5.1.5 beta version

If there is something new, it will be posted here.
User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1492
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 24 May 2018, 16:00

This realistic speed beta test isn't just to add "historical" values to bk mod, we all know that most of the COH "way to be" aren't and will never be realistic, troops are running not walking, you don't need to add fuel to your tanks etc...etc... but all of this is irrelevant concerning our present goals concerning speed changes tests in bk.
Image

kwok
Posts: 1248
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby kwok » 24 May 2018, 16:45

Not to beat a dead horse, but I did do some very light testing and also found the vehicle speeds too slow. I agree with warhawks in the problems, but not the solutions as I don’t think the original vehicle speeds are isolated problems.

I think the concept of the change stands well though, despite the speeds being too slow. On these speeds I actually was able to fight OP pe tank hunters with enough tanks whereas previously a single hetzer with minimal micro would hold back ten times its amount of heavily micro’d tanks (exaggeration). Tank battles slowed down enough that I could make “in engagement” decisions to affect its outcome.

But this has already been said too many times so I’ll just sit and wait. Just wanted to add a vote to the polls on principle.

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 392
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Jalis » 24 May 2018, 17:06

Panzerblitz1 wrote: but all of this is irrelevant concerning our present goals concerning speed changes tests in bk.


I m not sure peoples are interested by your goal or even remember or know what theses goals are.

Consequences ; it is what your players are interested on, imo.

Perhaps these players also feel you are not interested or know what theses consequences are.

It leads to a difficult dialogue

drivebyhobo
Posts: 85
Joined: 08 Mar 2015, 00:53

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby drivebyhobo » 24 May 2018, 17:35

Image
https://my.mixtape.moe/mciuxk.mp4
I'll just leave this here.

MarKr wrote:
drivebyhobo wrote:It seems a little strange to have them upgrade to M1 Garands. Why not let them an option to upgrade to the 30 round magazines that were introduced late war? From what I've read, it seems they had better availability than the also very late war recoilless rifle that comes standard on 101st squads. This way Rangers and Airborne would retain their current distinctness.
The intention of these changes (in conjunction to the M1 Carbine changes) is to give 101st more differentiated loadout options. The basic M1 Carbines should now work similarly to Riflemen Garands (shoot fast with low accuracy; due to higher RoF more effective at closer ranges). The Garands work same as Ranger Garands - lower RoF but higher accuracy, so better for mid-long range fights. Johnsons act same as before, add more firepower. Also it is not like paratroopers did not use Garands. What is so weird about the upgrade option for them?

A player could have built a Ranger squad in the first place instead of converting his 101st squad into a compromise squad that would be precluded from picking up scavenged weapons.

Additionally, if they were looking for long range anti infantry firepower, they have the most snipers available out of any doctrine. That option also doesn't cost munitions which makes it all the more appealing to the munitions hungry airborne.
Last edited by drivebyhobo on 24 May 2018, 17:43, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1492
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 24 May 2018, 17:36

@Jalis, Its possible, time will tell us whats possible, whats not.
Image

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2205
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby MarKr » 24 May 2018, 17:44

drivebyhobo wrote:A player could have built a Ranger squad in the first place instead of converting his 101st squad into a compromise squad. Additionally, they have the most snipers available out of any doctrine to provide long range anti infantry firepower. That option also doesn't cost munitions which makes it all the more appealing to the munitions hungry airborne.
And Snipers are also one-man squads who usually need to retreat as soon as start taking damage or you risk losing them, if you upgrade 101st with Garands you have more "stable" squad which can stay on the ground even with losses, can reinforce in the place so (unlike Rangers) they can fight longer before retreating.
Anyway, what is the problem here? If you rather want Rangers, you can buy them instead of upgrading the 101st squad. :?

EDIT:
drivebyhobo wrote:Image
https://my.mixtape.moe/mciuxk.mp4
I'll just leave this here.

And I just remind this here:
MarKr wrote: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.
MarKr wrote:Calm down, guys, I said the changes are not final.
MarKr wrote:Main part: beta is not final
MarKr wrote:this is a testing beta and this first release is NOT final
MarKr wrote:- once again: The current speeds are not final
MarKr wrote:I don't know why everyone freaks out so much about this even when it has been said many times that the changes are not final and will be further tweaked.
Oh, btw, I am not sure if I've mentioned already that the speed changes are not final :roll:
Image

User avatar
Shanks
Posts: 389
Joined: 22 Nov 2016, 22:02

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Shanks » 24 May 2018, 18:27

Panzerblitz1 wrote:This realistic speed beta test isn't just to add "historical" values to bk mod, we all know that most of the COH "way to be" aren't and will never be realistic, troops are running not walking, you don't need to add fuel to your tanks etc...etc... but all of this is irrelevant concerning our present goals concerning speed changes tests in bk.



Well, I was testing the tanks and light vehicles ... I think if you want to apply these speed changes ... the tanks should have more range of shot, the infantry in general should have easier access to smoke screen, the vehicles lightshouldalso increase the firing range of the machine gun and cannon, also heavy infantry machine guns should have more range of shooting, AT, Sniper etc ... the maps should be larger .... the artillery a bit unprecise but the maximum range... etc ... what I mean is that it would be like starting from 0 everything, and they would have a lot more work to be able to finally balance it.....in addition, the mechanics of the game would be slower, and you can not make lightning attacks, this does not go with bk...is what I think ... it would be better to balance what little is missing, before making big changes

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2824
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Warhawks97 » 24 May 2018, 22:14

drivebyhobo wrote:
Warhawks97 wrote:
MarKr wrote:On the other hand there are sources such as this (http://www.wardrawings.be/WW2/Files/1-V ... anther.htm) that say that Panthers drove off road at around 30km/h. Current speed of Panthers off a road is "3".
All vehicles were thus set wrong and were adjusted according to this. Any of your arguments saying that vehicles already had reaslitic speeds are thus false. Arguments where you say that you "think the speeds were fine" - are still valid because that is your oppinion and nobody can disprove that (but you need to accept that people don't need to share your oppinon) but saying that the speeds were realistic is not correct.


Ok, thx. Thats the kind of information i love.

Warhawks I know you're trying lower the temperature of things here, but that's a site that lists two secondary sources as references, both of which are no longer accessible. People complain about users of War Thunder as a reference for statistical information but at least War Thunder has undergone quite a bit of scrutiny from vocal rivet counters who dig through obscure references, which is more than what can be said for wardrawings.be which I've seen incorrect information on before.

It's really strange to see the term "off-road speed" being treated as if it was precisely defined characteristic. It's really not. If it was measured at a proving ground, it's very likely that it was tested in the worst possible conditions. The worst possible conditions are much further from the common case than the idealized case.

Also I know there is a certain backlash against certain vehicles appearing arcade like, but some of these vehicles were indeed like that. There's at least one known case of a real life trio of Cromwells easily crossing a 20 foot canal by leaping over it. I suspect those 3 Cromwells would have been sleeping with the fishes with these new speeds. (Note: I haven't tried the Beta's Cromwells but I don't think I'll be surprised).



I refered to the part he explained me how coh engine works.... how stuff is treated it streets etc. And i like all the links that provide informations. That was no "pro" or "contra" to anything. Just a thx for some facts.
The secondary links are available, just changed:
https://www.onwar.com/weapons/vehicle/A ... Index.html
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/veh ... m-tank.asp



MarKr wrote:
drivebyhobo wrote:A player could have built a Ranger squad in the first place instead of converting his 101st squad into a compromise squad. Additionally, they have the most snipers available out of any doctrine to provide long range anti infantry firepower. That option also doesn't cost munitions which makes it all the more appealing to the munitions hungry airborne.
And Snipers are also one-man squads who usually need to retreat as soon as start taking damage or you risk losing them, if you upgrade 101st with Garands you have more "stable" squad which can stay on the ground even with losses, can reinforce in the place so (unlike Rangers) they can fight longer before retreating.
Anyway, what is the problem here? If you rather want Rangers, you can buy them instead of upgrading the 101st squad. :?

EDIT:
drivebyhobo wrote:Image
https://my.mixtape.moe/mciuxk.mp4
I'll just leave this here.

And I just remind this here:
MarKr wrote: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.
MarKr wrote:Calm down, guys, I said the changes are not final.
MarKr wrote:Main part: beta is not final
MarKr wrote:this is a testing beta and this first release is NOT final
MarKr wrote:- once again: The current speeds are not final
MarKr wrote:I don't know why everyone freaks out so much about this even when it has been said many times that the changes are not final and will be further tweaked.
Oh, btw, I am not sure if I've mentioned already that the speed changes are not final :roll:



That clip head been in my mind when i played the test game. Markr, i think he and we all understood that it was a beta. drivebyhobo is just trying to remind you that we have something in mind that is more orientated on this when it comes armored warfare rather than having churchill "turtlee tanks" everywhere.
Our nerves are "fluttering" and "shaking". Personally ive never been so agitated before a version release. We never had to expect a change that changes so much and that has such an impact on the game.

So pls forgive us when we are sending "reminders" occassionally. We all know that this was a beta and that things will be different at the end. Its just, you know.....It just doesnt let us rest.

Is there some sort of date we can expect a "fixed" version of that beta in order to test all the other stuff in real pvp conditions? I think currently nobody is really up for testing. Couldnt find anyone and to be honest, its not really attractive to test all the stuff under this kind of conditions. But we all are kind of hungry to get the other stuff into action.

Perhaps it would have been more wise to make betas for the smaller things. And whenever you are going to test something such fundamental stuff just create a beta that contains just this. And add a "label" on it: "This Beta contains fundamental changes" :D


Return to “Announcements”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest