Blitzkrieg Mod Forum

Would you be disturbed if Volksgrenadiers and Grenadiers squads were replaced by a diverse assortment of people?

Hell no i won’t be disturbed by it if they were riding such a cool unit like the Black panther sherman M4a3 76w model we received! This sherman is a pure beauty, Stop talking politics here, its not the subject and its really annoying, the main unit is the sherman model, not the gunner and can’t be compared with an infantry squads, anyway, this is boring, if you don’t like the new sherman «  black panther » , use the E8, problem solved.

Don’t you worry about the quality in bk, just take the old bk sherman model and this one, put them side to side, front/ side, you’ll notice « maybe » some changes, take a good look of it, and you’ll understand why we decided to grab a better unit, with a much better skin, and...yes, the gunner is black!

drivebyhobo wrote:My point is that the mod is unwisely wadding into political correctness for the sake of a single model. It's distorting what the real forces looked like for the overwhelmingly majority (90%+, more for combat forces) with the balance separated into specific units.

This has nothing to do with "politics" or "political correctness". Nobody approached us, saying that we should put more races to the mod for political corectness, we did not ask the model maker to make the gunner black. It simply got to our hands in this state and we think it is a nice touch.

drivebyhobo wrote:Additionally, it breaks consistency with the rest of the mod. All the other US tanks with visible crew have their crew wearing 3rd Armored Division uniforms. The Sherman 76 in 5.1.4 also has a gunner with a 3rd Armored Division uniform.

And Panzerblitz already said that

it is a tank man indeed, the Black panther Bn. didn't had such equipements, it was reserved to white people, and so they were using the "regular" infantry gear, so it is correct in that case

I am sorry if you don't like this new thing but it is nothing game breaking, not even "realism breaking" to have a black gunner on one type of tank. This thing stays, so please stop this, there is no reason to remove this.

seha wrote:truth is, i don't care too much. but i think majority are against it

Source? Because here it looks majority is for it or at least not against it. Perhaps not majority but about 50:50 which means that no matter what we do about half people will be unhappy. I know that not all people come to the forum but they have the option, if they don't use it, it is not my fault.

seha wrote:are there some posts you cant see? seems you are missing too much

Generally speaking, if you place people on your ignore list, you don't see their posts. But what exactly am I missing? Requested "hold fire" for tanks? I know people talked about it. I don't think it is needed but it can be added. Or you mean a certain person requesting removal of flank speed from Tigers and by total accident also requesting "as a compensation" to make ALRS come to use earlier? It is interesting that this person has been asking for sooner ALRS for over 2 years now.
So it may look here like "Tigers should not be able to use Flank speed, it makes no sense so it should be removed. Maybe as compensation the ALRS could come sooner." but what it actually is, is this "I've been wanting sooner ALRS forever and now I have a chance to request it again and justify it by removing something I couldn't care less about".
But I agree, Flank speed makes no sense on Tigers so it can go, ALRS stays as it is though.

Shanks wrote:

MarKr wrote:@Shanks: The expert repairs gives you extra HP which allows you survive penetrative hits. But still - the extra HP only matters if a shot penetrates. Given the fact that Hetzer has stronger armor than M10, M10 will get penetrated more often and so it relies more on its HP while Hetzer can rely more on its armor.

Then you say that the special shot of US M10 is great. As I said, the Hetzer has a similar ability. It some kind of HEAT shot with limited range but buffed penetration (so it works similarly to M10 ability). The describtion says that it can "penetrate 100mm of steel but has limited range" - the strongest armor Allies had was about 115mm on certain parts of certain tanks, so the shot should have quite good chance (not guarantee, but about 80%) to penetrate anything on the side of Allies, if it is not the case then it can be fixed.
Then you speak about Hetzer armor being weak, specifically that 6pounders/57mm guns are very effective against Hetzers. Here are penetration chances of various guns vs Hetzers at each range:

Spoiler: show

57m AT guns/ 6pounders:
37.5%/27.6%/24/21% (rear pen. guaranteed)

75mm Sherman:
42.8%/35.5%/27.4%/21% (rear pen. guaranteed)

75mm Churchill
50%/35%/28.5%/21.5% (rear pen. guaranteed)

76mm Sherman:
100%/84%/67%/54% (rear pen. guaranteed)

Daimler (2pounder)
10%/7.3%/5.4%/3.8%
rear:
60%/43.8%/32.4%/22.8%

Daimler Littlejohn:
30%/27.6%/24%/21% (rear pen. guaranteed)

On the other hand Hetzer gun vs these targets (chance multiplicatively increased by 25% when shooting from camo):

Spoiler: show

M4 Sherman:
130%/96.6%/86.1%/76.6%
76(W) Sherman:
110%/82%/73.1%/65.1%
These tanks are higher tier than what Hetzer is meant to counter:
Jumbo:
42.7%/31.4%/28%/24.9%
Churchill:
24.2%/17.8%/15.8%/14.1%
rear:
77%/56.6%/50.3%/44.8%
Pershing:
34.25%/25.2%/22.4%/20%
137%/100%/89.8%/80%

Considering that Axis docs have stronger tanks or outright tankhunters to take down heavy tanks of Allies, the Hetzer has quite good stats against heavies too. Yes, Hetzer has no turret, on the other hand US M10 has very slow turret rotation so it is generaly better manualy turn the whole unit because it is faster. CW M10 got reduced turret rotation in 5.1.4 iirc. It is still about 50% faster than US M10 though. Realistically Achilles would have just as slow turret as Wolverine but when we dicussed the turret rotation change for Achilles I got overruled and so it was lowered by half way, not to the same level ov Wolverine.

Yes, Hetzer is currently the only Axis TD with which you can "rely on fast attack" but here it comes back to "Hetzer has everything" - as you said Allies have Cromwell, M18 and M10 which can quickly move around but all of these have low armor (in case of Cromwell also quite weak gun) so the ability to quickly escape is what can keep them alive. Hetzer has the armor as I described above and so why should it have good gun, good armor and also speed?

I know that people got used to its current setup because it is versatile but just because Hetzer got these stats years ago, does it mean it needs keep its "privileged" combination of medium tier TD with good firepower, speed and armor while other TDs in same category have a weakness in one of these aspects?

Do you think that the current hetzer is indestructible ??... as soon as you have a hetzer, the allies could have M10 and Achilles (in mixed teams: USA + British vs. PE + WM), which means greater mobility for the allies.... the problem with you, is that it does not really measure the damage that this change causes in pvp, there are many factors to take into account when you speak of a unit, for example;certainly the M10 and the Achilles do not have a great shield, but if you are a good player, they manage to cause a GREAT damage to the axis ... now ..... which units can destroy a hetzer in flanking speed?the answer is simple, almost all AT weapons, for example: M10, Achilles, AT squadron, 76mm Sherman, Arty, etc etc etc, in the more than 1500 hours of game that I have, I always knew how to fight vs hetzer,is not anything otherworldly ... why do they complain ????... the real objective of the speed of flanking, is not to ESCAPE, on the contrary, it is for NOT TO LEAVE ESCAPE AN ENEMY UNIT, and if you take away this ability , would really be a tragedy for the axis ...do you want me to upload repetitions of how to destroy a hetzer in 1 min?, or in what way do you want me to tell you that this is a big mistake?... you could see the last repetition that i up??.. you could see clearly how the hetzer is not a unit "without any weakness", there are practically several ways to destroy a unit in the game ... perhaps this change is because someone in discord (noobs) complained of the hetzer ???, if it is for this reason, it is unfortunate .... you say "it's an experimental change", but when you write it sounds like, "it's a definite change"....


Note: It is not necessary that you answer, but I ask you to read what I wrote, and to think about it please ... in general they are doing a great job for the mod, it is respectable, thanks

Arguing with MarKr is just a waste of time at this point, I'm sorry if I break his emotions with what I am going to say next.. but he is really playing dumb... I would say that it's better if we just don't bother at all, at least for now. Let him do whatever the f**k he wants for this Mod... He is becoming an absolute decision maker for every single change, and doubtlessly.. regardless what we say, he is still going to do what he wants. i can't believe how this great Mod is being hijacked by just a single developer who doesn't even have any in-game experience. And I have seriously had enough of that... It's probably also the time to set things on fire, f**k it.

MarKr wrote:Generally speaking, if you place people on your ignore list, you don't see their posts.

You gonna regret that, sooner or later.

And you really do think bk is a only man team mod? Come on Tiger, i mean...come on.
You’re too smart to believe what you just wrote, seriously.

Panzerblitz1 wrote:if you don’t like the new sherman « black panther »

Panzerblitz1 wrote:gunner is black!

Panzerblitz1 wrote: Stop talking politics here, its not the subject and its really annoying

Rather hard, when your only real reply is more or less restating "you're racist, you don't like them just because they're black". That's a very typical far left trolling tactic to shutdown any discussion they don't like. If you keep developing your skill at that, you'll be well on your way to getting your La France Insoumise party membership card signed by Noam Chomsky.

Now I've stated my grievances as follows:

1. The gunner's texture looks poor. So poor in fact, I initially believed it to be a broken texture.
2. It is the odd unit out as every other US tank unit with visible soldiers has them with 3rd Armored insignia which is a division that has nothing to do with the units associated with the new Sherman 76.
3. Relic in the past set a precedence on the topic

I feel at this point, I have adequately aired my concerns, so why don't you layoff with the aggressive baiting PanzerBlitz?

@tiger
relax.

@mark

MarKr wrote:Generally speaking, if you place people on your ignore list, you don't see their posts. But what exactly am I missing? Requested "hold fire" for tanks? I know people talked about it. I don't think it is needed but it can be added. Or you mean a certain person requesting removal of flank speed from Tigers and by total accident also requesting "as a compensation" to make ALRS come to use earlier? It is interesting that this person has been asking for sooner ALRS for over 2 years now.
So it may look here like "Tigers should not be able to use Flank speed, it makes no sense so it should be removed. Maybe as compensation the ALRS could come sooner." but what it actually is, is this "I've been wanting sooner ALRS forever and now I have a chance to request it again and justify it by removing something I couldn't care less about".
But I agree, Flank speed makes no sense on Tigers so it can go, ALRS stays as it is though.

ok, so you can't see his posts? thats what i can understand. there are some important parts i can quote for you then...but i think you already seen.

to be honest, i dont care about "alrs" ability either. but when Tiger posted about about it....did you see what others said?

Warhawks97 wrote:However, that is true:

Tiger1996 wrote:

1) Due to the long reload time implemented.. then ALL heavy tanks (Tiger1, Pershing, KT, SP, etc) also assault howitzer vehicles (Stupa, Scott, Stuh, etc) should now have hold fire ability.. same as JT.

2) Plz remove flank speed from Tiger1 and 95mm Cromwell just like you did with Hetzer.
And then allow earlier ALRS at vet1 for ALL Tigers.

in order to add hold fire, u will need to remove flank speed from Tigers anyway.. and probably no need for the static sniper mode of KT as well, that's if there is no space in the UI panel of course. And I suspect Tiger ACE might not have a space as well, maybe you can add UI switcher button?

And if you think ALRS at vet1 will be "too much" then here is my counter argument regarding how it would be fine:

Spoiler: show

- Now the ALRS ability can only be used effectively until 75 range, in order to use it above this range.. spotters are required. I mean that tanks can't have huge sight range anymore only with tank commanders, that's after removing the scope upgrades.

- ALRS is a double-edged ability.. once you bounce off Jumbo, Pershing, or Churchills, you instantly lose 50 ammo.

- Keep in mind that Pershing can now reach 75 range (from 65) without any veterancy.. thanks to US command car.

- Lasty, don't forget Tigers won't be able to escape quickly like racing cars anymore with flank speed.. according to the suggestion.
And don't forget Tiger1 turret is one of the slowest in the game.. and the rear armor is weaker now as well.

That's all for now, thx for reading.

@Tiger: About the ALRS. Its not just a long range shot but can also be used as "double shot" ability like Panthers and Pershings have. The reload time after the ALRS is just like 2-3.5 seconds (iirc close arround 3). So that would need to be fixed as well so that it is an ALRS and not an ALRS+double quick shot ability.

warhawks for example seemed to have any problems with the suggestion except the "double shooting".
and Tiger replied that saying you (mark) already fixed it in the past.

and another user said:

mofetagalactica wrote:The only thing i don't like about tigers is that they're too expensive, and i just don't know why, panthers are 200% better plues cost less lol. After these changes tigers are even less fearless, i would be up for a price reduce (For example same cost than jacksons?) along with the removal of his flank speed, also im sorry for ALRS but being able to use it at lvl 1 its just crazy its like asking double shoot ability for panthers and pershings at lvl 1 vet, but it would be nice that at least the ACE tiger where able to use his ALRS at lvl1 vet or at lvl 0.

so....i think tiger wasnt alone to request buffing the tiger with long range ability.

if you care about who agree and disagree about hetzer removal...why don't you care about what people say for this too?
mark, dont ignore any members....you shouldnt have even said that. you need to gather people around you...not spit them out.
dont let this develop again into a backlash....why do you always need to disagree together?

Yeah, I still read that one. He says the change should take place because of new reload times and then he speaks about assault howitzers whose reload times are still the same - so the reason he gives for the change does not apply to some of the units listed, so there is no reason for a change for these units. Asi I said - I don't think it is needed but I am not against it.
Then he speaks about removing flank speeds. And I said that I agree that Tigers don't need the thing and it is sort of ridiculous there. But I don't see a reason why they should have ALRS sooner available. As for his arguments:
- requirement for spotters is intentional for these tanks, that is why the scopes were removed. The ability gives huge range boost so why shouldn't it require some more work on the part of player than just one click at the target?
- it is not "double edged", or if you want to call this double-edged ability then grenades, barrages, airstrikes, AP abilities and many other abilities in the game are double-edged because there is always an option you will you spend ammo and you won't hit anything or don't penetrate or whatever. Should all units that have such abilities get some kind of compensation because the abilities are now considered "double-edged"?
- Pesrhings are meant to counter Tigers and Panthers so they should be a threat to them. However Tigers are available in two docrines, Pershings in only one and there has been a post where people said how impractical it is to use the command cars. So just because it is possible in theory, it does not mean it is something that happens every single time and everyone uses it (even less so with great results).
- What to say about the last point? Yes, it won't be able to quickly run with Flank speed. But it has good armor and strong gun, why should it be able to quickly run in the first place? And if you get to a situation where you would need to "quickly run" how is the sooner ALRS going to save you (if don't count some double-shot bug)?

As for your quote of mofeta - he also says that ALRS at lvl1 is crazy. He only suggests it sooner for the Ace, I don't have a problem with that since that unit is doctrine limited and comes quite late, but I am against globa ALRS at vet 1 for all Tigers.

mark, dont ignore any members....you shouldnt have even said that. you need to gather people around you...not spit them out.
dont let this develop again into a backlash....why do you always need to disagree together?

I am trying, note that I try to communicate with people here and sometimes on discord too. I try to answer their questions and talk to them. Do I have problems or quarrels with any of them? I don't think so. But from my experience talking with Tiger never leads anywhere. We simply have different opinions on things. He rarely takes "no" for an answer and keeps arguing with you until you say "OK" (by the way this is not just my opinion):


And I said it to him on Discord before his latest leaving of the community that I will simply not notice him and he should do the same with me:In the orange underlined section he basicaly comes to the same conclusion. And now I he is angry because I do what I said I would do? He is siply angry because things are not going his way. We've seen that before - when the Storms got the spawning from empty emplacements removed and I guess there would be other instances possible to find in the history.

I am supporting walds suggestion.

@shanks: I just dont get it... i went through pages and what you dont understand? Markr tried to explain it to you several times and gave a diagram where you can see that all units have cons and pros just hetzer is simply good in all aspects. Sure, it can be killed if you know how. But if you know how to kill something you can also know how to keep something alive. Losing a unit just bc one played better is not an argument. If you expect rushing Daimler cars: Put a unit with 20 mm behind hetzer. I always get hetzer with a vehicle that has an autocannon. It protects you vs inf and running cars (even vs hellcats to some degree).

The overall support is also better for Hetzer. CW has rep tool but that prevents you from using minesweepers. As Luft you can force CW easily getting them by using sd2 for example. Two squads of sappers to have minesweepers and rep tool cost you over 600 MP already.

PE has advanced rep everywhere and strong combat inf. Def doc has better rep right away. CW has just one rep unit usually and US has advanced rep in one doc that has special requiments.

Also allied are more focused on mobility, axis have the advantage in ranged combats and strong armor but being usually bit less mobile.


The only reason or argument you gave is that "Hetzer can die". Well, would be bad it couldnt right?

For the "spearhead" attacks axis rely usually on Panthers/Jagdpanther/KT. Why should be the Hetzer such a spearhead?

MarKr wrote:As for your quote of mofeta - he also says that ALRS at lvl1 is crazy. He only suggests it sooner for the Ace, I don't have a problem with that since that unit is doctrine limited and comes quite late, but I am against globa ALRS at vet 1 for all Tigers.

i cant reply the part where you respond Tiger's argument, only tiger can do that......but hahahahahhahhhhaa, this is laughable and amazing
you know why?
because you and Tiger actually agree together...... look:

Tiger1996 wrote:

mofetagalactica wrote:The only thing i don't like about tigers is that they're too expensive, and i just don't know why, panthers are 200% better plues cost less lol. After these changes tigers are even less fearless, i would be up for a price reduce (For example same cost than jacksons?) along with the removal of his flank speed, also im sorry for ALRS but being able to use it at lvl 1 its just crazy its like asking double shoot ability for panthers and pershings at lvl 1 vet, but it would be nice that at least the ACE tiger where able to use his ALRS at lvl1 vet or at lvl 0.

I agree that Tigers are fearless now.. and about ALRS for Tigers, there is also another idea that I suggested in the past...
Which is to give 1 more veterancy level to Tiger ACE and Pershing ACE, so both of them will arrive at vet2 by default.. they are currently just vet1 when they arrive, if they arrive at vet2 then Tiger ACE will be able to use ALRS right away.. also Pershing ACE will be able to use Rapid Shot right away.

Also, if the ACE tanks will come at vet2, then it would be enough to remove flank speed for normal Tigers and replace it with hold fire...
ALRS can stay at vet2 for normal TIgers then, and Aces will be able to use it right away at vet2.

Gameplay wise, the price for Tiger tank is ridiculous, without a doubt.. however, realistically the price is fine.

even Tiger himself said "alrs" is fine to stay at veterancy level 2 for normal tigers. when only ace can use it as default, and not global.

if only you responded him with this earlier, mark.....then this misunderstanding would have not even happened.

amazing how 2 people can agree together but still manage to fail in understanding each other.

you and Tiger agree together on everything since the beginning.
you both agree about adding hold fire, removing flank speed from tigers and making ace tanks able to use their abilities earlier........
still.... you both always fail to understand each other..... what to say..... lack of communication?

@tiger
i know your mood is not good now....but can you please relax and come back to read what markr just wrote?

seha wrote:even Tiger himself said "alrs" is fine to stay at veterancy level 2 for normal tigers. when only ace can use it as default, and not global.

you and Tiger agree together on everything since the beginning.

Not quite. I said I am not against Tiger Ace being able to ALRS at vet level1. He says to make Tiger Ace come at vet level 2 and thus be able to use ALRS immediately. Seemingly same thing but if Tiger Ace comes at level 2, it can use ALRS and also has the vet bonuses of level 2, meaning that the unit is again a bit stronger than with "just ALRS available".

I agree with drivebyhobo that the problem with the black guy is not his race, but the fact that his skin texture looks unrealistic, broken. I also understand that if all other top gunners are wearing armored crew uniforms, this one guy stands out being dressed as rifleman. I also understand his frustration when after expressing his mind very clearly he was misunderstood. I confirm panzerblitz has aggressive attitude about anything in particular recently.
I support drivebyhobo in this matter, the new rifleman top gunner doesn't look good. I don't think he is worth it.

Regarding hetzer I will say: realisticaly it shouldn't have FS, but gameplay wise it was often the only way to get away from bazooka rush. Yes, run away way, I have never seen anyone using FS offensively, hetzer is just too weak to do that. Early hetzer is a backbone for axis defence in middle game.

seha wrote:@tiger
i know your mood is not good now....but can you please relax and come back to read what markr just wrote?

Well.

MarKr wrote:Not quite. I said I am not against Tiger Ace being able to ALRS at vet level1. He says to make Tiger Ace come at vet level 2 and thus be able to use ALRS immediately. Seemingly same thing but if Tiger Ace comes at level 2, it can use ALRS and also has the vet bonuses of level 2, meaning that the unit is again a bit stronger than with "just ALRS available".

Doesn't matter, most importantly that ACE Tiger and ACE Pershing would be just able to use ALRS and Rapid Shot abilities right away, regardless if at vet1 or vet2, it's nothing we are going to argue about. And yes; I'm totally fine if regular Tigers would just lose flank speed for hold fire ability while keeping ALRS at vet2 on regular Tigers. So finally it seems you have acknowledged those points... I'm saying "thanks then" but just barely.

seha wrote:if only you responded him with this earlier, mark.....then this misunderstanding would have not even happened.

amazing how 2 people can agree together but still manage to fail in understanding each other.

it's because MarKr is stubborn, though... I'm even more stubborn.

seha wrote:you and Tiger agree together on everything since the beginning.
you both agree about adding hold fire, removing flank speed from tigers and making ace tanks able to use their abilities earlier........
still.... you both always fail to understand each other..... what to say..... lack of communication?

Not lack of communication.. at least not from my side. He is the one who ignores... And the one to be blamed when things go wrong.

MarKr wrote:Yeah, I still read that one. He says the change should take place because of new reload times and then he speaks about assault howitzers whose reload times are still the same - so the reason he gives for the change does not apply to some of the units listed, so there is no reason for a change for these units. Asi I said - I don't think it is needed but I am not against it.
Then he speaks about removing flank speeds. And I said that I agree that Tigers don't need the thing and it is sort of ridiculous there. But I don't see a reason why they should have ALRS sooner available. As for his arguments:
- requirement for spotters is intentional for these tanks, that is why the scopes were removed. The ability gives huge range boost so why shouldn't it require some more work on the part of player than just one click at the target?
- it is not "double edged", or if you want to call this double-edged ability then grenades, barrages, airstrikes, AP abilities and many other abilities in the game are double-edged because there is always an option you will you spend ammo and you won't hit anything or don't penetrate or whatever. Should all units that have such abilities get some kind of compensation because the abilities are now considered "double-edged"?
- Pesrhings are meant to counter Tigers and Panthers so they should be a threat to them. However Tigers are available in two docrines, Pershings in only one and there has been a post where people said how impractical it is to use the command cars. So just because it is possible in theory, it does not mean it is something that happens every single time and everyone uses it (even less so with great results).
- What to say about the last point? Yes, it won't be able to quickly run with Flank speed. But it has good armor and strong gun, why should it be able to quickly run in the first place? And if you get to a situation where you would need to "quickly run" how is the sooner ALRS going to save you (if don't count some double-shot bug)?

As for your quote of mofeta - he also says that ALRS at lvl1 is crazy. He only suggests it sooner for the Ace, I don't have a problem with that since that unit is doctrine limited and comes quite late, but I am against globa ALRS at vet 1 for all Tigers.

mark, dont ignore any members....you shouldnt have even said that. you need to gather people around you...not spit them out.
dont let this develop again into a backlash....why do you always need to disagree together?

I am trying, note that I try to communicate with people here and sometimes on discord too. I try to answer their questions and talk to them. Do I have problems or quarrels with any of them? I don't think so. But from my experience talking with Tiger never leads anywhere. We simply have different opinions on things. He rarely takes "no" for an answer and keeps arguing with you until you say "OK" (by the way this is not just my opinion):
Nový obrázek (12).jpg

And I said it to him on Discord before his latest leaving of the community that I will simply not notice him and he should do the same with me:
Nový obrázek (33).jpg

In the orange underlined section he basicaly comes to the same conclusion. And now I he is angry because I do what I said I would do? He is siply angry because things are not going his way. We've seen that before - when the Storms got the spawning from empty emplacements removed and I guess there would be other instances possible to find in the history.

I actually have a lot to say regarding each and every single point of those.. however, since we seem to have finally agreed (at least to some extent) then I'm just going to call it off for now, just to ease the tension and keep things going.

The New BK Champion wrote:Regarding hetzer I will say: realisticaly it shouldn't have FS, but gameplay wise it was often the only way to get away from bazooka rush. Yes, run away way, I have never seen anyone using FS offensively, hetzer is just too weak to do that. Early hetzer is a backbone for axis defence in middle game.

Yup, pretty much what I said.. but anyways; I'm fine with the flank speed removal from Hetzers, maybe their top MG need to be improved though.


>>> About the broken texture of the US soldier mounting the 76 Sherman machine gun, i would like to say;
It's probably true that drivebyhobo got misunderstood, however.. it's also a VERY insignificant matter...
Thus, I think Panzerblitz1 doesn't have to bother about it at all.

The New BK Champion wrote:I agree with drivebyhobo that the problem with the black guy is not his race, but the fact that his skin texture looks unrealistic, broken.

So it is just about the skin texture? Because drivebyhobo also spoke about realistic foghting force composition and other stuff.
If the realistic fighting force composition is a problem then I would wonder why there is no problem with Puma. Those vehicles were produced in relatively limited numbers yet they are present in every WM doctrine in unlimited numbers and nobody seems to have have a problem with it. Yet Pumas as a unit have definately more impact on gameplay than this one gunner who is strictly cosmetic change.
If it is just the texture itself I really wonder who would have a problem with that in an average game. Because whose games go like this:
*zooms in as much as possible to see the details while in the middle of a field*
Wow, these textures look sooooo cool, the detail and everything!
*gets hit by enemy unit*
WtF?!?!?! How dare you attack me while I inspect this unit, shame on you!!!
*tank gets destroyed*
Oh wait you SoB, I'll build another one and show you what for!
*builds another 76mm Sherman and zooms in*
Wow, these textures look sooooo cool...

What I'm saying is that majority of the game you don't spend in the close-in camera view so you cannot really tell the difference. So what does it matter if the "skin texture looks unrealistic"? Especially when skin texture is just a shade of a color and you cannot really say that no black person ever had this shade of skin and thus you cannot say it is unrealistic. Afroamericans have some disctinctive facial features such as wider nose etc. but I don't really think it is worth to go all the trouble to adjust such details on a model when maybe 1 out of 100 people would actually try to nitpick such details.
Thus as I said, we think it is OK. It is not 100% realistic depiction of afro-americans in WW2 but it is close enough.

The New BK Champion wrote:I also understand that if all other top gunners are wearing armored crew uniforms, this one guy stands out being dressed as rifleman.

This has also been said - the "black regiments/battalions" were not given the same equipment and clothes as white dudes, they were given same uniforms as regular infantry so saying that this is unrealistic is actually not true. This uniform is more realistic than than giving them the same as other gunners on tanks have.

The New BK Champion wrote:Regarding hetzer I will say: realisticaly it shouldn't have FS, but gameplay wise it was often the only way to get away from bazooka rush. Yes, run away way, I have never seen anyone using FS offensively, hetzer is just too weak to do that. Early hetzer is a backbone for axis defence in middle game.

And here it is a contradiction to what Shanks says - he says that the Flank speed is used to chase units (offensively) and that is why Axis need it, not for defensive purposes, while you say that Axis use it to escape from zookas (defensively) but never offensively. I'm getting mixed messages here.

1-so that you can attract that particular audience?

-Yeah we want aaaaLL the brothers from the hOod playing Bk mod , yes but no... (i just hallucinated reading that...) we simply just love that Black Panther Sherman black stripes skin and i never thought someone will raise the race here starting very quietly with the so called faulty texture of the tank machine gunner.


2-If it is intended to have the Black Panther Battalion represented, then many if not all US soldiers would need to be replaced with black soldiers since they only served in all black units.
So the overall picture is not correct.

-Who CARES! who CARES? again the race talk is back, irrelevant in Bk. (not going to copy/paste the blue eye talk its also very silly, and full of nonsenses)


3-I assume that since you are so committed to diversity, that all possible efforts will be made to expand diversity to the Wehrmacht and Panzer Elite. It hardly seems fair to leave them out.

P.S.
Based on the photo I posted, I would think you would be very eager to liven up the Volksgrenadier and Grenadier squads with some new faces in 5.1.6.

-Like i told you before you went into your wall text about the race, the Sherman M4a3 (76)W is the unit here, not the gunner we aren't talking "diversity" as you're glued currently on it.



4-But if you're so concerned with the men from the Black Panther btn, they why are you so unconcerned with the African and Asian soldiers of the Wehrmacht?

-Again, there is no more about the texture of the gunner model here, its about "again" the race.



5-My point is that the mod is unwisely wadding into political correctness for the sake of a single model. It's distorting what the real forces looked like for the overwhelmingly majority (90%+, more for combat forces)
with the balance separated into specific units.

-Same thing, the race is exposed here, not the model, all that is irrelevant to Bk.



6-There were Asian soldiers fighting for the Wehrmacht in and around Normandy. Similarly, there were African soldiers in the US Army, but just like those Asian soldiers, they were a very small minority
(African-Americans were ~10% of the US population at the time) and placed into separate units. Is it so wrong that I think the mod should avoid the politics of that,
as Relic wisely decided to do in both Company Of Heroes 1 and 2?


-Sure, again the race is the main point here, its like saying, <<im not racist, BUT...>>


The "Black Panther" Sherman M4a3 (76)W stay, with his Battalion skin color, and his black gunner, regarding your question about my political "sensibility" im also not from the "far left wing" and served my country in the airborne infantry for surely more of the age you should have now, paratroopers aren't really famous for being lefties, or political at all actually, so nope, im not a lefty, but im not a racist either.
The gunner is very well made, as we the team choose always the best for the mod, we have much more uglier model faces displayed in COH than this gunner dude, and we aren't certainly not the first mod to introduce a black gunner as some mods have also north African troops displayed like in Battle of the Bulge mod, so... again who cares? maybe you, but it won't change a thing on the fact that this entire model, Sherman 76mm + Black gunner will stay in game even if you are like it or not.

*I also need to warn a particular person here who posted a racist comment i immediately removed, he will recognized himself for sure, this is a free warning mate, next time you're out of this forum.

This case about the Sherman M4a3 76mm is CLOSED.

i support the removal of flank speed from the hetzer for the reasons markr and warhawks explained.
I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but i don't see the logic given by tiger, relative adjustments between the tiger and hetzer don't make sense to me as they both serve different roles, one is a dedicated tank hunter the other is an all around. i'm not saying that the proposed changes are not good, but i don't find the arguments to support them relevant. though i would probably agree that the tiger is not a scary unit to me at all and agree with the statement that the tiger should be iconically scary (like the mg42. ridiculous and stupid stats with no logic to them, but it's done purely for it being iconically scary). remove flank speed, keep flank speed, add alrs, i dunno but i'll admit that the tiger isn't "scary enough".

i'm also curious to see how wald's suggestion impacts the mod. so like warhawks, i also support the proposed change but i got no other reason to add on to why. just feel like it's a non-balance impacting change that adds a layer of decision making to the game. might be cool.

i played a few games recently, only 1v1's. i feel like the arty changes might not be impactful enough just because of the accuracy of particular types of arty. units like the priest and some offmaps have SUCH accurate artillery that tanks are dying faster than pre-patch. i did this on a big map as well, once i got enough vet on my priest it went back to being a long range AT monster. The damage increase on direct hits hurts pretty bad, turns out a lot more "direct hits" happen than i thought. A potential solution is increase the AoE and scatter? That way arty remains relatively as effective against soft targets and not against hard targets? Maybe. Sounds tough to balance.

New AT rifles feel fine, still feel like brits will need to really change their strategies now. It's not just a WM buff but a huge brit nerf.

I think luft will still be hilariously OP and overplayed in this patch. But who knows what will happen after release...

Warhawks97 wrote:I am supporting walds suggestion.

@shanks: I just dont get it... i went through pages and what you dont understand? Markr tried to explain it to you several times and gave a diagram where you can see that all units have cons and pros just hetzer is simply good in all aspects. Sure, it can be killed if you know how. But if you know how to kill something you can also know how to keep something alive. Losing a unit just bc one played better is not an argument. If you expect rushing Daimler cars: Put a unit with 20 mm behind hetzer. I always get hetzer with a vehicle that has an autocannon. It protects you vs inf and running cars (even vs hellcats to some degree).

The overall support is also better for Hetzer. CW has rep tool but that prevents you from using minesweepers. As Luft you can force CW easily getting them by using sd2 for example. Two squads of sappers to have minesweepers and rep tool cost you over 600 MP already.

PE has advanced rep everywhere and strong combat inf. Def doc has better rep right away. CW has just one rep unit usually and US has advanced rep in one doc that has special requiments.

Also allied are more focused on mobility, axis have the advantage in ranged combats and strong armor but being usually bit less mobile.


The only reason or argument you gave is that "Hetzer can die". Well, would be bad it couldnt right?

For the "spearhead" attacks axis rely usually on Panthers/Jagdpanther/KT. Why should be the Hetzer such a spearhead?

it is seen that you do not know anything about the destructive power of the daimler, no one 20 mm (motorized PE), could destroy it, not face to face, also you say, "MarKr I try to explain", come on ... more armor? ??? vs 17pdr matters ??? ... that logic is not correct, although it has more armor, the allied AT can cross it like paper, your arguments are not solid, Hellcat and M10, Achilles, could win vs hetzer .... then because they should keep the speed of flanking and the hetzer not ??? .... you speak as if it were, "the hetzer is the ONLY TANK-HUNTER THAT CAN ENTER WITH FLASHING SPEED" ALL THE GAME "AND EXIT, WITHOUT BEING DESTROYED, FROM THE ENEMY FIELD "..... WHAT ??????, THE M10, AQUILES, HELLCAT AND CROMWELL CAN DO THE SAME !!! ..... because only sanction the hetzer and not the other units ???


@Tiger-I think Mark is a hard guy, hahaha, he often does not listen, but he also does it on other occasions, he is guided by the damage system, but having no experience in pvp, he can disagree a lot in his opinion, but sooner or later, it ends up solving the problem, so, 12-8 man, peace

@MarKr-from the first time you wrote me about the hetzer, I understood your point ... but you, still do not understand mine, but it does not matter, I'm sure it will resolve...really the problem lies in the fact that not many players are playing the beta, but as soon as they play an official version, problems will come, and it would be normal ... would there be any way to force everyone to play the beta for 1 week? ???, that would be great!


by the way, I support the idea of ​​wald, to hide what kind of ammunition the tank uses, great idea !!!


@The new bk champion-#
Regarding hetzer I will say: realisticaly it shouldn't have FS, but gameplay wise it was often the only way to get away from bazooka rush. Yes, run away way, I have never seen anyone using FS offensively, hetzer is just too weak to do that. Early hetzer is a backbone for axis defence in middle game.#

Wow,this is really contradictory, but the flanking speed is also used offensively! (I do it to finish units) ... it's a pity that you think the hetzer should lose this ability, I did not expect that kind of response from your part, since you are a specialist with the British, and you know perfectly that the flanking speed of the hetzer is not OP, and if they eliminate it, the only thing we would gain is an inequality of strength, between allies and axis, is what I believe


@kwok-the solution to the arty would be: leave it as it was in 5.1.4

MarKr wrote:If the realistic fighting force composition is a problem then I would wonder why there is no problem with Puma. Those vehicles were produced in relatively limited numbers yet they are present in every WM doctrine in unlimited numbers and nobody seems to have have a problem with it.

As far as I know, the Puma has consistent textures with the rest of the vehicles. The Black Panther Sherman 76 as PanzerBlitz has dubbed it, is not consistent with the rest of the US armored units.

From the regular M4 to the M26 as well as the Super Pershing, all of those vehicles were used by the 3rd Armored division, thus it is logically consistent when US tanks have 3rd Armor soldiers as visible crewman.

MarKr wrote:*zooms in as much as possible to see the details while in the middle of a field* What I'm saying is that majority of the game you don't spend in the close-in camera view so you cannot really tell the difference

The rifleman gunner atop the Sherman is one of the largest parts of the tank when viewed from the default angle. So yes, it is not a detail easily missed.



Again PanzerBlitz, all you can do is keep restating "you're racist, you don't like them just because they're black".

Panzerblitz1 wrote:1-so that you can attract that particular audience?

It was very clear from the context that I was referring to the casual audiences that enjoy games such as CoD WW2, Battlefield 1 and V where you can play as a black woman in the SS and fight alongside cyborgs.

Panzerblitz1 wrote:-Who CARES! who CARES?

There has been plenty of blowback to those design choices of those games greatly over representing diversity. The announcement trailer for the diverse Battlefield V for example has 450,000 dislikes to 300,000 likes.

Panzerblitz1 wrote:-Yeah we want aaaaLL the brothers from the hOod playing Bk mod

Whoa, whoa, getting rather racist aren't we PanzerBlitz?

Panzerblitz1 wrote:-Again, there is no more about the texture of the gunner model here, its about "again" the race
-Same thing, the race is exposed here, not the model, all that is irrelevant to Bk.
-Sure, again the race is the main point here, its like saying, <<im not racist, BUT...>>

This is about maintaining consistency. As I said before, the rest of the armored units are from the 3rd Armored division. I would be equally opposed to breaking the consistency of Wehrmacht infantry for the sake of arbitrarily including diversity.

Panzerblitz1 wrote: political "sensibility" im also not from the "far left wing" and served my country in the airborne infantry for surely more of the age you should have now, paratroopers aren't really famous for being lefties, or political at all actually, so nope, im not a lefty

I sure hope that wasn't meant to impress me. Put these two things together: French Airborne and Dien Bien Phu. Complete strategic incompetence that lead to the near complete loss of 20,000 French soldiers. Thousand of prisoners marched to death by communists and you're going to sit there and peddle Marxist talking points.

Americans on the other hand won Khe Sanh and every major battle in Vietnam. Now those are facts you can't change, no matter how thick your anti-American bias.

Battlefield? COD WW2? Dien Bien phu? Viernam? Indochina? so now im anti american, after being a lefty? yes...sure, dude, whaaaaat are you TALKING ABOUT? First warning issued, if you continue on this path you're out, i told you this M4A4 76mm matter was closed but you don't listen, AND on top of that you are bashing my country and adding more political arguments, over a COH GUNNER TANK MODEL you don't like? well done.

Shanks wrote:I think Mark is a hard guy, hahaha, he often does not listen, but he also does it on other occasions, he is guided by the damage system, but having no experience in pvp, he can disagree a lot in his opinion, but sooner or later, it ends up solving the problem, so, 12-8 man, peace

It seems to me that often I hear the "no PvP experience" argument when I keep defending my point of view and people don't know how else to "defend" their point . But what can I tell you? The stats I give you are numbers and numbers don't lie. If I say that unit X has 26% penetration chance against unit Y then it is what you get on AVERAGE across all the games people play. This number is not distorted by personal view or feelings from the game. You can always say that "PvP is different because there are lots of other factors" - yes, I know that and one of the most influential factors is skill of a player. If your oponent has noobish skill, then you can destroy his KT with a 57mm AT gun. Does it mean that 57mm AT is OP? It is impossible to take into account the skill of every player when you balance every unit. So what you do is that you take a look at stats of units and compare their chances for a scenario when these two units go against each other 1v1 - the stats will tell you which one has on average the upper hand and the rest that players tell you is a matter of skill and/or luck.

@drivebyhobo: Man, I have no idea why you keep returning to this point or why you start pulling politics into it. Anyway this is from posting guidelines:

Nieles wrote:The short version
1. If a Mod or Admin tells you something, then do it.
5. Do not drag threads offtopic.
9. No politics, no religions.

Blitz told you this is closed - keeping returning to the topic of the gunner is thus against the point number 1. Talking about political orientation and achievements or failures of countries in armed conflicts goes agaist point number 9 and in case of this thread also against point number 5. If you have any remarks on other things in the patch, feel free to post about that but, please, drop this Sherman gunner "issue".

If you have no PvP experience... And you get told for example by someone that Hetzer with flank speed is being used offensively, and then another guy tells you on the other hand that it's being used defensively.. then you will always be confused with mixed info for sure, without a doubt! Since you have no experience yourself to define the truth about it by ur own, and thus you will keep running in circles around yourself, and that's just pity...

If we're going to get into this... I'd rather a dev have no PvP experience than have PvP experience tbh... all PvP players have an uncontrollable tendency to want to push their particular playstyle into the game. I'm infantry oriented, so when I make balance suggestions it's gonna lean towards infantry more times than not no matter how conscious I try to be about not favoring a playstyle. I prefer well-rounded doctrines over specialized, that's going to leak into my suggestions as well even though I try to argue for both sides as much as I can. PvP playing devs is the reason why spearhead mod in coh2 did so poorly, the community strongly feel the devs cater to their own desires with strong "fanboyism" within the dev team.

Mixed info will always exist whether someone plays PvP or not. When you play PvP and you say one thing, but another player plays PvP and says another thing, just because YOU said it doesn't make it any more right. That's anecdotal. The players you play against also make a difference. The NA players play pretty different than the european players. Maybe europeans only use hetzer flank speed defensively and NA players use it offensively. The tunngle players have an entirely different playstyle and potentially found a meta we haven't figured out yet.

Better to have devs run circles than get tunnel vision. It's a pity that multiple people here would rather argue than test or teach. I just played a few games in the beta (one of them being a 3v3), hetzers and tigers were still definitely being used despite not having flank speed. Unsurprisingly, they did the job they intended to do. Sure some died... but isn't that what units are supposed to do? Axis still despite tigers and hetzers dying.

Any feedback on wald's suggestion?
Any feedback on my arty comments?
Can the new AT squad camo now? Was that intentional?

kwok wrote:Better to have devs run circles than get tunnel vision.

No surprise that you prefer that.. as you would maybe rather devs to be non-experienced forever so you can easily fill their mind with your agenda(s).

Me on the other hand... I would rather devs to be finally experienced in PvP so that they don't keep running around themselves in circles like idiots whenever mixed info are received. Eventually, they would be hopefully able to distinguish some PvP facts on their own.. without having to argue too much every single time. And this way, their time can be saved.. as well as our time! (NOTE: the word "idiots" isn't intended as insult to the devs)

kwok wrote:Any feedback on wald's suggestion?
Any feedback on my arty comments?
Can the new AT squad camo now? Was that intentional?

I said I have ni problem with Wad's suggestion and asked if anyone is against it. Sofar noone said a word against it so I guess those HE icons can be removed.

about arty: You said "because of the accuracy of particular types of arty" then you mention "Priest and some offmaps". So is it the "shell arty" in general or some specific units and abilities? If it is the latter can you give some list of these units?

Increasing the scatter could be a solution but it goes agains the original thought:

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.

So perhaps the scatter reduction per vet level could be lower...

The new AT squad did not receive any camo abilities...did you see them using camo in game?

@fronex: don't reopen that discussion, it is draging this thread off-topic. I moved your post to a separate topic here. If you absolutely have to discuss this history of who won what do it there.

The Hetzer arugments became more confusing as markr mentioned. Some say to run away, others bc it is necessary for offense. Personally i used it or abused it in the offense. Sometimes i used two of them and rushing towards, even passing AT guns (or bouncing them) and crushing enemie Priests.

Perhaps some now how careless and aggressive i rushed my Tank IV´s, stugs, Pumas and even schwimmwagens (yes, schwimmwagens are great to defeat ambushed tds like M10). And i did that with Hetzer as well and it worked often better than with any other mentioned unit.
Sometimes i could rush out of ambush using flank speed, killing high value targets like mortar HT´s or recces and retreat back to my ambush position while surviving as well due to armor that managed to bounce of actually all of the 57 mm AT present at that time.

And Hetzer+ 20 mm car works very well. Perhaps first daimler car gets shot by hetzer, problem solved. If not you can make it shoot at hetzer first and then closing in with your 20 mm car using flank speed. From short range it blows up the daimler in a second. Also daimler cars have iirc quite long reload times. Given the damage per pen you still have some time to retreat or to send help to your hetzer. If you fail to back your hetzer and instead relying only on his flank speed alone, well thats your fault then. I barely had to use flank speed for defensive purposes bc the hetzer shred all threats by its own from ambush or i simply placed them smart enough with enough reaction time.

Regarding its armor i would say its pretty realistic. It had strong upper hull with slopped 60 mm armor but a weak lower hull that could be penetrated quite easily. Perhaps the US 76 does perform too well against it but at the other hand the US is a gamble weapon anyway, no matter what target you shoot at. You always go into battle with a 50:50 chance at best.


Regarding the Tiger tank. Perhaps its not feared so much but at the other hand this game provides units that saw action in 44-45, so 2 years after tiger saw action and where allied developed counters.
So whats now. Drop cost? Nah, i dont want Panther to be costing more than a Tiger just bc it performs maybe better than the Tiger. I love that kind of realistic aspect of the game.

What i would do with Tigers:
1. Buff its gun accuracy. Panther has 90% at long and distant range. Tiger 75% like a sherman. Both, Tiger and in particualar the 88 guns were famous for their sniping accuracy. But thats something all 88 guns struggle, even the elephant and jagdpanther.
2. Damage: its damage is 110-140 compared to 100-120 for Panther and 130-160 for US 90 mm gun. Perhaps it could be 120-150.
3. The Ace having ALRS at default perhaps.

MarKr wrote:

Shanks wrote:I think Mark is a hard guy, hahaha, he often does not listen, but he also does it on other occasions, he is guided by the damage system, but having no experience in pvp, he can disagree a lot in his opinion, but sooner or later, it ends up solving the problem, so, 12-8 man, peace

It seems to me that often I hear the "no PvP experience" argument when I keep defending my point of view and people don't know how else to "defend" their point . But what can I tell you? The stats I give you are numbers and numbers don't lie. If I say that unit X has 26% penetration chance against unit Y then it is what you get on AVERAGE across all the games people play. This number is not distorted by personal view or feelings from the game. You can always say that "PvP is different because there are lots of other factors" - yes, I know that and one of the most influential factors is skill of a player. If your oponent has noobish skill, then you can destroy his KT with a 57mm AT gun. Does it mean that 57mm AT is OP? It is impossible to take into account the skill of every player when you balance every unit. So what you do is that you take a look at stats of units and compare their chances for a scenario when these two units go against each other 1v1 - the stats will tell you which one has on average the upper hand and the rest that players tell you is a matter of skill and/or luck.

you're right, mathematics is accurate, but the perspective of reality is different