5.1.5 beta v2

[MarKr]

Hi,

an updated version of 5.1.5 beta is available now on Steam. It is focused purely on putting the vehicle speeds on some more appropriate levels because that was the most pressing issue with the first version. The only change that is not speed-related is addition of "Hold position" to AB recon squad - this was a very fast thing to add so it got in but other suggestions would require more work and thus would postpone the release so they might come with the next beta. Speaking of next beta - with these new speeds I hope that people will play more test games and we'll finally get more feedback on the other changes that were present in the first beta but not really tested (arty, reload times, gun ranges, rear penetrations...), with this being said I would like to make crystal clear (because for some reason it was not clear enough in the first beta) that "beta v2" IS NOT FINAL AND CHANGES WILL HAPPEN WHERE NEEDED (next beta update is expected in a week; possibly sooner if some serious issue pops up).

So for the change log:
General:
- Basic speeds on all vehicles reverted back to "5.1.4" values
- Speed modifier buff of all vehicles on off road terrain dropped by 25%
- Speed modifier buff of all vehicles on road dropped by 25%
- Wheeled vehicles lower their speed by 50% when driving over craters and other "light cover"
- Wheeled vehicles lower their speed by 70% when driving over sandbags, through stone walls and other "heavy cover"
- Halftracks lower their speed by 35% when driving over craters and other "light cover"
- Halftracks lower their speed by 50% when driving over sandbags, through stone walls and other "heavy cover"
- Tanks lower their speed by 20% when driving over craters and other "light cover"
- Tanks lower their speed by 35% when driving over sandbags, through stone walls and other "heavy cover"

US:
- added "Hold Ground" ability to AB scout squad
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the way: I was called a "liar" on Discord by certain individual and accused of "hiding facts from the community" because I "did not give exact stat-change values for all changes in the first beta. I thought that simply saying "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" is better than making a several-hundred-lines long changelog where 99.9% of all the entries would say nothing to most players because the entries would look something like this:
US:
- changed the speed modifier of Jeep on tp_open terrain for from 1.25 to 1
- changed the speed modifier of Jeep on tp_negative terrain for from 2 to 1.75
- changed the speed modifier of Jeep on tp_light terrain for from 0.6 to 0.5
- changed the speed modifier of .50cal on Jeep on tp_open terrain for from 1.25 to 1
- changed the speed modifier of .50cal on Jeep tp_negative terrain for from 2 to 1.75
- changed the speed modifier of .50cal on Jeep tp_light terrain for from 0.6 to 0.5
- changed the speed modifier of Armored Jeep on tp_open terrain for from 1.25 to 1
- changed the speed modifier of Armored Jeep on tp_negative terrain for from 2 to 1.75
- changed the speed modifier of Armored Jeep on tp_light terrain for from 0.6 to 0.5
- changed the speed modifier of Recoilless Jeep on tp_open terrain for from 1.25 to 1
- changed the speed modifier of Recoilless Jeep on tp_negative terrain for from 2 to 1.75
- changed the speed modifier of Recoilless Jeep on tp_light terrain for from 0.6 to 0.5
- changed the speed modifier of Calliope Jeep on tp_open terrain for from 1.25 to 1
- changed the speed modifier of Calliope Jeep on tp_negative terrain for from 2 to 1.75
- changed the speed modifier of Calliope Jeep on tp_light terrain for from 0.6 to 0.5
- changed the speed modifier of M20 on tp_open terrain for from 1.25 to 1
- changed the speed modifier of M20 on tp_negative terrain for from 2 to 1.75
- changed the speed modifier of M20 on tp_light terrain for from 0.8 to 0.5
- changed the speed modifier of M20 on tp_heavy terrain for from 0.5 to 0.3
- changed the speed modifier of M16 on tp_open terrain for M16 from 1.25 to 1
- changed the speed modifier of M16 on tp_negative terrain for M16 from 1.75 to 1.5
- changed the speed modifier of M16 on tp_light terrain for M16 from 0.8 to 0.65
- changed the speed modifier of M16 on tp_heavy terrain for M16 from 0.3 to 0.5
This example are changes concerning only speeds of 7 units, in the first beta there were speed changes made on 103 vehicles across all factions, then many changes in terms of artillery, rear penetration and gun ranges so when I say the changelog would have several hundred lines, it is not an exaggeration. So if anyone feels angry because I tried to save my time and time of community too by omitting this, I appologize for my hidious crime.

[Jalis]

your changelog is far to be completed Pinocchio. And you even didn't provide us translation in Chinese, Czech, german, french, Italian, Spanish, russsian, polish and manx gaelic (one more evidence, if it was need, you try to fool us again.)

[The New BK Champion]

What? What does translation have to do with anything here?
Thx for fixing, will test asap

[sgtToni95]

Like all the changes that you mentioned in the first version of this beta so much. Makes me sad not to have time to play right now since those arty changes seem to be really something, but i hope i'll come back sooner or later.

Also like the changes suggested by Mencius on Henschel patrol, don't know if it has already been suggested cause i only read a few posts but maybe making it effective only on the targeted area could be an option. I like the "non spotting attack planes" option very much as well, maybe not making it null, but surely smaller for every Air focused doc (and maybe making it little wider for recon one in return?).

As always thanks for the time you dedicate to modding for us

[MarKr]

What? What does translation have to do with anything here?

Jalis is being ironic here - it is reaction to the part of the post where I provide a taste of the unnecesarily long version of the changelog.

Also like the changes suggested by Mencius on Henschel patrol, don't know if it has already been suggested cause i only read a few posts but maybe making it effective only on the targeted area could be an option. I like the "non spotting attack planes" option very much as well, maybe not making it null, but surely smaller for every Air focused doc (and maybe making it little wider for recon one in return?).

We are sort of limited in ways of how the Henschels can be tweaked due to how the ability and targetting works. Even if the Henschels themselves have 0 vision, they can still shoot at things that other your units see. If we disable this, then Henschels will not "aim" for tanks and will work as usual straffing runs which would drop their effectivity drastically. But some of those suggestions could work. However the suggestions were given in relation to the very slow vehicles that were unable to espcape the Henschel target area, now vehicles are faster so maybe no such drastic measures will be needed. We'll see based on the feedback.

[Warhawks97]

Ive got a first look at it and i like it.
Just two things make we asking still:

1. What is going to happen with flank speed? I think the only speed boosting ability should be the Blitzkrieg ability from BK doc... the global one. It would become a very unique BK doc thing to gain speed advantages over others. So unit individual flank speed abilties should be removed or at least their duration limited to a very short time. Someone mentioned 7-10 secs. I would prefer a removal.
2. The Maultier and 150 nebler in general have got a decent boost in terms of damage. Arty deals less damage to tanks and vehicles when hitting the proximity while direct hits cause more and more unified damage which is great. However the 150 mm nebler have gained a decent damage boost on direct hits. The damage when hitting a tank directly has more or less doubled (depending on perspective).
I feel sort of ok with that since the unit cost you something, has way shorter range and cost 85 ammo.
But i feel it might become some sort of short range anti heavy tank "sniper tool". 10 missiles give you a huge chance to score at least 1-2 hits directly.

[MenciusMoldbug]

I haven't played the patch yet but a few things:

Old speeds are back, which is great. I feel like the other speeds would take way too much effort to balance if you had to go down that path(because you would have to change how infantry work in relation to tanks as well).

That 50% speed nerf to wheeled vehicles in light cover is... disheartening. Because late in the game, when the entire map is seemingly full of crater holes. Light vehicles will be the most penalized if anyone actually decides to build them at that time. Where they are pretty much outclassed by everything. Though I don't know how the rear penetration values work. Like if a greyhound can penetrate a panther from the rear, then I have no problem with this speed reduction.

Regarding what warhawks said: What's to prevent PE players from going SE just to counter RE churchills? If all artillery does double damage on direct hits and churchills being the gigantic wide tanks they are. They will be the most penalized because of how big their hitbox is and how slow they are. I think they should get even bigger damage reductions from these artillery hits.

Now that we are back to old speeds, regarding this:

The intention behind Armor doctrine is to use number of Shermans to take out bigger Axis tanks, not to go solely for the strongest stuff available all the time(Pershings/SP) and the state the Panthers were in did not allow for that. You could not use higher number of medium tanks to flank it becacuse Panther would just drive backwards faster than the mediums would drive forward.

Maybe we should just give shermans their historical armor protection and gun values? I don't really mind having easy eights the price of panzer 4s(or even more expensive) because they really do deserve to be great tanks because of how role specific they are(only in one doc compared to panzer 4s which are shared throughout a lot of docs). No one is actually going to use a mass number of 76s/or easy eights to handle a king tiger or panther simply because of how these tanks work. The king tiger because of its 70 range and its 5.5-4.5 reload speed. And not the panther either simply for being faster than these shermans; with only the easy eight being slightly faster than a panther G(max speed of 4.6 vs 4.4).

Also, how come these shermans lose 25% of their speed on this side-sandbag upgrade? I know shermans got their armor buffed but it's still not very useful for getting 15% less penetration for a quarter of your tanks speed. I mean axis tanks don't lose speed because they have sideskirts...

Regardless, this still goes back to the meta where the best thing to do as armor doc is to never make 76 shermans. Because they are too 'multi-role' to fulfill any task as good as a M10/HE sherman/or these 90mm tanks do.

[MarKr]

Maybe we should just give shermans their historical armor protection and gun values? I don't really mind having easy eights the price of panzer 4s(or even more expensive) because they really do deserve to be great tanks because of how role specific they are(only in one doc compared to panzer 4s which are shared throughout a lot of docs). No one is actually going to use a mass number of 76s/or easy eights to handle a king tiger or panther simply because of how these tanks work. The king tiger because of its 70 range and its 5.5-4.5 reload speed. And not the panther either simply for being faster than these shermans; with only the easy eight being slightly faster than a panther G(max speed of 4.6 vs 4.4).

Also, how come these shermans lose 25% of their speed on this side-sandbag upgrade? I know shermans got their armor buffed but it's still not very useful for getting 15% less penetration for a quarter of your tanks speed. I mean axis tanks don't lose speed because they have sideskirts...

Regardless, this still goes back to the meta where the best thing to do as armor doc is to never make 76 shermans. Because they are too 'multi-role' to fulfill any task as good as a M10/HE sherman/or these 90mm tanks do.

On one hand you say "I feel like the other speeds would take way too much effort to balance if you had to go down that path(because you would have to change how infantry work in relation to tanks as well)." and on the other hand you suggest realisitc values to Shermans. Wouldn't that create similar issue because we would need to adjust a TON of things to these adjustments too? I mean, Shermans are relatively cheap but also quite weak on their own. If we buff armor and gun performance then it cannot go only for E8 but for all 76mm guns of the US - that is 76(W), Jumbo and E8 + 76mm AT gun, including emplacements in the Infantry doctrine. More armor means they would be more resistant, stronger gun means they would kill Axis stuff way easier and also in realistic situation the 76mm gun on Shermans was capable of quite easy penetration of Tiger armor. This means that the prices would need to go significantly up also the effectiveness of many axis units would drop significantly vs Shermans (and Shermans would suddenly be better and thus used (at least more often than now) in every doctrine) so we would need to either adjust the performance of many Axis units too or compensate in some other way...there would be more problems for sure with this.

However the rear penetration changes should help with this, I think. Keep in mind that in CoH engine as a "rear hit" counts any shot that lands anywhere on ther rear half of a tank/vehicle which means that you can score a "rear hit" even from front. In the past many vehicles had very low chances of penetrating rear armor of heavier tanks, now the chances are better.

[Warhawks97]

The intention behind Armor doctrine is to use number of Shermans to take out bigger Axis tanks, not to go solely for the strongest stuff available all the time(Pershings/SP) and the state the Panthers were in did not allow for that. You could not use higher number of medium tanks to flank it becacuse Panther would just drive backwards faster than the mediums would drive forward.

Maybe we should just give shermans their historical armor protection and gun values? I don't really mind having easy eights the price of panzer 4s(or even more expensive) because they really do deserve to be great tanks because of how role specific they are(only in one doc compared to panzer 4s which are shared throughout a lot of docs). No one is actually going to use a mass number of 76s/or easy eights to handle a king tiger or panther simply because of how these tanks work. The king tiger because of its 70 range and its 5.5-4.5 reload speed. And not the panther either simply for being faster than these shermans; with only the easy eight being slightly faster than a panther G(max speed of 4.6 vs 4.4).

Also, how come these shermans lose 25% of their speed on this side-sandbag upgrade? I know shermans got their armor buffed but it's still not very useful for getting 15% less penetration for a quarter of your tanks speed. I mean axis tanks don't lose speed because they have sideskirts...

Regardless, this still goes back to the meta where the best thing to do as armor doc is to never make 76 shermans. Because they are too 'multi-role' to fulfill any task as good as a M10/HE sherman/or these 90mm tanks do.

Idk, have you ever been into corsix? Or more specific Tank IV´s?

I wouldnt mind having e8 being more expensive than Tank IV´s and also outclassing them. Taking the basic costs its actually the case. The e8 is a bit less costly than Tank IV H but comes later for higher upkeep.

Speaking about shermans armor protection i think we have got a much better one. But "historically" is a thing for itself. Gun pen stats and armor values are largeky different bc axis tested their guns vs their harder steel, allies theirs vs their softer steel type. From what i got about combat records the chances for Sherman 76 and Tank IV´s to pen each other is very similiar. Those who shoot first would win usually.
Thing with BK is that the 76 sherman has so much better armor compared to normal one. Which can be considered ok as first sherman models had more weak design (the way how armor plates got mounted and fixed on each other).
The only thing is the 76 pen chance which could be like 5-10% better vs tank IV H/J.

The problematic thing regarding tank IV´s is that we have actually 4 different armor classes but only three types.
Armor models would be 30 mm (D version), 50 mm (E/F), 80 mm (H/J) and 80 mm skirts (H/J with skirts). But we have only three types: 30 mm, 50 mm and skirts. 80 mm (without skirts) does not exist and thus BK has special pen reduction modifier for H/J version. The J uses E/F armor type untill it gets skirts. This connection between 80 mm and 50 mm tank IV´s reduces the options we have when it comes to "more correct" pen chances.
The only real option that would provide us with huge varety of individual penetration settings would be to give J version skirts at default and this reserveing the skirts type armor in corsix for the H and J´s 80 mm armor.
Thus we could give 76 shermans a much higher chance to pen 50 mm Tank IV types and also making 75 mm shermans more effective against early type stubby tank IV´s. At the same time we could remove the special received pen modifier on Tank IV H/J and adjusting each weapon much more precisely against them.

Another feature shermans (or US made tanks) could hold over other factions tanks is the fact that they used gyrostabilizer to make guns more accurate while moving. Right now only the e8 holds this feature. Thing is again that this modifier is based on basic accuracy. Thus the e8 loses less accuracy in percantage but the total moving accuracy does not differ from a Panthers moving accuracy since this tank has a great basic accuracy.
So here US tanks could have an advantage in terms of moving accuracy. So accuracy while moving would be like Other tanks<-Shermans<-Sherman easy eight.
Also possible could be to reflect the fact that late shermans had a wet armor storage (W) and a much safer ammo storage location. That could be reflected in HP. Shermans and tank IV H have 636 HP (TH doc 650). Easy eight has 682. We could make it that 76 W sherman gets 650 or 670 HP, e8 700 HP to reflect this safety advantage of the tank. Panther has 800 HP just to give you a feeling.

These two things (accuracy on the move, more hp) would help shermans to become "the masters of mobility".

The part with 5 sec reload for KT shouldnt be up to date anymore. Heavy guns reload way slower (Tiger for example got upped from 6 to 8-9 seconds, Panther from 7 to 7-8 seconds. JP and KT should be similiar).

Also afaik sandbags reduce accleration, not top speed or am i wrong?

[MenciusMoldbug]

Also afaik sandbags reduce accleration, not top speed or am i wrong?

On the sandbags upgrade, it actually just reduces the speed by 25%. If what Markr said here a long time ago still holds:

viewtopic.php?t=1771

- Sandbags I (Armor doc only): Shermans (M4, 76(W), E8, Crocodile, Calliope, ) gain +10% HP
- Sandbags II (Armor doc only): Shermans (76(W), E8) are harder to penetrate by 15% AND are 25% slower

I could be wrong about the king tiger reload speeds though. I checked in corsix the ones for the PE King Tiger. Which doesn't exist anymore so

EDIT: Ah you were right, it is the acceleration that is slower: https://i.imgur.com/mNDUQUi.png

[drivebyhobo]

Regardless, this still goes back to the meta where the best thing to do as armor doc is to never make 76 shermans. Because they are too 'multi-role' to fulfill any task as good as a M10/HE sherman/or these 90mm tanks do.

Maybe I'm being meta foolish, but I like using the 76 shermans as a support tank to the M26. Its multi role nature is an asset in my view since it can ward off flankers (at least keep them busy enough to protect the M26), suppress AT infantry attacks directed at the M26 and smoke to buy time.

The free and automatic Sherman upgrades change to the Armor doctrine is what encouraged me to do this. The best way not to get flanked is to never fight alone.

Speaking about shermans armor protection i think we have got a much better one. But "historically" is a thing for itself. Gun pen stats and armor values are largeky different bc axis tested their guns vs their harder steel, allies theirs vs their softer steel type. From what i got about combat records the chances for Sherman 76 and Tank IV´s to pen each other is very similiar. Those who shoot first would win usually.
Thing with BK is that the 76 sherman has so much better armor compared to normal one. Which can be considered ok as first sherman models had more weak design (the way how armor plates got mounted and fixed on each other).
The only thing is the 76 pen chance which could be like 5-10% better vs tank IV H/J.

It's a long BK forum tradition to have arguments over historical armor penetration, but I've never really seen much argument over post penetration effects. The US 76 mm and 90 mm APCBC ammo (I assume that is what's considered to be the default ammo) have much more HE filler to detonate if they can successfully penetrate. I admit I can't find a source that isn't a tank game but according to one, the 76 mm APCBC shell has about the same HE filler as the Tiger 1's APCBC ammo and the US 90 mm APCBC ammo is triple that.

So to sum up, one option to encourage the use of Sherman 76s could be to increase the regular damage a bit. I think we can all agree that Infantry and Airborne are never going to get out of bed for a Sherman 76 that costs them significantly in munitions since that would put them further away from the next artillery strike and airstrike respectively.

[The New BK Champion]

I have just tested beta 2 and with old speed combined with obstacles slow down effect it plays nicely.

Also Tiger asked me to tell you that Ace units speed is still as in beta 1.

[Jalis]

The US 76 mm and 90 mm APCBC ammo (I assume that is what's considered to be the default ammo).

USA dont use the M62 APCBC ammo at BK, but the M79 AP which is a plain shell without filler.

Same is true for 90 mm BK use the m77 by default, which is also an AP.

So to stay logic, you can ask for damage nerf of USA tank shell at BK.

Fact these ammo were not standard in 1944 (or even no more in use for years, in case of some UK shells) is pointless, since it is a deliberate nerf that was decided at BK birth.

[Warhawks97]

It's a long BK forum tradition to have arguments over historical armor penetration, but I've never really seen much argument over post penetration effects. The US 76 mm and 90 mm APCBC ammo (I assume that is what's considered to be the default ammo) have much more HE filler to detonate if they can successfully penetrate. I admit I can't find a source that isn't a tank game but according to one, the 76 mm APCBC shell has about the same HE filler as the Tiger 1's APCBC ammo and the US 90 mm APCBC ammo is triple that.

So to sum up, one option to encourage the use of Sherman 76s could be to increase the regular damage a bit. I think we can all agree that Infantry and Airborne are never going to get out of bed for a Sherman 76 that costs them significantly in munitions since that would put them further away from the next artillery strike and airstrike respectively.

Interesting point. Worth a debate.
The 76 has the same damage values as the tank IV guns have.
AP shells from axis and CW boost the damage by 25% and they have no HE filler at all. So right now things like "how much HE did they use" is not reflected at all in BK.

The US 76 mm and 90 mm APCBC ammo (I assume that is what's considered to be the default ammo).

USA dont use the M62 APCBC ammo at BK, but the M79 AP which is a plain shell without filler.

Same is true for 90 mm BK use the m77 by default, which is also an AP.

So to stay logic, you can ask for damage nerf of USA tank shell at BK.

Fact these ammo were not standard in 1944 (or even no more in use for years, in case of some UK shells) is pointless, since it is a deliberate nerf that was decided at BK birth.

Your argument is based on the pen modifier in the distant modifier. But perhaps dont take them too serious.
You know i have made a private version for testings and stuff. I went the way you probably did as well and set the distant modifiers to 0.85 for 76 gun instead of 0.54 as in BK.
But i quickly faced the issue that it got difficult to set high close range pen stats and low ranged pen stats against certain targets. The gun was effective against all targets or non. So i used lower modifier values for medium tier guns in order to achieve the "high pen at close, low pen at distant range" against upper class tanks.
At the end the only thing matters is what is visible. And when i want lets say 70% pen chance vs tank x or y at max range i simply set the pen chance in the tt as high as necessary to achieve that. It doesnt matter whether the max range modifier is 0.54 or 0.85. What matters is that you have your max range pen chance is as high as you want it.
The Axis had the issue with the churchill chances. They wanted to have axis 75 L/48 guns to have a chance to pen churchills at close range but less so on max. But axis guns use higher max range modifier. Thus they used a very low pen value vs churchills in the target table and in return the point blank pen modifier to 1.25. Which means the gun has a 125% power of its actual power at point blank. A gun cant have "125%" efficiency unless its some sort of tuning involved (reminds me on the development of the so called "Magnum". Use a bullet, put more powder in it and increase it so much that the revolver is just sturdy enough to withstand it. If it breaks you added too much powder.)

So dont base your assumption on values you can see only in corsix. We can say "yes, we use APCBC" and add some damage. I am aware that old devs got their range pen modifiers from certain pages using the pen drop of the shots, in this case old AP shots. But for the gameplay it was perhaps not the worst decision since i made the experience by myself.

[kwok]

Fun fact, my mod tries to replicate he filler in tank shells by allowing you to swap shells (like HE rounds in BK) each with its pros and cons. Some shells get you better long range pen, some get you better short range pen, etc. Since I work tank combat differently (no HP, it’s swapped for morale), my crit system works a little different. For HE filler shells it’s pretty much an added chance of explosion (while non-filler has close to no chance) on penetration but at the cost of penetration chance. So the tactic becomes use non-filler rounds from afar to cripple the tank, close in with filler rounds to finish it off.

This is even more interesting when I allow units to specifically target components on a target tank. So you can aim to disable the turret or tracks and then execute the killing move once the target is disabled.

I bring this up as ideas that can be brought into BK.

[Warhawks97]

Fun fact, my mod tries to replicate he filler in tank shells by allowing you to swap shells (like HE rounds in BK) each with its pros and cons. Some shells get you better long range pen, some get you better short range pen, etc. Since I work tank combat differently (no HP, it’s swapped for morale), my crit system works a little different. For HE filler shells it’s pretty much an added chance of explosion (while non-filler has close to no chance) on penetration but at the cost of penetration chance. So the tactic becomes use non-filler rounds from afar to cripple the tank, close in with filler rounds to finish it off.

This is even more interesting when I allow units to specifically target components on a target tank. So you can aim to disable the turret or tracks and then execute the killing move once the target is disabled.

I bring this up as ideas that can be brought into BK.

For BK it would be: HVAP/PzGr.40 rounds deal less damage, others normal which is based on the HE delivered. Allied tanks used the standard AP early in war, later APCBC... i believe they didnt carry both at the same time.

[Jalis]

You dont need to make a lot of demonstration ; loosing so much power at long range for a long barrel is typical from a poor aerodynamic shell. Even without claim what this shell is, you can, for sure, say what it cant be. Here it is obvious it cant be an APCBC shell.

to be exact actual US 76 mm gun is a weakness combo of both AP and apcbc ... And it is a progress. With years the target table became more fair and look like apcbc value, but keep ap signature in the distance modifier.

Filler. It was systematic on german side. For what I know Brits mostly didn't use explosive filler on AT shells. I had read the situation was more complex on USA side where AT shell had not always explosive charge.

PZGR 40 production halted in 1943 (july 42 for 50 MM). Wolfram was a too rare and strategic metal. Stock was allowed to build machine tools.

By the way ; are you sure actual bk pvp community wish anything change ? It seems to me rather happy with actual mod and reluctant to change anything.

However if you want real change based on historical accuracy I can give you plently of idea.

[Warhawks97]

to be exact actual US 76 mm gun is a weakness combo of both AP and apcbc ... And it is a progress. With years the target table became more fair and look like apcbc value, but keep ap signature in the distance modifier.

These values are in corsix... you dont see them in game.

I said gamewise its not a bad idea to have low pen modifier at max range bc that way you can achieve this good and short range but bad at long range scenario. Take example you fight vs panther. You can make them good at any range or bad when using max range modifier of 0.85 or so.
But i want it to be effective at close but almost usless at max range. So you dont get arround as to use low max range pen modifier.

[kwok]

I’m really enjoying the patch. I played a game that just felt like a really nice pace from the usual scurrying of single pumas. I ACTUALLY killed things with my AT guns. My opponent even commented “yeah if it were last patch I would been able to make it past the AT gun”. He literally tried driving through the sights. I still nearly had a heart attack out of fear that my reasonably places AT gun wouldn’t shoot.

The only additional changes I’d request is the turn rate on some vehicles, light vehicles more specifically. Pumas and others still do ballerina turns which sort of make them feel gimmicky. I was playing axis and was still feeling pretty powerful even though I got properly flanked.

[Panzerblitz1]

Starting to looking good! thx

[Warhawks97]

Do you still think the 105 sherman is 650MP and 80 fuel worth with a limit of 1 at a time? Wouldnt 480/60 be enough? It got 120 range so its just a very close range arty support unit. Its damage potential is comparable to Maultier and 95 mm churchill.

[Jalis]

Warhawk, we are really fed up you always reclaim something for allies, so here is the answer for you.

Sherman 105 are capped to 1 because USA build only 4700 of it (and perhaps some 3500 M7 on M3 chassis in open casemate) When Axis built at the same time as many as 700 wespe and 700 hummel. It explain why lasts are capped at 2. Know you can leave ... and close the door behind you.

[kwok]

Personally I’d prefer if the 105 Sherman behaved more like a stuh42. More variety for inf doc over more artillery.

[Warhawks97]

Personally I’d prefer if the 105 Sherman behaved more like a stuh42. More variety for inf doc over more artillery.

agree to 50%. I´d prefer the stuh being some sort of stug III just with better HE (means all the support abilties, no CP cost, normal 60 gun range). And the 105 like a normal M4, just with better HE.

Both would be great in taking out buildings, weapon crews, emplacments and whatsnot.

tbh....The BK doc doesnt need the range of stuh anymore actually. The Maultiers damage did seem very nice against emplacments now. So stuh in a much more aggressive close range fire support and the 105 sherman could be quite the same or similiar.

[mofetagalactica]

Personally I’d prefer if the 105 Sherman behaved more like a stuh42. More variety for inf doc over more artillery.

agree to 50%. I´d prefer the stuh being some sort of stug III just with better HE (means all the support abilties, no CP cost, normal 60 gun range). And the 105 like a normal M4, just with better HE.

Both would be great in taking out buildings, weapon crews, emplacments and whatsnot.

tbh....The BK doc doesnt need the range of stuh anymore actually. The Maultiers damage did seem very nice against emplacments now. So stuh in a much more aggressive close range fire support and the 105 sherman could be quite the same or similiar.

No