Blitzkrieg Mod Forum

Hello to all of you,
in a short time the new beta should be available. If you are interensted in playing the beta here is guide for you to get access to beta version.

The beta brings several quite big changes. They are rather core-play changes than doctrine specific but there a few smaller faction-specific changes/fixes too:

US:
Riflemen riflegrenades:
- HE grenade:
+ changed targetting system to require select a specific target (no longer can fire "on the ground")
+ now performs better at targetting buildings and emplacements (still has hard time hitting infantry that is not garrisoned)
+ now has better distributed chances of killing an emplacement crew
- HEAT grenade:
+ changed targetting system so that it does not miss more often than intended
+ increased damage vs light vehicles
- Airborne recon unit can now use "Hold Fire" ability when they are camouflaged
- M1 Carbine of 101st now shoots faster at all ranges but has lower accuracy (RoF and accuracy set to same level as M1 Garand of Riflemen, Carbine still keeps lower damage though)
- 101st can no longer upgrade Thompson SMG (was sort of obsolete since Carbines are now quite effective at closer ranges)
- 101st can now upgrade M1 Garands; 2 rifles for 20ammo, possible to upgrade up to 3x (Garands with same stats as Rangers have - shoot slower but more accurately and with slightly higher chance to one-shot infantry)
- removed the BAR upgrade from 101st
- 101st can now use the "Suppressive fire" ability if they upgrade Johnson 2x

CW:
- HE grenade:
+ changed targetting system to require select a specific target (no longer can fire "on the ground")
+ now performs better at targetting buildings and emplacements (still has hard time hitting infantry that is not garrisoned)
+ now has better distributed chances of killing an emplacement crew

WM:
- Crew of the naked 20mm flak 36 should now properly sit where he should be

PE:
- Fallshirmjägers now have new random skins (skins made by Halftrack)

The Rifle nades changes are there mainly to adress the complaints about Riflegrenades being useless - now the HE nades should extremely rarely miss a building/emplacement and should do better at clearing them. Still it is very strongly advised NOT to shoot HE grenades vs infantry that is not garrisoned - you are most likely to miss the shot. For USA the HEAT grenades should no longer miss that often the targetted vehicle.
As for the 101st - the weapon upgrade changes are experimental for now, the option to have BAR and Johnson upgrades on the same unit makes little sense because these two guns are very similar in performance and have same purpose so having these two options on the same unit is same as if you had the option to upgrade Grenadiers with Panzerschreck, LMG34 and LMG42. Currently the icon for "M1 Garand upgrade" of 101st is a placeholder so it will be replaced later if we decide to keep it in the game, same applies for the weapon upgrade indicator above the squad once you upgrade Garands (currently shows same icon G43 rifles).

Now for the rest - you will surely notice right away that all vehicles and tanks move a lot slower. The speeds of vehicles were meant to represent the real top speeds of vehicles but it got implemented in a wrong way and as a result all vehicles moved way faster than they were meant to. It got changed so that when vehicles move on solid roads (those that give to your infantry Red cover), they should match their "realistic" maximum speeds but when they move in cross-country terrain they are a lot slower. We tried to look up some information on realistic cross-country speeds on the vehicles and it is sort of hard because it depended a lot on the terrain but we managed to find some values and tried to apply them. In the initial tests we felt that the light vehicles were painfuly slow (even slower than infantry) so the speeds of halftracks and armored cars were increased above their "realistic" cross-country speeds to keep them viable as recons or infantry support. Tanks are slower but they have better armor and slower speed "feels" sort of right there. This change makes AT guns more viable because it takes longer to tanks to get in range and kill the crew with an HE shot, it also makes it harder to use armored cars with FTL speeds to bypass static defenses without a sweat or "kite" infantry with them. It also makes roads more strategically valuable because they allow for significantly faster movement across the map.

Now you're probably thinking "Slower vehicles means easier target for arty" - just what we were thinking. So the beta introduces changes to artillery too. Generally speaking, artillery deals less damage to vehicles (only exception is when they score a direct hit - then the damage is actually higher than before) to prevent OPness of bombing planes, similar adjustments were made to bombs too (more damage to vehicles on direct hit, less if not hit directly). Artillery remains same effective vs infantry and buildings/empalcements though. There is also change to ranges of artillery units. The changes basically go:
- Static howitzers (225(250 with range-boosting ammo))
- SPG (Priest, Hummel, Wepse etc.) (180 (210 with range-boosting ammo))
- infantry-moved arty (nebels/pack howitzers/LeiG18 - 150)
- arty on light vehicles (Calliope/Maultier/Stuka/Autocar etc. - 135)
- howitzer tanks (Sherman/Cromwell/Churchill - 120)

Sherman Calliope has range of 160 because it takes very long to finish barrage and during the time it is very vulnerable and flak36 barrage is 120 range because it is mainly AT/AA defense and arty is only a bonus and so it does not need huge range.

The ranges may not reflect some realistic ranges of these arty pieces but in this case gameplay is more important. We need static howitzers to have the biggest range because otherwise they will get counter-artied immediately and keep being useless. Now when you build one and shoot it, you reveal your position and that is still a risk since you cannot move it but at least you know that enemy needs to come closer to you. SPGs have second-longest range because they usually have weak armor and so they need to stay in relatively safe distance. Then comes the infantry-carried arty pieces because the crew is vulnerable to all sorts of damage, on the other hand the guns are relatively cheap and can be recrewed - we placed them "to the middle". Then there are the "light vehicle arty" which is also vulnerable but has better mobility which means it can afford to move closer to shoot and retreat if needed. Last are the arty tanks which are quite slow but also have quite good armor so they need to move the closest.

Last change that took place in arty is the bonuses that these units receive with veterancy. Up till now, arty units with veterancy usually got reduced cooldown on barrages (mostly -5 seconds/level), reduced scatter (so the shots hit more accurately the target area) and some also got faster reloads (which meant the barrage was completed faster). In this beta the general rule is that rocket artillery has bigger spread, no longer reduces spread with vet levels but veterancy reduces the cooldown of barrages. "Shell" artillery gains reduced spread with veterancy but the barrage cooldowns do not get lower. All in all Rocket arty hits bigger area but can shoot more often while "shell" arty can hit more accurately but shoots less often.

Lastly there are changes to reload speeds and rear penetration chances. Generally speaking - lighter guns reload faster, the biggest guns have some range advantage but reload slower and when you attempt to flank enemy heavy tanks with your medium tanks, rear hits should be more rewarding. This is so far only applied to "medium guns" (50/57/75/76mm) on vehicles - if the change proves to be viable the performance of lighter guns vs medium targets will be adjested in similar way. This is because changing these things means a lot of work in many files so if the change proves to be OK, we can add the rest, knowing it is not for nothing, it if proves not to be OK we might just revert it instead of wasting all the time needed to change the light guns too.

There is a lot to test and we will try to update the beta at least once per week to address issues that will pop up (if needed). Most of these changes are possible to adjust if there is a good reason for them.

Please try to be open minded and when you give feedback, try to consider the the intention of the changes. In other words, if your feedback is "OMG tanks are slow now! Please revert it!" then the answer will be most likely "No" because we brought down the speeds to make the vehicles slower - it was the intention. However if you report that something is too slow - e.g. to a level where it becomes almost impossible to use, then we can talk about adjustments.

Feedback and constructive criticism is welcomed

Good luck on the battlefield

On preliminary testing:

The speed of these new vehicles is very good. Mines are actually going to be useful because roads are actually mandatory now rather than offroad tanks just backing up against a well laid ambush with the speed of a thousand suns(or just YOLO-advancing through it). Now infantry has more of a purpose rather than just being fodder to hold out for tanks later on in the game.

Light tanks are more useful now, but I still have a few problems not involving them directly but these 57mm/6 Pounder/50mm AT guns. In that they move too fast and can position themselves to 'kite' these mediums and light tanks like light vehicles used to 'kite' units in vanilla coh. All these at guns have to do is shoot, and when the tank is trying to get in range to fire at them just back up. Keep shooting a shell and backing up until the vehicle is destroyed. The speed of these at guns need to be adjusted. I have no problem with the speed of these bigger at guns(76mm/17p), they are just right. But the speed of these smaller ones need to be affected(not the 37mm guns, their speed is perfect).

Hellcat really needs its flank speed ability now. It's actually necessary if it needs to 'flank' these tanks with its new speed.

Tanks still rotate their chassis WAY too fast. I put a sherman on a road, and it did a full 360 degree spin in 2.5 seconds. So these new changes might just lead to people abusing the road mechanics to help them have 2090 age turning gear technology when they are going to be flanked by tank destroyers/tanks with their new speeds. All these tanks should have their rotation speed significantly lowered.

Biggest problem is now henschels. With these new speeds, henschels have got a gigantic boost because they are still using vanilla COH mechanics where there will be 6-10 of these planes coming in very fast and with BK damage models they will outright destroy everything in the circle radius. Without any tank being able to 'move' out of it. Adding to that, these planes can destroy vehicles outside of their target area because of how their vision works in conjunction with their massive range guns.

So I offer two solutions to this:

1. Just give them 0 view range full stop. They shouldn't be able to self spot to destroy tanks outside of the circle radius or to help other planes come in because they spotted a vehicle in the target area. You should need eyes on the ground to see stuff instead of just relying on the henschels to do all the work by themselves. Though I don't know if it will be enough with how inconsistent this ability is depending on RNG, maps, and other factors.

*Might also be helpful to know I think the same of all these planes that aren't recon runs; they should have 0 spotting range full stop(especially these patrol abilities). Kind of like how in COH 2 all planes that aren't being called in to spot have almost null view range.

2. Rework the ability.

Maybe instead of having a 200 munition callin ability that gives you 6-10 planes depending on some environmental factors. Just make it a one-plane call in ability that costs 75 munitions but calls in a very strong henschel plane. It will be much tougher than the one in the game now that gets shot down very fast. But it will only be one plane, and you can choose the direction and facing from where you want to call it in like a strafing run/bombing run. 'Henschel strafing run' announcement from our PE announcer will actually mean what it says on the tin then. And it won't lead to super expensive tanks for armor doctrine; Or these super slow churchills; being destroyed so easily because they can't move out of the circle fast enough.

Might also be worth changing to not have gebirsjagers, CQC squads, or have any unit being able to use their abilities while they are pinned down. Because in the case of the gebirsjagers, when they use their panzerfaust while pinned they have no animation of doing so, they are just in prone position. With these new vehicle speeds I can imagine seeing a lot more of the 'pinned squad using crutch ability to destroy/disable tank' thing.

Great, seems very interesting.

And thanks for that arty changes... thx soooo much.

However i wouldnt treat the leig 18 like a nebler or pack howitzer and instead rather like you treat the 88. Its a defensive weapon with ambush and arty is a bonus as well. Perhaps this gun could be moved to a certain doc. Having it as reward to 50 mm pak 36 is quite stupid since this weapon is extremely important in WH gameplay.

And less brainless crazy arty festivals from mid to end game anymore. Wow. That is better than birthday and christmas together. Just THANK YOU!

MenciusMoldbug wrote:On preliminary testing:

So I offer two solutions to this:

1. Just give them 0 view range full stop. They shouldn't be able to self spot to destroy tanks outside of the circle radius or to help other planes come in because they spotted a vehicle in the target area. You should need eyes on the ground to see stuff instead of just relying on the henschels to do all the work by themselves. Though I don't know if it will be enough with how inconsistent this ability is depending on RNG, maps, and other factors.

*Might also be helpful to know I think the same of all these planes that aren't recon runs; they should have 0 spotting range full stop(especially these patrol abilities). Kind of like how in COH 2 all planes that aren't being called in to spot have almost null view range.

2. Rework the ability.

Maybe instead of having a 200 munition callin ability that gives you 6-10 planes depending on some environmental factors. Just make it a one-plane call in ability that costs 75 munitions but calls in a very strong henschel plane. It will be much tougher than the one in the game now that gets shot down very fast. But it will only be one plane, and you can choose the direction and facing from where you want to call it in like a strafing run/bombing run. 'Henschel strafing run' announcement from our PE announcer will actually mean what it says on the tin then. And it won't lead to super expensive tanks for armor doctrine; Or these super slow churchills; being destroyed so easily because they can't move out of the circle fast enough.

Might also be worth changing to not have gebirsjagers, CQC squads, or have any unit being able to use their abilities while they are pinned down. Because in the case of the gebirsjagers, when they use their panzerfaust while pinned they have no animation of doing so, they are just in prone position. With these new vehicle speeds I can imagine seeing a lot more of the 'pinned squad using crutch ability to destroy/disable tank' thing.

How shall that plane work with its current rof? it would fire like 2 shots at the target location? if it works like a strafe the shots may also hit in front and behind the target.

I would perhaps increase cooldown. So it becomes more a sort of a very very valuable ability that can change the game but needs to be used right.
Other options could be that the max ammount of planes coming in are 4?
Cost adjustments? A mix of all of that.


With gebs it might become troublesome since the current way of stopping them is to shoot them while driving backward. No vehicle can stop them while standing still killing them before they get into range. That is more the case with vet and cover with def bonus.
But we will see. But pinned units shouldnt be able to use any kind of ability or anti tank ability.

Warhawks97 wrote:How shall that plane work with its current rof? it would fire like 2 shots at the target location? if it works like a strafe the shots may also hit in front and behind the target.

I would perhaps increase cooldown. So it becomes more a sort of a very very valuable ability that can change the game but needs to be used right.
Other options could be that the max ammount of planes coming in are 4?
Cost adjustments? A mix of all of that.

A single henschel can get more than 5-6 shots off depending on the direction it is coming from and the environmental factors(size of map, terrain, etc.). Which is what I mean by the inconsistency of this ability; where sometimes it will do absolutely nothing at all but other times be amazingly effective.

My solution might be bad because it would overnerf it. But anything that just tones down the henschels in conjunction with these new speeds would be good.

Ok, just had a single game of testing for now.. but before I provide my feedback, then just the same way how u asked the beta testers to be open minded... I would then also like to ask you to please be open minded too about the amount of criticism you are going to receive, and thus also open minded enough to consider reverting back some of the changes if necessary, so here we go.. that's my initial feedback:

I felt like I'm playing a "slow motion" version of Bk Mod, as it feels more like "turtle mod" has been activated Specifically jeep and Schwimwagen.
These new vehicle speeds.. are simply unplayable for me. And to be honest, I don't get why you need to change the speed of any vehicles in the first place, in my opinion.. generally all the speeds were fine, except that some tanks had flank speed abilities while they didn't deserve them. Surprisingly though, even on this beta.. those same vehicles (which aren't supposed to have flank speed) somehow still have it!! Despite the "realistic" vehicles speed approach that you are trying to implement...

Also, it's mind blowing how vehicle speeds need to be more "realistic" but huge sight range of tanks (which is a bigger issue by far) is somehow nothing you consider any critical. Tiger1 for example (also Pershing tank) with 60 cannon range, and 85 sight range when there is a tank commander inside in addition to scopes upgrade.. while it should be the complete contrary, something like 70 cannon range, 40 max sight range... AND old tank speeds. Messing up with the vehicle speeds, was completely unnecessary...
I honestly find it extremely difficult to continue playing the game with these new vehicle speeds.

Also, this statement;

MarKr wrote:This change makes AT guns more viable because it takes longer to tanks to get in range and kill the crew with an HE shot

Hmm, hold on a second.. one of the reasons for this change, is to make AT guns more viable, right?
So, basically you went for changing the entire speed values of vehicles.. when you could have just made AT guns aim time being less?
Would have been the same result, no?

Though; just to be fair, 1 thing I liked; is how Panthers, Tiger1, and Pershing tanks.. all have 65 range now instead of 60 but then again, this doesn't justify crippling down their speed this much.

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

MarKr wrote:There is also change to ranges of artillery units. The changes basically go:
- Static howitzers (225(250 with range-boosting ammo))
- SPG (Priest, Hummel, Wepse etc.) (180 (210 with range-boosting ammo))
- infantry-moved arty (nebels/pack howitzers/LeiG18 - 150)
- arty on light vehicles (Calliope/Maultier/Stuka/Autocar etc. - 135)
- howitzer tanks (Sherman/Cromwell/Churchill - 120)

Alright.. but what about the SturmTiger?

Regarding this:

MarKr wrote:In this beta the general rule is that rocket artillery has bigger spread, no longer reduces spread with vet levels but veterancy reduces the cooldown of barrages.

Hmm, walking Stuka half-track should no longer require 5 commands points then...

Lastly, good change to the 101st squads.. but AT rifle grenades are still very inaccurate... And the damage is probably too high.
Also btw, I saw a 75mm M4 Sherman killing a SturmTiger from the rear.. not sure if this would be fine in serious PvP games, but meh.

Tiger1996 wrote:I felt like I'm playing a "slow motion" version of Bk Mod, as it feels more like "turtle mod" has been activated Specifically jeep and Schwimwagen.

slow motion hits the spot. Basically all mobile warfare is gone. Played a test round at high valley. Ive send my volks from my base to enemie base together with a halftrack. When volks reached the base the halftrack did not even made the half way.

Tank IV´s are as slow as churchills and the wheeled vehicle can just drive as fast as inf walks. Vehicles wont have a chance at all against infantry. Not even mentioning sprinting.

Combat situations were like: " oh, my tank will arrive within the next day, hold on guys". My tank IV´s did need so long to reach a certain point of the map that i could literally watch youtube videos.

To be honest, pvp isnt possible.

And when my tanks drove over dirt tracks it was like they stopped moving at all.

AT guns and Boys AT will have some happy shooting time.
That speed changes need to be reversed to be honest. I mean slight changes is one thing. But when my Puma isnt driving faster than a sherman was used to and my tank IV´s are suddenly churchill tanks.

Sadly it was a lot of work to change all these values

Warhawks97 wrote:

Tiger1996 wrote:I felt like I'm playing a "slow motion" version of Bk Mod, as it feels more like "turtle mod" has been activated Specifically jeep and Schwimwagen.

slow motion hits the spot. Basically all mobile warfare is gone. Played a test round at high valley. Ive send my volks from my base to enemie base together with a halftrack. When volks reached the base the halftrack did not even made the half way.

You must be aware that all the terrain in high valley is considerated rought terrain for vehicles making them move slower than they are supposed. Some maps just really needs to be revised plus add roads.

Ok, so i have played a few games already, i will be editing this post in the meanwhile.

So far i really love the changes that you guys made, artillery changes where so fucking good thank you for that, game's feel more infantry based now and using tanks as support weapons wich is really good, gun changes to 101's are neat, Riflenades still missing but can maybe be my bad luck i fucking love how flanking its finally rewarding now.

Thought, some changes have been exagerated, i do like how slow vehicles are now ( Fucking hate how they where before) but i think it went too far slow having in mind that most of the maps we play dosn't have roads (even when it looks that they have roads and terrain looks plain as fuck) they go way too slow, i think making them all of them a little more faster mostly units like (jeeps,schims,pumas,grey's,scout cars,etc). Someone mentioned rotation speed too, and i agree that it's way fast and should be slower.

Please devs have in mind that 80% of the maps we play dosn't have roads propertly made even when you see it is a road.

@tiger1996 I would suggest that you start using your tanks with proper infantry support close to them, as artillery will not shred them like before, they still become a really strong weapon with infantry close and not a 1 man army like before, since you can blow them and get closer to them with AT infantry. I do agree that vehicles are too slow now, but they shouldn't be like before, luckily tweaks can still be made.

@Mencius : these 57mm/6 Pounder/50mm AT guns. In that they move too fast and can position themselves to 'kite' these mediums and light tanks like light vehicles used to 'kite' units in vanilla coh. All these at guns have to do is shoot, and when the tank is trying to get in range to fire at them just back up. Keep shooting a shell and backing up until the vehicle is destroyed. The speed of these at guns need to be adjusted. I have no problem with the speed of these bigger at guns(76mm/17p), they are just right. But the speed of these smaller ones need to be affected(not the 37mm guns, their speed is perfect). ----> I agree so much on this.

Tiger1996 wrote:I felt like I'm playing a "slow motion" version of Bk Mod, as it feels more like "turtle mod" has been activated

more like this
https://youtu.be/0woPde7OE1k

Warhawks97 wrote:To be honest, pvp isnt possible.

yes, unless it's infantry only mode......


@mark
new vehicle speeds are very broken.
must be reverted back. and then maybe remove flank speed ability from all tanks in the game...and in case some tanks will become useless, you can always tweak their basic acceleration and top speed.

you can do as Tiger said too. modify sight range upgrades for tanks, and lower sight range bonus by tank commanders. tanks should not be used as mobile spotters.........and should not always see incoming threats from safe long distance. 65 fire range for tigers and pershings with longer reload, thats good change so it can stay.

mofetagalactica wrote:You must be aware that all the terrain in high valley is considerated rought terrain for vehicles making them move slower than they are supposed. Some maps just really needs to be revised plus add roads.

No, by looking at the WorldBuilder here; then I can safely tell that the terrain on the map High Valley at most, is in fact considered absolutely ideal for vehicles to move freely.. and do you think anyone has the time to revise all those maps in the game by adding more roads just because of such a terrible incoherent change on vehicle speeds?? Hell no, I'm not going to do that.. neither would Playmobill, or anyone else.

mofetagalactica wrote:they still become a really strong weapon with infantry close and not a 1 man army like before, since you can blow them and get closer to them with AT infantry. I do agree that vehicles are too slow now, but they shouldn't be like before, luckily tweaks can still be made.

Tanks aren't 1 man army.. live example; the game I recently had with Warhawks in my team as Allies on the new map Rosmalen right there on the matchmaking section.. look how I kept hunting down Pz4 tanks and even Panthers using my SAS infantry and their Bazookas! Even with 2 seconds aim time of handheld AT weapons, and despite our opponents had HE rounds too. Yet, my SAS infantry were still superior at the end of the day... in fact, one of my SAS squads had 6 tank kills, and look at this Marine Commando squad crawling with 3 Shrecks at the end of the game killing a Panther...

If tanks are at any moment considered "1 man army" units then it's DEFINITELY not because of their speed, but because of their huge sight range.
The sight range for tanks should never be that much superior in comparison to the actual cannon range... As me and Seha already clarified above.

OK, after reading the comments:

MenciusMoldbug wrote:not involving them directly but these 57mm/6 Pounder/50mm AT guns. In that they move too fast and can position themselves to 'kite' these mediums and light tanks like light vehicles used to 'kite' units in vanilla coh.

OK, I will have a look at this.

MenciusMoldbug wrote:Hellcat really needs its flank speed ability now. It's actually necessary if it needs to 'flank' these tanks with its new speed.

I will have a look at this too, though Hellcat already has higher base speed than most other tanks in the game so it should be able to outspeed them even without the ability.

MenciusMoldbug wrote:Tanks still rotate their chassis WAY too fast.

Will check that too. And I will try to find a solution for Henschels too.

Tiger1996 wrote:it's mind blowing how vehicle speeds need to be more "realistic" but huge sight range of tanks (which is a bigger issue by far) is somehow nothing you consider any critical. Tiger1 for example (also Pershing tank) with 60 cannon range, and 85 sight range when there is a tank commander inside in addition to scopes upgrade.. while it should be the complete contrary, something like 70 cannon range, 40 max sight range...

"when it should be complete contrary" .... it "should be" based on what exactly? Based on your oppinion? Or some logical reason? Because it doesn't seem weird to me that a tank crew with a scope can spot enemy tank at high range and not to shoot because the chance of hitting is minimal - yet it gives them advantage because they know where the enemy is going, where they will be and gives them more options.

Tiger1996 wrote:Hmm, hold on a second.. one of the reasons for this change, is to make AT guns more viable, right?
So, basically you went for changing the entire speed values of vehicles.. when you could have just made AT guns aim time being less?
Would have been the same result, no?

You've mistaken "effect of a change" for "reason for a change". The increased efficiency of AT guns is EFFECT, but wasn't the REASON for the change.
Also, no, the result of aimtime drop would not be the same - low aim times can be exploited to make guns bypass their normal reload times, also low aim times are good for nothing if the tank/vehicle just drives quickly by, out of your cone of fire, and then keeps circling you untill it kills the crew.

Tiger1996 wrote:Alright.. but what about the SturmTiger?

Changes applied to Sturmtiger too. However there is quite a lot of arty units in the game so if anybody has a feeling that something overperforms compared to other stuff, it is possible that I forgot to change the unit so report it here and I will check it and fix it.

Tiger1996 wrote:Hmm, walking Stuka half-track should no longer require 5 commands points then...

Is there some reason for this claim, or is it simply "I believe so".

Warhawks97 wrote:Played a test round at high valley. Ive send my volks from my base to enemie base together with a halftrack. When volks reached the base the halftrack did not even made the half way.

What halftrack was that? Infantry has speed of "3", halftracks have usually "3.5" (7.2 when on a road). So they should be faster than infantry.

Warhawks97 wrote:Tank IV´s are as slow as churchills and the wheeled vehicle can just drive as fast as inf walks.

PIVs have speed of 1.6 (3.8 on roads), Churchills have 1.3 (2.5 on roads). So they are not really as slow as you say.

Warhawks97 wrote:Vehicles wont have a chance at all against infantry. Not even mentioning sprinting.

Where's your infantry support for your vehicles?

Warhawks97 wrote:Combat situations were like: " oh, my tank will arrive within the next day, hold on guys". My tank IV´s did need so long to reach a certain point of the map that i could literally watch youtube videos.

To be honest, pvp isnt possible.

How so? Units on both sides move slower so it is not like you move your tanks to some position and your opponent is there 3x faster. Also did you send your PIV on a road or through the fields?

seha wrote:new vehicle speeds are very broken.

there is a difference in meaning between "very broken" and "I don't like it"

Tiger1996 wrote:No, by looking at the WorldBuilder here; then I can safely tell that the terrain on the map High Valley at most, is in fact considered absolutely ideal for vehicles to move freely..

You need to realise that what in the world builder looks like a (relatively) flat terrain, in reality looks like this:

just covered in grass. The engine cannot render all these curves, it would be too hardware-heavy. When you look at the picture, how fast do you think a wheeled vehicle can drive in a terrain like this? Tracked vehicles would do better but then again, not ideal for reaching top speeds and full tracked vehicles are tanks and those are significantly heavier than halftracks or armored cars which lowers their speeds too.

Also to people who say that on "dirt roads" the vehicles move too slow - it is a similar issue. In the game the road looks flat but realistically such dirt road would most likely look like this:

which is not ideal for reaching maximum speeds either - especially for wheeled vehicles.

Though this is true:

mofetagalactica wrote:have in mind that 80% of the maps we play don't have roads propertly made even when you see it is a road.

I'll try to solve it somehow.

Tiger1996 wrote:do you think anyone has the time to revise all those maps in the game by adding more roads just because of such a terrible incoherent change on vehicle speeds?? Hell no, I'm not going to do that.. neither would Playmobill, or anyone else.

Quite bold to talk for everyone else in the community...anyway, I guess it is good that it can be changed without map revisions.

Ok.
I used the normal transport halftrack.
I made speed tests over normal grassland as well. The wheeled Puma was just fast enough to keep up with relaxing walking infatry. Halftrack was very slow and not to mention tanks.
So when tanks have issues crossing the ground shown at pic one for example, why can infantry sprint over it without issues?
And this dirt round shouldnt make a tank or other vehicle made for combat slower than a solider can walk over it.
And the heaviest AT guns would stuck in such ground entirely. So they would be allowed to use only roads so far.
I also said tank IV´s are as slow now has churchills have been used to. I didnt even test churchills.

The problems that actually occure now.


1. We have "vehicle on terrain mode" but not "infantry on terrain mode". I cant imagine any soldier would run over such terrain so fast and even less so with heavy equipment.
2. AT guns have clearly the upper hand in terms of mibility. Even the heaviest can be pushed over any ground faster as most tanks can go
3. You say "where is your inf support"? You know that the strenght of inf is veeery different. SAS, Luft inf and so on are playing in a completely different league. So when i have to use my tanks with inf support (all docs) it then means that the doctrines playing almost only with infantry becomes superior. Those do not stick on tanks. So when i have to wait with my inf untill my turtle tanks arrive at the scene, the enemie has taken the ground and attacking already elswhere. So the mobility docs (BK, armor) are suddenly quite slow bc their inf must wait for their tanks and vehicles, meanwhile all the foot based doctrines become the ultimate mobile one. They can evade the enemie entirely and esspecially with recon planes you can do basically whatever you want. When the saying has been "use armor doc on bigger maps to make profit of its mobility" it is now "Play infantry on bigger maps" bc they can outwalk tanks and vehicles with ease.
And certain infantry is simply so durable (def grens vet, storms, vet luft/SAS etc) that they will always be able to make a shot at a tank. Even if you would put own basic inf and even HMG´s in front of it.
4. The Hull and Coaxial MG´s have been that weak in order to balance out the ability of tanks to drive forth and back with good speed and having generally a good view. If Tanks weakness is now that they cant escape from threats (mainly infantry now) we do have to reconsider the behaviour of these weapons as well. Esspecially when it comes to suppression effects of these weapons against incoming rushing infantry.

Suggesting:

1. As i can see you have cut the speed on cross country by sometimes over 50%. What about reducing it at first by like 25% or 35? For the tank IV for example dropping it to 2.45 instead 1.6? That would be afterall a considerable drop.
2. Perhaps wheeled vehicles have a way better top speed but in return a higher speed drop at heavy cross country? Tracked vehicles less fast in general but less hard speed loss. But i think thats already the case right? But still, i would go for point 1 at first. Bc right now its really veeery slow. And we have no infantry or AT gun cross country mode nor do we have adjusted hull/coaxial MG which behaviour was justified by the "kite" abiliy of tanks and vehicles.

Those changes is a ridiculous overbuff of infantry docs and encouragement for camping imo. Escaping handheld weapons (also the op ones like gebirgs faust) will be impossible now. You wont convince me that I can simply protect my armor with inf - that requires 3x more micro, makes you an easy arty or strafe target and luft inf is superior anyway.

To be honest I strongly dislike the speed chnages. But it seems like you are convinced about making them stay..

Basically you nerf all armor heavly giving nothing in return (some minor arty nerf, what about bazooka and shreck rushes on everything?), I cant see any reason behind this. I find this idea very badly thought. I agree this gonna slow down the game to the extent where the best tactic is hiding your long range weapon behind wall of paks and mgs... ungly camping. The most fun thing in bk was flanking and clever units movement and placement. Now it's gonna be arty or get artied...

MarKr wrote:when it should be complete contrary" .... it "should be" based on what exactly? Based on your oppinion? Or some logical reason? Because it doesn't seem weird to me that a tank crew with a scope can spot enemy tank at high range and not to shoot because the chance of hitting is minimal - yet it gives them advantage because they know where the enemy is going, where they will be and gives them more options.

I think it's based on realism.. how about that? isn't "realism" the solid ground that you are sticking on at the moment? You want the speed changes to be more realistic.. but not tank sight capabilities too? in reality, the tank crew were always limited in view.. and often needed dedicated infantry teams with binoculars nearby tank battalions in order to inform them using radio about the situation around them, and where targets are located.
I'm not saying tanks were totally blind, but the view was definitely too limited compared to infantry units...
So how come the sight range is almost the double of the cannon range in Bk Mod currently??

MarKr wrote:You've mistaken "effect of a change" for "reason for a change". The increased efficiency of AT guns is EFFECT, but wasn't the REASON for the change.
Also, no, the result of aimtime drop would not be the same - low aim times can be exploited to make guns bypass their normal reload times, also low aim times are good for nothing if the tank/vehicle just drives quickly by, out of your cone of fire, and then keeps circling you untill it kills the crew.

I'm aware of the exploit, in fact.. it was me the one who first discovered and reported it... And thus you later managed to add the aim time. However, I'm not telling you now that aim time should be removed.. but it doesn't have to be 4 seconds either!
Can be 3 seconds for example, that would work too.

MarKr wrote:Is there some reason for this claim, or is it simply "I believe so".

If you get back to the old discussions about the Stuka half-track in Terror doctrine.. one of the very common arguments that some people used to justify for the Stuka change.. was the fact that Stuka becomes too accurate with vet.2 and thus they demanded that Stuka would require 5 command points and not available by default anymore. Now, and since that the Stuka wouldn't be as much accurate anymore (also less range) then why should it still require 5 command points?

MarKr wrote:You need to realise that what in the world builder looks like a (relatively) flat terrain, in reality looks like this:

Excuse me, but you don't have to tell me what I need to realize about WorldBuilder and what I don't, as I've spent insane number of hours working on the WorldBuilder the past month(s) and thus I KNOW what I'm talking about very well.
The terrain agility for vehicles HAS NOTHING TO DO with the terrain texture... in the WorldBuilder, there is something called "terrain cover" and the more cover you add.. the harder it becomes for vehicles to move. If a terrain doesn't have any sort of cover, then it's considered a free-road for vehicles.. regardless of how the terrain looks like! Here is a live picture from WorldBuilder that demonstrates what I mean...



Red areas are negative cover, meaning it's basically a road for vehicles which provides speed bonus.. so (texture wise) it doesn't have to look like an actual road in order to be boosting speed... Green areas are heavy cover for infantry, thus vehicles would have problems moving there, meaning their speed wouldn't be boosted like when they move on red areas, but actually their speed would be downgraded on these green areas. And the "white" areas are the neutral areas on the map.. meaning that these white areas aren't providing any sort of speed bonus to anything, or even downgrading the speed. So that's where you can see the actual speed of things without any sort of boost or downgrade... And actually such white areas are considered ideal for ANYTHING to move upon.. freely without any issues, not just for vehicles but EVERYTHING.

Now, I have already received some requests that map revisions need to include more roads now, that's as a consequence of your "realistic" vehicle speed adjustments which aren't even realistic to say the least. And if maps would include more roads from now on, then there is literally no point for these adjustments at all...

Lastly, I would like to say.. if you are so convinced about these incoherent vehicle speed adjustments, and if you are not willing to revert back the changes and consider different ideas... Then I can already consider throwing Bk Mod behind my back, not tomorrow.. not later; but even right now!
And I think I wouldn't be the only one who is going to do that too.

So let's not get into endless discussions, clearly the game is unplayable with these speed adjustments.. old speed values were more than fine.
And have been always fine for YEARS now... If some people are complaining about tanks being very fast.. that's fine then, you can remove flank speed ability from all tanks in the game, and consider tweaking acceleration and max speed values for some tanks in particular if they have proven to be useless without flank speed.. just as Seha pointed out. Also, a tank isn't supposed to have infinite view range!

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

With that being said, i have to be honest... There are some other changes I absolutely admire. For example now Elefant and JagdPanther have 70 cannon range and not 65 range anymore.. also longer reload. And the Tiger1, Pershing and Panther tanks have 65 range instead of 60 now, and you also managed to compensate that by increasing the reload.. these are some changes I absolutely support on the other hand.. just to be fair.

I think the vehicle speed change is a complete misstep that negatively impacts the mod on a realism, gameplay and strategic level. I implore the dev team to keep the overall status quo on vehicle speeds.

Realism
The changes do authentically depict what it would be like for WW2 vehicles driving uphill through Russian spring mud, but the problem with that is the Western Front does not take place in that time or place.

Cross country mobility was never a major concern for the Western Front because it did not present the same challenge as in the East. Neither France or Germany have that particular type of soil that is ideal for farming but turns into such a hazard for vehicles when wet. Of the major operations, Normandy/Market Garden take place in the summer and the Battle of the Bulge/Advance into Germany take place in the winter. In each case, the terrain would either be dried out or frozen.

Therefore the current off-road/on-road performance of vehicles in 5.1.4 feels very appropriate for the setting. Realism is taking a big step backwards here.

MarKr wrote:The engine cannot render all these curves, it would be too hardware-heavy.

This feels like a precise case of detail that should be abstracted away in favor of being intuitive. In a perfect simulation, all the vehicles would have their speeds calculated according to their gearings in response to the angle in which the specific terrain type is being traveled over.

It's far too much detail for a game engine that only has acceleration, top speed and a couple of modifiers.


Gameplay
The gameplay suffers by nerfing raiding into the ground. Instead of being raiding vehicles, raiding vehicles are going to become unsuitable for their purpose and become only viable as infantry support. It cuts out an entire pillar of the CoH experience that was fundamental in unmodded CoH. If anyone has the manual for the original game, you can refer to it and see that the Puma and M8 Greyhound each have a blurb of text specifying raiding as their intended use.

Strategic
It also removes a strategic element by making it trivial to defend against raiding. In PvP, there is a rich variety of tricks in use currently to turn the tables on a raiding vehicle such as mines and bazooka ambushes.

I accept that the dev team really wants to ram this through as a point of pride, but I feel this is such a flattening of current vehicle dynamics that I humbly request a branch option to perpetually stay on 5.1.4 once this goes live (I'm really not saying that to be melodramatic or bitter).

On realism, why not adjust the acceleration/deceleration of vehicles?

In corsix, panthers still have an accel of like 1 to 2 while having deceleration of around 5. Meaning they reverse faster than they accelerate forward. Which doesn't model reality where panther had a reverse speed of 4 km/h.

So you can give a panther a max speed of 5, 6, 7, or whatever. Just tune it with acceleration and deceleration and you can get the same results you want. Less maneuverability in battle but they move pretty fast when going towards battle.

Panther D actually gets the closest to this type of balance. Where in the non-beta patch; it's max speed is 5 but its acceleration is 1.3. In comparison the max speed of a panther g is 4.4 with an acceleration of 2. It is very noticeable in game which tank is more maneuverable and we aren't even changing the accel by a whole number.

EDIT:

I have just been informed that deceleration is how fast a tank stops, my bad. Don't take what I said seriously about the reverse mechanics.

Many maps have large areas of flat grasslands (visually) or terrain that is actually well suited for tanks and vehicles. As said, we do not have eastern fron spring conditions.
And the current behaviour isnt really realistic. Unless it was really heavy mud like eastern front in spring after melting tanks could achieve a good speed.
So if you want to change the mobility behaviour of tanks and vehicles then do it at first with slight adjustments to acceleration or less heavy speed drops cross-country.

The entire tank and vehicle gameplay has become "RE style" with tanks (and even recon vehicles) being reduced to "Infantry support tanks". We all now very well that ww2 has changed from "Tanks as infantry support" into "mechanized and armored spearhead attack force" (which doesnt mean tanks supported inf at all).


On a strategic and tactical level we are now all playing "churchill tank style". No more flanking, no more breaking out of camping situations with fast unit movment. Micro managment has gone overboard entirely. I would almost say "flanking is not a crime" but we get punished like if it was some sort of sin what we did.
There is no suprising factor and both sides will hide their tanks and ranged weapons behind a wall of AT guns and HMG´s and emplacments as jim said. We are playing a real ww1 sim.... it feels like one.

So pretty much what got said in the previous post.

It does not gives the feeling of BK mod. Its something completely new.
It doesnt make things more realistic and the gameplay is hurt as well.

MenciusMoldbug wrote:On realism, why not adjust the acceleration/deceleration of vehicles?

In corsix, panthers still have an accel of like 1 to 2 while having deceleration of around 5. Meaning they reverse faster than they accelerate forward. Which doesn't model reality where panther had a reverse speed of 4 km/h.

So you can give a panther a max speed of 5, 6, 7, or whatever. Just tune it with acceleration and deceleration and you can get the same results you want. Less maneuverability in battle but they move pretty fast when going towards battle.

Panther D actually gets the closest to this type of balance. Where in the non-beta patch; it's max speed is 5 but its acceleration is 1.3. In comparison the max speed of a panther g is 4.4 with an acceleration of 2. It is very noticeable in game which tank is more maneuverable and we aren't even changing the accel by a whole number.

I wouldnt up the top speed too much. At some point a max speed should be achievable without making the specific unit looking like too cartoonish. Like you accelerate from base on so that you can pass an AT gun at the middle of the map with "light speed".

I am thinking about some sort of mixery. More unit specific.
If anything looks too agile, tune first its acceleration.
The idea of removing flank speed entirely doesnt look that bad either. When i think for example about the PE wheeled 20 mm canon vehicle with flank speed active it does look veeery cartoonish.
Instead units supposed to be more agile like cruiser tanks and vehicles have a good speed and acceleration without having cartoonish "flank speed ability" behaviour.


But at this point i may ask. When corsix says for example that max speed is "5", when is that applied? On roads (red part of what tiger has shown us) or at the withe part of the map (neutral ground) and how are speed losses at certain terrain calculated? In percentage?

Awwwweeeeeeshiiiiittttt. You’ve done it now markr. Fucked the mod with a patch as always right when the mod “was already near perfect and balanced”. Lol jk. Sorry I really wish I could play this patch but I won’t get a chance to until this coming weekend. Which is sad because I am really excited to see the impact of these changes. But judging from the posts.... some initial thoughts I had seem to hold true. viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2498#p24054 Uncanny indeed....

Edit: I didn’t know the idea would’ve been implemented so I didn’t give much talk about the actually build of the patch. I should’ve mentioned this to markr to help reduce the work. The way I’ve been able to make fast balancing changes is by centralizing factors that I would want to apply across all units. In this case, tank speeds. Instead of giving each tank the exact speed I want, I set all tank speeds to a relative base 1 (unless some tank should be faster relatively to another, but relatively so it’s be 1.2 if it should be 20% faster). I then added an ability to each tank to multiply the speed by a factor to get to the right speed. That way, if I need to make across the board changes, I just change the ability rather than each individual tank. I hope the amount of work done for this wasn’t too bad. This is a drastic change so I know for fact it will take a lot of balancing. Maybe even a gradual change over time than a sudden shock change for players. I’m ready to help out and put the work in making the changes because I really have some faith in the idea.

Warhawks97 wrote:But at this point i may ask. When corsix says for example that max speed is "5", when is that applied? On roads (red part of what tiger has shown us) or at the withe part of the map (neutral ground) and how are speed losses at certain terrain calculated? In percentage?

Roads and negative cover(not the water negative cover) increase your max speed by some amount, I do not know how much.

So a staghound in our non beta patch has a max speed of 8.9; with veterancy 1, I believe its max speed is upped by 25%. So the game just takes 8.9 x 0.25 and adds that to the total max speed. Same way it does with roads. So if you are on a road you get increased max speed by a percentage which is added on to the max speed you already have.

So panther has max speed of 5; say a road adds max speed of 25%. It just takes 25% of 5 and adds it on top of the panthers max speed, etc.

Well, kwok, when i saw the vehicles in game my first thought was: "Oh kowk, if you could see that."

I know you dont want light speed vehicles and you dont like how a few of them rush arround careless. But even you would say that this is too much. When infantry can simply walk faster than vehicles can drive and every tank being a churchill tank.

The vehicles you had in mind in particular in this topic have been Puma, Daimler car, staghound and perhaps greyhound. So it was a handfull, not every single vehicle in game.

Certain vehicles could get restricted in their behaviour by changing turret rotation speeds. That would make it harder for them to rush an AT gun and shoot it nonstop at it while circling arround it. The turret rotation speed is for example one big reason why these 20 mm canon vehicles are so extremely good in doing what you have described in this topic.
And as i said, wheeled vehicles could perhaps benefit more from roads than others, but suffer a bit more by cross country movment than tracked one. But their current off road behaviour is still too worse. They cant do what they are supposed to do: Reconassaince, Skirmish and Harrassment.

MenciusMoldbug wrote:

Warhawks97 wrote:But at this point i may ask. When corsix says for example that max speed is "5", when is that applied? On roads (red part of what tiger has shown us) or at the withe part of the map (neutral ground) and how are speed losses at certain terrain calculated? In percentage?

Roads and negative cover(not the water negative cover) increase your max speed by some amount, I do not know how much.

So a staghound in our non beta patch has a max speed of 8.9; with veterancy 1, I believe its max speed is upped by 25%. So the game just takes 8.9 x 0.25 and adds that to the total max speed. Same way it does with roads. So if you are on a road you get increased max speed by a percentage which is added on to the max speed you already have.

So panther has max speed of 5; say a road adds max speed of 25%. It just takes 25% of 5 and adds it on top of the panthers max speed, etc.

Alright. As you speek about this. Vehicles still use voch vet stats. This means that US vehicles gain a massive 25% speed boost at vet 1.

So perhaps, besides adjusting certain vehicles a little bit, we tweak these vet stats as well just as we recently did with some AT guns.

I mean... markr just said they are not intended for infantry to be faster so that was just an implementation oversight, not intention. And also, all those vehicles you mentioned are pretty much the only vehicles that are used. So effectively yeah, I did intend for all vehicles.

But I haven’t tried the patch yet, so I don’t know. But what I want to mention is that maybe it’s just a matter of tweaks rather than a failed concept. The intent of the change is to push towards more strategic use of vehicles, not micro-monsters that pretty much turn the game on rng sometimes like they were previously.

Warhawks97 wrote:I am thinking about some sort of mixery. More unit specific.
If anything looks too agile, tune first its acceleration.
The idea of removing flank speed entirely doesnt look that bad either. When i think for example about the PE wheeled 20 mm canon vehicle with flank speed active it does look veeery cartoonish.
Instead units supposed to be more agile like cruiser tanks and vehicles have a good speed and acceleration without having cartoonish "flank speed ability" behaviour.

Yup, that's exactly what I have been thinking.

Warhawks97 wrote:But at this point i may ask. When corsix says for example that max speed is "5", when is that applied? On roads (red part of what tiger has shown us) or at the withe part of the map (neutral ground) and how are speed losses at certain terrain calculated? In percentage?

Mencius answered that well, and ya.. after first reverting back the speed adjustments to 5.1.4 and then removing all flank speed abilities from all tanks in the game.. in addition to possibly tweaking some particular vehicles acceleration and top speed values as compensation, then any sort of veterancy that provides more speed would have to be looked into as well.

kwok wrote:But I haven’t tried the patch yet, so I don’t know. But what I want to mention is that maybe it’s just a matter of tweaks rather than a failed concept.

Confidently I can say that the whole concept fails.. miserably too. And it's not a surprise to me either, as it's nothing hard to be expected...

I am still puzzled as to why some people see the new vehicle speeds as OK and some as disasterous fuck up and crime against humanity it makes me wonder if it is just the initial shock of something drastically different which will sound off after people adjust (sort of like with Churchill armor buff)...
Calm down, guys, I said the changes are not final. Unlike some of you think, we're not planning on "ramming it through" at least not necesarily in the current state, though I do think that speed drops shouls stay but according ti initial feedback not in the current way.

Though many questions come to my mind...like, if light vehicles are meant to "skirmishy recon and harras" and tanks are meant to spearhead and push, what remains there to support infantry if everything rushes ahead of infantry? How can you effectively use infantry to support your tanks when every tank rushes ahead of infantry.

I am short on time now so I will get some more detailed answers and reactions to your posts when I get home in the evening.

Main part: beta is not final (don't tell to Tiger though, in case he really meant it when he said he would leave )

Here it gets difficult.

At the one hand its welcomed that speed and mobility can be used for surprise and to break up heavy campy situations. Besides that US hadnt so many other options to get out of heavy campy moments as to use speed and agility of certain units. My fav units and usually more effective break out units are M20 and greyhound and not the jumbo.

Now it is intended this shouldnt be so easy anymore so we get back to "campy wins" bc we are now giving camping another boost. And right now it is quite rewarding i would say. The current Meta is "Belive in stugs and Hetzer" and they do counter vehicles and stuff very well.

Also what is not intended? Inf walks faster and vehicles drive. That is unintended you say. But what is intended? Shall they be able to escape from infantry that is rushing towards them? Or not? If not then reconassaince movment, skirmish and all other aspects are gone bc once a remote located vehicle gets spotted, it gets rushed by inf. I dont know if this is ok.

Reconassaince vehicles did make "trips" to far forward locations, sometimes alone and sometimes half behind enemie lines. I´ve read books from soldiers serving in ww2, including eastern front. It was not a rare thing that vehicles got send to some remote locations and sometimes shooting at enemie support units. In an incident they have send out a vehicle to shoot at some russian artillery units that fired at german positions and attacking another column of units. That day they managed to make russian artillery stop shooting as well as creating confusion among them and that just with a single vehicle and a single Me 109.

Its not rare in history that small but smart led units have beaten armies far superior in strenght. Movment, suprprise and skills played a major role.
So are we intending to give away this option? This is simply the competition in BK mod among players. And this is what makes a player good or bad.
But where is the rewarding factor if we slow down the game to such an ammount that this becomes impossible and that only the worst and slowest players wont be able to take propper action in order to defend themselves against "surprise attacks".

If you want to use artillery you must be able to defend it? Now it might be even easier to rush for arty (lets say wespe) and not caring for enemie attacks at all bc you have endless time to turn away with the spg and to "run away" in the "Snails Race".

Yes, i did beat lots of arty with tricky Greyhound and M10 runs behind enemie lines. But i also had no other option. How else you want to make Wespe and Hummel stop shooting when you dont have a priest? Forward is your only way and that asap before it gets covered by a billion AT.
Now all he needs is Two wespe and an AT squad and a spotter and i wont have a chance to chase these units in time before they escape to save heaven.
And its not that these runs are "easy micro gg". They are often a nerve-wrecking action and very dangerous.


And the last question remains? Shall AT guns be able at the end to hunt tanks cross country? At least medium AT guns hunting medium tanks.

MarKr wrote:I am still puzzled as to why some people see the new vehicle speeds as OK and some as disasterous fuck up and crime against humanity it makes me wonder if it is just the initial shock of something drastically different which will sound off after people adjust (sort of like with Churchill armor buff)...

Bc it hurts the "soul" of BK and the reward for smart unit usage. And its all but realistic that vehicles and esspecially reconassaince type vehicles do stuck behind a wall of infantry. They are not churchill tanks.
It also makes the intended flanking again impossible as AT inf can easily screen and hunt down the "flankers".
I am not against certain changes on vehicles. But they have to keep able to do their job. Also this just enforces "bigger is better". Whats the point of building small units when they dont offer an advantage over the big once?

MarKr wrote:
Though many questions come to my mind...like, if light vehicles are meant to "skirmishy recon and harras" and tanks are meant to spearhead and push, what remains there to support infantry if everything rushes ahead of infantry? How can you effectively use infantry to support your tanks when every tank rushes ahead of infantry.

Thats the the master question or rather: If you manage to bring that to harmony, you become a real god.
Tanks dont need to be racing cars but also it shouldnt be that infantry can walk easily away. You can currently turn the question: Whats the point of tanks when the infantry rushes ahead like they do? Untill your tanks arrive at the front you can attack, retreat and attack again with infantry.

Mechanized units should maintain the ability to hit fast and hard when they catch the enemie off-guard. Thats what Blitzkrieg actually meant and which is till today the core of any military planning.

If you rush straight into heavily defended area with full speed your tanks will die, no question. So you dont even have to place this question. Thats a players mistake then not to wait for support units or tp bring inf and tanks into combat together or to prepare the battlefield (pre- arty strike).
But if you manage to get a weak spot in enemie defense somewhere else then this should be highly rewarding. And this is what is not happening or what cant be done with current speed values.

The skirmish part is not wheteher they should be able to do that, but how? Here that flanking speed ability (test it yourself on pre vehicle speed changes on vehicles like PE wheeled 20 mm vehicle) is what is the most cartoonish thing and what makes kwok thinking the way he does. With flank speed you can literally rush right in front of enemie infantry with zooks, stop, reverse and escape out of zook range within these 2 secs they need to aim. This is really hilarious.
Furthermore turret rotation speeds taken from probably vcoh as well as speed boosts by vet steps are the actual issue. The Puma with 20 mm wouldnt be such an easy micro monster if the turret wouldnt rotate that fast. You could pass defenses perhaps but not killing it a second later if the turret would have to turn at first.

MarKr wrote:Calm down, guys, I said the changes are not final. Unlike some of you think, we're not planning on "ramming it through" at least not necesarily in the current state, though I do think that speed drops shouls stay but according ti initial feedback not in the current way.

Well, apparently you did give the chance to implement this Kwok suggestion of "realistic" vehicle acceleration and turn rate topic, as you have just managed to significantly drop the speed for most vehicles.. perhaps even quite carelessly as you even say right now that it's an oversight and not what was actually intended.. as you are willing to tweak it further. However, unlike Kwok; I honestly don't have faith in this idea... So I would suggest that you just drop it off completely rather than wasting your time and also our time in trying to make it more appealing.

This idea will never be more appealing as I believe there is no way to make it work.
For example, the Tiger1 tank in 5.1.4 has a max speed of "4" and acceleration of "2" which in my opinion is very appropriate.. so how exactly do you want it be tweaked any fruther? Tiger1 turret is also slow enough, just as supposed.
I generally believe that ALL vehicle speed(s) currently in the game (5.1.4) are so correctly represented.. and also very valid in relation to one another. And thus, any incoherent/careless adjustments would only make it worse... Not to mention I was very confused when I saw that Tiger1 tank STILL has flank speed ability in the beta version.. despite of your "realistic" approach of speeds!!!

So, now how about that you give the chance to implement other ideas on the board for beta testing.. for example, these:

Tiger1996 wrote:after first reverting back the speed adjustments to 5.1.4 and then removing all flank speed abilities from all tanks in the game.. in addition to possibly tweaking some particular vehicles acceleration and top speed values as compensation, then any sort of veterancy that provides more speed would have to be looked into as well.

Warhawks97 wrote:I am thinking about some sort of mixery. More unit specific.
If anything looks too agile, tune first its acceleration.
The idea of removing flank speed entirely doesnt look that bad either. When i think for example about the PE wheeled 20 mm canon vehicle with flank speed active it does look veeery cartoonish.
Instead units supposed to be more agile like cruiser tanks and vehicles have a good speed and acceleration without having cartoonish "flank speed ability" behaviour.

Seha wrote:@mark
new vehicle speeds are very broken.
must be reverted back. and then maybe remove flank speed ability from all tanks in the game...and in case some tanks will become useless, you can always tweak their basic acceleration and top speed.

you can do as Tiger said too. modify sight range upgrades for tanks, and lower sight range bonus by tank commanders. tanks should not be used as mobile spotters.........and should not always see incoming threats from safe long distance. 65 fire range for tigers and pershings with longer reload, thats good change so it can stay.

- Shortly, reverting back the speed adjustments to 5.1.4 as others already requested here.. including myself.
- Then, remove the flank speed from all tanks in the game.. the ability is too unreal and tanks behave very unrealistically when it's active.
- Eventually some tanks can be tweaked as a result of removing the flank speed.. this is something we can later discuss about.
- Limiting sight range of tanks.. how come the crew inside the tank can see clearly everything around them!
This change will simply force players to always scout for their tanks and support them with infantry.. specifically when inside hostile territory, rather than blindly using tanks as 1 man army units at any possible point anymore.. giving the chance for this to be tested would be very interesting.

Tiger1996 wrote:- Shortly, reverting back the speed adjustments to 5.1.4 as others already requested here.. including myself.
- Then, remove the flank speed from all tanks in the game.. the ability is too unreal and tanks behave very unrealistically when it's active.
- Eventually some tanks can be tweaked as a result of removing the flank speed.. this is something we can later discuss about.
- Limiting sight range of tanks.. how come the crew inside the tank can see clearly everything around them!
This change will simply force players to always scout for their tanks and support them with infantry.. specifically when inside hostile territory, rather than blindly using tanks as 1 man army units at any possible point anymore.. giving the chance for this to be tested would be very interesting.

And... what about the guys that actually like the changes and are willing to see further about how speed vehicles behave including terrain,chasis rotation speed,turret rotation speed, maybe even sight too. I don't see anithing bad with trying new things and getting feedback about it until the concept gets propertly fullfiled.