a far bigger nerf to axis than allies since axis has alot better heavies, and allies heavies deal alot better agaisnt axis mediums compared, to the axis against allied mediums.
Our ultimate goal is to rely less on click to kill abilites and more on tank destroyers and micro as US. So I would suggest making bombing planes less effective on the heavy tanks like Tiger and king tiger. They are supposed to tank alot these tanks, but as it is now they can take 1 hit from a bomb and 100 hits from anti tank weaponry. But I have to say that this will probably make Airborne useless and my bias and hatred for airborne may be effecting my judgement here.
And I'm afraid that would make artillery look far stronger than airstikes which doesn't make alot of sense. So my 2nd opinion is to reduce the chance of your tanks getting immobilized by artillery, I know this change was increased some time ago, but if anti tank guns began to work better vs heavies. The only counter to Heavies that was artillery doesn't need to be over strong in its job. But that doesn't feel like BK to me. It's the small imperfections that make this game great in my opinion.
So with this, my conclusion ends. And I have no idea how to fix this problem.

Redgaarden wrote:And I'm afraid that would make artillery look far stronger than airstikes which doesn't make alot of sense. So my 2nd opinion is to reduce the chance of your tanks getting immobilized by artillery, I know this change was increased some time ago, but if anti tank guns began to work better vs heavies. The only counter to Heavies that was artillery doesn't need to be over strong in its job. But that doesn't feel like BK to me. It's the small imperfections that make this game great in my opinion.
So with this, my conclusion ends. And I have no idea how to fix this problem.

I will be ok if artillery and bombs (both sides) make's less damage and more crits instead. So they can be used to destroy defences, kill infantry and unitilize heavy tanks instead of destroying them.

Well, markr. You are right. I know that when changing one thing lots of others will change too.

Just i want to get more precise now on the issue.

I will list down a handfull examples.

1. 76 gun vs Tiger. Right now when you fire from max range at tigers rear your pen chance when using basic rounds is 43,8372%. Lets assume you managed to get on his rear via a flanking move and you are not shooting from max range and instead visually from mid range. For that i take the long range pen modifier (25-40 range) which is exactly the middle distance of the max shooting range. Then my chance is still just 54,39%. I mean you made super risky move and outplayed your enemie and you still need to gamble? Sure you can argue: use AP.... just mostly these get used right in the first encounter and shell exchange and not like : we use AP first when we get on his tail. I am not asking for 100% chance now... But perhaps a 10% add? Like 65%? So that we can talk about a reliable pen chance when getting on their rear.
2. 76 vs KT rear. When i use the same long range modifier (again 25-40 range) my chance to pen the KT is just 16,75%. Srsly.... that basically means that once this tank is out you can forget about building medium tanks at all once it rolled out. Skills do not mean anything. Its just about "getting a bigger gun when possible". In other words: The KT alone destroys armor doc once the SP is gone. The KT would have to run into a horde of like 10 shermans and a jackson without any support. Again.... A 10% increase from max range would help a lot already.
3. Tank IV 75 mm L/48 vs basic 1 CP churchill. When you shoot from max range at the rear your chance to pen is 23,725%. Using the long range values its 26,65%. Now you can argue that churchills are crap but to be honest: Most get killed by arty.
That means that using plain stupid arty is much more rewarding than skill and unit managment. At the same time everybody is complaining about the extense use of arty against tanks. Isnt it ironic?

Another thing is that heavies get a massive boost passively (thats a good example of passive boost) when the ambush bonuses for TD´s get standardized. The penetration boost will be reduced from 100% to 25%. Let me make another calculation now:
M10 achilles with current ambush boost vs Panther (skirts) max range: 94,4%. Vs Panther G 84,96%. When achilles loads AP the pen chance is guranteed. The damage ranges from 675 to 975.
With the coming change on ambush bonuses values will be: 59% against Panther. VS Panther G 53,1%. Damage will be 562,5-812,5. Even with AP rounds the achilles wont reach the pen chance it currently has without (!).

For the US things will be worse. With the current ambush boost the M10 and M18 can pen a tank IV H/J with a chance of 99,36%. With that change that goes down to 66,21%. With AP to 95,6%.
You can just imagine how much worse the situation becomes when Tigers and Panthers will role out.
I may ask: Where is the compensation here? Dont get me wrong. The change is good. But i couldnt notice a compensation here. And the heavies will have the greatest benefit from it.

So perhaps a slight rof advantage and approy 10% higher pen chance from max range against the heavies rear could be this compensation.


Now a tricky question for you markr. Panther will have a huge benefit from this change on ambushes. Also from Shermans that become more expensive. So it gets kind of double boost: Less deadly ambushes and less shermans.
Now assume the 75 mm sherman (thus also 75 mm churchills, perhaps cromwell and chaffe) chance to pen Panthers (skirts) rear from max range would go up from 31,8% to lets say 60%.
When these three changes would be applied (two of them will be), does it makes the panther better or worse? (Should it cost more or less)

mofetagalactica wrote:

Redgaarden wrote:And I'm afraid that would make artillery look far stronger than airstikes which doesn't make alot of sense. So my 2nd opinion is to reduce the chance of your tanks getting immobilized by artillery, I know this change was increased some time ago, but if anti tank guns began to work better vs heavies. The only counter to Heavies that was artillery doesn't need to be over strong in its job. But that doesn't feel like BK to me. It's the small imperfections that make this game great in my opinion.
So with this, my conclusion ends. And I have no idea how to fix this problem.

I will be ok if artillery and bombs (both sides) make's less damage and more crits instead. So they can be used to destroy defences, kill infantry and unitilize heavy tanks instead of destroying them.

Lets take as example the US vomb run. One bomb deals 700 damage thats doubled vs tanks. At the edge of the aoe (which radius is 12) the damage vs a panther for example or KT is still 420. At a radius of 6-8 its still 420 and thats just one bomb?

Why not increasing the damage right in the center (doubling it for example so damage there is still 1400) while the damage in the tt is changed a bit? So direct hits would kill but near bomb hits causing more crit damages like damaged engine, gun destroyed or whatever. Right now a near miss deals 1260 damage per bomb to a tank. When changing the TT damage from modifier 2 to 1 or 1.25 it would be 630 or 787 damage. But a direct hit would still deal the 1400 damage.
Its jut an example.

Hi Markr, it's really being a while. When the new patch will be released?

As you know it is available to people with beta test access to see if everything works. There have been just one issue report so far so if nothing else emerges, the update should come in about two days.

MarKr wrote:There have been just one issue report so far so if nothing else emerges

I can see u have recently updated the beta.. and I just tested the Hellcat, now the camo is fixed.

However, I think there is still 1 little problem... It's an oversight I guess!

- M10 (Wolverine and Achilles) no longer react to movement orders when they are in ambush mode (prevents accidentally leaving ambush position)
- M10 (Wolverine and Achilles) no longer automatically activate Flank speed when they leave ambush (need manual activation)

I almost forgot to notify on this.. since that the same was also applied for the Hellcat, actually the Hellcat does not have flank speed ability though!!
The only possible way for Hellcat to use flank speed, was by automatically activating it when leaving ambush... Now i think the Hellcat needs flank speed ability, otherwise it's honestly a big nerf to the Hellcat maneuvering capabilities.


Edit:

- Vehicles in the AoE of AVRE's shot now get a short "stun" effect which lowers the accuracy, reload speed, vision and movement speed for 7 seconds

Just tested this too, it doesn't happen.

Edit:

- Vehicles in the AoE of AVRE's shot now get a short "stun" effect which lowers the accuracy, reload speed, vision and movement speed for 7 seconds

Just tested this too, it doesn't happen.

Are you sure? Maybe it's just not indicated? Perhaps a kicker message would be nice here...

Absolutely sure, I tested it many times with different players.. clearly even the 2 most obvious things don't happen, no movement speed or sight reduction whatsoever...

Also, I would like to add.. not only the Hellcat needs flank speed ability now after the ambush mode change, as I just noticed that Marder.iii no longer has flank speed ability!!! Since when???
I'm pretty sure that it did have.. but regardless, I think it should also have it beside the Hellcat too.

I think i found a bug in the actual version where u can shoot other snipers while still using crawling camouflage lol.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2402
the american halftrack bug is fixed?

If the patchnotes don't mention it, probably not.
Also, that's a model issue - I'm not sure if it CAN be fixed...

interestingly enough though, the model was working absolutely fine for years! It was the other M2 half-track which was bugged.. therefore it was deleted from the reward menu and thus entirely removed from the game... Once the M2 half-track was removed due to this very same bug, then all of sudden the same bug appeared on the M3 half-track!!! I don't know what to call this, bugs transfer from 1 model to another like a real life disease??

What's happening with the snipers being able to shoot other snipers while having the crawl camouflage hability activated? I think its happening since a lot of versions before, was this intentional or it is actually a bug?

Tiger1996 wrote:I'm pretty sure that it did have.. but regardless, I think it should also have it beside the Hellcat too.

I'm pretty sure it didn't have it.

mofetagalactica wrote:I think i found a bug in the actual version where u can shoot other snipers while still using crawling camouflage lol.

When snipers crawl, they can shoot but they have their vision range reduced so it is hard for them to see a target but if some other unit is spotting for the sniper, then it can shoot.

MarKr wrote:

Tiger1996 wrote:I'm pretty sure that it did have.. but regardless, I think it should also have it beside the Hellcat too.

I'm pretty sure it didn't have it.

mofetagalactica wrote:I think i found a bug in the actual version where u can shoot other snipers while still using crawling camouflage lol.

When snipers crawl, they can shoot but they have their vision range reduced so it is hard for them to see a target but if some other unit is spotting for the sniper, then it can shoot.

Wow i didn't knew that, omg there are so many units that need their full descriptions reworked or redone dude, default descriptions and actual ones just suck and dosn't give you those cool tips.

@MarKr
Hmm, well... Marder.III does not have it on the current version either... However, I can remember this tank actually had flank speed ability in the past.. even that I can recall very well a discussion with a friend of mine long ago when we compared between Marder.II and Marder.III as I always had the thoughts that there were 2 main differences; Marder.II has MG and static position, while Marder.III has camo and flank speed... Though, I am really not sure when exactly or why the flank speed has disappeared from this unit.

Regardless though, this tank dies with bullets by the way... Yes, any regular bullets. And the Quad AA can eat it in a matter of seconds! So, I think if the Hellcat would have flank speed, then it wouldn't hurt at all that Marder.III could also have it. And I think flank speed ability for the Hellcat is a must-have now after the camo ability change.. otherwise this tank would significantly lose a lot of its potential in the game.

There is no Marder II at BK. the Geschutzwagen is a marder I.

I dont remember the marder III had ever flank speed, but it is not really the problem. It leads to compare Marder III with Hellcat. Like most vehicles germans used during the war, the marder III was underpowered. It would be grotesque to allow it flank speed. On an other hand the hellcat have an excellent tons/horsepower ratio.

quad maxon use .50 bullets. it is far to be regular bullet. it deal less damage, loose energy faster, but due to lower size and profil, its cutting edge make penetration power is equal to a 20 mm shell.

Ya, I know it's actually Marder.I as it was just a typo from my side... Also, I know the Quad is supposed to harm it, but I was saying that the Marder.III can die by small arms fire.. which is regular bullets too, such as M1 Garand, MGs, Thompson, etc. I think the reason is because the crew are very exposed specifically from the rear; but Hellcats and Wolverines are also quite exposed.. yet, regular bullets don't harm them!
So I am not sure if it is fine for Marder3 to die by regular bullets or not.

The main difference here is that the Marder and Nashorn crew is completely visible from the rear while on the Hellcat you'd maybe see the head poking out a little only if someone was actively looking out of the vehicle - save for the guy on the .50 but the MG gunners in BK are all bullet proof super heroes that only the most intense fire can actually kill - and they get back into action with just a wrench!
I think it's plenty fine. The problem I have is that for some strange reason the Flakpanzer 38(t) with it's abysmal armour is seemingly .50BMG proof. I don't want it to be shredded by .50s even though that would be adequate but it's annoying that you cannot finish it off.

marder vs classical light weapons bullet. Due to rather low penetration chance at bk, marder is really in danger only vs automatic weapons. However even in these conditions and even if crews are exposed to rear attack, I have some reserves to that. That why one my side I made marder imprevious to rifle bullet, but prime target for grenades attacks. (however here, we jump to an other post on open structure vehicles)

Mr. FeministDonut wrote:Hi Markr, it's really being a while. When the new patch will be released?

Don't rush him dude!

We also still have few things to test.. and there are still few issues... For example now the Hellcat can't use flank speed.
Either it should have flank speed, alongside the Marder.III as well.. or the new system of ambush mode could be reversed as before, only for Hellcat.
Also, the AVRE still has no stun effect vs tanks...

Not to mention the M3 US half-track still doesn't show troops inside.. but maybe that one will be fixed in a future patch.

Tiger1996 wrote:For example now the Hellcat can't use flank speed.
Either it should have flank speed, alongside the Marder.III as well.. or the new system of ambush mode could be reversed as before, only for Hellcat.

What kind of reasoning is this? Marder never had flank speed and so it should get it now because Hellcat has no longer the speed boost when it leaves camo?
Hellcat is still way faster than M10 you cannot really say that it has no speed advantage.
It can stay like this.
M3 is up to Wolf....it is a visual glitch but not really any serious, it is not like the main purpose of M3 should be mobile fire platform for infantry. It is a transporter that provides cover to loaded infantry, even if they cannot shoot from it, it is not a big problem.

I will check AVRE, even if it doesn't apply the stun stuff, it can be released anyway. The damage boost vs emplacement is working and that is the main purpose of the unit.