Beta 5.1.5 v5

[mofetagalactica]

Then why never fix it?

[Panzerblitz1]

Then why never fix it?

Because you can't, the only solution is to remove the free soldiers from the AT.

[mofetagalactica]

Then why never fix it?

Because you can't, the only solution is to remove the free soldiers from the AT.

Thats what i tried to said with "fixing it" you could have just done that and give the crew more health pool if its possible lol. They're not even good for protecting againts inf or wathever it comes they're just stupidly shooting sponge bullets and running around and making the unit more expensive to reinforce.

[MarKr]

We discovered the lag issue only recently, so that is why it hasn't been fixed yet. Giving them more HP would also have some issues. For example, there are people here who complain whenever there is something made for gameplay reasons because it is not "realistic". I can already hear it "it is such a BS that the AT crew survives direc hit from a mortar. Are they some fucking terminators or something?"

[mofetagalactica]

We discovered the lag issue only recently, so that is why it hasn't been fixed yet. Giving them more HP would also have some issues. For example, there are people here who complain whenever there is something made for gameplay reasons because it is not "realistic". I can already hear it "it is such a BS that the AT crew survives direc hit from a mortar. Are they some fucking terminators or something?"

Thats not an issue, thats an opinion of "realistic" or "gameplay wise". Captains, oberstruppenofficer or someshit like that and leutenants are also cappable of survive mortars and 1 sniper shoot so..... Always go for gameplay wise that makes the game more enjoyable keeping it as realistic AS POSSIBLE.

[Warhawks97]

I cant talk for AT gun crews but iirc the HMg squads already have a shitload of HP already. IIrc like Stormtroopers.

Whats the point of more HP for AT gun crews? whats wrong with them? The additional men was requested as "protection" against snipers, more HP doesnt change anything in this matter.

[TheUndying]

Regarding the GrB39...

First of all, what does veterancy cover? Range, rate of fire, accuracy, nothing at all? Would be interesting to know.

Secondly what my buddy and me had in mind was not giving the 46mm grenade after Assault Phase but locking it behind veterancy. This delays the availability for the unit and also makes you want to keep them in the fight because they will receive mid-to-late-game value. (Maybe Vet 2? Depending on how quickly they level up)

Another thing we thought about was damage output. I'd keep the RoF and range but I'd nerf the damage - against light tanks at least. Stuarts, Chaffees, etc. all those should not be 2 hit. I'd say 3 hits are fine, gives you reaction time to retreat the unit when 2 squads shoot and pen. Against armoured vehicles 2 hits are reasonable, Recce being an interesting case. I'd go with 2 hits still since it's lacking a proper turret. Or maybe a high(er) chance to kill the gunner?

Last but not least, I don't know how hard it'd be to implement but how about making the 37mm Pak and the GrB39 swapable like other units in the army selection? Would give a bit more customisation and people who want to keep using the Pak can still do that.

Apart from that they definitely feel strong and capable of dealing with vehicles, though I noticed the actual "gunner" is always the last to arrive, aka he is walking in the back. Is that intended or just a weird observation on our behalf?
Some SLIGHT nerfs might be needed but I'd wait and see how it plays out in the "wild".

[kwok]

I played a lot more games in the beta, 1v1's with walder on 4v4 maps cuz we are masochists. The new AT squad is really going to shake the meta.... brits are going to have a really tough time adapting for a while.

[MarKr]

Hello and welcome to the forum.

First of all, what does veterancy cover? Range, rate of fire, accuracy, nothing at all? Would be interesting to know.

It is the standard which most other infantry has too:
Level 1+2:
+5% accuracy
harder to hit by 5%
harder to suppress by 5%
At lvl3:
+5% accuracy
harder to hit by 6%
harder to suppress by 6%
+5% max HP
At lvl 4+5:
+5% accuracy
harder to hit by 6%
harder to suppress by 6%
slight HP regeneration
+7% max HP
(lvl5 also changes "armor type" to such that is also overall harder to suppress)
The bonuses are multipllicative so "+5% accuracy" means "(accuracy_at_given_range)*1.05" so it is not a flat "+5%". Also bonuses from every vet level stack, so e.g. at lvl5 the accuracy is (1.05*1.05*1.05*1.05*1.05)

Secondly what my buddy and me had in mind was not giving the 46mm grenade after Assault Phase but locking it behind veterancy. This delays the availability for the unit and also makes you want to keep them in the fight because they will receive mid-to-late-game value. (Maybe Vet 2? Depending on how quickly they level up)

That would be possible but then you would need to have the squad from the start of the game and level it up there in order to get the "mid-to-late-game value" because if you build the squad in that phase of the game, you will have very little opportunity to kill some vehicles and thus gain XP.

Another thing we thought about was damage output. I'd keep the RoF and range but I'd nerf the damage - against light tanks at least. Stuarts, Chaffees, etc. all those should not be 2 hit. I'd say 3 hits are fine, gives you reaction time to retreat the unit when 2 squads shoot and pen. Against armoured vehicles 2 hits are reasonable, Recce being an interesting case. I'd go with 2 hits still since it's lacking a proper turret. Or maybe a high(er) chance to kill the gunner?

This has already been suggested and will be implemented. At least the part with lowered damage vs light tanks. However making the gun kill gunner on Recce more often is problematic. It would also cause destroying the main gun more often on several other light tanks :/.

Last but not least, I don't know how hard it'd be to implement but how about making the 37mm Pak and the GrB39 swapable like other units in the army selection? Would give a bit more customisation and people who want to keep using the Pak can still do that.

It would be possible but given the advantages that the squad has over the PaK36, would anyone ever pick it for WM? I think it would become similar case as with the "PaK38 or LeiG18" choice, where everyone always goes for PaK38.

Apart from that they definitely feel strong and capable of dealing with vehicles, though I noticed the actual "gunner" is always the last to arrive, aka he is walking in the back. Is that intended or just a weird observation on our behalf?

He is walking a bit behind but when the squad is in a cover he should also seek cover instead of staying out of cover. Is that a problem? If so, we can try to change it a bit.

I played a lot more games in the beta, 1v1's with walder on 4v4 maps cuz we are masochists. The new AT squad is really going to shake the meta.... brits are going to have a really tough time adapting for a while.

Any balance suggestions that have not been mentioned yet?

[Krieger Blitzer]

It would be possible but given the advantages that the squad has over the PaK36, would anyone ever pick it for WM? I think it would become similar case as with the "PaK38 or LeiG18" choice, where everyone always goes for PaK38.

This is finally the first time you actually acknowledge this as a problem, which is very interesting!
Many suggestions and topics were created in the past concerning this issue of the Pak38 and LeiG.18 being inappropriate replacements for each other.
So are you planning to consider any of those suggestions or even find an alternative solution of your own?

[Warhawks97]

Regarding the GrB39...


Another thing we thought about was damage output. I'd keep the RoF and range but I'd nerf the damage - against light tanks at least. Stuarts, Chaffees, etc. all those should not be 2 hit. I'd say 3 hits are fine, gives you reaction time to retreat the unit when 2 squads shoot and pen.

That however makes me thinking everytime about the role of so called "light tanks". When Infantry gets a boosted version of Pak 36 as easily carryable weapon that kills even the already very vulnerable light tanks, what will be the point of these things, esspecially the stuart or tetrarch?

The stuart comes late when 50 mm AT guns, schrecks and heavy armed vehicles are available already. Its armor cant stand anything more a Greyhound can except 20 mm shells.

Thing is it hasnt the firepower to compete with vehicles using 50 and 75 mm guns (usually 234 2/3/4 as well as certain versions of HT´s with 75 mm guns) nor can it hunt down 20 mm armed vehicles and others bc its a slow tank. It used to be somewhat good as anti inf weapon using its new HE rounds and able to overrun the one or other remaining 37 mm AT gun and HMG crew but now even that purpose will be gone. Speed of vehicles becomes even more important now as the stuart wont be fast enough to escape from running inf with these rifles. The Tank IV stubby versions provide at least firepower as well as armor capbale to withstand allied AT rifles.


Perhaps the stuart could be made available before the Motorpool upgrade with a cost of about 310 MP standard (280 with tank depot upgrade). The chaffe perhaps down to 370 MP standard and roughly 350 MP after tank depot upgrade). Both units (and esspecially stuart) are a rare sight already with limited usefullness, now matters get even worse for them. Same for the tetrarch that sees action just once a game when the glider comes in and thats it. It cant even withstand 20 mm shots.

[MarKr]

That however makes me thinking everytime about the role of so called "light tanks". When Infantry gets a boosted version of Pak 36 as easily carryable weapon that kills even the already very vulnerable light tanks, what will be the point of these things, esspecially the stuart or tetrarch?
(....)
Perhaps the stuart could be made available before the Motorpool upgrade with a cost of about 310 MP standard (280 with tank depot upgrade). The chaffe perhaps down to 370 MP standard and roughly 350 MP after tank depot upgrade).

Just because of the GrB39? It will be tweaked to destroy light tanks in 3 hits, that is true. But at maximum range the rifle has 70% accuracy and when it shoots at max range at sturats, the accuracy gets to 56%. This means it is not simply "3 shots kill the tank" but "3 hits kill the tank" and that is quite a difference.
In case the light tanks are still too easy to kill after that, some further tweaks can be made.

[TheUndying]

Secondly what my buddy and me had in mind was not giving the 46mm grenade after Assault Phase but locking it behind veterancy. This delays the availability for the unit and also makes you want to keep them in the fight because they will receive mid-to-late-game value. (Maybe Vet 2? Depending on how quickly they level up)

That would be possible but then you would need to have the squad from the start of the game and level it up there in order to get the "mid-to-late-game value" because if you build the squad in that phase of the game, you will have very little opportunity to kill some vehicles and thus gain XP.

True, didn't think about that, might hamper your ability to use the squad and just force it to be produced early or not at all.

Another thing we thought about was damage output. I'd keep the RoF and range but I'd nerf the damage - against light tanks at least. Stuarts, Chaffees, etc. all those should not be 2 hit. I'd say 3 hits are fine, gives you reaction time to retreat the unit when 2 squads shoot and pen. Against armoured vehicles 2 hits are reasonable, Recce being an interesting case. I'd go with 2 hits still since it's lacking a proper turret. Or maybe a high(er) chance to kill the gunner?

This has already been suggested and will be implemented. At least the part with lowered damage vs light tanks. However making the gun kill gunner on Recce more often is problematic. It would also cause destroying the main gun more often on several other light tanks :/.

That's great to hear! Shame about the Recce though, but it's understandable that this would absolutely break LTs if implemented.

Last but not least, I don't know how hard it'd be to implement but how about making the 37mm Pak and the GrB39 swapable like other units in the army selection? Would give a bit more customisation and people who want to keep using the Pak can still do that.

It would be possible but given the advantages that the squad has over the PaK36, would anyone ever pick it for WM? I think it would become similar case as with the "PaK38 or LeiG18" choice, where everyone always goes for PaK38.

Personal preference, I'd say. Pak36 can cloak, shoot HE, has good range and angles. Not sure how many people would use it over the GrB39, but I think the latter needs a lot more micro whereas you just park the Pak36 somewhere, set Ambush Deployment and can concentrate on other things.

Apart from that they definitely feel strong and capable of dealing with vehicles, though I noticed the actual "gunner" is always the last to arrive, aka he is walking in the back. Is that intended or just a weird observation on our behalf?

He is walking a bit behind but when the squad is in a cover he should also seek cover instead of staying out of cover. Is that a problem? If so, we can try to change it a bit.

I wouldn't call it a problem per se, but my buddy often had to send the "front men" into tank fire so that the gunner could shoot. Perhaps giving a direct firing order will remedy this but we were trying out max range engagements so it made more sense to let the unit walk to a spot and see if they can shoot from there.

Also thanks for the warm welcome. Could have sworn I've been registered years ago but apparently not.

[mofetagalactica]

I want to ask something that i always wondered, why some units are behind this "exchangable reward unit", Woudln't it better to just remove all of these and add them to the game for everyone? So the player can have a better mixup to chose at the right moment? (Like for example being able to build a bren or a dingo, a stug3 or 4 , a sp or a acepershing, kingtiger henschell turret or the other one , grille or brum,etc)

It would add more content and fun to the game to have more different models of units availables at all momments (depending docs and stuff)


This thing about rewards units i don't know why but i feel like there is a stupid wall that isnt necesary againts me that shouldn't be there.

[MarKr]

I suspect there are several reasons. The most problematic that comes to mi mind is that CW trucks don't have free space in UI for these units - the first truck has full UI so you cannot fit ther Bren and Dingo at the same time unless you move something somewhere else (most likely the second truck). Similar goes for the CW Sherman V - RE has full UI in the last truck so you cannot fit in the Sherman and Cromwell. The airstrikes for Luft are the same issue - you can only fit a limited number of abilities on the command panel and if you remove the reward option, you are one slot short.

Another thing is that the "reward options" were (at least I guess so) meant to work in the sense that they have similar role but each has different pros and cons e.g.:
- SP vs PAce - SP is the strongest tank the US have but it is one-time only on the other hand you can get Pershing Ace which is weaker than SP but still stronger than normal Pershing but it is not one-time only
- Grille vs Stupa: similar firepower strength but StuPa has stronger armor because it needs to be exposed to enemy fire to do anything while Grille has paper armor but shoots indirectly
- StuG III vs StuG IV: One works separately as a tank hunter while the other one has excelent abilities to support infantry

I guess the idea was that you select one which will in some way change your ingame-options and the opponent can never know for 100% what exact units you have available. Though in the end it seems it is not the case because usually one of the two options is overall better than the other and so one is always picked while the other is almost never used or the choice is actually insignificant so noone cares really (e.g. CW armored transport truck vs Kangaroo, possibly some of the stubby 75mm vehicles).

I think the idea behind it is not bad, but it doesn't work because of the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph. It wouldn't hurt to make some tweaks to those units to make the choice actually interesting for every unit.

[kwok]

I don’t have balance suggestions mostly because I’d like to see what happens post other things said. But I wasn’t trying to point out imbalances as I am trying to prepare for the probably high amount of backlash. Brits are iconically the most formulaic faction. I can only think of one Brit player who won’t play the same way every game. This is a huge game changer to the Brit formula without any new added flexibility for Brits, so there might be some hardcore complaining until a new formula is discovered. Brit aggression is going to be delayed even longer. In a Brit vs WM scenario it always seemed to either be both Brit and WM passive, or WM does a schwimm gamble to be aggressive, but in the end stay relatively passive. This flexibility gives WM a slight edge in the early until Brits get the recce where Brits almost get a free comeback. The new at unit gives WM a whooole new flexibility to be nearly as aggressive as USA in the early game while being able to hold off against the Brit transition from early to mid (that recce rush). Maybe there’s ways to fight around it? But I think it’s fonna take some time for players to figure this one out, and you know us players... we don’t lik figuring things out just complaining

[mofetagalactica]

I suspect there are several reasons. The most problematic that comes to mi mind is that CW trucks don't have free space in UI for these units - the first truck has full UI so you cannot fit ther Bren and Dingo at the same time unless you move something somewhere else (most likely the second truck). Similar goes for the CW Sherman V - RE has full UI in the last truck so you cannot fit in the Sherman and Cromwell. The airstrikes for Luft are the same issue - you can only fit a limited number of abilities on the command panel and if you remove the reward option, you are one slot short.

Another thing is that the "reward options" were (at least I guess so) meant to work in the sense that they have similar role but each has different pros and cons e.g.:
- SP vs PAce - SP is the strongest tank the US have but it is one-time only on the other hand you can get Pershing Ace which is weaker than SP but still stronger than normal Pershing but it is not one-time only
- Grille vs Stupa: similar firepower strength but StuPa has stronger armor because it needs to be exposed to enemy fire to do anything while Grille has paper armor but shoots indirectly
- StuG III vs StuG IV: One works separately as a tank hunter while the other one has excelent abilities to support infantry

I guess the idea was that you select one which will in some way change your ingame-options and the opponent can never know for 100% what exact units you have available. Though in the end it seems it is not the case because usually one of the two options is overall better than the other and so one is always picked while the other is almost never used or the choice is actually insignificant so noone cares really (e.g. CW armored transport truck vs Kangaroo, possibly some of the stubby 75mm vehicles).

I think the idea behind it is not bad, but it doesn't work because of the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph. It wouldn't hurt to make some tweaks to those units to make the choice actually interesting for every unit.

Regarding CW unit spaces, you could always make something with their first glidder (lt call in), like adding more units there wich has still a lot space (for example making the dingo or bren buildable there?) You could always make more space for units, please keep it in mind, it would be soo cool and refreshing to have something like that, more options ♥ . And about special units like grille and brumbauer there isnt a way to limit it to 1 deployed at the field per time? but still being able to chose between both in-game?

[Warhawks97]

Another thing is that the "reward options" were (at least I guess so) meant to work in the sense that they have similar role but each has different pros and cons e.g.:
- SP vs PAce - SP is the strongest tank the US have but it is one-time only on the other hand you can get Pershing Ace which is weaker than SP but still stronger than normal Pershing but it is not one-time only

makes sense. But both are tanks so far with the same task

- StuG III vs StuG IV: One works separately as a tank hunter while the other one has excelent abilities to support infantry

makes also sense but both are afterall more or less the same unit or gets countered by the same stuff. It one just has a different focus.

- Grille vs Stupa: similar firepower strength but StuPa has stronger armor because it needs to be exposed to enemy fire to do anything while Grille has paper armor but shoots indirectly

Never made sense to me. We exchange a heavy armored direct attack unit with a paper armor very long range Artillery unit. While one soaks damage and blasting everything away what comes in front of its barrel, the other one acts as long range artillery unit and counter artillery unit. So its not like the same unit type with different focus, its something totally different. Stuh and Stupa would be a much more logical approach. One is cheaper, comes earlier and has in return less armor and weaker gun, the other comes later, costs more but has much better armor and a better gun.

so this

meant to work in the sense that they have similar role

is not the case actually. That way you could even say that Hummel could replace the Stupa just bc it uses a 150 mm gun.


just saying.

[MarKr]

SP vs PAce: yes, both are tanks with same task but the choice there is either a unit that in the arsenal of Allies is unparalleled in terms of combination of armor and firepower (capable going head on head vs KTs) but if you lose it, you don't get another. OR you get PAce which is noticeably weaker but it is basically better Pershing with no fuel cost. So there the it is "stronger but only once or weaker but repeatedly"
StuG III vs IV: this option is for BK and Terror docs so it gives you either option to gain a tank hunter with camo or infantry support unit which can make your already strong infantry even stronger.
StuPa vs Grille: I don't know...two ways to deliver 150mm howitzer shots? Choice between direct and indirect fire support? Hard to say what was the intention there.

[Warhawks97]

StuPa vs Grille: I don't know...two ways to deliver 150mm howitzer shots? Choice between direct and indirect fire support? Hard to say what was the intention there.

well, yeah, ok, but when its supposed to be fire indirect fire support then it would be like a 105 sherman or 95 mm CW arty with short range (120).
Else its a more or less autonomous acting long range mobile artillery unit that replaces a heavy armored direct fireing support unit.
However, checking the given the tec tree line its clearly visible that this tec line scales up in armor and firepower on the direct frontline (sure, also a TH line which somehow has a "Sturmartillerie" placed in the middle but still, its a line that scales in armor and Gun size). So the Grille doesnt fit in this particluar line, nor does it fit as a replacment for a heavy armored fire support tank as long as it is a long ranged artillery unit.

[The New BK Champion]

StuPa vs Grille: I don't know...two ways to deliver 150mm howitzer shots? Choice between direct and indirect fire support? Hard to say what was the intention there.

well, yeah, ok, but when its supposed to be fire indirect fire support then it would be like a 105 sherman or 95 mm CW arty with short range (120).
Else its a more or less autonomous acting long range mobile artillery unit that replaces a heavy armored direct fireing support unit.
However, checking the given the tec tree line its clearly visible that this tec line scales up in armor and firepower on the direct frontline (sure, also a TH line which somehow has a "Sturmartillerie" placed in the middle but still, its a line that scales in armor and Gun size). So the Grille doesnt fit in this particluar line, nor does it fit as a replacment for a heavy armored fire support tank as long as it is a long ranged artillery unit.

Is there anything you dont complain about?

[Krieger Blitzer]

Regarding the reward menu... I think the list can be modified accordingly to how doctrines are going to be modified in the future.. for example;

As suggested before in this topic: (viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2670) I always believed that SturmTiger should be reward to Grille in Defensive doctrine, and Stupa would become a reward to Stuh in Blitz doctrine...

Terror would also lose KT as it would be reward to JT in TH doc, in return... Terror would have Stug4 with DEFAULT ambush mode (no vet1 required anymore) as unlock in Terror doc, that's also in addition to allowing both Tiger1 and Panther.G earlier by 1 command point. And the walking Stuka should only require 3 CP instead of 5 CP currently, specifically after the arty changes of this beta.

Perspective as such, is also concerned about changing Luft doc.. not in the sense of "losing Hetzers" as I would rather Panther.D being removed as already clarified on that topic... And I think flank speed for Hetzers must stay, otherwise there would be no difference between Hetzers and Stugs, furthermore.. the Stug might be even better this way, given how it has HE rounds while Hetzer doesn't.

[Warhawks97]

StuPa vs Grille: I don't know...two ways to deliver 150mm howitzer shots? Choice between direct and indirect fire support? Hard to say what was the intention there.

well, yeah, ok, but when its supposed to be fire indirect fire support then it would be like a 105 sherman or 95 mm CW arty with short range (120).
Else its a more or less autonomous acting long range mobile artillery unit that replaces a heavy armored direct fireing support unit.
However, checking the given the tec tree line its clearly visible that this tec line scales up in armor and firepower on the direct frontline (sure, also a TH line which somehow has a "Sturmartillerie" placed in the middle but still, its a line that scales in armor and Gun size). So the Grille doesnt fit in this particluar line, nor does it fit as a replacment for a heavy armored fire support tank as long as it is a long ranged artillery unit.

Is there anything you dont complain about?

you should have seen me a few years ago.... when there was much more shitty stuff (eg 7 sec reload on 57 mm AT vs 4,5 for axis 50 mm and 5,5 for tank IV´s), or when same guns had vastly difference performence (eg stug, Tank IV etc), when rangers had a worse accuracy than volks at range while shooting slower or when naked 88 was practically undestroyable by artillery bc it took literally no damage from arty....... this is nuts my, just complaining about something that makes litterally little sense without any visible logic. But thats something i come up with from time to time.

Regarding the reward menu... I think the list can be modified accordingly to how doctrines are going to be modified in the future.. for example;

As suggested before in this topic: (viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2670) I always believed that SturmTiger should be reward to Grille in Defensive doctrine, and Stupa would become a reward to Stuh in Blitz doctrine...

Terror would also lose KT as it would be reward to JT in TH doc, in return... Terror would have Stug4 with DEFAULT ambush mode (no vet1 required anymore) as unlock in Terror doc, that's also in addition to allowing both Tiger1 and Panther.G earlier by 1 command point. And the walking Stuka should only require 3 CP instead of 5 CP currently, specifically after the arty changes of this beta.

Perspective as such, is also concerned about changing Luft doc.. not in the sense of "losing Hetzers" as I would rather Panther.D being removed as already clarified on that topic... And I think flank speed for Hetzers must stay, otherwise there would be no difference between Hetzers and Stugs, furthermore.. the Stug might be even better this way, given how it has HE rounds while Hetzer doesn't.

nah, tiger, i didnt want to start a debatte about all the reward stuff, just asking the logic behind Grille in this tec line (which is an armor line) and the reward for stupa. Everything else is again a debatte about entire WH doctrine changes. And stugs have no cammo at default bc they cost no cp, else they would need a CP unlock or at least reduced to one doc, which, again, would make people wonder why stug comes for no cp but Jagdpanzer IV/48 does in def doc.

[mofetagalactica]

we need the erradication of every reward unit and get them implemented in the arsenal regarding wich doc you pick

[Walderschmidt]

I can't wait for this beta patch to go live.

Wald