5.1.7patch

If there is something new, it will be posted here.
User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2845
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

5.1.7patch

Postby MarKr » 16 Feb 2019, 10:34

Hello to all of you!

As you probably know, we wanted to go for doctrinal reworks but after the survey and many talks that kwok had with you guys, we are still in the planning process because we want to include stuff which was brought up in the survey and which you mentioned in the talks. However we are aware that there are some issues in the game so we decided to release a patch which would address these issues.

This patch generally fixes bugs and unintentionally forgotten or unintended updates. It also focuses on addressing the complaints of Tigers being too useless along with some other balance asks. Notes on balance adjustments can be found in the spoiler sections following the adjustment note.
General:
- Static Howitzers will no longer refuse to fire at a position
- Force Retreat abilities will now properly retreat infantry squads with Hold Ground active
- Axis 20mm guns will no longer bounce off of Armored Jeep
- 37mm cannons will not fail to penetrate the über cannon-proof vests of Axis snipers
- Various text fixes and adjustments based on the feedback here on the forum
- Changed accuracy on the move penalty for Allied tanks to 0.6 (from 0.5; applied to tanks which historically had stabilizers)
Spoiler: show
All buffs, no matter how needed they are, needs to have some counterbalancing aspect. This is a necessary balancing adjustment to simulate the fact that many tanks of Allies had stabilizers on their guns while Axis tanks did not have it. Given the fact that Axis guns are still stronger in general (better damage and penetration) and also the fact that Allies need to rely on flanking more often (due to the weaker guns and lower chance to penetrate frontal armor) this make the flanking tactic more viable. In general Axis would have advantage on the first shot, allies would gain advantage during flanking maneuvers.


US:
- 37mm gun now provides light cover to the crew (applied yellow cover because with green the crew suffers from immortality syndrome)
- Rifle HEAT grenades should no longer deal too little damage to Motorbikes and Schwimmwagens
- Rifle HEAT grenades can now only be targetted at vehicles
- Lowered the HP of M26 Pershing to 850 (from 1000)
- Lowered the HP of Pershing Ace to 1050 (from 1200)
Spoiler: show
Some changes to the Pershing's durability was made not necessarily as a direct buff to Tigers but indirect buff by allowing more medium tier tanks to be viable in army composition. The HP adjustment was calculated so that it should have no effect on the Tiger/Pershing matchup, nor the panzerschreck to pershing match up, but it allows medium tanks and other 75mm KwK40 based weaponry to have comparable chances to destroy the Pershing as 76mm allied weaponry has against Tigers.


CW:
- It should be no longer possible to glitch Tulip rockets so that the second one is "guided" at the target

WM:
- Applied top MG changes to StuG MG (was forgotten in previous patch)
- Cost of Early Tiger tank lowered to 840MP (from 950MP)
- Cost of Late Tiger tank lowered to 865MP (from 975MP)
- Cost of Tiger Ace lowered to 1370MP (from 1550MP)
- Lowered the cost of Heavy tank factory to 300MP (from 400MP)
Spoiler: show
It was generally noted that Tigers did not perform at their costs plus all the necessary teching costs. The initial fixes were to adjust the costs in so that the Tiger will be available at least to the point they could be made at the same time as their primary counters (pershings and jacksons).


PE:
- PE double AT nade requires "Experienced AT crews (upgrade 03)" should be "Double AT efforts (upgrade_32)"
- Observation Halftrack should no longer switch places with PaK40 in Logistikompanie
- Removed Periscope upgrade from Flammenhetzer (was forgotten when Periscopes were removed)
- Added 15 Fuel cost to Vampire Halftrack (from 0 Fuel)
- Vampire Halftrack now requires Logistic Company Upgrade
Spoiler: show
In recent conversations, it has come to light how accessible the vampire halftrack is in the early game and its strong impact on the first five minutes. Balance adjustments in cost were made to put it more in line of the tier of comparable capabilities, ex. the recce, tank hunter sense, radio triangulation, etc.


The next plan is to actually start working on doctrine reworks starting with an experimental pilot patch that will test the mechanisms used to balance doctrine reworks, then incremental updates that will work through a full doctrine reworks across all factions and other balance adjustments.

The patch is available on the BK mod Beta branch (here is a guide for beta access), if everything will be OK, it will be switched to live version in few days.

Other considerations that were made but not included in the patch (These ideas are not off the table, they just need some more time to think about):
-Luft doc was not changed as it will be included in full doctrine rework updates.
-Flames were not changed as the community still seems divisive on its performance. Experimental changes may come later.
-Rifle grenades were not changed as the community still seem divisive on its performance
-Cromwell/Shermans were not updated as it will be further considered in full doctrine rework updates.
-Hold Fire was not added to tanks yet as this will require more thinking in terms of UI

EDIT:
Due to an oversight the US 37mm gun still does not provide yellow cover, it has been reported already and it will be fixed for the final release.
Image

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3633
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby Warhawks97 » 16 Feb 2019, 11:34

MarKr wrote:

- Changed accuracy on the move penalty for Allied tanks to 0.6 (from 0.5; applied to tanks which historically had stabilizers)


for all allied tank? Bc i think brits tanks might become a bit OP since their 17 pdr gun pen most tanks easily from the front. Not sure if brits used gyro stabilizers for their tanks.


i just wanted to make a topic about guns accuracy.

I have had games recently in which i sorrounded a german Jagdpanzer IV/70 with 3 tanks. 1 M10, 1 76 sherman and 1 e8 sherman shooting from all sides. The e8 was within grenade range already, m10 and 76 were at range i would consider roughly mid range but still damn close.

Guess what? All three tanks failed to hit with first shot.... wasted HVAP´s, nice.

So i wanted to make suggestions here but had no will to do so yesterday.


So:

1. Buff axis Tank guns from panther to KT accuracy from 0.75 to 0.9 (or 0.85) max range (0.9 medium). Panther and Tiger guns already got this accuracy, Jagpanther, KT and others still have low 75% accuracy for max range.
2. Lower axis tank gun accuracy on the move by 60% (0.4 modifier instead of 0.5).
3. Increase mid range accuracy of allied tanks (76 mm and 17 pdr) from 0.75 to 0.85.
4. The accuracy drop for US tanks on the move reduced from 50% to 30%. (from 0.5, in this patch 0.6, to 0.65. For e8 from 0.75 to 0.8.
-> short calculation for max range accuracy on the move axis/allis. 0.9x0.4= 36%. 0.75x0.65=48,75%. (E8= 60%). But most importantly is the mid range change in accuracy and accuracy drop on the move. Now it is 0.75x0.5=0,375. VS axis tds its much lower. That means that i had many occassions in which i bypassed and flanked axis td with 2-3 tanks and drove by veeeery close but all my tanks, even veted tanks, just failed to hit the tank which almost already touched the side of the tank. That was just hilarious. Even max vet e8 failed to make a good hit.
So the mid range accuracy change along with less accuracy drop on the move would be: 0.85x0.65=55,25%. (vs german Jagdpanzers below 50% due to their tt).

That should help avoid to get your ass kicked even though you made a perfect flanking/close in from side manevuer with your tank which i get told to to in every second discussion about axis vs allied tank or rather US vs axis armor. I just get pissed when i manage to do so successfully in several occassions in a game and still having no chance in a 1 vs 3 bc my tanks just fail. Tbh i do belive that german jagdpanzers should be harder to hit due to their low silhouete, but i think the current state i just shit. my current chance to hit these tanks with my tanks, even when i am standing almost in grenade range, is just 56,25%. Thats hilarious. You should see that in games. You have to take it with a lot of humor when you see three tanks very close to one enemie shooting from all directions and non of them is even hitting the target.





US:
- 37mm gun now provides light cover to the crew (applied yellow cover because with green the crew suffers from immortality syndrome)


wasnt that already the case? i am pretty sure it was. Sometimes the cover icon disappeared completely and the crew died within one second from an lmg burst.

- Lowered the HP of M26 Pershing to 850 (from 1000)
- Lowered the HP of Pershing Ace to 1050 (from 1200)


Good, you put it into a medium tank role. I am fine with it. Could you pls do the same with Jagdpanther? I dont see a reason to treat it like a heavy tank with 1000 HP (+ Zimmerit) and i even think it takes less damage from arty than most other tanks (perhaps it got changed with latest arty change). Put it pls on same HP lvl as normal Panther.


CW:
- It should be no longer possible to glitch Tulip rockets so that the second one is "guided" at the target



lol, i didnt even now that glitch.

WM:

- Cost of Early Tiger tank lowered to 840MP (from 950MP)
- Cost of Late Tiger tank lowered to 865MP (from 975MP)
- Cost of Tiger Ace lowered to 1370MP (from 1550MP)
- Lowered the cost of Heavy tank factory to 300MP (from 400MP)



Really? Srsly, really? As far as i can remember people would have been OK with CP cost drop in order to be earlier available and with making a doctrine that is centered arround tiger tanks with good support stuff.

Now you kept the tigers as "normal stuff you can get if you want to" in doctrines which have plenty of other very powerfull stuff.

Really, i can await to see tigers spammed like Pershings supported by Ostwinds or Firestorm off map strikes.

Also do you really belive that a Tiger is so much worse than a pershing although both are simiiar effective and resistant/vulnerable to each other factions weaponary?

A Tiger is now as cheap as a Pershing but retains its 1000 HP, 90% accuracy at max range and vet long range shot.

Glorious. There aint be fun to see Tigers spammed arround like Pershings from no- brainers that have totally forgotten that tanks need Infantry support (which is the main reason of all these "super tank failures" aka Jagdtiger, KT, Super Pershing, Elephant and such).


If you screen a tiger just with volks, it can be hell effective and a huge pain. Providing long range one-shot capabilties with superb accuracy and able to tank severel pen shot hits.

The direct Buffs tiger already received since debate broke out:

1. First cost drop when you took over controle of BK.
2. Gun damage buff
3. Gun range buff
4. Gun accuracy Buff
5. Now second cost drop.

(perhaps i forgot a few)

Indirect buffs:

1. HE shots hit their targets (which made esspecially big calibre guns very dangerous)
2. All AP shots dont gain extra damage anymore. Guns like 17 pdr max damage with AP thus dropped from 812,5 to 650 damage. Means you need more often 3 shots instead of 2 pen hits with 17 pdr to kill it
3. Ambush standardisation with damage/pen drop. Thus 17 pdrs dont deal 975 damage anymore from ambush. With AP and ambush the max damage dropped from 1218,75 to 812,5! Means Tiger got from "regularly oneshoted from 17 pdr ambush" to "immune to 17 pdr oneshot" (unless you trigger 5% chance.)
4. That being said, the 17 pdr was the main threat of Tigers which got nerfed massively by Ambush nerf and AP shot nerf.
5. Shermans got more expensive (along with HP buff but thats neutralized by higher gun damage for tiger)
6. Now Heavy Tank depot dropped in cost



Dont you think you gonna overdo it? I already see how one tiger comes after the other, replacing tank IV´s and stugs instead of supporting/working with them. Just awesome.

You put a heavy tank, which benefits from everything a heavy tank has (like HP, range), into a medium tank cost section. It becomes a competetor to the Panther rather than being itself special.


You should have made the Tiger to be a early heavy tank (similiar to churchills) which gets replaced by KT later on instead going again that -in my opinion- "i am too lazzy" way and drop cost down into nowhere. We wanted Tigers to be special (by time of availability, abilities, stats, doctrine unlocks etc). But the last anyone wanted was to get them as cheap trash (special gift) within doctrines that arent really lacking anything so far. Now they got just another cheap "throw arround" thing to satisfy kids that cant support tanks properly and which remain half of their time in a "close zoom in perspective" to see their beloved tanks in detail and to hear the sound.

The big reason tiger was considered so usless was bc the doctrines this tank stucks in have so much (better) stuff already.

Why are you always putting one such thing in a changelog. Everything here (and most of the previous patches) was like: "nice change". But then always one such step "backward". I mean what spoke against a 3 CP Tiger? Why do you want to keep the tiger so valuable for late games where tons of other stuff is already available... and that at all cost? There are already Panthers, King Tigers, Jagdpanthers....

Its like you have created some sort of "Heavy tank on discount"..... Like a "Ferrari Volkswagen" to make sure everyone can purchase at least one elite tank in the late game, even those with extrodianry bad ressource managment.


I feel a little bit like when G.W. Bush announced: "Eveyone can now be a first time house buyer" (or something like that). It ended in the crisis of 2008... Now we see an "inflation of Tiger Tanks".

Thank you!




PE:
- PE double AT nade requires "Experienced AT crews (upgrade 03)" should be "Double AT efforts (upgrade_32)"
- Observation Halftrack should no longer switch places with PaK40 in Logistikompanie
- Removed Periscope upgrade from Flammenhetzer (was forgotten when Periscopes were removed)
- Added 15 Fuel cost to Vampire Halftrack (from 0 Fuel)
- Vampire Halftrack now requires Logistic Company Upgrade



thx. But upgrade 03? Sure? So we throw two nades now when unlocking second Panzerschreck right?

The next plan is to actually start working on doctrine reworks starting with an experimental pilot patch that will test the mechanisms used to balance doctrine reworks, then incremental updates that will work through a full doctrine reworks across all factions and other balance adjustments.


sounds good. But can you pls put biggest attention to somehow create a doctrine in which the Tiger can shine up instead of just making them cheap? I would wish to keep normal Tiger cost but in return have it earlier available (3 CP, max 4) and perhaps doctrinal stuff that is focused n supporting Tigers.
Tigers do not deserve to be handled like trash.

The patch is available on the BK mod Beta branch (here is a guide for beta access), if everything will be OK, it will be switched to live version in few days.



Ok, but hopefully not with this tiger cost. Perhaps you make a second beta after this one, revert tiger cost back to what we are used to and instead splitting the tank unlocks so that tigers and Panthers dont sit in the same line. Both would use Tank IV as basis but one line goes Tiger-> Tiger ace/KT, the other just for the Panther and nothing else. Panther would require more CP and more tec. Perhaps the Tank depot unlock, that unlocks Panther/KT and Ace etc would require not just fuel, but also MP. So the heavy tank depot would cost 300-350 and the upgrade 50-100 MP (and its 75 fuel). That way it could become very feasible for players to rush for tigers for a few CP and low tec cost and first after that switching over to long term investments in preparation for late game.



Edit:

Pls take a look at all Jagdpanzer IV models and their received accuracy. They are extremely broken. For example the def doc Jagdpanzer IV/48 is much harder to hit than those from PE. When i take a 76 sherman for example t has 63,75% accuracy vs PE Jagdpanzer IV but only 47,8 vs WH def doc.

Also The Jagdpanzer IV/70 is harder to hit than a hetzer or PE Jagdpanzer IV48 (56,25% for IV/70 vs 63,75% for hetzer).


Also pls take a look at upkeep for the Jagdpanther.
Last edited by Warhawks97 on 16 Feb 2019, 12:07, edited 1 time in total.

The New BK Champion
Posts: 289
Joined: 11 Feb 2018, 22:09

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby The New BK Champion » 16 Feb 2019, 11:54

Rifle heat is broken because it was meant to serve as self-defence agains car rushes, but now it's a super long raged never missing op vehicle killer for just a bit of ammo.
For example when PE at defence against buffed 0.50 cal consists mostly of a single 28mm car (before u get a pak up front), single heat can take 3/4 of at car's health. U just get rushed by them non-stop.
Cosidering how 2 bursts of 0.50 cal can now kill any armored car, I'd say that rifle heat is entirely unnessesary, especially with such op range.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2845
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby MarKr » 16 Feb 2019, 12:18

Jesus, Hawks, you haven't played a single game and already it needs to be changed - you see Tigers as OK, only needing CP change, others might disagree with you because you might have noticed that people's been complaining about Tigers not being worth their cost because they die too easily even to lower tier tanks which is sort of true due to the fact that rear penetration has been buffed few patches ago, also Tigers can be easily penetrated frontally by 17 pounders and also 90mm guns and one or the other gun is present in almost every game, now the Allied tanks (some) have more accuracy on the move which further encourages flanking with lower tier tanks which again means more danger for Tigers and so the prices were dropped.
Not to mention that the post clearly says that this is a patch to fix some issues in the current version and doc reworks will come later and yet you again start talking about changes that pretty much mean doc rework. So once more: This update does NOT include the announced doctrinal reworks and because of that it does NOT include changes which require extensive changes in doctrinal trees. Because of this, the Tigers in this update are NOT in one doctrine because it would mean that the Panthers would need to be removed from some doctrines and moved elsewhere while Tigers would need to be removed from some doctrines and moved into one doctrine and that would require further changes in the affected doctrines and that would be doctrinal rework.

Warhawks97 wrote:for all allied tank? Bc i think brits tanks might become a bit OP since their 17 pdr gun pen most tanks easily from the front. Not sure if brits used gyro stabilizers for their tanks.
Not all of them, as said in the changelog, only those that had the stabilizers which means most US tanks and TDs, for Brits it means just tanks that were lend-leased from USA (so pretty much just Shermans and Stuarts), Cromwell, Churchill, Tetrarch and Achilles (reworked M10 but according to sources they did not have stabilizers) are unchaged for now.

@The New BK Champion: The range of HEAT grenades might be lowered again. As you said - it was increased before the .50cal buff, now the .50cals can provide protection from armored cars so it is no longer needed to have this range on the HEAT grenades. It is one of the things on the list for possible future changes.
Image

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3900
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby Tiger1996 » 16 Feb 2019, 13:25

Here just to throw my opinion, despite I haven't got around to test anything yet.. but if any bugs encounter me, i'll drop MarKr a hint via Discord.

That said, I wholeheartedly disagree with lowering the HP of Pershing tanks. And if somebody comes back at me stating that Pershing(s) can be still over-repaired and so on, then I would rather see the over-repair tool being adjusted itself.. not the basic HP value of the Pershing.
Thus, i'd say.. reducing the HP of Pershing tanks, is completely terrible change.. and extremely reckless one too.

Accordingly, I'm also against any possible future adjustments to the HP of the JagdPanther or Panthers as a result.

Regarding the price adjustments of the Tiger tanks, I'm fine with it.. it's nothing more than just very slight MP reductions anyway.
However... I have to clearly agree with Hawks considering what he said how Tigers should be earlier available, specifically the ACE Tiger tank.
Though; I also totally understand that this is maybe a subject for another day, which is more concerning doctrinal rework(s) upcoming in the future.

Lastly, yes... US AT rifle grenade must have less range (not more than 45 in my opinion) specifically if the current shell behavior is going to stay.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3633
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby Warhawks97 » 16 Feb 2019, 13:32

MarKr wrote:Jesus, Hawks, you haven't played a single game and already it needs to be changed - you see Tigers as OK, only needing CP change, others might disagree with you because you might have noticed that people's been complaining about Tigers not being worth their cost because they die too easily even to lower tier tanks which is sort of true due to the fact that rear penetration has been buffed few patches ago, also Tigers can be easily penetrated frontally by 17 pounders and also 90mm guns and one or the other gun is present in almost every game, now the Allied tanks (some) have more accuracy on the move which further encourages flanking with lower tier tanks which again means more danger for Tigers and so the prices were dropped.


This has nothing to do with "testing", its a plain bad idea.

You try to make Tigers late game effective. Ok, lets see with what it competes with when it comes to armor and firepower:

1. King Tiger
2. Jagdtiger
3. Elephant
4. Panther
5. Jagdpanther
6. Jagdpanzer IV/70. Yes, its armor is quite comparable to Tiger, at least in terms to armor effectivness vs 76 guns. I would say that the IV/70 is the better choice bc its much harder to hit than Tiger.
7. (Nashorn in terms of defensive firepower and long range anti tank).

So they already have an excessive late game supply compared to which the tiger looks like a boby car.


In other words its like having Porsche or Ferrari cars reaching from 1 million dollar High premium class to 200K Dollar Lower premium class car. The Tiger is the cheapest. Sure it looks bad compared to the higher classes. You just want to sell something that cant compete with the others so you make it stupid cheap. And on the other side its still deadly effective against pretty much all tanks the enemie can get. All tanks that can kill a tiger can be killed by a tiger.


So instead trying to make it competetive, (which means your goods are from better quality or simply cheaper, speaking from an economic perspective) you should really try to make it competetive to units that fought with it and which the designers thought it had to fight/compete with.
And that were namley 37 mm guns, 57 mm guns, 75 mm guns, russian 76 mm guns and tanks like shermans, matilda, cromwell, churchills, T34, crusader. It was not meant to stand off against 17 pdrs, Is 2, ISU 100 etc.
But you keep trying to keep it competetive.

Every economic student would tell you that this is just a bad idea and that you should try to either change the product or that you try to sell the product elsewhere or to aim at a different customer class. And this would be the "mid game german players", not the "late gamers". If anything axis lacks in mid game, its a heavy tank. US has its jumbo (inf doc), CW its churchills, just axis have non in mid game but therefore an excessive supply in the late game.
And this game is simply "economic". When you have better stuff or cheaper stuff that does the job, why getting the expensive one? Its more a false identification of the problems (which is not its strenght as such, but the stuff you want it to compete with).


And i dont need to test it out. I would buy Tigers only if

a. They are almost as cheap as Tank IV´s when they remain late game tanks (like now) side on side with Panthers
b. When i get them simply way earlier than Panthers. Else i will always prefer mobility when both remain at same cost.


Also if you can remember the very old TH doc. There we got Tigers for 3 CP very fast. And me and my clan always went for it and surprising the enemies when they were just about to send churchills, shermans and stuff. There was almost no counter. Our fastest member got this Tiger within the first 10 min in a standard res game. The rest of the team supported it with infantry (luft inf and stormtroopers usually).

So i dont need to test it out when i already now how deadly and devestating a tiger can be when CP and tec cost are significantly lower than they are now. When you can force the enemie to rush for proper AT which decreases their ammount of investments they can do in order to push with early to mid game units. Those would just all get thrown "back to starting positions" when a Tiger shows up that quickly.

I actually thought that Kwok as new dev member would understand it.


Not to mention that the post clearly says that this is a patch to fix some issues in the current version and doc reworks will come later and yet you again start talking about changes that pretty much mean doc rework. So once more: This update does NOT include the announced doctrinal reworks and because of that it does NOT include changes which require extensive changes in doctrinal trees. Because of this, the Tigers in this update are NOT in one doctrine because it would mean that the Panthers would need to be removed from some doctrines and moved elsewhere while Tigers would need to be removed from some doctrines and moved into one doctrine and that would require further changes in the affected doctrines and that would be doctrinal rework.



How is a simple CP switch/Tank seperating act a doctrine rework? We did that with Hetzers/Panzer IV, the RE tank unlock line got changed (call in, comet if your remember), jumbo/calli...

So how is a CP swap and a tank Seperation (seperating tigers from Panthers and making them individual unlocks) suddenly a doctrine rework?



Not all of them, as said in the changelog, only those that had the stabilizers which means most US tanks and TDs, for Brits it means just tanks that were lend-leased from USA (so pretty much just Shermans and Stuarts), Cromwell, Churchill, Tetrarch and Achilles (reworked M10 but according to sources they did not have stabilizers) are unchaged for now.


alright.

But pls, check out german Jagdpanzer IV received accuracy values. They are all random. The WH IV/48 is very hard to hit (47% when using 76 sherman gun)), the IV/70 from TH doc is also quite hard to hit (roughly 56%) and TH IV/48 relatively easy with 64%.

And check Jagdpanther upkeep values pls.




@Tiger. A cost drop of over 100 MP is not a "slight cost drop" :shock:
But thx that you agree with the other stuff.


If i thought about it i could agree about the over rep stuff and Pershing HP. However i dont bother so much about pershings as my main power source in armor doc are shermans, TD´s and war machinery.

The New BK Champion
Posts: 289
Joined: 11 Feb 2018, 22:09

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby The New BK Champion » 16 Feb 2019, 13:46

Jesus hawks calm your tits plz

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3633
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby Warhawks97 » 16 Feb 2019, 13:54

The New BK Champion wrote:Jesus hawks calm your tits plz


no, bc this is when people dont check the history. Futrue is important bc thats where we want to live in, but we dont have to struggle so much if we would just look back into the past for a brief moment. And there a 3 CP tiger worked brutaly well combined with lower tecing cost and the tiger was costing 1000 MP and 180 fuel and had not even a top mount MG and not even a working HE round.



And srsly? look at the ammount of units the Tiger has to compete with in late stage. I listed at least 6 axis tanks which beats the Tiger in aspects of armor and firepower (and beat them also in other aspects such as target size, mobility...)

Meanwhile Brits get their early game heavy tanks with churchill and even inf doc throws out a jumbo very quickly without any special CP unlock.
Germans meanwhile lack mid game heavy armor but have excessive supply of it in late game.

If anyone could just tell me the god damn logic behind it! Anyone?

The New BK Champion
Posts: 289
Joined: 11 Feb 2018, 22:09

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby The New BK Champion » 16 Feb 2019, 16:35

You talk like this was a mathematical equation with only one acceptable and correct solution. I know it might be hard for you to imagine, but some people actualy play this game to "have fun". Go play chess if you have problems with that

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1749
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby kwok » 16 Feb 2019, 16:44

About the rifle grenades, yeah that should've fallen under considered but not changed. Not changed because it's hard to balance the reliability of something, lots of solutions were proposed but none that were more well supported than the next. That's normally a sign that the solution is mostly unclear.

Okay about the tiger and pershing. I'm about to write about. But everyone take a big deep breathe first. Since you wrote big walls of text, it's going to take me some time to respond. BUT UNTIL THEN. Take a deep breathe, calm down, and TEST the beta. Just TRY it within the new meta. Notice that this patch doesn't really do much "balancing" EXCEPT tiger/pershing related balancing for a reason. So be calm. Go test. Bring replays. I will watch every one that you post, I promise.

Now I brb with a response.

MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 166
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby MenciusMoldbug » 16 Feb 2019, 17:55

My own opinion on rifle grenade is to give it 2 second aim time and 55 or 50 range. It should be a self defense weapon not "sprint to the target with 2 rifle squads and instantly kill the vehicle."

Also, will these click-to-camo abilities be changed to passive camouflage on units? I could understand why before Rangers did not have passive camouflage since they were available to all doctrines and you could get them very early. But now they come later than stormtroopers (and are only in infantry doctrine) so I don't see why their camouflage should be tied to an ability. No one actually leaves their AT squads un-camouflaged in cover either. So I don't know why that's an ability that you get to choose whether to camouflage them in cover or not. Everything involving infantry-camouflage should basically be like British AT Boy's if there's no special reasoning behind the click ability; where they camouflage automatically in cover spots instead of having to press a button.

Hellcat's moving accuracy actually got nerfed here... Before it was 0.85 (meaning 15% chance to miss on the move) now its 0.6. Not sure if that's really good considering 40% decreased accuracy is still a big penalty. Hellcat to me felt like the only reliable US tank that could actually hit on the move. I'll have to see if the 0.6 is really that big of a difference but it doesn't seem like it'll do much for flanking with shermans.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3633
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby Warhawks97 » 16 Feb 2019, 18:59

kwok wrote:
Okay about the tiger and pershing. I'm about to write about. But everyone take a big deep breathe first. Since you wrote big walls of text, it's going to take me some time to respond. BUT UNTIL THEN. Take a deep breathe, calm down, and TEST the beta. Just TRY it within the new meta. Notice that this patch doesn't really do much "balancing" EXCEPT tiger/pershing related balancing for a reason. So be calm. Go test. Bring replays. I will watch every one that you post, I promise.



I will try to calm but idk if i am going to test "heavy tanks on discount" thing in pvp. PvE for bug issues perhaps but definiately not pvp.

And whats the new Meta? Tiger spam?

Now I brb with a response.

Alright.


MenciusMoldbug wrote:My own opinion on rifle grenade is to give it 2 second aim time and 55 or 50 range. It should be a self defense weapon not "sprint to the target with 2 rifle squads and instantly kill the vehicle."


agreed.


Also, will these click-to-camo abilities be changed to passive camouflage on units? I could understand why before Rangers did not have passive camouflage since they were available to all doctrines and you could get them very early. But now they come later than stormtroopers (and are only in infantry doctrine) so I don't see why their camouflage should be tied to an ability. No one actually leaves their AT squads un-camouflaged in cover either. So I don't know why that's an ability that you get to choose whether to camouflage them in cover or not. Everything involving infantry-camouflage should basically be like British AT Boy's if there's no special reasoning behind the click ability; where they camouflage automatically in cover spots instead of having to press a button.



Depends, it does make infantry combat less micro intense. But i also dont really like these "sudden disappearences" in mid combat, esspecially when its AT stuff that has fired/missed the shot, gets shot but then disappears again with 0.5 HP left and fires once more and blowing your vehicle/tank which else had the upper hand in this specific moment.

Or when units ambush on parachute, disapear a second during retreat and thus escape from an else sure death....

The "re-ambush" timers need to be higher once they got revealed. I would add passive camos for rangers perhaps but for AT squads i would keep it at first the way it is.


The New BK Champion wrote:You talk like this was a mathematical equation with only one acceptable and correct solution. I know it might be hard for you to imagine, but some people actualy play this game to "have fun". Go play chess if you have problems with that


Where is the fun to have heavy tanks on discount? Did anyone even check the medium tanks? Its hard enough to achieve something with them already unless you have either camo abilties (like stugs) or enough firepower to pen targets for sure (eg firefly) bc pretty much everything kills them almost instantly.

And now we got a spammable heavy for an apple and an eye just to make it competetive to units which were supposed to replace/counter the tiger.


We could just as well drop the cost of 37 mm AT guns down to 10 Mp and make them late game units or bren carriers for 30 MP and make them being unlocked after churchill ace.


The the decisions which lead to units being build or not build in pvp is usually based on simple economic reasons. Sure, when i fought games in which i knew i would win i did build stuff which i consider not worth it.

Also, show me these "play to have fun" guys. Sure there is a handfull but they dont care much about worthy/unworthy units. They build accross the board anyway and get what they want to. But the majority of PvP players play for victory. The slightest possible imbalance in team make ups and people leave the match. You sit there, switch players 15 mins long and at the end they say: "not balanced" and they leave.
Or a bad start and one guy leaves already.

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 432
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby Viper » 16 Feb 2019, 20:30

The New BK Champion wrote:Jesus hawks calm your tits plz

true. i think warhawks is a bit over.reacting now

Warhawks97 wrote:And whats the new Meta? Tiger spam?

how does 100 manpower less, suddenly make tigers spam worthy? thats barely enough to bring 1 additional pioneer unit. and tigers are limited.
for a long time the pershing is cheaper. and is still cheaper. unlimited too. but you never said they are spam worthy :!: i dont understand you.

Tiger1996 wrote:Here just to throw my opinion, despite I haven't got around to test anything yet.. but if any bugs encounter me, i'll drop MarKr a hint via Discord.

That said, I wholeheartedly disagree with lowering the HP of Pershing tanks. And if somebody comes back at me stating that Pershing(s) can be still over-repaired and so on, then I would rather see the over-repair tool being adjusted itself.. not the basic HP value of the Pershing.
Thus, i'd say.. reducing the HP of Pershing tanks, is completely terrible change.. and extremely reckless one too.

Accordingly, I'm also against any possible future adjustments to the HP of the JagdPanther or Panthers as a result.

Regarding the price adjustments of the Tiger tanks, I'm fine with it.. it's nothing more than just very slight MP reductions anyway.
However... I have to clearly agree with Hawks considering what he said how Tigers should be earlier available, specifically the ACE Tiger tank.
Though; I also totally understand that this is maybe a subject for another day, which is more concerning doctrinal rework(s) upcoming in the future.

Lastly, yes... US AT rifle grenade must have less range (not more than 45 in my opinion) specifically if the current shell behavior is going to stay.

you did not say anything about the panther.g although i expected you will.
the panther.g cost more manpower than tigers now. and already 2 more command points than pershing. also less health than pershing.
even after the reduction. although generally its more expensive than the pershing. not only in manpower. but also command points and fuel.

i mean i can agree pershing health should not be decreased. but what about the panther.g now? it should be next to be cheaper.


kwok wrote:About the rifle grenades, yeah that should've fallen under considered but not changed. Not changed because it's hard to balance the reliability of something, lots of solutions were proposed but none that were more well supported than the next. That's normally a sign that the solution is mostly unclear.

maybe the accuracy and projectile speed can be kept. but i agree with everyone else about lowering the range. but it should be much lower.

Walderschmidt
Posts: 284
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby Walderschmidt » 16 Feb 2019, 20:34

Warhawks97 wrote:
kwok wrote:And now we got a spammable heavy for an apple and an eye just to make it competetive to units which were supposed to replace/counter the tiger.



^It's not spammable. It still costs 170 fuel. It just comes out a little sooner.

I think you're overreacting.

Wald

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3633
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby Warhawks97 » 16 Feb 2019, 22:11

@Viper.

The Panther is "the Tank".. its fast and has good armor. Only very few allied guns can reliable pen it (unlike pershing which armor is more like a tiger and gets pened by every second axis gun).


But fine.... drop cost as well. Is this a "race to the cost bottom" for axis tanks? Thing is you measure axis tanks against each other (more or less). Tiger looks bad compared to everything else at its tier, so drop cost. The Panther needs a cost drop.... then tiger again.



@wald: Late game its quite common to keep roughly 800-1000 MP reserve as axis, at least longer once. Usually i manage to outright replace a Panther... now i can literally choose between tiger and Panther... armor/speed or health and gun damage...
And if you get just one tank anyway, the upkeep is super low which means fuel reserves will refill. Also res trade...



about Tigers:

I say what i told to Kwok a min ago.

I wont get Tiger at its current "late game" meta. Even if you drop cost down to Panther cost or lower, i wont get it bc Panther fits better to my style. You would have to drop tiger cost down to Tank IV cost in order to make me get it in late game.

The Tiger is not a question of cost effective or not, but rather does it fits player style. People who are used to panthers will decide the same way as I do.

So the best way to make players get it is to make it appealing to those who regularily go for jagdtigers, King tigers and all that stuff. And the only way to make it is to make the tiger to become the "mid game King tiger" for those.


It wont get competetive in its current late game stage. At some point you will just kick medium tanks asses again when dropping cost further.

The New BK Champion
Posts: 289
Joined: 11 Feb 2018, 22:09

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby The New BK Champion » 16 Feb 2019, 22:38

Warhawks97 wrote:i wont get it bc Panther fits better to my style


Ok we understood the patch doesnt fit your style, even before u tried to play it. Chill now?

Walderschmidt
Posts: 284
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby Walderschmidt » 17 Feb 2019, 00:36

After play 4 or 5 games in the BETA, I don't feel like there's much different with Tigers or Pershings. Feels about the same, though I can get the Tigers slightly easier.

And I'd honestly rather an Axis player get Tigers than Panthers. They're easier to kill.

Wald

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2845
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby MarKr » 17 Feb 2019, 01:03

Walderschmidt wrote:After play 4 or 5 games in the BETA, I don't feel like there's much different with Tigers or Pershings. Feels about the same, though I can get the Tigers slightly easier.
That is good to hear because this was the intention of the changes.
Image

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3633
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby Warhawks97 » 17 Feb 2019, 11:19

kwok has shown me his "cost analysis" sheed on which new costs are based on. It has several flaws.

1. The second WH building costs 300 MP, not 325
2. he forgot the supply yard (not even to mention the upgrades)
3. he assumed a weird build order. For example that a US player would buy a 60 mm mortar after WSC is up instead the other way arround (which is kinda weird since your 60 mm would come after axis 81 mm). Also he assumed that US would get HT, greyhound and Stuart. I barely see stuarts and even less often stuart and Greyhound together. He also forgot Captain and 7 men rifle squads which are meta. Generally he he assumed that there will be only a tiny ammount of rifle squads being build before a jackson comes out.
He also calculated that WH would get two stugs and US two shermans right away after tank depots are up which again is wrong. Nobody would get two shermans bc (1) he wouldnt have a chance vs two stugs and (2) it would eat up is MP income when he gets two before supply yard is up. Not to mention the importance of M10.


The cost analysis scheme concluded that there should be a max disparity in MP to reach full tec (all units available) of max 200 MP between US and WH. But alone the fact that he forgot the 150 MP supply yard and calculated 25 MP too much for second WH building ended up in a miss calculation of already 175 MP.

Upkeep advantages for WH untill supply yard is up is also not considered (which roughly puts WH in a +200 MP income advantage untill supply yard is up) as well as the lower reinforcment cost for Volks.


I made another calculation based on what ive seen in my games, my personal build orders and replays from forum. It assumed that US would get a few more rifle squads for better early game push supported by 60 mm mortar, HT and captain instead stuart tank and rushing M10 over double regular sherman. For Axis i assumed a more defensive stance with two volks, two AT squads, recon and mortar rush followed by Puma and 50 mm to complete mid game army. Then rushing stug and heavy tank factory (Stug, 50 mm and Puma is more than a solid defense and more than capable to deal with everything so far). Thats bc the K98 is better for ranged and thus defensive combat as well as i dont see much need for aggressive WH early push when you can just wait for 81 mm mortar.

At the end my calculation (US more early infantry push, axis more focused on quick mortar/Puma/50 mm/stug) ended with a an MP advantage of 70 MP for US to reach all tecs and getting first Jackson vs WH reaching first Tiger. And i used the old costs of Tiger and heavy tank factory.

Adding US upkeep, supply yard investments and higher reinforce cost into it, i think it was fair balanced cost wise. I still would blame the 5 CP required for Tiger in Terror doc that prevents people from getting it. For 5 CP they can get boosted grens with stg or firestorm and walking stuka or boosted inf with firestorm or nebler support etc.

Most of the time players check the situation and spare 2-3 or 4 CP and then decide what way to go. But sparing 5 CP just to then see "oh, tigers will not work" is stupid bc they would effectively waste a lot of time where they didnt made good use of the CP. Only those who always go for tanks, no matter how the situation is, will spend all CP outright into tigers.

In Bk doc 4 CP for Tiger means that you could have got storms with HT already or Tank IV J mass production or being half the way to battlegroup call in. Spending these CP in storms etc or tank IV will bring better results and is a more save long term investment. Only those who aim for Panthers will unlock tigers of course.

So the simple calculation is: Terror has better ways to spend 5 CP in mid game (arty or inf) and BK has better ways to invest its MP (Tank IV spam mid game).


I would beg Kwok to make a "build order survey"... ask players, watch games(replays) and create more cost analysis schemes. For example assuming different stances from mid to late game: Like for example Aggressive-balanced-aggressive or defensive- balanced- aggressive or only balanced/defensive.

I would argue that most US players would prefer early game aggressive stance to gain more map controle and to put themselves into a favourable position for mid game in which they stay balanced for supply yard investments to go aggressive again in late game. Staying defensive as US in a US only team is almost suicidle due to early axis mortar advantage and Puma/stug combo. With CW in the team US can be played differently bc you can count on churchill rush and Priests.


On the other hand pushing too hard as WH vs US early on would just end up in volks getting eaten up by rifle squads. So their K98 prefer a defensive stance. Then rushing mortar and Puma with 50 mm to make sure to have proper defense vs vehicles. Then stug which is also better in the defense and then going aggressive with good inf/arty/Panther.

So pls, create more cost analysis schemes with (1) not assuming both sides stay passive/balanced and (2) correct building cost (without forgetting a building entirely)

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 432
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby Viper » 17 Feb 2019, 12:13

105mm howitzers are still very overpowered. on both sides. everyone build them. they are very cheap. have very long range. shoot 8 shells for 50 ammo. and reload in 4 seconds. many games end up to be "howitzers war" and its very boring.

Beast Slayer
Posts: 109
Joined: 12 Sep 2018, 15:32

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby Beast Slayer » 17 Feb 2019, 12:37

Just want to add my opinion concerning the issue of HEAT rifle grenades.

I also think range of these grenades is too long. Range should be on par with rifle frag grenades mainly after the accuracy and projectile speed buff. .50 cals and 37mm AT guns can help with fending off early vehicle rushes too so its not like Americans will be completely helpless in the early game. HEAT grenades should serve more as a last resort defensive weapon to punish overextending players and not as offensive anti vehicle sniper rifle.

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 432
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby Viper » 17 Feb 2019, 17:47

the hold position fix vs force retreat ability does not work.

the 25p does not glitch anymore but the emplacement version is still a bit glitchy. but better than before.

will the american anti tank rifle grenade have less range on the final release? this patch is supposed to fix issues like that.

Beast Slayer
Posts: 109
Joined: 12 Sep 2018, 15:32

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby Beast Slayer » 17 Feb 2019, 19:12

MarKr wrote:- Force Retreat abilities will now properly retreat infantry squads with Hold Ground active


You said that this ability will be changed or removed from the mod. Does this still stand or you changed your mind?

I would also like to see Heroic Charge ability instead of FR for the Ranger Captain which is much more thematically fitting.

So will you eventually do something with this ability or not?

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3633
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby Warhawks97 » 17 Feb 2019, 19:46

Beast Slayer wrote:
MarKr wrote:- Force Retreat abilities will now properly retreat infantry squads with Hold Ground active


You said that this ability will be changed or removed from the mod. Does this still stand or you changed your mind?

I would also like to see Heroic Charge ability instead of FR for the Ranger Captain which is much more thematically fitting.

So will you eventually do something with this ability or not?


I agree but i wouldnt be surprised if they´ve decided to keep the ability. Perhaps they want to make them more (cost) effective.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2845
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby MarKr » 17 Feb 2019, 22:37

Viper wrote:the hold position fix vs force retreat ability does not work.
The problem was that units in Hold Position mode did not retreat when Force retreat ability was used on them. This should now be fixed and the squads should be forced to retreat properly. We tested this online with Shadow - we used WM Officer ability + the "Propaganda" (force retreat from command panel) and Sector propaganda of Terror doctrine and all three worked. What unit did you use? It is possible I overlooked a file of some other units.

Viper wrote:the 25p does not glitch anymore but the emplacement version is still a bit glitchy. but better than before.
You mean that the emplaced versions still don't shoot sometimes? This is weird, before the fix the non-shooting glitch appeared in almost every testing game at least once, after the fix I haven't encountered it a single time. Are you talking just about the emplaced 25p or all emplaced howitzers in general?

Viper wrote:will the american anti tank rifle grenade have less range on the final release? this patch is supposed to fix issues like that.
Yes, I think we'll do something about it for the next release.

Beast Slayer wrote:You said that this ability will be changed or removed from the mod. Does this still stand or you changed your mind?
It is very likely that the ability will be removed but in this beta the ability is still present and the doctrinal reworks will be introduced step-by-step so the abilities might remain in the game for a few more months. The fix was relatively fast change so there was no reason not to fix it for the time being.
Image


Return to “Announcements”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 68 guests